Saudi Arabia in Syria: Between the Loss of Investment and Being Let Down by Trump

Ali Mrad

19-04-2018 | 07:54

Hours after the end of the tripartite aggression on Syria at dawn last Saturday, regional and Gulf capitals issued statements of support and congratulations. One of these statements came from the Saudi Foreign Ministry’s on Tuesday afternoon announcing Riyadh’s full support for the “military operations launched by the United States, the United Kingdom and France against Syrian military targets”. The Riyadh statement held Damascus responsible for what happened and accused the international community of “failing to take firm measures” against Syria. What Riyadh calls “inaction” reflects its chronic disappointment in Syria, having been disappointed by Obama in September 2013 after the first chemical film. And Trump seems to be repeating history today.

Saudi Arabia in Syria: Between the Loss of Investment and Being Let Down by Trump

After December 25, 2015, the date of the assassination of the leader of the “Army of Islam” [Jaysh al-Islam] Zahran Alloush, it became clear that Saudi dreams in Syria, especially in the Eastern Ghouta, were gone. Alloush represented an old Saudi investment that dates back to the time of his father Abdullah Alloush who injected the residents of Douma and Eastern Ghouta with Saudi Wahhabism. He spent his life in Saudi universities and schools, and his son Zahran followed in his footsteps.

In June 2015, Saudi Foreign Ministry documents published by WikiLeaks included the minutes of a meeting titled “Preparatory Committee Emerging from a Higher Committee to Study Topics Related to anti-Iranian Threats and Movements”. In the minutes of the mentioned committee’s meeting (which seems to have been held in the beginning of 2012), the fourth item from the recommendations explains the outlook of the Saudi regime towards the war in Syria, describing it as “the current battle with the Iranian regime on the domestic scene in Syria”. It explains its objective when it considers that

“it is absolutely impossible in any event to lose it [the battle] due to the consequences and dangers that may directly threaten the national security of the Kingdom and its strategic interests. “

From here, one can understand why the Saudis have always sent proposals to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad that the war would end and that things would return to normal if he decided to sever his relationship with Tehran. They also relied on the US remaining in Syria due to Syria’s rejection of temptations. This was stated by the Saudi crown prince in an interview with Time Magazine at the end of last month.

Following the tripartite aggression on Damascus, the idea that the Saudis and the Zionists were still betting on the dismantling of the Russia-Iran-Syria alliance, which had secured many victories, was reinforced.

In his recent speech last Sunday, Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah pointed to the “disappointment of some regional countries that bet that the tripartite aggression will destroy the Syrian air force and the positions of the Revolutionary Guards and allies.” It is no secret that both Tel Aviv and Riyadh basically wanted the Americans to target sites where the Revolutionary Guards and Hezbollah were deployed. Immediately after the aggression, the Zionist lobby in the United States rushed to talk about “building on the first strike to take tougher steps toward Iran in Syria”. The aim, of course, is to focus pressure on Tehran, especially after the “Israeli” T-4 aggression, to push it to retreat from Syria.

This approach, which Riyadh has in common with Tel Aviv, was expressed by the Saudi crown prince during his recent visit to the United States. He did not miss an opportunity to give an interview there. He exaggeratedly cautioned about what he called the “Iranian threat” and the need for Washington to respond to it.

What consolidated the Saudi disappointment in the limit of the aggression is what the Wall Street Journal revealed. Two days ago, the newspaper reported that the Trump administration is considering a project to replace its forces in Syria with troops from Arab countries. The newspaper quoted US officials as saying that contacts were made with the Egyptians while Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar were told about the idea of sending their troops to replace the US forces because Trump – according to the newspaper and confirmed by the White House spokeswoman a few days ago – is insisting on withdrawing US forces from Syria as soon as possible.

Jim Reese, a retired Marine colonel (Delta Force), spoke about this plan in an interview with US broadcaster Fox News hours before the tripartite assault on Syria. Reese said he knew that the Pentagon is currently considering a plan for US allies to deploy in the areas where the Americans are located in Syria. He names Saudi Arabia and the UAE at the top of the list. He sets the area of deployment (which he says they own) from Ain al-Arab in the north heading downward to the last point controlled by the Americans along the Euphrates. He hinted that the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman discussed the matter with Trump during his visit to Washington, adding that the goal is to form the East Euphrates Force that stands in the face of the Syrian and Iranian forces located west of the river.

Reese spoke about this plan in a second interview with Fox News hours after the tripartite aggression and in a third interview on Tuesday. The fact is that this plan existed since 2015 and is not new. Back then, Senator John McCain and Lindsey Graham (known for their strong ties to the Saudi regime) were eager to promote it.

Related image

McCain and Graham proposed the idea of forming a ground military force made up of 100 thousand fighters. 90 percent of the armed forces would come from Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan, while only 10 percent would be made up of the US-led Western forces. The objective of deploying this power, according to McCain and Graham, is to fight both President Assad and Daesh. They believed that the “threat of Assad’s survival” will strengthen Iran’s presence in Syria and will give a signal from Washington that it remains committed to defending its “allies” in the region, despite the negotiations on the nuclear agreement with Iran at the time.

It is very clear that the Trump administration knows very well that the task of protecting its 2,000 soldiers after launching the tripartite aggression against Syria has become a difficult one. So it seeks to calm the anger of the American populist movement (Trump’s electoral base) which rejects military adventures and to minimize its losses while ensuring what it calls “filling the void” in areas it controlled with troops from its satellites.

The Egyptians are busy fighting the terrorist groups in Sinai and controlling their borders with Libya. Saudi Arabia and the UAE are involved in Yemen, and Jordan is not interested in engaging in such a project that will expose it to danger. It is the one who seeks to restore its relationship with Damascus. And the Turks renewed their commitment to the Astana path after the tripartite aggression even though they declared their support for it. Thus, it is a stillborn plan as its implementation seems almost impossible. It is most likely that Trump may seek to raise the ceiling of the price of his withdrawal, which he is mainly demanding from the Saudis, by maneuvering and threatening to withdraw immediately unless Mohammed bin Salman pays the price he requests.

Source: Al-Ahed


Commentary: The Conflict in Syria Was Always Israel’s War

[ Ed. note – Syria seems to be on the threshold of a final and decisive victory over ISIS. With six years worth of effort and more than a billion dollars spent in the quest to topple Bashar Assad, the regime-changers finally seem to be throwing in the towel. Israel, of course, is none too happy with the current turn of events.

According to a report here, the Zionist state “is gearing up to hold its largest military drill in nearly 20 years” on its border with Lebanon, this apparently in anticipation of a war with Hezbollah. This should come as no surprise, really. The video below highlights the not insignificant contributions made by Hezbollah in the defeat of ISIS/Daesh.

In the article below Whitney Webb makes a persuasive argument that Israel, and not the US, was in reality all along the “mastermind of the plan” to overthrow Assad. Webb states that it was Israel which “not only drafted the original blueprint for the Syrian conflict but guided U.S. involvement by exerting its powerful influence over the foreign policy of that country.” The words “led by the nose” of course come to mind.

And in addition to being led by the nose into a war in Syria, the nose hooks fastened tightly to our leaders now seem to be leading us into supporting whatever scheme the Israelis are presently cooking up in Lebanon. Recently Ambassador Nikki Haley successfully pushed through the Security Council a measure designed to force UNIFIL, the UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon, to become more assertive and confrontational with Hezbollah. As the New York Times reported:

Both Israel and the United States have grown increasingly strident in recent days over what they have described as a blatant buildup of Iranian weaponry by Hezbollah in southern Lebanon including hidden rockets. They have accused Unifil of turning a blind eye to it.

How long will the American people be content to fight wars for Israel? Will they at some point get fed up with it? ]


By Whitney Webb

After years of fomenting the Syrian conflict from the shadows, the U.S. has recently seemed to back away from its push to militarily intervene in the embattled nation, instead choosing to focus its saber-rattling and destabilization efforts on other theaters. The consequence of this has seemingly been the winding down of the long-running conflict, now entering its seventh year.

Buoyed by Russia, Iran and Lebanon, the Syrian government led by President Bashar al-Assad has managed to retake vast swaths of territory, all while surviving and growing stronger over the course of a largely foreign-funded onslaught. As a result, many of the governments that were instrumental in funding and arming the so-called “moderate” opposition have begun to extricate themselves, unwilling to further test the resilience of Assad or the Syrian people.

With some anticipating the long-awaited conclusion of the Syrian conflict, recent threats from Israel’s government to assassinate Assad by bombing his residence seemed to appear out of the blue. According to the Jerusalem Post, a senior Israeli official accompanying Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on a recent visit to Russia warned the Kremlin that if Iran continues to “extend its reach” in Syria, Israel would bomb the presidential palace in Damascus.

Israel’s comments should come as no surprise, however, as the foreign-funded and manufactured conflict in Syria was always Israel’s war. The only real surprise is Israel’s growing isolation in pushing for the further escalation of the conflict.

Though it has successfully avoided being labeled a major player in the effort to oust Assad, Israel has long been the mastermind of the plan, which stems in large part from the long-standing hostilities between the two nations as well as Israel’s own regional ambitions. State Department diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks have shown that in 2006, five years before the conflict in Syria manifested, the government of Israel had hatched a plan to overthrow the Assad government by engineering sectarian strife in the country, creating paranoia within the highest-ranks of the Syrian government, and isolating Syria from its strongest regional ally, Iran.

Israel then passed this plan along to the United States, which would then involve Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and Egypt in fomenting the “breakdown” of the Assad regime as a way of weakening both Iran and Hezbollah — with the effect of empowering both Israel and the Gulf monarchies, two seemingly disparate forces in the region that are becoming increasingly allied.

Leaked emails belonging to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton further reveal Israel’s role in covertly creating the conflict and its clear role in securing the involvement of the U.S. and other nations in executing its plan for Assad’s removal. One email, forwarded by Clinton to her advisor Jacob Sullivan, argues that Israel is convinced that Iran would lose “its only ally” in the region were Assad’s government to collapse.

It further stated that “The fall of the House of Assad could well ignite a sectarian war between the Shiites and the majority Sunnis of the region drawing in Iran, which, in the view of Israeli commanders would not be a bad thing for Israel and its Western allies.” This possible sectarian war was perceived as a potential “factor in the eventual fall of the current government of Iran.”

Another Clinton email released by WikiLeaks stated”

The best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad,”


Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel’s security, it would also ease Israel’s understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly.”

The email also notes:

A successful intervention in Syria would require substantial diplomatic and military leadership from the United States” and states that “arming the Syrian rebels and using western air power to ground Syrian helicopters and airplanes is a low-cost high payoff approach.”

Continued here

Russia-gate Is No Watergate or Iran-Contra

Many comparisons have been made between Russia-gate and the earlier scandals of Watergate and Iran-Contra, but the similarities are at best superficial, explains Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

Russia-gate, the sprawling investigation into whether Russia meddled in last year’s U.S. election, is often compared to the two big political scandals of the latter half of the Twentieth Century, Watergate and Iran-Contra. Sometimes you even hear that Russia-gate is “bigger than Watergate.”

Yet what is perhaps most remarkable about those two Twentieth Century scandals is how little Official Washington really understands them – and how these earlier scandals significantly contrast, rather than compare, with what is unfolding now.

Although the historical record is still incomplete on Watergate and Iran-Contra, the available evidence indicates that both scandals originated in schemes by Republicans to draw foreign leaders into plots to undermine sitting Democratic presidents and thus pave the way for the elections of Richard Nixon in 1968 and Ronald Reagan in 1980.

As for Russia-gate, even if you accept that the Russian government hacked into Democratic emails and publicized them via WikiLeaks, there is still no evidence that Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with the Kremlin to do so. By contrast, in the origins of Watergate and Iran-Contra, it appears the Nixon and Reagan campaigns, respectively, were the instigators of schemes to enlist foreign governments in blocking a Vietnam peace deal in 1968 and negotiations to free 52 American hostages in Iran in 1980.

Though Watergate is associated directly with the 1972 campaign – when Nixon’s team of burglars was caught inside the Democratic National Committee offices in the Watergate building – Nixon’s formation of that team, known as the Plumbers, was driven by his fear that he could be exposed for sabotaging President Lyndon Johnson’s Vietnam peace talks in 1968 in order to secure the White House that year.

After Nixon’s narrow victory over Vice President Hubert Humphrey in the 1968 election, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover informed Nixon that Johnson had a secret file, complete with wiretapped phone calls, detailing the Nixon campaign’s backchannel messages to South Vietnamese officials convincing them to boycott Johnson’s Paris peace talks. Later, Nixon learned that this incriminating file had disappeared from the White House.

So, in 1971, after the leaking of the Pentagon Papers, which recounted the lies that had been used to justify the Vietnam War through 1967, Nixon fretted that the missing file about his peace-talk gambit in 1968 might surface, too, and would destroy him politically. Thus, he organized the Plumbers to find the file, even contemplating fire-bombing the Brookings Institution to enable a search of its safe where some aides thought the missing file might be found.

In other words, Watergate wasn’t simply a break-in at the Democratic National Committee on June 17, 1972, in pursuit of useful political intelligence and Nixon’s ensuing cover-up; the scandal had its origins in a far worse scandal, the derailing of peace talks that could have ended the Vietnam War years earlier and saved the lives of tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers and possibly more than 1 million Vietnamese.

Iran-Contra Parallels

Similarly, the Iran-Contra scandal exploded in 1986 with revelations that President Reagan had authorized secret arms sales to Iran with some of the profits going to fund the Nicaraguan Contra rebels, but the evidence now indicates that the connections between Reagan’s team and Iran’s revolutionary regime traced back to 1980 when emissaries from Reagan’s campaign worked to stymie President Jimmy Carter’s negotiations to free 52 American hostages then held in Iran.

According to multiple witnesses, including former Assistant Secretary of State for Middle Eastern Affairs Nicholas Veliotes, the pre-election contacts led to the opening of a weapons pipeline to Iran (via Israel), after Reagan was sworn in on Jan. 20, 1981, which was the precise moment when Iran finally released the American hostages after 444 days.

Some key players in the 1980 Reagan-Iran contacts reappeared four years later at the start of direct (again secret) U.S. arms shipments to Iran in 1985, which also involved Israeli middlemen. These key players included Iranian CIA operative Cyrus Hashemi, former CIA clandestine services chief Theodore Shackley, Reagan’s campaign chief and then-CIA Director William Casey, and former CIA Director and then-Vice President George H.W. Bush.

In other words, the Iran-Contra weapons shipments of 1985-86 appear to have been an outgrowth of the earlier shipments dating back to 1980 and continuing under Israeli auspices until the supply line was taken over more directly by the Reagan administration in 1985-86.

Thus, both the Watergate scandal in 1972 and the Iran-Contra Affair in 1986 could be viewed as “sequels” to the earlier machinations driven by Republican hunger to seize the enormous powers of the U.S. presidency. However, for decades, Official Washington has been hostile to these underlying explanations of how Watergate and Iran-Contra began.

For instance, The New York Times, the so-called “newspaper of record,” treated the accumulation of evidence regarding Nixon’s 1968 peace-talk gambit as nothing more than a “rumor” until earlier this year when a scholar, John A. Farrell, uncovered cryptic notes taken by Nixon’s aide H.R. Haldeman, which added another piece to the mosaic and left the Times little choice but to pronounce the historical reality finally real.

Grasping the Watergate Narrative

Still, the Times and other major news outlets have failed to factor this belated admission into the larger Watergate narrative. If you understand that Nixon did sabotage President Johnson’s Vietnam War peace talks and that Nixon was aware that Johnson’s file on what LBJ called Nixon’s “treason” had disappeared from the White House, the early “Watergate tapes” from 1971 suddenly make sense.

Nixon ordered White House chief of staff H.R. “Bob” Haldeman and National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger to locate the missing file but their search came up empty. Yet, some Nixon aides thought the file might be hidden at the Brookings Institution, a liberal think tank in Washington. So, in his desperate pursuit of the file, Nixon called for a break-in at Brookings, possibly even fire-bombing the building as a cover for his team of burglars to slip in amid the confusion and rifle the safe.

The old explanation that Nixon simply wanted to find some file related to Johnson’s 1968 pre-election Vietnam bombing halt never made sense given the extreme steps that Nixon was prepared to take.

The relevant portions of Nixon’s White House tapes include an entry on June 17, 1971, coincidentally one year to the day before the Watergate burglars were caught. Nixon summoned Haldeman and Kissinger to the Oval Office and pleaded with them again to locate the file.

“Do we have it?” Nixon asked Haldeman. “I’ve asked for it. You said you didn’t have it.”

Haldeman: “We can’t find it.”

Kissinger: “We have nothing here, Mr. President.”

Nixon: “Well, damn-it, I asked for that because I need it.”

Kissinger: “But Bob and I have been trying to put the damn thing together.”

Haldeman: “We have a basic history in constructing our own, but there is a file on it.”

Nixon: “Where?”

Haldeman: “[Presidential aide Tom Charles] Huston swears to God that there’s a file on it and it’s at Brookings.”

Nixon: “Bob? Bob? Now do you remember Huston’s plan [for White House-sponsored break-ins as part of domestic counter-intelligence operations]? Implement it.”

Kissinger: “Now Brookings has no right to have classified documents.”

Nixon: “I want it implemented. Goddamn-it, get in and get those files. Blow the safe and get it.”

Haldeman: “They may very well have cleaned them by now, but this thing, you need to “

Kissinger: “I wouldn’t be surprised if Brookings had the files.”

Haldeman: “My point is Johnson knows that those files are around. He doesn’t know for sure that we don’t have them around.”

But Johnson did know that the file was no longer at the White House because he had ordered his national security adviser, Walt Rostow, to remove it in the final days of Johnson’s presidency.

Forming the Burglars

On June 30, 1971, Nixon again berated Haldeman about the need to break into Brookings and “take it [the file] out.” Nixon suggested using former CIA officer E. Howard Hunt to conduct the Brookings break-in.

“You talk to Hunt,” Nixon told Haldeman. “I want the break-in. Hell, they do that. You’re to break into the place, rifle the files, and bring them in. Just go in and take it. Go in around 8:00 or 9:00 o’clock.”

Haldeman: “Make an inspection of the safe.”

Nixon: “That’s right. You go in to inspect the safe. I mean, clean it up.”

For reasons that remain unclear, it appears that the Brookings break-in never took place (nor did the fire-bombing), but Nixon’s desperation to locate Johnson’s peace-talk file was an important link in the chain of events that led to the creation of Nixon’s burglary unit under Hunt’s supervision. Hunt later oversaw the two Watergate break-ins in May and June of 1972.

While it’s possible that Nixon was still searching for the file about his Vietnam-peace sabotage when the ill-fated Watergate break-ins occurred a year later, it’s generally believed that the burglary was more broadly focused, seeking any information that might have an impact on Nixon’s re-election, either defensively or offensively.

However, if you think back on 1971 when the Vietnam War was tearing the country apart and massive antiwar demonstrations were descending on Washington, Nixon’s desperation to locate the missing file suddenly doesn’t seem quite so crazy. There would have been hell to pay if the public learned that Nixon had kept the war going to gain a political advantage in 1968.

Through 1972 – and the early days of the Watergate scandal – former President Johnson had stayed silent about Nixon’s sabotage of the Paris peace talks. But the ex-President became livid when – after Nixon’s reelection in 1972 – Nixon’s men sought to pressure Johnson into helping them shut down the Watergate investigation, in part, by noting that Johnson, too, had deployed wiretaps against Nixon’s 1968 campaign to obtain evidence about the peace-talk sabotage.

While it’s not clear whether Johnson would have finally spoken out, that threat to Nixon ended two days after Nixon’s second inaugural when on Jan. 22, 1973, Johnson died of a heart attack. However, unbeknownst to Nixon, Johnson had left the missing file, called “The X-Envelope,” in the care of Rostow, who – after Johnson’s death – gave the file to the LBJ presidential library in Austin, Texas, with instructions that it be kept under wraps for at least 50 years. (Rostow’s instructions were overturned in the 1990s, and I found the now largely declassified file at the library in 2012.)

So, with the “The X-Envelope” squirreled away for more than two decades at the LBJ library and with the big newspapers treating the early sketchy reports of Nixon’s peace-talk sabotage as only “rumors,” Watergate remained a scandal limited to the 1972 campaign.

Still, Nixon’s cover-up of his campaign’s role in the Watergate break-in produced enough clear-cut evidence of obstruction of justice and other offenses that Nixon was forced to resign on Aug. 9, 1974.

A Failed Investigation

The 1979-81 hostage confrontation with Iran was not nearly as devastating a crisis as the Vietnam War but America’s humiliation during the 444-day-long ordeal became a focus of the 1980 election, too, with the first anniversary of Iran’s seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran coincidentally falling on Election Day 1980.

President Carter’s failure to gain freedom for the 52 embassy personnel turned what had been a close race into a landslide for Ronald Reagan, with Republicans also gaining control of the U.S. Senate and ousting some of the most influential Democratic senators.

In 1984, Reagan won reelection in another landslide, but two years later ran afoul of the Iran-Contra scandal. Reagan’s secret arms sales to Iran and diversion of profits to the Contras “broke” in November 1986 but focused only on Reagan’s 1985-1986 arms sales and the diversion. Still, the scandal’s crimes included violations of the Arms Export Control Act and the so-called Boland Act’s prohibitions on arming the Contras as well as perjury and obstruction of justice. So there was the prospect of Reagan’s impeachment.

But – from the start of Iran-Contra – there was a strong pushback from Republicans who didn’t want to see another GOP president driven from office. There was also resistance to the scandal from many mainstream media executives who personally liked Reagan and feared a public backlash if the press played an aggressive role similar to Watergate.

And, moderate Democrats, such as Rep. Lee Hamilton of Indiana who co-chaired the congressional investigation, sought to tamp down the Iran-Contra fires and set up firebreaks to prevent the investigation from spreading to related crimes such as the Reagan administration’s protection of Contra cocaine traffickers.

“Ask about the cocaine,” pleaded one protester who was dragged from the Iran-Contra hearing room, as the congressional investigators averted their eyes from such unseemly matters, focusing instead on stilted lectures about the Congress’s constitutional prerogatives.

It was not until 1990-91 that it became clear that secret U.S.-approved arms shipments to Iran did not start in 1985 as the Iran-Contra narrative claimed but traced back to 1981 with Reagan’s approval of arms sales to Iran through Israel.

Reagan’s politically risky move of secretly arming Iran immediately after his inauguration and the hostage release was nearly exposed when one of the Israeli flights strayed into Soviet airspace on July 18, 1981, and crashed or was shot down.

In a PBS interview nearly a decade later, Nicholas Veliotes, Reagan’s assistant secretary of state for the Middle East, said he looked into the incident by talking to top administration officials.

“It was clear to me after my conversations with people on high that indeed we had agreed that the Israelis could transship to Iran some American-origin military equipment,” Veliotes said.

In checking out the Israeli flight, Veliotes came to believe that the Reagan camp’s dealings with Iran dated back to before the 1980 election. “It seems to have started in earnest in the period probably prior to the election of 1980, as the Israelis had identified who would become the new players in the national security area in the Reagan administration,” Veliotes said. “And I understand some contacts were made at that time.”

However, in 1981, Veliotes said, the State Department issued misleading press guidance to cover the administration’s tracks and the Washington media failed to follow up. Thus, the U.S.-Israeli arms pipeline to Iran stayed secret from the American people until November 1986 when — despite Reagan’s long-running insistence that he would never trade arms with a terrorist state like Iran — the operation was exposed.

When I re-interviewed Veliotes in 2012, he said he couldn’t recall who the “people on high” were who had described the informal clearance of the Israeli shipments of U.S.-manufactured weapons, but he indicated that “the new players” were the young neoconservatives who were working on the Reagan campaign, many of whom later joined the administration as senior political appointees.

Documents that I discovered at the Reagan presidential library revealed that Reagan’s neocons at the State Department, particularly Robert McFarlane and Paul Wolfowitz, initiated a policy review in 1981 to allow Israel to undertake secret military shipments to Iran.

McFarlane and Wolfowitz also maneuvered to put McFarlane in charge of U.S. relations toward Iran and to establish a clandestine U.S. back-channel to the Israeli government outside the knowledge of even senior U.S. government officials.

Another Failed Investigation

In 1991, faced with the accumulating evidence of a prequel to the Iran-Contra scandal, Congress grudgingly agreed to take a look at these so-called “October Surprise” allegations. But Republicans, then led by President George H.W. Bush and his White House team, mounted an aggressive cover-up to “spike” the story.

And, with the congressional inquiry largely in the hands again of Rep. Hamilton, the Democrats timidly folded their tent despite a growing body of evidence that the Reagan team was indeed guilty.

Much of that evidence flowed into the House Task Force in December 1992 when President George H.W. Bush had already been defeated for reelection and the Democrats were looking forward to their renewed control of Washington. So, instead of giving a careful review to the new evidence, the House Task Force ignored, disparaged or buried it.

The late-arriving material included sworn testimony on Dec. 18, 1992, from David Andelman, the biographer of French intelligence chief Alexandre deMarenches, describing how deMarenches had confided that he had helped arrange the Republican-Iranian contacts. Andelman, an ex-New York Times and CBS News correspondent, said that while he was working on deMarenches’s autobiography, the arch-conservative spymaster admitted arranging meetings between Republicans and Iranians about the hostage issue in the summer and fall of 1980, with one meeting held in Paris in October.

Andelman said deMarenches ordered that the secret meetings be kept out of his memoirs because the story could otherwise damage the reputations of his friends, William Casey and George H.W. Bush. Andelman’s testimony corroborated longstanding claims from a variety of international intelligence operatives about a Paris meeting involving Casey and Bush. But the Task Force report brushed this testimony aside, paradoxically terming it “credible” but then claiming it was “insufficiently probative.”

The Task Force’s report argued that Andelman could not “rule out the possibility that deMarenches had told him he was aware of and involved in the Casey meetings because he, deMarenches, could not risk telling his biographer he had no knowledge of these allegations.”

In the last weeks of the investigation, the House investigators also received a letter from former Iranian President Bani-Sadr detailing his behind-the-scenes struggle with Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and his son Ahmad over their secret dealings with the Reagan campaign. But the House investigators dismissed Bani-Sadr’s first-hand account as hearsay and thus also lacking “probative value.”

I later unearthed some of the evidence in unpublished Task Force files. However, in the meantime, Official Washington had dismissed the “October Surprise” and other Iran-Contra-connected scandals, like Contra drug trafficking, as conspiracy theories.

The Russian Report

Ironically, another piece of late-arriving evidence was a January 1993 report from a national security committee of the Russian parliament about the Kremlin’s intelligence data confirming that key Republicans, including George H.W. Bush and William Casey, had met with Iranian officials in Europe regarding the hostages during the 1980 campaign.

Hamilton had requested the Russian assistance before the U.S. election in 1992, but the report was not sent until there were only two weeks left in George H.W. Bush’s presidency.

Lawrence Barcella, who served as the Task Force chief counsel, later told me that so much incriminating evidence arrived late that he asked Hamilton to extend the inquiry for three months but that Hamilton said no (although Hamilton told me that he had no recollection of denying Barcella’s request).

The other fatal flaw of the House investigation was that it left much of the actual investigating up to President George H.W. Bush’s White House counsel’s office and the State Department, although Bush was one of the chief suspects and, in 1991-92, was running for re-election, a campaign that would have been derailed if the 1980 October Surprise allegations were confirmed.

The naivete of this decision was underscored years later when I located a memo at Bush’s presidential library stating that the State Department had informed the White House counsel’s office that Casey had traveled to Madrid in 1980, corroborating a key October Surprise allegation.

The confirmation of Casey’s trip was passed along by State Department legal adviser Edwin D. Williamson to Associate White House Counsel Chester Paul Beach Jr. in early November 1991, just as the October Surprise inquiry was taking shape, according to Beach’s “memorandum for record” dated Nov. 4, 1991.

Williamson said that among the State Department “material potentially relevant to the October Surprise allegations [was] a cable from the Madrid embassy indicating that Bill Casey was in town, for purposes unknown,” Beach noted.

Two days later, on Nov. 6, 1991, Beach’s boss, White House counsel C. Boyden Gray, arranged an inter-agency strategy session and explained the need to contain the congressional investigation into the October Surprise case. The explicit goal was to ensure the scandal would not hurt President Bush’s reelection hopes in 1992.

In 2013, when I interviewed Hamilton about the Beach memo, he lamented that the Madrid information had not been shared with his investigation, saying “you have to rely on people” in authority to comply with information requests.

“We found no evidence to confirm Casey’s trip to Madrid,” Hamilton told me. “We couldn’t show that. The [George H.W. Bush] White House did not notify us that he did make the trip. Should they have passed that on to us? They should have because they knew we were interested in that.”

Asked if knowledge that Casey had traveled to Madrid might have changed the Task Force’s dismissive October Surprise conclusion, Hamilton said yes, because the question of the Madrid trip was key to the task force’s investigation.

Not Moving the Needle

However, the Madrid trip revelation and other post-investigation disclosures failed to move the needle on Official Washington’s disdain for the October Surprise story.

The later disclosures included a 1993 interview in Tel Aviv in which former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir said he had read the 1991 book, October Surprise, by Carter’s former National Security Council aide Gary Sick, which made the case for believing that the Republicans had intervened in the 1980 hostage negotiations to disrupt Carter’s reelection.

With the topic raised, one interviewer asked, “What do you think? Was there an October Surprise?”

“Of course, it was,” Shamir responded without hesitation. “It was.”

And, there were other corroborating statements as well. In 1996, for instance, while former President Carter was meeting with Palestine Liberation Organization leader Arafat in Gaza City, Arafat tried to confess his role in the Republican maneuvering to block Carter’s Iran-hostage negotiations.

“There is something I want to tell you,” Arafat said, addressing Carter in the presence of historian Douglas Brinkley. “You should know that in 1980 the Republicans approached me with an arms deal [for the PLO] if I could arrange to keep the hostages in Iran until after the [U.S. presidential] election,” Arafat said, according to Brinkley’s article in the fall 1996 issue of Diplomatic Quarterly.

In 2013, after the movie “Argo” appeared regarding an early facet of the Iran-hostage crisis, former Iranian President Bani-Sadr elaborated on his account of Republican overtures to Iran in 1980 and how that secret initiative prevented release of the hostages.

In a Christian Science Monitor commentary, Bani-Sadr wrote, “Ayatollah Khomeini and Ronald Reagan had organized a clandestine negotiation which prevented the attempts by myself and then-U.S. President Jimmy Carter to free the hostages before the 1980 U.S. presidential election took place. The fact that they were not released tipped the results of the election in favor of Reagan.”

Then, Bani-Sadr added a new detail, that “two of my advisors, Hussein Navab Safavi and Sadr-al-Hefazi, were executed by Khomeini’s regime because they had become aware of this secret relationship between Khomeini, his son Ahmad, … and the Reagan administration.” [For more details on the October Surprise case, see Robert Parry’s Trick or Treason and America’s Stolen Narrative.]

Compare and Contrast

So how do Watergate and Iran-Contra compare and contrast with Russia-gate? One key difference is that in Watergate in 1972-73 and Iran-Contra in 1985-86, you had clear-cut crimes (even if you don’t want to believe the two “prequels” from 1968 and 1980, respectively).

In Watergate, five burglars were caught inside the DNC offices on June 17, 1972, as they sought to plant more bugs on Democratic phones. (An earlier break-in in May had installed two bugs, but one didn’t work.) Nixon then proceeded to mount a cover-up of his 1972 campaign’s role in funding the break-in and other abuses of power.

In Iran-Contra, Reagan secretly authorized weapons sales to Iran, which was then designated a terrorist state, without informing Congress, a violation of the Arms Export Control Act. He also kept Congress in the dark about his belated signing of a related intelligence “finding.” And the creation of slush funds to finance the Nicaraguan Contras represented an evasion of the U.S. Constitution.

There was also the attendant Iran-Contra cover-up mounted both by the Reagan White House and later the George H.W. Bush White House, which culminated in Bush’s Christmas Eve 1992 pardons of six Iran-Contra defendants as special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh was zeroing in on possible indictment of Bush for withholding evidence.

By contrast, Russia-gate has been a “scandal” in search of a specific crime. President Barack Obama’s intelligence chieftains have alleged – without presenting any clear evidence – that the Russian government hacked into the emails of the Democratic National Committee and of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta and released those emails via WikiLeaks and other Internet sites. (The Russians and WikiLeaks have both denied the accusations.)

The DNC emails revealed that senior Democrats did not maintain their required independence regarding the primaries by seeking to hurt Sen. Bernie Sanders and help Clinton. The Podesta emails pulled back the curtain on Clinton’s paid speeches to Wall Street banks and on pay-to-play features of the Clinton Foundation.

Hacking into personal computers is a crime, but the U.S. government has yet to bring any formal charges against specific individuals supposedly responsible for the hacking of the Democratic emails. There also has been no evidence that Donald Trump’s campaign colluded with Russians in the hacking.

Lacking any precise evidence of this cyber-crime or of a conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign, Obama’s Justice Department holdovers and now special prosecutor Robert Mueller have sought to build “process crimes,” around false statements to investigators and possible obstruction of justice.

Railroading Flynn

In the case of retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser, acting Attorney General Sally Yates used the archaic Logan Act of 1799 to create a predicate for the FBI to interrogate Flynn about a Dec. 29, 2016 conversation with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, i.e., after Trump’s election but before the Inauguration.

The Logan Act, which has never resulted in a prosecution in 218 years, was enacted during the period of the Alien and Sedition Acts to bar private citizens from negotiating on their own with foreign governments. It was never intended to apply to a national security adviser of an elected President, albeit before he was sworn in.

But it became the predicate for the FBI interrogation — and the FBI agents were armed with a transcript of the intercepted Kislyak-Flynn phone call so they could catch Flynn on any gaps in his recollection, which might have been made even hazier because he was on vacation in the Dominican Republic when Kislyak called.

Yates also concocted a bizarre argument that the discrepancies between Flynn’s account of the call and the transcript left him open to Russian blackmail although how that would work – since the Russians surely assumed that Kislyak’s calls would be monitored by U.S. intelligence and thus offered them no leverage with Flynn – was never explained.

Still, Flynn’s failure to recount the phone call precisely and the controversy stirred up around it became the basis for an obstruction of justice investigation of Flynn and led to President Trump’s firing Flynn on Feb. 13.

Trump may have thought that tossing Flynn overboard to the circling sharks would calm down the sharks but the blood in the water only excited them more. According to then-FBI Director James Comey, Trump talked to him one-on-one the next day, Feb. 14, and said, “‘I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”

Trump’s “hope” and the fact that he later fired Comey have reportedly led special prosecutor Mueller to look at a possible obstruction of justice case against Trump. In other words, Trump could be accused of obstructing what appears to have been a trumped-up case against Flynn.

Of course, there remains the possibility that evidence might surface of Trump or his campaign colluding with the Russians, but such evidence has so far not been presented. Or Mueller’s investigation might turn over some rock and reveal some unrelated crime, possibly financial wrongdoing by Trump or an associate.

(Something similar happened in the Republican investigation of the Sept. 11, 2012 Benghazi attack, a largely fruitless inquiry except that it revealed that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sent and received official emails over a private server, which Comey decried during last year’s campaign as “extremely careless” but not criminal.)

Curb the Enthusiasm

Another contrast between the earlier scandals (Watergate and Iran-Contra) and Russia-gate is the degree of enthusiasm and excitement that the U.S. mainstream media and congressional Democrats have shown today as opposed to 1972 and 1986.

Though The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein aggressively pursued the Watergate scandal, there was much less interest elsewhere in major news outlets until Nixon’s criminality became obvious in 1973. Many national Democrats, including DNC Chairman Bob Strauss, were extremely hesitant to pursue the scandal if not outright against it.

Similarly, although Brian Barger and I at The Associated Press were pursuing aspects of Iran-Contra since early 1985, the big newspapers and networks consistently gave the Reagan administration the benefit of the doubt – at least before the scandal finally burst into view in fall 1986 (when a Contra-supply plane crashed inside Nicaragua and a Lebanese newspaper revealed U.S. arms shipments to Iran).

For several months, there was a flurry of attention to the complex Iran-Contra scandal, but the big media still ignored evidence of a White House cover-up and soon lost interest in the difficult work of unraveling the convoluted networks for arms smuggling, money laundering and cocaine trafficking.

Congressional Democrats also shied away from a constitutional confrontation with the popular Reagan and his well-connected Vice President George H.W. Bush.

After moving from AP to Newsweek in early 1987, I learned that the senior executives at Newsweek, then part of The Washington Post Company, didn’t want “another Watergate”; they felt another such scandal was not “good for the country” and wanted Iran-Contra to go away as soon as possible. I was even told not to read the congressional Iran-Contra report when it was published in October 1987 (although I ignored that order and kept trying to keep my own investigation going in defiance of the wishes of the Newsweek brass until those repeated clashes led to my departure in June 1990).

So, perhaps the biggest similarity between Russia-gate and Watergate is that Richard Nixon and Donald Trump were both highly unpopular with the Washington establishment and thus had few influential defenders, while an important contrast with Iran-Contra was that Reagan and Bush were very well liked, especially among news executives such as Washington Post publisher Katharine Graham who, by all accounts, did not care for the uncouth Nixon. Today, the senior executives of The New York Times, The Washington Post and other major news outlets have made no secret of their disdain for the buffoonish Trump and their hostility toward Russian President Vladimir Putin.

In other words, what is driving Russia-gate – for both the mainstream news media and the Democrats – appears to be a political agenda, i.e., the desire to remove Trump from office while also ratcheting up a New Cold War with Russia, a priority for Washington’s neoconservatives and their liberal-interventionist sidekicks.

If this political drama were playing out in some other country, we would be talking about a “soft coup” in which the “oligarchy” or some other “deep state” force was using semi-constitutional means to engineer a disfavored leader’s removal.

Of course, since the ongoing campaign to remove Trump is happening in the United States, it must be presented as a principled pursuit of truth and a righteous application of the rule of law. But the comparisons to Watergate and Iran-Contra are a stretch.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and

This article was first published by Consortium News

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

Chronology of Trump Emboldening ISIS

June 16, 2017


An interesting question has been offered by a reader of SyriaNews:  How can Trump be accused of emboldening ISIS if the Deep State is promoting a coup attempt against him?  These two disturbing issues are not mutually exclusive, as can be shown via a chronology of Trump, and his war criminal actions against the Syrian Arab Republic, begun 13 days after his inauguration.


In the immediate pre-election days, Professor Camille Paglia offered the most complex thought regarding a possible Trump win:

People want change and they’re sick of the establishment…[I]f Trump wins it will be an amazing moment of change because it would destroy the power structure of the Republican party, the power structure of the Democratic party and destroy the power of the media.”  

Paglia’s words are important as possibly the most coherent toward the end of the campaign, when Clinton was admitting WikiLeaks were true on her emails but was lying about 17 non-existent US intelligence agencies claiming the commies — oops, the Kremlin — was behind them; msm was braying that rightwing riots were being planned if Trump did not win; Trump was yelling about future election fraud; POTUS Obama was yelling at Trump that There is no serious person out there who would suggest that you could even rig American elections…There is no evidence that that has happened in the past, or that there are instances that this could happen this time…So I’d advise Mr. Trump to stop whining.” (18 October 2016)

No “17” intel services; just one joint statement of ODNI and DHS using words “consistent with”.

Time did a hedge bet, while ignoring its colonialist hypocrisy:


Double standard hypocrisy

The campaign reached its zenith of surrealism on election night, when PEOTUS Donald J. Trump walked onto the stage looking humbled, and presidential, and gave an unprecedented acceptance speech, offering entente to the world.  Surrealism mutated into mad hatter-ism, as msm ignored the speech promising a new, good neighbor policy, went into collective mourning, and launched the notion of fake news and the commies being the cause of the election results. Anti-wall Clinton waited forever to give her concession speech, but first the anti-wall candidate had a wall erected from her hotel to her limo.  Christiane Amanwour demanded that Facebook institute a campaign of censorship, Obama completely forgot telling Trump to stop whining, and he, Merkel, and the msm held a combination love fest and shortened shiva, in Berlin, during which time all discussed the need to protect Europe from democratic elections.  


What a difference a day makes…

Deep State media (a.k.a. news sources of the Military-Industrial-Complex, a.k.a. msm) has done an impeccable job of orwellian brainwashing,  Ignoring the ability for anyone with internet access to engage in independent investigative work, DS media counts on neurotic affinities, and infantilization of the adult population to support all forms of magical thinking:  I don’t want, ergo it doesn’t exist.  Msm is permitted the impunity to use all forms of sensationalist language in promotion of war propaganda.  There is no demand to provide evidence of any statement, no matter how outrageous the statement might be.


Use similar language against the criminals crying Havoc! and unleashing the dogs of war, provide massive documentation, and still will arrive the vigilantes, screeching words of condemnation:  Crybaby fans of Trump will throw tantrums over the words “Trump emboldens ISIS” as loudly as crybaby fans of Obama over the words “Obama death squads.”  Both teams submit to all criminal lies against Syria’s President al Assad, though.

The chronology of Trump alignment with al Qaeda against Syria actually began in December 2016.  Seemingly unrelated to the SAR, lame duck POTUS Obama — after 8 years of silence — provoked PEOTUS Trump by suddenly condemning the spread of illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank.  Trump went full reactionary, promising to stand with Israel, and threatening a breach of international law by promising to move the US Embassy illegally into Jerusalem (which would also breach the Oslo Treaty).  For weeks, Trump brayed on and on, even while Israeli media bordered on live threats.

The timing of the inane ‘fight’ between Obama and Trump came in December, a key month in the Syrian crisis. During CNN‘s time away from pimping the new McCarthy witch-hunts, it was engaged in lamentations over the upcoming reunification of Aleppo, and also ignoring the poisoning of humanity’s oldest water source, al Fijah, by the terrorists it held so dearly.


CNN’s Clarissa Ward, right, has illegally entered the SAR multiple times, embedding herself with takfiri

PEOTUS Trump remained mute over the terrorist created crisis which deprived  5.5 million Syrians of water, even when that which he called fake news! blamed the war crime on Syria’s president.


Moderate FSA terrorist pleased with his moderate explosives work.


Trump took his oath of office, and did not extend any promised olive branches. He did not reopen the Syrian Embassy.  He did not release Ambassador al Ja’afari from the mobility restrictions placed upon him by the Obama State Department, in an effort to censor the diplomat’s successful Town Hall meetings.  He did not end the illicit, draconian sanctions imposed upon the Syrian people. He did not dismantle the Obama-created, US foreign mercenary militia in Syria, the HSD.  On 27 January, Trump voiced his support for Turkey’s invasion and occupation of JarabulusSyria. 


A mere 13 days after taking office, Trump demonstrated his statesman acceptance speech was fraudulent, and his inaugural promise to end “American carnage” was also worthless, when he bombed two bridges in Raqqa, continuing Obama’s war crimes against Syria — begun in September 2014 — including the destruction of Syrian infrastructure, and the fake unintentional murder of Syrian civilians.


Raqqa Bridges Destroyed by ISIS (US) Air Force

On 9 February, new CIA head Mike Pompeo stopped in Erdoganstan, one of the top sponsors of terror against the SAR (most of the 350k foreign terrorists have come through the Turkey-Syria border), after which he visited the terrorist dictatorship of Saudi occupied Arabia. During this second leg of Pompeo’s trip, Saud Nayef was presented with an award named after US traitor and former CIA head, George Tenet.


Terrorists Sent to Liberate Syria from its People

On 28 February, Trump’s Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, performed an ugly magic trick by managing to make Samantha Power look sane.

On this day, Haley threw a babbling fit of vicious anti-Syria (and anti-Russia) propaganda, based on the UN’s unprecedented JIM report.  JIM requires no forensic analyses, but merely interviews with terrorists in Syria or Turkey or Qatar or Saudistan.   These terrorists apparently get paid by their lies, as state member of the UN recently noted his country has contributed $400,000 to this Joint Investigative Mechanism.

In this 26 April photo, Haley proudly stands with Raed Saleh, cell phone salesman cum magical first responder of the CIA and UK intelligence-funded death squads named the White Helmets. Despite tens of millions in funding, this gang, founded by a British intelligence officer and headquartered in Turkey, cannot afford a stethoscope, has not been trained in spinal precautions or CPR.  They do, however, all have a natural immunity to GB.  In a paradox unique to geopolitics, these death squads, beloved by Haley and the most right of right wing Republicans received a standing ovation from Hollywood’s neolib fifth column, upon receipt of an Oscar.


Haley with ‘leader’ of terrorist White Helmets, 26 April

Also in late February, Trump dispatched John “McQaeda” McCain to visit terrorist Turkey, Saudistan, and to illegally meet with ISIS and other terrorists in Syria.   Both Trump and McQaeda are staunch opponents of illegal aliens in the USA.


  • In early March, local Syrian residents reported that the CIA death squads beloved by both right wing and left wing, had engaged in organ trafficking, in pre-liberated Aleppo.  This was not mentioned in msm or neolib media.  Also not mentioned were the chemical weapons missiles found in weapons depots discovered by the SAA.


Syrian Arab Army found chemical weapons missiles in depots found in liberated Aleppo


More Syrian blood, over the steps of the Palace of Justice.


In 2015, the State Department celebrated with a gala event in DC.

  • 23 March, upwards of 40 Syrians were slaughtered in massacres by Turkey and the US.
  • At the end of this month, a second round of malignant psy ops against the Syrian people was launched, regarding the Tabqa/Euphrates Dam.  Though this dam has been under high level NATO occupation since February 2013, the Trump regime claimed that “rebels” were fighting “ISIS” for its control.  Trump used this to further legitimize his foreign mercenary militia plotting to drip new secretions of Sykes-Picot throughout the SAR.

This is the flag of the foreign terrorists organized by Obama, currently under the direction of Trump.  The thugs are HSD, and their spokesman is a Swedish illegal in Syria, Jasper Soder.


The Azeri-language flag of Trump’s foreign merc militia.

Swedish terrorist, illegal in Syria:  “My office.”


Among the foreign mercenaries of the HSD is its new spokesman, Swede Jesper Soder.


On 4 April, 0637, previously considered fake news CNN broke a story straight from the mouth of a Brit illegal in Syria, a fake physician whose license was revoked in his home country.  The friend of Jahbat al Nusra — still on the US terror list — claimed that Syria had bombed  Khan Sheikhoun with GB that had been collected by the OPCW three years earlier (the original GB hoax came from Jerusalem, in April 2013.  It was also without a shred of evidence, as NYT’s Sanger subsequently complained to CNN’s Amanwour.).


Brit illegal was source of GB hoax. No matter his license was revoked in UK either, nor that he spent the day of fake bombings raising $$$ and giving interviews.

This former doctor — whose license was permanently revoked in his native UK — this terrorist embedded with al Nusra, this illegal was the source of Donald Trump’s impending new war crimes against Syria, the raison d’être for the looming chronology of Trump emboldening ISIS, calling the human beasts to arms, to engage in more atrocities. Trump lapped it up, suddenly stricken with amnesia that CNN is fake news! 


Trump tweet from 2013. Was his change ‘flexibility’ or ‘self-radicalization’?


In 2013, CNN’s Amanwour was not embarrassed to show excessive shaving cream as evidence of a GB attack. Photo courtesy of Moon of Alabama

The next day, in side-by-side speeches with the terrorist monarch of Jordan, Trump was a geyser of self-echolaliacking adjectives and adverbs in describing his flexibility in outdoing his war crimes against the Syrian people. His frenzied lust for Syrian blood was so contagious that an ISIS operative jumped the gun in Sweden, killing several via vehicular homicides on 7 April — before the disgraceful US president announced he had massacred Syrian soldiers — and irrelevant collateral damage civilians, that very night, and after enjoying the most beautiful piece  of chocolate cake to ever grace the planet.


Syria Ash Sha’irat Airbase (known officially as TTayyas Military Airport) near Homs

Slaughtering Syrian Arab Army soldiers by the US is not new; in September 2016, Obama massacred 83 soldiers at the al Tharda base, giving assistance to nearby ISIS.  Obama pretended it was accidental — and Power complained that Churkin had called an emergency meeting to discuss it (the mafia clique running the UN only supports emergency meetings when requested by the terrorists that the clique funds — such as the 2 hour long meeting over Khan Sheikhoun, another anti-Syria affair that ignored the terrorists’ murders of kidnapped Syrians for their snuff porn).

Before listing the immediate chronology of Trump having emboldened ISIS beginning with his slaughter of Syrian soldiers and qualqiera collateral damage, we remind those whose ongoing affinity for Trump because the deep state is after him, that the same deep state threw a parade for him and Ivanka, upon his horrific bombing of Syrian soldiers who have been fighting terrorism since the beginning of the crisis.  They both got their 15 minutes of adoration.  Ivanka was momentarily transformed into Mother Mary; she was cheered by all, for her motherhood empathy causing her to reputedly whisper into daddy’s ear to make more Syrian children orphans, force more Syrian moms to bury their children, transform more Syrian women into widows.


Ghanea Hammoud, the epitome of the noble Syrian soul. In her new grief, she describes what must be the unbearable pain of her husband’s mother.

Personal note to Mommy dearest Ivanka:  You and I know what the Damocles sword is that the Deep State holds over your head.  We also know that a good lawyer could remove it — were justice to actually exist, not replaced with geopolitical bias.  Tell me, was your deal with Beelzebub worth your five minutes of deification?  How did you reach adulthood not knowing the house is stacked for the devil?  “There can be no happiness for one who is under constant apprehensions.”




On 7 April, Trump changed his campaign hat to one of hate, unleashing the  chronology of exploding terrorism around the world, and increasing it within Syria.


Swamp-draining Trump went to the rescue of al Qaeda against Syria.

Trump bombed the Syrian air base of Ash Sha’irat, the base of bomber jets used against the foreign backed terrorists within Syria’s borders, the terrorists that the war criminal coalition claims to be also bombing — while ignoring its breach of International Law.  Trump murdered Syrian soldiers, setting off the chronology of an emboldened ISIS. He was immediately cheered by the elders of msm, war criminal politicians — who unabashedly sexualized the slaughter with their cooing, and with their freudian language (frequent use of “punishment” and “measured punishment” did sound like some paraphiliac S&M secrets being shared. Dysfunction meds and personal lubricants to a major sales hit.).  The camel-loving, terrorist tyrant of Saudi occupied Arabia immediately cheered, as did UFO/celebrity rags, along with terrorists in the SAR.

The awkward moment when kids 4 and 6 years old, talk about US elections.  My nieces this early morning:  Wake up, Aunty…thank God that war criminal Clinton doesn’t win the election.  Aunty, do you think Trump would be better than Obama, Obama the one that killed our daddy and destroyed our country?  — post-election Facebook status of a Syrian woman.

A lone complaint came from the Khan Sheikhoun terrorist who buried his entire family of 3,971-1/3 with his bare hands, then took the Erdoganstan Express to meet with Turkey’s leader, lamented that Trump did not level all of Syria — because every Syrian patriot wants his country and fellow citizens destroyed, right?).


This rag used to focus on fake birth defects, UFOs, and celebrities.


Takfiri savages cheered Trump making al Qaeda great again

The chronology of Trump’s unleashing of al Qaeda troops was immediate.

An IED was located in a busy section of Oslo, and was safely detonated by the bomb squad, before anyone could be injured.

Palm Sunday, 9 April, was a day of demonic happiness for the emboldened terrorists, as Mar Gerges in Tanta, Egypt was bombed, martyring 25 church-goers, immediately.  A strange conversation between a passerby and a BBC reporter seemed to signal the subsequent bombing of St Mark’s Cathedral, in Alexandria.

During BBC (“Another beauty!”) Arabic live reporting, the man being interviewed — amidst the emotional shock and the physical carnage — abruptly offered that Alexandria was secured.  The journalist questioned why, and the man repeated that Alexandria was secure.  Et voila! al Qaeda heard terrorist Trump’s call to action, reinforced by  the anomalous conversation between the man outside the Mar Gergis church, and the BBC Arabic reporter who was himself once a suspect in a bombing. 

The chronology of Donald J. Trump’s emboldening ISIS terrorists continued on 15 April, when these savages with two legs massacred upwards of 130 — mostly women and children —  in al Rashidin.  The deal brokered by Iran and terror monarchy Qatar to exchange terrorists for civilians held hostage in Fou’aa and Kafraya was supposed to have begun on 4 April.  The scheduling was bumped because of the Nusra GB hoax in Khan Sheikhoun.


This is what a terrorist bombing looks like.

NATO run msm did its best to hide the slaughter, until they could find a terrorist to convert into a heroic, war porn emoticon.  They continued to ignore the bloodshed, and did not report on the survivors’ statement holding Nusra, Qatar, and Turkey responsible for the horror.  Likewise, various criminals-against-peace NGOs remained mute until a script was developed to ‘share the blame’ and fund raise off the rivers of Syrian blood.

This is Shahd, a child victim of media collaboration with terrorists in Syria.  Shahd was not viralized; instead, a takfiri was interviewed, a terrorist who had been interviewed previously from Aleppo and Khan Sheikhoun. His criminal lies were told, and then the al Rashidin news was cauterized.


Shahd’s balloons are an important part of her medical care. Her doctors and nurses fixed her wounds and made her laugh with balloons just for her.



This chronology took a criminal propaganda turn — momentarily — on 15 May, when Trump trotted out a State Department Ass. Secretary, Stuart Jones, to resurrect the crematorium hoax.  This insane story was first pimped by Amnesty in early February, with the assistance of a faux independent medium, spawn of the illicit relationship between The Geryon and al Khanzeera Not a single member of the media in this hurried press conference questioned the authenticity of this outrageously idiotic claim, but sado-erotic questions on possible, future, “measured punishment” may have required some undergarment changes immediately  afterward.

The shameless chronology further continued on 17 May,  with terrorist Mahaweer al Thawra thanking the Trump regime for 20 trucks, some loaded with TOWs, which were to be deployed in Deir Ezzor, with the intention of murdering more Syrian Arab Army soldiers, defending their country within its borders.

In case anyone missed this point, one day later, self radicalized Trump bombed a Syrian military convoy, because it was getting too close to Trump’s terrorist training camp in al Tanf, Syria (the SAA subsequently outflanked the US and other mercenaries illegally in Tanf).

On Thursday 18 May — in preparation for complete prostration before the terrorist occupying Arabia — self radicalized Trump oversaw two massacres against the Syrian Arab Republic.  In the morning, his death squads slaughtered 52 in the Aqareb al Safiyeh village, many of whom were children and women. Many were beheaded. Many had their limbs cut off. In the evening, the self radicalized US president bombed a convoy of Syrian Arab Army soldiers, in al Tanaf, reportedly destroying Syrian tanks and an anti-aircraft vehicle (the SAR has not released the names of the martyrs).

On 20 May, POTUS Trump further insulted the families of 9/11, and all US veterans, by paying homage to the terror sponsoring dictator of Saudi occupied Arabia, bowing and curtsy-ing to the savage, cheering the head chopping, drug-dealing rapists as peace makers, and transferring Saudi world terror onto Iran.


A bow was not enough. Trump also did a curtsy to savage Salman.chronology

Exclusive to SyriaNews: A glimpse of Salman’s elusive First Lady! (#MERS)

Two days later, emboldened and incited by the talent-less sword dance of Trump and Saudi Wahhabis, a UK takfiri previously involved with UK/US funded terror in Libya, detonated a bomb at the Ariana Grande concert in Manchester.  Original reporting was that 22 people were slaughtered on 22 May by a 22 year old UK national (the terrible death toll was raised by one, in a possible effort to deflect attention from the deep state obsession with numbers, a particular source of excitement for the crisis actors folk).

Just as ISIS emboldened by Trump’s treachery seemed to be winding down, Face the Nation — on 28 May — called upon Secretary of Defense James “Mad Dog” Mattis (one of those “old hoary mothballed concretized generals”?) to loudly announce there was no longer such a thing as rules of engagement, and to declare war on civilians, especially in Syria and Iraq.

Mattis appears to have given the increasingly lethargic ISIS monsters a transfusion to recommence the chronology of savagery, via Trump’s alignment with these mass murderers.  On 31 May, the terrorists blew up a secure area of Kabul, slaughtering 90, and injuring more than 100.  MSM gave relatively little coverage to the carnage, and barely a burp over the double-tap murders at the funeral.

The chronology continued with the 2 June attacks on London Bridge Borough Market, in which 7 were murdered and 50 injured in emboldened ISIS vehicular and knifing attacks.

On 5 June, three massacres of civilians trying to flee death in Iraq and in Syria netted a death toll of 180.  The timing of the bombings in the Mosul region by ISIS, and Trump’s slaughter of 30 Syrians on boats was so close in timing as to suggest coordination.  Trump followed up on 8 June, doubling down on US war crimes in Syria by bombing Raqqa — a city of 800,000 held hostage by 3,000 takfiri —  with white phosphorus.

There is no end in sight for the ongoing chronology of ISIS (or whatever nom du jour al Qaeda is using at any given moment) emboldened by Trump’s attacks on Syria.

Last week, 3 US soldiers were killed in Afghanistan.  The Trump regime has announced the deployment of another 4,000 American soldiers to this small country, because 40 years of failure is not enough American cannon fodder. 


Mujahideen terrorists lauded in the White House.

The al Zahra mosque in Kabul has just been bombed, with 6 martyrs and dozens more injured.  NATO msm is pimping this horror as sectarian/religious.  Empire has a tendency to use ‘religion’ as the cover story for imperialism; let us be mindful, though, that in the Thirty Years War — also called a “religious” war — which decimated much of Europe, Roman Catholic France was aligned with Protestant Germany against Roman Catholic Spain.


Donald J. Trump was the first man who neither held office, nor was a US general, to become POTUS.  That his acceptance speech of unprecedented offer of entente was ignored by both his supporters and his detractors should come as no surprise.  His supporters ignore his continuation and acceleration of Obama war crimes.  His detractors also ignore his war crimes, lest they be forced to admit that Obama and Clinton are also war criminals.

People want change and they’re sick of the establishment…[I]f Trump wins it will be an amazing moment of change because it would destroy the power structure of the Republican party, the power structure of the Democratic party and destroy the power of the media. — Professor Camille Paglia, US Academic — in a slightly more complex pre-election explanation of a possible Trump win — than “hater” or “deplorables.”

Donald J. Trump had the potential to be a president among presidents.  He could have kept his promise to drain those swamps, instead of making the conscious decision to give himself transfusions with the muck.

When President Obama engaged in lame-duck provocation regarding illegal Israeli settlements, PEOTUS Trump could have kept quiet, or could have been presidential, speaking one word, Oslo.

Instead of his inaugural speech being better than that of his acceptance, it had a bit of a swampy stench to it. Instead of further extending the olive branch of entente, he took a match to it.

He talked about putting an end to terrorism, but made no effort to change the Obama-Clinton policies against Syria–such as halting criminal bombings, reversing draconian sanctions, re-opening the Syrian Embassy, releasing Syria’s UN ambassador from the mobility restrictions the Obama State Department inflicted upon him, to censor his very successful Town Hall meetings.

It was of no matter that in 2015, Syria’s ambassador explicitly stated that if the west (and Gulfie and Levantine underlings) stopped arming, funding, and helping in transit, the Syrian Arab Army could destroy ISIS in three days.

Less than two weeks later, he appeared to have broken all American records on time from oath to war crimes — and both his detractors and supporters ignored.

When the absolute moment of truth came, and Trump stood with CNN, and its fake doctor, the Brit illegal embedded with terrorists in Idlib, terrorists actually on the US terrorist list, Trump made a conscious decision to slaughter Syrian soldiers on behalf of al Qaeda — followed by sado-erotic rejoicing from those who claimed to be terrified that candidate Trump might ever have access to the nuclear buttons.

The chronology of the emboldening of ISIS upon Trump’s overt slaughter of Syrian soldiers has been abundantly documented, here.  Yes, the deep state does have an ongoing coup attempt against Trump, but there exists here no mutual exclusivity in these truths (there is, however, no overlapping of those of moral character, and mass murderers).

The coup plot is a testament to the success of Operation Mockingbird; what survivor of the Truman-McCarthy witch hunts of the 50s could have imagined that the neoliberal movement would be screeching that Russia stole the US 2016 election?  Is it not a terrible indictment that these folk are more concerned about such a fictitious fabrication, than they have ever been over all the actual thefts of elections of other countries, by the USA, via coups, bombs, and kidnappings of heads of state?

The neolibs are without scandal, and the neo-neocons are without scruples. 

Shame on US, every one, choosing teams.



Wikileaks publishes documents showing how Google helped Al-Qaeda in Syria

BEIRUT, LEBANON (10:12 P.M.) – Google has helped Al-Qaeda and other Salafist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood gain new members at the dawn of the Syrian conflict, secret documents and e-mails published by Wikileaks show.

The then director of Google Ideas, Jared Cohen coordinated actions to support the groups often dubbed as rebels with then U.S. Foreign Minister Hillary Clinton and Deputy U.S. State Secretary William Burns. Google employed it’s expertise in the IT sector to help the conflict in Syria gain traction.

In July 2012 Google provided a software tool, with which defections in Syria were to be tracked and the thereby gained informations spread in Syria with the help of Al-Jazeera. According to the plotting of U.S. officials and Google, this should encourage more people to take up arms and join the ranks of the rebels. Then Director of Policy Planning for Obama, Jake Sullivan let Hillary Clinton, for which he served as an advisor in the last presidential election, know that, “this is a pretty cool idea.”

The U.S. administration back in 2012 was already aware of the fact, that the opposition in the Syrian conflict mainly consists of Al-Qaeda and other jihadist groups. In a then secret, now publicly available internal report of the U.S. administration on the Syrian conflict is stated, that “the salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood and AQI are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria.”

Furthermore the rise of the Islamic State was anticipated to result out of an empowered Al-Qaeda along the Syrian-Iraqi border: “If the situation there unravels, there is the possibilty of establishing a declared or undeclared salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasakah and Deir Ezzor) and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want.”

Supporting Al-Qaeda it seems, was already feasible for the U.S. administration in 2012, just 11 years and 2 wars after the Twin Towers in New York were hit by planes. Sullivan wrote in another mail reporting to Clinton about the Syrian conflict in 2012 that “Al-Qaeda is on our side in Syria.”

Google which tries to gain users trust with it’s slogan -Don’t be evil- since year 2000, has also evolved. In 2015 the company was restructured, with Alphabet now being the parent organisation of the subbranches like Google, Verily and Google Ideas. It has also become part of the U.S. military industrial complex, which provides products and services essential for the deployment and sustenance of military operations, as NSA director Keith Alexander assessed.

Alphabet’s head Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen envisioned this new status for Google: “What Lockheed Martin was for the twentieth century, technology and cyber-security companies will be for the twenty-first.”

Macron Blasts Huge Hacking Attack Just Before French vote

May 6, 2017

French Presidential Hopeful Emmanuel Macron

French presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron’s team blasted a “massive and coordinated hacking attack” against his campaign after a flood of internal documents were released online late Friday, barely 24 hours before the election.

The centrist candidate’s furious staff said the release of thousands of emails, accounting documents and other files was an attempt at “democratic destabilization, like that seen during the last presidential campaign in the United States”.

The documents spread on social media just before midnight on Friday — when 39-year-old Macron and his far-right rival Marine Le Pen officially wrapped up campaigning for Sunday’s election — with his aides calling the leak “unprecedented in a French electoral campaign”.

Hillary Clinton has alleged Russian hacking of her campaign’s emails was partly to blame for her defeat in last year’s US presidential election to Donald Trump.

The leak, posted by someone calling themselves EMLEAKS, came as an 11th-hour twist in what has proved to be one of the most drama-packed elections in French history.

Macron’s team said the files were stolen weeks ago when several officials from his En Marche party had their personal and work emails hacked — one of “an intense and repeated” series of cyber-attacks against Macron since the launch of the campaign.

“Clearly, the documents arising from the hacking are all lawful and show the normal functioning of a presidential campaign,” aides said in a statement.

The WikiLeaks website posted a link on Twitter to the trove of documents, saying it was not responsible for the leak but that it was “examining” parts of the cache, amounting to around 9 gigabytes of data in total.

Source: AFP

Related Videos

Related Articles

Update From the East Village Battlefront

Update From the East Village Battlefront

April 29, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

Michael Lesher, Stanley Cohen, Lorcan Otway, Gilad Atzmon, Norton Mezvinsky (left to right)

Michael Lesher, Stanley Cohen, Lorcan Otway, Gilad Atzmon, Norton Mezvinsky (left to right)

Introduction by Gilad Atzmin

Things are warming up in Manhattan East Village ahead of our 30 April Conference at Theatre 80.  Theatre owner Lorcan Otway, keeps holding a firm position: he announced again and again that he won’t surrender to calls for censorship. I spent some time with this heroic, scholarly oriented human being. He deserves every possible support. If it isn’t for me, be there on Sunday at 5PM to support Lorcan and his staunch position on freedom and the 1st Amendment.

Meanwhile The Villager confirms that some Antifas may appear in the scene. Considering the reputation the Antifa bought itself in recent years, this news should be probably interpreted as a form of intimidation.

 However, The Villager also published yesterday a beautiful interview with human rights Lawyer Stanley Cohen who participates in the event. I repost this interview in full. Please share it widely.

‘This is lunacy’: Radical attorney slams protest vs. Theatre 80 political panel



| Radical attorney Stanley Cohen is a veteran of the East Village’s anarchic squatter battles versus the police. And he proudly notes that his mouth was bloodied for the first time when he was 16 and was crossing the Brooklyn Bridge in an anti-war march.

So the threat by some “antifa” (anti-fascist) protesters to disrupt Sunday evening’s panel discussion at Theatre 80 St. Mark’s isn’t going to stop him from participating, he vowed.

“This is the first time I will cross a picket line,” Cohen told The Villager, “because I believe the picket line is nothing short of a fascist attempt to censor.”

Cohen is one of four panelists who will talk at the event. However, it’s another one of the speakers, Gilad Atzmon — a jazz sax-playing “Holocaust revisionist” and alleged Jewish anti-Semite — who the antifa activists will be protesting against.

“I disagree with Gilad on a lot of things,” Cohen said. “And I will debate Gilad. But I believe the essence of resistance is speech. There are people on that panel that are going to challenge him.”

The event is titled, “The Post-Political Condition: Trump, Brexit, the Middle East…What Next?”

According to a description on Atzmon’s Web site, the panelists will “elaborate on the collapse of identity politics, the crisis within new Left thinking and the future of liberal and progressive thought.”

Cohen, the first scheduled speaker, will hold forth on “The Insular View of the American Left.”

“That’s exactly what this is about,” the attorney said of the planned demonstration. “Identity politics and politically correct is so nonsense.”

For his part, Atzmon will expound on “The Tyranny of Correctness — Deconstructing Identity Politics and Understanding Its Origin.”

Cohen said Atzmon’s views on Israel were clearly shaped by his time serving as medic in the Israel Defense Forces.

“It was a life-changing situation for him,” Cohen said.

“I think his last book drove people nuts: ‘The Wandering Who?’ This is a very intelligent guy.”

Cohen is, frankly, shocked at the attempt to shut down the event.

“This is lunacy,” he said. “This is Theatre 80 St. Mark’s in the East Village.”

Cohen, whose past clients include Hamas and Osama bin Laden’s son-in-law, admits that he, too, like Atzmon, has been branded a self-hating Jew.

As for what he plans to talk about Sunday, Cohen noted, “I am probably going to beat up [Julian] Assange and WikiLeaks in public. I think they’re becoming partisan. Trump is going after him right now because it’s convenient. There is zero chance that Julian Assange or WikiLeaks — which is him — is going to wind up in an American courtroom.”

Bottom line, Cohen said, he won’t be stopped from doing the event.

“I am a purist when it comes to speech and the First Amendment,” he stated. “I am not going to be intimidated from participating in a discussion of the issues in the East Village in 2017.”

Cohen said, however, that he is worried that “Canadian J.D.L.” types will show up and instigate violence, as happened last month at the AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) convention in Washington, D.C. In that incident, members of the Jewish Defense League from north of the border beat up a middle-aged Palestinian teacher.

“I have some friends coming with me to this event,” Cohen said. “They’re Palestinian and they’re women. If anything happens to them, the s— is going to hit the fan — and I’m not talking about violence.”

Legal action, then?

“Absolutely,” he assured. “Absolutely.”

The other two panelists are Michael Lesher, author of “Sexual Abuse, ‘Shonda’ and Concealment in Orthodox Jewish Communities,” who will speak on “Jewish Identity vs. Jewish Religion,” and Professor Norton Mezvinsky, who will discuss “The Quagmire of Current Political Terminology in U.S. Society.”

The discussion, at 80 St. Mark’s Place, will be in two two-hour halves, running from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m., including a one-hour Q & A, and finally an hour-long jazz concert by Atzmon. Suggested admission is $10, according to Atzmon’s Web page.

%d bloggers like this: