In August, a curious document emerged in the US entitled “Preventing a Disrupted Presidential Election and Transition“. It was prepared by a group called the Transition Integrity Project, which includes more than one hundred current and former senior US officials alongside experts from various fields. The group announced that they had run crisis scenario exercises for the November 2020 elections, all of which had shown rather disappointing results.
It should be noted that the group, which was put together in December 2019, includes not only Democrats but also Republicans who speak out against Donald Trump. It has been reported that the Transition Integrity Project has the direct support of George Soros, who is trying to organise a colour revolution in the US.
Among other things, a link has been uncovered between the group’s founder, Rosa Brooks, and Soros himself, as well as Hillary Clinton’s campaign leader, John Podesta, and former National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, who works for Joe Biden.
Rosa Brooks is a fellow at the New America Foundation, which was sponsored by the Open Society Foundations, and she used to work as a senior national security advisor in the US State Department during the presidencies of both Clinton and Obama. She is currently pursuing an academic career at West Point’s Modern War Institute. For some reason, Rosa Brooks believes that the forthcoming elections will lead to violence and a constitutional crisis.
The group’s second founder is Nils Gilman, who is vice president of programs at the Berggruen Institute (San Francisco) and also works at the Rockefeller Foundation. The institute is a research centre that promotes ideas of transhumanism, that is, it is opposed to traditional values.
The group’s director is Zoe Hudson – a former senior policy analyst at Soros’ Open Society Foundations who was responsible for maintaining contacts between the organisation and US government departments for more than ten years.
The group also includes well-known neoconservative Bill Kristol, military analyst Max Boot, former US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, and the aforementioned John Podesta.
The 22-page document states that “November’s elections will be marked by a chaotic legal and political landscape. We also assess that the [sic] President Trump is likely to contest the result by both legal and extra-legal means, in an attempt to hold onto power.” The recent protests, which federal agents were deployed to suppress, are also regarded as evidence that Trump may go to extreme measures to stay in office.
Here are the key conclusions that the authors themselves highlight in the report:
– The concept of “election night” is no longer accurate and has become dangerous. “We face a period of contestation stretching from the first day a ballot is cast in mid-September until January 20,” note the report’s authors. “The winner may not, and we assess likely will not, be known on ‘election night’ as officials count mail-in ballots. This period of uncertainty provides opportunities for an unscrupulous candidate to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the process and to set up an unprecedented assault on the outcome. Campaigns, parties, the press and the public must be educated to adjust expectations starting immediately.”
– A determined campaign will be able to contest the elections into January 2021. The report states: “We anticipate lawsuits, divergent media narratives, attempts to stop the counting of ballots, and protests drawing people from both sides. President Trump, the incumbent, will very likely use the executive branch to aid his campaign strategy, including through the Department of Justice. We assess that there is a chance the president will attempt to convince legislatures and/or governors to take actions – including illegal actions – to defy the popular vote. Federal laws provide little guidance for how Congress should resolve irregularities when they convene in a Joint Session on January 6, 2021. Of particular concern is how the military would respond in the context of uncertain election results. Here recent evidence offers some reassurance, but it is inconclusive.”
– The administrative transition process itself may be seriously impeded. According to the report’s authors: “Participants in our exercises of all backgrounds and ideologies believed that Trump would prioritize personal gain and self-protection over ensuring an orderly administrative handoff to his successor. Trump may use pardons to thwart future criminal prosecution, arrange business deals with foreign governments that benefit him financially, attempt to bribe and silence associates, declassify sensitive documents, and attempt to divert federal funds to his own businesses.”
The report contains four recommendations that reflect the agenda typical of colour revolutions – preparation of resources, scenarios, lawsuits, etc.
– Plan for a contested election. “If there is a crisis, events will unfold quickly, and sleep-deprived leaders will be asked to make consequential decisions quickly,” the report states. “Thinking through options now will help to ensure better decisions. Approach this as a political battle, not just a legal battle. In the event of electoral contestation, sustained political mobilization will likely be crucial for ensuring transition integrity. Dedicated staff and resources need to be in place at least through the end of January.”
– Focus on preparedness in the US, providing political support for a full and accurate count. The report’s authors state: “Governors, Secretaries of State, Attorneys General and Legislatures can communicate and reinforce laws and norms and be ready to confront irregularities. Election officials will need political and public support to see the process through to completion.”
– Tackle the two greatest threats head on: lies about “voter fraud” and the escalation of violence. “Voting fraud is virtually non-existent,” states the report, “but Trump lies about it to create a narrative designed to politically mobilize his base and to create the basis for contesting the results should he lose. The potential for violent conflict is high, particularly since Trump encourages his supporters to take up arms.”
– Foresee a difficult administrative transition. According to the report: “Transition teams will likely need to do two things simultaneously: defend against Trump’s reckless actions on his way out of office; and find creative solutions to ensure landing teams are able to access the information and resources they need to begin to prepare for governing.”
Many liberal media outlets have supported the Transition Integrity Project’s statements and published a number of interviews on the “war games” carried out by the group. Leading television channels in the US are also supporting the group’s image and giving airtime to its position. For example, Al Gore openly stated live on Fox News that if Trump does not leave the White House in January 2021, then the military will remove him.
In fact, one of the exercise scenarios run by the group was a clear Trump win. So, on what basis would US citizens be showing their defiance and organising riots?
Despite such contradictions, and the fact that there is no mention of the US Constitution’s provision on presidential elections, which clearly shows the mechanism for recognising the victor, it is obvious from the report itself and the subsequent reaction that public opinion is being programmed in the US and includes several elements: the inevitably of civil conflicts throughout the country; Donald Trump’s direct responsibility; the need for mass mobilisation; and a military intervention in favour of Trump’s opponent, that is, the representative of the US Democratic Party.
At the very least, these actions are already devaluing the practice of electoral democracy that, until now, has been regarded as the foundation of Western “rule of law” societies.
The crisis gripping the US state apparatus is directly threatening the survival of the Empire. This is no longer merely the opinion of Thierry Meyssan, but the subject that is shaking the ruling class in Washington to the point that the honorary president of the Council on Foreign Relations is demanding the resignation of the chief advisers of President Obama and the appointment of a new team. This clash has nothing to do with a typical opposition of Democrats and Republicans, nor even with that of the doves / hawks. What is at stake is leadership in the United States and NATO.
For several months now, I’ve been noting that there is no foreign policy in Washington, but two factions that oppose each other in all things and separately conduct contradictory and inconsistent policies. [1]
The climax of this situation has been reached in Syria, where the White House first organized the moult of Daesh and sent it to ethnically cleanse Iraq, then fought it even though the CIA continues to support it. This inconsistency has gradually spread to the Allies. Thus, France joined the anti-Daesh coalition while some of its legionaries are part of the Daesh cadre [2].
When the Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, requested written clarification, he not only received no answer, but he was fired. [3]
The disorder soon spread to NATO, an alliance created to fight the USSR and maintained against Russia, when Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan signed gigantic economic agreements with Vladimir Putin. [4]
Coming out of his silence, the honorary chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations [5], Leslie H. Gelb, sounded the alarm. [6] He said that “the Obama team lacked basic instincts and judgment to lead the national security policy in the next two years.” And he continued, on behalf of the US ruling class as a whole: “President Obama needs to replace his team with strong personalities and experienced strategists. He should also place new people as Senior Advisors to the Secretaries of Defense and State. And he must finally implement regular consultations with Bob Corker, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and John McCain [7], the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. »
Never, since its creation in 1921, has the Council on Foreign Relations taken such a position. This is because the divisions within the state apparatus are leading the United States directly to doom.
Listing the main advisers, which, according to him, must leave, Mr. Gelb cites four people very close intellectually and emotionally to the President: Susan Rice (National Security Advisor), Dennis McDonough (Chief of Staff of the White House), Benjamin Rhodes (Communications) and Valerie Jarrett (Foreign Policy Advisor). The ruling class in Washington accuses them of never submitting original proposals to the president, much less contradicting him, but always humouring him in his prejudices.
The only personality to find favor in the eyes of the Council on Foreign Relations, Anthony Blinken, new No. 2 at the State Department, is a “liberal hawk”.
The Council on Foreign Relations being a bipartisan body, Mr. Gelb proposes that President Obama surround himself by four Democrats and four Republicans corresponding to the profile he described. First the Democrats: Thomas Pickering (former ambassador to the United Nations), Winston Lord (former assistant to Henry Kissinger), Frank Wisner (unofficially one of the bosses of the CIA and incidentally Nicolas Sarkozy’s stepfather) and Michèle Flournoy (the President of the Center for a New American Security) [8]. Then, Republicans Robert Zoellick (former head of the World Bank) [9], Richard Armitage (former assistant to Colin Powell) [10], Robert Kimmitt (probable next boss of the World Bank), and Richard Burt (former negotiator on the reduction of nuclear weapons).
For Secretary of Defense, Mr. Gelb offers Rabbi Dov Zakheim to manage budget cuts [11], Admiral Mike Mullen (former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) and General Jack Keane (former Chief of Staff of the Army).
Finally, Mr. Gelb proposes that the national security strategy be developed in consultation with the four “wise men”: Henry Kissinger [12] Brent Scowcroft, Zbigniew Brzezinski, [13] and James Baker. [14]
Looking more closely at this list, we understand that the Council on Foreign Relations did not want to decide between the two opposing groups within the Obama administration, but it intends to restore order in the system from above. In this regard, it is not irrelevant in a country thus far led by WASPs (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants) that two counsellors whose dismissals are required are black women, while fourteen of the fifteen incoming names are white males, either Protestant or Ashkenazi. The political housekeeping is also therefore an ethnic and religious takeover.
Anybody want to guess who runs America? Initials start with “A”, like AIPAC, and “I” for Israel and “R” for Rothschild Wall STreet Brokerage Houses. Yes, you can include Soros, Zbig, and others, but they are minions who do the power elites bidding and handling of our elected and appointed officials, similar to what the khazar Zionist bankers and Israel do for the illuminati 13 bloodlines. . If we remember correctly that when he was first named to his current position, there was a hue and cry from the Israel Supporters quarters as not being acceptable to them, but he got the position anyway. Notice we did not invade or attack Iran. Is that why he was fired?
NY Times: Top Candidates to Succeed Hagel Are Longtime National Security Specialists
President Obama, working to shift his team’s focus in confronting a raft of national security crises, is considering two former Defense Department officials as successors to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, administration officials said Monday.
REBUTTAL BY
THE ANTI-NEW YORK TIMES
The resignation (forced firing) of Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is a bad sign folks; a very bad sign. It’s not that Secretary Hagel was anything special of course; Globalist, DC Insider, member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) etc; but at least he wasn’t a complete warmongering psychopath like Donald Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney.
You see, Schmuckie Hagel was more of a “soft power” Globalist, a fact which had earned him the open enmity of the Jewish neo-conservatives and the Israelis. It is clear now that a weakened “Ebola-ized”, post-election Obongo has been usurped by the more aggressive faction of America’s PRC (Predatory Ruling Class), operating within his own Party and administration.
This fact is confirmed in this Slimes article which has already short-listed the candidates to replace Hagel: Michelle Flournoy and Ashton B. Carter. Those may sound like nice Anglo-Saxon names, and indeed these two candidates are. But they are both 100% certified kosher neo-cons that would eagerly service BibiSatanyahu quicker than you could say ‘Monica Lewinsky’.
Ms. Flournoy is married to W. Scott Gould (Jewish?), who is very pro-Zionist as well as a contributor to Israel’s advocacy group, the Brookings Institution.
In 2007, Ms. Flournoy co-founded the pro-Israel advocacy group, the Center for a New American Security. Described by the Los Angeles Times as “a haven for hawkish Democrats”, CNAS houses such filthy Muslim-hating warmongers asDouglas Feith, Richard Perle, Frederick Kagan (Vicki Nuland’s husband), Frank Gaffney, David Kilcullen, etc. The group is headed by retired Lt. Col. Dr. John Nagl, a Christian-Zionist.
Flournoy and her husband are anti-Iranian, anti-Russian hard-liners. Click to enlarge
As for Ashton B. Carter, his ‘righteous Gentile’ credentials are just as kosher as Flournoy’s. In 1998, radical Zionist Philip D. Zelikow authored an article in 1998 in the CFR’s ‘Foreign Affairs’ magazine. In it, they laid out what changes would need to be made within the U.S. government in the wake of “catastrophic terrorism,” which is also the title of the article.
The ”Catastrophic Terrorism”article begins with the strange subtitle ‘Imagining the Transforming Event’, and advocates a transformation of the U.S. government and the way Americans live.
Ashton B Carter
Just like the PNAC document, Carter and Zelikow predicted the coming Catastrophic Terrorism” and a “Transforming event” 3 years in advance of 9/11
So there you have it. Two of the many high levels co-conspirators behind the 9-11 attacks and the never-ending ‘War on Terror’ are the main candidates to replace the somewhat dovish Chuck Hagel. Joining one of these lucky demonic creaturesin DC’s coming march to World War III will be the soon-to-be boss of the Senate, John ‘psycho’ McCain, and his equally deranged sidekick of dubious sexual orientation, Lindsey Graham. Bibi Satanyahu is loving this!
In the final analysis, we expect that Ms. Flournoy will get the nod. In fact, we suspect that it has already been determined. After all, isn’t it time that we break the ‘glass ceiling’ and name the first female Defense Secretary? (Barf)
Netanyahu appearing before the UN General Assembly in 2012 to warn of the threat posed by Iran. Click to enlarge
Netanyahu and his American poodles in both Houses are celebrating the extension of nuclear talks between the US and Iran in Vienna. On November 24, the E3+3 announced that they intend to continue their dialogue to resolve US-Israel “concerns” regarding Iran’s nuclear program.
With anti-Muslim pro-Israel law-makers, both Republican and Democrats controlling both Congress and Senate and Liz Sherwood-Randall (Jewish) WMDs Czar while the so-called “soft on Iran”, Pentagon’s top gun ChuckHagel dumped – Next year will be the best time to make Iraq out of Iran for Israel.
As I wrote last week that both the US and Israel are not interested in resolving Iran’s nuclear issue. They’re preparing the necessary anti-Iran groundwork for a violent military regime change in Iran, as all their efforts to achieve that goal through propaganda and the “crippling sanctions” have failed to change Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatullah Ali Khamenei’s views about the Zionist regime.
“It’s now essential that Congress now take up new bipartisan sanctions legislations to let Tehran know that it will face much more severe pressure if it doesn’t clearly abandoned its nuclear weapon program,”AIPAC said in a statement on Monday after P5+1 and Iran agreed to extend the final deal deadline to June 30, 2015.
Zionist prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu who called US-Iran nuclear talks as “blunder”, approved the extension “better than a nuclear deal between the US and Iran”. John Kerry tried to take the credit for delaying a final deal agreeable to Tehran. Both Iranian president Rouhani and his foreign minister Dr. Zarif said that talks did not need extension if American administration had been sincere in understanding Iran’s concerns. Both said that Tehran will never roll-back its civilian nuclear program.
Some political analysts are of the opinion that Israel, Russia and China will be the main beneficiaries in the long-term “no deal” scenario while European Union will be the main loser.
On November 26, Chuck Freilich, former Israeli national security adviser wrote at The BUZZ that since the US-Iran talk has failed to curb Israel’s “existential threat” from Iran with a “nuclear capability” – Obama administration should put the “military option” against Iran back on table.
Rob Eshman’s article Obama’s Jewish War posted at Jewish Journal on July 11, 2012, opens many doors to what’s being cooked at the White House. “Barack Obama rescued Egypt from fundamentalist chaos and to secure Israel,”Liz Sherwood-Randall told a large Jewish gathering sponsored by Foreign Policy Roundtable in July this year.
“I would pause here and say there are some who assert there is a different sort of relationship between the president and the prime minister, that it is not a solid relationship. I would assure you that the president has built a very important relationship with Prime Minister Netanyahu. What this administration has done to advance Israel’s security is, literally, unprecedented,” she said.
She detailed military-to-military cooperation, $205 million spent to assist Israel in developing its Iron Dome missile defense system, Obama’s assistance to stranded and threatened Israeli diplomats in Egypt, and his speech before the United Nations General Assembly arguing against a bid for Palestinian statehood.
On Iran, Sherwood-Randall maintained that the administration has imposed the most far-reaching sanctions that Iran has ever faced, and that because of its intensive diplomacy, 18 countries – including Turkey, Japan, South Korea and India – have decreased purchases of Iranian oil, halving Iran’s crude oil exports.
Sherwood-Randall whose father Richard Sherwood was leader of the American Jewish Committee (AJC) for years, pointed out that the president Obama had never ruled out a military option on Iran.
I sincerely hope all Iranian leaders committed to the survival of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, stop chasing the “ghost” and learn from North Korean experience. Iran should dump NPT in garbage-can like Israel, India and Pakistan did longtime ago. It must rush to build a few nukes. That will put a duct-tape on Obama-Netanyahu mouth. In contrast to North Korea and Pakistan – Iran is loaded with oil and gas reserves and its economy has already withstood the western sanctions since 1980s. Israel-born British writer, author and musician, Gilad Atzmon, agrees with meon this.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, a Vietnam war veteran and the lone Republican on Obama’s national security team, has been fired.
And John McCain’s assessment is dead on.
Hagel, he said, “was never really brought into that real tight circle inside the White House that makes all the decisions which has put us into the incredible debacle that we’re in today throughout the world.”
Undeniably, U.S. foreign policy is in a shambles. But what were the “decisions” that produced the “incredible debacle”?
Who made them? Who supported them?
The first would be George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq, a war for which Sens. John McCain, Joe Biden, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton all voted. At least Sen. Hagel admitted he made a mistake on that vote.
With our invasion, we dethroned Saddam and destroyed his Sunni Baathist regime. And today the Islamic State, a barbaric offshoot of al-Qaida, controls Mosul, Anbar and the Sunni third of Iraq.
Kurdistan is breaking away. And a Shia government in Baghdad, closely tied to Tehran and backed by murderous anti-American Shia militias, controls the rest. Terrorism is a daily occurrence.
Such is the condition of the nation which we were promised would become a model of democracy for the Middle East after a “cake-walk war.” The war lasted eight years for us, and now we are going back — to prevent a catastrophe.
A second decision came in 2011, when a rebellion arose against Bashar Assad in Syria, and we supported and aided the uprising. Assad must go, said Obama. McCain and the neocons agreed.
Now ISIS and al-Qaida are dominant from Aleppo to the Iraqi border with Assad barely holding the rest, while the rebels we urged to rise and overthrow the regime are routed or in retreat.
Had Assad fallen, had we bombed his army last year, as Obama, Kerry and McCain wanted to do, and brought down his regime, ISIS and al-Qaida might be in Damascus today. And America might be facing a decision either to invade or tolerate a terrorist regime in the heart of the Middle East.
Lest we forget, Vladimir Putin pulled our chestnuts out of the fire a year ago, with a brokered deal to rid Syria of chemical weapons.
The Turks, Saudis and Gulf Arabs who aided ISIS’ rise are having second thoughts, but sending no Saudi or Turkish troops to dislodge it.
So the clamor arises anew for U.S. “boots on the ground” to reunite the nations that the wars and revolutions we supported tore apart.
A third decision was the U.S.-NATO war on Col. Gadhafi’s Libya.
After deceiving the Russians by assuring them we wanted Security Council support for the use of air power simply to prevent a massacre in Benghazi, we bombed for half a year, and brought down Gadhafi.
Now we have on the south shore of the Mediterranean a huge failed state and strategic base camp for Islamists and terrorists who are spreading their poison into sub-Sahara Africa.
The great triumphs of Reagan and Bush 41 were converting Russia into a partner, and presiding over the liberation of Eastern Europe and the dissolution of the old Soviet Union into 15 independent nations.
Unfulfilled by such a victory for peace and freedom, unwilling to go home when our war, the Cold War, was over, Bush 43 decided to bring the entire Warsaw Pact, three Baltic states, and Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. For this project, Bush had the enthusiastic support of McCain, the neocons and the liberal interventionists.
Since 1991, we sought to cut the Russians out of the oil and gas of the Caspian basin with a pipeline through the Caucasus to Turkey, bombed Serbia to tear off its cradle province of Kosovo, and engineered color-coded revolutions in Belgrade, Tbilisi and other capitals to pull these new nations out of Russia’s sphere of influence.
Victoria Nuland of State and McCain popped up in Maidan Square in Kiev, backing demonstrations to bring down the democratically elected (if, admittedly, incompetent) regime in Ukraine.
The U.S.-backed coup succeeded. President Viktor Yanukovych fled, a pro-Western regime was installed, and a pro-Western president elected.
Having taken all this from his partner, Putin retrieved the Crimea and Russia’s Black Sea naval base at Sebastopol. When pro-Russia Ukrainians rose against the beneficiaries of the coup in Kiev, he backed his team, as we backed ours.
Now, we are imposing sanctions, driving Russia further from the West and into a realliance with Beijing, with which Putin has completed two long-term deals for oil and gas running over $700 billion dollars.
As the U.S. and NATO send planes, ships and troops to show our seriousness in the Baltic and Ukraine, Russian planes and ships test Western defenses from Finland to Sweden to Portugal to Alaska and the coast of the continental United States.
Who made these decisions that created the debacle?
On Monday, Helene Cooper at TheJew York Times reported that US Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, has submitted his resignation which was immediately accepted by president Barack Obama. Chuck Hagel was confirmed in February 2013 after a disastrous opposition from the Jewish Lobby (here and here). The paper claimed Hagel resigned under pressure without mentioning the “pressure”.
She claimed that
“Barack Obama decided to replace Chuck Hagel after coming to the conclusion during the last few weeks that the current defense chief was not the right person to lead fight against ISIS.”
According to the Associated Press, Hagel has had his own frustrations with the White House. In recent weeks, he sent a letter to national security adviser Dr. Susan Rice, an Israel Firster, in which he said Obama needed to articulate a clearer view of the administration’s approach to dealing with Syrian President Bashar Assad. The letter is said to have angered the Zionist-controlled White House officials.
In September 2014, both Hagel and Gen. Martin Dempsey told lawmakers on the Senate Armed Services Committee that White House is against putting American boots in Syria or Iraq (ISIS) as Senators John McCain and Lindsey want. Rather, Pentagon would prefer to arm and trained the Syrian rebel groups (of US choice) fighting Syrian Army. Read more here.
Hagel told one of his associates that he “took the job to end war, and not to start another one.”
Chuck Hagel like his two predecessors has complained that Obama gives more importance to his White House advisers than his cabinet members when it comes to national security issues. Perry Bacon Jr. at the NBC News claims the Hagel is the latest victim of Obama’s failed national and foreign policy.
Hagel is being made responsible for Obama administration’s failures, such as, failure to contain Taliban rising popularity in Afghanistan, convincing Egyptian defense minister Gen. Sisi not to lead a military coup against country’s first elected civilian president, defeat of USrael created ISIL in Syria, and Washington’s humiliation by Russia in Ukraine.
Max Fisher, editor of Jewish VOX magazine blamed Obama’s top foreign policy adviser Dr. Susan Rice, being the main actor behind Hagel’s firing.
“What is not being told is that there’s been speculation of for a couple of months that, after the midterm elections, the Obama administration would fire some lead foreign policy people to try to fix the problems. But every one thought he would fire someone who works in the White House, such as national security adviser Susan Rice, because Obama has forced all foreign policy-making to happen within the White House. Instead he’s fired someone outside of the White House, which suggests that Obama is going to keep the White House foreign policy team,” Fisher wrote on November 24, 2014.
Sen. John McCain, the top critic of Hagel, said Hagel left “frustrated” as result of interference in his duties from Obama’s top advisers especially Dr. Susan. McCain praised Hagel as honest, patriotic and brave man – but not suitable to the defense post. He said McCain did not agree with Obama’s policy toward ISIS and Ukraine.
Both CNN and Fox News have claimed that Obama fired Hagel. Hagel has agreed to stay at the post until his replacement is found which has to wait until the pro-Israel Republican-dominated Congress convenes next year.
As expected, the leading contender to replace Chuck Hagel is no other than Michele Flournoy, wife of Zionist Jew W. Scott Gould and founder CEO of Israeli advocacy think tank, Center for a New American Security (CNAS).
Both Moshe Yaalon, Israel’s defense minister and Abraham Foxman, Israel’s highest-paid ($760,000 per year) lobbyist have called Chuck Hagel “Friend of Israel” over his resignation.
Personally, I don’t feel Hagel’s firing is bad for the Muslim world. As soon as, Hagel got the job, he started licking Israel’s feet. Last year, during his aliya to Zionist entity, he assured the “baby killers” that he’s committed to protect Israel. On November 15, 2014, Hagel accused Hizbullah being a threat toUnited States.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel’s surprise resignation — reportedly at the strong urging of the White House — will dominate Beltway news in the coming days. But perhaps the much more significant foreign-policy news came early Saturday morning.
The New York Times reported that the United States will expand its mission in Afghanistan in 2015, with US troops participating in direct combat with the Taliban while American airpower backs Afghan forces from above. The shift, leaked anonymously to reporters ahead of a holiday week, is a big “oh, nevermind” to Obama’s very public announcement six months ago in the Rose Garden that US troops in Afghanistan would be shifting into a training and advisory role next year.
The president didn’t even make a glancing reference to the Afghanistan reversal in his remarks announcing Hagel’s departure. The administration would clearly prefer a limited public debate, and based on the media coverage so far, it is getting its wish.
But it is against this new hawkish posture that Hagel’s departure should be understood and discussed. It is possible that it was the subtext to his resignation: Hagel came aboard to help manage a withdrawal from Afghanistan and shrink the Pentagon budget, and an anonymous US official told the Times Monday that “the next couple of years will demand a different kind of focus.”
The retrenchment in Afghanistan reportedly came after a “a lengthy and heated debate” inside the White House that pitted military generals against some administration officials:
Mr. Obama’s decision, made during a White House meeting in recent weeks with his senior national security advisers, came over the objection of some of his top civilian aides, who argued that American lives should not be put at risk next year in any operations against the Taliban—and that they should have only a narrow counterterrorism mission against Al Qaeda.
But the military pushed back, and generals both at the Pentagon and in Afghanistan urged Mr. Obama to define the mission more broadly to allow American troops to attack the Taliban, the Haqqani network and other militants if intelligence revealed that the extremists were threatening American forces in the country.
Was the historically dovish Hagel one of these officials? It is certainly curious that his departure directly coincides with the new aggressive plan for Afghanistan.
No reporting yet indicates that for certain, and Hagel is notoriously guarded—one reason cited for his resignation was reportedly that he remained quiet in meetings, supposedly to avoid leaks of his position. It is certainly possible that ISIS’s rapid emergence and other foreign-policy crises contributed to Hagel’s poor standing inside the White House, along with his reported leadership problems.
Ultimately, that’s an academic question for the administration’s biographers. What matters now is that the United States is changing course toward a more aggressive foreign policy: it is recommitting to the war in Afghanistan, which is by far the country’s longest and now promises to span two two-term presidencies. The number of troops in Iraq has doubled, and the administration will soon seek an authorization from a Congress that is extremely unlikely to include a provision that outlaws direct combat by US troops. Even supposed doves like Rand Paul are switching their position on fighting ISIS, and the incoming class of Senators has distinct interventionist positions.
Hagel’s departure — and the confirmation of his successor—will hopefully allow for some serious public debate about this new turn, even if the administration prefers otherwise. The real story here is about the policy, not the personnel.
On November 15, 2014, US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel in aspeech he delivered at Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, compared Lebanese Islamic Resistance Hizbullah with North Korea and Al-Qaeda.
For unknown reason, Hagel forgot to includeISIS among his list of “dangerously provocative and terrorists non-state actors”.
In September, Cuban leader Fidel Castro claimed that ISIS is a creation of the US and Israel.
The event was the brainchild of the new publisher of Jew-owned The Washington Post, Fredrick J. Ryan Jr., former Chief of Staff for president Ronald Reagan (1989-95).
In 2007, Ryan co-founded Politico, a pro-Israel website and newspaper.
Interestingly, in Summer 2006, Chuck Hagel received the honor of being an “anti-Semite” for slamming the Zionist regime’s unprovoked retaliation against Hizbullah. Hagel wrote in his 2008 book, ‘America: Our Next Chapter’, that military retaliation – rightful or not – is not a political strategy that can end the threat posed by non-state groups”.
In May 2014, Lebanese prime minister Tammam Salam welcomed Iranian offer to provide military aid to Lebanon Armed Forces to defend the nation from future Israeli invasion and the US-funded foreign insurgents fighting in Syria.
Under pressure from the Jewish Lobby, Washington warned Lebanon over Iranian weapon donation. To counter Iranian donation, America’s top Arab puppet, the Saudi ‘royal’ offered $3 billion worth French weapons for Lebanese army. On July 3, 2014, Israeli news website Al-Monitor reported that the French weapons would be useless against Israel.
“The French are approaching this issue from the standpoint of the interests of Israel and other international matters, mainly how to maintain the status quo in Southern Lebanon (Hizbullah base) in the face of Israeli attack. The French wouldn’t give Lebanon any sensitive weapon system or advanced technology that Israel might consider a threat,” reported Al-Monitor.
Hagel agrees with Barack Obama and the pro-Israel lobby, whom he called the “Jewish Lobby” as a Senator, that Iran must not be allowed to become the second nuclear nation in the Middle East and pose a threat to Israel, the only regional nuclear power. However, he said in 2006 that a US military strike on Iran to stop its nuclear program is not a “viable, feasible or responsible option”.
Hagel supports continuing US funding of such Israeli missile defense programs as Iron Dome and the Arrow interceptor, but doesn’t favor increasing annual military aid ($3 billion) to the Zionist entity.
Chuck Hagel who visited India in August 2014, called for a closer military ties between the two countries against China. India has become world’s largestimporter of arms. Its major arms suppliers are Russia, United States, Israel and France.
Jeffrey Feltman, former US ambassador to Lebanon and currently Ban Ki-moon’s top adviser on Middle East, is America’s top Israeli lobbyist. He reportedly told his friends at the US State Department that Israel has failed to defeat Hizbullah and the US must disarm Hizbullah.
Amal Saad-Ghorayeb, PhD, is a Lebanese academic, political analyst and author of the book, ‘Hizbullah: Politics and Religion’. On August 8, 2012, she wrote an Op-Ed, entitled Khamenei and Hizbullah: Leading in Spirit, in which she debunked several Zionist lies about Hizbullah-Iran relation.
On October 12, 2006, Alastair Crooke and Mark Perry co-authored an investigative article at Asia Time, detailing How Hizbullah Defeated Israel.
Listen to Scott McConnell, American journalist and founder-editor of the American Conservative, magazine on US-Israel “brotherly relationship”.
RT reports:US State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki and Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby have been challenged over the Department of Defense’s claims that the US must “deal” with “modern and capable” Russian armed forces on NATO’s doorstep.Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu expressed “grave concern” and “surprise” at a Wednesday speech made by US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel during the Association of the United States Army’s annual conference. Hagel declared that US armed forces
“must deal with a revisionist Russia – with its modern and capable army – on NATO’s doorstep.”
Kirby was confronted by AP journalist Matt Lee over NATO expansion closer to the Russian borders at the State Department’s daily press briefing on Thursday. Here is their exchange:
Windsor – Rally and Speak-Out: Stop the U.S.-Led Destruction of Iraq and Syria Now!
Saturday, October 4 — 11:00 am
Meet at City Hall Square — Speak Out starts at 11:45 am
Organized by: Windsor Peace Coalition
For information: windsorpeace@hotmail.com of 226-975-2010
The Windsor Peace Coalition calls on all those in Windsor and Essex County who stand for peace and justice to join us in saying NO! to the U.S.-led destruction of Iraq and Syria.
The only “debate” about it in Parliament is over how Canada will be involved in a new US-led war in the region. Canadians don’t want debates on how best to invade, destabilize and interfere in other countries’ affairs; we want to end it.
It is brutally ironic that October 7 marks the 13th anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan that was launched under bogus pretexts and which Canada is still embroiled in today through NATO.
Don’t let the warmongers in Parliament speak in your name! Don’t let them embroil us in another war of aggression under bogus pretexts that will only lead to more chaos and violence and crimes against the people of the world!
We call on all unions, political parties, community groups and everyone else to speak out NOW! Spread the word far and wide to co-workers, friends and family and through social and other media. Join in!
Invest in our Communities, Not in War!
Anti-War Picket every Saturday — 11:00 am-12:00 noon
Corner of Ottawa St. and Walker Rd.
Edmonton Anti-War Picket
Friday, October 10 — 4:30 p.m.
109 Street and 88 Avenue
Organized by: Edmonton Coalition Against War and Racism (ECAWAR)
For information: www.ecawar.org
Halifax Weekly Anti-War Picket Fridays — 4:00-5:00 pm
Corner of Spring Garden Rd. and Barrington St.
Organized by: No Harbour for War
For information: noharbourforwar@hotmail.com
November 21, 2009: Haligonians mount a vigorous protest against the First Halifax International Security Forum, funded by DND and ACOA.
Rally to Oppose the Halifax War Conference Saturday, November 22 — 1:00 pm
Halifax Peace & Freedom Park (formerly Cornwallis Park) Hollis & South Sts.
For information: Facebook
The 6th annual Halifax International Security Forum will be convened on November 21-23 as a platform for warmongering and empire building of U.S. imperialism and the NATO bloc, in which the Harper Government is fully embroiled.
Warmongers from more than 50 countries will join U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, Sen. John McCain, Canadian Defence Minister Rob Nicholson and some 300 others at the Washington, DC -based Forum “to learn from each other, share opinions, generate new ideas, and put them into action.”
The first 2009 forum was dedicated to popularizing NATO’s then new “security doctrine.” Ensuing forums have provided a stage to justify NATO’s “humanitarian intervention” in Libya and Africa, Syria and Iran. Closely following the NATO’s Summit in September at Newport, Wales this forum will no doubt further the dark plans of NATO to attack and destroy the Assad government in Syria under the guise of destroying ISIL “Islamic terrorism”, and to use Ukraine as a battering ram and platform on which to foster major aggression against Russia.
The warmongering forums also form the venue for the United States to form new military arrangements to integrate the Canadian Forces under its command. In 2009, US Secretary of State Robert Gates announced that US Marines would henceforth exercise in the Arctic to “defend Canadian sovereignty.” In 2011, Hagel announced that Canada had signed a still secret protocol to join Obama’s Asia Pivot strategy aimed at China and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
The forum has increasingly put on the table the issue of “energy security” – to ensure that Canadian oil and gas production and export conform with the plans of the U.S. and NATO, in which energy is viewed as a weapon against rival powers such as Russia. Taking into account Fortress America or Fortress North America, the security perimeter agreement, part of the SPP agreement (Security and Prosperity Partnership Agreement of North America), their program is a union of North American monopolies in which all the working class and the resources of Canada and Mexico are annexed by the USA so as to compete more effectively with Europe for the domination of Asia.
The HISF is a 100 per cent U.S. operation lock, stock and barrel, paid for by millions of our taxdollars handed over by the Harper government to the US organizers. The agenda is one of nation-wrecking and the usurping of decision-making in the sphere of foreign and military policy of Canada, as shown by the fact that the offices of the HISF are located at 1717 Rhode Island Avenue NW, Washington, DC. This necessitates the elimination of the opposition and resistance of the workers and peoples including the First Nations to the unrestrained plunder of our land, labour and resources.
It is unacceptable that Halifax, or any Canadian city, be used as a venue to plan further crimes against the peace and the peoples of the world. Bring your banners, bring your music and statements, and most of all bring your friends to oppose this war conference.
Maybe it started with The Wizard of Oz, but it’s gotten completely out of hand. First there was al-Qaeda (“The Base“), apparently a name invented by the U.S. Justice Department to link a series of attacks to Osama bin Laden. But this newest ISIS franchise, conveniently billed as “too violent for al-Qaeda,” has taken off and its popularity makes “Breaking Bad” look like a Jr. High School class play. In rural Wyoming.
But the script needs some patching.
First off, the western media (MSM) talking points prominently feature the “slick look” and “Deft Command of Varied Media” displayed by ISIS. As we all know, Western Media lacks these skills. And we can see with our own eyes that ISIS uses their media smarts to hype aggression, torture, de-capitation, murder, etc. And, as we all know, such mayhem instantly attracts followers of all religions by the millions.If it’s in a Hollywood movie — or a U.S. Military recruiting video-game.
It looks like Uncle Sam’s scripting team is recycling those “scary Muslim” memes left over from 9/11. The problem is, that all goes against the basic teachings of Islam and most other religions. Maybe they’re hopeing critical thinking in the target audience will be Missing In Action. Or, perhaps, AWOL, since they’ve been scripting as if it’s been gone for a long time.
And, we have the following partial list of “you must suspend disbelief” gaffs, glitches, and hurdles so far:
1. 1,700 ragtag “jihadis” driving pickup trucks take over half a country — where there are 30,000 opposing troops stationed — and they do it in a couple of weeks. Weird things dohappen in Iraq, but really now. Remember Operation Desert Storm, hyped as “The Mother of All Battles?” But that took the entire mechanized U.S. military — Army, Navy, Airforce and Marines. And it took six weeks.
2. There are 40,000 Yazidi “villagers” trapped and surrounded on Mt. Sinjar, hundreds of miles from the fearsome 1,700 ragtag jihadis. Aside from 40,000 folks being awfully large for a “village,” there’s a problem with getting everyone to go along with anything, especially on short notice. Folks stayed in Fallujah during the U.S. massacre, for example. And there’s the little problem with surrounding a whole mountain — and 40,000 armed people — with only 1,700 ragtag jihadis who are hundreds of miles away, busily taking over the other half of the country. This part of the fantasy was quickly dropped by U.S. Defense Sec. Hagel.
4. A guy who calls himself Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi, declares himself chief potentate of what has now been inflated into the dread ISIS “Caliphate” — but via NSA leaks, we discover he’s been trained by Israel’s secret service, the Mossad. And apparently wears expensive western watches.
5. Also via NSA leaks, we discover that the CIA etc, with whom Mossad often works closely, has an operation named “the hornet’s nest” with the express purpose of attracting all the world’s jihadis to one place.
These are just the obvious surface problems with the script. You can probably come up with others.
You do have to give Uncle’s team kudos for attempting to change the acronym from “ISIS” — which is the name of a Goddess — to the less harmonious “ISIL.” Unfortunately, that isn’t working any better than the attempt to change harmless-sounding “Osama” to the harsher “Usama.”
No, no, I won’t speculate on the interesting possibility that Uncle Sam’s traditional subversion units miscalculated again and “the hornet’s nest” has gotten completely out of hand, taken on a life of it’s own, and really does threaten Western Civilization. However I will suggest that with all the taxpayer money the U.S. MilitaryIndustrialCongressionalComplexspends on war inductions, we deserve more believable fairy tales and a much tighter script.
Or is it supposed to be a comedy?
A friend just pointed out that the scripters are using that British accent to induce a titillating sense of fear in the home audience by suggesting “ISIS is everywhere.” I bet you’ve heard that soundbyte — or will soon. It grooms the population for war and more repression at home. Apparently they lifted that plot twist directly from well-known false-flag classic, Operation Northwoods.
Obama, in his speech before the nation on national television on September 10, 2014, never mentioned the fact that Qatar and Turkey, both American allies, were the lifeblood of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). To further qualify his ignorance (or maybe his treachery), he repeatedly referred to the Al-Qaeda offshoot as “ISIL” replacing the word “Syria” with “Levant”. It is proof positive that the so-called “Arabists” at Foggy Bottom have degenerated into Zionist flag-bearers with a modicum of a dilettante’s knowledge of matters Near Eastern. Let me tell you why.
The word “Levant” is French. Ou le soleil leve. Where the sun rises. It refers specifically to the coastal area of the far eastern end of the Mediterranean or Natural Syria. But, “Syria” is not only the Levant, it is also the Syrian Desert and those Euphratean areas containing cities like Dayr El-Zor, Al-Mayaadeen and Al-Raqqa where the local accents are decidedly influenced by Mesopotamian or Gulf Arabic, even Najdi in some locales. But, we can’t expect the superficially educated apparatchiks at the State Department to know that, why that might mean the U.S. has actual area experts; which, by the way, it doesn’t. What Foggy Bottom has, instead, is a coterie of spooks inextricably linked to the Company, the CIA. Shades of Robert Ford and Christopher Stephens. American diplomats are beginning to look more decidedly like saboteurs, gun runners, assassins and fifth columns, than smooth, silk-tongued boulevardiers wearing bowler hats and sporting ivory handled canes.
But, at no time did Obama stop to explain what ISIS was; how it originated in Iraq as a response to American occupation of that country. He did not tell his public that ISIS used to be linked to Al-Qaeda and that Jabhat Al-Nusra, a “legal” franchise of Al-Qaeda was an organization the U.S. supports in Syria. In other words, he used the word ISIL to conceal the word “Syria”. His handlers didn’t want to make the connection that Syria was also being fought by this vicious and nihilistic organization created by the U.S.
Obama’s short speech, therefore, may be more interesting for what it did not address than what it did. Oh, he tried to look somber, almost melancholic somehow. He made sure to mention the power points all men of superficiality need to broach in order to get themselves wired up for the nonsense they’re going to foist on a putatively ignorant public. His handlers made sure there were no important baseball games being broadcast simultaneously which might distract his audience, the men desperately channel-surfing for some sportscaster’s voice or the women checking out the latest infomercial on life extending juice blenders.
Obama did not tell Americans that Chuck Hagel could not get Turkey, an ally in NATO, to commit to fighting ISIS.
Obama did not tell Americans that Turkey provides safe haven for ISIS and arms the savages.
Obama did not tell Americans that Qatar, Kuwait, the UAE and Saudi Arabia all have a hand in the financial growth of ISIS.
Obama did not tell Americans that Jabhat Al-Nusra, supported by the U.S. even though it’s a terrorist organization, was a branch of Al-Qaeda, just like the laundry list of groups fighting to oust Dr. Assad.
Obama did not tell Americans that the Syrian Army was fighting ISIS too.
Obama did not tell Americans that Arab countries in the area did not have any interest, much less the ability, in putting soldiers on the ground in either Iraq or Syria.
Obama did not tell Americans that he might order a violation of Syrian airspace in order to strike ISIS.
Obama did not tell Americans that the Syrian government has a seat at the United Nations and is a founding member state of that organization.
Obama did not tell Americans that he did not ask Russia, Iran or Syria to join in the battle against ISIS.
Obama did not tell Americans that the Syrian president won an election by garnering 80% of the vote in an internationally observed process much more democratic than anything in Lebanon, the Zionist Settler State or Turkey.
Obama did not tell Americans that Russia and Iran sternly oppose a violation of Syrian sovereignty without coordination with Damascus.
Obama did not tell Americans that Russia will go to war if the U.S. attacks Syria. (We wouldn’t want people to start hoarding cans of pork and beans in their bomb shelters.)
Obama did not tell Americans that he was an intellectually bankrupt American president conducting their affairs under the heel of his Zionist masters.
But, here’s what his speech writers did put in:
Assad has lost legitimacy and could not be a part of Obama’s scheme.
ISIS killed 2 American reporters. (We’re not so sure)
ISIS is evil incarnate.
ISIS kills Christians. He never mentioned his terrorists killing Christians in Syria!
No American boots in combat in Iraq or Syria. Only air power.
We might suffer some losses.
The U.S. got Assad to give up his CW arsenal. No mention of Syria’s BW. (tee hee hee)
I mean, what else did he say?; “God Save these United States of America?”
The post-speech analyses were virtually comic masterpieces. Not a one mentioned the Russian nuclear fleet off the coast of Tartous. Not a one mentioned the 2006 Syrian-Iranian Mutual Defense Treaty. Nobody wanted to talk about what happens if Syria shoots down offending American bombers. Not a one mentioned Syria’s own war against ISIS and Al-Qaeda – that the Syrian government was in the same trench. No Pat Buchanan. No Ron Paul. No Lord Rifkind. No George Galloway. Only talking heads repeating the same chorus of mumbo jumbo – all designed to deflect the most incisive questions. It was an exercise in pathological lying and deceit worthy of Cagliostro.
Obama is like the Emperor Macrinus, an outsider with negligible administrative skills. He also represents that time during the descent of the great Roman Empire when provincial personalities seem to exist only to watch the glories of the past wither away in a process that is disturbingly similar to what is happening today in the U.S. capital. Obama’s speech was disturbing for its lack of depth and quality. He should never have been elected president. He’s not the one to lead any war against ISIS. ZAF
Read more
Syrian media accused Arab governments Tuesday of giving Washington prior agreement for military action against jihadists, with one daily calling for Damascus to form an alternative alliance with Moscow and Tehran.
The commentary comes ahead of talks in Saudi Arabia on Thursday between Secretary of State John Kerry and US regional allies on joint action to tackle the threat posed by the Islamic State group in both Syria and Iraq.
“Washington, which used the false pretext of weapons of mass destruction to enter the region militarily in 2003 and draw new geopolitical lines… is returning today under a new false pretext, the fight against terrorism,” said the Al-Baath newspaper.
“The Arabs meanwhile, are absent from every decision and are playing secondary roles,” it added.
The Baath party daily was referring to the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 in which notoriously the alleged chemical and biological weapons that were used to justify the overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime were never found.
Kerry is set to meet foreign ministers from Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Turkey and the six Gulf Arab states in Saudi Arabia on Thursday.
The talks are part of US efforts to build a coalition to tackle ISIS, which has seized large tracts of territory in both Syria and Iraq, and carried out abuses including the decapitation of Syrians, Iraqis, Lebanese and two American journalists.
On Sunday, the Arab League pledged to take “necessary measures” to confront ISIS, and said it was ready for “international cooperation on all fronts.”
But Syria, and its ally Iran, will not be present at the talks in Saudi Arabia, and Damascus fears efforts to tackle ISIS will involve air strikes on its territory without its permission.
State-run newspaper Al-Thawra warned: “The United States is setting the stage to bring new wars to the region.
“Its local partners are ready to carry out its orders without even knowing the details of the American plan,” it added.
Government daily Tishrin questioned why Kerry and US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel were coming to the region “when the Arab League has already given its prior agreement for a new war in the region organized by the United States.”
A newspaper called for the formation of an alternative “Russian-Iranian-Syrian coalition” against the jihadists to that being put together by Washington.
“Western and regional governments are excluding the nations that really want to fight terrorism,” it said, charging that the US-led coalition included nations that “support terrorism financially, military and logistically.”
Damascus considers all rebel groups fighting to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad “terrorists” and has long accused the rebels’ supporters, particularly Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, of funding “terror.”
Similarly, critics opposed to US involvement in the conflict with ISIS have pointed out that Washington in partnership with its Gulf allies, including Saudi Arabia, played a role in the formation and expansion of extremist groups like ISIS by arming, financing and politically empowering armed opposition groups in Syria.
On Monday, a study by the London-based small-arms research organization Conflict Armament Research revealed that ISIS jihadists appear to be using US military issue arms and weapons supplied to the so-called moderate rebels in Syria by Saudi Arabia.
One of the roles of leading politicians and top officials of the state is to enlist public support for policies which serve the goals of the upper stratum of the population from whose ranks they sometimes come and whose interests they almost invariably promote. When these policies are at odds with the interests of the majority, as they often are, the mobilization of public consent is possible only through deception. The deception is carried out through prevarication, equivocation, and fear-mongering, crystallized into misleading narratives which the mass media can be reliably counted on to amplify. So it is that Western officials have ramped up a campaign of deception to provide a pretext for military intervention in Syria to combat ISIS but which may very well serve as a Trojan horse to escalate the war on the Syrian government.
The foundations of the campaign were laid in March, when US officials began warning that Islamists bent on launching strikes against Europe and the United States were massing in Syria. [1] The campaign kicked into high gear with ISIS’s territorial gains in Iraq and the organization’s beheading of US journalist James Foley. Now US officials say they are contemplating air strikes against ISIS targets in Syria.
To justify the possibility of an air-war in Syria, US officials employ nebulous language about safeguarding US “security interests,” but neglect to spell out what those interests are or how they’re threatened. US defense secretary Chuck Hagel calls ISIS an “imminent threat to every interest we have,” adding that ISIS “is beyond anything that we’ve seen.” [2] Hagel doesn’t say how ISIS is a threat to even one US interest, let alone all of them, while his elevation of ISIS to a threat “beyond anything that we’ve seen” is transparent fear-mongering. Clearly, ISIS’s brutality in Iraq, its beheading of Foley, and its ability to seize and control territory, have been no more shocking than what has transpired in Syria, where ISIS and its fellow Islamists have carried out equally bloody displays of depraved cruelty, while seizing and controlling sizeable swaths of Syrian territory, amply assisted by members of the US-led Friends of Syria.
Hagel also invokes 9/11, suggesting that ISIS “is more of a threat than al Qaeda was before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.” [3] Invoking 9/11 invites the conclusion that without airstrikes on Syria to eliminate ISIS, that an attack on the United States on an order greater than 9/11 is a serious possibility, if not inevitable. France’s foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, also points to 9/11 to buttress the case for airstrikes, noting that “The attacks in New York on Sept. 11, 2001, cost $1 million. Today, we estimate the Islamic State has several billions.” The obvious conclusion Fabius wants us to draw is that ISIS will launch thousands of 9/11s. [4] The implied conclusion, however, is no more credible than the implied conclusion that the United States is on the brink of vaporizing the planet because it now has a nuclear arsenal that is vastly greater than the tiny one it had when it atom-bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Capability does not necessarily equate to motivation or action. What’s more, the “FBI and Homeland Security Department say there are no specific or credible terror threats to the U.S. homeland from the Islamic State militant group.” [5]
General Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, offered his own contribution to the emerging campaign of fear-mongering. Dempsey observed that ISIS aspires to absorb “Israel, Jordan, Kuwait and Syria into its caliphate.” [6] This is manifestly beyond ISIS’s capabilities, and merits no serious discussion. Dempsey nevertheless adds that if ISIS “were to achieve that vision, it would fundamentally alter the face of the Middle East and create a security environment that would certainly threaten us in many ways.” [7] This is tantamount to saying “If Haiti had an arsenal of 200 thermonuclear weapons and an effective anti-ballistic missile defense system it would certainly threaten us in many ways.” What’s important here is the word “if.” If Barack Obama was a woman he would be the first female US president. IfISIS has the capability of absorbing a large part of the Middle East into a caliphate, it would be a threat to US control of the Middle East. But ISIS does not have this capability. Still, even if it did, it would not be a threat to US security, but to the security of Western oil industry profits.
For its part, The Wall Street Journal suggested that James Foley’s beheading was reason enough to warrant US airstrikes on Syria. [8] Yet beheadings, carried out by ISIS and other Islamists in Syria, and those carried out by US-ally Saudi Arabia against its own citizens, have hardly galvanized Washington to action. Washington’s Saudi ally “beheaded at least 19 convicted criminals since Aug. 4, nearly half of them for nonviolent offenses, including one for sorcery.” [9] These beheadings have been passed over by Western leaders in silence. They certainly haven’t been invoked as a reason to launch air strikes on the Saudi tyranny.
Also passed over in silence by the same Western states is the brutal, misogynist, medieval character of the anti-democratic Saudi regime, one of the principal “Friends of Syria.” In contrast, The New York Times reported that “The president and his top cabinet officials have all denounced the Islamic State as a medieval menace,” adding that US “Secretary of State John Kerry said the group should be destroyed.” [10] What the newspaper didn’t point out was that Saudi Arabia is just as much a “medieval menace” yet no US president or secretary of state would ever use this language to describe their ally, nor, more importantly, undertake a campaign to eliminate the medieval regime. This underscores the reality that Washington bears no animus toward medieval menaces—not when, as in the case of Syria, they operate against the government of a country targeted for regime change, not when they govern a source of immense petrochemical profits on terms favourable to Western oil companies, and not when, as in Afghanistan in the 1980s, they fight against a progressive, pro-Soviet government.
Washington’s campaign to mobilize public opinion for air strikes on Syria, then, has nothing whatever to do with eradicating medieval menaces. Nor has it anything to do with preventing the rise of a caliphate in the greater part of the Middle East, since ISIS hasn’t the capability to accomplish this aim. Even if it did, the rise of a caliphate is a matter for the people of the Middle East to decide, not Western powers. Lastly, until ISIS achieved startling territorial gains in Iraq, Washington was perfectly willing to allow, indeed, even to foster (what it now calls) “the cancer” of ISIS to “metastasize” throughout Syria. It expressed no apprehensions then about ISIS launching 9/11-style attacks on the United States, and did nothing to stop the flow of money to the anti-Assad group from supporters based in countries that make up its Friends of Syria (read Friends of US Imperialism) coalition. Warnings of an ISIS-engineered 9/11-style attack are, therefore, pure fear-mongering.
In light of the above, we ought to ask whether, once launched, a US air-war in Syria will expand its target list from ISIS to Syrian government forces? Is the campaign to mobilize public support for an air war against ISIS in Syria a Trojan horse to escalate the war on the Assad government, and on a broader level, against the interlocked Hezbollah-Syria-Iran resistance against US domination of Western Asia?
1. Eric Schmitt, “Qaeda militants seek Syria base, U.S. official say”, The New York Times, March 25, 2014.
2. Mark Mazzetti and Helene Cooper, “U.S. isn’t sure just how much to fear ISIS,” The New York Times, August 22, 2014.
3. Dion Nissenbaum, “U.S. considers attacks on ISIS in Syria”, The Wall Street Journal, August 22, 2014.
4. David Dauthier-Villars, “France calls for action to cut off ISIS money supply”, The Wall Street Journal, August 22, 2014.
5. Eileen Sullivan, “FBI: No credible threats to US from Islamic State,” The Associated Press, August 22, 2014.
6. Mazzetti and Cooper.
7. Mazzetti and Cooper.
8. Nissenbaum.
9. Rick Gladstone, “Saudi Arabia: Executions draw rebukes”, The New York Times, August 21, 2014.
Updated at 4:45 (GMT +3) Iraq’s National Alliance parliamentary bloc has chosen Haidar al-Abadi as its nominee for prime minister in place of incumbent Maliki, sources in parliament told AFP Monday.
“The National Alliance has named Haidar al-Abadi as its candidate for prime minister,” a lawmaker said. Several other sources in parliament confirmed the decision.
The man who could become Iraq’s next prime minister is the current first deputy speaker of parliament. He was born in Baghdad in 1952 and holds a PhD from the University of Manchester.
Iraq’s president then formally asked Haider al-Abadi, the coalition’s nominee for prime minister, to form a government, a spokesman said.
A senior US diplomat with responsibility for Iraq congratulated Haidar al-Abadi on being tasked by President Fuad Masum to form a new government as prime minister.
“The United States stands ready to fully support a new and inclusive Iraqi government,” added Brett McGurk, who is US deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs.
Maliki has threatened to take Masum to court for failing to nominate him to continue as prime minister. McGurk made it clear that Washington supports a change.
“We welcome the decision by Iraq’s President to charge the PM nominee of the largest parliamentary bloc to form a new cabinet,” McGurk said, in a tweet.
“We congratulate Dr Haidar al-Abadi on the nomination and urge him to form a new cabinet and national program as swiftly as possible.”
There has been a long-standing dispute as to which of Maliki’s own State of Law coalition and the broader National Alliance could constitutionally be considered the largest bloc.
Unity government
US Secretary of State John Kerry said on Monday the formation of an Iraqi government was critical for stability.
US President Barack Obama has urged Iraqi political leaders to bury their sectarian differences and form a more inclusive government that can unite Iraqis against ISIS militants.
The United States has carried out three consecutive days of air strikes over Iraq, stepping up assistance to Kurdish forces to counter the advance of Islamic militants in the north of the country.
Amid the violence, political pressure is mounting as special forces loyal to Maliki deployed in strategic areas of Baghdad on Sunday night after he delivered a tough speech indicating he would not cave in to pressure to drop a bid for a third term.
“The government formation process is critical in terms of sustaining stability and calm in Iraq, and our hope is that Mr Maliki will not stir those waters,” Kerry told reporters in Sydney ahead of annual Australia-United States Ministerial Consultations (AUSMIN).
“One thing all Iraqis need to know, that there will be little international support of any kind whatsoever for anything that deviates from the legitimate constitution process that is in place and being worked on now.”
At a separate briefing in Sydney, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said that the air strikes “have been very effective from all of the reports we’ve received on the ground.”
“We’re constantly assessing where we can continue to assist the Iraqi security forces and where as we build partnerships we will work with the Iraqi government,” Hagel said.
Kerry said it was up to Iraqis to decide who their prime minister was going to be, but added it was clear civilians were looking for change.
Maliki, who has been premier since 2006, has alienated some allies, including the United States, who blame him for failing to forge consensus and fuelling sectarian violence that is breaking Iraq apart.
A bloc comprising Iraq’s bigges parties is close to nominating a prime minister, the deputy speaker of parliament Haider al-Abadi said in a tweet on Monday, directly challenging Maliki.
“What we urge the people of Iraq to do is to be calm, there should be no use of force, no introduction of troops or militias in this moment of democracy for Iraq,” Kerry said.
The Yazidi refugees
Australia, along with France and Britain, has offered assistance to provide aid to thousands of Iraqi citizens trapped by Islamic militants in the northern Sinjar mountains. US officials said on Sunday they were exploring options to evacuate the group, made up of the Yazidi minority, following airdrops of food and water.
“We are coordinating a group of partners to assist in this effort,” Hagel told reporters, noting that Obama had spoken with French President Francois Hollande and British Prime Minister David Cameron, who had both offered assistance.
“This is a humanitarian issue of great consequence for all of the world and I think great powers understand they have responsibility in these areas,” Hagel said. “It’s well underway, those last details of planning and we’ll have more to announce.”
Asked whether the United States was prepared to allow the self-styled ISIS to remain in places it has already occupied or make an effort to push them out, Hagel said:
“President Obama has made it very clear, ISIS is a threat to the civilised world, certainly to the United States, to our interests, it is to Europe, it is to Australia,” Hagel said.
“As to how the United States is responding to that threat in Iraq, the president has also made it clear, we’re going to continue to support the Iraqi forces in every way we can.”
No surrenderو Iraq’s Maliki fights for political life.
Published Monday, August 11, 2014
Iraq’s highest court ruled on Monday that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s bloc is the biggest in parliament, meaning he could retain his position, state television reported.
The president, according to the constitution, must now ask Maliki, who has been serving in caretaker capacity since an inconclusive election in April, to form a new government in Iraq, which is facing a major challenge from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) insurgents and widespread sectarian bloodshed.
The decision by Iraq’s highest court is “very problematic”, said a senior Iraqi official.
“This will make the situation very, very complex,” said the official who asked not to be named due to sectarian sensitivities in Iraq.
Unity government
US Secretary of State John Kerry said on Monday the formation of an Iraqi government was critical for stability and urged Maliki not to stoke political tensions further.
US President Barack Obama has urged Iraqi political leaders to bury their sectarian differences and form a more inclusive government that can unite Iraqis against ISIS militants.
The United States has carried out three consecutive days of air strikes over Iraq, stepping up assistance to Kurdish forces to counter the advance of Islamic militants in the north of the country.
Amid the violence, political pressure is mounting as special forces loyal to Maliki deployed in strategic areas of Baghdad on Sunday night after he delivered a tough speech indicating he would not cave in to pressure to drop a bid for a third term.
“The government formation process is critical in terms of sustaining stability and calm in Iraq, and our hope is that Mr Maliki will not stir those waters,” Kerry told reporters in Sydney ahead of annual Australia-United States Ministerial Consultations (AUSMIN).
“One thing all Iraqis need to know, that there will be little international support of any kind whatsoever for anything that deviates from the legitimate constitution process that is in place and being worked on now.”
At a separate briefing in Sydney, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said that the air strikes “have been very effective from all of the reports we’ve received on the ground.”
“We’re constantly assessing where we can continue to assist the Iraqi security forces and where as we build partnerships we will work with the Iraqi government,” Hagel said.
Kerry said it was up to Iraqis to decide who their prime minister was going to be, but added it was clear civilians were looking for change.
Maliki, who has been premier since 2006, has alienated some allies, including the United States, who blame him for failing to forge consensus and fuelling sectarian violence that is breaking Iraq apart.
A bloc comprising Iraq’s bigges parties is close to nominating a prime minister, the deputy speaker of parliament Haider al-Abadi said in a tweet on Monday, directly challenging Maliki.
“What we urge the people of Iraq to do is to be calm, there should be no use of force, no introduction of troops or militias in this moment of democracy for Iraq,” Kerry said.
The Yazidi refugees
Australia, along with France and Britain, has offered assistance to provide aid to thousands of Iraqi citizens trapped by Islamic militants in the northern Sinjar mountains. US officials said on Sunday they were exploring options to evacuate the group, made up of the Yazidi minority, following airdrops of food and water.
“We are coordinating a group of partners to assist in this effort,” Hagel told reporters, noting that Obama had spoken with French President Francois Hollande and British Prime Minister David Cameron, who had both offered assistance.
“This is a humanitarian issue of great consequence for all of the world and I think great powers understand they have responsibility in these areas,” Hagel said. “It’s well underway, those last details of planning and we’ll have more to announce.”
Asked whether the United States was prepared to allow the self-styled ISIS to remain in places it has already occupied or make an effort to push them out, Hagel said:
“President Obama has made it very clear, ISIS is a threat to the civilised world, certainly to the United States, to our interests, it is to Europe, it is to Australia,” Hagel said.
“As to how the United States is responding to that threat in Iraq, the president has also made it clear, we’re going to continue to support the Iraqi forces in every way we can.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel Friday that world powers must deny Iran any possibility of “developing a nuclear weapon” as the search for a final deal between Iran and the world powers intensifies.
“I think that, while the talks with Iran are going on, there is one thing that must guide the international community and that is not to let the ayatollahs win,” Netanyahu’s office quoted him as saying at the beginning of their meeting in Jerusalem.
“We must not allow Iran, the foremost terrorist state of our time, to develop the ability to develop a nuclear weapon,” Netanyahu said.
Hagel said that Washington had the same goal.
“I want to assure you prime minister, and the people of Israel, of the United States’ continued commitment to assuring Iran does not get a nuclear weapon,” he said in video distributed by the US embassy.
“America will do what we must to live up to that commitment,” he added.
The Pentagon chief’s visit to the Zionist entity came as the United States and other major powers pressed talks with Iran on a long-term agreement to allay international concerns about its nuclear ambitions.
ran confirms its program is for peaceful ends only insisting that is its right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) while Israel, which is believed to be the sole nuclear power in the Middle East with more than 200 nuclear heads, is not a signatory for this treaty.
Since the collapse of the Geneva 2 talks, US President Obama has asked his Secretary of Defence, Chuck Hegel, to come up with “further options” on Syria. The results of Obama’s request are now becoming clearer. They include the establishment of a 25-mile-deep, no-fly zone along Syrian borders (probably based on the Patriot missile batteries stationed two years ago inside Turkey and manned by US troops); the deployment of unmanned drones for pinpoint strikes on targets farther into the Syrian interior; and the equipping of the US-supported, foreign mercenaries, linked to Al-Qaeda, with the latest anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons just in time for a spring offensive – and partly to upset plans for a Syrian presidential election in April 2014.
The talks collapsed because, from his very first speech there, US Secretary of State John Kerry called for the removal of Syrian President Assad before negotiations on a transitional government for Syria take place. Kerry went so far as to lie: he said he was just repeating the conclusions of the Geneva Communiqué of June 30, 2012 (from the Geneva Conference #1). Nothing could have been further from the truth. The Communiqué calls for negotiations without pre-conditions concerning a transitional government for Syria. In other words, President Assad, whom various studies have shown commands about 70% of support among Syrians, might very well stand for office and be part of a Syrian transitional government.
The political cover for the likely acts of aggression (mentioned above), orchestrated by the USA against the sovereign state of Syria, will be the latest form of “humanitarian interventionism”, known as Responsibility to Protect, or R2P. R2P is defined as a doctrine “which maintains that when sovereign states are unable or unwilling to fulfill their responsibility to protect their own populations from genocide and other mass atrocities, the international community has the responsibility to do so.” Even before R2P was formally adopted in 2005 by the United Nations World Summit, similar wording was used in 2004 to launch what was described as a “humanitarian” intervention by Canada, France, and the USA to overthrow the government of Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the first democratically-elected president of Haiti. Between 2004 and 2013, R2P, which some describe as the modern version of “the white man’s burden”, was invoked to justify western military interventions in Darfur (2006), Côte d’Ivoire (2011), Yemen (2011), Mali (2012, 2013), Central African Republic (2013, 2014), and Sudan and South Sudan (2011, 2013).
According to the Canadian governmental promoters of R2P, the most successful test of R2P took place at the United Nations in 2011 when the Security Council, under false pretenses, authorized a no-fly zone over Libya. The government of Libya was neither unwilling nor unable to protect its own population against attacks by the western-backed “rebels” based in Benghazi. It also didn’t challenge the no-fly zone. Yet, the air forces of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) quickly transformed the no-fly zone into a 226-day bombing campaign (with 26,500 air sorties) for regime change in Libya, the results of which were an estimated 50,000 deaths, the wholesale destruction of Libya’s military and civilian infrastructure, a pogrom by the “rebel” forces against black people in Libya, and the dismemberment of Libya into chaotic, warring, balkanized enclaves. In Syria, the pretext for the no-fly zone will likely be United Nations Security Council resolution 2139 (February 22, 2014). This resolution, among other points, condemns both the Syrian government and armed opposition for violations of international law in regards to the treatment of civilians and demands, among other things, “that all parties allow the delivery of humanitarian assistance, including medical assistance.”
March 15, 2014, marks the third anniversary of the covert war of aggression against Syria launched by western and regional powers through the so-called “Friends of Syria” Group. The result of three years of war against Syria is over 100,000 deaths (of which about half are accounted for among Syrian police and soldiers), over two million external Syrian refugees, and at least four million internally displaced persons. No figures are available for numbers of wounded or children psychologically traumatized. Nearly half of the Syrian civilian infrastructure has been destroyed, including hospitals, schools, power facilities, and housing. Due to the war and economic sanctions, nearly 70% of Syrians are now unemployed. With friends such as the “Friends of Syria” Group, the Syrian people don’t need enemies.
However, President Obama is impatient. His advisors had predicted in March 2011 that the government of Syria would fall within weeks. Instead, virtually every sector of Syrian society as well as minority & majority nationalities and religious communities within Syria have rallied to save the country from being balkanized into hostile statelets à la Libya, Iraq, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan. Russia, China, and Iran have remained firm allies.
But the US empire is on the warpath. Fresh from a disastrous regime-change operation, utilizing extreme right wing and fascist forces, against the elected government in Ukraine, and an on-going destabilization campaign against the elected government in Venezuela, Washington policy makers are demanding some results against the elected government in Syria.
It behooves the peace/anti-war movement to deny Washington a victory in Syria in the spring of 2014, just as we helped mobilize world public opinion against the U.S. threat of immediate war in August 2013. At that time, Obama failed to secure congressional approval for an attack on Syria. Public opinion polls in the USA were running overwhelmingly against an overt US military intervention. At that time as well, massive popular opposition prevented UK PM Cameron from getting parliamentary approval for war, something that hadn’t happened in Britain since 1784. And a number of European and Middle Eastern states also made it clear that they wouldn’t be part of a “coalition of the willing” to bomb Syria. Instead, Russian President Putin defused the situation by correctly referring the matter of Syria’s chemical weapons to international diplomacy for a peaceful solution.
What the peace movement needs to do now is to mobilize its base to contact elected officials and tell them, just as we did in August 2013, that the people of the world will not accept a ratcheting up of the war on Syria. Instead, what we demand now of our governments are the following:
) Quit the Friends of Syria Group now – end the illegal aggression against the sovereign state of Syria;
) Drop the economic sanctions against Syria – they are outside the mandate of the UN Security Council and are, therefore illegal and unjust;
) Re-establish full diplomatic relations with Syria – open the door for a political, not military, settlement of the Syrian crisis;
) Cease and desist from providing any direct financial, material, and political support to foreign mercenaries in Syria, whether linked formally to Al Qaeda or not;
) Stop the campaign of disinformation, demonization, and delegitimation against the government of Syria.
In short, the peace movement in every country needs to tell its own domestic political leaders to keep their HANDS OFF SYRIA!
Members of the UN Security Council raise their hands as they vote to approve a resolution, which condemns the use of chemical weapons in Syria and calls for their destruction, on September 27, 2013.
Notable is the reiterated inclusion of members of the present government. This provision scotches, at least legally speaking, the Western agenda of regime change through covert terrorism. It pours egg on the face of the likes of John Kerry, William Hague and Laurent Fabius who have been harping on about Assad standing down and “having no place on this earth.””
US President Barack Obama described the latest Security Council resolution on Syrian chemical weapons as “a huge victory for the world”. It certainly was a huge victory for diplomacy over war, to the relief of the world’s people.
But for Obama to seek credit in the passing of this resolution is contemptible. It was a defeat for warmongers led by the likes of Obama and his Secretary of State John Kerry, who were clamoring for unilateral missile strikes on Syria.
Also among those defeated are the American warmonger puppets of Britain and France, David Cameron and Francois Hollande. Nursing wounded egos are those other cheerleaders of American imperialism, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
Recall that only a few weeks ago, these protagonists and proxies were on the cusp of launching an all-out criminal war of aggression on the Syrian Arab Republic.
Some of these warmongers seem to still retain residual fantasies of a military attack. President Obama hasm since the signing of the UN Security Council resolution last Friday, warned that Syria’s government will “face consequences” if it does not comply with the disarmament of its chemical weapons stockpile.
The Israeli minister of military affairs Moshe Yaalon went even further, reportedly telling media “after dismantling Syria’s chemical weapons, the regime in Damascus must be changed”.
The truth is that the UN resolution successfully de-fangs the warmongers. They now sound like sore losers whose diminishing threats are impotent attempts at flexing muscle. In this regard, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has safely steered the American war machine off the road.
In the wording of the resolution, which is binding to all parties, there is no mention of the use of military force. Use of force was precisely what Washington and its puppets and cheerleaders were threatening. Now there is a legal framework in place where such threats have been excluded.
Admittedly, in the final provision of the resolution, number 21, it is stated “in the event of non-compliance with this resolution, including unauthorized transfer of chemical weapons, or any use of chemical weapons by anyone in the Syrian Arab Republic, [permits] to impose measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter”.
The ominous Chapter VII may, in theory, lead to military force. But that eventuality would require another unanimous resolution, which Russia and China will veto.
This is no guarantee that the warmongers will not persist at some stage in the future with their plans of aggression and regime change in Syria. After all there are countless laws and charters already in existence for many decades that prohibit illegal violence, but which have not deterred American, British, French or Israeli terrorism.
Nevertheless, Resolution 2118 on Syria is an important impediment to the illicit war agenda and raises the political price for parties that might try to embark on a belligerent path. This is in the crucial context of worldwide public opposition to the warpath. No less important is that the American and European public is trenchantly against any such bellicose adventurism by rogue leaders.
In that way, the resolution is not so much a framework that puts Syria’s chemical weapons under international control but rather it puts American lawlessness and recourse to unilateral aggression, or state terrorism, under international control.
There are more positive aspects. For a start, if we accept the assumption that the Syrian government did not use or has no intention of using chemical weapons and that it has signed up in good faith to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, then there will be no such contingency as “non-compliance”.
The Syrian government has therefore found a legal way to safely dispose of a dangerous liability in the form of its chemical munitions stockpile. Maintaining this arsenal imposes unnecessary financial costs on the Syrian government. In an analogous way to Iran’s argument that nuclear weapons are an obsolete instrument at this point in history, so too it can be said about chemical weapons. To get rid of them is thus a relief from a burden.
The beauty is that this seeming concession is actually a gain, while the West’s concession of disposing its war plans is obviously a double gain for Syria.
Furthermore, the resolution agreed to last Friday by Washington, London and Paris, does not attribute the blame for the chemical weapon incident near Damascus on 21 August to the government of President Bashar al-Assad. The significance of that is that it discards from the official discourse the erstwhile and spurious allegations from these Western powers that the Syrian government forces were the perpetrators. That is an important nullification on the record of the West’s propaganda line.
In addition, the resolution places explicit onus that “no party in Syria should use, develop, produce, acquire, stockpile, retain, or transfer chemical weapons”.
This means it is not just the Syrian government that might be faulted and sanctioned for non-compliance (which it won’t); the Western-backed militants are now under scrutiny. And not just the militants, but all those who support, sponsor and supply them.
The resolution is not a one-way street compelling the Syrian government to walk alone. It rightly allows for the focus to be put on the Western-backed mercenaries and their masters. Washington, London and Paris can be made to do some serious walking by the assiduous application of their own signed-up-to words.
There is a risk, of course, that the Western-sponsored militants will try another false flag with chemical weapons to pin on the Assad government.
But, again, this risk is minimized by the Syrian government putting its arsenal under verifiable jurisdiction. If anything, it should become more apparent who the real perpetrators of misusing chemicals are: the Western-backed Takfiri groups.
In that case, the UNSC resolution permits legal and political sanctions to be slapped on the Western governments or their regional proxies in Tel Aviv, Riyadh and Ankara.
As time goes by, the evidential case points more strongly and irrefutably to the Western-backed militants as having used these ghastly chemical weapons. Just this weekend, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov disclosed that Moscow has further evidence connecting the Western-sponsored militants in the deadly sarin attack on Khan al Assal in Aleppo on 19 March earlier this year with the atrocity on 21 August near Damascus.
Sooner or later the full truth will emerge; and in that event the Western governments will be gravely liable on the basis of the latest UNSC resolution.
Finally, another advantage from the latest resolution is that under provision 16, it “endorses fully the Geneva Communiqué of 30 June 2012 (Annex II), which sets out a number of key steps beginning with the establishment of a transitional governing body exercising full executive powers, which could include members of the present government and the opposition and other groups and shall be formed on the basis of mutual consent.”
Notable is the reiterated inclusion of members of the present government. This provision scotches, at least legally speaking, the Western agenda of regime change through covert terrorism. It pours egg on the face of the likes of John Kerry, William Hague and Laurent Fabius who have been harping on about Assad standing down and “having no place on this earth”.
To be sure, it would be foolish to complacently place all trust in a UN Security Council resolution. The warmongers have been de-fanged for now but they can grow back new teeth.
However, it should not be underestimated that the legal framework has been carved out through the diligent work of Russia, Syria and Iran to turn the table on the Western warmongers.
The ultimate weapons are knowledge and intelligence; and these warmongers, while they are sneaky, are fatally weakened by their own stupid contradictions and lies. Let’s hit them with everything.
“Hypocrisy, double standards, and “but nots” are the price of universalist pretensions. Democracy is promoted but not if it brings Islamic fundamentalists to power; nonproliferation is preached for Iran and Iraq but not for Israel….human rights are an issue for China but not with Saudi Arabia. Double standards in practice are the unavoidable price of universal standards of principle”.
–The Late Professor Samuel Huntington in his book: “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order”; p. 184.
“The US must carry out some act somewhere in the world which shows its’ determination to continue to be a world power.””
-Henry Kissinger, quoted in The Washington Post, April 1975
“Anyone who has proclaimed violence his method inexorably must choose lying as his principle”.
–Alexander Solzhenitsyn
President Obama, nothing is more honorable in the service of God and humanity, more credible, more courageous, and truly worthy of your integrity and innate inclination to bring peace and justice to mankind than to stand up for what is right in the face of those who seek war and declare that you are in unison with the wishes of the American people who elected you and who are strongly opposed to an attack on Syria, a nation that has already suffered greatly for two years from a deadly civil war. The world was silent when 100,000 Syrians have been killed, when 5 million refugees are desperate for food, water, and medicines, and a nation whose destruction is beyond belief. The U.S. is being used as a military tool to fulfill the agendas of Israel and the corrupt evil tyrants of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf who unlike the American people are pushing hard for a war.
[Update: Syria announced it’s accepting the Russian proposal of halting the manufacture of chemical weapons, placing them under international control for eventual disarmament. This gives Obama a way out and provides Israel with its ultimate goal of completely disarming Syria of such weapons. However Obama, taking credit for this proposal given his military threat, he will tell Congress and the American people tonight that he now needs Congressional authorization for war even more under the ruse that such a threat will ensure Syrian compliance with the proposal.
DON’T LET CONGRESS OFF THE HOOK, TELL THEM NO WAR ON SYRIA}
Before delving into the Syrian Crisis I’d like to provide some background for the conflicts that have riddled the Middle East since World War 1.
In all of the wars, conflicts, sectarian violence, and how Israel was founded, historical contex is hardly ever provided to western audiences to better understand the roots and causes of such issues. No historical context is more deliberately ignored than the founding of Israel in Palestine.
It all began during and after World War 1 when the imperial powers of England and France shaped and created a new Middle East after the defeat of the Ottoman Turks thereby creating inherent conflicts that continue this day. After World War 2, the United States became the sole imperial power in the Middle East safeguarding both Israel and Oil flow.
This short Video on World War 1 deals with the British and French betrayal of the Arabs and the creation of a new Middle East…
SYRIAN CRISIS: The basic framework for war is, as it was in Iraq: A Prelude to Iran.
Israel Orders It, America Bombs it, Saudi Arabia and the Gulfies Pay For It.
On August 20, 2012: President Obama issues his infamous “Red Line” on Syria using or moving its chemical Weapons.
On August 21, 2013: A Chemical Weapon Attack occurred in Syria.
On the first anniversary of Obama’s “Red Line” a Chemical Weapons is fired on innocent Syrian civilians.
Coincidence? There are never any coincidences while Israel runs U.S. Foreign Policy.
What the U.S. Government, Multi-National Corporations, and Israel are depending on when they launch wars for political or economic reasons is that the American people suffer from “Attention Deficit Disorder”,or A.D.D., that their disconnect from their government, their short attention span, and focus on self fulfillment, will allow them to continue their military interventions around the world with little or no opposition.
NOT THIS TIME. American are telling Obama and Congress – JUST SAY NO TO MORE WARS FOR ISRAEL.
“The time has come to stop beating our heads against stone walls under the illusion that we have been appointed policeman to the human race”.
–~Walter Lippmann
President Obama, Kerry, Hagel, and world leaders have stressed the fact that there is no “military solution” to Syria’s civil war, only a political one.
Yet somehow bombing Syria will induce Assad and our coalition allies of many disparate rebel groups including Al Qaeda, the Tailban, Jihadists, and other terrorist groups to negotiate peace. What Secretary Kerry failed to tell Congress is that Assad has agreed to a peace conference but our allies have refused.
According to a Reuters/psop Poll 60% of Americans oppose this war on Syria with only 9% supporting it. Several other polls have found similar results. The American people do not want to go to war again in the Middle East thus if Obama bombs Syria regardless of Congress voting No and against the will of the people – he committed an impeachable offense.
Regardless of what the White House, Kerry, Hagel, Congress members, media pundits, or anyone else, there are only two reasons for Obama to illegally attack Syria, a nation that has neither attacked nor threatened the U.S., in direct violation of the U.N. Charter and world wide opposition:
1. Israel demands it and AIPAC is twisting Congressional arms to get it.
2. To save Obama’s face and his credibility.
In fact Jewish Zionists are already pushing Obama and the Congress to take advantage of the Syria situation and approve a War Resolution on Iran. Here’s Alan Dershowitz clamoring for Iran war.in the Israeli paper, Haaretz, September 5, 2013
The U.S. President’s commitment to preventing Iran going nuclear means he must go to Congress now, before it crosses the red line, and not after, as is now the case with Syria and its use of chemical weapons.
Mr. President, only you have the power to stop this rushed madness to war with Syria that despite what you and Secretary Kerry have said has nothing to do with our “national security”. For decades Syria has secured its borders with Israel and although its had chemical weapons for decades it never used them and no one was worried about them, but now, we’re worried about them getting into the wrong hands. Sir, the wrong hands are already strongly present in Syria, and it is them, these wayward rebels that should worry you, not the Assad regime.
Unfortunately the political reality in Washington D.C. is that Israel has the most powerful and intimidating lobby, AIPAC, that no President or Congress has ever been able to muster the courage to say NO TO ISRAEL, not even once.
Thus Obama and Congress are obliged to weigh AIPAC’s power and push for war against the enormous opposition of the American people. Our politicians are more fearful for their careers from AIPAC’s retribution than from the nation that elects them.
Who they choose will have a great impact not only on this Administration and the 2014 Congressional election but on the 2016 Presidential election given that Hilary Clinton supports the AIPAC/Israel push for war against the wishes of the very population that will vote in 2016.
AIPAC announced that it will send 800 of its members to Congress to hound them for a War Resolution.
Many papers around the world raised the issue of AIPAC’s power including Israeli papers.
If AIPAC/Israel are defeated then future Presidents and Congress members will be freed from the enormous fear, intimidation, bribery, and blackmail AIPAC shackles them with forcing them to choose Israel’s interests above America’s national interest.
America, this is not the moment to be silent or disinterested, nothing less than a war, perhaps a wider war, is at stake and the lives of thousands of innocent men, women, and children are in the balance.
This historical moment can determine once and for all who’s the boss of the U.S. Government and who does it serve: AIPAC or AMERICA.
The Obama administration has reached high and wide to come up with a convincing rational reason to attack Syria based on conclusive evidence.
The characterization of the evidence against the Syrian regime has changed day by day, at time even in the same day. It’s been:
“Undeniable, and No Doubt” – which was softened to “highly confident” by the Intel agencies — then the evidence became “beyond a reasonable doubt” – then Denis McDonough, Obama’s Chief of Staff said that simply “Common Sense Test” alone points to Assad’s regime firing the chemical weapon — then he admitted the administration lacks “irrefutable, beyond a reasonable doubt evidence”
Making the rounds on TV news shows on September 8 Mr. McDonough said:
“This is not a court of law. And intelligence does not work that way …The common-sense test says he (Assad) is responsible for this. He should be held to account,”
Much has been said and written regarding the unconvincing, highly suspicious, flimsy, and twisted evidence. The best brief summary of the refutation of the Administration’s evidence can be found in this article titled:
“High-Level U.S. Intelligence Officers: Syrian Government Didn’t Launch Chemical Weapon”. Numerous Intelligence Officials Question Administration’s Claims. Washington Blog, September 7, 2013
White House Cherry Picked the Intel Evidence to support an Attack. PLEASE READ this vital article on the falsification of the Intel Agencies Report.
Once again another President “politicizes” the intelligence evidence to suit his goal for war as Bush and Blair did to justify an invasion of Iraq.
An important report by the Inter Press Service titled “Obama’s Case for Syria Didn’t Reflect Intel Consensus”,written by Gareth Porter, September 10, 2013, reveals the astonishing fact, much like with Iraq, that the White House “cherry picked” the evidence to support their political goal and issued the declassified document on the Intelligence evidence from the White House Press Office not from the Director of National Intelligence’s office. The document deliberately misrepresents the various opinions of the Intel Agencies by implying a consensus among them when there was none. Most significantly is that the Director of the National Intelligence Agency refused to sign it.
Many reports have addressed the fact that many in the military are opposed to the Syria strike as well.
Both Saddam Hussein and the Assad regime were U.S. partners in previous wars. Saddam Hussein, a CIA trained agent, fought Iran for eight years with the support and funding from the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Gulf States.
President George H. W. Bush lobbied the late President Assad, the father,to join the coalition efforts to attack Iraq, which he did.
What terrifies Americans is that attacking Syria maybe the start of a dangerous “mission creep”which could lead to troops on the ground and another long costly war.
Just as was the case with the Iraq War there is no clear objective or end game for such a war. What defines victory in attacking Syria?
There is an exaggerated underestimation of the timeline and cost of war—Secretary Hagel mentioned “tens of millions of dollars”, thus with each Tomahawk missile costing one million dollars we can only expect tens of missiles to hit Syria.
There is no plan for post-war consequences in Syria or for a wider war that may involve Iran, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Gulf nations interrupting oil flow, and increased attacks on U.S. civilian or military installations around the Arab and Muslim world.
Most dangerously is that given that this is an Israeli initiated war Israel would very much welcome another round with Hezbollah in Lebanon given Hezbollah’s strong showing in 2005 when Israel again unprovoked attacked Lebanon. Israel may manufacture a “trigger” attack from Southern Lebanon to launch such a war.
What role will Russia play is unknown and unpredictable is Syria is attacked?
To better understand the reasoning, emotions, and attitudes of the vast and growing animosity toward U.S. foreign policy , not the American people, in the Middle East and Muslim world please watch this Video. The underlying reason and root for such animosity is the U.S. Government’s surrender of its foreign policy to serve Israel’s interests even at the expense of America’s interests. Many Americans both in and out of Government for decades have have spoken against Israel’s hijacking of American foreign poicy as well as the intimidating shackling of U.S. government officials, especially in Congress, by AIPAC, a foreign lobby serving Israel. This video goes a long way to answer: “Why They Hate Us”.
What of American Credibility and Hypocrisy on Israel When it Comes to Use of Chemical Weapons?
“Do you rulers indeed speak justly? Do you judge people with equity? No, in your heart you devise injustice, and your hands mete out violence on the earth”.
–Bible Psalms: 58: 1 – 2
There must be no doubt that whoever launched the chemical attack on innocent Syrian civilians must be held to account. They must be prosecuted at the Hague and sentenced accordingly for this crime against hujmanity whether its Bashar Al Assad or the Rebels or whomever.
The problem the entire world has with the holding people or nations accountable for war crimes is the selective nature of accountability. Although the West beginning with Britain and France were the first to use Chemical Weapons in World War, followed by the U.S. and Israel these countries have never accounted for their crimes, they even refuse to acknowledge their actions, nor have they ever apologized.
Thus the conclusion is if you’re white or Jewish you’re not accountable but if a third world dictator does so, he and his nation must be punished and bombed.
This is the double standards and hypocrisy of the West as they are the current powers in the world.
Forgotten in this discussion is that the U.S. not only has used chemical weapons more often and in larger measure than all other nations combined, but it was the supplier of Chemical Weapons to Saddam Hussein which he used against Iran.
Also not discussed is that Britain itself sold chemical weapons to Syria ten months into the civil war.
Hypocritically the only users of chemical weapons in modern history have been the United States and Israel. In fact when Israel did use the chemical weapon White Phosphorous on innocent civilians in Gaza in 2008-2009 which a U.N. investigating team called “war crimes and crimes against humanity”, Obama vetoed even the presentation of the report to the U.N. Security Council. When asked to comment on onslaught of Israel on Gaza all he said was “no comment”.
So give us a break Mr. President about credibility and the violation of the International Norms. No one has been more defiant of every single UN Resolution or International Law to the point of even slapping you, Biden, and Kerry silly like Israel.
The u.s. using the chemical weapon White Phosphorous on civilians in Iraq in 2004, a war crime. Where’s the “Accountability”?
Israel bombing a School in Gaza killing many children in 2008-2009 with White Phosphorous, a banned chemical weapon for use on civilians. Where’s the “Accountability” for this War Crime?
The White Western World and Israel are exempt from any “Accountabiity” when they violate
International Laws banning the use of Chemical Weapons. Laws and Accountabiity are ONLY meant for the poorer weaker nations of the Third World.
Guess who sold and gave Chemical Weapons to the Third World? The West and Israel.
What of the long history of the use of chemical weapons by the U.S.?
From 1962-1971 the U.S. sprayed over 20 Million gallons of the chemical warfare Agent Orange (Dioxin: a known Genotoxic, i.e. toxic to genes) ) over South Vietnam to defoliate the country and deprive the Viet Cong from food. The Pentagon called it, “Operation Ranch Hand.” It is estimated to have killed over 400,000 people with 500,000 children suffering from birth defects among many other ailments such as cancer, miscarriages, blindness, and mental retardation,
Please watch this very brief Video made by the BBC on British Surgeons operating on deformed children of Agent Orange in Vietnam.
The photo below is of U.S. Planes spraying AGENT ORANGE in South Vietnam. The U.S. carlessly and callously destroyed a nation by using every conceivable weapon, including Napalm, to indiscriminate carry out a scorched earth policy in both North and South Vietnam. Despite all that Superpower the U..S achieved nothing, ran away, and all of Vietnam was united under Communist Rule. What will, according to Kerry, an “unbelievably small” attack on Syria. What will the U.S. gain, what will it lose, and what blowback will she receive? Americans don’t see the lethal genocide of mass civilians and devastated nations the U.S. leaves behind after it’s lying propaganda to bomb, bomb, bomb. The U.S. Jewish owned media is just as guilty and complicit as the people who order and carry out the bombings.
U.S. Planes spraying the chemical weapon AGENT ORANGE in South Vietnam with catastrophic genetic and cancerous impact on the “Vietnam’s Children of Agent Orange”. Where’s the ‘Accountability” for this War Crime?
As Theodore Roosevelt wrote to a friend in the year 1897; “In strict confidence . . . I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one.”
Tragically there is an enormous disconnect in the psyche of the American people between their accepted image of the U.S. as a benign, benevolent, generous nation that only seeks to help people around the world to be free and prosperous as they are and the Reality of a belligerent, violent nation that has committed every conceivable crime and has aided and abetted the state terrorism of Israel.
Syrian Children killed by a Chemical Weapon. U.S. Wants to Punish Syria for Violating International “Norms”. Syria must be held ACCOUNTABLE.
In 1982 Israel’s military under Sharon’s command allowed a Lebanese Christian militia to enter two Palestinian Refugee camps, Sabra and Chatila, under its control to kill close to 2000 Palestinian men, women, and children. The U.S had promised to protect the refugees. Israel got away with murder with no ACCOUNTABILITY.
Are the American people aware that the U.S. has since World War II been involved in overthrowing governments of some 60 sovereign nations which were democratically elected replacing them with subservient dictators? Egypt anyone.
The U.S. government has and still does support dictators around the world, some of the most genocidal murderers in history from South and Central America to Vietnam. In the Middle East all the rulers are dictators and all are U.S. puppets, except Iran and Syria, and that’s the problem. They refuse to kneel to the Israeli American hegemony in the region.
Here is a list of the countries bombed by the United States since the end of the Second World War:
Afghanistan 1998, 2001-
Bosnia 1994, 1995
Cambodia 1969-70
China 1945-46, 1950-53
Congo 1964
Cuba 1959-1961
El Salvador 1980s
Korea 1950-53
Guatemala 1954, 1960, 1967-69
Note that these countries represent roughly one-third of the people on earth.
Thus the U.S. should be the last nation to give advice on democracy and freedom, to berate and bomb nations for not upholding International Treaties and Law, and exalt itself as the judge of standards of conduct for the rest of humanity. The U.S. and Israel give themselves the rights we deny other nations.
We can kill children with chemical weapons or any weapon we wish but you may not or else.
Does anyone ever think what the Middle East would be like if there was NO Israel? What would be the relationship between the U.S. , the Arab and Muslim world?
America, Heal Thyself and Stop Invading and Bombing nations with lies and Propaganda.
![ayatollahkhamenei[1]](https://rehmat1.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ayatollahkhamenei1.jpg)
Having taken all this from his partner, Putin retrieved the Crimea and Russia’s Black Sea naval base at Sebastopol. When pro-Russia Ukrainians rose against the beneficiaries of the coup in Kiev, he backed his team, as we backed ours.
![doublespeak[1]](https://rehmat1.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/doublespeak1.jpg)
UPROOTED PALESTINIANS: SALAM ALQUDS ALAYKUM 