Interview with Parents of Venezuelan Man Set on Fire by Anti-Government Mob

The US regime change effort in Venezuela seems to be going full steam. On Saturday, May 20, a government supporter, 21-year-old Orlando Jose Figuera, was set on fire by a mob, most likely of the protestor-for-hire variety. The video above features an interview with his parents.

An RT report posted today contains the following:

Horrifying images from the scene show Figuera running while nearly naked with flames on his back. “A person was set on fire, beaten up, stabbed… They nearly lynched him, just because he shouted out that he was a ‘Chavista,’” said Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, referring to supporters of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela established by late leader Hugo Chavez.

Speaking on state TV, Maduro described the torching as “a hate crime and a crime against humanity.” The 21-year-old victim, who sustained heavy injuries, severe burns, and stab wounds, was taken to intense care.

Amazingly Figuera survived, or at least he’s still alive for the moment.

The Washington Post seems to be doing its faithful best to promote the regime-change effort. An article published today, headlined “Venezuela is Sliding into Anarchy,” says  Figuera was attacked by a “lynch mob,” but not until much further down in the story (a total of 13 paragraphs) do the writers finally get around to mentioning that the victim was a supporter of the government–and then the information is given in such a back-handed manner it is almost as if they are seeking to provide moral justification for what happened to him:

He was suspected of being a pro-government spy, according to some versions. Others alleged he was a thief.

The story also portrays anti-government protest leaders as nonviolent, while including the customary comments on the situation from a Western think tank–in this case the International Crisis Group

Gunson, of the International Crisis Group, said he did not think Venezuela’s opposition leaders could control the spreading turmoil or turn down the temperature. “Only a decision by the government to de-escalate would do it, and there is no sign of that,” he said. “Quite the contrary.”

“I think we will start to see curfews, mass arrests, a higher daily death rate and even worse violations of human rights,” said Gunson.

In other words, if the protests grow even more violent, it’s the government’s fault. The International Crisis Group, by the way, was co-founded by George Soros, who is today listed as a member of the Board of Trustees, according to Wikipedia. Other Jews on the board include former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, and Israeli journalist Nahum Barnea. And if all thls isn’t enough, the Wikipedia article also includes the following tidbit which would strongly suggest the International Crisis Group cannot possibly be an objective observer of events in Venezuela:

Moisés Naím, a member of the board of directors of the International Crisis Group served as the Venezuelan Minister for Development for the centrist government of Carlos Andrés Pérez. In 2011 the International Crisis Group released a report intimating that the Venezuelan government of Hugo Chavez might suffer “unpredictable, possibly violent consequences” if it did not audit the election results in which Chávez won.[15] The election results have been recognized as valid by 170 neutral international observers with the exception of the United States government, who along with allied governments, provides half of the funding for the International Crisis Group. (emphasis added)

None of this, of course, is mentioned in the Washington Post story.

By the way, former Venezuelan President Carlos Andrés Pérez survived a coup attempt by Hugo Chavez in 1992, but later was ousted after the Venezuelan Supreme Court found him guilty of embezzling 250 million bolivars.

Of this past Saturday’s events, Venezuela Analysis is reporting as follows:

The incident occurred during another day of anti-government protest that saw opposition supporters attempt to march on the Ministry of the Interior in downtown Caracas, despite lacking a permit for the route.

The march was preceded by a speech by Miranda Governor and former opposition presidential candidate Henrique Capriles in which he called Maduro the “the biggest m—–f–cker in the country”.

“We will remain firm until this corrupt narco-dictatorship leaves Venezuela, until we have the change we want… If we have to risk our skin, we will risk it!” he told the crowds.

Although the march began peacefully, the mobilization later devolved into violent clashes as demonstrators tried to penetrate police lines around the western Caracas municipality of El Libertador.

It seems the Trump administration is fully on board with the regime change effort, and apparently Exxon-Mobil, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s former employer, has a particular interest at stake. This at any rate is the assessment in an article published several days ago by Eric Draitser:

There is a misconception spreading through the Beltway like an airborne virus, infectious in its obliviousness to reality: the idea that the administration of President Donald Trump is so bogged down by scandal and controversy that it cannot achieve any geopolitical and strategic objectives. In fact, the opposite is true. Like a cornered animal, Trump and his team are exceedingly dangerous, both in their unpredictability and, strangely enough, also in their predictability.

And when it comes to Venezuela, their strategy is transparent.

Oil reigns supreme in the minds of Trump, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and the rest of the administration. In the case of Venezuela, oil remains the lifeblood of its economy.  So in a very real sense, the White House and State Department’s interests converge with the economic imperatives of corporate America in the Bolivarian Republic.

Tillerson represents perhaps the perfect embodiment of U.S. government attitudes toward Venezuela. A slick oil man through and through, Tillerson has long sought to destabilize Venezuela in an attempt to reassert ExxonMobil’s supremacy in the country.

Venezuela’s recent rocky history begins with Chavez’s nationalization of the oil sector under the state oil company PDVSA in 2007. The Chavez government offered ExxonMobil book value for assets that it intended to assume control over, while the Tillerson-led company demanded market value, which they priced at roughly $15 billion.  Eventually, the World Bank’s arbitration court ordered Venezuela to pay $1.6 billion to ExxonMobil.

But ExxonMobil’s anger at Caracas was certainly not assuaged with that settlement agreement. In fact, the following decade saw ExxonMobil step up efforts to destabilize Venezuela’s socialist government using a variety of tactics.

Related

10 Reasons Trump Should Not Strengthen U.S.-Saudi Ties

Human rights abuses and funding terrorism, for starters.

By Medea Benjamin

May 17, 2017 “Information Clearing House” –  Donald Trump has selected Saudi Arabia as the destination for his first trip abroad, strengthening U.S. ties to a regime that is fueling the very extremism, intolerance and violence that the US government purports to eradicate. Here’s 10 reasons why the United States should not be closely allied with the Saudi kingdom.

    1. The Saudis export an extremist interpretation of Islam, Wahhabism, around the globe. Over the past three decades, Saudi Arabia has spent about $4 billion per year on mosques, madrassas, preachers, students, and textbooks to spread Wahhabism and anti-Western sentiment. Let’s not forget that 15 of the 19 fanatical hijackers who carried out the 9/11 attacks were Saudis, as was Osama bin Laden himself.
    2. The Saudis fund terrorism worldwide. A Wikileaks-revealed 2009 cable quotes then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton saying, “Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide … More needs to be done since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Lashkar e-Tayyiba and other terrorist groups.” In Syria the Saudis are supporting the most extreme sectarian forces. And while the Saudi government condemns ISIS, many experts, including 9/11 Commission Report lead author Senator Bob Graham, believe that ISIS is a product of Saudi ideals, Saudi money and Saudi organizational support.
    3. The government represses religious minorities. Trump says he is promoting tolerance, but this theocratic Sunni regime is based on repressing the Shia minority and non-Muslims. It is the only country in the world to ban all churches, and atheism is a capital offense. Year after year, the U.S. government’s own Commission on International Religious Freedom says Saudi Arabia commits “systematic, ongoing and egregious violations of religious freedom.”
    4. Free speech and free association are forbidden in the kingdom. Criticizing the Saudi regime can lead to flogging, long jail sentences or even beheading. Tragic examples are Raif Badawi, languishing in prison for blogging; attorney Waleed Abulkhair, serving a 15-year sentence for defending human rights; and Ali al-Nimr, arrested as a minor and now on death row for nonviolent dissent.The regime is the most misogynist, gender-segregated country in the world. Women are not even allowed to drive and must live under a guardianship system that gives men authority over the most important decisions in their lives.
    5. There is no political freedom in Saudi Arabia. While most of the world’s monarchies have evolved to lessen the role of royalty, Saudi Arabia remains one of the world’s last absolute monarchies.TheSaud family picks the king, who then has ultimate authority in virtually every aspect of government. There are no national elections and political parties are banned, as are unions and most civic organizations.
    6. They have engaged in a catastrophic war in Yemen. In March 2015, the Saudis launched a bombing campaign in Yemen that has targeted schools, hospitals, markets, weddings and funerals. The war has resulted in acute malnutrition and disease, leaving a Yemeni child dying every 10 minutes. Instead of supporting the bombing, the US government should be pushing a ceasefire and negotiations.
    7. Saudi Arabia has one of the highest execution rates in the world. Scores of people are killed each year after being convicted of various nonviolent charges that range from adultery, apostasy, drug use and sorcery. The executions are usually carried out by public beheading.
    8. The Kingdom primarily functions on the backs of mistreated foreign laborers. Of the nation’s 30 million people, some 10 million are foreigners. Workers from poor nations seek economic gains within Saudi Arabia, but are often lured under false pretenses and then not allowed to leave the country without permission from their employer. Female migrant workers, treated like indentured servants, often face physical and sexual abuse.
    9. Saudi Arabia helps maintain the world’s destructive dependence on oil. Saudi Arabia is the largest exporter of oil in the world. With its vast potential for solar energy, Saudi Arabia could lead the world in renewable energy. Instead, the economy remains almost entirely dependent on oil and on the international level, Saudi Arabia works with the United States to oppose global climate agreements that would affect oil profits.

If the Trump administration truly wants to find a way out of the wars in the Middle East and make the United States safer from terrorists, it would do well to stop arming, aiding and abetting the ruthless Saudi regime.

Medea Benjamin is cofounder of the peace group CodePink. Her latest book is Kingdom of the Unjust: Behind the U.S.-Saudi Connection (OR Books, September 2016).

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

See also

Trump to unveil plans for an ‘Arab NATO’ in Saudi Arabia: When President Trump arrives in Riyadh this week, he will lay out his vision for a new regional security architecture White House officials call an “Arab NATO,” to guide the fight against terrorism and push back against Iran.

Click for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.

Related Videos

Related Articles

الأسد يتّهم الأردن بتسهيل الغزو الأميركي في الجنوب … وعقود النفط والغاز مع روسيا في «خطواتها الأخيرة»

الأسد يتّهم الأردن بتسهيل الغزو الأميركي في الجنوب … وعقود النفط والغاز مع روسيا في «خطواتها الأخيرة»

أطفال من بلدتَي كفريا والفوعة وصلوا أمس إلى مدينة حلب (أ ف ب)

قد تشير التصريحات الحادة اللهجة، الصادرة من دمشق تجاه الأردن، إلى أن الجنوب السوري سيشهد تصعيداً واسعاً، من الممكن أن تنخرط فيه عمّان بدفع أميركي باتجاه موقع مشابه للأتراك في الشمال، بحجة حماية الحدود من «الإرهاب». الهجوم السوري تجاه الجارة الجنوبية جاء على لسان الرئيس السوري بشار الأسد، الذي أكد أن الدور الأردني لم يخرج عن الأجندة الأميركية من بداية الحرب

ي ضوء التصعيد المتواصل لهجمات المجموعات المسلحة في مدينة درعا، بالتوازي مع المعلومات التي تحدثت عن مشاريع أميركية ــ أردنية مشتركة على طول الحدود السورية الجنوبية، أكد الرئيس السوري بشار الأسد علم دمشق بتلك المعلومات من مصادر مختلفة، مهاجماً الدور الأردني خلال الحرب السورية، الذي كان «جزءاً من المخطط الأميركي منذ بداية الحرب».

التأكيد الرسمي من دمشق قد يشير إلى أن الجنوب السوري سيكون بدوره كما الشمال مسرحاً لعمليات عسكرية مدعومة أميركياً، سوف تحاول ضمنه واشنطن بمشاركة حلفائها الإقليميين، وعلى رأسهم الأردن وإسرائيل، إضعاف نفوذ دمشق وحلفائها، وإبعاد «خطرهم» عن إسرائيل. وهو ما انعكس في تصريحات وزير الدفاع الأميركي جايمس ماتيس، من إسرائيل، التي قال فيها إن «تحالفنا مع إسرائيل هو الحجر الأساس لتعاون أمني أوسع يشمل التعاون مع مصر والأردن والسعودية وشركائنا في دول الخليج». وأكد أن سوريا «لا تزال تحتفظ ببعض أسلحتها الكيميائية»، محذراً الرئيس الأسد من استخدامها.

واعتبر الرئيس الأسد في مقابلة مع وكالتي «ريا نوفوستي» و«سبوتنيك» الروسيتين، أن «الأردن ليس بلداً مستقلاً، وكل ما يريده الأميركيون سوف يحدث، فإذا أرادوا استخدام الجزء الشمالي من الأردن ضد سوريا، فإنهم سيستخدمونه». وفي المقابل، استفز كلام الرئيس السوري الحكومة الأردنية. فبعد ساعات على نشر المقابلة، أعرب المتحدث باسم الحكومة محمد المومني، عن «أسفه لحديث الأسد عن موقف الأردن وهو لا يسيطر على غالبية أراضي سوريا». ورأى أن «حديث الأسد منسلخ تماماً عن الواقع».

هجوم الأسد ضد الدور الأردني لم يأتِ وحيداً، إذ أكد أنه «عندما تتحدث عن الغزو التركي، وعندما نتحدث عن القوات الأميركية التي نعتبرها غزواً، وعندما تتحدث عن الإرهابيين على الأرض، فكلهم كيان واحد… وعندما تهزم الإرهابيين، عندها تستطيع أن تذهب وتحارب الآخرين الذين يحتلون الأرض»، معتبراً أن «الأميركيين كالأتراك، كأي محتل آخر عليهم الخروج بإرادتهم أو بالقوة».
وأشار إلى أن التصدي للهجمات الصاروخية الأميركية «بحاجة إلى نظام مكثف يغطي كل زاوية كي يتمكن من إسقاط الصواريخ»، مشيراً إلى أن «الإرهابيين لجأوا منذ بداية الهجمات إلى تدمير الدفاعات الجوية التي لا علاقة لها بما كانوا يسمونه حينذاك المظاهرات السلمية». ولفت إلى أن القوات السورية «فقدت أكثر من خمسين في المئة» من قوات دفاعها الجوي خلال سنوات الحرب، مضيفاً أن «الروس من خلال دعمهم عوّضوا جزءاً من تلك الخسارة بأسلحة وأنظمة دفاع جوي نوعية».

وجدد التأكيد على أن حادث خان شيخون «مفبرك»، وعلى أن الغرب والولايات المتحدة منعوا أي وفد من القدوم للتحقيق لأنه لو أتى «سيجد أن كل رواياتهم كانت فبركة وكذباً». وحول التفجير الذي استهدف الحافلات في منطقة الراشدين السبت الماضي، قال الأسد: «نحن نتحدث عن فصائل مختلفة وجميعها مرتبط بالقاعدة أو (جبهة النصرة)، قام أحد تلك الفصائل بمهاجمة الحافلات التي كانت مخصصة لنقل نفس المدنيين».

وعن تحرك القوات السورية باتجاه الرقة، أشار إلى أنه «قبل شهر فقط كان جيشنا يتقدم من حلب نحو الشرق، باتجاه الرقة، ولم يكن بعيداً عن الوصول إلى هناك، عندها شن الإرهابيون هجومهم على وسط سوريا… وتم إبطاء تقدمنا لأننا غيّرنا أولويتنا».

في سياق آخر، رأى الأسد أن «معظم الفصائل التي انضمت ظاهرياً إلى المفاوضات في أستانا وبعض تلك التي شاركت في جنيف، لا تقبل بدولة علمانية. إنهم يريدون دولة دينية إسلامية، وهو الجزء الأكثر أهمية في الخلاف المتعلق بالدستور».

على صعيد آخر، أعلن الرئيس السوري أن «السوق المحلي مفتوح الآن للشركات الروسية كي تأتي وتنضم إلينا وتلعب دوراً مهماً في إعادة بناء سوريا والاستثمار فيها»، مضيفاً أنّ «الجزء الأكثر أهمية بالنسبة إلينا، وأعتقد بالنسبة إليهم أيضاً، هو مجال النفط والغاز، وقد انضمت أخيراً بعض الشركات الروسية إلى القطاع خلال الأشهر القليلة الماضية، وتجرى الآن الخطوات الأخيرة في عملية توقيع العقود».
وبالتوازي مع التصعيد الدبلوماسي الأخير، استهدفت القوات الإسرائيلية أمس مواقع للجيش السوري في القنيطرة. وأوضح مصدر عسكري أن «طيران العدو الإسرائيلي عمد الى إطلاق صاروخين من داخل الأراضي المحتلة على أحد مواقعنا العسكرية في محيط بلدة خان أرنبة، ما أدى إلى وقوع خسائر مادية».

وفي موازاة الاتهامات الأميركية لدمشق، رأى وزير الخارجية الروسي سيرغي لافروف، أن رفض الدول الغربية مقترح إجراء تحقيق حول خان شيخون «أمر غير مقبول». وقال إن «المعلومات الكاذبة حول استخدام السلاح الكيميائي تستغل للتراجع عن القرار الدولي (2254) الذي ينص على تسوية سياسية، والعودة إلى فكرة تغيير النظام، ويجب ألا نسمح بحدوث ذلك». ولفت إلى أنه يجب التركيز على عملية أستانا لضمان الوصول إلى وقف لإطلاق النار، مشيراً إلى أنه يجري العمل على «توسيع عدد المشاركين في هذا الاتفاق».

وبالتوازي، قالت وزارة الخارجية الروسية إن لافروف، ونظيره الأميركي ريكس تيلرسون، اتفقا في اتصال هاتفي أمس، على ضرورة البحث في إمكانية تشكيل لجنة تحقيق تحت رعاية «منظمة حظر الأسلحة الكيميائية». وأضافت في بيان أن لافروف أعرب «عن أسفه لمعارضة واشنطن مبادرة روسيا» في «منظمة حظر الأسلحة الكيميائية»، لافتة إلى أنه جرى الاتفاق على «إطلاق نشاط مجموعة العمل الروسية ــ الأميركية المشتركة، على مستوى نواب وزيري الخارجية للبلدين».
(الأخبار)

 

Trump – From Coward to Hero – MOAB, Syria, North Korea and Yemen are the Answer

April 23, 2017

by Peter Koenig

Trump, within a span of a week, has made a U-turn; from a coward to hero. So the MSM; his aggressive violence, his murderous killing spree in Syria, Yemen and threatening North Korea with a nuclear ‘take-out’ – turns Trump from a pussie to a macho. Overnight, so to speak, Trump has become the darling of the presstitute Zionist-MSM. That tells you who is controlling the ‘brainstream’ of the masses. Just look at the 24 April 2017 edition of the US Inquirer – “Trump Declaring War on Dictators”, depicting photographs of Presidents Putin, Assad, and Kim Jong Un, with the caption “Dead Men Walking”. What this paper says – if the term ‘paper’ even applies to this piece of junk – is the opinion of a large segment of the US population – and the west in general, led by the puppets of Europe.

After attacking Syria for a false flag Sarin gas attack on mainly women and children, instigated by CIA and carried out by Erdogan’s forces, helped by the Saudis; pretending sending the nuclear aircraft carrier Carl Vinson to the shores of North Korea – and taking over from the Saudis, the most vicious war against helpless Yemen, killing thousands of civilians, women and children, soon exceeding Obama’s murders – and plunging this poverty struck country into further misery and famine – Trump has finally ascended to the level corporate Zion-America and their corrupt media requires a US president to command the world. Bravo!

Actually, with all the hoopla of the new warrior Trump, there seems to be a lot of confusion regarding his turn-around politics in Syria, and especially with the aircraft flotilla sailing towards North Korea. According to the NYT, the Navy released photographs of the Carl Vinson off the coast of Indonesia to take part in a joint Navy exercise with Australia, thousands of miles away from the Korean peninsula. Trump then corrected himself saying the vessel would arrive in North Korea by this weekend, whereas the Pentagon speculated it would reach its destination more likely towards the end of April. And a few days ago, the White House reported sending two more carriers and flotillas to North Korean waters? – What is actually going on in the waters off the Korean peninsula?

Not least as Trump’s heroic bravura, he inaugurated the “Mother of All Bombs” (MOAB) – the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Blast Bomb, by dropping it – an 11,000-ton bomb equivalent of TNT – on Afghanistan’s villages – killing dozens of innocent people. Even within his first 100 days in office, Trump has joined the club of murderers, assassins and war criminals of his predecessors. Just to see whether MOAB behaves as expected, busting bunkers and other underground structures, causing earthquake like explosions up to 200 m below the surface, capable of destroying bunkers and nuclear reactors. Its reported to be the most devastating bomb, other than a nuclear bomb. The most vicious and devastating test since the nuclear Hiroshima blast.

The MOAB is mainly thought for nuclear reactors. Afghanistan, already a wasteland, complements of the horrid west, was not chosen by accident for the test. Afghanistan, in addition to the transit still planned of the infamous and highly disputed TAPI (Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India) pipeline, also possesses uncountable riches of rare earths and minerals – worth billions and especially needed for the ever-growing war industrial complex – which already today uses up more than half of the extractive industry’s output, worldwide.

Imagine – first devastation of mother earth by plundering her unrenewable resources; then doubling up with destruction and merciless killing and maiming of countries, cities, cultures and entire populations. All for dominance, power and – greed. And Trump goes along with all of that – at least for now, as he needs the support of Zion-Neocons to survive.

Yes, Trump, after just 100 days in office has proven that he is up to the task that his masters have carved out for him. He had a choice of sticking to his campaign promises of seeking peace not war, of not interfering in other countries’ businesses – and risking being impeached or even killed – there are precedents of neutralizing inconvenient politicians, including in the history of the United States, as we know – by the deep establishment. Well, The Donald chose to live and bask in the sun of his success. Who wants to blame him?  But turning from an eccentric billionaire macho bully to an outright mass murderer, makes him a first-degree mass murderer. If there was an independent Nuremberg style court on this globe, their fate would be sealed.

Justice in our western world is nothing but a pipedream. And unless, We, the People, stop believing in the fakeness of the UN System, of international institutions, including the International Court of Justice – once designed as balancing organisms, as peace and justice seeking institutions – we are actually contributing to the fraud played out in front of our eyes.

Now let’s face it. Would Washington and its masters be stupid enough to risk a nuclear war over North Korea, or Syria for that matter? – I doubt it. Not even Trump would be stupid enough to risk destroying the world as we know it, with no known outcomes, other than probable and likely total or close to total destruction. That’s not good business. That’s not good for profits. On the other hand, keeping wars and conflicts as vicious and chaotic as possible and as long as possible, that’s good business, bringing high profits for the war industry and its sub-contractor, the extractive industry.

Mr. Trump, you are businessman. Your sable-rattling scares people. Scared people do not invest. But you know such things. Do you? – So, you can’t really believe that you will scare Presidents Putin and Jinping onto their knees? – They are much stronger than you, intellectually, spiritually and your war-mongering armada displayed around the globe. And you and your masters know it. But hope more deception-propaganda may help postpone your faltering empire’s demise.

Talking to Americans of all walks, talks and believes – the Inquirer, mentioned above, may at least partially reflect the opinion of a large a segment of people. Though, one thing is crystal clear and unites pretty much all US citizens I talked to – whether they voted for The Donald or not – none of them wants war. They are all scared of another war; they want peace, work and a livelihood that allows them to feed their families.

President Trump take note. They elected you. Most of them are sick and tired seeing their tax dollars being spent on wars and endless conflicts around the globe – while at home they are suffering unemployment at rates way above the official labor statistics – around 22% – a rate similar to those of Spain and Greece. They all may like the MSM hammered and brainwashed slogan of “America First” and “Making America Great Again” – but they do not see the connection to wars. None of those that I talked to think that the Inquirer’s ‘dictators’ – Messrs. Assad, Kim Jong Un and Putin are a threat to US national security.

President Trump wake up! Your co-citizens are waking up. They want an America of Peace, not of bombs and blood. They want the America your promised them – of friendly relations with other nations, including Russia, of non-interference in foreign lands, of a reduction of the more than 1,000 US military bases around the globe – and they want you to bring back outsourced jobs to their Homeland. The want a strong America, as in a solid economy, not one based on wars and destruction.

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a former World Bank staff and worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research, ICH, RT, Sputnik, PressTV, The 4th Media (China), TeleSUR, The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance.

HAMA: MORK AND HILFAAYAA ARE NEXT ON THE MENU AFTER THE LIBERATION OF SOORAAN; SYRIAN ARMY TAKES OVER MADHAAYAA AND ZABADAANI; U.S. AND LIMEY ALLIES OPENING NEW FRONT IN DER’AH AFTER HUMILIATING DEFEAT FOR TERRORIST ALQAEDA

Ziad Fadel

HAMA:

Image result for syrian army liberates Souran

https://www.facebook.com/Hispantv/videos/1390411194355017/

Do you want to see what it was like for the terrorist grubs of Sooraan?  Watch the link above from Silvia Iranova.  Using thermobarics, the Russian Air Force paid the United States back in spades for its ridiculously unjustified attack on our base at Al-Shu’ayraat.

All of you know the Tiger Forces alongside the 5th Mechanized Armored Division, armed with the latest Russian and Syrian tank technology, stormed Souraan Town and obliterated every single cockroach there just before liberating the area.  With Souraan now secured, the SAA is heading for a final showdown in Hama at the cities of Hilfaayaa and Al-Mawrik (Mork).  This will spell the end of Alqaeda and its affiliates in this province.  All the miserable efforts of the terrorists to reach the unconquerable Christian towns of Suqaylabiyya and Maharda have come to naught.  Wael estimates that over 20,000 rodents have been killed in combat in Hama since the start of the foreign inspired insurgency in Syria.

The groups most affected here have been Jaysh Al-‘Izza and Jaysh Al-Nasr.  Both these criminal enterprises were responsible for shaking down citizens pitilessly over the last 3 years.  They are now on the verge of extinction.

It has also been made quite clear from the maneuverings of the noisome limey scum in Turkey that the U.K. has all but given up on Hama Province dedicating all its remaining resources to strengthening the rodents in Idlib and south of Der’ah City.

 

Al-Zaara Power Station:  The SAA soundly repelled a terrorist attack on this important facility especially at the area designated for employees to work.  The attack originated in Hurr-Bi-Nafsuh village.  After trying to engage the SAA in combat, the rodents were ordered back to their village to torment the residents there.

_______________________________________________

DER’AH:

It’s all over the news, so there will be no surprise that the mephitic Hashemite regime of King ‘Abdullah bin Antoinette Avril Gardiner has joined with its British and American allies to create an appropriate environment to train and equip a new generation of terrorist murderers and nihilists on Jordanian soil to take up the slack left by the defeated Alqaeda whores handled and controlled by their Zionist pimps.  I have heard news that the U.S. and Britain will provide these stunted rodents with air cover so that they can conquer Der’ah City and establish a competing state.  The Neo-Con Zionist theory is that the implementation of one successful plan in a city of troglodytes, like Der’ah, will see more such independent states rising up to challenge the writ of the central government leading to the ultimate aim of dismembering Syria.  Only an imbecile, like Trump, would fall for such a half-baked nonsensical plan like this.

Please try to remember some of the salient points I have made in essays going back 6 years at the time of SyrPer’s inception.  The aim of the United States is to maintain its hegemony over Europe by defeating a Russian plan to help Iran to extend its natural gas pipeline across Iraq to ports in Syria where the gas will be used to augment the existing power of Gazprom over Europe and Eurasia.  Initially, the plan was simple:  overthrow the Damascus-based government of Dr. Bashar Al-Assad and install a Sunni puppet who will, like the dwarf king of Jordan, play according to neo-imperialist rules.  That came a cropper.  The U.S. was unable to develop assets capable of defeating the unified Syrian Army and its allies in Russia, Iran and Lebanon.  It was a disastrous policy that has stained the previous president, Obama, with the label of war criminal.

The Obama administration kept to what SyrPer first introduced as the “Obama Doctrine” which outlined a forceful American foreign policy exploiting the needs of proxies.  This is what happened in Libya where the U.S. limited its participation to logistical and intelligence support for the criminal regimes in Paris and London.  In Libya, the Obama Doctrine successfully overthrew the sitting president of the country only to herald the start of a vicious, anarchic civil war that continues to burn until this very day.

The Zionists, as Dr. Bashar Al-Ja’fari said once in the Detroit area during a visit, were trying to justify their racist apartheid state by creating other mini-states around them who were identifiable by their ethnic or religious character.  Hence, there would be a Druze state in Suwaydaa`.  An Alawi/Christian state in Latakia and Tartous.  There would be an Ismaili state in Hama; An Islamic Caliphate in Dayr El-Zor and Hasaka; 2 Sunni states in Aleppo and Damascus…..and so on and so forth.  The plan is preposterous and based on racist and bigoted concepts of what it is to be Syrian.  It is almost as though Orientalists of the 19th Century had arisen from the dead to take over the sick Zionist mind.  That could be said also of the Americans, British and French.  The Zionist settlers, like Mileikowski (a/k/a Netanyahu) hoped to justify their own existence as an exclusivist apartheid state by pointing the existence of other states in the same region.  They also has an interest in blunting the power of Iran once it was able to extend the pipeline to Europe via Syria.

Russia is fully aware of these plans and has combined with the Syrian government and that of Iran to create a counter-force to this.  The Western plan is not appetizing to the Syrian opposition.  I can say with some sense of confidence that the hotel-based opposition and the terrorist groups on the ground are not interested in dismembering Syria.  They would like to keep it whole.  I believe that once the cat is out of the bag, many terrorists will prefer to deal with Dr. Assad than the murdering rodents who are trying to destroy their country.

 

DAMASCUS: 

The Syrian Army has destroyed all tunnels which were used by the murdering hordes of Wahhabist hyenas after receiving precise intelligence from scores of former terrorists in Madhaayaa, Buqqeen and Al-Zabadaani.  The western areas of Damascus Province are now rat-free.  What is left is the Eastern Ghoutaa.  With fresh forces from the west now heading to the east of the capital, it is only a matter of a short time before the ‘Alloosh family of cockroaches is exterminated.

خروج 45 حافلة تقل اهالي الفوعة وكفريا  اليوم مقابل 11 حافلة من الزبدني

Yesterday, 11 buses left the western Damascus area to ship obdurate terrorist sludge and their stinking issue to Idlib where they will face the full fury of the Syrian Army and its Russian allies.  Another tranche of citizens of Al-Faw’ah and Kafaryaa also left for the relative safety of Aleppo in 42 buses.

__________________________________________

NEWS AND COMMENT:

Interesting interview by Paul Jay of a Trinity College professor steeped in the Middle East:

http://therealnews.com/t2/?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&jumival=18870

It has now been exposed as an outright lie. Dr. Postol of MIT does it again. Make this viral:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/mit-expert-claims-latest-chemical-100819428.html
Read more at https://syrianperspective.com/2017/04/hama-mork-and-hilfaayaa-are-next-on-the-menu-after-the-liberation-of-sooraan-syrian-army-takes-over-madhaayaa-and-zabadaani-u-s-and-limey-allies-opening-new-front-in-derah-after-humiliat.html#d27SSE2br2RVyJQr.99
Read more

Related Videos

Related Articles

Robert Kennedy Jr: “Syria Is Another Proxy Oil War”

RSFP

by 

Robert Kennedy Jr. has bravely exposed how the Syrian invasion by the Trump administration is yet another proxy oil war. 

According to an astonishing essay written 6 weeks before the gas attack on Syrian citizens, Kennedy explains how the US funds and manages ISIS in order to destabilize the region with the aim of ultimately taking control over the oil supply in the region.

Ecowatch.com reports:

The fossil fuel industry’s business model is to externalize its costs by clawing in obscene subsidies and tax deductions—causing grave environmental costs, including toxic pollution and global warming. Among the other unassessed prices of the world’s addiction to oil are social chaos, war, terror, the refugee crisis overseas, and the loss of democracy and civil rights abroad and at home.

As we focus on the rise of ISIS and search for the source of the savagery that took so many innocent lives in Paris and San Bernardino, we might want to look beyond the convenient explanations of religion and ideology and focus on the more complex rationales of history and oil, which mostly point the finger of blame for terrorism back at the champions of militarism, imperialism and petroleum here on our own shores.

America’s unsavory record of violent interventions in Syria—obscure to the American people yet well known to Syrians—sowed fertile ground for the violent Islamic Jihadism that now complicates any effective response by our government to address the challenge of ISIS. So long as the American public and policymakers are unaware of this past, further interventions are likely to only compound the crisis. Moreover, our enemies delight in our ignorance.

As the New York Times reported in a Dec. 8, 2015 front page story, ISIS political leaders and strategic planners are working to provoke an American military intervention which, they know from experience, will flood their ranks with volunteer fighters, drown the voices of moderation and unify the Islamic world against America.

To understand this dynamic, we need to look at history from the Syrians’ perspective and particularly the seeds of the current conflict. Long before our 2003 occupation of Iraq triggered the Sunni uprising that has now morphed into the Islamic State, the CIA had nurtured violent Jihadism as a Cold War weapon and freighted U.S./Syrian relationships with toxic baggage.

During the 1950’s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a cold war neutral zone and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab Nationalism—which CIA Director Allan Dulles equated with communism—particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies which they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism. At a White House meeting between the CIA’s Director of Plans, Frank Wisner, and Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, in September of 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the ‘holy war’ aspect.”

The CIA began its active meddling in Syria in 1949—barely a year after the agency’s creation. Syrian patriots had declared war on the Nazis, expelled their Vichy French colonial rulers and crafted a fragile secularist democracy based on the American model. But in March of 1949, Syria’s democratically elected president, Shukri-al-Kuwatili, hesitated to approve the Trans Arabian Pipeline, an American project intended to connect the oil fields of Saudi Arabia to the ports of Lebanon via Syria. In his book, Legacy of Ashes, CIA historian Tim Weiner recounts that in retaliation, the CIA engineered a coup, replacing al-Kuwaiti with the CIA’s handpicked dictator, a convicted swindler named Husni al-Za’im. Al-Za’im barely had time to dissolve parliament and approve the American pipeline before his countrymen deposed him, 14 weeks into his regime.

Following several counter coups in the newly destabilized country, the Syrian people again tried democracy in 1955, re-electing al-Kuwatili and his Ba’ath Party. Al-Kuwaiti was still a Cold War neutralist but, stung by American involvement in his ouster, he now leaned toward the Soviet camp. That posture caused Dulles to declare that “Syria is ripe for a coup” and send his two coup wizards, Kim Roosevelt and Rocky Stone to Damascus.

Two years earlier, Roosevelt and Stone had orchestrated a coup in Iran against the democratically elected President Mohammed Mosaddegh after Mosaddegh tried to renegotiate the terms of Iran’s lopsided contracts with the oil giant, BP. Mosaddegh was the first elected leader in Iran’s 4,000 year history, and a popular champion for democracy across the developing world. Mosaddegh expelled all British diplomats after uncovering a coup attempt by UK intelligence officers working in cahoots with BP.

Mosaddegh, however, made the fatal mistake of resisting his advisors’ pleas to also expel the CIA, which they correctly suspected, and was complicit in the British plot. Mosaddegh idealized the U.S. as a role model for Iran’s new democracy and incapable of such perfidies. Despite Dulles’ needling, President Truman had forbidden the CIA from actively joining the British caper to topple Mosaddegh.

When Eisenhower took office in January 1953, he immediately unleashed Dulles. After ousting Mosaddegh in “Operation Ajax,” Stone and Roosevelt installed Shah Reza Pahlavi, who favored U.S. oil companies, but whose two decades of CIA sponsored savagery toward his own people from the Peacock throne would finally ignite the 1979 Islamic revolution that has bedeviled our foreign policy for 35 years.

Flush from his Operation Ajax “success” in Iran, Stone arrived in Damascus in April 1956 with $3 million in Syrian pounds to arm and incite Islamic militants and to bribe Syrian military officers and politicians to overthrow al-Kuwatili’s democratically elected secularist regime. Working with the Muslim Brotherhood, Stone schemed to assassinate Syria’s Chief of Intelligence, its Chief of the General Staff and the Chief of the Communist Party and to engineer “national conspiracies and various strong arm” provocations in Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan that could be blamed on the Syrian Ba’athists.

The CIA’s plan was to destabilize the Syrian government, and create a pretext for an invasion by Iraq and Jordan, whose governments were already under CIA control. Roosevelt forecasted that the CIA’s newly installed puppet government would “rely first upon repressive measures and arbitrary exercise of power.”

But all that CIA money failed to corrupt the Syrian military officers. The soldiers reported the CIA’s bribery attempts to the Ba’athist regime. In response, the Syrian army invaded the American Embassy taking Stone prisoner. Following harsh interrogation, Stone made a televised confession to his roles in the Iranian coup and the CIA’s aborted attempt to overthrow Syria’s legitimate government.

The Syrian’s ejected Stone and two U.S. Embassy staffers—the first time any American State Department diplomat was barred from an Arab country. The Eisenhower White House hollowly dismissed Stone’s confession as “fabrications and slanders,” a denial swallowed whole by the American press, led by the New York Times and believed by the American people, who shared Mosaddegh’s idealistic view of their government.

Syria purged all politicians sympathetic to the U.S. and executed them for treason. In retaliation, the U.S. moved the Sixth Fleet to the Mediterranean, threatened war and goaded Turkey to invade Syria. The Turks assembled 50,000 troops on Syria’s borders and only backed down in the face of unified opposition from the Arab League whose leaders were furious at the U.S. intervention.

Even after its expulsion, the CIA continued its secret efforts to topple Syria’s democratically elected Ba’athist government. The CIA plotted with Britain’s MI6 to form a “Free Syria Committee” and armed the Muslim Brotherhood to assassinate three Syrian government officials, who had helped expose “the American plot.” (Matthew Jones in The ‘Preferred Plan’: The Anglo-American Working Group Report on Covert Action in Syria, 1957). The CIA’s mischief pushed Syria even further away from the U.S. and into prolonged alliances with Russia and Egypt.

Following the second Syrian coup attempt, anti-American riots rocked the Mid-East from Lebanon to Algeria. Among the reverberations was the July 14, 1958 coup, led by the new wave of anti-American Army officers who overthrew Iraq’s pro-American monarch, Nuri al-Said. The coup leaders published secret government documents, exposing Nuri al-Said as a highly paid CIA puppet. In response to American treachery, the new Iraqi government invited Soviet diplomats and economic advisers to Iraq and turned its back on the West.

Having alienated Iraq and Syria, Kim Roosevelt fled the Mid-East to work as an executive for the oil industry that he had served so well during his public service career. Roosevelt’s replacement, as CIA Station Chief, James Critchfield attempted a failed assassination plot against the new Iraqi president using a toxic handkerchief. Five years later the CIA finally succeeded in deposing the Iraqi president and installing the Ba’ath Party to power in Iraq.

A charismatic young murderer named Saddam Hussein was one of the distinguished leaders of the CIA’s Ba’athists team. The Ba’ath Party’s Interior Minister, Said Aburish, who took office alongside Saddam Hussein, would later say, “We came to power on a CIA train.” Aburish recounted that the CIA supplied Saddam and his cronies a “murder list” of people who “had to be eliminated immediately in order to ensure success.”

Critchfield later acknowledged that the CIA had, in essence, “created Saddam Hussein.” During the Reagan years, the CIA supplied Hussein with billions of dollars in training, Special Forces support, and weapons and battlefield intelligence knowing that he was using poisonous mustard and nerve gas and biological weapons—including anthrax obtained from the U.S. government—in his war against Iran.

Reagan and his CIA Director, Bill Casey, regarded Saddam as a potential friend to the U.S. oil industry and a sturdy barrier against the spread of Iran’s Islamic Revolution. Their emissary, Donald Rumsfeld, presented Saddam with a pair of pearl-handled revolvers and a menu of chemical/biological and conventional weapons on a 1983 trip to Bagdad. At the same time, the CIA was illegally supplying Saddam’s enemy—Iran—with thousands of anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles to fight Iraq, a crime made famous during the Iran Contra scandal. Jihadists from both sides later turned many of those CIA supplied weapons against the American people.

Even as America contemplates yet another violent Mid-East intervention, most Americans are unaware of the many ways that “blowback” from previous CIA blunders has helped craft the current crisis. The reverberations from decades of CIA shenanigans continue to echo across the Mid-East today in national capitals and from mosques to madras schools over the wrecked landscape of democracy and moderate Islam that the CIA helped obliterate.

In July 1956, less than two months after the CIA’s failed Syrian Coup, my uncle, Senator John F. Kennedy, infuriated the Eisenhower White House, the leaders of both political parties and our European allies with a milestone speech endorsing the right of self-governance in the Arab world and an end to America’s imperialist meddling in Arab countries. Throughout my lifetime, and particularly during my frequent travels to the Mid-East, countless Arabs have fondly recalled that speech to me as the clearest statement of the idealism they expected from the U.S.

Kennedy’s speech was a call for recommitting America to the high values our country had championed in the Atlantic Charter, the formal pledge that all the former European colonies would have the right to self-determination following World War II. FDR had strong-armed Churchill and the other allied leaders to sign the Atlantic Charter in 1941 as a precondition for U.S. support in the European war against fascism.

Thanks in large part to Allan Dulles and the CIA, whose foreign policy intrigues were often directly at odds with the stated policies of our nation, the idealistic path outlined in the Atlantic Charter was the road not taken. In 1957, my grandfather, Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy, sat on a secret committee charged with investigating CIA’s clandestine mischief in the Mid-East. The so called “Bruce Lovett Report,” to which he was a signatory, described CIA coup plots in Jordan, Syria, Iran, Iraq and Egypt, all common knowledge on the Arab street, but virtually unknown to the American people who believed, at face value, their government’s denials.

The report blamed the CIA for the rampant anti-Americanism that was then mysteriously taking root “in the many countries in the world today.” The Bruce Lovett Report pointed out that such interventions were antithetical to American values and had compromised America’s international leadership and moral authority without the knowledge of the American people. The report points out that the CIA never considered how we would treat such interventions if some foreign government engineered them in our country. This is the bloody history that modern interventionists like George W. Bush, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio miss when they recite their narcissistic trope that Mid-East nationalists “hate us for our freedoms.”

The Syrian and Iranian coups soiled America’s reputation across the Mid-East and ploughed the fields of Islamic Jihadism which we have, ironically, purposefully nurtured. A parade of Iranian and Syrian dictators, including Bashar al-Assad and his father, have invoked the history of the CIA’s bloody coups as a pretext for their authoritarian rule, repressive tactics and their need for a strong Russian alliance. These stories are therefore well known to the people of Syria and Iran who naturally interpret talk of U.S. intervention in the context of that history.

While the compliant American press parrots the narrative that our military support for the Syrian insurgency is purely humanitarian, many Syrians see the present crisis as just another proxy war over pipelines and geopolitics. Before rushing deeper into the conflagration, it would be wise for us to consider the abundant facts supporting that perspective.

In their view, our war against Bashar Assad did not begin with the peaceful civil protests of the Arab Spring in 2011. Instead it began in 2000 when Qatar proposed to construct a $10 billion, 1,500km pipeline through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Turkey.

Note the purple line which traces the proposed Qatar-Turkey natural gas pipeline and note that all of the countries highlighted in red are part of a new coalition hastily put together after Turkey finally (in exchange for NATO’s acquiescence on Erdogan’s politically-motivated war with the PKK) agreed to allow the US to fly combat missions against ISIS targets from Incirlik. Now note which country along the purple line is not highlighted in red. That’s because Bashar al-Assad didn’t support the pipeline and now we’re seeing what happens when you’re a Mid-East strongman and you decide not to support something the US and Saudi Arabia want to get done. (Map: ZeroHedge.com via MintPress News)

Qatar shares with Iran, the South Pars/North Dome gas field, the world’s richest natural gas repository. The international trade embargo, until recently, prohibited Iran from selling gas abroad and ensured that Qatar’s gas could only reach European markets if it is liquefied and shipped by sea, a route that restricts volume and dramatically raises costs.

The proposed pipeline would have linked Qatar directly to European energy markets via distribution terminals in Turkey which would pocket rich transit fees. The Qatar/Turkey pipeline would have given the Sunni Kingdoms of the Persian Gulf decisive domination of world natural gas markets and strengthen Qatar, America’s closest ally in the Arab world. Qatar hosts two massive American military bases and the U.S. Central Command’s Mid-East headquarters.

The EU, which gets 30 percent of its gas from Russia, was equally hungry for the pipeline which would have given its members cheap energy and relief from Vladimir Putin’s stifling economic and political leverage. Turkey, Russia’s second largest gas customer, was particularly anxious to end its reliance on its ancient rival and to position itself as the lucrative transect hub for Asian fuels to EU markets. The Qatari pipeline would have benefited Saudi Arabia’s conservative Sunni Monarchy by giving them a foothold in Shia dominated Syria.

The Saudi’s geopolitical goal is to contain the economic and political power of the Kingdom’s principal rival, Iran, a Shiite state, and close ally of Bashar Assad. The Saudi monarchy viewed the U.S. sponsored Shia takeover in Iraq as a demotion to its regional power and was already engaged in a proxy war against Tehran in Yemen, highlighted by the Saudi genocide against the Iranian backed Houthi tribe.

Of course, the Russians, who sell 70 percent of their gas exports to Europe, viewed the Qatar/Turkey pipeline as an existential threat. In Putin’s view, the Qatar pipeline is a NATO plot to change the status quo, deprive Russia of its only foothold in the Middle East, strangle the Russian economy and end Russian leverage in the European energy market. In 2009, Assad announced that he would refuse to sign the agreement to allow the pipeline to run through Syria “to protect the interests of our Russian ally.”

Assad further enraged the Gulf’s Sunni monarchs by endorsing a Russian approved “Islamic pipeline” running from Iran’s side of the gas field through Syria and to the ports of Lebanon. The Islamic pipeline would make Shia Iran instead of Sunni Qatar, the principal supplier to the European energy market and dramatically increase Tehran’s influence in the Mid-East and the world. Israel also was understandably determined to derail the Islamic pipeline which would enrich Iran and Syria and presumably strengthen their proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas.

Secret cables and reports by the U.S., Saudi and Israeli intelligence agencies indicate that the moment Assad rejected the Qatari pipeline, military and intelligence planners quickly arrived at the consensus that fomenting a Sunni uprising in Syria to overthrow the uncooperative Bashar Assad was a feasible path to achieving the shared objective of completing the Qatar/Turkey gas link. In 2009, according to WikiLeaks, soon after Bashar Assad rejected the Qatar pipeline, the CIA began funding opposition groups in Syria.

Bashar Assad’s family is Alawite, a Muslim sect widely perceived as aligned with the Shia camp. “Bashar Assad was never supposed to be president,” says journalist Sy Hersh. “His father brought him back from medical school in London when his elder brother, the heir apparent, was killed in a car crash.”

Before the war started, according to Hersh, Assad was moving to liberalize the country—“They had internet and newspapers and ATM machines and Assad wanted to move toward the west. After 9/11, he gave thousands of invaluable files to the CIA on Jihadist radicals, who he considered a mutual enemy.”

Assad’s regime was deliberately secular and Syria was impressively diverse. The Syrian government and military, for example, were 80 percent Sunni. Assad maintained peace among his diverse peoples by a strong disciplined army loyal to the Assad family, an allegiance secured by a nationally esteemed and highly paid officer corps, a coldly efficient intelligence apparatus and a penchant for brutality which, prior to the war, was rather moderate compared to other Mideast leaders, including our current allies.

According to Hersh, “He certainly wasn’t beheading people every Wednesday like the Saudis do in Mecca.” Another veteran journalist, Bob Parry, echoes that assessment. “No one in the region has clean hands but in the realms of torture, mass killings, civil liberties and supporting terrorism, Assad is much better than the Saudis.”

No one believed that the regime was vulnerable to the anarchy that had riven Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Tunisia. By the spring of 2011, there were small, peaceful demonstrations in Damascus against repression by Assad’s regime. These were mainly the effluvia of the Arab Spring which spread virally across the Arab League states the previous summer. However, Huffington Post UK reported that in Syria the protests were, at least in part, orchestrated by the CIA. WikiLeaks cables indicate that the CIA was already on the ground in Syria.

But the Sunni Kingdoms wanted a much deeper involvement from America. On Sept. 4, 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry told a congressional hearing that the Sunni kingdoms had offered to foot the bill for a US. invasion of Syria to oust Bashar al-Assad. “In fact, some of them have said that if the United States is prepared to go do the whole thing, the way we’ve done it previously in other places [Iraq], they’ll carry the cost,” he stated. Kerry reiterated the offer to Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL27): “With respect to Arab countries offering to bear the costs of [an American invasion] to topple Assad, the answer is profoundly Yes, they have. The offer is on the table.”

Despite pressure from Republicans, Barrack Obama balked at hiring out young Americans to die as mercenaries for a pipeline conglomerate. Obama wisely ignored Republican clamoring to put ground troops in Syria or to funnel more funding to “moderate insurgents.” But by late 2011, Republican pressure and our Sunni allies had pushed the American government into the fray.

In 2011, the U.S. joined France, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and England to form the “Friends of Syria Coalition,” which formally demanded the removal of Assad. The CIA provided $6 million to Barada, a British T.V. channel, to produce pieces entreating Assad’s ouster. Saudi intelligence documents, published by WikiLeaks, show that by 2012, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia were arming, training and funding radical Jihadist Sunni fighters from Syria, Iraq and elsewhere to overthrow the Assad’s Shia allied regime. Qatar, which had the most to gain, invested $3 billion in building the insurgency and invited the Pentagon to train insurgents at U.S. bases in Qatar. U.S. personnel also provided logistical support and intelligence to the rebels on the ground. The Times of London reported on Sept. 14, 2012, that the CIA also armed Jihadists with anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles and other weapons from Libyan armories that the agency smuggled by ratlines to Syria via Turkey. According to an April 2014 article by Seymour Hersh, the CIA weapons ratlines were financed by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

The idea of fomenting a Sunni-Shia civil war to weaken the Syrian and Iranian regimes so as to maintain control of the region’s petro-chemical supplies was not a novel notion in the Pentagon’s lexicon. A damning 2008 Pentagon funded Rand report proposed a precise blueprint for what was about to happen. That report observes that control of the Persian Gulf oil and gas deposits will remain, for the U.S., “a strategic priority” that “will interact strongly with that of prosecuting the long war.”

Rand recommends using “covert action, information operations, unconventional warfare” to enforce a “divide and rule” strategy. “The United States and its local allies could use the nationalist jihadists to launch a proxy campaign” and “U.S. leaders could also choose to capitalize on the sustained Shia-Sunni conflict trajectory by taking the side of the conservative Sunni regimes against Shiite empowerment movements in the Muslim world … possibly supporting authoritative Sunni governments against a continuingly hostile Iran.”

WikiLeaks cables from as early as 2006 show the U.S. State Department, at the urging of the Israeli government, proposing to partner with Turkey, Qatar and Egypt to foment Sunni civil war in Syria to weaken Iran. The stated purpose, according to the secret cable, was to incite Assad into a brutal crackdown of Syria’s Sunni population.

As predicted, Assad’s overreaction to the foreign made crisis—dropping barrel bombs onto Sunni strongholds and killing civilians—polarized Syria’s Shia/Sunni divide and allowed U.S. policymakers to sell Americans the idea that the pipeline struggle was a humanitarian war. When Sunni soldiers of the Syrian Army began defecting in 2013, the Western Coalition armed the “Free Syrian Army” to further destabilize Syria. The press portrait of the Free Syria Army as cohesive battalions of Syrian moderates was delusional. The dissolved units regrouped in hundreds of independent militias most of whom were commanded by or allied with Jihadi militants who were the most committed and effective fighters. By then, the Sunni armies of Al Qaeda Iraq (AQI) were crossing the border from Iraq into Syria and joining forces with the battalions of deserters from the Free Syria Army, many of them trained and armed by the U.S.

Despite the prevailing media portrait of a moderate Arab uprising against the tyrant Assad, U.S. Intelligence planners knew from the outset that their pipeline proxies were radical jihadists who would probably carve themselves a brand new Islamic caliphate from the Sunni regions of Syria and Iraq. Two years before ISIS throat cutters stepped on the world stage, a seven-page Aug. 12, 2012 study by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), obtained by the right wing group Judicial Watch, warned that thanks to the ongoing support by U.S./Sunni Coalition for radical Sunni Jihadists, “the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood and AQI (now ISIS), are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria.”

Using U.S. and Gulf State funding, these groups had turned the peaceful protests against Bashar Assad toward “a clear sectarian (Shiite vs Sunni) direction.” The paper notes that the conflict had become a sectarian civil war supported by Sunni “religious and political powers.” The report paints the Syrian conflict as a global war for control of the region’s resources with “the west, Gulf countries and Turkey supporting [Assad’s] opposition, while Russia, China and Iran support the regime.”

The Pentagon authors of the seven-page report appear to endorse the predicted advent of the ISIS caliphate:

“If the situation continues unravelling, there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasakah and Deir ez-Zor) and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want in order to isolate the Syrian regime.” The Pentagon report warns that this new principality could move across the Iraqi border to Mosul and Ramadi and “declare an Islamic state through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria.”

Of course, this is precisely what has happened. Not coincidentally, the regions of Syria occupied by ISIS exactly encompass the proposed route of the Qatari pipeline.

But then in 2014, our Sunni proxies horrified the American people by severing heads and driving a million refugees toward Europe. “Strategies based upon the idea that the enemy of my enemy is my friend can be kind of blinding,” says Tim Clemente, who chaired the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force between 2004 and 2008 and served as liaison in Iraq between the FBI, the Iraqi National Police and the U.S. Military. “We made the same mistake when we trained the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan. The moment the Russians left, our supposed friends started smashing antiquities, enslaving women, severing body parts and shooting at us.”

When ISIS’ “Jihadi John” began murdering prisoners on TV, the White House pivoted, talking less about deposing Assad and more about regional stability. The Obama Administration began putting daylight between itself and the insurgency we had funded. The White House pointed accusing fingers at our allies. On Oct. 3, 2014, Vice President Joe Biden told students at the John F. Kennedy, Jr. forum at the Institute of Politics at Harvard that “Our allies in the region are our biggest problem in Syria.” He explained that Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the UAE were “so determined to take down Assad” that they had launched a “proxy Sunni-Shia war” funneling “hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of tons of weapons to Jihadists of the al-Nusra front and al-Qaeda”—the two groups that merged in 2014 to form ISIS.

Biden seemed angered that our trusted “friends” could not be trusted to follow the American agenda. “ISI[S] is a direct outgrowth of al-Qaeda in Iraq that grew out of our invasion,” declared Obama, disassociating himself from the Sunni rebellion, “which is an example of unintended consequences which is why we should generally aim before we shoot.” As if to demonstrate their contempt for America’s new found restraint, our putative allies, the Turks responded to the U.S. rebukes by shooting down a plane belonging to our other putative ally, the Russians—probably to spoil a potential deal between Russia and the U.S. that would leave Assad in power.

Across the Mid-East, Arab leaders routinely accuse the U.S. of having created ISIS. To most Americans immersed in U.S. media perspective, such accusations seem insane. However, to many Arabs, the evidence of U.S. involvement is so abundant that they conclude that our role in fostering ISIS must have been deliberate. On Sept. 22, 2014, according to the New York Times, Iraqi leader, Shiite Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, told Baghdad demonstrators that “the CIA created ISIS.” Iraq’s Deputy Prime Minister, Bahaa Al-Araji, echoed al-Sadr’s accusation. “We know who made Daesh,” Iraq’s Treasury Secretary, Haidar al-Assadi, told the Digital News Aggregate, “The Islamic State is a clear creation of the United States, and the United States is trying to intervene again using the excuse of the Islamic State.”

In fact, many of the ISIS fighters and their commanders are ideological and organizational successors to the Jihadists that the CIA has been nurturing for 30 years. The CIA began arming and training the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan in 1979 to fight the Soviets. Following the Soviet withdrawal, the CIA’s Afghan Mujahedeen became the Taliban while its foreign fighters, including Osama bin Laden, formed Al-Qaeda. In 2004, then British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook told the House of Commons that Al-Qaeda took its name—meaning “database” in Arabic—from the voluminous CIA database of Jihadists—Mujahedeen foreign fighters and arms smugglers trained and equipped by the CIA during the Afghan conflict.

Prior to the American invasion, there was no Al-Qaeda in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Bush destroyed Saddam’s secularist government and his viceroy, Paul Bremer, in a monumental act of mismanagement, effectively created the Sunni Army, now named ISIS. Bremer elevated the Shiites to power and banned Saddam’s ruling Ba’ath Party laying off some 700,000, mostly Sunni, government and party officials from ministers to school teachers. He then disbanded the 380,000 man army, which was 80 percent Sunni.

Bremer’s actions stripped a million of Iraq’s Sunnis of rank, property, wealth and power; leaving a desperate underclass of angry, educated, capable, trained and heavily armed Sunnis with little left to lose. General Petraeus’ decision to import dirty war tactics, including torture and death squads, from the CIA’s El Salvador conflict in order to shock and awe the Sunni resistance, instead ignited a shockingly bloody spiral of sectarian violence that devolved quickly into escalating atrocities topped finally by the Sunni Army signature head cutting. The Sunni insurgency named itself Al-Qaeda Iraq (AQI).

Beginning in 2011, our allies funded the invasion by AQI fighters into Syria. In June 2014 having entered Syria, AQI changed its name to ISIS. According to the New Yorker, “ISIS is run by a council of former Iraqi Generals … many are members of Saddam Hussein’s secular Ba’ath Party, who converted to radical Islam in American prisons.” The $500 million in U.S. military aid that Obama did send to Syria almost certainly ended up benefiting these militant Jihadists. On Sept. 16, 2015, incredulous senators from the Armed Services Committee listened to U.S. General Lloyd Austin, Commander of the U.S. Central Command, explain that the Pentagon had spent $500 million to train and arm “moderate” insurgents in Syria and had only “four or five reliable moderate fighters” to show instead of the promised 5,000. The remainder apparently deserted or defected to ISIS.

Tim Clemente told me that the incomprehensible difference between the Iraq and Syria conflicts are the millions of military aged men who are fleeing the battlefield for Europe rather than staying to fight for their communities. “You have this formidable fighting force and they are all running away. I don’t understand how you can have millions of military aged men running away from the battlefield. In Iraq, the bravery was heartbreaking—I had friends who refused to leave the country even though they knew they would die. They’d just tell you it’s my country, I need to stay and fight,” Clemente said.

The obvious explanation is that the nation’s moderates are fleeing a war that is not their war. They simply want to escape being crushed between the anvil of Assad’s Russian backed tyranny and the vicious Jihadi Sunni hammer that we had a hand in wielding in a global battle over competing pipelines. You can’t blame the Syrian people for not widely embracing a blueprint for their nation minted in either Washington or Moscow. The super powers have left no options for an idealistic future that moderate Syrians might consider fighting for. And no one wants to die for a pipeline.

What is the answer? If our objective is long-term peace in the Mid-East, self-government by the Arab nations and national security at home, we must undertake any new intervention in the region with an eye on history and an intense desire to learn its lessons. Only when we Americans understand the historical and political context of this conflict will we apply appropriate scrutiny to the decisions of our leaders.

Using the same imagery and language that supported our 2003 war against Saddam Hussein, our political leaders led Americans to believe that our Syrian intervention is an idealistic war against tyranny, terrorism and religious fanaticism. We tend to dismiss, as mere cynicism, the views of those Arabs who see the current crisis as a rerun of the same old plots about pipelines and geopolitics. But, if we are to have an effective foreign policy, we must recognize the Syrian conflict is a war over control of resources indistinguishable from the myriad clandestine and undeclared oil wars we have been fighting in the Mid-East for 65 years. And only when we see this conflict as a proxy war over a pipeline do events become comprehensible.

It’s the only paradigm that explains why the GOP on Capitol Hill and the Obama administration are still fixated on regime change rather than regional stability, why the Obama administration can find no Syrian moderates to fight the war, why ISIS blew up a Russian passenger plane, why the Saudi’s just executed a powerful Shia cleric only to have their embassy burned in Tehran, why Russia is bombing non-ISIS fighters and why Turkey went out of its way to down a Russian jet. The million refugees now flooding into Europe are refugees of a pipeline war and CIA blundering.

Clemente compares ISIS to Colombia’s FARC—a drug cartel with a revolutionary ideology to inspire its foot soldiers. “You have to think of ISIS as an oil cartel,” Clemente said. “In the end, money is the governing rationale. The religious ideology is a tool that inspires its soldiers to give their lives for an oil cartel.”

Once we strip this conflict of its humanitarian patina and recognize the Syrian conflict as an oil war, our foreign policy strategy becomes clear. Instead, our first priority should be the one no one ever mentions—we need to kick our Mid-East oil jones, an increasingly feasible objective, as the U.S. becomes more energy independent. Next, we need to dramatically reduce our military profile in the Middle East and let the Arabs run Arabia. Other than humanitarian assistance and guaranteeing the security of Israel’s borders, the U.S. has no legitimate role in this conflict. While the facts prove that we played a role in creating the crisis, history shows that we have little power to resolve it.

As we contemplate history, it’s breathtaking to consider the astonishing consistency with which virtually every violent intervention in the Middle East since World War II by our country has resulted in miserable failure. The long list of CIA and military adventures has each cost us dearly in national treasure, in liberty at home, in our moral authority abroad and in our national security. Without any memorable exception, every violent intervention has resulted in a catastrophic blowback far more costly to our country than any problems the authors meddling intended to solve. Our mischief has neither improved life in the Middle East nor has it made America safer.

A 1997 U.S. Department of Defense report found that “the data show a strong correlation between U.S. involvement abroad and an increase in terrorist attacks against the U.S.” Let’s face it, what we call the “war on terror” is really just another oil war. We’ve squandered $6 trillion on three wars abroad and on constructing a national security warfare state at home since oilman Cheney declared the “Long War” in 2001. The only winners have been the military contractors and oil companies who have pocketed historic profits. We have compromised our values, butchered our own youth, killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, subverted our idealism and squandered our national treasures in fruitless and costly adventures abroad. In the process, we have turned America, once the world’s beacon of freedom, into a national security surveillance state and an international moral pariah.

America’s founding fathers warned Americans against standing armies, foreign entanglements and, in John Adams’ words, “going abroad in search of monsters to destroy.” Those wise men understood that imperialism abroad is incompatible with democracy and civil rights at home. They wanted America to be a “city on a hill”—a model of democracy for the rest of the world.

The Atlantic Charter echoed their seminal American ideal that each nation should have the right to self-determination. Over the past seven decades, the Dulles brothers, the Cheney Gang, the neocons and their ilk have hijacked that fundamental principle of American idealism and deployed our military and intelligence apparatus to serve the mercantile interests of large corporations and particularly, the petroleum companies and military contractors who have literally made a killing from these conflicts. It’s time for Americans to turn America away from this new imperialism and back to the path of idealism and democracy. We should let the Arabs govern Arabia and turn our energies to the great endeavor of nation building at home. We need to begin this process, not by invading Syria, but by ending our ruinous addiction to oil.


SOURCES:
by 
Submitted by 'The Old Sniper' 
Edited by SyrianPatriots
WarPress.info Network at:
https://syrianfreepress.wordpress.com/2017/04/20/kennedy-on-oil-plot/
~

Trump, Saudi Arabia and the War on Yemen

Global Research, April 10, 2017
Silent Crow News 4 April 2017

On April 2nd, The Yemen News Agency (SABA) reported that US-Saudi war planes struck several targets including private and public properties across several provinces in Yemen:

The US-Saudi aggression war planes continued heinous strikes against citizens, causing heavy damage to private and public properties in several provinces over the past hours, a military official told Saba on Sunday. The warplanes waged 12 strikes on Haradh district of Hajja province and three other strikes on Serwah district of Mareb province, as well waged six raids on Kamaran island in Hodeida province

Saudi Arabia’s war on Yemen has created a humanitarian crisis within the poorest country in the Middle East. However, Trump is seeking an even closer relationship with the Saudi Monarchy. The Saudi Monarchy is an important part of Washington’s goal of dominating the Middle East for its natural resources, one that benefits its corporations that range from arms manufacturers to big oil companies. One other important factor to consider is Israel’s security which plays an important part of U.S. foreign policy in the region. Saudi Arabia is a vassal state, one that has a long history of supporting terrorists such as the Islamic state, al-Qaeda and others who have wretched havoc across the Arab world killing innocent men, women and children. Saudi Arabia is also one of the worst human rights violators in the world especially against women.

Image result for Prince Mohammed bin Salman

They are agents of chaos, or one might call “useful idiots” to counter Arab governments and resistance movements (Yemen, Syria, Iran, the Palestinians and Hezbollah) not aligned with U.S. and Israeli interests. So, as expected, US President Donald Trump hosted Saudi Arabia’s Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman last month at the White House to discuss economics and Iran’s influence in the Middle East. According to Reuters:

Saudi Arabia hailed a “historical turning point” in U.S.-Saudi relations after a meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman highlighted the two leaders’ shared view that Iran posed a regional security threat

During a speech at the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in 2016, Trump mentioned that Iran is a major problem for U.S. allies including Saudi Arabia,

“Iran is a problem in Iraq, a problem in Syria, a problem in Lebanon, a problem in Yemen and will be a very, very major problem for Saudi Arabia.”

A senior advisor to Prince Mohammed said that

“This meeting is considered a historical turning point in relations between both countries and which had passed through a period of divergence of views on many issues.”

A historical turning point according to Mohammed’s advisor is to “form a big change in relations between both countries in political, military, security and economic issues,” What is troublesome about the meeting is that Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States see Trump as a strong leader who will contain Iran’s influence in the region.

Both the Trump administration and the Saudi Monarchy find common ground on Iran’s Nuclear Deal which they both view as dangerous. Both also share the same concerns on “the danger of Iran’s regional expansionist activities.” Although the Obama administration sold arms to Saudi Arabia in the past, Obama suspended the sale of arms including U.S.-made precision-guidance munitions to the Saudi Monarchy last December due to “concerns over widespread civilian casualties” according to a Reuter’s article published in 2016. The Trump administration is considering an arms deal to the Saudis that the State Department has already approved, but the White House has not yet confirmed the deal.

Targeting Yemen to Fight “Iranian Influence”?

The Agence France-Presse (AFP) headlined ‘Trump meets top Saudi prince as Yemen war rages’ said

“Saudi Arabia is likely to welcome Trump’s harder line on its arch-rival Iran and there is likely to be less friction over Riyadh’s war against Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen.”

However, The Huffington Post reported in 2015 that Obama admitted that Iran “tried to stop” the Houthi rebels from advancing on Sanaa in a report titled ‘Iran Tried To Stop Houthi Rebels In Yemen, Obama Says’:

Iran tried to hold back Shia rebels who were intent on taking the Yemeni capital of Sanaa at the height of the uprising in 2014, President Barack Obama told a group of reporters Wednesday afternoon. The Houthi rebels, however, ignored the advice and marched on, precipitating a much wider war in Yemen. Obama’s observation confirms an earlier Huffington Post report that, contrary to widespread assumptions in the United States, Iran was not the driving force of the crisis in Yemen

In Obama’s own words according to The Huffington Post report:

“We watched as this proceeded. There were moments where Iran was actually urging potential restraint,” he said. ”Now, once the Houthis march in and there’s no there there” — in other words, the government completely collapsed and Houthis expecting resistance found none at all —“are they interested in getting arms to the Houthis and causing problems for the Saudis? Yes. But they weren’t proceeding on the basis of, come hell or high water, we’re moving on a holy war here.”

Despite its malevolent intentions and motivation, displays such this one suggested to him that, in the end, Iran is rational and can be dealt with, Obama said. “It’s on that basis that we entered into the interim agreement,” he said

Wikileaks obtained documents (https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09SANAA2186_a.html) that was published on December 9th, 2009 titled ‘Who Are The Houthis, Part Two: How Are They Fighting?’ detailed where the Houthi rebels obtained their weapons according to various political analysts, a British diplomat and NSB Director Ali Mohammed al-Ansi:

12. (S/NF) contrary to ROYG claims that Iran is arming the Houthis, most local political analysts report that the Houthis obtain their weapons from the Yemeni black market and even from the ROYG military itself. According to a British diplomat, there are numerous credible reports that ROYG military commanders were selling weapons to the Houthis in the run-up to the Sixth War. An ICG report on the Sa’ada conflict from May 2009 quoted NSB director Ali Mohammed al-Ansi saying, “Iranians are not arming the Houthis. The weapons they use are Yemeni. Most actually come from fighters who fought against the socialists during the 1994 war and then sold them.” Mohammed Azzan, presidential advisor for Sa’ada affairs, told PolOff on August 16 that the Houthis easily obtain weapons inside Yemen, either from battlefield captures or by buying them from corrupt military commanders and soldiers. Azzan said that the military “covers up its failure” by saying the weapons come from Iran. According to Jamal Abdullah al-Shami of the Democracy School, there is little external oversight of the military’s large and increasing budget, so it is easy for members of the military to illegally sell weapons.

13. (S/NF) ROYG officials assert that the Houthis’ possession and use of Katyusha rockets is evidence of support from Iran and Hizballah, arguing that these rockets are not available in Yemeni arms markets nor ROYG stockpiles. (Comment: Given Yemen’s robust arms markets, especially in Sa’ada, it is possible that Katyushas are available on the black market even if they are not in ROYG stockpiles. According to sensitive reporting, there is at least one instance of Somali extremists purchasing Katyusha rockets in Yemen in 2007. End Comment.) However, according to sensitive reporting, it may have been the ROYG military who aided the Houthis in obtaining a shipment of 200 Katyusha rockets in late November 2009

Trump’s accusations that Iran is supporting the Houthi rebellion are baseless.  An important note to consider is that Iran is mentioned in the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) report which was produced in 2000 by the Neoconservatives during the George W. Bush Administration. The PNAC report said that “retaining forward-based forces in the region” is essential for U.S. security interests concerning Iran:

Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region

Image result for yemen gulfIran’s threat to Washington is that it has an enormous amount of oil and other natural resources. Iran is a sovereign nation that is aligned with the Axis of Resistance within the Middle East namely Syria, Lebanon, Hezbollah and the Palestinians. Iran is also aligned with Washington’s long-time adversaries, Russia and China. The PNAC report specifically states Washington’s long-term goal and that is to dominate the Middle East by isolating Iran with U.S. military bases close to their borders ready to attack on a moment’s notice.

Trump is doing what every administration has done in the past whether Democrat or Republican and that is to support Iran’s long-time adversaries, Saudi Arabia and Israel and isolate Iran that will allow the U.S. to dominate the resource-rich region. The U.S. and its allies have been preparing for a possible war against Iran since the 1979 Iranian revolution that overthrew the U.S. puppet government of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi also known as the Shah of Iran. However, a war scenario is unlikely to play out any time soon since it would lead to a wider war in the Middle East with the Axis of Resistance including Russia and China, a costly war one might add.

Trump wants to Fight ISIS with one of the Main Sponsors of Terror, Saudi Arabia

Regardless of their human rights abuses and their spread of Wahhabi terrorism, the Trump administration will seek closer ties with Saudi Arabia. The Trump Administration is expected to approve the new arms deal to Saudi Arabia to continue its bombardment of Yemen. The Independent, an online news source based in London reported that the State department will continue selling arms to the Saudis. The report ‘Donald Trump’s State Department approves Saudi Arabia weapons sales blocked by Barack Obama’ said the following:

The State Department has approved resuming arms sales to Saudi Arabia previously blocked by Barack Obama. A multi-million dollar technology for Riyadh was blocked by the former President during the final months of his administration over human rights concerns

For Trump, Iran is a major threat in the Middle East, not the dictatorship of the Saudi monarchy that has continuously bombed Yemen causing a humanitarian crisis with more 10,000 civilian casualties and counting. Trump’s policy towards “Islamic militants” in the Middle East is “aggressive” according to an article by http://www.stripes.com, an online U.S. military news site titled ‘Trump’s ramped up bombing in Yemen signals more aggressive use of military’:

More broadly, the expanded bombing in Yemen signals a more aggressive use of military force by the Trump administration against Islamist militants, from Syria to Afghanistan. The White House already has approved the deployment of Marines and special operations forces to Syria and a large-scale commando raid in Yemen, and on Thursday a top commander suggested more troops are headed to Afghanistan.

President Trump’s readiness to order military action stands in contrast to the previous administration. When Obama’s national security advisor Susan Rice ran the policy making process, “stuff moved like molasses through the National Security Council,” much to the frustration of military planners at U.S. Central Command, a former senior defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told FP. The inter-agency discussions allowed plans to languish for weeks while debates swirled over when and how to act.

Throughout 2016, the Pentagon continually briefed the White House on ways to get more aggressive with al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, as they watched the group gain strength in their Yemeni strongholds. Those strikes didn’t happen, “but just because the clock ran out,” the official said.  

The Obama administration handed over plans for a stepped-up campaign to the incoming Trump team in January, and there has been an immediate change in the tempo of operations, reflecting the new administration’s apparent preference for prompt military action over policy deliberations, and a more dominant role for the military in decision-making

Image result for yemen civil war

The Yemeni Civil War that began in 2015 between the Houthi forces who are loyal supporters of Ali Abdullah Saleh and government forces allied with the Washington-backed Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi who was based in the Aden and is aligned with Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and the Islamic State terrorists. On February 21st, 2012, Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi who was the Vice-President under Saleh held a presidential election. The problem was that Hadi was the only candidate in the elections who became Yemen’s president for two years. Washington and Saudi Arabia saw Hadi as the legitimate leader of Yemen despite the fact that he was the only candidate. As for the Houthi forces (who are Shia-led movement from Sa’dah, northern Yemen) began an insurgency against the Hadi government. By January of 2015 Hadi fled to Saudi Arabia and asked the Saudi Monarchy to help counter the Houthi insurgency. On March 26th 2015, the Saudi Kingdom launched operation ‘al-Hazm Storm’ with mainly U.S. puppet states of Bahrain, Egypt, Kuwait, Morocco, Pakistan, Qatar, Sudan and the UAE and collaborating with Somalia that allowed the coalition to use its military bases to invade Yemen. The cause of the Houthi led insurgency was the fact that the Hadi government did not follow-up on their power-sharing proposals that turned Yemen into a dictatorship backed by Washington. Since the war began, the United Nations says that 17 million people in Yemen are facing food shortages and close to 7 million people will become victims of a famine crisis.

Washington and its Close Ties to Saudi Oil

Washington has a long history with Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia was founded in 1901 by King Abdulaziz Al Saud, Bin Saud had a close relationship with the United Kingdom who was the first nation in the world to recognize Saudi Arabia as an independent nation. The British defended Saudi Arabia from the Turkish Empire who sought to expand its territories. Bin Saud also developed a close relationship with the United States. By May 1931, Washington recognized Saudi Arabia by granting it “diplomatic recognition.” During that time, Standard Oil based in California was granted concessions for oil exploration in the Eastern Province area called al-Hasa. By November 1931, a treaty was signed by both the US and Saudi Arabia that included a “favored nation status” within the treaty. By 1933, the California Arabian Oil Company (CASOC) which later became the Arab American Company (ARAMCO) began oil exploration throughout the Saudi kingdom until they got to Dhahran which produced a small amount of oil at the time (42.5 million barrels) between 1941 and 1945. Today, Saudi Arabia is one of the top oil exporters in the world with the U.S. being a major beneficiary.

Trump will build a closer relationship with Saudi Arabia despite the fact that is committing war crimes against Yemen and has supported terrorist organizations committed to overthrowing the Syrian government. Trump has repeatedly claimed that he wants to defeat the Islamic State, but Saudi Arabia is not a good partner to take on the terrorists because historically speaking, they have armed and supported terrorist organizations for a long time.

Washington and Saudi Arabia is a strategic alliance. Besides, Washington does like a good dictatorship that follows its marching orders, after all, the Saudis do have an abundance of oil that feeds the Military-Industrial Complex and provides enormous profits for U.S. oil companies. The Saudis long-time support of terrorism also advances Washington’s agenda to create wars and regime change in the Middle East. Washington has a vested interest in Saudi Arabia and that is why Trump will keep the alliance between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia intact, a move that advances Washington’s agenda and that is something that the establishment (or the swamp) would not disagree with.

%d bloggers like this: