IRGC Chief Says Yemen Close to Victory

June 19, 2018

Commander of the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) Major General Mohammad-Ali Jaafari

Commander-in-Chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said Tue. that the Saudi-led coalition war against Yemen is turning in favor of victory for the Yemenis.

Major General Mohammad Ali Jaafari made the remark on Tuesday, referring to the recent clashes in Hudaida, Yemen’s principal port on the Red Sea, between Yemeni forces and the “big coalition of Americans and Europeans formed with reactionary states in region.”

The UAE, as part of the Saudi-led coalition waging war on Yemen since 2015, launched the Hudaida assault on Wednesday, which culminated in clashes that, according to a Yemeni military source, left 50 Saudi-backed forces dead and destroyed 13 of their armored vehicles.

Yemeni forces also confiscated a French ship off Hudaida’s coast, according to Mohammad al-Bakhiti, a member of political bureau of Ansarullah movement.

Elsewhere, the IRGC commander censured the US for its lack of commitment to the nuclear deal, and leveled criticism at those inside Iran who were calling for negotiations between Iran and US president Trump.

He said the North Korean leader is a ‘communist’ revolutionary that would accept compromises in the face of US pressure, but Iran’s policy is based on an ‘Islamic’ revolutionary spirit that does not allow any room for compromises.

He further maintained that Iran has the capability to boost its missile range to more than 2,000km, but the measure is currently not on the country’s agenda, as the enemies’ strategic targets all fall within the 2,000km distance of Iran.

SourceMehr News Agency

Related Videos

Related Articles

Advertisements

إنه العراق وليس ردّ سليماني على الحريري إنه اليمن وليس ردّ نصرالله على العقوبات

يونيو 18, 2018

ناصر قنديل

– في أحيان نادرة وفي لحظات مفصلية يتصرف التاريخ وتتحرّك الجغرافيا لتصويب مسارات خاطئة من تلقائهما، وتبدو عملية التصحيح إنصافاً لحقائق وتصويباً لوقائع، أوحت للحظة أنها التعبير الأقرب عن الواقع. ولعل هذا ما حدث مع الكلام الذي قاله رئيس الحكومة اللبنانية سعد الحريري عما وصفه بتعويض فشل الجنرال قاسم سليماني في العراق ومحاولته التعويض بمزاعم نصر في لبنان، تعليقاً على كلام لسليماني عن الانتصار الانتخابي لحزب الله في لبنان. ومثله الكلام الأميركي تعقيباً على مفعول العقوبات على حزب الله، بالدعوة لرؤية ما سيحلّ بمن وصفوها بالميليشيات الإيرانية في اليمن لمعرفة ما ينتظرهم بعد العقوبات. في إشارة لهجوم سعودي إماراتي أميركي غير مسبوق يستهدف مدينة الحديدة على ساحل البحر الأحمر، ومينائها الاستراتيجي.

– بالطبع ليس الموضوع هو ما قاله الجنرال سليماني، والواضح أنه كلام عن نتائج الانتخابات بهدف قراءة سياسية لها، بعد حدوثها وليس كلاماً عن تدخل فيها، ومضمونه أنّ سلاح حزب الله الذي كان مستهدفاً في هذه الانتخابات بات محصّناً بأغلبية نيابية تحميه، حتى لو كانت التعبيرات والصياغات تحمل ما يناسب المكان الذي يتحدّث فيه سليماني والحضور الذي يستمع إليه. لكن كلام الحريري عن العراق كان واضحاً لجهة اعتبار نتائج الانتخابات هناك قد حملت فشلاً ذريعاً لإيران التي يمثلها الجنرال سليماني في التنسيق مع حكومتها وأحزابها. وقد كان عنوان هذا التنسيق في مرحلة المواجهة مع خطر داعش، وما قصده الحريري بالتحديد، ومعه الإعلام السعودي خلال ما بعد الانتخابات، هو التموضع الذي اتخذه السيد مقتدى الصدر وحجم ما ناله في الانتخابات، ليصير بنظرهم رأس الحربة بوجه إيران وحلفائها، خصوصاً تحالف الحشد الشعبي. وقبل أن يجفّ حبر كلام الحريري، كان السيد مقتدى الصدر يعلن التحالف مع تحالف الحشد الشعبي لتشكيل الحكومة الجديدة، ويتحوّل هدفاً لرمايات إعلامية سعودية بصفته خائن للتعهدات. وما زاد الطين بلة الربط السعودي بين تموضع الصدر الأجدّ من الجديد، وبين رسالة قيل إنه تلقاها من الجنرال قاسم سليماني.

– بالمقابل ليس الموضوع قبول الوصف الذي يطلقه الأميركيون والسعوديون على أنصار الله وحلفائهم في اليمن، ولا قبول توصيف مواجهة الحديدة التي خاضوها وحدهم، وكأنها إنجاز لحزب الله رداً على التهديدات بالعقوبات وما يليها، لكن الموضوع هو أنه كما لم يتسن للأميركيين والسعودية الاحتفال بفرحة لم تكتمل في العراق، أصابهم الشيء ذاته مع هجوم الحديدة في اليمن. وقد رصدوا لكل من الحدثين أقسى ما لديهما، وربطا بهما مستقبل مواجهات المنطقة. وكما بدا لفترة غير قصيرة أن السيد الصدر سيكون عنوان مواجهة مع قوى المقاومة في العراق بدا أن هجوم الحديدة في ظروف حرب اليمن وتاريخها ووقائعها الجغرافية مؤهل لإحداث اختراق نوعي في الجبهة الساحلية، قبل أن تنكشف الساعات الثماني والأربعين التي سادها التشويش، عن هزيمة قاسية تصيب المهاجمين بعدما لجأ أنصار الله إلى احتواء الهجوم، وفتح الباب للمهاجمين نحو فخ محكم نصبوه لهم، ويفتحون عليهم النار من كل نوع وصوب. وتكون النتيجة تراجع قوى الحرب عن التبشير بدخول المطار إلى الحديث عن سيطرة نارية ومعارك لم تحسم، بينما يبث أنصار الله الفيديوهات المباشرة من ساحات المطار وقاعاته ما يؤكد بقاءه تحت سيطرتهم النارية والفعلية.

– ترتسم آخر صور المشهد في المنطقة في الحلقتين اللتين اعتبرتهما واشنطن وحلفاؤها حديقتين خلفيتين، يمكن ترتيب الهجوم المعاكس فيهما، هجوم سياسي في العراق وهجوم عسكري في اليمن، لتصاب واشنطن ومَن معها بالخيبة فيهما، وتبدو يد محور المقاومة كما هي في لبنان وسورية، هي العليا، ويصير العناد بلا جدوى، وتصير المكابرة مجرد تكذيب للصورة ونفي للوقائع الثابتة، وإنكاراً يثير السخرية، وبالتأكيد بعد الحدثين العراقي واليمني لن يحتاج سليماني ولا نصرالله لردّ، ففي العراق ولبنان أغلبية نيابية تحرس السلاح وتحميه، وفي اليمن رجال يحرسون الانتصار ويدافعون عنه.

Related Articles

’Israeli’ Minister Arrested for Spying for Iran!

 

18-06-2018 | 22:46
 
’Israeli’ Minister Arrested for Spying for Iran!
A new scandal strikes the “Israeli” political institution.1
 
Gonen Segev, a former “Israeli” Knesset member and minister, is accused of spying for Iran and aiding it during wartime, the Shin Bet security service said Monday.
 
On Monday, the Shin Bet security service announced that Segev – the former energy minister who previously served time in jail for drug smuggling – was extradited to “Israel” from Equatorial Guinea and charged with spying for Iran last month.
 
The physician who served as the apartheid entity’s energy and infrastructure minister from 1992 to 1995, was jailed for five years in 2005 for trying to smuggle more than 30,000 ecstasy tablets into it from the Netherlands and forging a diplomatic passport. He was released in 2007.
 
According to the so-called “Israel’s” internal security agency and the police discovered that Segev had been recruited by Iran and became an agent for its intelligence services. Segev later met twice with his handlers in Iran.
 
“Israeli” police said this case is one of the “most severe security breaches it has known.”
 

Segev sent information to his Iranian sources regarding “Israel’s” energy sector, security sites, structures, and the identity of officials in the security and political establishments in “Israel”, among other things.

Related Articles

israel is not just getting the US to do its bidding in Syria, but also using Syria as a stepping stone to Iran itself

Whose Wars?

Whose Wars?

“A perfectly executed strike,” President Donald Trump tweeted Saturday, April 14, 2018, in the aftermath of his second decision in two years to fire missiles against Syria. “Thank you to France and the United Kingdom for their wisdom and the power of their fine military. Could not have had a better result. Mission Accomplished!”

The US has surrendered its sovereignty to a tiny client state, and now our foreign policy is not even remotely connected to actual U.S. interests. This refleects Jewish power in the US and powerful Israel-centric lobbies and media outlets. Israel is not just getting the US to do its bidding in Syria, but also using Syria as a stepping stone to Iran itself. Whatever is best for Israel.

by Philip Giraldi, The Unz Report

In March 2003, Pat Buchanan wrote a groundbreaking article entitled “Whose War?” in opposition to the Bush Administration fueled growing hysteria over Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction which was producing demands for an armed intervention to disarm him. Buchanan rightly identified a number of prominent Jewish officials and journalists closely tied to the Israel Lobby as the principal driving force behind the rush to go to war.

Buchanan is still a powerful voice arguing against the war fever in its 2018 manifestation, which is all too similar to the hysteria prevailing in 2003. But if he were writing his article today, even though those demanding war are pretty much the same people with the same names including Podhoretz, Krauthammer, Kristol, Kagan, Brooks and Boot, he would have to broaden his purview to ask “Whose Wars?” as it is no longer a simple case of going after one third-world autocrat and overthrowing him, we are now instead being urged to attack Syria, Iran and even nuclear superpower Russia due to Moscow’s support of Damascus and its friendship with Tehran.

Lest there be any confusion, the same country keeps surfacing as a central player in the lead-up to America’s regime-change wars, which now have included an illegal attack on Syria, the second such intervention in the past year. That nation is Israel.

Israel’s fingerprints are all over American interventionism, reflecting Jewish power in the United States and the presence of a plethora of well-funded Israel-centric lobbies, think tanks and media outlets. Just last week, the only persistent voice in the mainstream media who, prior to Trump’s cruise missile attack, asked why on earth the United States should be contemplating a major power confrontation that could end life on this planet as we know it over Syria, where Washington has no vital interests, was Tucker Carlson of Fox News. His memorable monologue blasting the “talk show generals” who have “no idea of what is really happening” skewered the pretexts for war being bandied about in spite of the lack of any actual threat directed against the United States or a vital national interest is a model for what the Fourth Estate should be doing but isn’t. Carlson later followed up with an interview of Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi. He asked what might be an American national interest that would mandate military involvement in Syria. Wicker hardly hesitated before responding, “If you care about Israel, you have to be interested in what’s going on in Syria.”

Israel indeed. And Israel is not at all shy about what it wants to happen, namely a war in Syria targeting both Damascus and Tehran, leading to a much bigger war with the Iranians. Fought by Uncle Sam, to be sure, as Jewish lives are far too precious to waste.

Tel Aviv has long been feeding the propaganda line relating to why war with Syria and Iran are desirable. Gilad Erdan, who is Netanyahu’s deputy in Likud and serves as Public Security Minister, addressed the latest alleged use of chemical weapons in Douma, saying “The shocking attack shows the incredible international hypocrisy of the international community focusing on Israel confronting the terrorist organization Hamas that is sending civilians to our [border] fence, when dozens are being killed in Syria every day. It shows the need for strengthening the presence of Americans and other international forces, because without them the genocide we are seeing will only intensify.”

Construction Minister Yoav Galant, a former IDF major-general and a security figure close to Netanyahu, also called for military action against the Syrian leader. “Assad is the angel of death, and the world would be better without him.”

The compassion for Syrian civilians, being expressed both in Washington and in Tel Aviv, is, of course, a joke. Donald Trump and John Bolton couldn’t care less about Syrian babies and if Trump were genuinely concerned about civilian deaths due to war crimes by governments the first country he would attack would be Israel. Erdan and Galant, meanwhile, serve in a government that has recently shot and killed or injured 2,000 unarmed demonstrators in Gaza, in some cases involving snipers having fun by shooting boys running away and cheering when they were successful, so their hypocrisy is evident.

Eye on Iran

Israel has also been busy at creating a pretext for using Syria as a stepping stone to Iran itself. The Associated Press is reporting comments by Yossi Cohen, head of Mossad, who claims to be “100 percent certain” that Iran remains committed to developing a nuclear bomb, which is the old “weapons of mass destruction” ploy used to jumpstart the Iraq War. Israel’s bombing attack on Syria that took place one day after the reports of the alleged chemical weapon incident, deliberately targeted Iranians, killing 7 at a military base near Damascus. Iran has promised to respond, guaranteeing that the conflict will expand and draw in both regional and foreign players, definitely including the United States.

More recently, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu congratulated the U.S., the U.K, and France for bombing Syria, an operation that was coordinated in advance with Israel by National Security Advisor John Bolton. Netanyahu went on to assert that Syrian president Bashar al-Assad must understand that “his provision of a forward base for Iran and its proxies endangers Syria,” an analysis of the situation which is, of course, self-serving bullshit.

Unfortunately, Israel has a receptive quasi-American audience in the team that Donald Trump has pulled together under his son in law Jared Kushner to deal with the Middle East. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman, who is supposed to represent U.S. interests, has become adept at repeating Israeli Foreign Ministry talking points as if they were American policy, while Chief Negotiator Jason Greenblatt has warned demonstrating Gazans to avoid provoking Israel while also failing to advise the Israeli Army that shooting unarmed protesters just might be considered unacceptable.

Kushner-Friedman-Greenblatt is an Israeli dream team in place, backed up by as subservient Congress that reflexively does whatever Israel wishes. One wonders why Congressmen and the media are not screaming about the slaughter in Gaza and pondering how and why the United States has surrendered its sovereignty to a tiny client state in the Middle East, but never fear, Jewish power backed by lots of money is firmly in control of any entity that might challenge bad Israeli behavior. On top of Friedman, Greenblatt and Kushner, one might also add National Security Adviser John Bolton, U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. And Trump himself? Who knows what he actually thinks if he bothers to think at all. He has just announced that it is “mission accomplished” in Syria, suggesting that he is delusional as well as ignorant.

Media coverage of Syria, apart from Carlson, scrupulously avoids the issue that the United States is in Syria completely illegally and has been cynically supporting terrorist groups in spite of its pledge that it is in the country to get rid of such vermin. It is a measure of how divorced from actual U.S. security America’s Syria policy has become that the White House has not hesitated to launch a second illegal cruise missile barrage against a government that hasn’t attacked the U.S. and doesn’t threaten Americans. Bombing the Syrian government hasn’t made the U.S. or any other country more secure, and it will likely weaken President Bashar al-Assad just enough to prolong Syria’s civil war and add to the suffering of the civilian population. It is a perfect example of a military intervention that is being done for political reasons with no connection to any discernible interests or overall strategy.

Syria is only part of a much larger problem. It is remarkable the extent to which Israeli concerns dominate those of the United States, which now has a foreign policy that often is not even remotely connected to actual U.S. interests. Congress and the Special Counsel are investigating Russia’s alleged interference in America’s political system while looking the other way when Israel operates aggressively in the open and does much more damage. Netanyahu and his crew of unsavory cutthroats are hardly ever cited for their malignant influence over America’s political class and media. Bomb Syria? Sure. After all, it’s good for Israel.


Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org

What Was Achieved in Singapore

16-06-2018 | 10:04
All eyes were on Singapore this week where world-class showman and US President Donald Trump took the stage for what was undoubtedly the most important performance of his life.

What Was Achieved in Singapore

In a meeting with his North Korean counterpart Kim Jong-un that lasted just over 40 minutes, Trump reportedly managed to hammer out an agreement to denuclearize the entire Korean peninsula “very quickly”.

He then described his new relationship with Kim as a “special bond” and said that “people are going to be very impressed” by what the pair achieved.

Sure, it’s a far cry from Trump’s “fire and fury” days when he was threatening the North Koreans with total annihilation.

It’s also a departure from suggestions by Trump’s National Security Advisor John Bolton to apply the not-so quick “Libyan model” in the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.

But some things have not changed. Sticking to the on-again, off-again approach when it comes to his diplomatic episodes with Pyongyang, Trump told reporters after the summit that he trusts Kim but may later say he “made a mistake”.

In substance, the summit communiqué is equally ambiguous. It is little more than a list of very generalized commitments and nothing that Pyongyang has not already agreed to over the past thirty years.

It offers no timetable or a definition of denuclearization – a term that was previously characterized by North Korea and the US in very dissimilar ways.

The National Director at the ANSWER Coalition Brian Becker, who attended the Singapore summit, believes that Pyongyang is “prepared to carry out the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula but only in exchange for a new policy from the United States.”

“Right now the world sees that North Korea was willing to make many efforts – four unilateral concessions in a row, including a moratorium on these nuclear missile technology tests. They are now waiting for reciprocation from the United States,” Becker adds.

Although the vague declaration does in theory pave the way for further negotiations, any long-term settlement between Washington and Pyongyang requires a painstaking years-long process.

That process would have to address a long list of issues, including the reunification of the two Koreas and the withdrawal of tens of thousands of American troops from the region.

To what extent Trump, his administration or anyone in Washington is truly willing to broach such matters is pure speculation.

But tensions along the Korean Peninsula are a prefect example of a decades-long geopolitical problem that cannot be solved without the participation of all key players including China and Russia.

Washington’s escalating trade war with China and growing tensions with Russia suggest that the Americans are not interested in any such overtures.

The dishonest broker

Unlike the vague pledges in Singapore, the 2015 Iran nuclear deal was the product of 18 months of negotiations between seven nations and included specifics on denuclearization and verification.

Both were ‘historic’ events, and both played out before the lenses of the world media.

Unfortunately for all involved, Washington’s nuclear deals never last longer than one presidential term.

Trump ripped-up Barack Obama’s Iran deal. Obama killed Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, who signed a nuclear disarmament deal with his predecessor George W. Bush. And Bush brings us back to North Korea, tearing up Bill Clinton’s nuclear deal with Kim Jong-un’s late father.

Journalist and political commentator Shobhan Saxena says that the “North Koreans have to be careful”.

“They should know whom they are dealing with because the Americans have proven again and again that they are not honest brokers of peace and they have failed time and again to keep their word,” Saxena explains.

In essence, all these agreements were little more than short-term strategies in Washington’s quest for hegemony.

Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Iran deal and ratchet up tensions with Tehran also implies that the Americans will have to direct more recourses towards the Middle East.

As such, a temporary easing of tensions on the Korean Peninsula would certainly go a long way in guaranteeing that the US avoids a struggle on two fronts at a time when its power and influence are on the decline.

The domestic angle

The optics of the Singapore summit feed the narrative of a major diplomatic victory for the Trump Administration.

Trump, who desperately needs a win, will undoubtedly use the Kim meeting for domestic consumption.

His Republican Party is preparing for midterm elections, and the president needs them to retain their majority in Congress or he risks increasing his chances of being impeached.

Naturally, while waiting for the dust to settle, Trump will also be eyeing a second term in office.

With every White House policy decision being scrutinized, the incumbent will have his work cut out.

And having talking points about a ‘historic’ meeting – the first between a sitting US president and a North Korean leader – certainly helps.

Source: Al-Ahed News

See also: قمة ترامب كيم

قمة ترامب كيم

يونيو 13, 2018

ناصر قنديل

– تشكّل القمة التي جمعت الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب والزعيم الكوري الشمالي كيم جونغ أون حدثاً دولياً تاريخياً، يكاد يشبه تطبيع العلاقات الأميركية الصينية، قبل أربعة عقود، مع زيارة الرئيس الأميركي الأسبق ريتشارد نيكسون لبكين، ومثلما تمنح الوثيقة التي وقعها الرئيسان قيمة خاصة، تمنحها التعرّجات التي شهدتها والسياقات التي ولدت فيها تفسيرات ومعانيَ، فالعنوان الذي حملته الوثيقة المشتركة يشبه اتفاق الإطار الذي ولد حول التفاهم النووي الإيراني ومهّد لودلاته الناجزة بعد شهور، لجهة التزام إيران بعدم السعي لامتلاك سلاح نووي والالتزام الأميركي بفك العقوبات عنها. وفي كوريا ضمانات أميركية أمنية واقتصادية مقابل شبه جزيرة كورية خالية من السلاح النووي.

قمّة «سنغافورة»... كيف قوبلت في إسرائيل؟

– العنوان الأول الذي يطرحه اللقاء وما نتج عنه هو أنّه بقدر ما يمثل تأكيداً للرغبة المتبادلة بالوصول لحل سلمي للأزمة، فهو يؤكد أنه لو لم تكن لدى كوريا ترسانة نووية تهدّد أميركا لما استحقت من الرئيس الأميركي، الذي يستخفّ بحلفائه ويعاملهم بغطرسة وعنجهية، وأغلبهم من الدول العظمى، كفرنسا وبريطانيا، هذا الاهتمام وهذه اللغة الناعمة والودودة، وهذه الرسالة ربما تكون موضع قراءة في إيران التي التزمت بعدم امتلاك سلاح نووي وطبّقت التزامها بشهادة وكالة الطاقة الذرية الدولية ولم تلقَ إلا التنكّر للالتزامات، وبالمثل ستكون المعاملة الأميركية لإيران موضع عناية كورية لجهة مصير التعهّدات عندما يزول تهديد السلاح النووي الكوري لأميركا.

– العنوان الثاني الذي سيتحوّل سؤالاً عملياً، هل ستزيل واشنطن ضمن مفهوم نزع السلاح النووي من شبه الجزيرة الكورية ترسانتها منها، وضمناً صواريخ الثاد الاستراتيجية التي تقلق الصين. وبالمقابل هل ستسلك كوريا طريق تفكيك سلاحها وتدميره أم طريق إيداعه خارج كوريا، وبالتالي لدى الصين وروسيا؟ وبالتتابع هل سيكون من ضمن الضمانات التي تطلبها كوريا ضمان روسي صيني لحمايتها من أي عدوان، مقابل إيداع السلاح النووي لديهما، أم ستقبل المخاطرة بالاكتفاء بضمانات أميركية تدرك سلفاً أنها قابلة للتحوّل مجرد كلمات يمكن التنكّر لها عند أول منعطف؟ وكيف سيكون للصين وروسيا شراكة في الضمانات بدون شراكة في الشعور بالأمن بالتزام أميركي بنزع الصواريخ المقلقة من كوريا الجنوبية؟

– العنوان الثالث في الاقتصاد، فكوريا ليست إيران البلد النفطي والصناعي والزراعي الذي لا يحتاج إلا فك العقوبات كي ينطلق اقتصادياً، فما تحتاجه لتنمية اقتصادها أكبر من مجرد فتح الأسواق وإلغاء العقوبات. وهي بلد يحتاج لمئة مليار دولار على الأقل لإطلاق مشروع تنمية شاملة بعد سنوات من المعاناة والتقشف وصولاً حدّ المجاعة. وقد أنفقت كل ما بين يديها على مشروعها النووي لتقايضه يوماً ما بهذه المليارات، وكيف يمكن الحصول عليها من دون كوريا الجنوبية واليابان والصين، وربما أوروبا أيضاً، وهل يمكن أن يتحقق ذلك بدون شراكة كل هؤلاء في صناعة الحل المتكامل، فيما الرئيس الأميركي يعامل الجميع بمن فيهم شركاؤه اليابانيون والكوريون بلغة لا تشعرهم بأنهم شركاء؟

– قد يسهل على الرئيس الأميركي تمييز الحالة الكورية عن الحالة الإيرانية، لجهة عدم التداخل بينها وبين الملفات الشائكة التي تهم أميركا كأمن «إسرائيل»، والهيمنة على أسواق النفط والغاز، وحروب سورية واليمن، ومستقبل العراق، لكن في نهاية المطاف يعرف الكوريون والأميركيون أن تدويل المفاوضات والتفاهمات حاجة متبادلة لا يمكن تفاديها، والتدويل طريق للربط بالملفات الدولية الأخرى لا للانفكاك عنها.

Related Videos

Is Trump-Kim Deal Really Peace Or Is It A Set Up For War?

June 14, 2018 (Brandon Turbeville – Activist Post) – Presidents Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un are perhaps the two most unpredictable leaders in the world with everyone wondering from day to day what new provocative statement will be ushered from official channels. However, the two most unpredictable leaders appear to have found common ground, perhaps even kindred spirits, during the course of the Singapore Summit when both men came away with an apparent mutually beneficial deal that will see the de-escalation of tensions on the Korean peninsula.

While there have been no real concrete agreements as a result of the talks, the North Korean side has pledged its commitment to the denuclearization of the peninsula, while the American side has strongly suggested that it will put its military exercises on hold with South Korea.

The first step seems to be an agreement for both sides to work toward recovering the remains of Korean war dead and their immediate repatriation.

Beyond that, the statement agreed to by both parties reads as follows:

President Donald J. Trump of the United States of America and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) held a first, historic summit in Singapore on June 12, 2018.

President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un conducted a comprehensive, in-depth and sincere exchange of opinions on the issues related to the establishment of new US-DPRK relations and the building of a lasting and robust peace regime on the Korean Peninsula. President Trump committed to providing security guarantees to the DPRK, and Chairman Kim Jong Un reaffirmed his firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

Convinced that the establishment of new US-DPRK relations will contribute to the peace and prosperity of the Korean Peninsula and of the world, and recognizing that mutual confidence building can promote the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, President Trump, and Chairman Kim Jong Un, state the following:

The United States and the DPRK commit to establish new US-DPRK relations in accordance with the desire of the peoples of the two countries for peace and prosperity.

The United States and DPRK will join their efforts to build a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula.

Reaffirming April 27, 2018, Panmunjom Declaration, the DPRK commits to work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

The United States and the DPRK commit to recovering POW/MIA remains, including the immediate repatriation of those already identified.

Having acknowledged that the US-DPRK summit — the first in history — was an epochal event of great significance in overcoming decades of tensions and hostilities between the two countries and for the opening up of a new future, President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un, commit to implementing the stipulations in the joint statement fully and expeditiously. The United States and the DPRK commit to holding follow-on negotiations, led by the US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, and a relevant high-level DPRK official, at the earliest possible date, to implement the outcomes of the US-DPRK summit.

President Donald J. Trump of the United States of America and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea have committed to cooperate for the development of new US-DPRK relations and for the promotion of peace, prosperity, and the security of the Korean Peninsula and of the world.

DONALD J. TRUMP
President of the United States of America 

KIM JONG UN
Chairman of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea 

June 12, 2018
Sentosa Island
Singapore

The talks have now concluded with the remainder of the negotiating to take place between Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his counterpart with some suggesting that the next stage is the freeing of American spies incarcerated in North Korea.

The Reaction From American Political Circles

While Republicans, having never met a war they didn’t like, attempted to keep their rage at the idea of peace under control, many like chicken hawk Lindsey Graham appeared on national media to tone down praise of Trump and warn against showing weakness and removing troops from one of America’s many war zones. Essentially, they are arguing that America should dictate the terms, Kim should agree, and there should be no American concessions of any value.

Democrats, however, have predictably been frothing at the mouth at even the idea of peace, particularly a peace negotiated by “literally Hitler” himself, Donald Trump. These warmongers and psychotics have railed against even talking to Kim Jong Un, claiming that there should be no peace whatsoever with a nation that has such horrible human rights violations, as if the United States has not racked up enough of those same violations of its own. These critics complain that Trump is engaging in “appeasement” of some kind which seems impossible to explain to anyone using logic or who is restrained by reality.

But what is actually happening with this summit? Is it a true and genuine desire for peace or is it just cover for the next war to take shape over the next several years?

The Potential Positive

It is difficult for any genuine anti-war activist to oppose the recent talks between the United States and North Korea. After decades of technical war, threats to “obliterate” North Korea, constant nuclear tests, repeatedly provocative war games, innumerable threats against one another, not to mention the tension between South and North Korea, two countries that have long wanted to talk to one another, the fact that tensions seem to be easing can scarcely be considered a bad thing.

While it is unfair that the United States and its “allies” can maintain nuclear weapons stockpiles as they march across the globe slaughtering innocent people while other countries cannot, an end to nuclear proliferation (across the board) is also desirable. If both countries can come to an agreement to, at the very least, stop provoking one another, America will have taken a greater step toward peace in Singapore than it has in decades.

For all their public appearances, both Trump and Kim have appeared legitimately happy at the results of the meeting and both have expressed high hopes for the future. Trump even went so far as to tweet that the “nuclear threat” from North Korea no longer existed. But is there more to the deal than just a desire for peace?

Despite America’s desire for war or, at least the appearance of potential war, both Koreas have expressed a desire to not only talk but to reunifyIn an historic meeting in April, 2018, the presidents of North and South Korea met and agreed to remove nuclear weapons from the Korean peninsula and begin negotiating an end to the Korean war. Despite the influence of the United States on South Korea and the human rights nightmare of North Korea, it still remains clear that both Koreas have an interest in ending the war, bringing about peace, and perhaps moving forward with integration.

While it may publicly appear that the recent US/NK peace deal was a mutual desire between both parties to de-escalate and move towards peace, some analysts question whether or not that is the case and posit that the deal may have actually been made as a strategy of last resort on the part of the North Koreans.

As Andrew Korybko writes for Eurasia Future in his article, “The Trump-Kim Deal Is The First Example Of The ‘New Washington Consensus’,

As it currently stands, China has monopolized a large chunk of its neighbor’s economy, not out of any malicious or neo-imperial intentions but simply because it’s been the only lifeline to the “Hermit Kingdom” since the Soviet Union collapsed and Moscow cut off all of its previous aid to the country. For all practical intents and purposes, China controls the North Korean economy, an open secret that’s known to even the most casual observers even if it’s “politically incorrect” to publicly say and is regularly denied by Beijing. The never-ending international sanctions had the effect of scaring off most other investors, and Russia entered the game way too late in the past couple of years to make any tangible difference. Moreover, by the time that Moscow got interested in North Korea’s economic potential as a transit stateconnecting the investment-hungry but energy-rich Far East region with cash-flush but energy-poor South Korea, international sanctions became tighter, and Russia itself also signed onto them together with China.

The cumulative effect of this latest development, particularly in terms of China’s honest participation in the latest round of sanctions (for reasons related to its unease at having a nuclear-armed neighbor play the “useful idiot” in bringing American anti-missile infrastructure closer to its borders), was that North Korea had little choice other than to negotiate with the US and reconsider its nuclear capabilities. Faced with the real fear of experiencing another nationwide famine such as the one that reportedly struck the country in the 1990s, Chairman Kim’s immediate interests were purely economic, and he painfully came to perceive of his “big brother” in the north as a Great Power who isn’t above playing political games in pursuit of its self-interests. In China’s defense, its global strategy of multipolarity was being endangered by what it considered to be Kim’s recklessness in engaging in so many nuclear and missile tests, but regardless, the bonds of trust were irrevocably broken between these two.That, however, doesn’t mean that North Korea regards China as an “enemy”, but just that the young Kim had a rude awakening in terms of how the real world works, learning first-hand that slogans of ideological solidarity about a shared “communist struggle” don’t compensate for his country’s disadvantageous position as a pawn on the Hyper-Realist “19th-Century Great Power Chessboard”. Disheartened by this realization and likely feeling some natural resentment towards his former benefactors, Kim decided to enter into unprecedented denuclearization talks with the US, though prudently taking care to involve China in all manner of his consultations so as not to inadvertently make an actual enemy out of it given how easily this very sensitive situation could have turned into a fast-moving security dilemma between Pyongyang and Beijing had he not had the wisdom to do so. Seeking sanctions relief and a “counterbalance” to China, Kim ultimately agreed to the Singapore Summit with Trump.

Having predictably been briefed on the psychological-economic factors that drove Kim to come to the Singapore Summit and in all likelihood agree beforehand on what the outcome of this historic event would be, Trump came to the event with the fullest of confidence but also with a secret ace up his sleeve to sweeten the deal that he was about to publicly clinch with his counterpart. It’s now been revealed that Trump showed Kim a Hollywood-style four-minute video extolling the economic and developmental benefits that North Korea could receive if its Chairman chooses the right path at this once-in-a-lifetime crossroad that the film dramatically hints he was fated to appear at. Evidently, Kim must have really enjoyed the promising message that was conveyed because all of his body language immediately after his private viewing of this film with Trump during their one-on-one meeting was exceptionally positive and radiated happiness, sincerity, and confidence as he agreed to advance his country’s denuclearization.

In an interview with Tasnim News Agency, Korybko also stated that

After all, North Korea already blew up its only nuclear testing site, and its leader raced to win back Trump’s approval for the Singapore Summit instead of the reverse. This implies that the US is negotiating from a position of strength while North Korea is doing so from weakness, showing which of the two wants denuclearization to happen more. The lesson that both parties learned is that their highest representatives need to watch their words in order to not provoke either side into responding with anything dramatic as a means of saving their reputations, thereby potentially endangering the forthcoming talks and complicating North Korea’s strategic surrender to the US in exchange for promised aid and investment.

So the question is whether or not the North Korean side felt it had no other option than to move forward with a political deal, much like the Iran deal, in order to save face and survive. After all, it is not reasonable to require North Korea to disarm from its only real deterrent while the its enemy who has been breathing down its neck for the last several decades simply promises not to attack it.

A more important question, however, is whether or not the United States is negotiating in good faith or whether this new “deal” is just another “Iran deal” to feign an effort for peace while preparing for and even initiating war.

The “Libya Model”

Given that the United States has done nothing with its foreign policy but conduct illegal imperialist wars against sovereign countries that provided no threat to it now for decades, the concept that the United States is negotiating in good faith is hard to believe. It is particularly hard to believe when the United States had only recently engaged in epic harassment – politically, diplomatically, and militarily – against North Korea. Even more so, when the National Security Advisor and repeated war criminal John Bolton, stated plainly to FOX News Sunday that “We have very much in mind the Libya model from 2003, 2004.”

Libya negotiated in good faith with the Bush administration and eliminated its nuclear weapons. Seven years later, the country found itself on the wrong end of a U.S. backed destabilization effort which soon became a proxy war and quickly became a NATO invasion. The result? Libya was left in absolute shambles where it remains to this day. Race slavery was instituted by some of the many Islamic fundamentalist militias supported by the United States to overthrow Ghaddafi who was himself sodomized by a bayonet and executed on camera. Bolton elaborated further on the “Libya Model” reference on CBS’ Face The Nation where he stated,

In the case of Libya, for example—and it’s a different situation in some respects—those negotiations were carried out in private. They were not known publicly. But one thing that Libya did that that led us to overcome our skepticism was that they allowed American and British observers into all their nuclear-related sites. So, it wasn’t a question of relying on international mechanisms. We saw them in ways we have never seen before.

Notably, the North Korea talks are taking place in public even if they aren’t being met with high praise.

Interestingly enough, Kim Jong Un seems to have a clear understanding of why giving up one’s nuclear weapons is a bad idea, particularly when it comes to the United States. In 2011, as Libya sunk under the waves of chaos, Kim stated that Ghaddafi’s decision to give up his nuclear weapons was a mistake. A North Korean Foreign Ministry official also described the “de-nuclearization” process as “an invasion tactic to disarm the country.” The official also stated that the “Libyan model” touted by Bolton was proof that North Korea’s strategy was the right one and that nuclear weapons was the only way to keep peace on the peninsula.

Surely, Kim Jong Un has not forgotten his own wisdom in terms of dealing with the United States. After all, there is little difference between dealing with a Bush, Obama, or Trump administration.
On the other hand, even seasoned leaders like Ghaddafi fell prey to deception and false promises of the U.S. For this reason, it cannot be ignored that one possibility as to why the United States seems so interested in peace at this point is related to removing Kim’s nuclear deterrent.

The Iran Deal Precedent

On Tuesday, May 8, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that the United States will be pulling out of the “Iran Nuclear Deal” which was struck under the Obama administration, a deal that he repeatedly called a “bad deal” and even “the single worst deal I’ve ever seen drawn by anybody.”

“The so-called Iran deal was supposed to protect the United States and our allies from the lunacy of an Iranian nuclear bomb, a weapon that will only endanger the survival of the Iranian regime,” President Trump said. “In fact, the deal allowed Iran to continue enriching uranium and over time reach the brink of a nuclear breakout.”

He added that “Today, we have definitive proof that this Iranian promise was a lie.”

Yet there was absolutely no evidence to back Trump up on his claims. Even Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats have stated that Iran is living up to its commitments. Still, Trump has argued in the past that, while Iran may be sticking to its commitments, it is violating the “spirit” of the agreement by “fostering discord” in the region.

This is highly ironic considering that the United States is the single biggest fosterer of discord in the Middle East alongside Israel. It’s also false that Iran is “fostering discord” and that it is not living up to its end of the deal. It should also be pointed out that Iran was doing nothing wrong in terms of its nuclear program before the deal and should never have been bullied into signing it to begin with.

Now, a sovereign country who has a right to pursue a nuclear energy program is being told by aggressive nuclear states that it cannot be allowed to be armed in the same manner, develop an adequate energy program, or defend itself against the aggression of the very states marching across the region and repeatedly stating their desire to overthrow, destabilize, or invade Iran.

But while this move may have come as a shock to some, it shouldn’t have. After all, the Iran deal itself was nothing more than the first step in the coming war on Iran. This can be seen clearly in the pages of the corporate-financier think tanks who develop and present US foreign and domestic policy. For instance, the Brookings Institution, as Tony Cartalucci writes, “whose corporate-financier sponsors include arms manufacturers Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon, energy giants Exxon Mobil, BP, Aramco, and Chevron, and financiers including Bank of America, Citi, and numerous advisers and trustees provided by Goldman Sachs,” wrote in 2009 of the plan to use just such a “deal” to then justify military action against Iran.
The Brookings Institution Report – Which Path To Persia?

The plan for a Western or a Western/Israeli attack on Iran, along with the theatre of alleged US-Israeli tensions leading up to a strike and outright war, has been in the works for some time. For instance, in 2009, the Brookings Institution, a major banking, corporate, and military-industrial firm, released a report entitled “Which Path To Persia? Options For A New American Strategy For Iran,” in which the authors mapped out a plan which leaves no doubt as to the ultimate desire from the Western financier, corporate, and governing classes.

The plan involves the description of a number of waysthe Western oligarchy would be able to destroy Iran including outright military invasion and occupation. However, the report attempts to outline a number of methods that might possibly be implemented before direct military invasion would be necessary. The plan included attempting to foment destabilization inside Iran via the color revolution apparatus, violent unrest, proxy terrorism, and “limited airstrikes” conducted by the US, Israel or both.Interestingly enough, the report states that any action taken against Iran must be done after the idea that Iran has rejected a fair and generous offer by the West has been disseminated throughout the general public. The report reads,

…any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context— both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.

From the writings of Brookings, it is readily apparent for all to see what the latest browbeating over the “terrible” Iran deal and how the Iranians are not living up to their obligations under the agreement coming from the Trump administration are all about. The United States has bullied Iran into accepting a deal it should never have had to agree to in the first place and now the U.S. is attempting to add restrictions and obligations that were never part of the deal to begin with and/or claim that Iran is not living up to its end of the deal. If Iran can be represented as having been uncooperative, Iran will be painted as having refused “a very good deal.”

As the report states, any action taken against Iran must be done after the idea that Iran has rejected a fair and generous offer by the West has been disseminated throughout the general public. For that reason, the idea is being promulgated that Iran was offered a great deal at the disadvantage of the United States but Iran would not abide by even this agreement, continuing to insist on gaining nuclear weapons to destroy the U.S. and poor innocent Israel, forcing America’s hand after diplomacy failed.

Ironically, it is admitted by the authors of the report that the Iranians are not governed by lunatics intent on nuking the world but by entirely rational players. Still, they move forward with a number of options for attacking Iran. It should thus be obvious to anyone reading this report that the US, NATO, and Israel are uninterested in peace with Iran and are entirely focused on war and Iranian destruction.

“The so-called ‘Iran deal,’ introduced during the administration of US President Barack Obama, represents precisely this “superb offer,” with Flynn’s accusations serving as the “turn down” ahead of the “sorrowful” war and attempted regime change the US had always planned to target Tehran with,” writes Tony Cartalucci of Land Destroyer Report.

The report continues to discuss the citations that could be used for an attack on Iran, clearly stating its intentions to create a plan to goad a non-threatening nation into war. It states,

The truth is that these all would be challenging cases to make. For that reason, it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.)

Conclusion

While steps toward peace should be lauded, we must be sure these steps are actually being taken toward peace and not to another “Libya Model.” North Korea may want to re-enter the world at large but it must not do so if the end result will be the destruction of the country yet again. Since Kim Jong Un already has nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them, he has significant bargaining power in any negotiation. Upon giving those weapons up, however, he will have placed North Korea in a precarious position. It may be too early to tell as of yet what will be the result of the Trump-Kim agreement but, for now, those who truly desire peace must keep a watchful and skeptical eye open.

Brandon Turbeville writes for Activist Post – article archive here – He is the author of seven books,Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom7 Real ConspiraciesFive Sense Solutions andDispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President, and Resisting The Empire: The Plan To Destroy Syria And How The Future Of The World Depends On The Outcome. Turbeville has published over 1000 articles on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s radio show Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. His website is BrandonTurbeville.com He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

This article may be freely shared in part or in full with author attribution and source link.

Support us at Patreon. Follow us on FacebookTwitterSteemit, and BitChute. Ready for solutions? Subscribe to our premium newsletter Counter Markets.

%d bloggers like this: