CHAOS AND ARMED CONFLICTS: U.S. STRATEGY TO DISMANTLE RUSSIA IS ALREADY WORKING

South Front

In 2020, there have been several notable developments, that all seem to have been happening along Russia’s borders and in key regions developments in which influencing the Russian position on the international scene.

These include:

• Ukraine’s refusal to seek peace in its East with the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics, and various questionable policies.
• Western-backed protests against Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, with a ‘school teacher-turned-politician’ challenging him with an insignificant share of the vote in the presidential election. She received wide support from the West, especially from heavily US-aligned states such as Poland and the Baltics.
• The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and other groups in Syria are being supported openly, and not so openly, by the United States and sabotage the further diplomatic settlement of the conflict in Syria.
• The situation in Central Asia is rather exacerbated, with an evident increase in ISIS activity in Afghanistan, alongside various terrorist elements appearing near its borders with Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) countries. The Russian Security Service – FSB – is hard at work in countering various ISIS and other terror cells on the territory of the Russian Federation, and reports such as these are frequent, meaning that there appears to be a network that is successful in either moving terrorist elements into the country, or recruiting them there.
• There also was the Armenian-Azerbaijan War in Nagorno-Karabakh, which Russia didn’t directly involve itself in, since the fight was for the self-proclaimed independent republic of Artsakh, and Armenia never officially asked for assistance. Regardless, with the Peace Deal it brokered on November 10^th, there have been numerous voices in Armenia blaming Russia for the defeat. And that is even though it essentially saved it from an even bigger fiasco and loss of territory. At the same time, despite being the victor, Azerbaijan simply received what it was promised with the Minsk agreements, with the addition of Shusha. There are protests against Russia in Azerbaijan, a country in which any non-government sanctioned protest is snuffed, violently. There are calls that Russia stole the “glorious victory”, while in Armenia there are calls to renew hostilities, while the Russian peacekeepers are there and somehow force their hand in the fight.
• Turkey deployed thousands of Syrian militants to South Caucasus, and there are claims that it is even reportedly attempting to relocate families from Syria’s Afrin and other areas to the parts of Karabakh that were given to Azerbaijan. This is likely to also provide a fresh extremist presence in the region.
• Turkey, once again, appeared to be shifting its gaze towards Crimea, but also cooperate with Ukraine in terms of selling UAVs to it and other military equipment.

All of these developments, somehow, almost entirely coincide with a report which the RAND Corporation released back in 2019.

The report is called “Extending Russia” with the subtitle “Competing from Advantageous Ground.” A short description of the report reads the following:

“The steps we posit would not have either defense or deterrence as their prime purpose, although they might contribute to both. Rather, these steps are conceived of as measures that would lead Russia to compete in domains or regions where the United States has a competitive advantage, causing Russia to overextend itself militarily or economically or causing the regime to lose domestic and/or international prestige and influence. This report deliberately covers a wide range of military, economic, and political policy options. Its recommendations are directly relevant to everything from military modernization and force posture to economic sanctions and diplomacy; consequently, it speaks to all the military services, other parts of U.S. government that have a hand in foreign policy, and the broader foreign and defense policy audience.”

Notably, the report suggests that the following “Geopolitical measures” need to be employed in order to counter Russia’s spreading influence and capabilities to provide an adequate answer to an extraordinary situation.

This chapter describes six possible U.S. moves in the current geopolitical competition:

• providing lethal arms to Ukraine,
• resuming support to the Syrian rebels,
• promoting regime change in Belarus,
• exploiting Armenian and Azeri tensions,
• intensifying attention to Central Asia,
• isolating Transnistria (a Russian-occupied enclave within Moldova).

There are several other possible geopolitical moves discussed in other RAND research but not directly evaluated here—including intensifying NATO’s relationship with Sweden and Finland, pressuring Russia’s position in the Arctic, and checking Russia’s attempts to secure its influence in Asia.

Ukraine

Between 2014 and 2016, the US provided $600 million in security assistance to Ukraine. These funds have been used to train Ukrainian military forces and provided nonlethal military equipment, including counterartillery and countermortar radars, secure communications, logistics systems, tactical unmanned reconnaissance aircraft, and medical equipment.

According to RAND, the US could increase its military assistance to Ukraine, or increase its calls to allow Kiev into NATO.

“Expanding U.S. assistance to Ukraine, including lethal military assistance, would likely increase the costs to Russia, in both blood and treasure, of holding the Donbass region. More Russian aid to the

separatists and an additional Russian troop presence would likely be required, leading to larger expenditures, equipment losses, and Russian casualties. The latter could become quite controversial at home, as it did when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.”

Eastern Ukraine is already a significant drain on Russian resources, exacerbated by the accompanying Western sanctions. Increasing U.S. military aid would certainly drive up the Russian costs, but doing so could also increase the loss of Ukrainian lives and territory or result in a disadvantageous peace settlement. This would generally be seen as a serious setback for U.S. policy.

What’s going on in reality? There appears to be no conclusive peace settlement in Ukraine, and anti-Russian policy continues moving forward full speed. The Kiev regime, at large controlled from Washington, is intentionally sabotaging attempts to de-escalate the situation and publicly preparing for a new military operation in eastern Ukraine. Recently, pro-Kiev sources started laying great hopes on the Turkish military aid. For sure, the US is also involved. In August 2020, incoming US President Joe Biden promised to provide Ukraine with even more lethal weapons. In late 2019, the Trump administration also approved several sales of “defensive lethal weapons” to Ukraine.

As such this part of RAND’s suggestion appears to be moving, more or less, according to plan.

Syria

“In 2015, Russia’s intervention in Syria cost an estimated $2.4 million to $4 million a day, according to the Moscow Times and IHS Janes’ estimates. 34 Given the size of Russia’s defense budget ($50 billion that year), the sum might not be significant in and of itself.”

Increased U.S. support to the so-called ‘moderate’ Syrian opposition could perpetuate and intensify a civil war that had begun to wind down, thereby imposing attritional costs on both Russia and Iran.

RAND believes that such support should also reduce the “moderate opposition’s” reliance on the better-armed, more extremist groups and ultimately might improve the willingness and ability of moderate opposition forces to combat the “more extremist elements.” Now, first of all RAND doesn’t even deny that the most of “moderate opposition” is made up of extremists, who are fighting against even more extreme elements.

At the same time, the reality of the situation is this: the US, with all its claims of complete withdrawal from Syria, simply employed the SDF separatist leadership as a tool of sabotaging the peace settlement in Syria, while Washington is looting Syria’s oil fields. US companies exploit Syrian oil resources. Some of the money is used to bankroll the SDF.

The Russian side has repeatedly also claimed that ISIS and ISIS-affiliated fighters were being trained and received improved weaponry in the US-controlled areas of Syria.

Unlike Ukraine, the United States does not have a single actor to aid in the fight in Syria but rather faces a plethora of groups—often with murky affiliations—increasing the chances of weapons falling into the wrong hands.

“Supporting the rebels could run counter to the most prominent objective of the Trump administration’s Middle East foreign policy—fighting radical Islamist terrorism.”

In the highly unlikely event of total success—if Russia were to abandon the Assad government and the opposition were to somehow ‘defeat’ Damascus—the result would be a major geopolitical setback for Moscow but also a major contraction in its foreign commitments and associated expenditures, not to mention a huge responsibility for the United States and its allies to assume.

At the same time, it appears that supporting the “moderate rebels” isn’t proving effective enough and Israel is picking up the slack with targeting various Syrian and alleged Iranian positions in the areas under Damascus’ control.

Essentially, there were some attempts, but none of them are any significant, since the fight in Syria appears to be too far gone.

Likewise, according to RAND, this course of action might have been viable a few years ago, when the armed opposition was stronger and less radicalized. Under current circumstances, the most that expanded U.S. aid could likely do would be to perpetuate a conflict that has already destabilized an entire region. Russia might be forced to pay a bit more for its Syrian commitment but only at the cost of continued regional turbulence, societal radicalization, and increased civilian casualties and displaced personnel.

Belarus

Belarus is Russia’s neighbour and important ally. It provides a buffer between Russia and major NATO countries and is the initial link in Russia’s ground lines of communication between the mainland and Kaliningrad— the Russian enclave entirely encircled by Lithuania and Poland. Already host to Russian forces, Belarus features prominently in many notional conflicts among the United States, NATO, and Russia.

In a zero-sum world, denying Russia its one and only true ally would be a clear geopolitical and ideological gain for the West. It would bring an end to “Europe’s last dictatorship,” a long-standing U.S. policy goal.

“Starting revolutions is not easy, and the United States lending public support to opposition movements does not guarantee that they will be successful. In 2007, Gallup found that 60 percent of Belarusian respondents believed democracy was important and 47 percent believed it was “somewhat” or “very” important for Belarus to have an active opposition party.”

RAND considered regime change in Belarus as one of the most significant escalations, but the attempts have all but failed, and with Russia actually not having to lift a finger.

Even despite Lukashenko attempt to get some concessions from Russia prior to the protests in the country.

“Promoting regime change in Belarus is one of the most escalatory options considered in this report. Such an effort probably would not succeed and could provoke a strong Russian response, including the possibility of military action. Such a reaction might extend Russia by requiring the nation to commit resources to preserve its grasp over Belarus, thereby provoking the United States and its European allies to respond with harsher sanctions, but the result would be a general deterioration of the security environment in Europe and a setback for U.S. policy.”

Currently, protests in Belarus are still on-going, but they’ve barely achieved any real progress in the regime change agenda. However, the Western/NATO interference in the internal situation in Belarus is an undeniable fact.

Lukashenko may be making some interesting claims regarding Russia, or attempting to play tough in order to get a discount from Moscow on natural gas, or some other commodity, but at the same time is wise enough to continue actively communicating with Russian President Vladimir Putin and remain a formal ally.

Nagorno-Karabah: Armenia and Azerbaijan

The RAND analysis begins with reminding that in 2008, the Georgian-Russian relations with damaged severely, after a few days of war and the resulting South Ossetia and Abkhazia as separate countries.

Russia also plays a key role with Azerbaijan and Armenia, particularly over the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh. Ethnically Armenian but geographically located within Azerbaijan, Nagorno- Karabakh’s bid to join the Armenia Soviet Socialist Republic during the latter years of the Soviet Union was denied by the Soviet Politburo because of the risk of encouraging secessionist movements elsewhere.

According to RAND, the United States could extend Russia in the Caucasus in two ways. First, the United States could push for a closer NATO relationship with Georgia and Azerbaijan, likely leading Russia to strengthen its military presence in South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Armenia, and southern Russia.

Alternatively, the United States could try to induce Armenia to break with Russia.

“Increased U.S. involvement in the region could produce additional economic benefits as well. The Caspian Sea remains a key producer of both oil and natural gas. Indeed, the U.S. Department of Energy estimates that there are “48 billion barrels of oil and 292 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in proved and probable reserves in the Caspian basins. Almost 75 percent of oil reserves and 67 percent of natural gas reserves are located within 100 miles of the coast.”

According to the analysis, resolving Nagorno-Karabakh is likely a prerequisite to Armenia breaking with Russia, but it is unclear precisely how the United States or NATO could resolve the decades-old conflict without privileging one side and antagonizing the other. NATO has encouraged both parties to resolve the conflict through the Minsk Group—led by the Russians.

Currently, the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh and the six-week war that started on September 27^th, 2020 was due to several factors.

Notably, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, as an avid supporter of the West worked to the benefit of what RAND describes and distanced Armenia from Russia with questionable policy.

In turn, Turkey, in support of Azerbaijan saw a chance, prepared and began to largely pull the strings on Baku’s offensive on the region.

Still, Russia managed to somehow salvage the situation for Yerevan, by brokering a peace deal which saw Azerbaijan get what it was supposed to be given under the Minsk Agreements, with the addition of Shusha.

Pashinyan, however, continued blaming Russia, the Armenian population, foreign countries and such for the failure and the gross mismanagement of Armenia’s forces in the war.

Azerbaijan’s president Ilham Aliyev presents the war as “gloriously won” but there are some elements which are protesting and claiming that Moscow actually robbed Baku of its “glorious victory.”

There are anti-Russian protests, in a country in which all non-government approved protests are violently stopped.

The US made some claims for peace and so on, as did many Western countries, with France even attempting to somehow mediate the conflict, but only barely.

Paris attempted to prove itself as a valuable ally to Armenia, but in the end, it simply said “we are with you, our Armenian brothers” and all they provided were empty words.

In Armenia, in order for Pashinyan and the pro-Western leadership to remain, political arrests of the opposition began. As such, support for Russia still remains rather low, and it is playing to the measure that RAND outlined in April 2019. In the current conditions, pro-Western forces in the region would continue their efforts to destabilize the region creating chaos near the Russian border and setting conditions for the NATO expansion there.

Central Asia

Russia is part of two economic ventures related to Central Asia: the Eurasian Economic Union and the Belt and Road Initiative. Russia has benefited from both, although in the case of the former, partners might have been harmed economically. There might be steps the United States and allies could take to reduce Russia’s benefits from both of these.

Engaging more with Central Asia could have modest benefits. Expanding Central Asian connectivity to the rest of the world could reduce that area’s trade with Russia. It must be noted, however, that economic growth within these countries would likely have the opposite effect and increase their trade with Russia because economic size and trade are correlated.

Now, little of this has succeeded in the year. Notably, and not in the vein which RAND describes is that militant activity in Afghanistan, as well as along its borders with the CSTO countries has increased, which Russia sees as a threat.

There are frequent reports of the FSB arresting various terrorist elements that either came from Central Asian republics or were recruited from groups from there. There is little evidence that the US has anything to do with that, but there are some reports that unknown black hawks have been extracting militants from all around, and they’ve resurfaced in northern Afghanistan, after a while.

The US efforts to counter China’s Belt and Road Initiative, and is attempting to counter various projects in the Eurasian Economic Union, which Russia is part of such as the Nord Stream 2, but they are unrelated to Central Asia. In conclusion, regarding this, RAND appears to be a bit far from what’s been carried out, or if such measures are being implemented – they’re not being effective.

Moldova

Transnistria is a Russian-speaking enclave within Moldova that currently hosts a Russian peacekeeping force and army base.

Officially, Russian policy toward Transnistria is ambiguous. Russia’s Foreign Policy Concept includes only a single, rather inarticulate statement:

Russia strongly advocates a political and diplomatic settlement of conflicts in the post-Soviet space, specifically, Russia works within the existing multilateral negotiating mechanism to find an inclusive solution to the Transnistrian issue, respecting the sovereignty, territorial integrity and neutral status of the Republic of Moldova in determining the special status of Transnistria.

The United States could encourage Transnistria’s youth (who, according to some journalistic accounts, might be more pro-West than their elders) to push their pseudo-state to leave the Russian orbit.

Moldovan cooperation in an effort to expel the Russians would not be easy to secure. In an interview with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Moldova’s pro-Russian President Igor Dodon stated, “A NATO office in Chisinau [Moldova’s capital], in a neutral country, is a provocation. I do not want this. I want neither NATO nor this Russia-led [military] alliance as far as armed forces are concerned.”

There’s been very limited movement throughout 2020, but it is likely that activities have been more focused on Belarus, Ukraine and Nagorno-Karabakh, and Moldova has been left for sometime in the near (or far future). The pro-Western presidential candidate, Maia Sandu, won the 2020 election in Moldova, and she’s already promoting the ideal of the need of the withdrawal of the Russian peacekeeping force from Transnistria. This move sets conditions for the increase of instability.

RAND’s General Recommendations

Extending Russia through geopolitical competition is a fundamentally difficult and dangerous proposition. One might bait Russia into extending its foreign commitments, but only at the risk of serious setbacks to local U.S. partners. Even if such efforts succeeded in generating Russian withdrawals, the result would be the opposite of an extension.

Any geopolitical moves to extend Russia would also need to consider other options that (for reasons of length and resources) were not considered here in depth—namely, intensifying NATO’s cooperation with Sweden and Finland, pressuring Russia’s claims in the Arctic, and checking its influence in the Arctic.

Many of these are not exactly spot on, and whether they’re entirely connected to what’s going on comes down to conspiracy theories. However, it is fact that within a year and a half of the publishing, many of these recommendations have been implemented.

There has been a regime change attempt in Belarus, which is still on-going. Armenia and Azerbaijan went to warn for Nagorno-Karabakh, and Russia had to mediate, deploy peacekeepers and further resources, as well as is being accused of both sides for either losing the war for Armenia, or stealing away a bigger victory for Azerbaijan.

Militants are being delivered to South Caucasus, and even families are being relocated there from Syria.

The US and the “moderate rebels” in Syria are still operating, albeit not as actively as before, but Israel is there to provide assistance by bombing Syrian and alleged Iranian targets.

Attempts to spread chaos in Central Asia are apparent, and the FSB continues arresting various extremist elements, but there are likely more who are roaming around and entering the country through various channels.

It is unknown what will happen in Moldova, as of yet, but the trend is alredy seen.

Another thing that could be added is cooperating with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, assisting in the forming of the autonomous Orthodox Church of Ukraine, making pushes to repeat that questionable “success” in other countries such as Montenegro, and more.

Regardless, pressure on Moscow is being exerted from quite a few directions, at the same time, and it is unlikely that under US President Joe Biden this will end. After all, his chosen aides all plan to improve relations with allies, while countering Russia’s spreading influence. Namely in Ukraine, since Biden appears to have a soft spot for the country from which he and his son allegedly funneled billions. Ukraine, and Eastern Ukraine, could also be the best direction from which to target Russia.

Things are still developing on many fronts, and the pieces are yet to fall squarely on the board.

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

• Israel Enjoys Last Weeks Of Love With Trump. Azerbaijan Controls Kalbajar District In Karabkah
• In Videos: Russia Test-Launches New Hypersonic, Anti-Satellite Missiles

Dr Pascal Sacré: Emergency Physician Unjustly Fired for His Writings on the COVID Crisis: The Right of Response

Thanks to all of you who want a world where the word is respected, truth is defended, freedom is a reality. I will never let fear rule my life. Don’t negotiate with fear.

By Dr. Pascal Sacré

Global Research, November 28, 2020

There, it happened.

For my words, my words, my writings, I was dismissed like a waste, a thief, without the right to answer.

An experienced, competent emergency physician, appreciated by his colleagues for my actions in stressful situations, fired in the middle of COVID!

For words, for an image.

All you had to do was reassure people, defend your doctor, attenuate and wait for the storm to calm down…  and then talk.

I write, it’s true, things that disturb, dissident points of view, those who follow me on this site since 2009 know it.

When I resumed my writing starting in 2020, about the political management of the COVID crisis, but also generally, about the endemic corruption of medicine, science and official bodies in Belgium, I felt that it would be risky, really.

But I did not give up because I will never let my life be controlled by fear.

Some people say that I am unconscious. Do you think that after 17 years of treating people, in emergency, stress, often for 24 hours at a time, I could have done all this while being unconscious?

Some people say that I am irresponsible. I have always taken my responsibilities, preferred writing to speaking because it allows reflection, rereading, and I have always turned my tongue 7 times in my mouth, before finishing an article and sending it with all its sources and references. I have always respected the rules of the hospital, of society, even when, as they stand, they seemed crazy to me and likely to cause more harm than good. I have always put the safety of my patients above my convictions, preferring to explain, to convince through words and writings.

Some say I am a disgrace to the profession.

Those who say that are ignorant of my profession. Many people talk about critical care, especially today with Covid, when critical care has been around for 70 years, but do they even know, these accusing people, what they are talking about?

We can’t pretend, this is live, live, surrounded by death and suffering,

We don’t know how to lie and if we do, we get out. I’ve held on to it for 17 years and I only had to stop suddenly because of people who don’t like what I say, don’t like my opinions!

Some say, the most beautiful things, that I am anti-everything. Those who say that are certainly much more so than I am. I will tell you all the things I am for:

1. The truth, in any case its permanent search and accept for that, to deceive me.
2. Tolerance of other people’s ideas, opinions and writings.
3. The will, in turn, to be able to express my ideas, opinions and writings.
4. Respect for nature and animals
5. Relief of pain and suffering
6. Life in all its facets, music, sounds, songs, dances, colors, and therefore accept death, because one cannot live like this without accepting the idea of dying at any time.

I only wanted to ask questions, to give my points of view without ever imposing them, to question, to nuance, to contextualize, to reassure when others only want to terrorize.

I was condemned, thrown away for that.

I was forced to abandon my colleagues in difficulty, summoned to leave burning places by people who should not so easily spit on the help of one of their own, a resuscitator, for words, a picture!

That’s how it is.

They have that power.

And yet,

• Professor Didier Raoult (France)
• Professor Christian Perronne (France)
• Professor Toubiana (France)
• Professor Toussaint (France)
• Professor Gala (Belgium)
• And all those other doctors, caregivers, health care professionals,

Belgium :  https://docs4opendebate.be/fr/open-brief/ 

Netherlands: https://opendebat.info/  et https://brandbriefggz.nl/ 

US Frontline Doctors : https://www.xandernieuws.net/algemeen/groep-artsen-vs-komt-in-verzet-facebook-bant-hun-17-miljoen-keer-bekeken-video/ 

Spain: https://niburu.co/gezondheid/15385-artsen-komen-massaal-met-coronawaarheid-naar-buiten 

Germany: https://acu2020.org/international/ 

Belgium : https://omgekeerdelockdown.simplesite.com/?fbclid=IwAR2bJAAShAlIidjnRQPyVSoZbk1Uj-FTHAthL77hKX_Oo8aMLN3V6DdwAac 

https://www.lalibre.be/belgique/enseignement/septante-medecins-flamands-demandent-l-abolition-du-masque-dans-les-ecoles-une-menace-serieuse-pour-leur-developpement-5f58a5189978e2322fa9d32c

https://belgiumbeyondcovid.be/

France : https://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/provence-alpes-cote-d-azur/bouches-du-rhone/marseille/covid-tribune-pres-300-scientifiques-denoncent-mesures-gouvernementales-disproportionnees-1878840.html 

We are all of them.

There are thousands of us.

Thanks to all of you who want a world where the word is respected, truth is defended, freedom is a reality.

I will never let fear rule my life. Don’t negotiate with fear.

Dr. Pascal Sacré

Featured Photo: Citizen Initiative VideoThe original source of this article is Global ResearchCopyright © Dr. Pascal Sacré, Global Research, 2020

Hezbollah the Beautiful

Source

TAXI • NOVEMBER 24, 2020 • 3,800 WORDS

A warrior’s soul sleeps in his fist. Wakes in his fist. Till his dying breath, will exist in his fist.

No gun and no mortal danger can unfold this fist. A warrior will live and die with his fist clenched.

This is not for love of violence nor for the thrills of war. Not because of a demented passion for death either. This is because a warrior knows that even in times of peace, evil and evil-doers lurk in the shadow of peace.

Warriorship is vocational. It is non-mercenary. Non-materialistic. Non-negotiable. True warriorhood is purely defensive. It is fixated solely on the protection of a higher justice and defense of self and the meek. It is never predatory. A warrior is steeped in a culture of righteous dignity and martyrdom. Humble dignity. And a sacred martyrdom. A true warrior is not an ordinary soldier, nor a celebrated figure from either media or mythology. A true warrior is real. And rare. A true warrior is the only class of human capable of kissing death right in the eyeball. There is no fear of the infinite black void in the heart of a true warrior.

Throughout history, cultures under duress and attack by covetous enemies have produced their own brand of warrior. Native American Indians gave us the ‘Braves’. Japan gave us the ‘Samurai’. France gave us Joan of Arc. Africa gave us ‘Warrior Queen Amina’. And modern Lebanon has given us, Hezbollah.

Hezbollah: currently the world’s most successful warrior-resistor group fighting against the most malevolent of all modern abominations, otherwise known as the Axis of Evil (US, Israel, and their Western and Arab-Wahabi allies). Hezbollah is also currently the most reviled of all warriors. This is because unable to defeat Hezbollah on the battlefield, and after already spending some $11 billion on many failed coups and smear campaigns this past decade, the Axis of Evil is now reduced to merely attacking Hezbollah with malicious lies and false accusations. To demonize Hezbollah, to sully their immaculate reputation in a vast and global media campaign is about the only weapon left in the hands of the Axis of Evil. This defamation offensive may work on some uninformed people, but indeed it will not weaken Hezbollah’s phenomenal abilities on the battlefield. This agitating agitprop will not change any facts on the ground. It will be but more of your tax dollars wasted on a chimera.

Hezbollah is noble, yet not royal. Its warriors and leaders are essentially from working-class, farming communities who grouped themselves to repel a vicious, colonial and genocidal invader, otherwise known as Israel. Some thirty years after the birth of their resistance group, Hezbollah remain exceptionally humble and profoundly rooted in their modest beginnings. Even though Hezbollah has lost warriors in combat, the number of its martyrs has been relatively low, and it has yet to lose a single battle or war in its 30+ years of existence. And despite its stellar successes on the battlefield, Hezbollah remains unostentatious and merciful in victory. Most notable and impressive of all, Hezbollah’s leadership does not practice chicanery, skullduggery or monkeyshines. They simply do not lie. Not once has its leadership deceived or duped its fighters, its allies or supporters. Consistently true to their word, even Israeli Jewish citizens, according to Israeli polls, believe what Hezbollah’s leadership says above their own leaders in Tel Aviv. This is because time and time again, what Hezbollah says simply and truly ‘is’, and what it promises, it always delivers. And, indeed, it has outsmarted its bulkier enemy at every turn of the road and delivered.

All their battles have been for defensive reasons. ALL of them. They are exceptionally well-disciplined and focused on the task of righteous liberation from cruel and oppressive forces. Their training system produces no traitors and no Mammonites easily seduced by the lure of wealth, physical pleasures, or political status. They are therefore beyond blackmail. Beyond distraction from their cause. Steeped in a culture of martyrdom that’s inspired by the prophet Mohammad’s grandson Hussein and his agonizing martyrdom, a passion-cause and agony that’s parallel to the martyrdom culture of the Christian prophet Jesus, Hezbollah’s warriors are beyond the corruption of soul.

Their training is two-pronged. They are trained in agile guerilla combat, while simultaneously taught a righteous philosophy that in essence is religio-spiritual. A philosophy inspired by their fundamental belief in a just and compassionate god, a god who rewards the faithful and true. This is precisely what distinguishes them from other armies: their absolute philosophical and physical commitment to a righteous god. Although deeply religious and strictly committed to Islam, they are remarkably tolerant of other sects, other faiths and cultures, as exampled by their recent willing martyrdom in defense of Syrian Sunnis, Druze and Alawites, as well as their heroic defense of Christian villages and their ancient Churches in the Levant. Hezbollah warriors have sacrificed their own lives to liberate the very progeny of the original Christians of the world who still reside in the Levant; liberate them from Western and Israeli-backed ISISian terrorists and invaders. Worth mentioning here too, according to a Lebanese General I spoke to, is that Hezbollah are also the protectors of the last remaining Jewish synagogue and its community in Lebanon, numbered at approximately 400 Lebanese adherents. Perhaps here it’s also germane to add that during their wars against Israel, Hezbollah’s leadership have even earnestly embraced and supported the resistance efforts of godless Lebanese communist groups fighting against the invading Jewish army. They have broken bread with and befriended the godless and the godfull alike in the name of fighting and deterring a genocidal and kleptomaniac enemy. Hezbollah remains bonded and intimately close to other Lebanese resistance groups, even in times of peace. Their friendships are always genuine, devoid of exploitative and fickle realpolitik. They are interested and concerned with uniting their countryfolk, not dividing or dominating them. They support a peaceful and equitable co-existence between the 18 legally recognized religions and sects of the Lebanon, whose population count is currently at 6.825 million. It is of historic record that they have even given immunity to Lebanese traitors who colluded with Israel during its 18 year occupation of Lebanon.

Hezbollah follows strict moral rules of war that do not allow for the wanton killing of the enemy: repulsion of enemy and not massacre of enemy is their first and foremost tactic – and if this proves insufficient, then annihilating their enemy becomes a permissible and sanctified necessity. Their Islamic rules of war insist on the humanitarian treatment of POW’s and Hezbollah always obliges. They are trained to be impeccably well-mannered towards their captives: trained not just in strategic guerilla warfare, but also educated in the lofty principles of charity and mercy toward the captured and repentant. They do not abuse victory by claiming sole power: they believe in power-sharing with their compatriots, even with those who never stepped foot on the battlefield.

Hezbollah is supreme, yet evidently not supremacist.

They never break their laws of war for fear of their god. They would rather literally die than break these laws that displease their god. They follow their religio-philosophical and military protocol with absolute precision; and they practice devoted respect and trust in the righteousness of their commanders and cause. Extrajudicial executions are forbidden, and so is the unjustified assault on their enemy. They do not shoot at unarmed women, children or men either. They do not target the handicapped sitting in their wheelchairs like the Israeli army and other Jewish security apparatuses regularly do. They do not invade, they liberate. Hezbollah is a reactive and defensive resistor and not an army of usurpers and psychopaths hellbent on mass murder and the looting of what is not rightfully theirs.

Their resistance culture is humanist. Through and through.

They strive for a just and peaceful world, no matter the cost to their own lives. Indeed, they live for martyrdom; they yearn for martyrdom in the cause of a just and peaceful world. They rank martyrdom as the absolute highest achievement in life.

“We don’t fear death as our death is martyrdom. Martyrdom means eternally living close to our god. Living close to god is the ultimate point in the ascension of mankind: cannot be achieved except through martyrdom” – a Hezbollah warrior.

There is a trinity of principles contained in Hezbollah’s martyrdom philosophy. They are willing to die for three principled notions: for god, for family, and for nation. They live and die for nothing else but for god, family and nation. I can’t stress enough how important their triadic life-philosophy is for them. As faith-filled warriors, they do not ever separate from this soulful philosophy, or ever discard it while at war or even during peace time – not even momentarily, not even for a nano second. Their martyrdom philosophy is their very oxygen. Their very spine. They are consistent in their profound commitment to their divine, triangular philosophy. This is the mother of absolutes for them. This supplies them with infinite, fearless courage. This inspires their attachment and love of righteous, disciplined behavior and focused intent. This provides them with infinite determination; with boundless physical and mental legerity. During warfare training, and on the battlefield and off, they remain intimately connected to this inspirational triangle of motives. In their universe, the muscle, the moral and the divine are eternally wedded. This is the very reason behind their unbroken record of victories and their continuing and increased strength and popularity across the world.

Hezbollah reveres their god above all else – their supernal god sits atop their spiritual pyramid, directly linked below to the two sacred earthly duties of protecting family and nation. Hezbollah warriors value this triadic configuration above even their own lives. They connect their earthly duties towards family and nation directly to the service of their celestial god. Their god requires their unflinching faith and their protection of ‘tribe and land’, and Hezbollah warriors, they are willingly servants who selflessly submit to the absolute reverence of god and protection of family and nation. This noble aegis pleases their god: Hezbollah warriors live for nothing but to please their god, therefore they will never break or dissolve the divine contract they’ve undertaken with their god. Their enemy should be aware and beware: they will actively neutralize any and all threats to this divine equation – even at the cost of their own lives. This is their only mission on earth: reverence of god, defense and protection of family and land. This is Hezbollah’s manifesto in a nutshell. Nothing less than that. Nothing beyond that.

Their resistance model and system has gained much traction and spread outside of their Levantean locale: from the punishing dunes of Yemen and all the way to South America, from the Fertile Crescent and right across the continent of Asia, Hezbollah’s resistance model has spread and continues to be received with open arms, much to the chagrin of their pernicious, defeated enemies.

Hezbollah’s other unique quality is that of sober patience. They are exceptionally adept at the art of patience: their carpet-weaving Iranian friends have taught them this necessary life-skill and they’ve artfully applied this mental discipline to all their war and battle strategies. Believing their faith in their god is permanent and unbreakable, yet everything worldly is changeable, they therefore patiently play the long game against their enemy with utter confidence and evident success.

Yet, despite all the above factual and admirable qualities, their enemies and their enemies’ global media megaphones label Hezbollah as ‘narco-terrorist’ and ‘Islamic terrorist’. Accusing the Hezbollah of trafficking drugs is no different in absurdity than accusing Mother Teresa of global heroin-trading. Everyone who knows Hezbollah’s MO knows that their warriors and their leadership live a clean and sober life. They do not even drop f-bombs or cuss dirty words at their enemy. They are as clean-tongued and clean-living, as humble and ‘gracious as the morn’. Knowing the lifestyle and philosophy that Hezbollah strictly adheres to on the battlefield and off, it is simply inconceivable that Hezbollah would displease their god by running local and international drug rings that ruin people’s lives, break up families and weaken nations. This preposterous accusation belongs to the long list of perfidious lies manufactured by their enemies, who themselves, in fact, participate in international drug trading and trafficking, with the CIA running the lucrative global opium trade of Afghanistan, and the Mossad running the global Ecstasy drug trade in Europe and America.

Unable thus to find a military Achilles’s heel and character fault in their MO, Hezbollah’s enemies have produced a long litany of alleged crimes without ever providing even a single shred of evidence of wrongdoing. Hezbollah’s enemies have added Hezbollah’s good name to their infamously politicized ‘terrorist list’ without even once providing proof and irrefutable substantiation of terrorist activity. Let us here together therefore look at this list of accusations below – and please you will be mindful that if Hezbollah terrorism against the US were in fact true, that there exists actual evidence of Hezbollah terrorism against the United States, Lebanon, especially the south of Lebanon where Hezbollah is based, would have already received a decisive and fatal American ‘Shock and Awe’ treatment.

There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that Hezbollah’s leadership has ever ordered or committed the following: the 1983 truck bombing on the US embassy in Beirut; as well as the bombing of US and French barracks in the same year. The bombing of a restaurant near the US Air force base in Torrejon, Spain; the car bombing of the US embassy annex in Beirut; and the hijacking of a Kuwait Airlines plane – all in the year 1984. The hijacking of TWA flight #847 in 1985. The abduction and execution of three Lebanese Jews in 1986, under the pseudonym of the ‘Organization of the Oppressed on Earth’. The murder of three Saudi diplomats in 1988. The assassination of a Saudi secretary in Bangkok in 1989. The assassination of two more Saudi diplomats and a telex operator at the Saudi embassy in Bangkok in 1990; as well as the kidnapping and murder of a Saudi businessman in Bangkok in the same year. The murder of Ehud Sadan, a security chief at the Israeli embassy in Ankara; as well as the bombing of the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires back in 1992. The failed attempted murder of a Turkish-Jewish community leader in Istanbul in 1993. The failed attempt at car-bombing the Israeli embassy in Thailand; and the suicide bombing of the Argentine Jewish Mutual Association building in Buenos Aires – all in year 1984. The truck bombing at the US portion of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996. The assassination of former Lebanese PM, Rafic Hariri, in 2005. The attack on a bus in Bulgaria that was full of Israeli vacationers back in 2012. And many, many more ‘failed this and attempted that’ terrorism activities falsely pinned on Hezbollah by no less than its enemy Israel and its agents in the US and Europe, and by its gruesome Wahabi-Arabian foes.

A handful of the above false and politicized accusations are on a continuous rotation in the Jewish and Western media, yet not even a semblance of proof is ever provided to the reading public. Relying on Islamophobic media trends, these accusations of terrorism are published and republished over and over again, in the hope that hearsay will eventually prevail as fact in the minds of reasonable people. In other words, the above allegations are nothing but propagandistic slings and arrows aimed at demonizing an undefeated and righteous resistance group. Interestingly, despite these aggressive propaganda operations against the Hezbollah, neither its fighting skills or vigor have been damped, nor have these misinformation assaults halted the spread of its popularity around the the world. Even the military academies of its enemies, in silent admiration now include the study of Hezbollah’s supreme tactics and warfare strategies in their curriculum, thus confirming the high caliber of their fighting skills and war philosophy. One cannot separate Hezbollah’s war strategies from the foundation of their humanist philosophy. Both are always employed in tandem. Hezbollah always leave an exit passage for their enemy to retreat through during an ambush.

Hezbollah receives enthusiastic moral support from Muslim as well as non-Muslim nations. From Eastern and from some Western nations. Hezbollah is respected, loved and revered in the four corners of the world – including appreciation by some citizens in enemy nations who are mentally unmolested by their State propaganda. This is not just because humans by nature love an undefeated war hero. This is because the humble Hezbollah has successfully established itself as an army of the people, by the people, for the people. And here lies the essence of its true popularity. A Lebanese force of good that’s comprised ‘of the people, by the people, for the people’ is no different than the beloved American constitutional motto of a government ‘of the people, by the people, for the people’. What Hezbollah has achieved for its nation and for its compatriots as a resistance group, American politicians are yet to actually demonstrate and realize for the benefit of the American people.

Why is that?

This is because the Lebanese have clearly defined their enemy as Israel, whereas the American collective has yet to identify its insidious internal enemy as ‘Jewish power’. Jewish power that has risen through unsavory and un-American tribal cronyism, nepotism, blackmail and coercion. Jewish supremacy that has been blatantly dominant of American life internally and American foreign policy internationally for the past 60+ years (since the Kennedy assassination, in fact). Jewish power that has essentially been corrosive and disfiguring of American traditional life domestically, and ruinous upon its purse and reputation internationally. But, if the Lebanese can so successfully circumvent and repeatedly defeat abusive Jewish power, then so can Americans who live under the boot of an overtly anti-democratic Jewish occupation. The recent shredding of our beloved First Amendment is but the latest victim of Jewish tyranny, and an undeniable expression of their hate of our democracy.

But, for Americans to liberate themselves, they first need to overcome all the gauntlets and weapons of mass distraction, all the social-engineering and numerous other dumbing-down projects that American elite Jews and their lobby have insidiously imposed on American citizen and politician alike. For Americans to be truly free and independent, and they are a captive people at present, they need to first bypass all the Jewish-engineered and sponsored divisions inside of America. Divisions like Identitarian politics, race-baiting and race disharmony, Jewish-owned Hollywood’s demonization of traditional American values, Neoliberalism, globalism, the Federal Reserve, Wall Street, Mainstream media, most of Altmedia – and the long list goes on. They also need to discard and rebel against imposed mental pollutants like the mandatory teaching of the fake Anne Frank book in their schools; and most certainly, they also need to reject the funding of all those hideous Holocaust museums that operate to enable ongoing Jewish crimes against Americans by portraying the Jews as the ‘eternal victims with special needs’. All these holocaust museums are no more than propaganda factories paid for by your own tax dollars, not by Israeli Shekels or by private Jewish donations. It is the height of absurdity that Americans should be paying for their own brainwash and mental enslavement. Americans need to, ABOVE ALL, reclaim their First Amendment right that’s been hijacked and recently ripped to shreds by Jewish power. Americans need to regain their freedom of speech and be able to call a spade, a spade, and a Jew, a Jew.

There is no understating how many Jewish chains are already wrapped around the American mind and body. That’s your individual mind and body I speak of.

Begs the question here: where is your dignity and self-respect, dear American? Where is your honor and warriorhood? Where are the fruits of your labor that you’ve invested in your family and country year after year? It is not in your own hands, and it is not being spent on your community either. The Jewish lobby has made sure that your freedom and your tax dollars go first and foremost and directly towards serving the state of Israel. The Jewish lobby has killed your democracy, created social devastation right across the nation and fleeced your hard-earned tax dollars to benefit the klepto and oppressive state of Israel. The Jewish lobby has been treating you no different than a nation of slaves it socially engineers and owns. Presently, America is not in a state of justice and grace. Americans of all colors and stripes are not a free people. America is no longer ‘the beautiful’. America is under occupation by tribal Jewish power. And the Lebanese? The Lebanese, despite their mountain of current internal crisis, are in fact living a well-earned liberated life. The bruised Lebanese are in fact a freer people than the Americans are. A life of freedom from occupation gifted to them by the consistently vigilant and sacrificial Hezbollah. Hezbollah the patriot. Hezbollah, the beautiful.

When will citizens of the West and of America realize that Hezbollah is by far more on their side than the tax-fleecing, warmongering Zion? After all, Hezbollah exists to liberate, not to rob the Mints of Europe and America, not to warmonger for wars of choice that cost mega dollars and Euros and rivers of blood. And most certainly, Hezbollah does not in any measure oppress the Western people’s rights to freedom of speech – a right that the Israel lobbies of Europe and America are fixated on denying the people.

Where is your own Hezbollah, dear American? Where is your resistance to your occupier? Where is your resisting mind? Your resisting vote? Your resisting words? Your resisting art? Your resisting gun?

As an American expat witnessing the damage and dire divisions inflicted on our society by Jewish elites, I advise you not turn your guns against one another. This is absolutely a ruinous folly. This is what your insidious occupier is betting on. Your division emboldens and empowers them. To fleece more out of you for the sake of Israel, the enemy in your midst needs you further divided and weaker. Do not submit, but do circumvent. Circumvention through unity. You do not have to love one another to death, but you do have to unite and resist against your enemy within if a life of freedom, peace and prosperity is what you think you deserve. Unite despite your differences. Unite despite your rage. This is your key to liberation.

‘By deception thou shalt do war’. This is the Israeli motto.

‘Live free or die’. This is an American motto. It is also a Hezbollah motto.(Republished from Plato’s Guns by permission of author or representative)

Will Joe Biden Push Iran and Pakistan Closer Together?

Political ties between Iran and Pakistan are warm, but their relationship has grossly underperformed in the economic and security domains.

by Rupert Stone

Shortly after Joe Biden’s win in the U.S. presidential election, Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif traveled to Islamabad for two days of talks. Political ties between Iran and Pakistan are warm, but their relationship has grossly underperformed in the economic and security domains.

That is partly owing to Donald Trump, who withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), in 2018 and reimposed draconian sanctions, while adding a raft of new penalties relating to terrorism and human rights. But Trump will soon be gone, and his replacement, Joe Biden, has vowed to re-enter the JCPOA.

Zarif and his Pakistani counterpart discussed ways to expand trade and economic cooperation. In theory, sanctions relief resulting from a revived JCPOA could help to realize their goals. But there is reason to doubt that Iran-Pakistan relations will significantly improve during Biden’s presidency.

First of all, it is far from guaranteed that Biden will be able to re-join the JCPOA. The current Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, is a political moderate who negotiated the Iran deal from 2013-15 but is due to leave office next year. Iran’s reformers have been losing popularity, and it is likely Rouhani will be replaced by an anti-American hardliner.

Moreover, the Iran deal is now quite unpopular with Iranians, who have not seen the sort of economic benefits that they expected. And trust in the United States is low, given that Trump abrogated the JCPOA unilaterally, even though Iran was complying with its terms, and proceeded to cripple the Iranian economy amid an escalating pandemic.

There is also the risk that Trump will pile on more pressure and provoke retaliation from Iran before he leaves office. He reportedly considered a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities soon after the election. Such tactics could trigger a military confrontation, greatly complicating a U.S. return to the JCPOA.

Added to that, Trump is apparently planning a “flood” of lame-duck sanctions before January. Iran might respond by dialing up its nuclear activities in further violation of the JCPOA. Tehran started breaching the agreement in 2019 when the United States revoked oil waivers. While those steps are currently reversible, continued infringements could ruin the deal.

Even if the JCPOA does survive, resuscitating it will be a fraught and drawn-out process. Biden has vowed to pursue a follow-on agreement that addresses Iran’s ballistic missile program, use of regional proxies (such as Hezbollah), and sunsets in the original deal which see limitations on Iranian nuclear activity expire.

Any attempt to rein in Iran’s defensive capabilities by constraining its missile program or use of proxies, while addressing nuclear sunsets, may well be rejected by Tehran. Iran might also demand compensation from the United States for re-imposing sanctions, which would likely be a non-starter in Washington.

Then there is the tricky issue of the United States’ regional partners, principally Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, who were very uncomfortable with the initial nuclear deal and would surely be displeased with an attempt to revive it. Added to that, Iran will not be a priority for the Biden administration as it tries to grapple with the coronavirus health and economic crises.

On the plus side, the Democratic Party is more united behind the JCPOA than it was in 2015. Almost all of the party’s presidential candidates pledged to return to the deal. However, the Senate will likely remain in Republican hands, potentially throwing congressional obstacles in Biden’s way.

To help the next president navigate through this minefield, analysts have proposed a sequenced approach to resuscitating the agreement. The United States and Iran would gradually return to compliance with the JCPOA by 2021, when Rouhani leaves office. Then they could proceed to broader talks about missiles and regional security.

But restoring the JCPOA is no panacea. The deal only lifts ‘secondary sanctions’ that prohibit third parties from doing business with Iran. It does not remove ‘primary sanctions,’ which apply to American companies but also affect non-U.S. entities by restricting their ability to trade in dollars.

This helps explain why commerce between Iran and Pakistan remained low even after the nuclear deal was implemented. In 2015 the two countries pledged to boost trade to $5 billion by 2021, but they never got close to achieving that goal. If history is any guide, Pakistan would only see meager economic benefits from JCPOA sanctions relief.

Of course, there are other factors constraining trade, including high tariff barriers in Iran and woefully inadequate transport connectivity between the two countries. Moreover, years of economic mismanagement have left Pakistan with a chronic trade deficit. Efforts to boost exports have been further hampered by the coronavirus economic slump.

Another obstacle may come from Iran’s nemesis, Saudi Arabia, which has close economic and security ties with Pakistan and exerts considerable influence there. Saudi pressure apparently blocked the progress of a long-delayed and now-defunct gas pipeline between Pakistan and Iran. While Saudi-Pakistan ties are waning, somewhat, they remain strong.

Worse still, for Islamabad, its arch-enemy India would likely benefit more from a revival of the JCPOA than Pakistan would. Before Trump withdrew from the deal, India imported significant amounts of oil from Iran and also moved forward with gas and infrastructure deals, such as the Chabahar port project. Those deals have stalled but might be revamped.

Closer ties between India and Iran could also mitigate Tehran’s support for the Kashmir cause. In recent years, the Iranian supreme leader and other officials have been more supportive of Pakistan’s stance on Kashmir. But a renewal of Indian trade and investment may force Iran to moderate its tone.

The read-outs from Zarif’s meeting in Islamabad were revealing for what they did not mention. While the Pakistani statement referred to Kashmir, there was no explicit reference in the Iranian text. In previous bilateral visits, the two sides pledged to connect Chabahar with the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). But there was no talk of CPEC this time.

With a revival of the JCPOA on the horizon, Iran will not want to antagonize Delhi by courting its main strategic rivals in Beijing and Islamabad. Tehran must tread carefully, as it is currently negotiating a strategic partnership with China at the same time as Chinese and Indian troops are locked in a protracted stand-off on the disputed Himalayan border.

A restoration of the JCPOA could actually inflame tensions between Pakistan and Iran. If India capitalizes on sanctions relief to re-enter the Iranian market and improve its political relations with Tehran, we may see a resurgence of old Pakistani fears that India is using Iran as a launch-pad for intelligence operations inside Pakistan.

Those fears were seemingly confirmed in 2016 when alleged spy Kulbhushan Jadhav was arrested in Pakistan after entering the country via Iran. And, since then, Pakistani concerns about Indian covert operations have only increased. The government recently issued a dossier detailing Delhi’s apparent links to various terrorist groups.

In this feverish environment, sparks could fly on the Iran-Pakistan border. Both countries have long accused the other of harboring militant groups. Terror attacks have sometimes led to cross-border shelling and could result in further violence if Islamabad sees an Indian hand in Iran-based terrorist activity.

Afghanistan is another possible flashpoint. The two countries were on opposing sides in the 1990s, when Pakistan backed the Afghan Taliban and Tehran supported their adversaries, the Northern Alliance. Since then, Iran has cultivated closer ties to the Taliban, while cooperating with Pakistan on the peace process.

But they are not entirely on the same page. Iran is more eager than Pakistan to see a broad, inclusive government in Kabul that is not monopolized by the Taliban. Indeed, Tehran opposed the peace settlement signed in Doha in February 2020 as it excluded the Afghan government.

However, Pakistan and Iran might collaborate more closely if Biden pursues a regional security dialogue as part of his follow-on agreement to the JCPOA. Because Islamabad has good political relations with both Tehran and Riyadh, it has helped mediate between the two rivals to defuse regional crises in recent years and could do so again.

But, while the Biden era might see a modest improvement in Iran-Pakistan ties, major progress is unlikely.

Rupert Stone is a freelance journalist working on issues related to South Asia and the Middle East. He has written for various publications, including Newsweek, VICE News, Al Jazeera, and The Independent.

Image: Reuters.

US Back to ‘Normal’ Imperialism

Sputnik

By Finian Cunningham

13:09 GMT 24.11.2020

The next US administration is taking shape with President-elect Joe Biden naming his picks to top cabinet posts and national security. It heralds a return to “normal” US imperialism and militarism. That is something to dread not celebrate, as American and European media would have us believe.

The incoming Democrat president, who is due to be inaugurated on January 20, is cheerfully reassuring European and NATO leaders that “America is back” after four years of erratic US foreign policy under the maverick Donald Trump.

Biden said his administration will “reclaim America’s seat at the top of the table”.

US media are also straining with Orwellian euphemisms. CNN says under Team Biden, the US will “reclaim its squandered leadership role”. While the Washington Post said the new Biden administration hails the “return to competent government”.

Other commentators say it is a “return to normalcy”. Former US Assistant Secretary of State PJ Crowley is quoted by the BBC as saying of Biden’s picks: “They have a consistent world view. They are strong believers in American leadership and international alliances”.

Well, what is “normal” and “competent” about wars, death and destruction?

© REUTERS / JONATHAN ERNSTU.S. President Donald Trump (R) and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg hold a joint news conference in the East Room at the White House in Washington, U.S., April 12, 2017.

Biden’s cabinet is a rehash of holdovers from the Obama administrations. Several of the people he has nominated or who are tipped to fill vacancies are advocates of warmongering.

The next US Secretary of State – if vetted by the Senate – is Antony Blinken. As part of the previous Obama administration, Blinken was a major proponent of US military intervention in Libya, Syria and Yemen. He also pushes a hard line towards Russia and China.

All the recent media swooning about Blinken being a professional diplomat and fluent in French belie the true, ugly face of American war policy which he instrumented. We only have to look at the misery of starving children in Yemen to realise the horror and criminality of US militarism which the likes of Blinken are responsible for.

Not yet confirmed by Biden for cabinet posts are Obama-era warmongers Susan Rice, Samantha Power and Michèle Flournoy. The latter is hotly tipped to head the Pentagon as Secretary of Defence.

International human rights lawyer Christopher Black dismissively describes the Biden team as “cruise missile liberals”. Meaning they are adept at using righteous rhetoric to justify war.

Flournoy wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine in June that the US military must build up “deterrence” against China by being able to “credibly threaten to sink all of China’s military vessels, submarines, and merchant ships in the South China Sea within 72 hours”.

Blinken and Flournoy co-founded a shadowy political strategy business called WestExec Advisors which connects weapons manufacturers with the Pentagon. Talk about conflict of interest! Or maybe that should be a confluence of interest. These people have a vested interest in promoting conflict and war for profit.

During Trump’s four years in the White House, the chaos in US foreign policy was such that American imperial interests were often frustrated. Not that Trump was a peacemaker. His aggression towards China, Iran and Venezuela and Russia (if you count the Nord Stream-2 sanctions), was apparent. But his erratic egoism and cronyism got in the way of the “vital interests” of the US foreign policy establishment and the military-industrial complex.

© REUTERS / TOM BRENNERJoe Biden receives a national security briefing in Wilmington, Delaware, U.S., November 17, 2020

That’s why Biden was so heavily backed during his election campaign by former Pentagon and intelligence chiefs, as well as by Wall Street and the military-industrial complex. He’s their man to get back to business-as-usual. And the team he is forming is meant to deliver Washington to the “top table” of exerting hegemonic ambitions.

That means solidifying the NATO alliance and cohering European allies behind US policy of confronting China and Russia – a move which the European vassal politicians seem to be cooing over.

Trump’s feckless leadership was infuriating and exhausting. He was a destabilising figure in international relations. But so too are all US presidents. They will use massive violence and lawlessness to achieve whatever the “vital interests” demand. Supposed “business genius” Trump was just incompetent and inefficient as the so-called leader of the US-led “free world”.

A Biden administration will bring “competence” back to US imperialism with the deployment of professional warmongers. Absurdly, the brainwashing of US and European media present this dreadful prospect as something to be welcomed.

الحملة الأكاديمية الدولية لمناهضة الاحتلال ‏ تفكك خطاب التطبيع في اليوم العالمي للتضامن مع ‏الشعب الفلسطيني ‏

عبير حمدان

مفهوم الإيمان بأحقية القضية فعل مقاوم وأيدي الأطفال الممسكة بالحجارة تضرب فيها المحتلّ وجه آخر للكلمة والفكر والتربية.

تحيي الأمم المتحدة في 29 تشرين الثاني من كلّ عام يوم التضامن العالمي مع الشعب الفلسطيني رغم انّ هذا التاريخ لا ينصف فلسطين كونه يتزامن مع اليوم الذي اتخذت فيه الجمعية العامة قرار التقسيم رقم 181 وإقامة دولتين واحدة منهم لا حق لها في الوجود كونها معتدية ومغتصبة لأرض ليست لها أساساً.

يتضامن العالم في هذا اليوم مع الشعب الفلسطيني ولو في إطار معنوي، وما يختلف هذا العام هو الترحيب بالتطبيع من قبل الأنظمة الخليجية جهاراً وبحجج فارغة من أيّ منطق بعد تمرير «صفقة القرن» من قبل الإدارة الأميركية السابقة بقيادة ترامب دون أي تعويل على تغيير محتمل في الاداء من قبل الادارة الجديدة حين يتصل الأمر باطماعهم ومشاريعهم في المنطقة للاستيلاء أكثر على خيرات بلادنا.

ولأنّ الكلمة تخترق العقول تنظم الحملة الأكاديمية الدولية لمناهضة الاحتلال ومخطط الضمّ بإحياء اليوم العالمي مع الشعب الفلسطيني بالتعاون مع العديد من الشركاء العرب والمناصرين للقضية الفلسطينية لقاء حواري على مستوى العالم قوامه تفكيك خطاب التطبيع وتقويم البوصلة من خلال مشاركات بحثية مقترنة بالوقائع التاريخية.

«البناء» سألت مجموعة من المشاركين في هذا النشاط عن الأهداف المتوخاة منه وكيفية مخاطبة الأجيال وتوعيتهم على ضرورة مواجهة التسويق الإعلامي المنظم لفكرة التطبيع.

عودة: تنشئة وطنية مقاومة للاحتلال والتطبيع ومعززة للهوية الوطنية والقومية

اعتبر الدكتور رمزي عودة مدير وحدة الأبحاث في معهد فلسطين لأبحاث الأمن القومي ومنسق الحملة الأكاديمية الدولية لمناهضة الاحتلال والضمّ أنّ الأكاديميين يمكنهم مواجهة التطبيع من خلال تفكيك الخطاب الذي يروّج له، وقال: «تطلق الحملة الأكاديمية الدولية لمناهضة الاحتلال ومخطط الضمّ شعارات أساسية وهي لا للاحتلال ولا للضم ولا للتطبيع، هذه الأهداف الأساسية التي تسعى الحملة إليها من خلال تعزيز دور الأكاديميين والنُخب المثقفة والخبراء من أجل تقويض صفقة القرن وتقويض سياسة التوسع الاستعماري الاستيطاني الاحتلالي، وأيضاً تقويض عملية التطبيع التي انتشرت على إثر «صفقة القرن» وضغط ترامب على العديد من الدول العربية من أجل المضيّ قدُماً بتطبيع علاقاتها مع الكيان الصهيوني ونقصد هنا الإمارات والسودان والبحرين وربما غيرها من الدول العربية، ونحن نأمل ان ينتهي مسلسل التطبيع مع رحيل ترامب ولكن لا أحد يعرف او يتوقع ما هو آت».

وأضاف: «نحن نرى انّ الأكاديميين بإمكانهم مواجهة التطبيع من خلال تفكيك الخطاب التطبيعي، بدورهم الفكري والعقلي وانتاج المعرفة، من هنا فإنّ الحملة الأكاديمية تأخذ على عاتقها تفكيك خطاب التطبيع من اجل إعادة إنتاج فكر مضاد له يقوم أولاً على أساس الهوية العربية وثانياً جذرية الصراع مع المحتلّ، الذي هو صراع وجود، وثالثاً حتمية الانتصار بالرغم من الضعف العربي في الوقت الراهن، لكن في النهاية «إسرائيل» ليست جزءاً طبيعياً من المنطقة وبالضرورة سينتصر الفلسطينيون والعرب على هذا الجسم الغريب ويتخلص من الاحتلال والجسم الكولونيالي الصهيوني.

أما كيف يمكن أن نفكك خطاب التطبيع؟ هنا نطرح في الحملة الأكاديمية انّ خطاب التطبيع يحتوي على خمسة خرافات أساسية أيّ قضايا أسطورية لا يمكن تصديقها ويتمّ الترويج لها، لذلك يجب ان نوضح للجمهور والطلبة والعلماء وللسياسيين انّ مفهوم التطبيع يقوم على أساس خرافي، أولها أنه أوقف الضمّ وللمزيد من الإيضاح فإنّ التطبيع علق عملية الضمّ لفترة مؤقتة ومحدودة وهو بهذا الإيقاف، وهنا أقصد اتفاقية الإمارات العربية الإسرائيلية، اعترف ضمناً انّ عملية الضمّ يمكن ان تحدث وممكن تقبلها أيّ أنّ عملية التطبيع تشرّع الضمّ ولكنها تؤجّله لفترة مقبلة بمعنى انه ليس وقته اليوم وفق المنطق «الإسرائيلي»، والخرافة الثانية انّ التطبيع يؤدّي الى السلام في المنطقة مع العلم انّ الدول التي تطبّع مع الكيان المحتلّ لم تحاربه يوماً وهي بعيدة عن حدوده وليست منخرطة في أيّ علاقات عدائية معه ولا نعلم عن أيّ سلام تتحدث، الخرافة الثالثة انّ التطبيع يؤدّي الى الأمن وهنا يرتكز هذا الفكر على انّ أمن دول الخليج يتعرّض لابتزاز وعوامل عدم الاستقرار من قبل كيانات معادية، والمقصود هنا إيران كما تحاول الإدارة الأميركية أن تبتز العديد من الدول العربية بالبعبع الإيراني الذي يتطلب تحالفها مع «الإسرائيلي» لمواجهة هذا المدّ الإيراني، بعيداً عن الفكرة الطائفية وما يمثلها هذا البعد ونحن لسنا بصدد الحديث عنه، لكن النقطة المحورية هنا انّ تحالف دول الخليج مع «إسرائيل» لن يؤدّي الى استقرار المنطقة بل بالعكس سيخلق محاور متصارعة مما يجعل فكرة الحرب قائمة في كلّ لحظة وتبعاً للمتغيّرات والظروف، أما الخرافة الرابعة فهي تقوم على فكرة انّ التطبيع يؤدّي الى التنمية الاقتصادية وتطوير الاقتصاد ونحن هنا بصدد الحديث عن الأموال الخليجية التي يمكن ان تُستثمر في الكيان المحتلّ وتؤدّي الى نتائج إيجابية وهذا أمر غير منطقي على الإطلاق حيث انه يمكن اسثتمار هذه الأموال في دول أقوى اقتصادياً وبالتالي لن تؤدّي التنمية المتوقعة جراء فكرة التطبيع مع الكيان والاستثمار لديه بالعكس انّ التنمية المشتركة بين الدول العربية و»إسرائيل» لن تكون لصالح الأولى على الإطلاق بل ستقوّي الكيان على حساب توازنات القوى في المنطقة، أما الخرافة الخامسة فهي انّ التطبيع هو شأن داخلي لكلّ دولة عربية وهذا يتعلق بالسيادة ونحن كحملة أكاديمية نحترم سيادة كلّ دولة حقها في اتخاذ قراراتها ولكن التطبيع ليس شأناً مرتبطاً بالسيادة لأنّ الاقليم العربي كله مرتبط بتوفير الأمن والاستقرار وهذا الإقليم مهدّد بوجود «إسرائيل» منذ نشأة هذا الكيان الصهيوني تعتبر الدول العربية، وحتى تلك التي وقعت اتفاق سلام مع العدو مثل مصر، تعتبر انّ «إسرائيل» عدو ولها مطامع في هذه المنطقة، وبالتالي فإنّ التطبيع شأن لكلّ الإقليم العربي، وإذا قبلنا أنه شأن لكلّ دولة على حدة فنسأل هنا أين المبادرة العربية التي وافق عليها كلّ العرب، وإذا كان شأناً داخلياً فلن يتحقق أيّ سلام وهذا يعني انّ كلّ من يراه كذلك من الدول العربية قد تخلى عن فلسطين».

وتابع: «يجب توعية هذا الجيل الذي يتعرّض لكلّ أنواع التشويش المنظم من قبل الكثير من وسائل الإعلام والروايات المزيّفة للتاريخ والواقع وتعمل على الترويج لفكرة التطبيع، هنا أرى أنّ الحملة يمكن لها النجاح بالقيام بالعديد من الأنشطة ولكن ذلك يتوقف على عدة عوامل، الأول قدرتها على خلق قيادة نخبوية مشكّلة من الأكاديميين والخبراء ومراكز صناعة الفكر والسياسات وإذا استطاعت الحملة الأكاديمية تشكيل نواة من هذه القيادة بالتأكيد ستؤثر على جمهورها من الطلبة والأهالي ومتتبّعي وسائل الإعلام وهذا سيخلق فرصة أكبر لمحاربة عملية التطبيع، أما العامل الآخر فهو القدرة على تحويل خطاب التطبيع كخطاب للتخوين وهذا مهمّ، فالتطبيع خيانة واستخدام هذه العبارة والترويج لها يؤدّي الى نجاح كبير، والعامل الثالث فهو إبراز انّ خطاب التطبيع هو مساس بالمقدسات بمعنى في اتفاقية الإمارات يتحدثون انّ الصلاة تسمح لجميع الأديان في المجسد الأقصى فهل هذا هو المطلوب ان نصلي جميعنا في الأقصى في ظلّ الاحتلال؟ بالتأكيد ليس هذا هو الذي نريده وهنا يجب ان نوضح للعالم جميعاً انّ الأقصى لا يحتاج الى مصلين بل هو بحاجة لمن يحرّره… وفي ما يتصل بالعامل الرابع فيتمثل بمدى القدرة على استنهاض الفكر القومي المضاد للتطبيع وهذه نقطة مهمة تتعلق بايديولوجيا التحرير وايديولوجيا القومية وكلّ هذه الأمور يجب ان تكون موجهة او طاردة لعملية التطبيع».

وختم: «في النهاية يجب ان نتحدث عن كيفية مخاطبة هذه الأجيال من خلال تعزيز الرواية العربية بشكل عام ومن ثم تعزيز الرواية الفلسطينية بشكل خاص والمقصود هنا هو الرواية التاريخية والحديثة والمعاصرة، وأيضاً تفنيد الرواية الصهيونية التي تتحدث عن أنّ فلسطين هي أرض المعياد التي وعدهم بها الله والكثير من المقولات الأسطورية التي يروّج لها المحتلّ، إضافة الى ذلك المفروض تطوير البرامج التربوية والتعليمية في المدارس والجامعات وان يكون هناك تنشئة وطنية مقاومة للاحتلال والتطبيع ومعززة للهوية الوطنية والقومية، كما يجب استخدام الفن سواء الموسيقى او الغناء لمخاطبة الشباب حول خطورة التطبيع، ولا ننسى الاستفادة من وسائل التواصل الاجتماعي في إطار ايصال الفكر المفكك للخطاب التطبيعي للاجيال.»

شكر: رفع الصوت عالياً في مواجهة التطبيع

أكدت الدكتور رنا شكر أستاذة العلاقات الدولية في الجامعة اللبنانية أنّ اللقاء الأكاديمي هدفه رفع الصوت عالياً في مواجهة التطبيع، وقالت: «الهدف من العمل الذي نقوم به هو مناصرة الشعب الفلسطيني في كافة القضايا المتعلقة بهذا الشعب، والتشبيك بين الأكاديميين يهدف ايضاً الى تعزيز التعاون في ما بينهم من خلال القيام بأبحاث علمية هدفها التركيز على خطورة الاحتلال الإسرائيلي وأطماعه في المنطقة، وإعادة التذكير بممارسات هذا العدو الذي يقوم بكلّ الانتهاكات الدموية بحق الفلسطينيين وكلّ شعوب المنطقة واغتصاب الأرض.

هذا اللقاء هو لرفع الصوت عالياً في مواجهة التطبيع وذلك بإعلاء صوت الأكاديميين بالللاءات الثلاث… لا للاعتراف بالعدو ولا للصلح معه ولا للتفاوض، لا شك انّ هناك توجهاً إعلامياً منظماً يعمد الى تسويق التطبيع من خلال إعطاء الصورة الاقتصادية والحضارية له، ونحن من خلال نشاطنا في اليوم العالمي للتضامن مع شعب فلسطين نريد دحض هذه الفكرة من خلال وقائع تاريخية ثابتة لتصويب الأمور في نصابها الصحيح كي لا يؤخذ هذا الجيل الى حدّ الخضوع للحرب الناعمة المتمثلة بغسل العقول».

وأضافت: «نحن بصدد التركيز على تداعيات هذا التطبيع على منطقة الشرق الأوسط وشمال أفريقيا بالتوعية الى ما يريده هذا العدو وداعمته الولايات المتحدة الأميركية من خلال رسم خريطة جديدة للمنطقة العربية، وهدفنا التوعية من خطر اتفاقيات السلام التي قامت بين الدول العربية والكيان المحتلّ والى ماذا أدّت وقد تؤدي، بحيث لا يجب الاستهانة بهذه الاتفاقيات وما قد تشكله من تهديد لكلّ المنطقة، فهذه الاتفاقيات التي بدأت من دول الخليج قد تمتدّ الى باقي الدول العربية، لذلك نحن نؤكد على ضرورة التذكير بكيفية نشوء هذا الكيان ودمويته وضرورة إحياء الهوية القومية التي تحارب وجوده وتمدّده من خلال الفكر المقاوم الذي يرفض كلّ أشكال التعاون مع كيان يغتصب الأرض التي سقط في سبيلها الشهداء».

وختمت: «نحن نعتقد انّ الأكاديميين من أساتذة ومثقفين هم السباقون في الاتحاد مع بعضهم البعض ضدّ كلّ ما يسمّى خطوات التوسع المقنعة التي يقوم بها العدو الإسرائيلي داخل العالم العربي، وذلك من خلال التوعية بالقلم والكلمة والتوجه الى عقول الأجيال الحديثة لتبيان حقيقة ما جرى من اغتصاب لهذه الأرض وقتل شعبها والتركيز على القضية الأمّ التي هي قضية فلسطين.

مخاطبة هذا الجيل تكون بإحياء القوى العربية الناعمة المتمثلة بالعقول وطريقة التربية والتدريس والتعليم وتعزيز مفهوم وثقافة المواطنة والهوية القومية وتعزيز اللغة التي تلاشت مع سرعة العصر، وعودة مراكز الأبحاث والحدّ من هجرة العقول لتقوية الوعي القومي في عالمنا العربي كي لا يكون التطبيع القائم مدخل الى تكريس فكرة القبول بالمحتلّ وتمدّده في كافة العالم العربي».

حمدو: خطابنا للأجيال هو ضرورة التقدّموالتطوّر والنهضة

من جهته رأى الدكتور محمود عزو حمدو أستاذ محاضر في جامعة الموصل «انّ التطبيع مع الكيان الصهيوني يأتي نتيجة النكسات التي مرّت على الأمة العربية وغياب فكرة الأمة بشكل كبير جداً عن المدلولات الإعلامية والسياسية في التداول اليومي في العالم العربي، وأيضاً نتيجة الانتكاسات الكبيرة التي تعرّضت لها بلدان المحور العربي وهي العراق ومصر وسورية كون هذه البلدان كانت تشكل محور الحراك السياسي في المنطقة على مستوى التنسيق لمجابهة العدو الصهيوني، بالإضافة الى ذلك هناك مسألة جداً مهمة وتتمثل في تصاعد الدول الهامشية على مستوى قيادة العالم العربي مثل قطر والبحرين وغيرها وأصبحت تقود كلّ الحراك السياسي المتعلق بعلاقات العرب مع الآخرين وتنتج لوبيات في الدول تعمل ضدّ القضايا العربية.

المسألة الثانية تتعلق بتسويق فكرة انّ هذه المنطقة هي خاصة لليهود دون غيرهم على أساس ديني، ومن ناحية ثانية قامت الدول الكبرى ووكلاؤها بالتسويق لصراع مذهبي (سني ـ شيعي) يتمثل بالدول الخليجية من جهة وإيران من جهة أخرى، وطبعاً لا ننسى الدور التركي الذي يريد التموضع في المنطقة وفق مصالحه».

أضاف: «التدوال الإعلامي العربي يؤثر بشكل سلبي على الشباب لجهة تزوير الوقائع وتحويل العدو الى صديق وبالعكس وهذا أمر واضح بشكل كبير، وانعكس من خلال التطبيع والصور التي نراها على وسائل التواصل وطبعاً استضافة إسرائيليين يتمّ وصفهم بالمحايدين على قنوات تلفزيونية عربية كما فعلت الجزيرة تحت شعار الرأي والرأي الآخر ساهم في تشويش العقول.

والخشية الأساسية ان تتحوّل هذه الأجيال الى أجيال لا تعرف من هو العدو أو ان تتحوّل الى وقود لتصفية الصراعات المذهبية تحت عناوين جديدة، داعش هو صورة من صور الصراع المذهبي في المنطقة، وهناك نماذج كثيرة غيرها.

اهمية هذه التكتلات العلمية انها تعطي روحاً جديدة للعمل العربي والقومي باتجاه مناهضة الكيان الصهيوني ورفض التطبيع معه بأيّ شكل من الأشكال، وعملية التدجين التي تعرّض لها الشباب العربي منذ عام 1990 حتى اليوم لا سيما منذ مرحلة انهيار العراق بعد غزوه عام 2003 ادّت نتائجها بشكل كبير جداً».

وختم: «الصراع الأساسي يتوجب ان يكون في اتجاه كلّ دعاة التطبيع المنبطحين أمام الكيان الصهيوني، الخطاب الذي يجب التوجه به الى الأجيال هو ضرورة التقدّم والتطوّر والنهضة، لا سيما النهضة العلمية لمواجهة كلّ الأعداء المتربصين بالشعوب العربية، كما يجب إعادة إنتاج الرؤية التاريخية للصراع العربي الصهيوني من خلال اعتباره صراعاً بين محتلّ انتهك حقوق الإنسان وصاحب حقّ هو ضحية حقوقه منتهكة.

ويجب التركيز على حالة التفتيت التي مرّت المجتمعات العربية التي أثرت بشكل سلبي، وأيضاً دور وسائل التواصل الاجتماعي في الترويج للإسرائيلي ومواجهتها».

ترجمان: التضامن لا يكون بالشعاراتوالخطب الرنانة

أما باسل ترجمان (كاتب صحافي وباحث سياسي) فقال: «من الأساسي اليوم ان يكون هدف إحياء اليوم الدولي للتضامن مع الشعب الفلسطيني مناسبة للتأكيد على هذا التضامن مع الشعب الفلسطيني وقضيته العادلة وان يتمّ الفصل بين التضامن مع الشعب وبين التضامن وتأييد الحال السياسي الفلسطيني لأنّ الحال السياسي متغيّر بحسب الواقع والظروف، فعند الإعلان عن هذا اليوم عام 1977 كان الحال السياسي الفلسطيني في المستويين العربي والدولي مختلفاً تماماً عن واقع الحال بعد ذلك وصولاً لإقامة السلطة الوطنية الفلسطينية وما تبع ذلك من واقع متغيّر لم يفض لإقامة سلام عادل يعيد الحقوق الشرعية للشعب الفلسطيني».

أضاف: «طوال السنوات الماضية كان هنالك حالة استكانة سياسية أفقدت هذا اليوم معناه النضالي وتحوّل لمناسبة بروتوكولية يتمّ فيها تبادل رسائل ومواقف سياسية تعبّر عن أساسيات مواقف الدول تجاه فلسطين وتناسى كثيرون هذا اليوم.

في ظلّ صفقة القرن وانطلاق قطار التطبيع عاد الحديث عن ضرورة إحياء هذا اليوم وإبعاده عن المستوى السياسي التقليدي ليكون مناسبة تضامنية دائمة وثابتة مع الشعب الفلسطيني المحروم من نيل حقوقه التي يعتبرها مناسبة لإنهاء الظلم والتشرّد ورفع آثار العدوان الذي تعرّض له منذ أكثر من سبعين عاماً، وهذا يقتضي ان يتمّ الفصل بين الحال السياسي مهما كانت طبيعة الظروف وبين الواقع النضالي للشعب الفلسطيني لأنّ هذا سيعيد لإحياء هذه الذكرى رونقها ويبعدها عن التوظيف السياسي الآني ويبقيه موعداً ثابتاً لكلّ الشعوب والقوى المحبة للعدل والسلام لتعلن تضامنها بالفعل وليس بالبيانات والخطب مع نضال الشعب الفلسطيني».

وتابع: «السؤال المهمّ ايّ تضامن نريد هل نبحث عن تضامن يرضي الذات ويشبعها فخراً وحديث عن البطولات والأمجاد من الجانبين، الفلسطيني يتحدث عن بطولاته في مقارعة الاحتلال، والأشقاء والأصدقاء يتحدثون عن حبّهم ودعمهم ومناصرتهم لفلسطين وينتهي الحال بإشباع عاطفي لا يغني ولا يسمن عن جوع.

من المهمّ ان تكون المناسبة بعيدة عن الشعاراتية والخطب الرنانة، وان تكون مناسبة حقيقية لتحويل التضامن لفعل نضالي سياسي لدعم الحق الفلسطيني بكلّ الوسائل المتاحة وهي ممكنة وكبيرة وقادرة ان تصنع الفعل المؤثر عربياً ودولياً، وهذا في حدّ ذاته أكبر رسالة نصوغها لمواجهة إعلام الواقع الحالي وتوجهاته بذكاء ودون ان ننجرّ للصدام مع ايّ طرف مهما كان الظرف لأنّ التناقض الرئيسي مع العدو وليس مع اي طرف آخر.

من المهمّ اليوم ان نختار آليات وصيغ جديدة مبتكرة للتخاطب مع أجيال جديدة تحول العالم بالنسبة لها إلى فضاء افتراضي صغير وصار التواصل عبره أحد أشكال وآليات العمل الإعلامي والسياسي والنضالي».

وختم: «هذه الأجيال لديها ميزات التفاعل السريع بحكم سرعة التواصل وانتقال المعلومات، وبالتالي لا يمكن للخطاب التقليدي المعتمد على البيانات والمواقف والخطب الرنانة ان يؤدي المعنى بل يجب التواصل معها وإيصال الرسائل الذكية القصيرة والمتحركة عبر وسائل التواصل الاجتماعي، أيضاً الأجيال الجديدة ليست من أصحاب القراءات المعمّقة او الطويلة وهذا يجعلها بعيدة عن الاستيعاب والتعاطي الإيجابي مع الدراسات المعمّقة او الشروحات المطوّلة ويظهر انّ التأثير عليها ممكن وسهل أكثر بكثير من الأجيال السابقة التي كان للفكر والكتاب والمقال المعمّق تأثير عليها، فيديو ثلاثين ثانية قد يخلق لك ملايين المتعاطفين والمؤيدين بينما دراسة او بحث جدي حقيقي قد لا يقرأه احد، وهذا لا يعني اطلاقاً أن لا يتمّ العمل بالجهد العلمي الحقيقي والبحث الأكاديمي ولكن ضمن أطره الحقيقة واستغلال المساحات الاتصالية الجديدة لإيصال الأفكار الذكية والتفاعل معها لخدمة النضال العادل للشعب الفلسطيني».

غوسطان: دور محوري للاعلام والفضاء الافتراضي

اما ليزا ابراهيم غوسطان (ممرّضة في الصليب الاحمر) الناشطة في منصة طوارئ فلسطين الموجودة في لوزان التي تنقل أخبار الشعب الفلسطيني والتي لا يتمّ تداولها عبر وسائل الإعلام فقالت: «للأسف أصبحنا في زمن حين يسألوننا من أين أنتم ونقول إننا فلسطينيون يجب ان تقترن إجابتنا بالتأكيد أننا لسنا إرهابيين كما يتمّ التسويق في الكثير من الوسائل الإعلامية وبشكل ممنهج لتحويل الضحية الى جلاد. وقد أصبحنا معتادين على هذا الأمر حيث أننا نجيب بطريقة مريحة ومقنعة ونتمكن من تصويب الأمور في إطارها الصحيح وبالتالي يعترف كلّ من يسأل بأحقية قضيتنا الواضحة.

اما في ما يتصل بضرورة مخاطبة الأجيال الشابة فمن البديهي أن نرشدهم الى المصدر الفعلي للمعلومة والذي ينقل الوقائع التاريخية والحديثة دون أيّ تحريف او تزييف من هنا ممكن للإعلام ووسائل التواصل الاجتماعي لعب الدور المحوري في مواجهة الأخبار المغلوطة شرط ان يتمّ استخدامها بوعي».

عساف: نعوّل على الإعلام الحر لإيصال الصوت

اما الدكتور نظام عساف مدير مركز عمان لدراسات حقوق الانسان فقال: «هدف هذه الحملة توجيه رسائل تضامنية مع الشعب الفلسطيني، تعكس مواقف المشاركين فيها من خلال المقالات أو الأبحاث حول مخاطر التطبيع والضمّ، أو تسجيل مقطع فيديو أو رسائل صوتية قصيرة، لتوضيح خطورة الضمّ والتطبيع على الأمن القومي الفلسطيني والعربي من جهة؛ والتأكيد على الثوابت الفلسطينية والعربية في مقاومة الاحتلال وتحرير الأرض الفلسطينية من جهة ثانية؛ والدعوة إلى وقف التطبيع من قبل بعض الحكومات العربية باعتباره يعزز عملية الضمّ الذي تقوم به سلطات الاحتلال الصهيوني في الأغوار الفلسطينية»ز

وأضاف: «أنّ هذه الأنشطة وغيرها ستساهم في الكشف عن زيف الادّعاء بأنّ فكرة التطبيع المطروحة ستمنع الكيان الغاصب من ضمّ هذه الأراضي الفلسطينية، لأنّ هذا التطبيع يتمّ وفقاً لمنطق المحتلّ الذي يعلن مراراً وتكراراً أنه يسعى إلى إقامة «سلام» مع الدول العربية من موقع القوة.

من الطبيعي أن لا تحقق هذه الحملة هدفها بسهولة، لأنّ الإعلام كما ذكرتم في سؤالكم هو إعلام منظم في تسويق فكرة التطبيع، ونحن نعوّل على الإعلام الحر والمنحاز لحقوق الشعب الفلسطيني لإيصال الصوت، و»البناء» نعتبرها نموذجاً، كما تستطيع أن تفنّد صحة هذا الادّعاء من خلال الإشارة إلى حقيقة أنّ معاهدات واتفاقيات السلام التي وقعت سابقاً بين الكيان الغاصب وكلّ من مصر والأردن لم تجلب لهما الازدهار الاقتصادي بل مزيد من المديونية والفقر والبطالة ناهيك عن حقيقة عدم تطبيع الشعبين المصري والأردني معه».

وختم: «مخاطبة الجيل الذي سيطرت عليه سرعة العصر في ظلّ أخبار مغلوطة مع تغييب الوقائع التاريخية يمثل تحدي كبير للحملة، ولذلك طرحت هذه المبادرة على جميع المتضامنين والمناصرين لحقوق الشعب الفلسطيني وسائل وأدوات يتمّ من خلالها توجه رسائل تغذي الجيل الجديد بالحقائق والمعلومات التي تؤكد الرواية الفلسطينية وتفند الرواية الصهيونية حول «أرض بلا شعب لشعب بلا أرض». وفي هذا المجال يفضل استخدام كافة ألوان التعبير الجذابة من مثل الرسم والمسرح والسينما والأغاني والفيديوات القصيرة والرسائل الصوتية وغيرها.

من الطبيعي أن لا يقتصر العمل لاسترجاع حقوق الشعب الفلسطيني على العمل الإعلامي وانما يكون مسنوداً بالعمل الكفاحي والنضالي على كافة المستويات وفي كافة الميادين وبكلّ أشكال النضال التي تحدث انقلابا في موازين القوى تسهم في استرداد الحقوق كاملة غير منقوصة.

FFWN: Hezbollah the Beautiful! (and Fiery COVID Debate)

Source

November 28, 2020

By Kevin Barrett, Veterans Today Editor

Is COVID a dangerous bioweapon or an episode of mass hysteria? Or maybe both? Filmmaker John Hankey presents evidence for the bioweapon hypothesis in his new film Coronavirus an Inside Job. The world premier will be livestreamed tomorrow, Sun. Nov. 29, 3 pm ET at No Lies Radio. It will feature a discussion panel and more.

John and I debated COVID on today’s FFWN. John, like the Senior Editor and others here at VT, thinks COVID is actually more dangerous than they’re telling us, not less. I am not convinced of that…yet. I think COVID, like 9/11, is engineered mass hysteria for geopolitical purposes, and “they” want us to be afraid, be very afraid.

Be that as it may, John is most likely right about COVID being a made-in-USA bioweapon. And he’s probably right that vaccines were developed or at least worked on for many years before the weapon was unleashed—and that elites, possibly including Trump, have long since been vaccinated. Watch his movie, check out the evidence, and decide for yourself.

The best story on our list today was Taxi’s brilliant piece “Hezbollah the Beautiful.” Check it out:

Hezbollah the Beautiful

by Taxi, for Unz Review

A warrior’s soul sleeps in his fist. Wakes in his fist. Till his dying breath, will exist in his fist.

No gun and no mortal danger can unfold this fist. A warrior will live and die with his fist clenched.

This is not for love of violence nor for the thrills of war. Not because of a demented passion for death either. This is because a warrior knows that even in times of peace, evil and evil-doers lurk in the shadow of peace.

Warriorship is vocational. It is non-mercenary. Non-materialistic. Non-negotiable. True warriorhood is purely defensive. It is fixated solely on the protection of a higher justice and defense of self and the meek. It is never predatory. A warrior is steeped in a culture of righteous dignity and martyrdom. Humble dignity. And a sacred martyrdom. A true warrior is not an ordinary soldier, nor a celebrated figure from either media or mythology. A true warrior is real. And rare. A true warrior is the only class of human capable of kissing death right in the eyeball. There is no fear of the infinite black void in the heart of a true warrior.

Throughout history, cultures under duress and attack by covetous enemies have produced their own brand of warrior. Native American Indians gave us the ‘Braves’. Japan gave us the ‘Samurai’. France gave us Joan of Arc. Africa gave us ‘Warrior Queen Amina’. And modern Lebanon has given us, Hezbollah.

Hezbollah: currently the world’s most successful warrior-resistor group fighting against the most malevolent of all modern abominations, otherwise known as the Axis of Evil (US, Israel, and their Western and Arab-Wahabi allies). Hezbollah is also currently the most reviled of all warriors. This is because unable to defeat Hezbollah on the battlefield, and after already spending some $11 billion on many failed coups and smear campaigns this past decade, the Axis of Evil is now reduced to merely attacking Hezbollah with malicious lies and false accusations. To demonize Hezbollah, to sully their immaculate reputation in a vast and global media campaign is about the only weapon left in the hands of the Axis of Evil. This defamation offensive may work on some uninformed people, but indeed it will not weaken Hezbollah’s phenomenal abilities on the battlefield. This agitating agitprop will not change any facts on the ground. It will be but more of your tax dollars wasted on a chimera.

Hezbollah is noble, yet not royal. Its warriors and leaders are essentially from working-class, farming communities who grouped themselves to repel a vicious, colonial and genocidal invader, otherwise known as Israel. Some thirty years after the birth of their resistance group, Hezbollah remain exceptionally humble and profoundly rooted in their modest beginnings. Even though Hezbollah has lost warriors in combat, the number of its martyrs has been relatively low, and it has yet to lose a single battle or war in its 30+ years of existence. And despite its stellar successes on the battlefield, Hezbollah remains unostentatious and merciful in victory. Most notable and impressive of all, Hezbollah’s leadership does not practice chicanery, skullduggery or monkeyshines. They simply do not lie. Not once has its leadership deceived or duped its fighters, its allies or supporters. Consistently true to their word, even Israeli Jewish citizens, according to Israeli polls, believe what Hezbollah’s leadership says above their own leaders in Tel Aviv. This is because time and time again, what Hezbollah says simply and truly ‘is’, and what it promises, it always delivers. And, indeed, it has outsmarted its bulkier enemy at every turn of the road and delivered.

All their battles have been for defensive reasons. ALL of them…

(full article)

حرب الاغتيالات المفتوحة من طهران إلى فلسطين

محمد صادق الحسيني

يقول الإمام علي عليه السلام:

“… فإذا نزلتم بعدو أو نزل بكم، فليكن معسكركم في قبل الاشراف، أو سفاح الجبال، أو أثناء الأنهار… واجعلوا لكم رقباء في صياصي الجبال، ومناكب الهضاب… واعلموا أنّ مقدّمة القوم عيونهم، وعيون المقدمة طلائعهم، وإياكم والتفرّق، فإذا نزلتم فأنزلوا جميعاً، وإذا ارتحلتم فارتحلوا جميعاً، وإذا غشيكم الليل فاجعلوا الرماح كفّة، ولا تذوقوا النوم إلا غراراً…”.

هي حرب الاغتيالات الجبانة إذن بديلاً عن حرب المواجهة الميدانية كما توقعناها وحذرنا منها…!

ولا بدّ لنا ان نحزم أمرنا ونستعدّ لها على كلّ المستويات وبكلّ ما أوتينا من قوة وحيلة.

نعم لقد أوذينا كثيراً في استشهاد عالم الفيزياء الأول في إيران البروفيسور محسن فخري زاده.

وبالمناسبة فهو صاحب إنجازات علمية مهمة جداً آخرها كما أعلنت الجهات الإيرانية كلّ الإنجازات المتعلقة بمواجهة وباء كورونا.

هو أيضاً رجل منظومة الدفاع الإيرانية المقتدرة ومساعد وزير الدفاع لشؤون البحث والتحقيق العلمي.

لكنه قطعاً هو ليس عبد القدير خان (إيران) صاحب القنبلة الباكستانية، كما يحاول العدو الصهيوني الإيحاء بذلك كذباً وزوراً بهدف اتهام إيران بالتسلح النووي..!

هل تتذكّرون عشرات الاغتيالات لعلماء عرب ومسلمين بينهم سوريون ومصريون وعراقيون وآخرهم عالم الفيزياء الفلسطيني فادي البطش!؟

هم يضربون في العلم والعلماء ولا عزاء لنا إلا الحكمة والحزم وشجاعة الإقدام في اللحظة التي تختار قيادتنا.

هو نال كلّ ما يريد في الدنيا والآخرة؛ هنيئاً له. ونحن خسرناه وهي ضربة مؤلمة لا ننكرها، لكن انْ فكّر أحد، أيّ أحد، بأنّ أيّ مشروع علمي قد توقف او سيتوقف في إيران باغتيال عالم هنا او هناك فهو واهم.

فكلّ بقعة من إيران مختبر للعلوم ومنظومة للدفاع.

عن الانتقام والردّ والإجراءات العقابية نترك الكلام لأصحاب العلاقة والمعنيين وفي مقدّمهم إمام المقاومة وسيدها الخراساني العظيم الإمام السيد علي الخامنئي ربان هذه السفينة، والذي يعرف تماماً كيف يدافع عن أبنائه ويحفظ لهم كراماتهم.

لكن الدرس البليغ الذي نستخلصه ولا بدّ أن نسجله هنا هو:

1

ـ أميركا كما ربيبتها الاسرائيلية عدو واحد لا يقبل القسمة على اثنين. وهما من خططا وأشرفا على عملية الاغتيال الجبانة هذه كما في عمليات اغتيال العلماء النوويين السابقة.

2

ـ الحوار والمفاوضات مع هذا العدو المتوحش حول المبادئ والسياسات العامة والإنجازات بكلّ مستوياتها سمّ قاتل. ومَن لم يتعلم الدرس بأنّ هؤلاء غير موثوقين كما يقول السيد القائد: إما أنه لا يعرف ألف باء السياسة أو لا يعرف ألف باء الغيرة والحياء.

3

ـ منذ الإنزال الاسرائيلي في أبو ظبي والذي سمّيناه بالإنزال خلف خطوط التاريخ والجغرافيا، قلنا إنها حالة إعلان حرب “إسرائيلية” استخبارية ضدّ إيران وليست مجرد تطبيع…!

وحسب اعتقادنا فإنّ التحقيقات حول الاغتيال اليوم ستؤكد ما نعتقده بانّ ابن سلمان ورهطه في بقايا قراصنة الساحل متورّطون في هذا العمل الإجرامي الجبان وغيره.

وذلك من خلال تدريب وتجهيز صغار العملاء من منظمة منافقي خلق ومثلهم من بائعي الضمير والوجدان ومرتزقة البترودولار.

4

ـ بالوثائق والمعلومات فإنّ كلّ أجهزة الأمم المتحدة من الصحة العالمية الى الطاقة الذرية، انما هي حسب العقيدة الأميركية أجهزة تابعة للجيش الأميركي.

تفصيل ذلك وماذا ينبغي علينا فعله أمر موكول لأصحاب الشأن وكل ذي عقل حصيف.

المعركة مفتوحة ولم تنته بعد، وبرنامج اغتيالاتهم لن يتوقف عند هذا الحدّ، وساحة عملهم ليست إيران فقط.

كلّ ساحات محور المقاومة مسرح متاح لعملياتهم.

قلنا ذلك من قبل، نعيد ونكرّره هنا… العدو يعمل ليل نهار محاولاً إيقاف دورتنا العلمية والدفاعية. وقياداتنا تعرف ذلك تماماً وهي على قدر الموقف. أُسود لا تهاب أحداً الا الله وثقتنا بها عالية جداً، والأمر لله من قبل ومن بعد.

بعدنا طيبين قولوا الله…

How Will Iran Respond to Assassination of Its Top Nuclear Scientist?

Stephen Lendman

Source

Israel’s Mossad was likely responsible for last week’s assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh.

Iranian authorities will likely retaliate in their own way at a time of their choosing.

In a message to honor “prominent and distinguished scientist” Fakhrizadeh, Iran’s Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei said the following:

In response to his martyrdom, the crime will be “investigate(d) and firmly prosecute(d).”

“(P)unishment” awaits the perpetrators who ordered what happened.

His “scientific and technological efforts” will continue unhindered.

President Hassan Rouhani was quoted saying:

“Our people are wiser than to fall in the trap of the Zionist regime.”

“Iran will surely respond to the martyrdom of our scientist at the proper time.”

“Once again, the evil hands of Global Arrogance and the Zionist mercenaries were stained with the blood of an Iranian son.”

“(E)nemies of Iran should know well that the Iranian nation and officials are too brave and too courageous to leave this criminal act unanswered.”

Iran’s Foreign Minister tweeted the following:

“Terror attack on our scientist was indubitably designed & planned by a terrorist regime & executed by criminal accomplices.” 

“Shameful that some refuse to stand against terrorism and hide behind calls for restraint.” 

“Impunity emboldens a terrorist regime with aggression in its DNA.”

What happened won’t deter or otherwise slow Iran’s legitimate nuclear program — nor efforts to defend the nation against hostile attacks from abroad.

Supporting the highest of Israeli high crimes, along with responsibility for their own, the Trump regime, Biden/Harris, the Pentagon, and most officials from both wings of the US war party declined to comment on Fakhrizadeh’s assassination they clearly back.

Iranian IRGC commander General Hossein Salami said the following:

“The enemies of the Iranian nation, specially the masterminds, perpetrators and supporters of this crime, should also know that such crimes will not undermine the resolve of the Iranians to continue this glorious and power-generating path, and harsh revenge and punishment is on agenda for them.” 

Iranian Quds Force commander General Esmaeil Qaani slammed “global arrogance, Zionism, and the states creating and fostering terrorism” that are responsible for assassinations “ ‘with American bullets.’ ”

Once again, UN secretary general Guterres showed contempt for the rights and welfare nations free from imperial control.

Through his spokesman, he “urge(d) restraint and the need to avoid any actions that could lead to an escalation of tensions in the region” — instead of condemning a crime against humanity, most likely committed by the Netanyahu regime. 

Iran’s Tehran Times called US and Israeli leadership “masterminds of terrorism.”

Likely incoming Biden/Harris regime officials endorse what happened.

On issues related to nations unwilling to subordinate their sovereign rights to US interests, Republicans and Dems are likeminded.

They support efforts to transform them into US vassal states — war by hot and other means their favored strategies.

When Biden/Harris take over in January, their regime will likely continue war on Iran by other means — how both wings of US duopoly rule operated since 1979.

The same policy applies to other independent nations, cooperative relations off the table.

The JCPOA’s fate is up for grabs. 

Based on remarks by members of the Biden/Harris national security team, rejoining the landmark agreement may depend on Iran agreeing to unacceptable demands that relate to its self-defense capabilities.

Both wings of the US war party want Iran weakened militarily.

They want the country rendered vulnerable to US, NATO, and/or Israeli aggression if launched.

It took years of negotiation before agreement on JCPOA provisions was reached by P5 countries, Germany and Iran.

It’s highly unlikely that President Rouhani and other senior Iranian officials will permit reworking the agreement in ways that make the nation less able to defend against foreign aggression.

Nor will they accept other demands that benefit the US, West, and Israel at the expense of the Islamic Republic and its people.

While US hot war on Iran is highly unlikely ahead, waging it by other means will continue —perhaps little or unchanged from how Trump regime hardliners operated when Biden/Harris take over.

Dems are notoriously more belligerent than Republicans.

For nearly half a century, Biden wholeheartedly supported US preemptive wars on one nonbelligerent/nonthreatening nation after another.

The pattern no doubt will continue on his watch. Perhaps another war or two in the Middle East and/or elsewhere will be launched.

All sovereign independent nations like Iran have no friends in Washington, few elsewhere in the West.

The scourge of US imperial rage to control other nations, their resources and populations continues unchanged no matter which right wing of the one-party state controls things in Washington.

NATO’s Attempted Infringement Of Russia’s Airspace & Maritime Borders Is Very Dangerous

By Andrew Korybko

Source

Recent attempted infringements of Russia’s airspace and maritime borders by NATO are very dangerous instances of de-facto brinksmanship intended to provoke the Eurasian Great Power into reacting in a way that could then be manipulated as the “plausible pretext” for imposing further pressure upon it.

It seems like almost every week that Russian media reports on NATO’s attempted infringement of Russian airspace and maritime borders, but two ultra-dangerous developments occurred over the past week which signify that this trend will intensify. The Russian Navy threatened to ram the USS John McCain after it aggressively passed into the country’s territorial waters near Peter the Great Bay off Vladivostok, after which it thankfully reversed its course. The second incident involved the US launching rockets into the Black Sea from Romania that are capable of reaching Crimea in a wartime scenario. These two events deserve to be discussed more in detail because of their significance to NATO’s grand strategy.

The transatlantic alliance intends to provoke the Eurasian Great Power into reacting in a way that could then be manipulated as the “plausible pretext” for imposing further pressure upon it. It amounts to de-facto brinksmanship and is therefore incredibly dangerous since both parties are nuclear powers. Furthermore, it’s the definition of unprovoked aggression since Russia doesn’t partake in symmetrical provocations against NATO. If anything, every time that it’s been dishonestly accused of such was just the country carrying out military exercises within its own borders which just so happen to abut several NATO states after the bloc extended its frontiers eastward following the end of the Old Cold War.

It’s the eastern expansion of NATO and the alliance’s recent activities in the Arctic Ocean that represent the greatest threat to peace between the two. On the eastern front, the US is once again provoking Russia in order to craft the false impression among the Japanese that Moscow is a military threat to their interests. Washington is greatly perturbed by their past couple years of technically fruitless but nevertheless highly symbolic talks over signing a peace treaty to end the Second World War and resolve what Tokyo subjectively regards as the “Northern Territories Dispute”. Moscow’s reclamation of control over the Kuril Islands following that conflict was agreed to by the Allies, but then America went back on its word in order to divide and rule the two.

Their mutual intent to enter into a rapprochement with one another could in theory occur in parallel with a similar rapprochement between Japan and China, which might altogether reduce Tokyo’s need to retain as robust of an American military presence on its islands. That in turn would weaken the US’ military posturing and therefore reduce the viability of its grand strategic designs to “contain” both multipolar countries in that theater. As regards the Arctic and Eastern European fronts, these are also part of the same “containment” policy, albeit aimed most directly against Russia and only tangentially against China’s “Polar Silk Road”.

It’s understandable that the US will continue to compete with these two rival Great Powers, but such competition must be responsibly regulated in order to avoid the unintended scenario of a war by miscalculation. It’s for that reason why the world should be alarmed by American brinksmanship against them, especially the latest developments with respect to Russia that were earlier described. All that it takes is one wrong move for everything to spiral out of control and beyond the point of no return. Regrettably, while Biden might ease some pressure on China, he’ll likely compensate by doubling down against Russia.

Trump should also take responsibility for this as well since it’s occurring during his presidency after all, even if it might possibly be in its final months if he isn’t able to thwart the Democrats’ illegal seizure of power following their large-scale defrauding of this month’s elections. He capitulated to hostile “deep state” pressure early on into this term perhaps out of the mistaken belief that “compromising” with his enemies in the permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies would result in them easing their pressure upon him on other fronts, but this gamble obviously failed since it only emboldened them to pressure him even more.

It’s unfortunate that Trump was never able to actualize his intended rapprochement with Russia for the aforementioned reasons, but he could have rebelliously defied the “deep state” after this month’s fraudulent elections by reversing his currently aggressive policy against Moscow if he truly had the political will to do so. He doesn’t, though, and this might nowadays be due more to his support of the military-industrial complex than any “deep state” pressure like it initially was. After all, war is a very profitable business, and artificially amplifying the so-called “Russia threat” by provoking Moscow into various responses could pay off handsomely.

It’s therefore extremely unlikely that this dangerous trend will change anytime in the coming future. To the contrary, it’ll likely only intensify and get much worse under a possible Biden Administration. Nevertheless, Russia doesn’t lack the resolve to defend its legitimate interests and will always do what’s needed in this respect, albeit responsibly (so long as it’s realistic to react in such a way) in order to avoid falling into the Americans’ trap. The ones who should be the most worried, then, are the US’ NATO and other “allied” vassals who stand to lose the most by getting caught in any potential crossfire for facilitating American aggression.

CIA Partners with Google, Amazon and IBM in Latest Big Tech Procurement Drive

By Raul Diego

Source

The vaunted “17 intelligence agencies” that comprise the U.S. intel community will be sharing a network of private-sector cloud computing service providers which includes Microsoft, Google, Oracle, IBM, and Amazon Web Services (AWS) as part of a 15-year contract said to be worth tens of billions of dollars.

AWS currently holds the sole contract to provide cloud computing services to a number of intelligence agencies, including the FBI and the NSA. That contract is set to expire in 2023 and this new award – managed by the CIA – will further weaken Amazon’s once privileged position in the federal money sweepstakes, which had already taken a hard hit when Microsoft was unexpectedly chosen over Bezos’ company for the Department of Defense’s own cloud services contract for the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure (JEDI) program.

The Central Intelligence Agency will take full advantage of its access to money without oversight to disburse the government funds at the agency’s discretion. Although speculated to rise into the tens of billions, the CIA has no plans to disclose the real value of the C2E contracts. The Commercial Cloud Enterprise (C2E) procurement program was unveiled in February by the premier U.S. spy agency in a bid to establish a cloud computing service platform for the country’s intelligence agencies separate from JEDI, which remains enmeshed in a protracted legal contest with AWS and is two years behind implementation.

The five tech giants will compete with each other for “task orders” that come in from the multitude of intelligence agencies throughout the country and will span every security clearance level up to and including top secret clearance. The contract calls for the building of infrastructure and all other basic cloud services, as well as professional services and public-facing services.

The more things change…

Many seem surprised by the multi-contractor, ad hoc nature of the C2E awards because it “appears not to settle on a particular cloud provider” and while these dynamics do stray from the relatively recent trend of sole-contract awards and tacit monopolies many corporations have enjoyed through similar public-private partnerships, this particular practice of pitting contractors against each other for services requisitioned by the government is not new.

In fact, such practices are an intrinsic part of the military industrial complex and its historical origins at the height of the British empire. The start of the Glorious Revolution in 1688 marked the beginning of 125 years of constant war for the global superpower of the day and the slow but inexorable rise of an industry of war made up exclusively of freelancers who would make the guns, rifles, and bullets their bloodthirsty Queen required.

As the empire grew, the processes for the production of weapons underwent a dramatic change from artisanal modes to full-fledged factory-style production; all spurred by the biggest army and navy in the world, which was pillaging and extracting resources to fuel the burgeoning enterprise of capitalism.

Workers at the Royal Ordnance Factory in Liverpool, England inspect the finished Sten guns. Photo | Imperial War Musuem

This period also fine-tuned the relationship between the state and independent contractors, with the former establishing laws governing them in order to leverage their overwhelming advantage. Other strategies were also employed to both suppress the price the Crown paid for materiel and to make sure that no single contractor held too big a stake in the supply chain.

In her book “Empire of Guns,” Priya Satia details this entire process and destroys the myth that the Industrial Revolution was the result of a cotton-picking machine when even a cursory look at the history shows that it was guns and a state engaged in perpetual war that laid the foundations of our current economic paradigm.

Now, we stand on the threshold of the so-called “Fourth Industrial Revolution” in a world that has perfected weapons of war to atomic levels. New ‘cyberweapons’ are being forged and it is only fitting that the war industry, led today by the United States, would return to its origins to maintain its own monopoly on human suffering and devastation in the name of profit.

Return to the roots

The public-private partnership has been another significant trend that also mirrors a ubiquitous trend in Victorian England. But, in today’s world, a parallel legal system has grown alongside the state’s war industry and is also now at the disposal of the corporations who wish to dispute any deal, leading to considerable delays in the execution of contracts.

Cases like the JEDI suit affect the military readiness goals of the national security state if it cannot move forward with a particular initiative due to litigation. Another recent case is holding up the Cybersecurity Infrastructure and Security Agency’s (CISA) efforts to centralize inflow and outflow of data regarding cyber-threats.

In October, the Government Services Agency (GSA), awarded a $13 Million-dollar contract to a company called EnDyna to “create a centralized database that agencies can use to report, discover and take actions against cyber threat information.” A much larger competitor, HackerOne, filed a protest questioning the award on grounds of failure to meet eligibility requirements and the smaller company’s competence to carry out the work.

Technicalities like these can hold up a project in court for years, so it makes perfect sense for the state-run war industry to return to its roots and apply the tried and true principles of divide and conquer against the people making their guns, whether real or virtual. By taking the first few spots on the Big Tech pecking order and putting them in a room to duke it out for a government contract, the war establishment is recognizing the growing power of these firms and is unleashing the CIA to curb it and diminish threats to the supply chain of the twenty-first century’s permanent war economy.

The Covid-19 celebrity humanitarianism – Sean Penn and the Great Reset, funded by Bill Gates and the Clinton Foundation

By Vanessa Beeley

Source

On the 12th November 2020, an article appeared in the Daily Mail about three powerful men sharing a beach holiday: Twitter’s Jack Dorsey, Hollywood’s Sean Penn and the reclusive Israeli billionaire, Vivi Nevo. The story slipped under the radar, almost unnoticed by a public caught up in the Covid-19 controversy that continues to sweep the planet. However, the connections between these three elite influencers is well worth a closer look, particularly with regards to their combined role in promoting the transnational corporatocracy’s Covid-19 narratives.

In this April 8, 2020 photo, actor and activist Sean Penn, founder of the nonprofit organization Community Organized Relief Effort, speaks during an interview at his home in Malibu, Calif. The Oscar winner’s disaster relief organization called CORE has teamed up with Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti’s office and the city’s fire department to safely distribute free drive-through COVID-19 test sites for those with qualifying symptoms. (AP Photo/Chris Pizzello)

Sean Penn and his altruistic aspirations – valiant, misguided or corrupt?

The Clinton connection

Sean Penn established Community Organised Relief Effort (CORE) in January 2010 in response to the earthquake that devastated the island of Haiti that same year. Formerly called the J/P Haitian Relief Organisation, CORE claims that “our life-saving programs revolve around building healthier and safer neighbourhoods to mitigate the scale of devastation caused by disaster.” 

What CORE fails to mention is that the destabilisation and eradication of Haitian culture, heritage, communities and self-sufficiency began long before the earthquake of 2010. It might have something to do with the funding that CORE receives from USAID, a CIA power expansion agency, and Penn’s close relationship with the Clintons whose foundation has been instrumental in the “rapacious role of US imperialism in that impoverished semi-colonial country.”

CORE partners taken from their website

Penn declines to mention that Clinton, Bush and Obama have the blood of Haitians on their hands or that Clinton and Bush were deeply involved in “perpetuating the poverty, backwardness and repression in Haiti” that exacerbated the crisis in January 2010 that Penn responded to. 

According to journalist, Patrick Martin: 

“Clinton took office in the immediate aftermath of the military coup which ousted Haiti’s first democratically elected president, the populist cleric Jean-Bertrand Aristide. That coup was backed by the administration of Bush’s father, who saw Aristide as an unwanted and potentially dangerous radical.”

The Clinton’s influence on the island of Haiti has been one of unmitigated predation and political piracy – a legacy entirely ignored by Penn, who endorsed Hilary Clinton in the 2016 elections and who visited the imperialism-stricken island with robber baron, Bill Clinton, in 2015. Penn appears to be blissfully ignorant of the scandal surrounding the Clinton response to the 2010 earthquake that left the already scavenged island in tatters. 

The Clintons stepped up to lead the global response to the Haiti earthquake. At President Obama’s request, Clinton and George W. Bush created the “Clinton-Bush Haiti Fund,” and began “aggressively fundraising around the world to support Haiti”. The Interim Haiti Recovery Commission (IHRC) selected Bill Clinton as its co-chair. Hillary Clinton was still Secretary of State and was therefore responsible for funnelling USAID “relief” funding to Haiti. A whopping $ 13.3 billion was pledged by international donors to allegedly rebuild Haiti and to restore dignity to the lives of the forcibly impoverished Haitian people. Unsurprisingly, the IHRC response was mired in controversy and accusations of embezzlement levied against the Clintons who, effectively, held the purse strings of the incoming donations. 

The IHRC collected and estimated $ 9.9 billion in three years but the deplorable misery and poverty that Haitians endure did not improve. It is widely believed that the Clintons cynically robbed and destroyed Haiti for their own gain. Haitian author, journalist, and historian, Dady Chery, expressed the general view thus:

“In 2016, by all estimates, the cost of the US presidential elections doubled or quadrupled to about $5-10 billion. This is the most expensive presidential bid in history, and Hillary Clinton has vastly outspent Donald Trump. Where did the money come from?”

Rather than express outrage at the Clinton potential involvement in defrauding the people of Haiti, Penn continued a campaign of genuflection to the Clintons. In 2015, at a Haiti benefit event, Penn introduced Bill Clinton as a “once-in-a-generation leader with laser focus, immense curiosity, courage and compassion that can be unequivocally measured by sustainable benefits and the improvement of so many lives around the world.” 

During his twenty minute speech, Clinton praised Penn for his work in Haiti and encouraged the star-studded audience to contribute to what is now CORE by stating that “you will never contribute to an organisation that will give you a higher probability of having your good intentions turned into real positive changes in other people’s lives”. The hypocrisy oozed from every honeyed word.

Also present at the fundraising gala was sexual predator, Harvey Weinstein, the Hollywood producer who was sentenced to 23 years in prison for first-degree criminal sexual acts and third-degree rape earlier this year. This will connect to the other two men on the beach (i.e. Jack Dorsey and Vivo Nevo) in Part 2.

In 2012, Hillary Clinton’s aides lavished praise on Penn who had just received the 2012 “Peace Summit Award” from former Soviet Union President, Mikhail Gorbachev, for his work in Haiti. A number of media reports pointed out that the email address had been redacted but was listed as “CIA”. 

Whether Penn participated knowingly in the imperialist rape of Haiti or was nothing more than a useful celebrity idiot who served the agenda of the Clinton/Bush vulture policy is a question for serious debate. Penn certainly didn’t slum it when travelling to Haiti. HRO or CORE paid out more than $ 126,000 in first class flights in 2013. This luxury travel was justified by Penn’s celebrity status and “consideration for his safety”. 

Penn’s close relationship with the Clintons also apparently brought him into the nefarious orbit of child-sex provider and elite blackmailer, Jeffrey Epstein. It has been claimed that Penn was on the guest list of an intimate dinner between Epstein’s under-age girl procurer, Ghislaine Maxwell and Bill Clinton in 2014. 

Covid-19 “response” and a potential ulterior motive for CORE Covid-19 tests

Fast forward to 2020, and we find Sean Penn and CORE intimately involved in Covid-19 drive-through testing centres. In September 2020, CORE had conducted more than one million Coronavirus tests, by November, this had increased to 2.5 million. 

The PCR test, DNA harvesting and false positives

The validity of the PCR tests in diagnosing Covid-19 has been the subject of much scientific discussion with a growing number of medical experts and analysts dismissing the PCR test as unreliable and inconclusive due to the high percentage of false positives. It is also claimed that this widespread DNA collection under the pretext of Covid-19 could be a covert genetic information harvest on the pretext of extracting viral DNA from all the genetic material. 

I spoke with a medical expert who will remain anonymous for security reasons and he informed me that the PCR test is “not designed to diagnose disease.” He told me:

“The test identifies a genetic sequence being present in a sample and then copies it, thereby increasing the amount of genetic material. Each test cycle copies and increases the genetic material. A specific amount of GM is required to meet a threshold of detection. The test will keep copying until it is possible to say the virus is “detected”. Therein lies the problem. After “Covid” infection, when the virus has been removed by the immune system, some viral genetic debris can remain for many months. A tiny fragment viral, genetic material debris will be found and multiplied by many, many cycles until the detection threshold is reached. This is a false positive.”

He informed me that most labs are running upwards of 40 cycles. “In at least 4 examples of RT PCR testing in the US, it was found that 90% of the positive tests were actually false.”

He also told me “the real reason they are pushing the testing is control. They want a rapid test to be used every day, multiple times per day to gain entry to school, work, restaurants, entertainment centres etc. It is conditioning.”

The sinister question is whether all this genetic DNA information is passed on to undisclosed entities for “research purposes” without the patient’s knowledge. 

Prior to the Covid-19 “crisis”, patient privacy in the US was protected by federal laws like the Common Rule and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). The Emergency laws or orders introduced on the back of Covid-19 haveenabled a widespread genome harvesting strategy with little or no accountability for how the DNA information collected is ultimately used. 

The issue of DNA collection is not new. An article by Off-Guardian from 2017 asked why the US Air-force was collecting samples of Caucasian Russian DNA. Predictably, the story was ignored by US/UK state media. At the time, Russian President Putin, speculated that the US was preparing an anti-Russian bioweapon. That theory is no longer so “conspiratorial” with the looming threat of a potential bio terror false flag which will, inevitably,  plunge the world into even greater engineered chaos. 

As part of my research for this article, I sent an email to CORE asking them what they did with the DNA collected from their testing procedures. Until now, no response has been forthcoming. 

CORE now receives funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Jack Dorsey, the Twitter CEO donated $ 10 million to Penn’s initiative. Further sponsors include the Clinton Foundation. The CORE testing site at Dodger Stadium, Los Angeles is the largest in the US – “three times the size of any other location in LA” and can test up to 6,000 people per day. Mouth swabs are used in place of the nasal swabs to avoid the need for medical staff to perform the test. 

Penn’s funding from Covid-19 impresario, Bill Gates, is an indicator of the depth of Penn’s involvement in what is the Covid-19 portal to the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset”. Penn is no stranger to the Gates world of “philanthropy”. When Melinda Gates spoke about gender inequality at a 2015 Hollywood Report “women in entertainment” breakfast, it was Penn who introduced her. Penn went on to extol the Gates global immunisation projects. That Penn is wholly supportive of the Covid-19 class war should come as no surprise. 

One cannot help but wonder what happened to Penn. In 2002, Penn placed a $56,000 advertisement in the Washington Postasking President George W. Bush to end a cycle of violence. In 2003, he wrote an impassioned anti-imperialist full-page statement for the New York Times opposing the Bush military interventionism in Iraq. 

Penn wrote:

“We see Bechtel. We see Halliburton. We see Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Powell, Rice, Perle, Ashcroft, Murdoch, many more. We see no WMDs. We see dead young Americans. We see no WMDs. We see dead Iraqi civilians. We see no WMDs. We see chaos in the Baghdad streets. But no WMDs.”

This could simply be a result of Penn’s fervent support for the Democrats or it could indicate that, once upon a time, Penn had genuine anti-war principles. I will cover Penn’s pro-Democrat-bias and possible connections later in this article.

Today, in 2020, Penn appears to be a fully fledged member of the billionaire and Big Pharma complex that is pushing a high-risk global vaccination roll-out. He has demanded that the “military must be tasked with a full offensive against this virus.” Penn has described the military intervention in Haiti as the US deployment of “the most effective logistical and humanitarian organization the world has ever seen: the US military.” Penn’s own terminology in relation CORE’s Covid-19 response has been littered with military analogy, describing it as a “mission to save lives”, an interesting allusion to “an active shooter scenario” and finally “you become a gun.” That might be a little closer to the truth than Penn intended. 

CORE is backed by USAID, the Clintons, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. This is not a grass roots volunteer organization, it is an instrument of power. Co-founder of CORE, or J/P HRO as it was in 2010, is a notorious character by the name of Sanela Diana Jenkins ( the J/P stood for Jenkins-Penn). 

Jenkins who is of Bosnian (Bosnia and Herzegovina) origin, has consistently underpinned the narratives that led to the NATO bombing of former Yugoslavia in 1999 including the much disputed Srebenica “genocide.” For a greater understanding of the complexities of this dark period in Yugoslav history, I highly recommend “Media Cleansing, Dirty Reporting,” by Peter Brock. Jenkins raised $ 1 million for the Clinton Foundation in Haiti and together with actor, George Clooney, she raised $ 10 million for the “Not on Our Watch” organisation, which intervened in Darfur on behalf of US imperialist interests. Jenkins actively supported regime change in Libya which resulted in the brutal murder of its President, Muammar Gaddafi, which was famously celebrated by Hillary Clinton, who said : “we came, we saw, he died”. 

Penn – Maverick or CIA tool? 

I mentioned Penn’s support for the Democrats earlier in the article. A deeper delve into Penn’s “journalism” reveals a possible political agenda that is in lock-step with the Democrat policies. On October 23rd 2008, Penn met with President Raul Castro of Cuba, less than two weeks before Barack Obama was elected as the first black US President. During the seven-hour meeting, Castro expressed a desire to meet with Obama who had said that he would reverse some of the draconian policies imposed by the preceding Bush administration during his election campaign. 

The Mexican drug cartels and the US banking cartel cover-up

According to Penn’s biography as it appears in his controversialRolling Stone interview with Mexican drug lord, Joaquín Archivaldo Guzmán Loera, i.e. El Chapo, “Actor, writer and director Sean Penn has written from the front lines in Haiti, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela and Cuba.” El Chapo’s arrest almost immediately after meeting with Penn drew accusations of Penn’s involvement in his detection. However, there is evidence that El Chapo was actually not that hard to find and that the entire capture may have been nothing more than elaborate cover for the real billionaire criminals behind the global drug dealing industry, the US banking cartel. 

As journalist, Richard Becker, wrote in 2019:

“Joaquin Guzman, also known as “El Chapo,” will likely spend the rest of his life in isolation inside a “supermax” prison in Colorado, after his sentencing on July 17 for drug trafficking, money laundering, and other crimes. No US bankers will be in the adjoining cells, although without vast assistance from the latter, the Mexico-based drug cartels could never have achieved the size and profitability they have.

Despite the banks reaping huge profits as financiers and accomplices of the cartels, the number of bank executives criminally prosecuted for laundering hundreds of billions of dollars in illegal drug money is exactly zero.”

One could be forgiven for speculating that the Penn scandal provided spectacular cover for the oligarchs behind the scenes of El Chapo’s Sinaloa cartel. In March 2010, Wachovia bank agreed “in a settlement to having laundered at least $ 378 billion in drug money from 2004-2007 for Mexican drug cartels.” The case never went to court. 

There is also the additional issue of claims of the discovery of a 50-caliber sniper rifle associated with Obama’s “Operation Fast and Furious” at the hideout of El Chapo. Operation Fast and Furious involved the sale of firearms at retail stores which could then allegedly be tracked to prominent drug cartel figures in Mexico. The operation was an abject failure which resulted in the murder of various individuals with US-supplied weapons, not dissimilar to the Obama “train and equip” programme in Syria, which squandered $ 500 million on weapons and equipment for the non-existent “moderate opposition.” These weapons, they say, inexplicably fell into the hands of the global terror organisation, ISIS. The US National Rifle Association accused Obama and former Attorney General, Eric Holder of hatching the operation as cover to increase gun violence in Mexico and thus justify more restrictive gun-laws in the US. 

At the very least, the timing of Penn’s intervention and the subsequent arrest of El Chapo is interesting. 

Penn always in the “right” place at the right time?

U.S. actor and director Sean Penn (R) holds an Egypt flag as he walks with Egyptian actor Khaled al-Nabawi in Tahrir Square during a protest against the ruling military council, after Friday prayers in Cairo September 30, 2011. REUTERS/Stringer

Haiti

In 2012, Penn met with US-approved, former Haiti President, Jean Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier whose father Francois “Papa Doc” Duvalier, had been instated as President-for-life in 1957 with US backing. US warships were reportedly stationed “just off the coast of Haiti to oversee a smooth transition of power to Duvalier’s son.” Under the Duvalier dynasty, more than 60,000 Haitians were murdered and tortured by death squads known as the Tonton Macoutes who regularly burned dissenters alive or publicly hung them. “Baby Doc” had been removed from power in 1986 by a popular uprising. After his meeting with “Baby Doc”, Penn recommended “reconciliation” with this neo-colonialist instrument of injustice, despite the fact that Haitian human rights group and civilians wished to see “Baby Doc” prosecuted for “crimes against humanity” and widespread corruption. 

Penn does not specify the date of his 2012 “chance” meeting with “Baby Doc” but perhaps coincidentally, President Bill Clinton met “Baby Doc” in January 2012 in Titanyen, the site of mass graves for the bodies of men, women and children massacred by the Duvalier tyrants over the course of three decades of US-orchestrated and sponsored dictatorship. On the same stage with “Baby Doc” and Clinton was the latest in the line of US-approved puppet leaders, President Michel Martellyalso highly promoted by Penn. 

Egypt 

In 2011, Penn just happened to be in Tahrir Square as the Arab Spring gathered momentum in Egypt. Penn called on military leaders for a “faster transition to democracy”. Penn told the Egyptian daily, Al Ahram, that “the world is inspired by the call for freedom by the courageous revolution of Egypt [..] a transition of power from the military to the people.” Effectively, Penn came out in favour of yet another US/UK-orchestrated regime change – one that would ultimately lead to the reduction of Egypt to a poverty-stricken nation dependent upon foreign aid, conveniently for the US  and Israel who alongside the UK, were instrumental in fomenting the uprising as explained by the Journeyman documentary – “The Revolution Business”. 

Iran, Syria and Chavez

In 2009, two American “hitch-hikers”, Josh Fattel and Shane Bauer, were arrested by Iranian border guards after they were accused of entering Iranian territory on the border with Iraqi “Kurdistan” without permission and were jailed for espionage. Penn flew to Venezuela to ask President Hugo Chavez to negotiate their release with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Penn had allegedly been alerted to the plight of Bauer and Fattel by friends in “US intellectual circles.” Penn’s support for Chavez was the subject of much controversy in American media, but that controversy likely provided him with the credibility he needed to be afforded an audience with Syria’s US-media-maligned President Bashar Al Assad in the midst of the US/UK-driven “regime change” war against Syria. The meeting is believed to have taken place during the summer of 2016. 

Perhaps it is yet another coincidence, but one of thePenn-rescued “hitch hikers,” Shane Bauer, went on to become a “journalist” member of the western media “regime change” chorus invested in the criminalization of the Syrian government and its elected President Bashar Al Assad. A “journalist” who, without hesitation, regurgitated the now discredited 2018 Douma “chemical weapon” story despite serious doubts from acclaimed journalist, Robert Fisk, who was one of the first to visit the scene of the alleged attack. Evidence that the attack was, almost certainly, a staged event, produced by the UK FCO-midwived White Helmets and Douma’s dominant armed group, Jaish Al Islam, seemed to escape Bauer’s “in depth” journalism.

Bauer, himself, reported that he had been denied a visa by the Syrian authorities because his “journalism” was not considered objective enough. It is quite possible that the decision could also have been influenced by his history of illegal entry into Iran. True to form, Bauer entered Syria illegally with the help of US-proxies, the Kurdish contra forces, the so-called “Syrian Democratic Forces” occupying much of north-east Syria, including the oil fields in order to produce his undercover report which served as thinly veiled PR for the continuation of a ten-year US/UK-led war against Syria. 

Celebrity humanitarianism: PR for neoliberal capitalism and US hegemony

Is Sean Penn a Hollywood “honey trap” for the five eyes intelligence alliance, as he was colourfully described by a Twitter commenter recently? Or is Penn nothing more than a member of the rising celebrity cult-humanitarian complex spearheaded by entertainment stars, billionaires and activist “NGOs” that include Bill Gates, George Soros, Angelina Jolie, Bono and Penn’s ex-wife, Madonna? The line between being an intelligence asset and an “innocent” promoter of US hegemony and neoliberal capitalism is an indistinct one in either case. 

The three men on the beach, Sean Penn, Jack Dorsey and Vivi Nevo. Photo: the Daily Mail

n many instances, the timing of Penn’s “happenstance” meetings with figures key to US foreign policy and military adventurism raises obvious questions. I have not covered all of Penn’s political publicity stunts in this article, only those I consider to be the primary ones. Effectively, Penn’s political involvement has furthered the foreign policy objectives of the US predatory class, which inevitably result in global inequality, food insecurity and devastation for countries in the cross-hairs, the same global insecurity that Penn’s version of celebrity altruism claims to fight against. 

As described in the book, “Celebrity Humanitarianism – the ideology of global charity” by Byllan Kapoor: 

“[..]celebrity humanitarianism, far from being altruistic, is significantly contaminated and ideological: it is most often self-serving, helping to promote institutional aggrandizement and the celebrity ‘brand’; it advances consumerism and corporate capitalism, and rationalizes the very global inequality it seeks to redress; it is fundamentally depoliticizing, despite its pretensions to ‘activism’; and it contributes to a ‘post-democratic’ political landscape, which appears outwardly open and consensual, but is in fact managed by unaccountable elites.”

Penn is a Covid-19 fearmongering fanatic. Aside from demanding that the military be involved in the response, Penn has issued an array of stinging attacks on Twitter against President Trump’s Covid-19 measures, deeming them ineffective and disproportionate to the Penn-perceived magnitude of the threat. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Penn is supportive of the Biden power bid, which will bring in a Covid-19 task force comprised of individuals who have voiced support for eugenics and population control. 

Who persuaded Penn to take to Twitter earlier this year? None other than Twitter CEO, Jack Dorsey, who will be the main subject of Part 2 of this article, which will cover Dorsey’s role in funding and promoting the Covid-19 Big Pharma programmes and draconian US government population suppression measures. 

The three men on the beach are instrumental in paving the way for the Great Reset and Dorsey should be held responsible for much of the Twitter censorship of dissenting voices during this unprecedented power grab by the powers that be. Celebrities like Penn and influencers like Dorsey enable their expansionism rather than call for their accountability for the damage being inflicted upon the world’s most vulnerable and increasingly disenfranchised human beings under the guise of “relief.” 

U.S. Election ‘Success’… And Hey Presto ‘Russian Interference’ Disappears

Source

November 27, 2020

The United States’ election victory of Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden has yet to be officially confirmed. That requires the 500-plus Electoral College comprising the 50 federal states to cast the final vote when the constitutional body meets on December 14. Biden holds a commanding lead of over 300 delegates in the Electoral College, more than 70 above Donald Trump’s quota and decisively more than the 270 threshold required for election to the White House.

Nonetheless, already one thing is indisputably clear. Biden’s nominal victory from the popular vote tallies is glaring proof that Russia did not interfere in the American presidential ballot. Not in 2020. And not, we may discern, in 2016, nor in any other election. Yet the silence in US media over this obvious conclusion is deafening.

Four years of frenetic and unsubstantiated allegations of “Russian interference” have disappeared overnight, it seems. Poof! Gone! As if by a magic conjuring trick. Now you see it, now you don’t, so to speak.

The New York Times has declared the recent presidential contest a “great election.. a resounding success free of fraud”. The Department of Homeland Security pronounced the election to be the “most secure in American history.” Other US media outlets have jettisoned supposed political neutrality and can barely contain their elation at Biden’s electoral victory.

But hold on a moment. In the months and weeks leading up to the November election, there was a fever pitch in US media among politicians, national security chiefs, pundits and anonymous intelligence sources that Russia was allegedly stepping up “interference efforts” to get Trump re-elected. Those evidence-free claims were predicated on the equally absurd assertion that Trump was a Manchurian candidate for the Kremlin. That “Russiagate” fable was first spun in 2016 and for the past four years elaborated into a tangled web to “explain” how a maverick former reality TV star had been elected to the White House.

Suddenly, however, the Democrats and supportive US media are now asserting that the voting process was impeccable and unblemished by any malfeasance. Of course they would say that in order to bolster legitimacy of Biden’s win against the Republican White House incumbent Donald Trump. But the thundering takeaway which the US political class and media are bizarrely ignoring is that Russia did not interfere not in the 2020 race nor in any other election. Russia has always categorically said it is not meddling in US politics and its electoral process. Turns out that Russia is de facto vindicated in its protestations against American slander.

The “Russiagate” nonsense was hatched by Democrats, their supportive media and intelligence agencies because they could not come to terms with the reality of why Trump beat the then establishment-ordained candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016. Could it have been because Clinton and the Democrat party was repudiated by popular sentiment due to perceived corruption and overseas wars? No, another “explanation” had to be found. And the US political establishment came up with the “Russian interference” narrative.

No matter that the Mueller investigation found after 22 months of probing and hundreds of millions of taxpayer-dollars spent that there was no evidence of “Russia collusion” with the Trump campaign. Nevertheless, Mueller and the Democrats, their media and intelligence backers, persisted in the spurious notion that Russia meddled in the 2016 election and, allegedly, was continuing to meddle, purportedly with even more sophisticated, nefarious techniques.

How can US politicians, intelligence officials and media credibly claim that Russia interfered in 2016 and in mid-term congressional elections in 2018, but now in 2020 it evidently did not? The most logical explanation is simply that Russia never did.

Four years of hysterical American accusations against Russia have transpired to just that: bogus hysteria. US politicians, media and so-called intelligence gurus should be held to account for fabricating what is perhaps the biggest hoax ever played on the American public.

Though, one can be sure that they won’t be held accountable in a formal way. Venal power doesn’t work like that. And the US political system has built-in layers of self-protection for the political class never to be prosecuted. But in an informal no less real way, the system is being held to account by the wider public who are increasingly holding it in contempt and distrust. The political class and their plaything media are losing the moral authority to govern. This goes beyond mere Trump Derangement Syndrome. The systematic lying and deception over alleged Russian interference perpetrated on such a grand scale has fatally damaged the credibility of American institutions. Not just in the US, but around the world too.

Equally lamentable is the corrosive, damaging effect that the bogus hysteria has had on bilateral US-Russia relations and international tensions. Relations are at a dangerous all time low comparable to the depth of the Cold War. This has in turn sabotaged diplomatic efforts to strengthen arms controls and global security. The anti-Russia hysteria has led to the US abandonment of key nuclear weapons treaties, the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty and soon the New START.

The Russophobia that has been whipped up as a political weapon against Trump over the past four years is not something that can be easily put aside. It has engendered deep-seated hostility against Russia. During the presidential debates, Joe Biden vowed that the would take a tough stand against Russia for “interfering” in US politics. The incoming administration is being mentally held hostage by its own Russophobia which was cultivated on entirely false grounds.

It is disturbing how the US nation has been dragged into an obsession about alleged Russian malign activities, an obsession which turns out to be a mirage. Not for the first time either. Recall the Cold War Red Scares and McCarthyite witch-hunts which poisoned American society.

The implications are daunting. How can bilateral relations with Russia be restored? How can an intelligent dialogue be conducted with a nation whose leaders are so self-deluded and irrational?

Moreover, this is a nation whose leaders presume to have the prerogative to use overwhelming military force whenever they deem so. It is not unlike the driver of a juggernaut vehicle on a precipice who is hurtling along while out of his brain on misconceptions.

How the Western Press Lied About the 2014 Coup in Ukraine, Pretending That It Was Instead a Real Democratic Revolution

Eric Zuesse November 25, 2020

U.S.-and-allied governments, and their billionaires’-controlled press, are unrelenting in their fraudulent portrayal of what was actually the U.S. regime’s conquest and destruction of Ukraine in 2014, by means of a brutal coup, which caused a civil war and the break-up of that country.

The hidden truths about Ukraine, after 2009, will be documented and proven here. These facts have been kept secret from Western publics. (Articles like this are censored-out by the regime’s operatives.)

The first documentation concerns the coup itself, which occurred in February 2014, though the narrator in that video mistakenly says (at 0:27) that the coup started “on February 20th of 2013,” instead of on February 20th of 2014, which is the only slip-up in this entire otherwise-superb presentation. The video is here, and it demonstrates — it even displays — that the U.S. Government, under President Barack Obama, lied through their teeth about that coup, as having been instead a “revolution,” instead of a coup. The key “leaked [phone] call” that’s excerpted in this video can be heard in full here; and its full transcript, including explanations of the persons who are being referred-to in it, is available here. The broader historical significance of that phone-call is reported and explained here. To sum it all up: There is no way that this phone-conversation (which is between two Obama-Administration officials who are discussing whom to appoint to lead Ukraine when the coup will have been completed) can reasonably be interpreted in any other way than that the Obama Administration had carefully planned and executed this coup d’etat, which replaced Ukraine’s democratically elected Government by one that would be controlled by the U.S. regime. This truth is the exact opposite of the U.S.-and-allied ‘news’-reporting about that coup, as its having been, instead, ‘the Maidan revolution’. This is how America (and each of its ‘allies’ or vassal nations) deceives its people, just as much (and just as viciously) as any other dictatorship does.

So: how did that ‘revolution’ come about? Here is how it happened — and also the Western lies hiding this reality:

On November 30th of 2013, UK’s Economist magazine bannered “Stealing their dream: Viktor Yanukovych is hijacking Ukrainians’ European future”, and wrote that:

Unwilling to launch economic reforms, cut spending or tame the appetites of his cronies, Mr Yanukovych [Ukraine’s democratically elected and — for the Ukrainian people — remarkably successful, President, as will subsequently be documented here] proceeded to trade the country’s most valuable asset: Ukraine’s geopolitical position. “The talks with the EU were an auction. It was a position of a pimp who is offering Ukraine up for sale,” says Mr Poroshenko [a political enemy of Yanukovych, who became Ukraine’s President after the coup]. Mr Yanukovych let it be known that, if Europe wanted a modern, democratic Ukraine, it needed to pay. His price was $160 billion by 2017.

European politicians were aghast at such blatant blackmail; Mr Putin seemed happy to haggle. It is not clear what he and Mr Yanukovych agreed during their secret meeting in early November — the deal is said to include cheaper gas, credits and lucrative business contracts — but not, it is rumoured in Kiev, a requirement that Ukraine join a proposed new customs union with Russia. Whatever the understanding, it has persuaded Mr Yanukovych to distance himself from the EU. Though nothing is ever final in Ukraine, Mr Yanukovych’s favoured option seems to be to preserve the status quo and refrain from joining either camp while continuing to milk both — hence his new proposal of three-way talks.

A face-saving memorandum may yet be signed with the EU, but the collapse of the association agreement could be a blessing in disguise for the Europeans. Teaming up with Mr Yanukovych, who would never have implemented it, would have only led to disappointment and recriminations, while helping Mr Yanukovych get re-elected. Instead, the collapse brought pressure on Mr Yanukovych from educated middle-class Ukrainians who feel that their future has been hijacked and their dream stolen. Haunted by the memories of 2004, Mr Yanukovych may try to crack down, but time is against him.

On November 24th tens of thousands of Ukrainians went to the streets in support of Ukraine’s European course.

The coup happened in February 2014, and the breakaway of Crimea from Ukraine happened in March 2014, and the civil war that erupted in Ukraine’s far-eastern Donbass region (which had voted 90%+ for Yanukovych) started on 9 May 2014. Then, on 24 November 2014, Germany’s Spiegel magazine headlined “How the EU Lost Russia over Ukraine”, and reported that, back on 19 November 2013, in the Presidential mansion in Kiev, Yanukovych informed the EU’s representatives of his predicament:

“But there are the costs that our experts have calculated,” Yanukovych replied. “What experts?” Füle demanded to know. The Ukrainian president described to his bewildered guest the size of the losses allegedly threatening Ukraine should it sign the agreement with the EU.

Later, the number $160 billion found its way into the press, more than 50 times greater than the $3 billion calculated by the German advisory group. The total came from a study conducted by the Institute for Economics and Forecasting at the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and it was a number that Yanukovych would refer to from then on.

“Stefan, if we sign, will you help us?” Yanukovych asked. Füle was speechless. “Sorry, we aren’t the IMF. Where do these numbers come from?” he finally demanded. “I am hearing them for the first time.” They are secret numbers, Yanukovych replied. “Can you imagine what would happen if our people were to learn of these numbers, were they to find out what convergence with the EU would cost our country?”

Obviously, those are two very different accounts of Yanukovych, in Economist and in Spiegel — not the same person. However, both of them agree that his reason for rejecting the EU’s offer is that it amounted to a $160 billion loss to Ukraine, which was money that Ukraine didn’t have. So, regardless of which of those two reports about Yanukovych was true, and which was false, they both reported that Ukraine could not afford the $160 billion price which joining the EU would entail. This fact, alone, means that joining the EU would be a disastrously losing proposition for Ukraine.

Did it turn out to be that — a disastrously losing proposition for Ukraine? It wrecked Ukraine’s economy and destroyed that country, as will now be shown in, first, the subsequent figures on the Ukrainian economy: Ukraine’s GDP, which had risen steadily each and every year throughout Yanukovych’s four years in office, from 136.01 in 2010 up to 183.31 in 2013, plunged 27% in 2014 down to 133.5, and then plunged yet another 32% down to 91.03 in 2015. Then in 2016, it crept up 2.6% to 93.36 in 2017. From there, it rose steadily up to 156.78 in 2019, and then it is currently estimated to be around 132 this year, 2020, which is a 14% decline down from that post-coup peak of 156.78. In other words, even now (nearly 7 years after the coup), Ukraine’s economy hasn’t yet recovered from what U.S. President Barack Obama did to Ukraine by his conquest of (coup to grab) Ukraine. Instead of having been rising every year as it had done under Yanukovych — rising a total of 35% during his Presidency — it has declined 41% from then till now, and has averaged, for every year since 2013, 121, which is 34% (one third) lower GDP than it had been in Yanukovych’s last year (183.31), and 11% lower than it had been even in Yanukovych’s first year as President (136.01).

Regarding the second question (“destroyed the country”), this is what Obama’s Ukrainian coup did to Ukraine’s people: On 23 March 2017, Gallup headlined “South Sudan, Haiti and Ukraine Lead World in Suffering”. What more needs to be said about that?

Whether or not the economic losses did amount to $160 billion (as Ukraine’s own experts had estimated) — or more, or less, than that — those losses did turn out to be enormous; and, Obama, clearly, raped Ukrainians. He destroyed Ukraine (and Trump did nothing to reverse that). Here is how this happened:

On 23 June 2011, two emissaries of the Obama Administration — the head of Google, Eric Schmidt, and his aide, and former subordinate to Hillary Clinton in the U.S. State Department, Jared Cohen — visited Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, pretending to be on his side, while deceiving him to reveal to them ways to reach out online to members of Ukraine’s pro-nazi organizations in order to generate mobs for the demonstrations which were to be organized on Kiev’s Maidan Square to overthrow Ukraine’s President.

On 1 March 2013, the U.S. Embassy in Kiev held its first “Tech Camp” to teach Ukraine’s leading pro-nazis how to reach out to their followers so as to get as many people as possible trained and prepared to follow their instructions on what to do when those demonstrations would be held.

In June 2013, the Obama Administration quietly put out for bid to American contractors their planned project to renovate a school in Sevastopol, in Crimea, in Ukraine, in the location where Russia since 1783 had (and still has) its largest naval base:

Federal Contract Opportunity for Renovation of Sevastopol School #5, Ukraine N33191-13-R-1240. The NAICS Category is 236220 – Commercial and Institutional Building Construction. Posted Aug 20, 2013. Posted by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (DOD – Navy). The work will be performed at Sevastopol 99000.

This was before the coup, and there were 28 years still remaining on Russia’s lease there. That part of their plan — to terminate that contract and replace Russia’s largest naval base, by yet another U.S. naval base — got foiled by Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin, protecting Crimeans when they (as soon as the coup occurred) demanded to have a referendum on becoming restored again to being a part of Russia, as they had been between 1783 and 1954 (when the Soviet dictator arbitrarily transferred Crimea, from the Russian part, to the Ukrainian part, of the Soviet Government).

During the coup, eight busloads of Crimeans, who had come to Kiev to demonstrate against the oust-Yanukovych Maidan demonstrations, hurriedly reboarded their buses in order to flee from nazis who were attacking them, and they finally got cornered en-route home, by those pursuing attackers, in the town of Korsun, and some of their buses were burnt, and many of these Crimeans got clubbed to death by the nazis.

Then, during the interim between the Korsun massacre and the 16 March 2014 Crimean referendum on rejoining the Russian Federation, a Ukrainian federal prosecutor from Crimea, who opposed the coup and managed safely to flee back home by her own private means, became interviewed on local Crimean television and recounted how terrified she had been by the nazis. She was asked whether Crimeans had the right to vote in a referendum to return to being Russians, and she said, “Citizens of Crimea, you have every right in the world” to do that.

The Obama regime (including the International Republican Institute, since foreign conquests are a bipartisan obsession of both Democratic and Republican Party billionaires) had, as part of its planning to take control over Ukraine, hired the Gallup polling firm to survey throughout Ukraine, and especially within Crimea (because of their intention to grab Russia’s naval base), regarding favorability-unfavorability toward NATO, EU, and Russia, both during 16-30 May 2013, prior to the coup (which polling was done ONLY in Crimea, since seizure of Russia’s naval base was the coup’s main goal) and during April 2014 shortly after Crimea broke away from Ukraine in March of 2014. Here are some of the pre-coup findings:

——

Public Opinion Survey Residents of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea May 16 – 30, 2013

International Republican Institute Baltic Surveys Ltd./The Gallup Organization … with funding from the United States Agency for International Development

p.8: “Regardless of your passport, what do you consider yourself?”

24% “Crimean,” 15% “Ukrainian,” 40% “Russian,” 15% “Tatar” (an anti-Russian group)

p.14: “If Ukraine was able to enter only one international economic union, which entity should it be with?”

53% “Customs Union with Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan”

17% “The European Union”

p.15: “How would you evaluate your attitude to the following entities?”

Russia: 68% “Warm,” 5% “Cold”

USA 6% “Warm,” 24% “Cold”

p.17: “In your opinion, what should the status of Crimea be?”

“Autonomy in Ukraine (as today [under Crimea’s 1992 Constitution and as subsequently celebrated by rfe/rl on 20 January 2011]) 53%.

“Common oblast of Ukraine [ruled under Ukraine’s 1991 Constitution]” 2%

“Crimea should be separated and given to Russia” 23%.

——

Regarding the second poll, which was taken throughout Ukraine plus Crimea and only a month after the Crimeans had voted to be Russians again, I headlined on 2 July 2014 “Gallup Poll Finds Ukraine Cannot Be One Country” and reported that, “Views of Foreign Parties’ Role in the Crisis – Ukrainian Residents Exclusive of Crimea” were mostly anti-Russia, whereas “Views of Foreign Parties’ Role in the Crisis – Crimea” were overwhelmingly pro-Russia, by 71.3% to 8.8%, which is 89% pro-Russia. Only 2.8% were pro-America, while 76.2% were anti-America, which is 96.5% anti-America.

As I reported, at that time:

An April poll of Ukrainians, published in June by Gallup’s Broadcasting Board of Governors [CORRECTION HERE: That was actually by Gallup, for the U.S. Broadcasting Board of Governors, which group Wikipedia describes as “an independent agency of the United States government which operates various state-run media outlets,” and, so, that propaganda-agency had sponsored this poll, perhaps hoping to find that the Crimean referendum’s reported 96.77% favoring to rejoin Russia would be inconsistent with this Gallup poll — which didn’t turn out to have been the case], found two shockingly opposite countries: one, in the northwest, where the view of the U.S. is favorable among more than 50% of the population; and the other, in the southeast, where the view of the U.S. is unfavorable among more than 70% of the population. Additionally, in the Crimean region — Ukraine’s farthest southeast area, which our President, Barack Obama, says that Russia forcibly seized when the people there voted overwhelmingly on 16 March 2014 to become part of Russia again (as they had been until 1954) — only 2.8% of the public there view the U.S. favorably; more than 97% of Crimeans do not.

And the situation is even more extreme when the issue is the public’s views of Russia — which, overall, are far less favorable than the U.S. is viewed in Ukraine. Less than 2% of residents in Ukraine’s northwest have a favorable view of Russia, but 71.3% of Crimeans do. In Ukraine’s far east, 35.7% do. In Ukraine’s far south except for Crimea, 28.4% do.

Support for joining the European Union is 59.8% in the far north, and 84.2% in the far west. It is 19% in the far east, and 26.8% in the far south. Crimeans were not asked this question, because they had already voted overwhelmingly to rejoin Russia.

Support for joining NATO is 37.7% in the North, 53.2% in the west, 13.1% in the east, and 10.3% in the south. (Again, Crimea wasn’t polled on this.)

The 500 people that were sampled in Crimea were asked “Please tell me if you agree or disagree: The results of the referendum on Crimea’s status [whether to rejoin Russia] reflect the views of most people here.” 82.8% said “Agree.” 6.7% said “Disagree.”

That 82.8% who said “Agree” constituted 92.5% of the Crimeans who expressed an opinion on this.

On 10 October 2014, I headlined “What Obama’s Ukrainian Stooges Did” and reported on the effort by his stooges there to ethnically cleanse or eliminate the residents in the portion of Ukraine’s far eastern Donbass region so as to eliminate enough of the voters in that area, which had voted 90%+ for Yanukovych, so as to then enable Ukraine to reabsorb that region without thereby causing another President such as Yanukovych to become elected in Ukraine. His effort failed, largely because Russia has assisted the people there to defeat even such attacks as these by Ukraine.

Then, on 15 February 2015, I headlined “Brookings Wants More Villages Firebombed in Ukraine’s ‘Anti Terrorist Operation’”, but Obama’s people finally gave up their ambitious objective. So, it’s a stalemate there, somewhat like the stalemate in Israel’s ambitious objective to ethically cleanse away most of the Palestinians. But, of course, that is a different situation, with a different history, though with a not too different ethnically eliminative intent.

اغتيال «إسرائيل» للعلماء النوويّين الإيرانيّين ليس مفاجأة… فأين الحماية!

د. عدنان منصور

منذ أن بدأ البرنامج النووي الإيراني يتطوّر بسرعة مع إعادة انتخاب أحمدي نجاد لولاية ثانية عام 2010، وارتفاع عدد أجهزة الطرد المركزي الى آلاف عدة، بعد أن كان العدد يقتصر على أجهزة قليلة، وبعد أن امتلكت إيران المعرفة العلمية لدورة الوقود النووي بالكامل، رفعت نسبة تخصيب اليورانيوم في أجهزة الطرد المركزي من 3,5 بالمئة إلى 20 في المئة. هذه النسبة أثارت حفيظة واشنطن وتل أبيب والاتحاد الأوروبي، متهمين إيران بسعيها لامتلاك سلاح نووي.

أمام هذا الواقع، بات العلماء الإيرانيون العاملون في البرنامج النووي، هدفاً لعمليات اغتيالات واسعة النطاق، مدروسة ومركزة، قامت بها الأجهزة «الإسرائيلية»، بالتنسيق مع أجهزة مخابرات أجنبية وعملاء محليين، طالت المؤسسة الأمنية الإيرانية بالصميم، ووضعت على لائحة الاغتيالات، حياة عشرات العلماء الإيرانيين العاملين في البرنامج النووي الإيراني.

في 12 كانون الثاني 2010 اغتيل أستاذ الفيزياء النووية في جامعة طهران مسعود محمدي، بانفجار دراجة نارية مفخخة في شمال طهران، حيث وُضعت الدراجة بالقرب من سيارته، وتمّ تفجيرها عن بُعد أثناء وجود محمدي داخلها. ألقي القبض على الفاعل وهو ماجد جمالي فاشي، الذي اعترف بعد التحقيق معه بأنّ العملية تمّت بموجب أوامر صدرت من «الموساد» وتحت إشرافه، وبعد أن كانت «إسرائيل» تقوم بحملة شرسة لعرقلة برنامج إيران النووي، من خلال هجمات إلكترونية على منشأة نطنز وبو شهر وغيرها من المواقع النووية الإيرانية.

فاشي الذي اعترف بتلقيه مبلغاً كبيراً من المال لتنفيذ سلسلة عمليات هجومية، مستعيناً بعملاء الموساد في الداخل الإيراني، جرى تدريبه في أذربيجان، وتزويده بالتعليمات اللازمة حول عمليات الاستطلاع وكيفية تنفيذ عمليات الاغتيالات وهو على متن دراجة نارية.

كانت العمليات الإرهابية التي استهدفت علماء وشخصيات مرتبطة بالبرنامج النووي الإيراني، ترمي الى إحباط العلماء الإيرانيين، وزرع الخوف في نفوسهم، وحملهم على عدم الانخراط في البرنامج النووي الإيراني. أما ماجد جمالي فاشي فقد نفذ به حكم الإعدام في شهر آذار 2010.

تواصلت في ما بعد عمليات الاغتيال للعلماء الإيرانيين الذين عملوا لصالح مركز بحوث الفيرياء، حيث كان «الموساد» يريد الوصول الى المسؤول الأول في المركز، وهو العالم محسن فخري زاده الذي اغتيل أمس.

في20 تشرين الثاني 2010، وبينما كان العالمان النوويان فريدون عباسي دافاني ومجيد شهرياري يتوجهان الى عملهما، قام إرهابيون مقنّعون على دراجات نارية بالانطلاق بعمليتين منفصلتين نحو سيارة كلّ من العالمين، بإلصاق قنبلة في أسفل كلّ سيارة. أحسّ عباسي بخبطة سمعها في أسفل السيارة، فغادرها على الفور مع زوجته، وما هي إلا لحظات لتنفجر السيارة، ويُصاب عباسي وزوجته بجراح، أما مجيد شهرياري فقد لقي حتفه في الانفجار. فريدون عباسي أصبح في ما بعد نائباً لرئيس الجمهورية، ورئيساً لهيئة الطاقة الذرية، وأشرف على توسيع البرنامج النووي في إنتاج الوقود في المواقع الذرية الإيرانية.

في 23 تموز 2011، نفذ مسلحون يستقلون دراجة نارية، عملية اغتيال العالم النووي داريوش رضائي نجاد، بإطلاق خمس رصاصات عليه أمام منزله في طهران أصابت منه مقتلاً.

في 11 كانون الثاني 2012، ألصق عملاء قنبلة مغناطيسية في سيارة العالم النووي مصطفى أحمدي روشن، وفي 3 كانون الثاني 2015، أعلنت السلطات الإيرانية عن إحباطها لعملية اغتيال كانت تستهدف عالماً نووياً آخر.

آخر سلسلة عمليات الاغتيالات، جاءت أمس لتطال العالم محسن فخري زاده، وهو الذي كان هدف «إسرائيل» الأول منذ عشر سنوات. لكن السؤال الذي يُطرح: ما هي الإجراءات التي تتخذ في حماية علماء، هم النخبة في البرنامج النووي الإيراني؟! هؤلاء العلماء ليسوا كغيرهم من الأفراد، إذ يجب أن تتوفر الحماية الأمنية لهم على مدار الساعة. فحمايتهم هي حماية للأمن القومي الإيراني، ولا يمكن بأيّ حال من الأحوال تبرير ما حصل. فالعدو الإسرائيلي ومعه عملاؤه في الداخل والخارج يرصدون العلماء النوويين الإيرانيين للاقتصاص منهم في ايّ وقت، حيث يعرف المسؤولون الإيرانيون جيداً هذا الأمر. لكن المسؤولية في نهاية الأمر على مَن تقع؟! المسؤولية تقع على مَن يجب أن يوفر الحماية الكاملة لهم، من دون التفريط لحظة بحياتهم، وجعلهم هدفاً سهلاً للوصول إليهم وتصفيتهم.

مستقبل إيران ومنعتها وقوّتها وصمودها بعلمائها. لذلك على القيادة الأمنية الإيرانية ان تضع حداً لموجة الاغتيالات، واتخاذ الإجراءات الصارمة الكفيلة في الحفاظ على حياة أفراد هذه النخبة من العلماء، أسوة بما تفعله الدول التي تحمي سلامة علمائها وأدمغة نخبها.

هؤلاء العلماء هم أساس نهضة إيران وتطوّرها العلمي، والعسكري، والاقتصادي، والمعرفي، والتكنولوجي، لذلك لا يمكن التفريط بهم أو التهاون مع ما تقترفه دولة العدوان «الإسرائيلية»، مع عملائها في منظمة «مجاهدي خلق» الإرهابية ضدّ أمن إيران وعلمائها.

انّ اغتيال محسن زاده يزيد من حدة المواجهة مع «إسرائيل» وحلفائها، ويشرع الأبواب على رياح ساخنة يريدها العدو، عله يستدرج طهران الى مواقع خطرة تصبّ في صالحه.

صحيح أنّ الضربة مؤلمة لإيران وأمنها القومي، وللعلماء النوويين الإيرانيين، من تلامذة وزملاء الشهيد محسن زاده، إلا أنّ ذلك لن يحبط عزيمة إيران للاستمرار في رسالتها ونهجها وبرنامجها، بل سيدفعها لتكون أكثر عزماً وصلابة للتصدي للعدو والاقتصاص منه العدو في الوقت المناسب.

*وزير الخارجية الأسبق.

COMBING OPERATION AND STREET SHOOTING: ISRAEL DOES NOT SLEEP WELL AMID IRANIAN THREAT TO REVENGE

South Front

Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) are allegedly providing a combing operation  in the northern part of Israel. An infiltration attempt was likely made on the Lebanese border.

Dozens of 155 mm flares were fired in the area of Margaliot – Manara, located in the Upper Galilee adjacent to the Lebanese border.

Intense Air Forces activity was reported over the area. Videos from the area proved that IDF helicopters were deployed in the operation. IDF drones were used over the area.

Read More

Two persons were arrested.

Explosions and gunfire were reportedly heard in the Kafr Akab area, which is located North of Jerusalem. People armed with machine guns were seen going down  the streets of the town.

Amid the Iranian threat, Israel also increased security at its embassies across the globe, claiming that Israeli diplomats has already been targeted by Iran in the past. Tel Aviv also called on Jewish communities all over the world to be more vigilant.

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

• Israeli Targets Unveiled: Recent Airstrikes Knocked Advanced Syrian Air-Defense System Out Of Service
• Iran Promised Revenge For Assassination Of Top Nuclear Scientist, US On the Alert

Assassination of top Iranian nuclear scientist sparks a blame game in Tehran

Killing of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh prompts accusations of lax security and incompetence

Iranian scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh (right) during a meeting with the Iranian supreme leader in Tehran (AFP)

By Rohollah Faghihi in Tehran

Published date: 28 November 2020 15:54 UTC

It was around 4:30pm in Tehran that reports emerged about the assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, a top nuclear scientist, by an armed group suspected of links to Israel.

Fakhrizadeh, who wasn’t a publicly well-known figure, was a physics professor at University of Imam Hussein, the defence minister’s deputy and the head of the Research and Innovation Organisation for the ministry.

His death has been seen in some quarters as linked to the victory of Joe Biden in the US presidential elections. Biden has promised to return America to the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, which has alarmed Israel and pro-Israel politicians in the US.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, a former Iranian official told MEE: “It is obvious that [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu is striving to kill two birds with one stone. On one hand, he wants to create an excuse for a US-led attack on Iran’s nuclear sites, and on the other hand he wants to put an unremovable obstacle in the way of Iran-US de-escalation and Biden’s rejoining the [nuclear deal].

“The obstacle will be at least raising pressures on [Iranian President Hassan] Rouhani’s administration by the emboldened hardliners and the establishment to decrease the level of cooperation with the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] and not to adopt a new posture towards the future administration of the US for detente.”

How was he assassinated?

According to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps-affiliated Tasnim news agency, the attack occurred at 2:30pm, while Fakhrizadeh was in Aabsard county, close to Tehran. As his car was passing a pick-up truck, the truck exploded and a group of armed men opened fire on him, leading to his bodyguard being shot four times.

However, Fars, another IRGC-affiliated news agency, published a slightly different and likely more accurate account of the incident. At first, Fakhrizadeh’s car and two cars of his bodyguards were stopped as a group of men started constant shooting, and then a pick-up truck full of timber exploded in front of the car.

“After the explosion, the terrorists who had ambushed [them] began shooting at the car of the nuclear scientist from an unclear point,” reported Fars, adding that one of the bodyguards put his car in front of the gunmen to protect Fakhrizadeh, leading to his “martyrdom”.

Fakhrizadeh was soon taken to hospital, but his wounds proved fatal.

Iran’s state TV said that “based on unconfirmed reports,” one of the gunmen had been captured.

‘Remember that name’

According to General Amir Hatami, Iran’s defence minister, Fakhrizadeh was “in charge in the field of nuclear defence in the Ministry of Defence, and the issue of nuclear defence and his [ties] with nuclear scientists had made him famous as a [nuclear scientist]”.

He added that the use of “lasers in air defence or the detection of intruding aircraft by means other than radar” was also among his work. Fakhrizadeh, who was called “Mr Mohseni,” was also active in missile programmes too.

Hatami said a rapid Covid-19 test kit was produced under the supervision of Fakhrizadeh and claimed he was also successful in developing a coronavirus vaccine, which is in the first phase of human trials.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivers a presentation about Mohsen Fakhrizadeh (AFP)

While relatively little known within Iran, Fakhrizadeh had gained a reputation in foreign intelligence circles.

In 2018, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed that Iran has designed a nuclear payload on Shahab 3 missiles and was expanding its range for nuclear-capable missiles that could reach Riyadh, Tel Aviv and Moscow but were planning for a much further reach. He identified Fakhrizadeh as the head of the project and told his audience to “remember that name”.

In an interview with Kan TV in 2018, former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert also warned that Fakhrizadeh would “have no immunity”.

Prior to this, in 2017, Saudi Arabia’s Al-Arabiya covered a summit of the exiled Mojehedin e-Khalq (MEK), a controversial opposition group once on the US terrorism list, at which the organisation claimed Fakhrizadeh was behind Iran’s project for producing a nuclear weapon.

Fereidoun Abbasi, an Iranian MP, said that Fakhrizadeh had survived a similar attack 12 years ago.

In recent years, five other top nuclear scientists have been assassinated in Iran. The latest assassination happened only a few days ahead of the anniversary of the killing of nuclear scientist Majid Shahriari in 2010.

Criticisms of Iran’s security apparatus reaches its peak

While many in Iran believe that Israel was behind the assassination of Fakhrizadeh, on social media many Iranians slammed the security apparatus for its failure to protect their country’s nuclear scientists.

Some complained that the intelligence forces were wasting their time arresting innocent journalists and researchers while the real spies are wandering freely in Tehran.

“I’m more angry with the security apparatus, which is arresting university professors, lawyers and journalists while the wolves are committing assassination in broad daylight,” wrote Sharare Dehshiri, an Iranian user, on Twitter.

Another user under the name of “elsolito” tweeted: “The intelligence organisations must answer to the public about what are they doing exactly? What happened to all your claims of having intelligence monitoring?

“When you are searching for spies among environment activists, journalists and protesters, the result is today’s catastrophe, when the country’s [top people] get assassinated in the heart of the country in the broad daylight.”

Meanwhile, retired General Hossein Alai, a reform-minded figure and former commander of  the IRGC Naval force, called for a reassessment of the performance of the security apparatus.

“We should [study] what weakness there is in the structure of Iran’s security apparatus, which despite the possibility of assassinating people like Fakhrizadeh and providing bodyguards for them, the Israeli operation still succeeds,” argued Alai.

He emphasised that “the assassination of Dr Mohsen Fakhrizadeh by Israel indicates that the Israeli spy and operational circle is still active in Iran”.

Simultaneously, Hesam Ashena, a senior adviser to Iran’s president and a former top intelligence official, called for an “Integrated Intelligence and Security Command” and “synergy of abilities instead of low-yield competitions [between intelligence agencies of Iran]”.

Hardliners point at President Rouhani

Iran’s hardliners have accused President Hassan Rouhani of complicity in Fakhrizadeh’s death after his administration allowed Yukiya Amano, a former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, to meet the slain scientist.

Javad Karimi Ghoddousi, an Iranian MP, tweeted: “Mr Rouhani, during your presidency over the executive branch, and with the insistence of the enemy and the emphasis of you, Dr Mohsen Fakhrizadeh met with Amano.”

However, Raja News, close to hardliners, denied the allegation brought up by Karimi Ghoddousi. Hassan Shojaie, another MP, claimed that Fakhrizadeh was asked by “pro-western” officials in Iran to meet Amano but the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, did not allow it.

In a report published on the hardline Mashregh News site in 2014, the IAEA had urged Iran to provide them a meeting with Fakhrizadeh.

Impeding diplomacy

“The reason for assassinating Fakhrizadeh wasn’t to impede Iran’s war potential, it was to impede diplomacy,” tweeted Mark Fitzpatrick, a former senior US diplomat.

That seems to be working to some extent, as the hardliners have already raised pressure on the Iranian government. Hamid Rasai, a hardline activist and former MP, wrote that Rouhani’s administration was putting pressure on Iran’s state TV not to call Fakhrizadeh a nuclear scientist, as they see this assassination a “blow” to their “negotiation project” with US President-elect Joe Biden.

Moreover, Raja News argued that “it is not clear why the pro-West [administration of Rouhani] which is serving their last months, is still emphasising … the failed strategy of compromise”.

“What is clear is that the current strategy of the government has portrayed Iran as weak [in front of] enemies and have persuaded them to commit crimes against people of Iran.”

Iran is due to hold a presidential election next June. 

In the meantime, reformists and conservative newspapers have both called for retaliation.

Headlines used by Iran’s newspapers include: “Eye for an eye,” “If don’t hit them, we will get hit,” “Trap of tension,” and “The cowardly assassination of Fakhrizadeh”.

Prominent reformist and former political prisoner Mostafa Tajzade tweeted: “I unconditionally condemn the assassination of Dr Mohsen Fakhrizadeh. Netanyahu is the first person accused in this crime and seemingly he has no goal other than lighting the fire of war and conflict and preserving the sanctions. Iran can and must expose and isolate the Israeli regime by mobilising global public opinion against state terrorism.”

What will Iran do?

In reaction to Fakhrizadeh’s assassination, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a statement calling for investigation of “this crime” and firm prosecution of “its perpetrators and its commanders”.

The statement contained no vow of revenge, however, suggesting “strategic patience” was still the plan.

Hossein Kanaani-Moghaddam, a former IRGC commander who headed Iran’s forces in Lebanon for period in the 1980s, told MEE: “Iran’s reaction to this act of terrorism will be shown based on prudence and in the right time and place.”

He added: “Iran will not be influenced and affected by Zionists and will not fall in the trap of Zionists who want Iran to do something that would create a war.

Kanaani-Moghaddam emphasised: “Iran will take revenge from those who ordered this assassination in intelligence organizations of Israel and US.”

Meanwhile, Fereidoun Majlesi, a former Iranian diplomat in the US before the 1979 Islamic Revolution, believes that Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump’s joint efforts to prevent a de-escalation between Tehran and the incoming Biden administration will continue.

“It is crystal clear that Israel was behind this assassination as they seek to provoke Iran to give them an excuse for military attack or a full-scale war before the end of Trump’s presidency,” added Majlesi.

However, it seems Iran will continue its “restraint” policy, as Ali Rabie, the spokesperson for Iranian government, has stated that Iran will avenge the assassination, but “not in the game field the [enemy] has designated”.

Read more

• Iran NuclearIran vows response to Israel over nuclear scientist assassination
• Iran TensionsFive scientists in 10 years: Iran’s nuclear physicists are top targets for assassins
• Inside IranWho is Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, the Iranian scientist killed in Tehran?

Ayatollah Kaabi To Al-Ahed: We’ll Remain On Martyr Fakhrizadeh’s Path; Efforts To Identify The Criminals Underway

By Mokhtar Haddad – Tehran

The assassination of Iran’s chief nuclear scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, won’t hinder Tehran’s path to progress, scientific development, or retribution against the killers. Fakhrizadeh, who delievred an advanced scientific service to the Iranian people, was gunned down in a cowardly operation by agents of the Zionist entity and the tide of global arrogance.

To discuss the repercussions and dimensions of this crime, Al-Ahed News sat down with a member of the Assembly of Experts for Leadership, Ayatollah Sheikh Abbas al-Kaabi.

“The Zionist-American front suffered major strategic defeats in confronting the axis of Islamic resistance, and at the helm of this axis is the Islamic Republic. It’s clear that the Zionist-American front is heading towards its demise, while the Islamic Republic is growing in strength day after day,” Sheikh Kaabi noted. 

He went on to explain that the assasination is an act of weakness. 

“The enemy is living in a state of fear, panic, and abject failure in confronting the axis of Islamic resistance on all military, political, economic, and security fronts. The only way they could compensate for this excruciating failure is through assassinations, treachery, and international terrorism. The assassination of martyr Fakhrizadeh is a violation of all international and humanitarian laws, and this is not the first martyrdom nor the last – getting killed has become a habit for us and our honor is in martyrdom. Martyrdom is the reward for striving in the path of God.”

Ayatollah Sheikh Kaabi underscored that “martyr Mohsen Fakhrizadeh has achieved his goal, and his path in terms of progress and scientific development will continue. There is no doubt that there are hundreds like martyr Fakhrizadeh, including his colleagues and students who will continue in his path, God willing, and the terrorists will get their punishment.”

According to the Assembly member, Iran is “in a state of soft war and a war of wills with the Zionist entity – {And who is truer to his covenant than Allah? So rejoice in your transaction which you have contracted. And it is that which is the great attainment.} The nature of the war is according to the following verse: {If you should be suffering – so are they suffering as you are suffering.} While the fighting is according to the verse: {So they kill and are killed. [It is] a true promise [binding] upon Him in the Torah.}”

“Of course, America and ‘Israel’ are specialists in treachery. The Islamic Republic and the path of resistance are focused on battles of a humanitarian nature, taking into account conscience, honor, morals, and the law during fighting.”

Sheikh Kaabi said he believes that “by assassinating this great martyr, they assassinated science, knowledge, and development. They proved that they are, in fact, fighting the path of science, development, and progress and are against humanity. This martyr was about to produce a special vaccine for the coronavirus, as the Islamic Republic’s path is that of employing science and faith, rationality and revolutionary, resistance and development. This martyr, who is a symbol in the fields of science, defense, and nuclear energy, represents the mujahideen scholars and believers that are striving in the path of God and who are able to develop the country in terms of science and technology. We will remain on the path of scientific and technical development. I congratulate the martyr for this martyrdom and happiness.”

Ayatollah Kaabi concluded by stating that “America and ‘Israel’ have formed an assassination network. This network consists of a security, military, espionage, and infiltration arm, and it’s working with the support of the Mossad and the CIA, and the agent states in the region. Following up on security to find the criminals is in full swing, and the powerful and capable security services in the Islamic Republic will arrest the terrorists to face justice. They will receive their punishment – {And those who have wronged are going to know to what [kind of] return they will be returned.} and {Indeed, your Lord is in observation.}”

The AngloZionists are trying to provoke a war with Iran

November 28, 2020

Source

There is really nothing particularly complicated about what just happened: the AngloZionists have murdered a top Iranian scientist in the hope that this murder will trigger a war.  The Iranians have promised a retaliation, but have not taken any action, at least so far.

Since there are those who will inevitably conclude that “Iran cannot do anything“, or “Iran is afraid” or even “Iran should strike Israel“, all I want to do today is to mention a few basic things about deterrence and retaliation.  Let’s begin by the former: deterrence.

Deterrence: there are two fundamental ways to deter an enemy: denial and punishment.  The first case in infinitely more desirable than the second one.  Why?  Denial simply means that you can counter-act your enemy’s attack plans by preventing your enemy from achieving success.  This is what an air defense system does: it destroys the incoming missile before it reaches the target.

In our case, an effective denial strategy would have been executed by effectively protecting Mohsen Fakhrizadeh and his family from any attacks.  It is clear that the Iranians miserably failed at this task.  Frankly, I have to say that I find no possible excuse for this: everybody knew for years that Mohsen Fakhrizadeh was on the Israeli hit list thus the Iranian authorities had years to prepare to fully defend him.  In truth, that is not as hard as it seems.  Yet, all they apparently did, was to provide him with two body guards and what looks to me like a non-armored car.  It is also obvious that the attackers knew exactly where his car would drive by and when.  Again, this is simply inexcusable.  If the Iranian counter-terrorist and counter-intelligence services are so sloppy, then that means that there are many more key Iranian officials which could be killed next.  Bottom line: the Iranians have proven that they are not capable of denial.

Hopefully, they have now learned their lesson and that more competent and determined specialists will now be in charge of protecting key Iranian figures.

Even worse is the very strong possibility that some Iranian officials might have been recruited by the AngloZionsts to assist in the execution of the assassination plan.  Never say never, but I strongly believe that such assassinations are not possible without local accomplices.  Again, this is a question which Iranian security services will have to not only answer, but answer for!

If the Iranians are not capable of denial, then this means that their only option  to deter such attacks is punishment.

Can the Iranian punish the US and/or Israel?

Yes, of course they can, but only at the risk of doing exactly that which the AngloZionists want to achieve: give the Empire a pretext for war or, at the very least, a non-symbolic strike on key Iranian facilities (and, possibly, officials).

The key factor to consider here is that the aggregate power of Iran is still much weaker than the aggregate power of the AngloZionist Empire.  Like it or not, but this is a fact.  Even Russia and China are globally weaker than the Empire, so they all share the same problem: how to deter a stronger party?

In fact, there are options other than immediately responding to the attack.

One option is what the CIA calls “plausible deniability” (the Russian equivalent would be “make sure your ears don’t stick out“): you make sure that there is no way to prove that you took any action.  That can be done by using proxys and/or by covert operations.

[Sidebar: I read that the Iranians killed two of the attackers and captured one alive; if that is true, then I bet you that these terrorists were neither US nor Israels but locals, meaning terrorists hired either in Iran or elsewhere in the Middle-East.  This is how the CIA always operates, just remember how the CIA engaged in a campaign of car bombing in Lebanon in which local CIA assets were used to plant the bombs.  In a typical CIA fashion, these attacks resulted in 83 dead on hundreds of wounded, but missed the intended target: Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah].

Another option is what could be called “retaliation by a thousand cuts” – this is what the Iranians are doing to the USA in Iraq: pro-Iranian forces regularly attack US forces and positions, but always below the threshold at which the USA has to take major, public action.  This approach can be summed up like so: “surely you will not start a full scale war just over a relatively minor incident?“.  Keep the “incidents” “minor” enough and your enemy will be frustrated and unable to articulate an adequate response, especially over time.

Let’s discuss time now.  It is said that “revenge is a dish best served cold“.  This is true!  When the AngloZionists execute a high-risk covert operation they will typically try to get their forces in a higher state of readiness in case of a overt retaliatory strike.  But here is the problem: no force or facility can remain at maximum readiness forever.  It is too expensive, too complicated, too disruptive of normal operations and, finally, some form or other of boredom sets in.  Even better, the primitive attacker will sooner or later conclude that “we dodged that bullet” or “they did not dare attack us“, breathe a sigh of relief and resume normal activities.

Next, comes place/location: if you are the weaker party but you do want to retaliate, not only are you much better off doing that after enough time passes for your adversary to let down his guard, you also can chose to retaliate very far away from where you yourself were attacked.  In our case, that means that since the AngloZionist did commit their terrorist act in plain view of the world, you need not to the same thing.  Hit them somewhere as far away from their own national territory as possible.  The good news is that the AngloZionist Empire has a planet-wide footprint.  And, even better, the Empire is really already dead and unable to keep a high state of readiness worldwide.  Simply put, there are *a lot* of very easy targets out there, it is quite easy to pick one.

Keep in mind that you do not have to retaliate in kind.  If they murder one of your scientists this does not at all mean that you have to murder one of theirs: there are many venues open for retaliation which do not at all require killing anybody: you can retaliate economically, politically and you can also chose to retaliate against any US/Israeli colony out there (of which there are still plenty).  How?

For example, the Iranians could retaliate against any so-called any US or Israeli “ally” in the Middle-East and even elsewhere.  Remember, the huge footprint of the Empire makes it indefensible and the current political chaos in the USA might be exactly what some of these so-called “allies” need to try to slip from under the US/Israeli control.

In truth, Iran has an options galore!

Yes, Iran will probably not execute and immediate and public action of retaliation similar to what happened following the murder of General Soleimani.  Why?  Because they don’t have to!  The main point of the Iranian counter-strike was to show the world, and especially the US decision-makers, the the US posture in the Middle-East makes it extremely vulnerable to Iranian missile strikes.  They don’t need to do this again.  In fact, if the logic or the Iranian counter-strike was to show that there would be hell to pay for the US and Israel in case of full scale attack, it would be completely illogical and counter-productive to now do exactly that which could trigger such an attack.

I think that we can be absolutely sure that Iran will retaliate for the murders of Soleimani and Fakhrizadeh, but my guess is that this retaliation will be “served cold” and, probably, in an asymmetrical manner.  This has nothing to do with any Iranian “fears” or “weaknesses” and everything to do with the fact that Iranians are superb strategists.

The Saker

PS: those interested in Iranian covert operations could look into PanAm 103 and how the Iranians used Iraqi exiles to deflect the planned AngloZionist attack on Iran to their mortal enemy next door: Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.  I just don’t have the material time to write about these now, but follow the leads and you can find out for yourself what actually happened.

NATO – A Comatose Body Whose ‘Mission’ Seems To Be Little More Than To Preserve And Expand Itself.

November 28, 2020

By Francis Lee for the Saker Blog

PART 1.

In 1851, France had the misfortune to fall victim to a coup by the nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte, Charles-Louis Napoléon Bonaparte, who styled himself Napoleon III. Karl Marx had been an enthusiastic supporter of the French 1848 uprising – one among those which had taken place throughout Europe – and viewed the coup as the work of a buffoon who happened to put together an odd coalition of social classes– businesspeople, aristocratic landlords, and a rabble of barely employed street peddlers and other workers with no consciousness of their own class interests. With his wicked wit, Marx saw Napoleon III as a dramatic come-down for France from the European-wide empire of Napoleon I. Marx wrote the famous words:

“Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He (Hegel) forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.”

In addition to the self-perpetuating, bloated monstrosity of NATO there should be added the various spook agencies, CIA, MI5, MI6 MOSSAD, BND, 5-EYES, and the rest whose mission is generally unstated and, for many, clouded in secrecy but nonetheless visible enough to those with eyes to see. Their permanent existence as a state within a state and their purported goals concerning ‘national security’ are not necessarily made clear, and, in fact, they might often be the very opposite of what they claim. Also included in the list of non-state actors are the NGOs such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) which in fact is not an NGO since it receives funding from the US government which makes it a GO. Along with this is the Human Rights Watch (HRW) as well as Soros’s Open Society Foundation, and these are just some of the lavishly underwritten think tanks and secretly funded organizations which have proliferated into the rich soil that sustains them. (Please see Ray McGovern on MICCIMATT) – Military Industrial Congressional Intelligence Media Academic Think Tanks, in this respect. (1) Just how large these sprawling bureaucracies are and how far their influence reaches is almost impossible to ascertain. It could I suppose be compared to a late stage carcinoma on the body politic which is actually killing the host. Given the enormous dimensions of this geo-political super-blob I will restrict myself to a few but telling examples of its activities and their outcomes.

The Trial Run: NATO And The Destruction Of Yugoslavia

In the early 1990s NATO had been taking a particular interest in the events in the independent sovereign state of Yugoslavia. Between June 1991 and April 1992, four republics declared independence, and, egged on by Germany, the local NATO enforcer, Slovenia, and Croatia were the most important. Only Serbia and Montenegro remained federated but the status of ethnic Serbs outside Serbia and Montenegro, and that of ethnic Croats outside Croatia, remained unsolved. This was the beginning of the deconstruction of Yugoslavia – part of a longer-term dismantling which would ultimately also include reducing the USSR/Russia to vassal status or failing that, of outright occupation. This contrived disintegration of Yugoslavia ultimately laid the early basis for the complete fragmentation of the Yugoslav state. The secessionist crisis which had started in 1991 ultimately laid the basis for overt NATO intervention in the Kosovo war in 1999, all of which is well-documented.

In 1999 NATO openly entered the conflict and began a massive blitz against the rump state of Serbia, a country with no aerial defence capability, and which was subjected to a merciless bombardment of the country with thousands of cruise missiles and bombs in what would become the largest military assault in Europe since the Second World War. NATO’s campaign of air and missile strikes against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which consisted of Serbia and Montenegro, lasted 78 days, ending on June 10, 1999. During the campaign, dubbed ‘Operation Noble Anvil’ by NATO, alliance warplanes carried out some 2,300 sorties against 995 facilities, firing nearly 420,000 missiles, bombs and other projectiles with a total mass of about 22,000 metric tonnes. Belgrade was a chief target and the bombs also fell on especial targets such as the Chinese Embassy and the City’s important radio/tv station where a number of Serbian journalists were at work. An accident. Maybe. Apologies? Of course not, these were ‘good bombs’ after all.

This set down the marker for future NATO regime changes. Yugoslavia was followed by both the enlargement of NATO and the conduct of US-NATO wars and military interventions in the Middle East starting with Iraq, along with the fabled Weapons of Mass Destruction. The conduct of US-NATO wars and military interventions in the Middle East which had spread into Iraq, was also to spread to Libya, Syria, Yemen and Iran.

And all of these interventions followed a similar pattern.

The NATO war machine operated by lining up the above states for ‘regime change’. This represented something of a change from the usual pattern as NATO had always regarded itself as being a defensive barrier to Soviet/Russian ‘aggression’. But the Yugoslav operation signalled a 180-degree change of policy. This caused some misgivings within the alliance as the United States had pushed NATO to become an offensive rather than a purely defensive security organization.

‘’The alliance now also pursues military missions in the areas such as the Balkans, Afghanistan, the Middle-East, and North Africa. All of those theatres lie outside, – in some cases far outside – NATO’s original territorial concern. Such military missions are also vastly different from NATO’s original purpose: i.e., the defence of Western Europe from possible aggression by the (then) Soviet Union.’’ (2)

What was of crucial importance to these wars of choice, however, was the role played by the MSM. It was the demonization of Heads of State in the targeted countries – in turn Milosevic, Saddam and Gaddafi found themselves caste as pantomime villains in a rogues gallery of ne’er-do-wells who were subjected and groomed by the MSM for these roles. Granted Saddam and Gaddafi were not Martin Luther King or Gandhi, but they were however the legitimate Heads of State of their own nations. It could be argued that Obama, Cameron, and Sarkozy also had blood on their hands, but for some reason, best known to the western MSM and to the political class, this didn’t count.

But Milosevic was a more difficult nut to crack. Not that the NATO defamation brigade didn’t try. The anti-Milosevic crescendo was key element in the myth structure which held that Milosevic incited the Serbs to violence, setting loose the genie of Serb nationalism from the bottle that had contained it under Tito. But neither these remarks by Milosevic nor his June 28, 1989, speech on the six-hundredth anniversary of the Battle of Kosovo had anything like the characteristics imputed to them. Instead Milosevic used both speeches to appeal to multi-ethnic tolerance, accompanied by a warning against the threat posed to Yugoslavia by nationalism—“hanging like a sword over their heads all the time”

The MSM-concocted crescendo surrounding Milosevic was reaching hysterical heights. In a commentary in 2000, Tim Judah wrote that Milosevic was responsible for wars in “Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo (Wow! Not bad, that’s some going! – FL) four wars since 1991 and [that] the result of these terrible conflicts, which began with the slogan ‘All Serbs in One State,’ is the cruellest irony.” Sometime journalist, sometime spokesperson for the ICTY at The Hague, Florence Hartmann of Le Monde, and The New York Times’s Marlise Simons wrote about the “incendiary nationalism” of the man who “rose and then clung to power by resurrecting old nationalist grudges and inciting dreams of a Greater Serbia … the prime engineer of wars that pitted his fellow Serbs against the Slovenes, the Croats, the Bosnians, the Albanians of Kosovo and ultimately the combined forces of the entire NATO, wrote that “Long before the war began, Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia and, following his example, Franjo Tudjman in Croatia, had turned their backs on the Yugoslav ideal of an ethnically mixed federal State and set about carving out their own ethnically homogeneous States.’’ Such were the accusations. But then something strange happened:

It was reported on Wednesday 28 February 2007 00.08 GMT that Slobodan Milosevic, who it is alleged had died of a heart attack in 2006, was posthumously exonerated on Monday when the international court of justice ruled that Serbia was not responsible for the 1995 massacre at Srebrenica. The former president of Serbia had always argued that neither Yugoslavia nor Serbia had command of the Bosnian Serb army, and this has now been upheld by the world court in The Hague. By implication, Serbia cannot be held responsible for any other war crimes attributed to the Bosnian Serbs.

The allegations against Milosevic over Bosnia and Croatia were cooked up in 2001, two years after an earlier indictment had been issued against him by the separate International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) at the height of NATO’s attack on Yugoslavia in 1999. Notwithstanding the atrocities on all sides in Kosovo, NATO claims that Serbia was pursuing genocide turned out to be war propaganda, so the ICTY prosecutor decided to bolster a weak case by trying to “get” Milosevic for Bosnia as well. It took two years and 300 witnesses, but the prosecution never managed to produce conclusive evidence against its star defendant, and its central case was conclusively blown out of the water. (3)

All very convincing and indeed incontrovertible to most rational and neutral observers, but water off a duck’s back for the western MSM, who either simply ignored the findings or found new pastures to cultivate. After the Yugoslavian denouement, the western MSM found itself at a loose end. They had to find something negative to write about Russia, since this was their apparent raison d’etre. This consisted of an ongoing barrage of propaganda including 9/11, Iraq and the WMDs, the recruitment, training, and funding of a US foreign legion of Jihadists pursuing war against Syria, Yemen, Iran and Libya, some still live and ongoing (see below).

PART 2

Politics as Theatre – Graham Greene 1904-1991 Our Man In Havana And The Quiet American.

The above were fictional stories of a transparently bungled MI6 stunt in Cuba and similar CIA cack-handed intrigue in Indo-China. Both shed some light on these James Bond wannabees: what and who they are, how the operate, and just how successful their little plots turn out. Talking of MI6 for example the fact that a group of famous British writers, Graham Greene, Arthur Ransome, Somerset Maugham, Compton Mackenzie and Malcolm Muggeridge, and the philosopher A.J. “Freddie” Ayer, all worked for MI6, Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service. They are among the many exotic characters who agreed to spy for Britain, mainly during wartime, and who appear in a first authorised history of MI6. Generally these were spies during the war against Germany, so they could be forgiven for their adopting this ‘profession’ (sic). More to the point, however, was that the CIA/MI6 was staffed by complete fools, as is instanced in two of Greene’s novels, to wit: Our Man In Havana, which was frankly hilarious, compared to the more disturbing tale, The Quiet American.

Our Man in Havana is a black semi-comedy, set in Havana during the Fulgencio Batista regime. James Wormold, a British vacuum cleaner retailer, is approached by MI6 operative, Hawthorne, who tries to recruit him for the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6). Wormold’s wife had left him and now, he lives with his beautiful 16-year-old daughter, Milly, who is devoutly Catholic, but also materialistic and manipulative. Since Wormold does not make enough money to pay for Milly’s extravagances, he accepts the offer of a side job in espionage. Because he has no information to send to London, Wormold fabricates his reports using information found in newspapers and invents a fictitious network of agents. Some of the names in his network are those of real people (most of whom he has never met), but some are made up. Wormold tells only his friend and World War I veteran, Doctor Hasselbacher, about his spy work, hiding the truth from Milly.

At one point, he decides to make his reports “exciting” by sending to London sketches of what he describes as a ‘secret military installation’ in the mountains, actually vacuum cleaner parts scaled to a large size. In London, nobody except Hawthorne, the only one to know that Wormold sells vacuum cleaners, doubts this report. However, Hawthorne keeps quiet for fear of losing his job. In the light of the new developments, London sends Wormold a secretary, Beatrice Severn, and a radio assistant codenamed “C” with much spy paraphernalia. Wormwold is eventually uncovered as being a complete imposter. To avoid embarrassment and silence him from speaking to the press, MI6 offers Wormold a teaching post at headquarters and recommends him for the Order of the British Empire. (Episode closed. Not quite. Of course it was fiction, but does the Steele Dossier or, Russiagate ring a bell?)

Similarly, in another of Greene’s novels set in the first US involvement in the Indo-China War, The Quiet American, the British journalist Thomas Fowler is befriended by an American Aid worker, Alden Pyle, who it is understood works for a US aid agency. Actually he is not what he seems and was working for the CIA all along, this was eventually teased out by Fowler, with a romantic background which also involved a triangular relationship between Fowler-Pyle and Fowler’s Vietnamese mistress. Pyle was ultimately uncovered and assassinated by a Vietcong agent.

So much for the fiction.

MI6 – Libya – A Fools’ Playground For Wannabee James Bond Devotees.

In a more serious vein, however, where an actual example of MI6 buffoonery came to light occurred with the Jihadist bomb outrage, carried out by the Jihadist Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG – see below) in Manchester UK in 2017. Most detail was not published in the MSM except by the superb investigative journalism of Patrick Cockburn writing in The Independent. Cockburn’s report is worth quoting here in full.

‘’The culpability of the British government and its intelligence agencies which enabled suicide bomber LIFG Salman Abedi to blow himself up at a pop concert in Manchester is being masked one year later by the mood of grief and mourning over the death and injury of so many people.

It is heartrending to hear injured children and the relatives of the dead say they do not hate anybody as a result of their terrible experiences and, if they feel anger at all, it is only directed towards the bomber himself. Victims repeatedly say that they did not want the slaughter at the Manchester Arena to be used to create divisions in their city.

The downside of this praiseworthy attitude is that it unintentionally lets off the hook those British authorities whose flawed policies and mistaken actions really did pave the way towards this atrocity. Appeals against divisiveness and emphasis on the courage of survivors have muted attacks on the government, enabling it to accuse those who criticise it of mitigating the sole guilt of Abedi.

This attitude is highly convenient for former Prime Minister David Cameron who decided in 2011 on military intervention against Muammar Gaddafi. His purported aim was humanitarian concern for the people of Benghazi, but – as a devastatingly critical report by the House of Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs said last year – this swiftly turned into “an opportunistic policy of regime change”.

This NATO intervention succeeded and by the end of the year Gaddafi was dead. Real power in Libya passed to Islamist militias, including those with which the Abedi family were already associated. Pictures show Salman’s brothers posing with guns in their hands. Libya was plunged into an endless civil war and Benghazi, whose people including British Prime Minister, David Cameron, and French president Nicolas Sarkozy were so keen to save, is today a sea of ruins. Inevitably, ISIS took advantage of the anarchy in Libya to spread its murderous influence.

This is the Libyan reality, which was created by Cameron and Sarkozy, with sceptical support from Barack Obama, the then US president, who famously referred to the Libyan debacle as a “shit show”.

Libya became a place where the Abedi family, returning from their long exile in Manchester, were able to put their militant Islamist beliefs into practice. They absorbed the toxic variant of Islam espoused by the Al-Qaeda clones, taking advantage of their military experience honed in the Iraq war, such as how to construct a bomb studded with pieces of metal designed to tear holes in human flesh. The bomb materials were easily available in countries like Britain.

Salman Abedi was responsible for what he did, but he could not have killed 22 people and maimed another 139 others, half of them children, if the British government had not acted as it did in Libya in 2011. And its responsibility goes well beyond its disastrous policy of joining the Libyan civil war, overthrowing Gaddafi, and replacing him with warring tribes and militias.

Manchester had since the 1990s become a centre for a small but dangerous group of exiled Libyans belonging to anti-Gaddafi groups, such as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, originally formed by Libyans fighting the communists in Afghanistan. After the invasion of Iraq in 2003, strict measures were taken by MI5 and the police against Libyans thought likely to sympathise with al-Qaeda in Iraq and, later, ISIS. They were subject to counter-terrorism control orders monitoring and restricting their movements and often had their passports confiscated.

But no sooner had Britain joined the war against Gaddafi than these suspected terrorists became useful allies. Their control-orders were lifted, their passports returned, and they were told that the British government had no problem with them going to Libya to fight against Gaddafi. In place of past restrictions, they were allowed to pass to and fro at British airports. Some militants are reported as saying that when they had problems with counter-terrorism police when flying to Libya, the MI5 officers with whom they were in touch were willing to vouch for them and ease their way to the battlefront in Libya, where MI6 was cooperating with Qatar and UAE as financiers of the armed opposition.

This opportunistic alliance between the British security services and Libyan Salafi-jihadis may explain why Salman Abedi, though by now high up on the list of potential terrorists, was able to fly back to Manchester from Libya unimpeded a few days before he blew himself up

There should be far more public and media outrage about the British government’s role in the destruction of Libya, especially its tolerance of dangerous Islamists living in Britain to pursue its foreign policy ends. The damaging facts about what happened are now well established thanks to parliamentary scrutiny and journalistic investigation.

The official justification for British military intervention in Libya is that it was to prevent the massacre of civilians in Benghazi by Gaddafi’s advancing forces. The reason for expecting this would happen was a sanguinary speech by Gaddafi which might mean that he intended to kill them all. David Cameron, along with Liam Fox as defence minister at the time and William Hague as foreign secretary, have wisely stuck with this explanation and, as a defence of their actions, they are probably right to do so. But a report by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee says that the belief that Gaddafi would “massacre the civilians in Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence”. It points out that he had retaken other towns from the rebels and not attacked the civilian population.

These facts notwithstanding the British still followed the French lead in military intervention and Sarkozy similarly justified his policy as being in defence of the people of Benghazi. We are a little better informed about the real French motives thanks to a report, revealed through the Freedom of Information Act, made in early 2011 by Sidney Blumenthal, an unofficial advisor to Hillary Clinton, the then US secretary of state, after a meeting he had had with French intelligence officials about Sarkozy’s motives for intervention.

The officials told Blumenthal that Sarkozy’s plans were driven by five main causes, the first being “a desire to gain a greater share of Libyan oil production” and the next being to increase French influence in North Africa. His other aims were to improve his own political standing in France, enable the French military to reassert their position in the world, and prevent Gaddafi supplanting France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa.

The intelligence officials make no mention of any concern on the part of Sarkozy for the safety of the Libyan people. Conceivably the British Foreign Policy Team of David Cameron, William Hague, and Liam Fox, had much purer and more altruistic motives than their French counterparts. But it is more likely that the aim was always regime change in the national interest of those foreign powers who brought it about.

It is easy enough to convict Cameron and Sarkozy of hypocrisy, but a more telling accusation is that they betrayed the very national interests that they were seeking to advance. They destroyed Libya as a country, reduced its six million people to misery and played into the hands of men like Salman Abedi.’’ (4)

The whole squalid episode qualified as another MI5/6, CIA, and the French DGSE, operation carried out under the NATO umbrella and gave us the ‘shit show’ as enunciated by Obama. Of course the whole tawdry affair bore the customary NATO imprimatur: An EU-US-NATO led operation. Hardly an R2P operation, more like an R2B (Responsibility to Bomb). Its sticky fingers were as usual all over the joint campaign. It should be understood that NATO is an organization which exists to solve the problems it first created.

NATO – Who’s Next For Membership And/or Regime Change?

In any sane world the above would read as being a purely rhetorical question. Unfortunately, however, we do not live in a sane world. We live in Washington’s post-Westphalian world of an out-of-control Leviathan that has remained seemingly indifferent with Turkey’s seizure of Northern Cyprus, Israel’s acquisition of the West Bank and the Golan Heights. Worst of all has been Saudi Arabia’s atrocity-ridden war of aggression and extermination against Yemen – a policy in which the latter Obama and Trump administrations actively assisted and was carried out with NATO weapons, trainers, and the sustained bombing of civilian targets. (Guernica anyone!?) ‘’In this post-Westphalian world the United States and its allies have violated all those principles contained in the UN prescriptions whenever it seemed expedient to do so. It seems exceedingly difficult to square a rules-based international system with ongoing violations which have taken place in Indo-China and Yugoslavia and Iraq, even if this is carried out under a flag of convenience.’’ (5)

Respecting the Westphalian premise of spheres of influence would require a necessarily reduced application of the US’s military prerogatives; prerogatives which it has continued to exercise since 1945 in order to achieve its foreign policy objectives. It is taken as normal that the US may intervene at any time and place on the planet as it suits. The Monroe Doctrine has apparently become globalized.

But the emerging Eurasian bloc have a rather different perspective on affairs. They maintain an (irritating to western eyes) adherence to the Westphalian principles (1648). From their standpoint this should form a universal basis for peaceful coexistence. The Westphalian principles can be briefly delineated as follows:

• States existed within their own recognised borders.
• Each States sovereignty was recognised by the others.
• Principles of non-interference were agreed.
• Religious differences between states were tolerated.
• States might be monarchies or republics.
• Permanent State interests or raison d’etat was the organizing principle of international relations.
• War was not eliminated, yet it was mitigated by diplomacy and balance-of-power politics
• The object of a balance-of-power was to prevent one state from becoming so powerful that it could conquer others and destroy world order.

This was a very different philosophy and global project from the one that NATO, the US neo-cons, MSM, deep-state and spook bureaucracies have in mind. But how to reconcile the irreconcilable? There must be a meeting of minds for diplomacy to set out such matters and set workable limits on the goals of contending parties. But, in Hamlet’s words, ‘Ay, there’s the rub’. At the present time there are no signals from the US war party who are attempting to delegitimize the entire concept of spheres of influence, and, as such, is a non-starter for even reasonably cordial relationships between East and West. However,

‘’What is worse is the apparent US attitude that Russia is not entitled to even a minimum-security zone adjacent to its homeland. Pushing Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, after already admitting the Baltic republics, reduces any Russian security buffer to a nullity. Conducting NATO military exercises within mere miles (and at least in one case barely hundreds of yards) of the Russian border highlights such menacing arrogance. A fundamental change in Washington’s approach is essential.’’(6)

Agreed, but it takes two to tango. And it would appear that the US is not going to take to the dance floor any time soon. Instead, for example, the following brainless responses to any minimal peace proposals emanating from the Eurasian bloc are revealing. After the Yugoslavian denouement, the western MSM found itself at a loose end. They had to find something negative to write about Russia. However, instead of reciprocated and reasoned diplomacy on the part of the West and its various agencies we got the following. A piece of journalistic fluff.

The Navalny Episode.

The whole farcical Navalny episode should be an object lesson in just how totally incompetent and amateurish whole western security agencies appear to be. The CIA-MI6-BND mob seems to be on the loose! In a ridiculously burlesque performance the whole fabric of western society was supposed to be apparently undermined by the devious Vlad the compulsive poisoner who strikes yet again. Cue the predictable MSM cacophony from the usual suspects subjecting us to the ‘two-minutes-hate’’ routine. Russia did it! Russia did it! Putin personally took charge of it. NATO should stand together and forestall the challenges of Russian dirty tricks. Blah, blah blah.

The wholly foreseeable reaction of the western establishment, politicians and MSM, was to have an expected mass apoplectic seizure. Something must be done! Yes, and we know precisely what that something is. It is clear as daylight that this stunt is intended to scuttle the Nordstream-2 deal between Germany and the Russian Federation, a deal which was almost finalised and is still awaiting implementation.

The story (fantasy) goes something like this. Suddenly a political nobody – Navalny – was allegedly poisoned by Putin (but of course) using the deadly one tiny drop of Novichok – which reputedly wipes out a whole city. Only as with the Skripals it didn’t work, well, ahem, we’ll just pass on that.

The whole parody – worthy of a Monty Python sketch – has been orchestrated by the western spook agencies governments and MSM whose sole object is to engineer the cancellation of Nordstream-2 which, if it happens, will mean that the Americans will be able to export their very expensive LNG, sending their little armada across the Atlantic. More fool the Germans if they agree to this directive. But this abject surrender was entirely predictable and in keeping with the squirming deference of the euro-vassals to the US’s NATO allies, Germany being one.

Norway being another. One only has to listen to a complete dolt like Jens Stoltenberg – member of the Norwegian Labour party and ex-Prime Minster now Secretary-General of NATO – to realise how monumental the problem is when the said Mr Stoltenberg talks quite enthusiastically about the future entry of Ukraine and Georgia into NATO.

This is the fire which the ‘West’ is now playing with. The NATO idiocracy is now calling the shots and such a move of incorporating Ukraine and Georgia into NATO would be a virtual declaration of war against Russia. Russia’s response might well be a message from Elvis.

‘’If you’re looking for trouble, you’ve come to the right place.’’

NOTES

(1) McGovern and Bureaucracy – passim.

(2) This observation is usually attributed to Richard Sakwa, author of Frontline Ukraine and Russia Against The World. But I think that it might have been influenced by J.A.Schumpeter who once remarked that in Ancient Egypt ‘‘a class of professional soldiers formed during the war against the Hyskos persisted even when those wars were over – along with those warlike instincts and interests’’. But Schumpeter capped this part of the narrative with a pithy summary of his viewpoint: ‘’Created by wars that required it, the military machine now created the wars it required.’’ J.A.Schumpeter Critical Exposition Chapter 2, p.63. Major Conservative and Libertarian Thinkers – John Medearis. Also Ted Galen Carpenter – NATO – The Dangerous Dinosaur – passim.

Sure sounds like NATO to me (FL)

(3) John Laughland – Travesty: The Trial of Slobodan Milosevic and the corruption of International Justice

(4) Patrick Cockburn – The Independent – passim

(5) Ted Galen Carpenter – NATO: The Dangerous Dinosaur – page.9

(6) Ted Galen Carpenter – Ibid, page.144