ISIS – Always-Always Claims Responsibility

by Peter Koenig

August 22, 2017

ISIS – Always-Always Claims Responsibility

Whenever a terrorist attack hits somewhere in Europe or the world, wait a few hours and the police or media report ISIS / ISIL / Daesh claims responsibility. To enhance credibility, they usually say it was confirmed by ISIS news agency Amaq. As soon as this little piece of info is out, the upset populace takes a deep breath and falls at ease. It’s the usual culprits. It’s them, not us. We are fine. We can go back to business as usual.

This in Europe alone has happened more than 40 times since May 2014 – that’s as many ‘Muslim-induced terror attacks’ Western Europe has endured; from Paris to Nice, Brussels, London, Berlin, Munich, Würzburg, Copenhagen, Zvornik (Bosnia & Herzegovina), Moscow, Istanbul, and many more (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism_in_Europe_(2014%E2%80%93present) ). And almost without fail, the alleged perpetrator(s) were killed, though most of them were not armed and could have been apprehended by police, questioned and brought to justice. Dead men don’t talk. That’s more convenient.

The latest Barcelona terror Amuck-run on the Rambla is not different. It is a case in point and a typical case for confusion. There were several chief-perpetrators suspected and killed. Many names circulated – and, of course, a passport, leading to a Spanish enclave in Morocco was found. The owner of the passport, immediately reported it to the police as stolen, with a solid alibi. But then, suitably his 17-year-old brother stole the passport and left it in the white van, when he fled on foot, injured from an explosion the night before, in a residency some 230 km south of Barcelona – or was that really him? – and several hours after the Rambla assault, he was caught by police in Cambrils, 120 km south of Barcelona in another attempted pedestrian run – and killed among one of five terrorists who happened to be squeezed into the same Audi. Ever wondered, why so many terrorists in one car? – Or was he really one of those killed? http://www.globalresearch.ca/barcelona-the-hypocrisy-of-sorrow/5604767).

By now, the people are really-really confused. Nobody knows up from down in this chaos. Better leave it to the authorities. They know best to handle the situation. Let us go back to normal – until the next terror attack hits – Allahu Akbar – very likely next in a theatre near you, somewhere in this old, purposefully and increasingly militarized police state, called Europe.

What happened to the real and innocent owner of the passport? – Does anybody know? Or can we ask ten ‘official’ sources and get ten different answers?

How come special police throughout Europe apply the same philosophy – kill to shut them up? Isn’t there a police ethics code – shoot only in self-defense? Most cases were no self-defense, as the ‘terrorists’ were visibly not armed. Have European secret and special police forces been receiving collective, well-focused training: no Muslim-Terrorist Survivors!

Why not? – That would also explain why never anybody questions the ISIS claim to murder and mayhem. Why would ISIS / ISIL / Daesh want to hurt those who fund them, train them, arm them feed them? – It’s not even secret any more. Hillary said so already years ago, We created them, now we have to deal with them. Former CIA officials admitted that they recruited, funded, trained and armed them – later the ISIL / Daesh reign was expanded with additional financial backing by the Saudis, other Gulf States and Turkey – and, of course, all the holy western allies. – So, why would ISIS want to hurt the cow whose milk they drink? Strange – isn’t it? (http://www.globalresearch.ca/who-is-behind-the-barcelona-and-cabril-attacks-can-we-believe-the-official-reports/5604719)

Maybe what meets the eye is not reality. Could it be that ISIS / ISIL / Daesh, out of sheer gratitude to its benevolent sponsors have agreed to take the blame whenever a western orchestrated terror attack strikes somewhere in Europe or the world? Can’t be excluded, can it? It’s not even blackmail. After all, lending a helping hand to the Big Brothers, NATO, France, Germany, UK, US of A and many more lesser contributors, but contributors all the same – who keep you alive, would not be out of the world. – Right? – This is all done in connivance with massive support of European secret services, led by the usual villains, CIA, MI6, Mossad.

Is it therefore far-fetched to conclude that European governments are utterly complicit in instigating and executing these ‘false flag’ terror attacks, sacrificing the lives of hundreds of their citizens, just so they can pursue their goal of totally militarizing the Continent? – That they are as faithful vassals following the pattern of their trans-Atlantic partners – aiming at Full Spectrum Dominance – World Hegemony, a New World Order under a One World Order governed by Washington and its Deep Dark handlers? – Barcelona, Paris, Berlin are mere little pebbles in the Big Picture mosaic of world dominion. And the people, the mothers, fathers, wives, husbands, children who are killed – they are just menial collateral damage. After all, slaves – what is their value?

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.

Advertisements

Another Splendid Little Coup

1usoil

The Rise and Rise of the Regime Renovators

By Greg Maybury

‘It has been a splendid little war, begun with the highest motives, carried on with magnificent intelligence and spirit, favored by that Fortune which loves the brave.’ US Secretary of State John Hay, referencing the Spanish-American War of 1898, in a letter to Theodore Roosevelt, July 27 of that year, the war ushering in America’s Imperial epoch and unambiguously heralding its hegemonic ambitions.

‘…I’ve seen that we do not intend to free, but to subjugate [people]….We’ve gone there to conquer, not to redeem. It should be our pleasure and duty to make people free, and let them deal with their own domestic questions in their own way….[I] am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land.’ Comments by Mark Twain, anti-imperialist, reflecting on the real objectives of America’s war with Spain.

‘War is the continuation of politics by other means…’ Carl von Clausewitz, Prussian general, military theorist

‘Politics is the continuation of war by other means…’ Michel Foucault, French philosopher, social theorist

‘And the circle goes round and round’. Anon.

Synopsis: For those Americans au fait with their country’s fondness for engineering coups, ousting democratically elected leaders, and interfering in the political affairs of other nations – to all intents the perennial bedrock principle of U.S. foreign policy — Iran is a well-documented exemplar. Given the supreme ironies inherent in the political imbroglio in the U.S. attending Russia’s alleged meddling in the 2016 presidential elections, along with America’s resolve to seek once again regime change in Russia’s ally Iran, it’s timely we revisit this slice of history. Doing so presents us an opportunity to view the so-called ‘Russia-gate’ furore, the Iran regime change ambitions, and the increasingly bloody war in Syria – itself an ally of both Russia and Iran — within a broader, more nuanced historical context. From there we might derive a more informed perspective on the contemporary geopolitical zeitgeist and the hegemonic forces that have fashioned it. And attending that deeper perspective should be a sure sign of the existential dangers for civilization and humanity at large of allowing our leaders in the West to continue down this path unchallenged, one that is as well-worn as it’s fraught with peril.

 

— In Regime Change, We Trust —

June 30, 2017 “Information Clearing House” – For those folks with the requisite sense of irony and historical perspective, many will be rolling their eyes at the rampant hysteria over the as yet evidence-free accusations of interference by Russia in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Which is to say, one of the manifest realities attending this latest Beltway blockbuster soap opera is that of America’s own track record of interference in the affairs of other countries, comprising as it does so many forms. I say “realities” rather than ironies here as “irony” almost by definition is infused with a measure of nuance and subtlety, neither of which could it be said are in abundance in this utterly contrived, self-serving political fracas.

(For a further measure of just how “contrived” and “self-serving” it is, see hereherehereherehere, and here.)

Insofar as Russia’s alleged meddling in U.S. politics goes and the animus that attends the hysteria, as Oliver Stone discovered during his recent appearance on the Late Show with Stephen Colbert – itself hot on the heels of his much publicised four hour meet ‘n greet with Russian president Vladimir Putin wherein it was earlier raised – he was at pains to impress upon his host that Israel had a much bigger case to answer than did Russia. Of course Stone was on the money here. The unalloyed reality of the power and influence that Israel exerts within and across the morally and ethically desertified landscape that is the nation’s capital is a given, with the Middle East’s only ‘democratic’ settler-colonizer apartheid regime leaving few stones unturned – and exhibiting little discretion and subtlety but equal parts chutzpah and subterfuge — in how it wields then leverages that influence (sometimes treacherously so) to its advantage and against the interests of its principal patron and benefactor.

But that’s clearly a narrative that doesn’t bode well in the Beltway at the best of times, and more rational, clear-eyed folks know the reasons why. For one, the corporate media, for the most part doesn’t entertain such verities. Even if they were inclined, the omnipotent Israel Lobby would cut them off at the knees. And for his part, the ever smarmy Colbert, presumably aware which side his bread is buttered on, was reluctant to take Stone’s bait, much it seemed to his interviewee’s frustration. Beyond just interfering in U.S. politics, along with the parent Empire la perfide Albion, one of America’s steadfast partners-in-crime in the regime renovation business are the ubiquitous and iniquitous Israelis, an observation underscored by Against our Better Judgment author Alison Weir on her blog If Americans Knew.

Long targeted by Israel, for Weir, Iran especially provides an instructive example herein. With the Saudis as back-up, it is Israel — ably supported by its Praetorian Guard AIPAC and its ilk along with its shills in Congress – that’s been the hard-core driver of Washington’s seemingly irrational animus towards all things Iran. Along with underscoring Israel’s clout in Washington, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s 2015 Congressional dog ‘n pony show fiercely opposing the Iran Nuclear agreement then being negotiated by the Obama administration provides some of the best evidence for this. Indeed, it’s another of Washington’s worst best-kept secrets that – the nuclear agreement aside — Iran remains a high priority on the ‘to do’ list for the Regime Renovators. (See also herehere, and here.) In addition to the relentless propaganda campaign pursued by Israel the aim of which is to paint Iran as the existential threat du jour, despite the fact that U.S. intelligence agencies and others in the know don’t support the allegations about its mythical nuclear weapons program, Weir had the following to say:

‘Israel and the U.S. deployed a computer virus against Iran in what’s been called the world’s first digital weapon. Iranian nuclear physicists [were] assassinated by Israel, and the U.S. instituted a blockade against Iran that caused food insecurity and mass suffering among the country’s civilians. (Such a blockade can be seen as an act of war.) Democratic Congressman and Israel partisan Brad Sherman admitted the objective of the sanctions: “Critics of sanctions argue that these measures will hurt the Iranian people. Quite frankly, we need to do just that.”’

Most folks then who don’t dine out on the McDonald’s (‘would you like lies with that?’) media diet that is the corporate news are as well aware of Uncle Sam’s recidivistic predisposition towards meddling in the affairs of other nations, engineering coups and colour revolutions, and ousting democratically elected leaders as they are of the bespoke misinformation and disinformation – the ‘real’ fake news – that’s tailored to suit the official narrative that goes with it.

Along with the ongoing Syrian War, the 2014 Ukraine coup is one of the most egregious, more recent example of this, with again Stone’s confab with Putin providing an alternative perspective on both counts. Yet even here the majority of Americans would attribute the Ukraine crisis to “Russian aggression” and the Syrian War largely to Bashir Assad’s ‘despotism’; it’s simply what they are told by the MSM, and insofar as they’re concerned [they] have little reason to doubt this. Much the same goes for the Iran WMD narrative, despite the fact that we’ve heard that one before with Iraq around fifteen years ago.

And all of this mayhem and chaos is premised on exporting freedom, democracy, justice, liberty, human rights, and the rule of law, all of the things that America is purportedly so accomplished in embracing on the home front, albeit more so in the breach than in the observance. What makes U.S. transgressions so much more brazen in this respect is the hypocritical, fraudulent and existentially dangerous nature of the umbrage and pique being directed towards countries like Iran, Syria and, especially Russia and China.

And what makes the righteous animus being served up to the latter nations in particular so frightening and so portentous is that it’s wholly reminiscent of the hegemonic mindset directed towards Germany by the high-minded mandarins of the British Empire in the two decades leading up to the War to End all Wars. By 1914, even for that small cohort of folks who might’ve smelt the imperial rat, it was too late of course, for them and for so many others. In this few other imperially motivated gambits have been more consequential or more far-reaching across time and space, a conclusion we can safely draw with all the benefit one hundred plus years of hindsight brings.

As for today’s “cohort” of news consumers, it is much the same: Such awareness is embraced only by a small minority of people with most blissfully ignorant of their country’s inability or unwillingness to, well, mind its own bloody business. They are as equally oblivious to the economic, social, physical and political havoc, mayhem, and destruction it creates in the process, sometimes catastrophically so. Whilst the events of 9/11 might’ve otherwise provided a visceral reality check in this regard for most Americans of the blowback that frequently attends its own country’s meddling, very few would’ve been prepared or motivated to engage in any ‘cause and effect’ reflection therein, much less act in sync with that. Yet we might opine here that given the frenzied state of America’s own internal affairs – to say nothing of the hysterical incoherence and farcical irrationality of the public discourse that has seemingly become a permanent fixture of U.S. political and media forums, the Russia-gate affair being all the evidence ones needs to underscore this – there’d be numerous benefits to be gained from doing just that. Minding its own “bloody business” that is.

And let there be no mistaking it, what an assuredly “bloody business” regime renovation is. For the ‘cognitive dissidents’ disbelieving or doubtful of the extent or measure of this geopolitical mischief, in a recent PressTV interview focusing on America’s history of interfering in Iran’s political affairs in particular, former NSA intelligence linguist Scott Rickard is one amongst many of his professional ilk who dispels such scepticism or uncertainty with unadorned veracity: ‘[Americans] have been probably one of the most notorious nations behind the United Kingdom in manipulating not only elections but also overthrowing governments around the world for decades.’

ARickard observes, to this day the U.S. continues nation-building in other states, sells weapons in massive scales and pours bombs on other nations in order to ‘carry out its regime-change policy throughout the world.’ This, to say little of the proxy wars and false-flag events to which errant countries are subject (such as in Syria), psy-ops and the like (in Venezuela), and the economic sanctions frequently applied by Washington, of which both Russia and Iran to this day are also subjected to, and which themselves are often part of the renovators ‘tool-box’ used against countries not complying with Washington’s diktats. On the latter, it’s enough to recall how the sanctions imposed during the 90s against Iraq after the Gulf War under the Clinton administration played out. For confirmation of this, one only needs ask Madeleine Albright, Bill Clinton’s then Secretary of State, who in a ‘Kissingeresque’ display of imperial hubris as pitiless as it was asthma-inducing, averred [that], “[yes. we think] it was worth it”.

To be sure then, Uncle Sam’s “track record’ in this respect is as well documented and [as] well known as it’s abhorred by most commentators in the alternative media space and their more enlightened readers. At the same time it’s one subject that doesn’t raise an eyebrow much less a mention from those in the mainstream media (MSM) universe, no matter how pertinent it might be to the narrative in hand. It’s another of what I’ve come to calling the ‘no-fly-zones’ of conventional political discourse and public debate. Given the degree of complicity of the corporate media in facilitating these coups, proxy wars and colour revolutions, then camouflaging them as something entirely different from what they really represent is, whilst reprehensible and indefensible, understandable.

— Kermit’s ‘Sesame Street’ Coup —

Interestingly, Rickard’s remark was prompted by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s most recent statements about the U.S. seeking regime change in Teheran as all but a matter of public policy with marginally less fervor than they are accusing Moscow of meddling in their own democratic processes in last year’s election.

Again, for those folks “in the know”, the very mention of the words “regime change” and “Iran” in the same breath will also summon pronto a profound sense of déjà vu. As with the little known 1975 Australian coup (the details of which to be unveiled in a future ‘episode’ of The Regime Renovators), it was Britain (MI6) and the U.S. (the CIA) in a tag team play that cut its teeth in such joint-venture partnerships back in Iran in 1953.

Now the much-cited Iran experience is worthy of further exploration, if only because this exercise in regime change later turned out to be doubly ironic in a ‘reap what you sow’ kinda way, but not necessarily as the received wisdom would have us believe. We’ll return to this point shortly, but for context and perspective, the Iran adventure begs for another trip down memory lane, especially given all the chatter about the U.S. returning to the ‘scene of the crime’. Placing to one side an early dress rehearsal in Syria in 1949, the Iran coup was the first post-War exercise in regime change upon the part of Anglo-American alliance — one which officially at least was only just admitted to by the CIA after decades of not so plausible denial – when they successfully conspired to relieve the democratically elected prime minister of Iran Mohammad Mosaddegh from the burdens of power.

The CIA and MI6 then jointly embarked on a plan to stage a coup that would ensure that the West maintained control over the country’s vast oil reserves (shades of things to come). This coup is widely believed to have provided the ‘business model’ and the bravado for future coups by the CIA during the Cold War, including in Guatemala in 1954, the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 1961, and the ill-fated attempted coup in Cuba at the Bay of Pigs (BOP) in 1961, where the renovators’ business model came spectacularly unstuck. In true CIA custom, in Iran not everything went according to plan. The man who would be Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, by all accounts something of a reluctant usurper, succumbed to ‘stage fright’ at the eleventh hour and did an unexpected runner to Italy. But the CIA quickly recovered its composure and schlepped their ‘under-study’ back in time for the opening night curtain raiser of the new regime. For both the CIA and the Shah, who went on to rule his country with an iron, bloody fist avec unerring American support for almost twenty-five years, in true show business fashion, everything was ‘all right on the night’; the Shah’s show went on to enjoy an extended run with generally positive reviews.

(That most of these “reviews” were written by the Iranian intelligence agency SAVAK, the Shah’s political and security muscle throughout his ‘regime’, is axiomatic, especially since writing was apparently one activity SAVAK agents both excelled at and enjoyed. Their torture manuals were as notorious for their proscribed brutality as for their invention.)

Interestingly, the CIA’s Iranian operation was directed by none other than Kermit (Kim) Roosevelt, the grandson of former Republican president Teddy Roosevelt (he of the “walk softly, carry a big stick” fame), and a not too distant cousin of former Democratic president Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR). At the time Roosevelt was the senior spook in The Company’s Middle-East station (he’d been recruited by no less a personality than Frank “The Mighty Wurlitzer” Wisner), and was their point man on the ground in overseeing the Iranian adventure, dubbed Operation Ajax. Despite his name, for Teddy’s ‘grand-sprog’ this was no Sesame Street romp. No sirree Bob! This was serious spy shit.

Notwithstanding the apparent success of the mission, the coup was to have profound, far-reaching, and plain scary, geopolitical, economic and national security consequences for the US and the West in general. For starters just ask Jimmy Carter for further confirmation of this, and for any still standing and in control of their metacognitive faculties, go from there president by president! (Although Albright sort of apologised to Iran in 2000 – possibly the closest thing to a mea culpa ever offered by the U.S. for their wayward imperial ways – it didn’t apparently count for much.)

Yet one of the most compelling revelations about Kermit’s coup was the following. According to F William Engdahl, in his must-read book a Century of War, Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, the demise of the Shah (aka the ‘Peacock Potentate’) was engineered by the same forces that brought him into power in 1953. As we know this went on to produce sizable blowback for the U.S. with the 1979 Iranian Revolution. The much reviled Shah had for a variety of reasons outlived his usefulness, with the onset of the 1979 oil crisis presenting said forces both the ideal opportunity and pretext – albeit according to Engdahl, one largely manufactured in this case — to proceed to the next phase of their (ahem) Persian renovation project.

From this then we might safely deduce the subsequent ‘79 Revolution, the storming of the U.S. embassy in Teheran, along with the kidnapping of the embassy personnel (a world changing event by any measure), was not what many have deemed an organic — nor an entirely predictable — development for those who’d decided the Shah has passed his use by date. Moreover, the reality (there’s that word again) of ‘client-dictators’ overstaying their ‘welcome’ will be one familiar to ‘buffs’ of Uncle Sam’s regime change history, with the removal of Saddam Hussein in Iraq in 2002, again on prefabricated pretexts and for not dissimilar reasons, providing a most consequential exemplar thereof.

According to the author, in 1978, President Carter named diplomat George Ball to head a White House task force under the direction of Carter’s national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, the proud, now recently departed, father of Islamic terrorism and patron saint of jihadists. In doing so, Carter effectively gave Brzezinski the nod on opening another Pandora’s Box in the Greater Middle East, and as the Law of Moral Causation (trade name: ‘karma’) would have it, brought about as we’ll see the president’s own political demise. As Engdahl explains it: 

‘Ball recommended Washington drop support for the Shah and support the fundamentalist Islamic opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini…and the CIA led a coup against the man their covert actions had placed into power 25 years earlier. The coup against the Shah, like that against Mossadegh in 1953, was run by British and American intelligence, with the bombastic Brzezinski taking public ‘credit’ for getting rid of the ‘corrupt’ Shah, while the British characteristically remained safely in the background.’

—*—

Interlude — Robert Newman’s “History of Oil”

Robert Newman gets to grips with the wars and politics of the last hundred plus years. Rather than adhering to the history we were fed at school, he places oil centre stage as the cause of all the commotion. Newman’s truly unique presentation — equal parts standup comedy, performance art, and history lesson — will help explain the backstory behind America’s deliberately antagonistic military and economic provocation of Russia (with similar plans for China, Iran, and now it would seem Qatar), and why this geo-political one-upmanship is such an existentially dangerous gambit for us all.

Newman’s presentation also helps explain why the British Empire was hell-bent on preventing Germany at the turn of the century from becoming a major economic power, an imperial-minded foreign policy gambit which knowingly and deliberately paved the way for World War One — a conflict which not only was Germany later blamed for precipitating, but which paid an enormous price for — shaped the geopolitical world as we know it today in more ways than can be recounted herein. Younger folks — especially those who dozed off in history class wondering what all the fuss was about — prepare to be enlightened.

—*—

— When You’re on a Good Thing (Stick to the Knitting) —

Notwithstanding the blowback from the 1953 Iran coup and the later blowback from the removal of the Shah over a quarter century later, little has changed. The disastrous Bay of Pigs operation in 1961 and the subsequent, near catastrophic Cuban Missile Crisis the following year deriving from the failure of even that monumentally inept regime change maneuver evidently provided few lessons for the Renovators then or their political progeny since. At the same time it underscored in effect what had become the bedrock principle of American foreign policy and Great Power Projection. Which is to say, for its part the U.S. still engages in this tried and true, one-size-fits-all foreign policy gambit, bringing to mind that old adage ‘when you’re on a good thing, stick to it!’

Whilst the motivations for the Iranian coup were nominally economic (the government of the time were making noises about nationalizing the Iranian oil industry), there was also the strategic geopolitical considerations in the U.S. that Iran might come within the sphere of Soviet influence, thereby severely limiting the West’s hegemony in the region, an outcome one imagines would’ve delivered an unacceptable blow to America’s incipient imperial id. There was also a certain amount of fear that Iranian communists might gain control of the political situation, or even that the Soviets might overtake the country, either the stuff of American and British nightmares or over-egged paranoia. Certainly the Americans were never too keen on the Soviets crashing their party anywhere, especially so in this region. Like the British before them, the U.S. has always been quite territorial about other people’s territory, especially when said “territory” involved oil, or any other strategic commodity or geopolitical consideration. Whether this fear was rational given the reality at the time and the available intelligence is a subject many still debate.

As we’ve seen with this and so many others, the reasons for the coup were fuelled less by the ostensibly lofty ideological concerns related to the Cold War (freedom versus tyranny anyone?) than they were to less lofty considerations such as greed, self-preservation and national pride and one or three other Deadly Imperial Sins. To be sure it seems reasonable to assume that the Soviets – cunning devils that they were – were ‘geeing’ the Iranians up to nationalize their oil industry in order to put the wind up the British and the Americans in turn. It’s clear now that the CIA and the British, along with their fellow travellers in the then (Harry) Truman administration in the years leading up the coup, were leveraging the Cold War sentiment of the time in order to camouflage the real reasons for seeking regime change in Iran (shades of things.)

At all events, then president Truman evidently saw the Iranian plot coming from the bottom of the ‘too-risky’ basket and didn’t drag the chain on rejecting it. Whatever his achievements, for his part the former Missouri haberdasher was always going to be known as the man who nodded the dropping of the Big Ones on Japan, and rarely demurred in claiming the bragging rights. Whether he was right or wrong in doing this is a ‘what-if’ moment for another time. Insofar as the Iran “moment” went though, for this reason he might’ve had a keen eye on how said ‘mo’ in history might be judged. Either way, by halting the CIA’s plans we might surmise that in doing so it inspired his oft-quoted dictum ‘the buck stops here’. Because it only delayed the momentum though, his ‘call’ was to no avail; said “buck” remained in play only as long as he was POTUS.

When Dwight D (Ike) Eisenhower became Republican president in early 1953, all bets were suddenly off (or on, depending on your view). Ike was more simpatico than Truman to the Iran coup, and evidently got ‘jiggy’ with it without a lot of arm-twisting. This was especially after the plotters – principally Allen Dulles, the then CIA director, and his big brother Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, who was the Cabinet pitchman for the pro-coup team, played the ‘commie’ card with Ike. For his part the elder Dulles played a Richelieu-like role in U.S. affairs of the time, was once quoted as saying that “the USA doesn’t have friends, it has interests”, tantamount to a foreign policy positioning statement, and as we’ve seen one which these days – with the notable exception of Israel — still finds ample favour in and around the Beltway.

In any event, Ike didn’t just take the commie bait hook, line and sinker, by all accounts he swam upstream to chow down on it. With Joe McCarthy and his ilk riding high in the polls and anti-communist fervour at fever pitch, such was the temper of the Cold War times. It wasn’t the first time the ‘commie’ card was played in this game, and it certainly would not be the last; like the one-size-fits-all terrorist threat that followed the Cold War’s end, it was used as cover for a multitude of foreign policy sins and proved a remarkably flexible rationale for the various misadventures of the CIA’s on-going, flagship regime renovation program.

(Interestingly, like JFK was to do with Cuba eight years later, Ike inherited, and eventually agreed to, a CIA-inspired regime transition plot that was hatched during the previous administration, but for one reason or another never got off the ground, this being one of those spooky déjà vu moments in the overall narrative of The Company. Which is to say, when Ike came to power, the principal coup plot du jour was Iran. With JFK, it was Cuba. Needless to say, in a ‘same horse, different cowboy’ kinda way, it underscores how little changes from one administration to the next.)

— Why Do they Hate US So Much? (What’s there Not to Like?) —

As for the Iranian coup, it achieved the dubious distinction of being the first and best example of CIA intervention in the sovereign affairs of another country, an experiment that would be repeated over and over with wildly varying degrees of success (or failure, depending on one’s definition of what “success” entailed in such matters, and one’s perspective on history and political inclinations). The coup not only ushered in almost three decades of despotic, oppressive rule by the Shah propped up by American arms, money and hand-holding. It belatedly ignited the fire of Islamic fundamentalism that itself provided the US with its next great foe after the Soviets eventually threw in the towel, leaving the Americans as the reigning superpower, much like Great Britain after Napolean’s 1815 defeat at Waterloo. That it also provided an answer to a question that few people were asking themselves at the time, which was ‘why do they hate us so much?’, is axiomatic, and one which has since then been a recurring motif throughout the Grand American Narrative.

There are a couple of additional considerations vis a vis the Iranian coup. One is that it was Kermit Roosevelt – scion of one of America’s most famous political dynasties – who was a driving force behind the planning and execution of Ajax. In the process he contributed to one of the U.S.’s biggest foreign policy misadventures, eventually leading to one of its most disastrous national security crises. It’s uncertain what ‘grandpa’ Teddy or ‘cuzzin’ Franklin would’ve thought of the coup, and herein we can only guess. But the knowledge one of their kin had his fingerprints all over it, especially one which ushered in such dire, enduring consequences for the empire, would possibly have at least one spinning furiously in his eternally designated bolthole.

Secondly, in using the ‘monstrous’ threat of communism as a pretext for the coup, the Americans ultimately created an even bigger monster (terrorism), although it was some time before the reality – if not the realisation – was to come home to roost for them and the rest of the world. And for those who might wonder why the US became a pariah in Iran particularly, and in the Middle East generally, one might now begin to understand. To underscore this – the notoriously brutal, vicious, sadistic SAVAK – the Shah’s internal security, secret police and intelligence organization was both feared and hated in equal measure. That SAVAK was like a franchise of the CIA was only part of the story, and on a ‘good day’ it would’ve rivalled the Stasi in East Germany, no mean feat apparently. In fact the Stasi was to the KGB what SAVAK was to the CIA. Both attempted to out-do their respective maestros. As with so many other regimes and juntas, it was CIA (and Mossad) agents who mid-wifed the establishment of SAVAK, and trained their first generation of agents, including in surveillance, torture and interrogation techniques, and other security and intelligence tradecraft. By all accounts, the CIA guys were very good teachers, or the SAVAK folk eager learners. Or both.

When they were eventually shut down, one of the most egregious examples of their sadistic savagery was to be found in how-to manuals, handbooks and training videos highlighting techniques unique to torturing women. Readers can let their imaginations run wild here, but suffice it to say, the SAVAK spooks were indeed nasty, vile, brutal pieces of work. The Iranians who survived the Shah’s wretched rule have long memories and it’s in large part because of the legacy of SAVAK. To this day, many Iranians understandably still have a huge hard-on for all things Uncle Sam (although surprisingly such animus to this day is more directed at the U.S. political establishment than at the American people per se).

In any event, by 1979, the Shah’s standing with the long-suffering Iranian people was a train wreck, and the anti-American vibe was at its most virulent. At this point, the U.S. left the Shah with his (ahem) plucked Persian peacock pecker swinging in the Mediterranean sea-breeze when it was obvious they could no longer keep the store open without a change of management. With little fanfare then, the despised potentate had his gold-leafed throne unceremoniously ‘pulled out’ from under his bling-laden ass which he then barely managed to haul out of Teheran just before the militant ‘mullahs’ surrounded him and presented their soon-to-be former leader with considerably less options than he was used to receiving, nearly all of which would’ve involved, at best, him getting a fleeting glimpse of Allah just outside

With little fanfare then, the despised potentate had his gold-leafed throne unceremoniously ‘pulled out’ from under his bling-laden ass which he then barely managed to haul out of Teheran just before the militant ‘mullahs’ surrounded him and presented their soon-to-be former leader with considerably less options than he was used to receiving, nearly all of which would’ve involved, at best, him getting a fleeting glimpse of Allah just outside jannah on the way to eternal damnation.

Following years then of rampant corruption, hubris, breathtaking extravagance, cronyism, human rights abuses, imperious contempt, political and religious oppression, kidnapping, torture, murder, culminating in increasingly deep-seated unpopularity, the Shah’s time had come, this being a pointer to the fate awaiting other future CIA sponsored and US favoured tin-pot tyrants, demented despots, and cut-rate client-dictators, of whom there’s rarely been any shortage.

For his part, at the height of the crisis, Carter – who’d unwisely signed off on the hated Shah receiving medical treatment in the U.S. after a number of countries refused to accommodate his pleas for sanctuary — had his effigy burned in Tehran streets for his troubles. By the time the smoke coming out of the filmed wreckage on the six o’clock news of one of the Navy Rescue Team choppers that had crashed in the Iranian desert killing eight crewman after an audacious attempt to free the hostages went tragically wrong had cleared, the former Georgian peanut farmer turned Leader of the Free World was a lame duck, shit-out-of-luck, commander-in-chief. A Bay of Pigs Moment then? Almost certainly! But much, much worse, if one is inclined to measure “worse” by the blowback. And the BOP blowback was considerable.

In announcing to the American public and the world at large the failure of the mission, Carter – according to the dictates of the unofficial Truman ‘doctrine’ viz a viz where the ‘buck’ stops – took responsibility for the disaster, and even used eerily similar wording to that of JFK when he publicly revealed the outcome of the BOP fiasco. From then on, The Gipper had Carter by the presidential short’n’curlies. In the view of many pundits at the time, the presidential election was ‘all over Rover’, well before a single vote was cast. And though the Shah’s “ass” was no more with his death in a US hospital in mid-1980, it was ‘all over Rover’ for anyone else still standing. The Embassy ‘squatters’ in Tehran effectively held hostage Carter’s attempt to seek a second term, an outcome facilitated by Ronald Reagan’s campaign team engaging in treasonous back channel finagling with the new Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini’s henchmen to withhold release of the hostages until after the November presidential election. The objective herein was to preclude an “October Surprise” (an early release of the hostages) that would’ve guaranteed Carter’s re-election. The rest, as they say, is history.

— Burning Down the House (How to Roast a Pig) —

With the Gipper’s inevitable victory then, it was one where not just America, but the world was never to be the same again. None of this is to suggest it ever is in these situations, of which there were few in this case anyway. The Iranian Revolution was more than a revolution then; it was a geopolitical tsunami that swamped a shit-load of people and nations in its wake. In so many respects, the waves are still rippling. And even at this point, one imagines the CIA struggled to understand that blowback of this kind was bad for business, and might continue to undermine its credibility, effectiveness, and morale if it persevered down this path.

As history would have it, this idea never really caught on though. For their part, the Islamic Revolutionaries and their ilk may or may not have had their own version of jihadist karma; if they did they doubtless weren’t averse to providing karma some earthly assistance in order for it to work its magic. The Hostage Crisis was ample evidence of that. And they (or at least their heirs apparent such as ISIS, Al Nusra, et. al.) still are apparently. That is, keen to give karma a helping hand where and whenever possible. Depending very much of course on who their paymaster(s) is/are. Allah be willing of course!

In rounding things up herein, it is perhaps best to return to Bill Engdahl for some insight into the contemporary significance of the preceding narrative. In a recent interview wherein he addressed the developments taking place within and across the Greater Middle East, for him Donald Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia and Israel wasn’t just about arms sales, shoring up their respective alliances, and reasserting America’s influence in the region. It was about, ‘setting events into motion in order to fundamentally alter the present balance of power in the entire Middle East to the greater advantage of the United States and US energy geopolitics.’

By any measure that’s a big call, and not just because it would seem that the U.S. has forfeited much of its prestige, influence, and power over the past decades of its political interventions, its wars of aggression (proxy, hybrid or direct), and its unequivocal support of Israel, something that would be required in spades in order to achieve such lofty goals. For Engdahl, Washington has already bitten off more than it can chew, without considering the ructions taking place between the Saudis, Egypt, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates in their Mexican standoff with Qatar.

This latter development clearly resulted from discussions during Trump’s visit and is one whose significance few observers should underestimate, at least without some understanding of the real backstory, an “understanding” which should include first and foremost the following question: Which country did Trump visit right after Saudi Arabia?

And with Turkey lining up with Iran – the latter already a key ally of Syria, the former a key player in the efforts to relieve Syrian President Bashar al-Assad of the burdens of power during the past five years — on the side of Qatar, the standoff is creating some very strange geopolitical bedfellows.

None of us should be fooled by the rhetoric to be sure, because at the heart of these machinations and maneuvers is energy – both oil and, especially gas — as it always has been. It’s certainly not, nor has it ever been, about freedom, democracy, liberty or any of the usual bromides (perish the thought), or the U.S.’s oft-cited “responsibility to protect”. In terms of the geopolitical actors involved in the Great Game du jour, Engdahl notes, ‘no political power has been more responsible for launching the recent undeclared gas wars than the corrupt Washington cabal that makes policy on behalf of the so-called deep state interests….The Trump Administration policy in the Middle East–and there is a clear policy, rest assured–might be compared to that of the ancient Chinese fable about the farmer who burnt down his house in order to roast a pig. In order to control the emerging world energy market around “low-CO2″ natural gas, Washington has targeted not only the world’s largest gas reserve country, Russia. She is now targeting Iran and Qatar.’

Nor is the “Game” about combatting terrorism per se, as terrorism has always served the interests of the major power players, an observation one will never hear mentioned in mainstream media or political discourse. Of course one of the official pretexts for the demands being placed on Doha by the Saudis and the other Gulf states is Qatar’s support for terrorism, accusations which emanating from either country are as fatuous and as hypocritical as it gets. Engdahl had this to say:

‘We must keep in mind that all serious terrorist organizations are state-sponsored. All [of them]. Whether DAESH or Al Nusra or Mujahideen in Afghanistan or Maute Group in [the] Philippines. The relevant question is which states sponsor which terrorists[?] Today NATO is the one most complicit in sponsoring terrorism as a weapon of their geopolitical designs. And within NATO the United States is sponsor number one, often using Saudi money and until recently, ironically, Qatari funds.’

There should be no surprises here for students of Deep History, as these factors have been the driving forces of ‘full spectrum dominance’ geopolitics and geo-economics forever and a day, with the 1953 Iran narrative as we’ve seen providing hard-core evidence of this reality. It is also about the Regime Renovators pressing on regardless, which in this instance translates to isolating and then destroying Iran (a la Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Syria et. al.), Washington’s, Riyadh’s, and Tel Aviv’s common bête noir. Of course, these considerations are not mutually exclusive by any means. On the Saudi-Qatari standoff, he had the following to say: ‘Washington wanted to punish Qatar for seeking natural gas sales with China priced not in US dollars but in Renminbi. That apparently alarmed Washington, as Qatar is the world’s largest LNG exporter and most to Asia.’ 

But it’s even much more complex than that. The shape-shifting allegiances, mercurial strategic loyalties, and ‘handshakes under the table’ make for unpredictable scenarios going forward to be sure. Herein Engdahl offers us a summation of situation and circumstance that is as lucid as it is frightening. 

‘The real story behind the rise of so-called Islamic Terrorism is the increasingly desperate attempt of the ‘Anglo-American Deep State to control the rise of Eurasia, especially of China in combination now with Russia, and increasingly with Iran and Central Asian republics as well as South Asian. Without understanding this, none of the recent events in the Middle East make sense. Washington strategists today foolishly believe that if they get choke point control of all Middle East oil and gas, they can, as Henry Kissinger stated back in the 1970’s “control the oil and thus, control entire nations,” especially China and Russia and also Germany and Europe. Their strategy has failed but Washington and the Pentagon refuse to see the reasons for their repeated failed wars. The hidden reality of American global power is that the American “giant” today is a bankrupt superpower, much like Great Britain after their Great Depression of 1873 up to 1914. Britain triggered a world war in 1914 to desperately try to retain their global power. They failed, for reasons I discuss in my Century of War book. Today for much the same reasons – allowing the power of US financial conglomerates [to] supersede the interests of the national industrial economy – America’s debt, national, private, corporate, is out of control. Reagan and Cheney were dead wrong. Debt does matter.’

All of this translates to one simple reality. And at some point in the not too distant future, Russia and China will – not might, not maybe — attempt to call a halt to it all. And it’s reasonable to assume they won’t be on their ‘Pat Malone’, with Iran to be sure seeking also to finally square the ledger with the “Great Satan”. By then it’ll be on for young and old. Of that we can be sure. History has always been and remains our most reliable guide in this respect. Of this we can also be just as certain. Well might we say then that another “splendid little war” is in the offing.

Be that as it may, it almost certainly will qualify as the War to End all Wars.

Greg Maybury is an Australian based freelance journalist, alternative media entrepreneur, filmmaker and blogger, and partially rehabbed history teacher. His broad areas of exploration and analysis are the U.S. political economy, foreign affairs, social and economic history, international relations, the national security state, the media, and American society and culture in general.

Greg Maybury, ©, June 26, 2017

See also – China Tech: Interesting Bits and Pieces

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

 

Click for SpanishGermanDutchDanishFrench, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.

Iran 1953: State Department Finally Releases Updated Official History of Mosaddeq Coup

Formerly Secret Documents from State, CIA Provide New Information about Covert Operations Planning and Implementation Plus Contemporaneous Analyses Long-Awaited Volume Supplements Earlier Publication that Whitewashed U.S., British Roles

Global Research, June 17, 2017

The State Department today released a long-awaited “retrospective” volume of declassified U.S. government documents on the 1953 coup in Iran, including records describing planning and implementation of the covert operation. The publication is the culmination of decades of internal debates and public controversy after a previous official collection omitted all references to the role of American and British intelligence in the ouster of Iran’s then-prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddeq. The volume is part of the Department’s venerable Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) series.

For decades, neither the U.S. nor the British governments would acknowledge their part in Mosaddeq’s overthrow, even though a detailed account appeared as early as 1954 in The Saturday Evening Post, and since then CIA and MI6 veterans of the coup have published memoirs detailing their activities. Kermit Roosevelt’s Countercoup is the best known and most detailed such account, although highly controversial because of its selective rendering of events. In 2000, The New York Times posted a 200-page classified internal CIA history of the operation.

Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and President Dwight D. Eisenhower, (undated photo).

In 1989, the State Department released what purported to be the official record of the coup period but it made not a single reference to American and British actions in connection with the event. The omission led to the resignation of the chief outside adviser on the series, and prompted Congress to pass legislation requiring “a thorough, accurate, and reliable documentary record” of U.S. foreign policy. After the end of the Cold War, the CIA committed to open agency files on the Iran and other covert operations, and the State Department vowed to produce a “retrospective” volume righting the earlier decision.

But it took until 2011 for the CIA to – partially – fulfill its commitment, and even then it was only in the form of a previously classified segment of an internal account of the coup that for the first time included an officially released explicit reference to the agency’s role in “TPAJAX,” the U.S. acronym for the operation. Roughly two years later, after years of research by historian James C. Van Hook, as well as internal negotiations between State and CIA over access to the latter’s records, the Office of the Historian at the Department produced a draft of the retrospective volume, which then had to await top-level clearance.

What explains the refusal by two governments to acknowledge their actions, and the inordinate delays in publishing this volume? Justifications given in the past include protecting intelligence sources and methods, bowing to British government requests and, more recently, avoiding stirring up Iranian hardline elements who might seek to undercut the nuclear deal Iran signed with the United States and other P5+1 members in 2015.

While the volume’s contents still are being sifted through, here’s a description from the Preface:

This Foreign Relations retrospective volume focuses on the use of covert operations by the Truman and Eisenhower administrations as an adjunct to their respective policies toward Iran, culminating in the overthrow of the Mosadeq government in August 1953. Moreover, the volume documents the involvement of the U.S. intelligence community in the policy formulation process and places it within the broader Cold War context. For a full appreciation of U.S. relations with Iran between 1951 and 1954, this volume should be read in conjunction with the volume published in 1989.

“This is going to be an important source for anyone interested in the tortured relationship between Washington and Tehran,” said Malcolm Byrne, who runs the National Security Archive’s Iran-U.S. Relations Project. “But the fact that it has taken over six decades to declassify and release these records about such a pivotal historical event is mind-boggling.”

As Archive staff make their way through the hundreds of records in the volume, we will update this posting with highlights.

Read the volume:

Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952-1954: Iran, 1951-1954 (2017)
Editor: James C. Van Hook

 

 

 

 

 

All images in this article are from the original source .

THE WHITE HELMETS LIED! OMRAN DAQNEESH THE ORANGE SEAT BOY RESURFACES AND HIS WHOLE FAMILY STANDS WITH THE SYRIAN GOVERNMENT!

by Jonathan Azaziah

Talk about a bombshell! The White Helmets lied through their rotten teeth! Omran al-Daqneesh, the infamous “Orange Seat Boy”, is fine as kind! He’s living in liberated Aleppo with his family! He’s being protected by the Syrian Arab Army (SAA)! And IT JUST SO HAPPENS that his parents and other kin are staunch supporters of the Syrian government. MADNESS!

Flashback to last August. The world was taken by storm as photos of a dust-covered boy in an orange ambulance seat spread across the Zionist media like a wildfire being fueled by gasoline spills. That boy of course was Omran. Plastered on every TV channel, every website and every front page of every newspaper, the boy, it was claimed by the Al-Qaeda-linked, US-UK-Soros-financed White Helmets, had been wounded in air strikes launched by “the Assad regime” and “imperialist Russia”. His family, the White Helmets claimed further, were heavy backers of the “Syrian revolution”. Omran’s photograph was taken by a CIA-Turkish-Qatari-backed Harakat Noureddine al-Zinki terrorist who had previously been involved in beheading 12-year old Syrian-Palestinian boy Abdallah al-Issa in Aleppo’s Handarat. The event incited wave after wave of humanitarian-interventionist propaganda against the Syrian Arab Republic, once again drawing the world to the brink of WW3, and also catapulted the White Helmets onto the global scene, garnering them international spotlight and a limitless flow of support from Jewish Hollywood. And then… Incredibly… Almost mystically… Little Omran and his story disappeared from the mass media just about as quickly as it emerged.

Fast forward back to present day and the revelations about Omran Daqneesh have laid waste to this fictional narrative that the Takfiri-connected White Helmets concocted and forced down the collective throat of the globe through their Zionist media overlords. And this TRUE STORY is barely receiving any coverage at all in the mass press and wherever it is being reported, like the UK Telegraph for example, there are quite blatant attempts being made to downplay and deflect the deceptions of the past. Above and beyond the devastating info that Omran’s dearest ones are partisans of the Syrian Arab Republic’s government and military, Omran’s father revealed that terrorist groups offered to pay him gargantuan amounts of cash–presumably delivered by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey–to spread propaganda against democratically elected Syrian President Dr. Bashar al-Assad as well as the SAA. He would refuse to entertain this treachery and despite the hasbara blitz, his support for his leader and his army never wavered. This didn’t mean things never got difficult however. Omran’s father was forced to shave Omran’s head and change his name just so his son would longer endure anymore vulturous exploitation at the hands of the “moderate rebels”. In more succinct terms: The Daqneesh family most certainly did suffer. But it wasn’t because of Damascus. In fact, it was Damascus which rescued them. Their tormentors, from A to Z, were the very groups that MSM told the world were “fighting for freedom” from a “brutal dictator”.

If you’re shocked by this unexpected turn of events… Don’t be. Not even in the slightest. The story of Omran Daqneesh is much like that of Alan Kurdi. Or Hamza al-Khatib. Or the chemical weapons attacks in Ghouta in ’13 and Idlib just a few months ago. Or the Houla Massacre. Or, in reality, the entirety of the war on Syria. A lie gets told. It proliferates thanks to the pernicious efforts of the global Zionist media and a network of “activists” linked to the NGO-Human-Rights-Industrial-Complex of Soros, the NED and the US State Department. Then months or sometimes years later, when the dust settles, the cameras have moved on their next batch of Zioganda, and the public is no longer paying attention, the truth will come out but it will swiftly get swept under the rug. Moral of the story here: Don’t believe what you see on your Talmudvision. Especially when it comes to Syria. The controllers of information view the masses as “Goyim” and according to their ideology, they find it obligatory-kosher to deceive you to further their agenda. And they couldn’t give the smallest of damns that children get hurt in the process. It’s a happy day for Omran Daqneesh and all those who fight on a daily basis for Syria to be free of Zio-Takfirism, no doubt. It’s a victory of truth over hasbara, for sure. But it would be a hell of a lot happier and triumphant if everyone believed us when we said, “The White Helmets are liars! This story is fishy!”, in the first place.

Uptick In UK Terrorism Could Be Linked To Corbyn’s Pledge To Halt Saudi Arms Sales

Uptick In UK Terrorism Could Be Linked To Corbyn’s Pledge To Halt Saudi Arms Sales

A pair of terror attacks that have rocked the UK in the last two weeks have come just before the country’s general election. Some believe that the timing of the attacks is not coincidental, as one of the candidates has pledged to halt arms sales to Saudi Arabia – a known sponsor of terrorism.

Saudi King Salman, right, receives British Prime Minister Theresa May, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Wednesday, April 5, 2017. (AP Photo)

Saudi King Salman, right, receives British Prime Minister Theresa May, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Wednesday, April 5, 2017. (AP Photo)

With the latest terror attack to befall London taking place less than two weeks after the concert bombing in Manchester, many are wondering about the timing and frequency of the attacks. Both attacks occurred in the lead-up to Thursday’s general election, leading some to theorize that there may be a link between the election and the uptick in terrorist activity.

However, one such explanation has been widely overlooked. Historical precedent and the high stakes of this upcoming election suggest that one of the UK’s allies – Saudi Arabia – may have had a much more active role in the attacks than has been perceived beyond its well-known penchant for funding terrorist groups.

Saudi Arabia has been known to threaten foreign governments, particularly the UK, with an uptick in terrorist activity in the event that arms deals to the Gulf monarchy are put on hold or limited in any way.



Previously released court papers reveal that the Saudis had threatened the UK with an increase in terror attacks if the government of former Prime Minister Tony Blair chose to move forward with a corruption investigation concerning sales of arms to the Gulf nation.

According to official documents, Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, head of Saudi Arabia’s now-defunct National Security Council from 2005 to 2015, told Blair in December 2006 that the UK would face “another 7/7” and the loss of “British lives on British streets” were the investigation to continue.

In this photo released by Saudi News Agency, Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, right receives Mideast envoy Tony Blair, the ex-prime minister of Britain after his arrival in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia Monday, Sept. 3, 2007. (AP Photo/Saudi News Agency)

Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, right receives Tony Blair after his arrival in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia, Sept. 3, 2007. (AP Photo)

Bandar stood accused of taking over 1 billion British pounds in secret payments from BAE, the UK’s largest arms manufacturer – and the world’s third-largest. Blair subsequently halted the inquiry.

In the current UK political landscape, there is no greater threat to UK-Saudi arms deals than Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the UK’s Labour Party. In addition to being a long-time critic of UK arms sales to the Saudis and other governments that have been accused of human rights violations,  Corbyn has vowed outright to suspend all arms sales to Saudi Arabia if he wins this Thursday’s electoral contest.

The decision was described as part of a Labour plan to return to an “ethical foreign policy” focused on “nonproliferation and disarmament” and led by a concern for human rights.

In contrast, the Conservative Party, now led by Theresa May, has been eager to provide the Saudis with massive amounts of weapons. Under former Prime Minister David Cameron’s six-year tenure, UK arms sales to the Saudis totaled approximately 5.6 billion British pounds.

May, who became prime minister following Cameron’s resignation in 2016, has been an ardent supporter of ties between her nation and Saudi Arabia. Most recently, her government has blocked the completion of a “sensitive” report that details the funding of Islamic extremist groups, allegedly focusing on the Saudis’ leading role in such activity. By preventing that query – much like what transpired under Blair in 2006 – May’s government will keep arms flowing from the British Isles to the Persian Gulf.

Perhaps the Saudi threats to unleash terror upon the UK if its arms deals are threatened are what May was referencing when she argued that selling weapons to the Saudis helps “keep people on the streets of Britain safe.”

Britain and Jihadism: What does the Third Terrorist Attack in less than Three Months Tell Us?

Britain and Jihadism: What does the Third Terrorist Attack in less than 3 months tell us? 

564523433

 

Britain’s May Plays Terror Card, But It Could Be a Joker

Britain’s May Plays Terror Card, But It Could Be a Joker

Britain’s embattled Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May is shamelessly playing the «terror card» to bolster her «strong leader» posture, just days before the general election this week.

Breaking an informal agreement with rival political parties to temporarily suspend election campaigning, May rushed to deliver a speech in front of 10 Downing Street calling for a «robust» law and order response to a «new threat terror».

May made her nationwide appeal the morning after the deadly terror attack in London on Saturday night in which seven bystanders were killed. Her grandstanding speech also attempted to tar her main rival, Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn, as being «soft on terrorism».

It’s a well-worn Tory ploy of presenting the Conservative party as the strong national-security defenders, while casting others as the «enemy within». This may have worked efficaciously in the past. But in the present circumstances the trusty old terror card has become threadbare from lies and fatal contradictions.

At the weekend, all British political parties had agreed to suspend campaigning for 24 hours following the assault late on Saturday night in which three British-born jihadists launched a van and knife attack on pedestrians near London Bridge. But, in a sign of desperation, Theresa May broke ranks and appeared early Sunday morning to make her anti-terror appeal.

The latest events come at a critical time ahead of the British snap election. Since the Conservative government made the surprise call for an early election, Theresa May has seen her poll ratings collapse from a 20-plus point lead to a nail-biting margin of only a few points over Labour rival Jeremy Corbyn.

Under Corbyn’s leadership, the Labour party is campaigning on a platform that has been described as the most left-wing seen in decades. His pitch for wide-ranging socialist policies has unexpectedly rallied the British public in support. That surge has alarmed the Tories who are traditionally pro-business and advocates of neoliberal austerity policies.

The British media which is largely supportive of the Conservatives have over recent weeks been piling up negative claims against Corbyn as being «soft on terrorism». Those claims have referred to his past verbal support for groups like Hamas in the Palestinian territories, Iranian-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Irish republicans during the 1980s. Corbyn contends that his past support for such groups was aimed at facilitating inclusive peace talks.

But the Conservatives have been ruthlessly vilifying the Labour leader as a «terrorist sympathizer» as well as being «anti-NATO» and «soft on Russia». The latter epithet stems partly from Corbyn’s stated reluctance to order the use of nuclear weapons if he were prime minister.

The latest terror attack in London – Britain’s third deadly jihadist-related attack in three months – has given Theresa May and her embattled Tory party more ammunition to go after Corbyn, or so they would like to think.

But just like May’s gamble to call an early general election, betting that it would strengthen her government, the ploy to use the terror card might also rebound badly.

For a start Labour and other opposition parties have pointed out that the spate of terror attacks hitting Britain have been made possible by the huge public spending cutbacks that the Conservatives have implemented over several years. Corbyn countered May’s latest posturing of «strong leadership» by reminding voters that her government has reduced police force ranks by some 20,000 personnel. That reduction, he says, inevitably impairs state security, allowing would-be jihadists to organize.

Indeed media reports have documented that the jihadist who killed four people on London’s Westminster Bridge in April, as well as the suicide bomber who killed 22 at a concert last month in Manchester, and the three suspects in the latest terror attack on London Bridge were all known to the security services.

Why these suspects were not picked up in advance suggests that police services are overstretched and under-manned. Very arguably therefore, the cost-cutting Conservative government bears responsibility for security impairment. And the angry public know that.

Some commentators have gone further and said that secretive forces within the British establishment might even be allowing these terror attacks to proceed in a nefarious calculation that the public repercussions are more harmful politically to Labour’s Corbyn. Wittingly or unwittingly it allows the Conservative party to focus attention on allegations of Corbyn being a «terrorist sympathizer».

Nevertheless, as noted above, the ploy could still go badly wrong for the Conservatives. Before she took over the premiership from David Cameron, who resigned last year over the Brexit referendum, Theresa May served as the Home Secretary for five years. It was under her watch that police services incurred swinging manpower cuts, which have inevitably undermined security measures. Her latest gambit of posing as a strong leader and calling for a «tough» law and order response is in danger of sounding hollow, if not contemptible.

Also, as veteran journalist John Pilger recently reported, there is much evidence pointing to links between Britain’s spy agencies MI5 and MI6 and their clandestine involvement in cultivating homegrown jihadists to fight in British-backed wars for regime change in Libya and Syria. This covert policy of British state collusion with jihadists was conducted during May’s stint as Home Secretary. So when May piously talks about a new threat of terrorism facing Britain, it is not a difficult stretch for the public to connect this threat as being blowback from Britain’s involvement in dirty wars.

While May and her government would like to treat the terror attacks in Britain as «isolated» manifestations of «evil ideology», there is a growing public understanding that the violence assailing British streets is inextricably linked to Britain’s criminal foreign policy of sponsoring wars for regime change and consorting with proxy terror groups.

After May’s dig at Corbyn with her claim that there was «too much tolerance towards terrorism», the Labour leader hit back, saying that Britain must look critically at its relations with Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf monarchies which are systematically connected to jihadist extremism.

«We do need to have some difficult conversations starting with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states that have funded and fueled extremist ideology,» said Corbyn.

May’s government has in particular sought to increase weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states even while these regimes are increasingly seen as having a notorious record on human rights violations at home and abroad. The British-backed Saudi slaughter in Yemen is a particular cause of public disgust in Britain.

When Theresa May stood in front of Downing Street at the weekend and intoned that «terrorism breeds terrorism» she was inadvertently making a self-indicting statement on her own government’s appalling record. Her government and its consorting with terrorist-sponsoring Wahhabi oil kingdoms has not only wreaked havoc in the Middle East. Such a reckless criminal policy is ricocheting all over Britain’s streets. And the British public can see that, despite government and media deflections over responsibility.

The increasing awareness among the British public about Britain’s complicity in terrorism makes the once-trusty terror card an unreliable card to play. It’s not the ace that Theresa May thinks she is playing against Corbyn. Instead, it could turn out to be a bad joker

%d bloggers like this: