حرب فضربة فعمليّة

طبّلت وزمّرت وسائل الإعلام الخليجية لمشروع حرب يشنها الرئيس الأميركي المنتهية ولايته دونالد ترامب وتقلب معادلات المنطقة، انطلاقاً من خبر قيام ترامب بإقالة وزير دفاعه مايك إسبر. وخلال أيام وبعد تعيين وزير جديد كتبت الصحف الأميركية عبر تسريبات ترامب نفسه أنه كان يفكر بضرب المفاعل النووي الإيراني في نطنز، لكنه صرف النظر عن الفكرة بعد تلقيه تحذيرات من مستشاريه بخطورة فتح حرب كبرى في المنطقة.

في الخبر نفسه أن وزير خارجية ترامب مايك بومبيو كان الوحيد في فريقه المؤيّد للعمل العسكري في المدة المتبقية من ولاية ترامب ووجاءت جولة بومبيو الخارجية تعبيراً عن سعيه لتسويق مشروعه وربط الخطوات السياسيّة في المنطقة بنتائج هذا المشروع.

في باريس كان واضحاً أن بومبيو سعى لتجميد ولادة الحكومة اللبنانية الجديدة تحت شعار أن متغيرات كبرى مقبلة وستقلب الوقائع في المنطقة ومنها لبنان ولاستبعاد أي فرضية تربط كلام بومبيو بفرضية عمل عسكري أميركي أصدرت وزارة الدفاع الأميركية بياناتها عن تنفيذ قرار انسحاب متدرّج من المنطقة بتوجيهات ترامب.

لم يكن كافياً تقلّص الحرب الى ضربة فتقلص المرجع أيضاً من ترامب الى بومبيو الذي حط رحاله في كيان الاحتلال وقام بجولات استفزازية وصلت الى الجولان تعبيراً عن الوقوف الأعمى مع الكيان في كل خطواته العدوانية وفي طليعتها ضم الجولان، لكن يبدو أن زيارة الجولان كانت تعبيراً رمزياً عن أبوة بومبيو لتقلص جديد حيث الضربة صارت عملية تنفذها قوات الاحتلال على تخوم الجولان المحتل وتمنحها وسائل الإعلام الخليجية تغطية استثنائية بصفتها تغييراً نوعياً لقواعد الاشتباك وإصابة استراتيجية لمحور المقاومة.

الشهداء عندما يسقطون مهما كانت رتبهم ومهما كان عددهم هم إصابات موجعة، لكن التغيير الاستراتيجي شيء آخر.

بلغ الهزال في حالة المشروع الأميركي حدّ أن يكون الردّ على قرار الانسحاب الجزئي صواريخ على السفارة الأميركيّة وأن يكون سقف المقدور عليه أميركياً وإسرائيلياً هو تكرار لما سبق وتمّ اختباره من عمليات توجع بسقوط الشهداء، لكنها لا تغير معادلات باتت فوق طاقة الأميركي والإسرئيلي والمطبع الخليجي معهم ولا تعوّض عجز الفقاعات الإعلاميّة ولا النقل المباشر للقنوات الخليجية وخروج بعض المعلقين المدفوعي الأجر ليكرروا عبارة تحول استراتيجي.

مقالات متعلقة

What if Trump did it? ماذا لو فعلها ترامب؟

What if Trump did it?

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Untitled-399.png

Nasser Qandil

– The hasty dismissal of U.S. Defense Secretary Mike Esper for an administration that is the rest of its days, and the accompanying analyses, comments and positions warning of the danger of U.S. President Donald Trump embarking on a military adventure, were appropriate to questions about the hypothesis that Trump may order targeting of Iranian nuclear facilities. More than one team of iran’s enemies and resistance forces are engaged in these questions, not only asking questions, but expressing wishes and hopes and starting a promotion campaign consistent with their need for condolences in their loss of Trump’s position in the White House and their fear of elected President Joe Biden’s initiative to re-establish nuclear understanding with Iran. The second team represented the iranian interest and the resistance and its supporters concern about turning the table in the face of everyone, especially that the Israeli encouragement and incitement to american military action targeting Iran has not stopped since Trump announced to withdraw from the nuclear understanding with Iran.
As for the third team, its area expands, from Biden’s auxiliary team to American media institutions, to European political and media institutions, to Russian and Chinese concerns stemming from realizing the potential recklessness in the Trump administration on the one hand, and the risks involved in any military adventure at this time and its implications for all political equations On the other hand, on the military, security and political stability in the world.

– Because politics is the art of matching the goals and capabilities, as an attempt to bridge the time gap in between, the debate begins from the starting points and ends with capabilities, and because the search is not ideological or systematic, but governed by circumstance, considering that such an option was excluded before the election moment and its embarrassment, despite the ideological considerations of Trump and his team. The research here is an examination of the extent to which the thinking of a military adventure is an entry point to change the path that has been associated with the announcement of the results of the presidential election, and because the war occurs when one of its teams falls into a miscalculation of the potential, overestimating its potential or mitigating and underestimating the potential of its opponent, the discussion of potential means the awareness of the Trump administration and its understanding of the balance of power that reflects the potential.

– A potential military adventure should consider three conditions that must be met, the first is an internal American condition, whether at the level of public opinion, Congress or the military, and the second is a political condition related to reading the supposed results of this adventure, and here are also questions about the kind of change that this adventure will achieve from the fundamental issue of the outcome of the election and the fate of the U.S. presidency, And the view towards him and his eligibility to lead America, and through it a presumed leadership at the global level, in light of the great divisions caused by his previous steps and made him lose a lot of confidence in this capacity, The third is a circumstantial condition, any development in the Iranian position and in the Iranian nuclear file, and Iranian military activity is a starting point for explaining and justifying a qualitative shift of this magnitude in the context of confrontation. The file is dead locked..

– In examining the equation of potential, and how the Trump administration looks at it specifically, there are facts prior to the history of the chances of escalation and the hypotheses of confrontation, including the downing of the giant U.S. spy plane and how the Trump administration dealt with it, its rapid failure to avoid confrontation, and the post-targeting model of Aramco’s facilities in Saudi Arabia and the trump administration’s avoidance of escalation, The iranian side has been clear in its threat of a response targeting the Israeli depth, especially the Dimona reactor, in the event of any American response to the response that targeted the American Ain al-Asad base in Iraq, in addition to targeting American bases and fleets in the Gulf. Here, some ask the opposite question, can Iran and the resistance forces invest Trump’s supposed adventure to force changes in the regional military map, so that the elected President faces facts contrary to what Trump wanted him to see.

ماذا لو فعلها ترامب؟

ناصر قنديل

شكلت الإقالة المستعجلة لوزير الدفاع الأميركي مايك إسبر، بالنسبة لإدارة تعدّ الباقي من أيامها، وما رافقها من تحليلات وتعليقات ومواقف تحذّر من خطورة إقدام الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب على مغامرة عسكريّة، مناسبة لتساؤلات تطال فرضية قيام ترامب بإصدار الأوامر باستهداف المنشآت النوويّة الإيرانيّة. وتشارك في هذه التساؤلات أكثر من فريق، أعداء إيران وقوى المقاومة لم يكتفوا بطرح تساؤلات بل عبروا عن رغبات وتمنيات وبدأوا حملة ترويج تنسجم مع حاجتهم لتعزية في خسارتهم لموقع ترامب في البيت الأبيض وخشيتهم من مبادرة الرئيس المنتخب جو بايدن لإعادة العمل بالتفاهم النووي مع إيران. الفريق الثاني تمثل بالاهتمام الإيراني ولدى فريق المقاومة ومناصريها من موقع القلق من خطوة تقلب الطاولة بوجه الجميع، خصوصاً أن التشجيع والتحريض الإسرائيليّ على عمل عسكري أميركي يستهدف إيران لم يتوقف منذ إعلان ترامب الانسحاب من التفاهم النووي مع إيران. أما الفريق الثالث فتتسع مساحته من الفريق المعاون لبايدن الى مؤسسات الإعلام الأميركي وصولاً إلى المؤسسات الأوروبية السياسية والإعلامية، وصولا لاهتمام روسي وصيني ينطلق من إدراك احتمالات التهور في إدارة ترامب من جهة، وحجم المخاطر المترتّبة على أية مغامرة عسكرية في هذا التوقيت وتداعياتها على كل المعادلات السياسية والعسكرية وعلى الاستقرار الأمني والسياسي في العالم من جهة مقابلة.

لأن السياسة هي فن المواءمة بين المنطلقات والإمكانات، كمحاولة لردم فجوة الوقت بينهما، فالنقاش يبدأ من المنطلقات وينتهي بالإمكانات، ولأن البحث بالمنطلقات ليس عقائدياً ولا منهجياً بل محكوم بالظرفية، باعتبار مثل هذا الخيار كان مستبعداً قبل حلول اللحظة الانتخابيّة وحراجتها، رغم وجود الاعتبارات العقائدية لدى ترامب وفريق عمله. والبحث في المنطلقات هنا هو بحث بمدى تشكيل التفكير بمغامرة عسكريّة مدخلاً لتغيير المسار الذي ارتبط بالإعلان عن نتائج الانتخابات الرئاسية، ولأن الحرب تقع عندما يقع أحد فريقيها بسوء تقدير للإمكانات، مبالغة بتقدير إمكاناته أو تخفيفاً وتهويناً في تقدير إمكانات خصمه، فإن نقاش الإمكانات يقصد به وعي إدارة ترامب وفهمها لتوازن القوى الذي يعكس الإمكانات.

في المنطلقات يشكل الحديث عن فرضيّة مغامرة عسكريّة مصدراً للبحث في ثلاثة شروط يجب توافرها، الأول هو شرط أميركي داخلي سواء على مستوى الرأي العام أو الكونغرس أو المؤسسة العسكرية، والثاني هو شرط سياسي يرتبط بقراءة النتائج المفترضة لهذه المغامرة، وهنا أيضاً أسئلة عن نوع التغيير الذي سينجم عن هذه المغامرة على القضية الأساس وهي نتيجة الانتخابات ومصير الرئاسة الأميركية، وعن حجم التأثير على الاعتراف بشرعيّة الرئيس ترامب داخلياً وخارجياً، والنظرة نحوه ونحو أهليّته لقيادة قوة بحجم أميركا ومن خلالها قيادة مفترضة على المستوى العالمي في ظل انقسامات كبرى أحدثتها خطواته السابقة وأفقدته الكثير من الثقة بهذه الأهليّة، والثالث هو شرط ظرفيّ، أي تطور في الموقف الإيراني وفي الملف النووي الإيراني، والنشاط العسكريّ الإيراني يشكل نقطة انطلاق لتفسير وتبرير نقلة نوعية بهذا الحجم في سياق المواجهة، والشرط الظرفيّ ليس فبركات يمكن تلفيقها تدّعي الإدارة علمها به بمقدار ما يحتاج نسبة عالية من الشرعيّة تبدأ من الوكالة الدولية للطاقة الذرية كمعنيّ أول بالملف النووي الإيراني، يعلن عن وصول متابعة الوكالة لهذا الملف الى طريق مسدود.

في دراسة معادلة الإمكانات، وكيفية نظرة إدارة ترامب لها بالتحديد، ثمة وقائع سابقة لتاريخ فرص التصعيد وفرضيات المواجهة، وفيها إسقاط طائرة التجسس الأميركيّة العملاقة وكيفيّة تعامل إدارة ترامب معها، وانكفاؤها السريع تجنباً للمواجهة، ونموذج ما بعد عملية استهداف منشآت آرامكو في السعودية وتفادي إدارة ترامب مخاطر التصعيد، أما استحضار نموذج اغتيال الجنرال قاسم سليماني فيحضر قبالته خطر ردّ أشد هذه المرة، خصوصاً أن الجانب الإيراني كان واضحاً في تهديده من ردّ يستهدف العمق الإسرائيلي وخصوصاً مفاعل ديمونا، في حال أيّ ردّ أميركي على الردّ الذي استهدف قاعدة عين الأسد الأميركيّة في العراق، بالإضافة الى استهداف القواعد والأساطيل الأميركية في الخليج. وهنا يطرح البعض سؤالاً معاكساً، هل يمكن أن تستثمر إيران وقوى المقاومة مغامرة ترامب المفترضة لفرض تغييرات في الخريطة العسكريّة الإقليميّة، بحيث يواجه الرئيس الأميركي المنتخب وقائع معاكسة لما كان يرغب ترامب له أن يراه.

فيديوات مرتبطة

مقالات متعلقة

The Hill: Trump Mulling Firing Top Officials at the Pentagon, FBI, CIA

The Hill: Trump Mulling Firing Top Officials at the Pentagon, FBI, CIA

By Staff, Agencies

US President Donald Trump is considering firing War Secretary Esper, CIA director Gina Haspel and others, including FBI Director Christopher Wray, The Hill has reported, citing sources said to be familiar with the situation.

One source told the outlet that despite recent Pentagon statements to the contrary, Esper could be forced out as soon as this week. A second source noted however that nothing has been set in stone so far.

An aide to members of the House Armed Services Committee confirmed that the panel had not been told about “any imminent personnel changes within Pentagon leadership” to date, with the Pentagon pointing media inquiries to earlier comments by Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman that Secretary Esper had “no plans to resign,” nor had he been asked to resign.

Esper and Trump suffered a falling out in recent months, including over Trump’s opposition to the stripping of Confederate leaders’ names from US military bases, and the Pentagon chief’s resistance to deploying the military to crack down on anti-racism and police justice protests overwhelming multiple major US cities this summer.

Speculation is also rife that CIA chief Haspel and FBI Director Christopher Wray may be forced out, The Hill says, citing what it says is frustration in the White House over a lack of support amid recent political developments, including the lack of a formal FBI probe into Hunter Biden’s alleged illegal business dealings in Ukraine, and the agency’s refusal to sack officials responsible for the Russiagate investigation against Trump.

Trump picked Esper for the post of Secretary of Defence in mid-2019, with Esper succeeding General Jim Mattis, who resigned over disagreements with Trump on Syria policy and other issues. Trump picked Haspel for the post of CIA director in May 2018 after its previous chief, Mike Pompeo, was tapped to replace Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State.  Wray succeeded James Comey as FBI director in August 2017.

المجمع العسكري ـ الصناعي الأميركي ورسائل ترامب تجاه البنتاغون

معن بشور

في معرض الردّ على تصريحات منسوبة إليه يهاجم فيها الجنود الأميركيين فتح الرئيس الأميركي النار على قادة البنتاغون قائلاً: ربما يكون كبار المسؤولين في البنتاغون لا يحبونني لأنهم لا يريدون فعل شيء سوى خوض الحروب، ولذا فإنّ كلّ تلك الشركات الرائعة التي تصنع القنابل والطائرات وكلّ شيء آخر ستكون سعيدة.”

وجاءت هذه الإشارة السلبية من ترامب تجاه البنتاغون في سياق عملية تجاذب منذ ان هدّد ترامب باستخدام قانون التمرّد للاستعانة بقوات إنفاذ القانون خلال الاحتجاجات التي أعقبت وفاة المواطن من أصول أفريقية جورج فلويد على يد أحد ضباط الشرطة في جريمة وحشية ما زالت تداعياتها مستمرة حتى اليوم.

يومها أعرب الجنرال مايك بيلي رئيس هيئة الأركان المشتركة عن أسفه لانه سار مع ترامب في ساحة لافييت.

ويعتبر هذا السجال المتصاعد بين الرئيس الأميركي وكبار جنرالاته الذين عيّنهم بنفسه، كما عيّن أيضاً وزير الدفاع مارك اسبر (الذي كان مسؤولاً تنفيذياً ومقاول دفاع في شركة “رايثيون” التي تعدّ من أكبر الشركات المتخصصة في أنظمة الدفاع) تعبيراً جديداً عن عمق الأزمة البنيوية التي يعيشها النظام الأميركي، كما كان يردّد دائماً أخي وصديقي الدكتور زياد حافظ منذ عشرين عاماً، والتي يبدو أنها على ملامح انفجار كبير مع الانتخابات الرئاسية الأميركية في اوائل نوفمبر/ تشرين الثاني المقبل حيث يعلن الطرفان الجمهوري والديمقراطي رفضهما منذ الآن لنتائج الانتخابات اذا لم تأت لصالحه الى درجة انّ أحد كبار المسورلين في الحزب الديمقراطي قد أشار الى دعوة القوات المسلحة الأميركية الى إخراج ترامب من البيت الأبيض في حال رفضه الاعتراف بهزيمته.

لكن هذا السجال المستجدّ بين البيت الابيض والبنتاغون، المضاف الى سلسلة سجالات تملأ الساحة السياسية والشعبية والاقتصادية والاجتماعية الأميركية، يذكر بمقولة ردّدها الجنرال دوايت ايزنهاور رئيس الولايات المتحدة بين عام 1952 -1960، عشية مغادرته البيت الابيض محذراَ من مخاطر “المجمع العسكري الصناعي على الدولة الأميركية وسعيه لانتهاج سياسات حربية تؤمّن لشركات السلاح موارد لا تنضب، فيما تؤمّن هذه الشركات وظائف مجزية لكبار الجنرالات بعد مغادرتهم الخدمة العسكرية.

اليوم يأتي ترامب، وهو رئيس “جمهوري” أيضاً، كما ايزنهاور، ليشير الى هذه العلاقة بين كبار الجنرالات وكبار المقاولين في تعبير عن غضبه من عدم تجاوب البنتاغون مع خططه بإعاد انتشار القوات العسكرية الأميركية خارج الولايات المتحدة (وهو مطلب يرتاح اليه المواطن الأميركي)، كما لعدم تجاوبه مع رغبته بتطبيق قانون التمرّد الذي يضع بنظر أميركيين كثر، أكثريتهم من البيض، حداً للفوضى الأمنية التي تعيشها المدن والبلدات الأميركية منذ أشهر.

لا شك انّ هذه التحوّلات تستحقّ دراسة معمّقة على أكثر من صعيد، ولكن لا بدّ من دراستها على مستوى تداعياتها على حجم النفوذ الأميركي خارج الولايات المتحدة، وخصوصاً في بلادنا، حيث ما زال الكثير من الحكام والمحللين أسرى تحليل قديم يرى بأنّ “واشنطن قدر”، وأنّ سياستها تمتلك من القوة ما لا يسمح لأحد بمواجهتها.

انّ اشارة ترامب الى العلاقة بين كبار الجنرالات وكبار المقاولين، مجدّداً تحذيرات سلفه في الرئاسة والحزب الجمهوري، دوايت ايزنهاور، من تغوّل “المجمع’ الصناعي العسكري، الذي لا يستبعد بعض المحللين دوره في جريمة اغتيال الرئيس الديمقراطي جون فيتزجرالد كنيدي عام ١٩٦٣، وشقيقه روبرت عام ١٩٦٦، ليصبح الأمر تماماً بقبضة “المجمع” الذي لم يتوقف عن شنّ الحروب على شعوب العالم، وبشكل خاص على الشعوب العربية والإسلامية…

انها قراءة من خارج السياق، ولكنها ضرورية لكي نفهم أكثر السياسة الأميركية في منطقتنا او بالأحرى اللاسياسة الأميركية التي لا تحركها إلا مصالح الكيان الصهيوني وأمنه…

انها قراءة ضرورية لكلّ من يضع كلّ أوراقه بالسلة الأميركية وهو التحليل الذي أدخل الأمة كلها منذ عام 1977(زيارة السادات للكنيست) في اتفاقات متعدّدة باسم “السلام” الذي لم ينجب سوى الحروب لهذه المنطقة…

الأمين العام السابق للمؤتمر القومي العربي

US War Secretary’s Imperial Vision

By Stephen Lendman

Source

Mark Esper is to the Trump region’s war department what Pompeo is at State.

Both figures are right-wing extremists supporting endless US wars of aggression on nonbelligerent states threatening no one.

On August 24 in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Esper said “(t)he Pentagon is prepared for China,” adding:

Xi Jinping intends “transforming the PLA into a world-class military, one that can further the party’s agenda far beyond China’s shores (sic).” 

“His remarks serve as a stark reminder that we have entered a new era of global competition between the free and open international order (sic) and an authoritarian system fostered by Beijing (sic).”

Unsaid by Esper is that China prioritizes fostering cooperative relations with other countries, hostility toward none — polar opposite US hegemonic aims, waging war on humanity at home and abroad.

Since Nixon began the process of normalizing Sino/US relations in February 1972, followed later by the Joint Communique on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations agreed to by Jimmy Carter and Deng Xiaoping that formally established bilateral relations on January 1, 1979, China never attacked another country.

Its geopolitical agenda is in stark contrast to endless US wars on invented enemies.

If all countries fostered relations with others as Beijing does, world peace, stability, and mutual cooperation among the world community of nations would break out all over.

China threatens no other countries. The US threatens the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nations it doesn’t control.

Trump, Pompeo, Esper, and vast majority of congressional members support endless US war on humanity.

Its hostile to peace agenda risks global war with nukes if its hardliners push things too far.

Esper falsely accused Beijing of pursuing “an economic and foreign policy agenda that is often inimical to the interests of the US and our allies” — a bald-faced Big Lie.

Xi’s plan for modernizing China’s military is with self-defense in mind — not naked aggression against invented enemies the way the US operates.

The rest of Esper’s op-ed included a further litany of Big Lies while concealing Washington’s hostile agenda.

Part of his aim is wanting trillions more dollars spent on US militarism and belligerence, including for a space force to wage future wars from the heavens.

Separately on a visit to Hawaii, Palau and Guam, Esper stressed the Indo-Pacific’s importance as “the main focus of America’s national strategy” for unchallenged global dominance.

Instead of cooperative outreach to regional countries for the mutual benefit of all, he called for Indo-Pacific leaders to ally with the US against China — falsely calling the country a regional threat, what applies to Washington, not Beijing.

Unacceptably hostile remarks by him, Pompeo, Trump, and likeminded congressional hardliners reflect how greatly Sino/US relations deteriorated with no prospect for improving things no matter which wing of the US war party runs things in Washington.

If Republicans or Dems push things too far, a Sino/US political and economic clash of civilizations could turn hot.

George Santanyana warned “(t)hose who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Two global wars taught America’s ruling class nothing — neither Kellogg-Briand’s renunciation of aggressive wars after WW I ended or the UN Charter’s preamble, saying:

“We the Peoples of the United Nations Determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind…”

Is another global war inevitable, the next one with super-weapons able to destroy planet earth and all its life forms if detonated in enough numbers?

What’s madness is possible by accident of design because of US rage to dominate other countries by whatever it takes to achieve its hegemonic aims.

«الشبر «الأميركي و»الذراع «الصينية في بحر كن فيكون…!

محمد صادق الحسيني

يهرب الأميركي المنهزم على أبواب عواصم المقاومة وتخوم بلاد العرب والعجم وأسوار أسود الشام وإيران بحثاً عن استعراضات هوليودية لا طائلة من ورائها…!

فها هو الرئيس الأميركي وبعض مسؤولي ادارته الكبار، مثل وزير الخارجية ووزير الحرب، يواصلون إطلاق التصريحات الاستفزازية والمثيرة لزعزعة الأمن والاستقرار الدوليين، لا لشيء او لسبب وجيه وإنما دعماً منهم لحملة رئيسهم الانتخابية المتعثرة، لأسباب عدة لا مجال للتطرق اليها في هذا المقام. وقد كان آخر هذه التصريحات الاستفزازية اللامسؤولة ذلك التصريح الذي صدر عن وزير الحرب الأميركي، مارك إسبر، قبل يومين والذي قال فيه انّ بلاده لن “تتنازل” عن شبر واحد في المحيط الهادئ، في رسالة موجهة لجمهورية الصين الشعبية، التي كانت تجري مناورات بحرية وجوية واسعة النطاق، وبالذخيرة الحية في المنطقة المذكورة.

ولكن الصين الشعبية قرّرت استخدام مقياس أكبر من مقياس وزير الدفاع الأميركي فقامت باستخدام قياس الذراع، وهو عبارة عن وحدة قياسية أكبر من الشبر وتزيد عنه بالثلثين (يُستعمل في بريطانيا باسم اليارد).

فبالإضافة إلى تصريحات وزارة الخارجية الصينية، الشديدة اللهجة، والتي رفضت فيها تصريحات الجنرال مارك إسبر، حيث قالت له: “انّ الجيش الشعبي الصيني لن يرقص على الموسيقى الأميركية”، نقول إنه بالإضافة الى هذه التصريحات قامت قيادة جيش التحرير الشعبي الصيني باتخاذ الإجراءات الميدانية الضرورية لإقران القول بالفعل، حيث نفذت العمليات التدريبية والقتالية التالية خلال الساعات الثماني والأربعين الماضية، في بحر الصين الجنوبي:

1 ـ إطلاق صاروخ سطح بحر، من طراز دونغ فينغ ، وهو الصاروخ الذي يطلق عليه اسم: قاتل حاملات الطائرات او غوام اكسبرس ( كناية عن القاعدة البحرية والجوية الأميركية الموجودة في جزيرة غوام غرب المحيط الهادئ، حسب ما يسمّيه العسكريون الأميركيون. وقد أطلق هذا الصاروخ، يوم ٢٦/٨/٢٠٢٠، من مقاطعة كينغهاي ، في شمال غرب الصين، باتجاه هدف بحري افتراضي معادٍ في المنطقة الواقعة بين مقاطعة هاينان في البر الصيني وجزر باراسيل في بحر الصين الجنوبي.

علماً أنّ أهمّ المواصفات العملياتية لهذا الصاروخ الخارق هي التالية:

يبلغ المدى العملياتي الفعال لهذا الصاروخ اربعة آلاف كيلومتر.
يبلغ وزن الرأس الحربي للصاروخ الف وثمانمائة كيلو غرام، الذي يمكن ان يكون رأساً تقليدياً او نووياً.
يعمل بالوقود الصلب ويمكن إطلاقه من قواعد ثابته او من على متن عربات عسكرية متنقلة، ويطير بسرعة فرط صوتية.
قيام جيش التحرير الشعبي الصيني بإطلاق صاروخ دفاع بحري ثاني بتاريخ 26/7/2020، من طراز ، الذي تم اطلاقه من مقاطعة تشي جيانغ، في شرق الصين، باتجاه هدف بحري في نفس المنطقة البحرية المذكورة أعلاه، وهي منطقة عمليات المناورات التي ينفذها الجيش الصيني هناك.
اما المواصفات العملياتية لهذا الصاروخ فهي التالية:

مدى هذا الصاروخ هو الف وسبعمائة كيلومتر.
يحمل رأساً متفجراً زنته ستمائة كيلوغرام.
يعمل بالوقود الصلب وسرعته عشرة اضعاف سرعة الصوت.
وقد أفاد أحد الخبراء العسكريين، المتخصصين في الشأن الصيني، في تعليق له على استخدام الصين لهذا النوع من الصواريخ في هذا التوقيت بالذات، افاد بالقول انه وبالاضافة الى تصريحات وزير الحرب الأميركي الاستفزازية، التي أطلقها وكأنّ بحر الصين الجنوبي جزء من المياه الإقليمية الأميركية، فإنّ جمهورية الصين الشعبية قد أرادت التأكيد على جديتها وإصرارها على الحفاظ على سيادتها البحرية، في بحار الصين، التي تتمتع بأهمية عالية جداً في مجال الملاحة البحرية المدنية والعسكرية للصين.

كما انّ قيام إحدى طائرات الاستطلاع الاستراتيجي الأميركية، من طراز سرعتها 765 كم في الساعة وتطير على ارتفاع 22000 متر، قيامها قبل يومين بمحاولة الدخول الى منطقة حظر الطيران ، التي أقامها الجيش الصيني، في منطقة التدريبات البحرية الجوية، التي تنفذها صنوف الاسلحة الصينية المعنية، وقيام مدمرة أميركية بمحاولة دخول منطقة عمليات سلاح البحرية الصينية يوم اول من امس، قد دفعت بالقيادة الصينية على اتخاذ إجراءات الردع الصاروخي هذه، وذلك بهدف تثبيت قواعد اشتباك دائمة في هذه المنطقة العامة والحساسة.

يذكر انّ مجلة “نيوزويك” الأميركية نشرت في عددها الصادر بتاريخ 29/1/2014، انّ السعودية قد اشترت عدداً غير محدّد من الصواريخ الصينية، طراز فنج دوغ 3 وهي الطراز المعدل للصاروخ الاقدم ، الذي اشترت منه السعودية عدداً مجهولاً سنة 1988.

وتابعت المجلة الأميركية قائلةً ان المخابرات المركزية الأميركية قد وافقت على الصفقة، التي عقدت سنة 2007 بين بكين والرياض، وذلك بعد تعديل أدخل على هذه الصواريخ يجعلها غير قادرة على حمل رؤوس نووية.

وقد دفعت وزارة الدفاع السعودية تكاليف “المساعدة اللوجستية” التي قدّمتها للحكومة السعودية، في إجراء تعديلات على صواريخ الصينية، بحيث لا تكون صالحة لتسليحها برؤوس نووية.

من كل ما تقدّم يتضح تماماً انّ هناك قواعد اشتباك جديدة، ترسم على صعيد الصراع الدولي بين القوى العظمى، خاصة اذا ما أضفنا الى التحركات الميدانية الصينية تلك الديبلوماسية، التي أطلقتها المتحدثة باسم الخارجية الروسية يوم 25/8/2020، رداً على التهديدات الأميركية بنشر صواريخ باليستية قصيرة ومتوسطة المدى في آسيا “لمواجهة العدوان الصيني الروسي” كما ورد على لسان وزير الخارجية الأميركي. تلك التصريحات التي أطلقتها زاخاروفا، وعلى الرغم من كونها مغلفة بغلاف مخملي سميك، إلا انّ لها قعقعة لا تقلّ عن قعقعة صواريخ المارشال غريتشكو، وزير الدفاع السوفياتي السابق، الذي كان يسمّيه الناتو الوزير الذي يقعقع بالصواريخ، حيث قالت: “انّ ظهور مخاطر صاروخية اضافية تهدّد الأراضي الروسية سيسفر عنه ردّ فعل فوري من جانبنا”.

وفي هذا رسالة شديدة الوضوح لمن يعنيه الأمر، في الولايات المتحدة والناتو، تقول: سندمّر قواعد الصواريخ هذه في حال تمّ نصبها. وما إرسال قوات خاصة روسية الى روسيا البيضاء، لمساعدة جيشها وقواتها الأمنية على التصدي لعمليات التخريب الأميركي الأوروبي هناك، ورغم أنها ليست قوة عسكرية كبيرة إلا أنّ لها دلائل تصل الى بروكسل (مقر قيادة الناتو) بكلّ تأكيد، بل انها تعبر الأطلسي، بكلّ سهولة، كي تستقرّ على مكتب وزير الحرب الأميركي، الذي يعرف تماماً ما الذي تعنيه هذه الرسالة، وهو الذي يدير ما يزيد على ألف قاعدة عسكرية أميركيه خارج حدود الولايات المتحدة ويعرف حجم الاخطار التي تتهددها، في حال اتخاذ خطوات صاروخية أميركية تهدّد روسيا، التي لن تتوانى لحظة واحدة، في اعطاء الضوء الأخضر لأصدقائها في العالم للقيام بما يلزم لردع العدوان الأميركي.

يمكن التأكيد في الختام بأنّ المواجهة الجارية في أقصى الشرق تأتي في سياق منظومة خطوات ديبلوماسية وسياسية وعسكرية ممنهجة ومدروسة بدقة ويتمّ تنسيقها، بكلّ تفاصيلها، بين كلّ من جمهورية الصين الشعبية وروسيا وإيران وسورية وحزب الله، على الرغم من عدم الإعلان عن ذلك بشكل استعراضي.

هناك استراتيجية ثابتة وأهدافاً واقعية وقابلة للتحقيق لن تتنازل عنها القوى المذكورة أعلاه، على الرغم مما قد يبدو للبعض من انه اهتزاز او تخلخل او تراجع في مواقف معينة تعني قضايا جزئية بعينها هنا أو هناك. انّ ما ترونه على هذا الشكل ليس سوى تطبيقاً عملياً لمبدأ الاستراتيجية الثابتة والتكتيك المرن والطويل الأمد، سواءً على الصعيد السياسي الديبلوماسي او العسكري. المبادئ ثابتة والتكتيكات تفرضها ظروف الميدان.

إذ انّ القدرة على التكيّف والتفاعل مع متغيّرات الميدان هي الأساس، في توفير ظروف النصر، لأنّ الجمود وعدم القدرة على الحركة المرنة يجعل من السهل على العدو توجيه الضربات القاتلة لك، بسبب عجزك عن المناورة ودمج عناصر المواجهة، من سياسية وديبلوماسية وعسكرية، للوصول الى هدفك الاستراتيجي:

النصر ضدّ الامبريالية الأميركية والاستكبار العالمي، وتحرير فلسطين كاملة من النهر الى البحر.

وهذا ما يسجله عالم التحوّلات الكبرى الذي تتسارع خطاه في إطار منظومة ثوابت كونية باتت واضحة للقاصي والداني مفادها أنّ مع يقف عكس اتجاه حركة التاريخ لا يمكن له كسر ارادة السنن الكونية..

السنن الحتمية التي هي في المقابل تستطيع ان تحوّله من دولة عظمى الى دولة فاشلة منهزمة بقدرة كن فيكون…!

بعدنا طيّبين قولوا الله…

EU SITREP: U.S. Defense Sec’y. Tells EU: “Deter Peace,” Confront Russia & China

EU SITREP: U.S. Defense Sec’y. Tells EU: “Deter Peace,” Confront Russia & China

August 10, 2020

by Eric Zuesse for The Saker Blog

U.S. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper told Europeans, in statements on July 29th and August 9th,

“I’ve said that very publicly, I’ve said that very privately to my counterparts as well, about the importance of NATO, any alliance, sharing the burden so that we can all deter Russia and avoid peace in Europe.’”

“We are moving many troops further east, closer to Russia’s border, to deter them.”

The U.S. Department of Defense’s website, when it issued the transcript of Esper’s statement “so that we can all deter Russia and avoid peace in Europe,” added in brackets, “[editor’s note. Secretary Esper intended to say ‘avoid conflict in Europe’]”; however, that does not appear to reflect Esper’s statement, for the following reasons:

1. The assertion “so that we can all deter Russia and avoid peace in Europe” was so inflammatory as to demand a ‘correction’ regardless of whether that statement was consistent with everything else that he has been saying, and it is consistent with everything else that he has been saying.

2. Esper’s 4,800-word speech on that occasion did not use the word “conflict” even once. It is not a word that he typically uses. By contrast, against that zero frequency for “conflict,” he used there “deter” 21 times. He used “peace” three times. Each of those was in a hostile context: First, “One of our primary missions is to prevent another great power war, and to maintain great power peace. The National Defense Strategy, the NDS, guides our efforts to adapt the force, and the EUCOM plan optimizes our force posture in Europe as we seek to deter malign actors there.” Second, “These efforts all increase our opportunity to generate greater peace in Europe and enhance the U.S.’s effectiveness in great power competition.” Third, “And I’ve said that very publicly, I’ve said that very privately to my counterparts as well, about the importance of NATO, any alliance, sharing the burden so that we can all deter Russia and avoid peace in Europe.”

He used the phrase “great power competition” five times: First, “Today, we want to update you on the status of our U.S. European Command review, which was accelerated with the president’s decision in early June to reduce our footprint in Germany, and our plans to reposition our forces in Europe to be better-situated for great power competition.” Second, “As we’ve entered a new era of great power competition, we are now at another one of those inflection points in NATO’s history.” Third, “One of our primary missions is to prevent another great power war, and to maintain great power peace.” (“Great power peace” did not mean “peace” in any broader sense but only that the U.S. does not want to become a battlefield in World War III — that’s for Europe, etc., not for the U.S., to serve as the war-fields; it would be like happened during WW II. This was a very careful usage of words.)  Fourth, “We focus on actions inside and outside our area of responsibility, and vigilance with respect to great power competition is an absolute imperative.” (That reaffirms Esper’s focus on “great power competition.” Europe’s nations are vassal-states. They are expendable. The way that Barack Obama said this was “The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation.” Every other nation is “dispensable.” How much clearer can it be? Furthermore: Esper explicitly asserts there that “We focus on actions inside and outside our area of responsibility,” which means that the U.S. military imposes its will “outside our area of responsibility” — anywhere in the world — meaning against any real or imagined “great power competitor,” which refers specifically to both Russia and China. Consequently, the U.S. regime demands that Europe get in line with the U.S. Government’s objective to defeat both Russia and China. He says that this is “an absolute imperative.”) Fifth, “These efforts all increase our opportunity to generate greater peace in Europe and enhance the U.S.’s effectiveness in great power competition.” (“Greater peace in Europe” implies that European nations are at war. It’s a lie. Esper has made clear that “great power competition” is the U.S. regime’s obsessive focus.)

The other assertion, that “We are moving many troops further east, closer to Russia’s border, to deter them,” is a clear affirmation of the U.S. regime’s lie to Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 when he was ending the Cold War on Russia’s side — ending its communism, ending its Warsaw Pact military alliance, ending the Soviet Union — and George Herbert Walker Bush deceived him into believing that NATO would not move “one inch to the east.” The sheer evilness of that man and of all subsequent U.S. Presidents, for their ceaseless efforts ultimately to conquer Russia, and now with Trump also to conquer China, is perhaps unsurpassed in human history, competing even with Adolf Hitler. It’s what happens when a country — in this instance the United States — gets taken over by its aristocracy, its billionaires.

Europe is to serve, along with the Middle East and elsewhere, as America’s battlefields to conquer Russia and China. That’s the plan.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

What kind of “popular revolution” is this?!

Source

THE SAKER • JUNE 16, 2020



Jamie Dimon and JP Morgan Chase


I have to say that I am amazed that so many folks on the Left seem to think that the current riots in the US are a spontaneous rebellion against police violence, systemic racism, and history of persecution and exploitation of Blacks and Indians, etc. As for the violence, looting and riots – they are either excused as a result of some kind of righteous wrath or blamed on “infiltrators”. In my previous article I tried to show how the Democrats and the US media tried to instrumentalize these riots and to use them against Trump’s bid for reelection. I accompanied the article with a carefully staged photo-op of US Democrats “taking a knee” in solidarity (as if the leaders of the Democratic Party gave a hoot about Blacks or poor US Americans!).
What I did not mention was how the US (and even trans-national) corporate world backed these riots to the hilt. Here are just a few examples of this:
YouTube:

Amazon, Bank of America & Sephora:

And it is not only in the USA. Check out what Adidas in Germany has been up to:

and finally, my personal super-favorite:
Jamie Dimon and the JP Morgan Chase Bank:

All those of us who thought that the corporate world was all about money, that the corporate “culture” had all the signs of severe psychopathy and that billionaires did not give a damn about the poor and the oppressed, but now we know better: we thought of them as evil 1%ers, and it turns out that there are kind, highly principled people, who care about injustice and freedom and who truly feel bad, very very bad, for all the injustices done to Blacks!
Do you really buy this?
I sure don’t!
These are not small mom-and-pop stores where ethics and kindness still exist. These are the very corporations who benefited most from all the inequalities, injustice, violence and imperial wars of aggression and it would be truly pollyannish to think that these corporations and their CEOs suddenly grew a conscience (the exact same applies to the leadership of the Democratic Party, of course!).
So let’s go back to the basics: corporations are about money, that is a truism. Yes, sometimes corporations try to present a “human face”, but this is nothing more than a marketing trick destined to create consumer loyalty. Now I don’t believe for one second that the mega-corporations listed above expect to make much money from supporting the riots, at least not in a direct way. Nor do I believe that these corporations are trying to impersonate a conscience because they fear a Black consumer boycott (what was true in Tuskegee in the late 1950s is not true today, if only because of the completely different scale of the protests).
So if not money – what is at stake here?
Power.
Specifically, the US deep state – at a major faction within that deep state – is clearly desperate to get rid of Trump (and not for the right reasons, of which there are plenty).

Another victory of the “coalition of minorities” and another defeat for Trump
Another victory of the “coalition of minorities” and another defeat for Trump
There are plenty of signs that illustrate that Trump is even losing control of the Executive, including Secretary Esper contradicting Trump on what is a key issue – restoring law and order – or the US Ambassador to South Korea voicing support for BLM (I consider that these actions by top officials against their own Commander in Chief border on treason). Needless to say, the pro-Dems neo-libs at Slate immediately began dreaming about, and calling for, a military revolt against Trump.
Last but not least, we now have a “free zone” in Seattle, the notorious Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, “CHAZ” aka “CHOP” where, among other “curiosities”, Whites are told to give 10 bucks to a Black person. This means that until law and order are restored to what is now the CHAZ, the United States has lost its sovereignty over a part of one of its cities. That is a “black eye” for any US President who, after all, is the leader of the Executive branch of government and the Commander in Chief of a military supposed (in theory only, of course) to defend the United States against all enemies.
What do all of these developments have in common?
They are designed to show that Trump has lost control of the country and that all good and decent people now stand united against him.
There are several major problems with this plan.
For one thing, this is all completely illegal. What began as a typical race riot is now openly turning into sedition.
The second major problem of this plan is that it relies on what I call a “coalition of minorities” to achieve its goal, it is therefore ignoring the will of the majority of the people. This can backfire, especially if the chaos and violence continue to spread.

Will he take orders from Pelosi?
Will he take orders from Pelosi?
Next, there is the “Golem/Frankenstein” issue: it is much easier to launch a wildfire than to contain or suppress it. Nancy Pelosi might be dumb enough to think that she and her gang can control the likes of Raz Simone, but history shows that when the state abdicates its monopoly on violence, anarchy ensues.
By the way, it is important to note here that Trump, at least so far, has not taken the bait and has not used federal forces to reimpose law and order in Seattle, Atlanta or elsewhere.
He must realize that liberating the so-called CHAZ might result in a bloodbath (there appear to be plenty of weapons inside the CHAZ) and that the Democrats are dreaming about blaming him for a bloodbath. Trump’s strategy, at least so far, appears to let the lawlessness continue and blame the Democrats for it.
While Trump’s strategy makes sense, it also is inherently very dangerous because if the state cannot reimpose law and order, then all sorts of “volunteers” might decide to give it a shot (literally). Check out this headline “Bikers For Trump Organizing to Retake Seattle On July 4th“. Whether these bikers will actually try to take over the CHAZ or not, even the fact that they are preparing to do so shows, yet again, that the state has lost its monopoly on violence.
Finally, this strategy to oust Trump by means of lawlessness and anarchy could greatly contribute to the breakup of the United States, if not de jure, then at least de facto. How?
For one thing, the United States is a big country, not only in terms of geographical size, but also in socio-economic and even cultural terms. Some US states have a large Black population, others much less. But they all mostly watch the same news media. Which means that when there are race riots in, say, Los Angeles or Baltimore, the people who live in states like Montana or the Dakotas feel that it is their country which is threatened. Coincidentally (or not?), these mostly White states happen to have a large part of their population as, Hillary’s famous “deplorables”. Some liberals call these states “flyover states”. It also happens that civilians in these states own a large number of firearms and know how to use them.
The same applies to different locations within any one state. Take California for example, which many view as being very liberal, progressive. Well, that might be true for many cities in California, but as soon as you enter rural California, the prevailing culture changes rather dramatically. The same urban vs rural dichotomy also exists in many other states, including Florida.
The risk here is the following one: some parts of the United States can collapse and become zones of total lawlessness while others will “circle the wagons” and take whatever measures are needed to protect themselves and their way of life.
This does not mean that the US, as a country, will break-up into several successor states. That could only happen much further down the road, but it does mean that different areas of the country could start facing the crisis autonomously and even possibly in direct violation of US laws. When that happens, poverty and violence typically sharply rise. There are already reports of vigilantism in New Mexico(interestingly, in this case the authorities did send in the cops).
In his seminal article “Race and Crime in America” (an absolute MUST READfor any person wanting to understand what is taking place today!) Ron Unz makes a very interesting observation:
“The empirical fact is that presence or absence of large numbers of Hispanics or Asians in a given state seems to have virtually no impact upon white voting patterns. Meanwhile, there exists a strong relationship between the size of a state’s black population and the likelihood that local whites will favor the Republicans”.
In other words, the larger the Black minority, the more likely Whites will vote Republican. Of course, one can dismiss this by saying that these Whites are all racists, but that does not help either because it begs the question of why Whites do not become racists when living next to Hispanics and Asians, but do so when they live near Blacks. The explanation is in Ron’s article: “local urban crime rates in America seem to be almost entirely explained by the local racial distribution” (please see the charts in Ron’s article for the data supporting this conclusion).

This makes for a potentially very explosive mix, especially in a time when police officers now risk a reprimand, a demotion. being fired or even criminal charges for using “excessive force” against any Black suspect (yes, US cops often do use excessive force, but the solution here is not to paralyze the police forces, lest the civilians feel like they need to defend themselves.
As I have said it many times, I don’t believe that the term “race” has a scientific basis, nor do concepts such as “Black” or “White”. This does not mean that they don’t have a political meaning, especially in a country which is obsessed by race issues (yes, one can obsess about non-existing things). In the US most people self-identify with a color, thus to them this is something very real. For example, the figures used in Ron Unz’ article are based upon these concepts understood sociologically, not biologically, and this is the only reason why I use them too, though somewhat reluctantly, I will admit.
Conclusion: this is no popular revolution at all
It is undeniable that a major chuck of the US ruling classes have decided to support the BLM movement and the riots it instigates. Furthermore, these US ruling classes have instrumentalized these riots in a transparent attempt to prevent a Trump reelection in November. And just like the Republicans have been destroying the AngloZionist empire on the international scene, the Democrats have been destroying the United States from within. Far from being a real popular protest movement, the BLM movement is a tool in the hands of one faction of the US deep state against another faction. A lot of Trump nominees/appointees are now seeing the writing on the wall and are betraying their boss in order to switch sides and abandon what they see as a sinking ship.
My personal feeling is that Trump is too weak and too much of a coward to fight his political enemies (if he had any spine, it would have shown at the time when Trump betrayed Flynn only a month into his presidency). History, however, shows that a political vacuum cannot last very long. In Russia the chaos lasted from February to November 1917, at which point the Bolsheviks (who were a relatively small party) easily seized power and, following a bloody civil war, restored their version of law and order. I still don’t see a civil war taking place in the USA, but some kind of coup is, I think, a very real possibility. This is especially true considering that most Democrats will never accept a Trump reelection while most Republicans will never accept a Biden presidency. This is a case of “not my president” powerfully backfiring on its creators.
Those of us who live in the US better prepare for a very dangerous and difficult year!

Trump Shares Letter That Calls Peaceful Protesters “Terrorists”

Trump Shares Letter That Calls Peaceful Protesters “Terrorists”

By Staff, Agencies

US President Donald Trump on Thursday shared a letter on Twitter that referred to the peaceful protesters who were forcibly dispersed from a park near the White House on Monday evening as “terrorists.”

The letter from veteran attorney and former Trump lawyer John Dowd appears to be addressed to former Secretary of War James Mattis and rebuts Mattis’ Wednesday statement castigating Trump’s response to the nationwide protests after the death of George Floyd at the hands of a Minneapolis police officer.

“The phony protesters near Lafayette were not peaceful and are not real,” Dowd’s letter claimed, without citing any evidence. “They are terrorists using idle hate filled students to burn and destroy. They were abusing and disrespecting the police when the police were preparing the area for the 1900 curfew.”

Trump’s decision to share the letter and its shocking description of Americans exercising their constitutional rights comes as he continues to lean into his strongman approach to the ongoing demonstrations. On Monday, he declared himself “your President of law and order” as the peaceful protesters just outside the White House gates were dispersed with gas, flash bangs and rubber bullets, apparently so he could visit a nearby church.

He remained at the boarded-up building, brandishing a Bible for the cameras, for only a matter of minutes before returning to the White House.

The letter drew condemnation from the Modern Military Association of America, a nonprofit organization.

“Donald Trump just crossed a very serious line that demands swift and forceful condemnation by every Member of Congress,” said the group’s interim executive director, Air Force veteran Jennifer Dane. “Promoting a letter that labels American citizens peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights as ‘terrorists’ is an egregious breach of his oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Now more than ever, it is absolutely crucial that Trump be held accountable for his reckless actions.”

The episode followed nearly a week of protests across the country that at times have turned violent over the death of Floyd, a 46-year-old African American man who died while in police custody in Minneapolis.

In response to the President’s approach, Mattis released a statement Wednesday cautioning that the US “must reject any thinking of our cities as a ‘battlespace’ that our uniformed military is called upon to ‘dominate.’ “

“At home, we should use our military only when requested to do so, on very rare occasions, by state governors. Militarizing our response, as we witnessed in Washington, D.C., sets up a conflict – a false conflict – between the military and civilian society,” Mattis wrote.

The President has repeatedly defended his response to the protests and even tweeted later Thursday evening that he didn’t have a problem with the National Guard helicopter that was seen flying low over protesters in Washington on Monday night.

The District of Columbia National Guard is investigating the matter and an inquiry has also been requested by Secretary of War Mark Esper.

“The problem is not the very talented, low-flying helicopter pilots wanting to save our city, the problem is the arsonists, looters, criminals, and anarchists, wanting to destroy it [and our Country]!” Trump tweeted.

The helicopter had a “stated mission” in part to “deter” criminal activity including rioting and looting by keeping a presence overhead, according to a defense official who has direct knowledge of the orders the crew was given. The official declined to be identified because the Washington National Guard is now investigating whether flights were conducted appropriately.

The Lakota UH-72 was also supposed to also deter “unlawful assembly,” provide medical evacuation from the crowd if needed and provide surveillance to command and control for force protection, the official said.

The investigation, the official said, is focusing on how those orders resulted in the low-level flights, which sent debris flying and intimidated civilians, the official said.

Related

Why America’s revolution won’t be televised

Why America’s revolution won’t be televised

June 03, 2020

by Pepe Escobar – posted with permission

The so far purely emotional insurrection lacks political structure and a credible leader to articulate grievances

The Revolution Won’t Be Televised because this is not a revolution. At least not yet.

Burning and/or looting Target or Macy’s is a minor diversion. No one is aiming at the Pentagon (or even the shops at the Pentagon Mall). The FBI. The NY Federal Reserve. The Treasury Department. The CIA in Langley. Wall Street houses.

People raise their hands and shout slogans as they protest at the makeshift memorial in honour of George Floyd on Tuesday in Minneapolis. Photo: AFP / Chandan Khanna

The real looters – the ruling class – are comfortably surveying the show on their massive 4K Bravias, sipping single malt.

This is a class war much more than a race war and should be approached as such. Yet it was hijacked from the start to unfold as a mere color revolution.

US corporate media dropped their breathless Planet Lockdown coverage like a ton of – pre-arranged? – bricks to breathlessly cover en masse the new American “revolution.” Social distancing is not exactly conducive to a revolutionary spirit.

There’s no question the US is mired in a convoluted civil war in progress, as serious as what happened after the assassination of Dr Martin Luther King in Memphis in April 1968.

Yet massive cognitive dissonance is the norm across the full “strategy of tension” spectrum. Powerful factions pull no punches to control the narrative. No one is able to fully identify all the shadowplay intricacies and inconsistencies.

Hardcore agendas mingle: an attempt at color revolution/regime change (blowback is a bitch) interacts with the Boogaloo Bois – arguably tactical allies of Black Lives Matter – while white supremacist “accelerationists” attempt to provoke a race war.

To quote the Temptations: it’s a ball of confusion.

Antifa is criminalized but the Boogaloo Bois get a pass (here is how Antifa’s main conceptualizer defends his ideas). Yet another tribal war, yet another – now domestic – color revolution under the sign of divide and rule, pitting Antifa anti-fascists vs. fascist white supremacists.

Meanwhile, the policy infrastructure necessary for enacting martial law has evolved as a bipartisan project.

Protesters jump on a street sign near a burning barricade near the White House during a demonstration against the death of George Floyd on May 31, 2020 in Washington, DC. Photo: AFP

We are in the middle of the proverbial, total fog of war. Those defending the US Army crushing “insurrectionists” in the streets advocate at the same time a swift ending to the American empire.

Amidst so much sound and fury signifying perplexity and paralysis, we may be reaching a supreme moment of historical irony, where US homeland (in)security is being boomerang-hit not only by one of the key artifacts of its own Deep State making – a color revolution – but by combined elements of a perfect blowback trifecta:  Operation PhoenixOperation Jakarta; and Operation Gladio.

But the targets this time won’t be millions across the Global South. They will be American citizens.

Empire come home

Quite a few progressives contend this is a spontaneous mass uprising against police repression and system oppression – and that would necessarily lead to a revolution, like the February 1917 revolution in Russia sprouting out of the scarcity of bread in Petrograd.

So the protests against endemic police brutality would be a prelude to a Levitate the Pentagon remix – with the interregnum soon entailing a possible face-off with the US military in the streets.

But we got a problem. The insurrection, so far purely emotional, has yielded no political structure and no credible leader to articulate myriad, complex grievances. As it stands, it amounts to an inchoate insurrection, under the sign of impoverishment and perpetual debt.

Adding to the perplexity, Americans are now confronted with what it feels like to be in Vietnam, El Salvador, the Pakistani tribal areas or Sadr City in Baghdad.

Iraq came to Washington DC in full regalia, with Pentagon Blackhawks doing “show of force” passes over protestors, the tried and tested dispersal technique applied in countless counter-insurgency ops across the Global South.

And then, the Elvis moment: General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, patrolling the streets of DC. The Raytheon lobbyist now heading the Pentagon, Mark Esper, called it “dominating the battlespace.”

Well, after they got their butts kicked in Afghanistan and Iraq, and indirectly in Syria, full spectrum dominance must dominate somewhere. So why not back home?

Troops gather during a demonstration on June 1, 2020 in Washington, DC. Photo: Joshua Roberts/Getty Images/AFP

Troops from the 82nd Airborne Division, the 10th Mountain Division and the 1st Infantry Division – who lost wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and, yes, Somalia – have been deployed to Andrews Airbase near Washington.

Super-hawk Tom Cotton even called, in a tweet, for the 82nd Airborne to do “whatever it takes to restore order. No quarter for insurrectionists, anarchists, rioters and looters.” These are certainly more amenable targets than the Russian, Chinese and Iranian militaries.

Milley’s performance reminds me of John McCain walking around in Baghdad in 2007, macho man-style, no helmet, to prove everything  was OK. Of course: he had a small army weaponized to the teeth watching his back.

And complementing the racism angle, it’s never enough to remember that both a white president and a black president signed off on drone attacks on wedding parties in the Pakistani tribal areas.

Esper spelled it out: an occupying army may soon be “dominating the battlespace” in the nation’s capital, and possibly elsewhere. What next? A Coalition Provisional Authority?

Compared to similar ops across the Global South, this will not only prevent regime change but also produce the desired effect for the ruling oligarchy: a neo-fascist turning of the screws. Proving once again that when you don’t have a Martin Luther King or a Malcolm X to fight the power, then power crushes you whatever you do.

Inverted Totalitarianism

The late, great political theorist Sheldon Wolin had already nailed it in a book first published in 2008: this is all about Inverted Totalitarianism.

Wolin showed how “the cruder forms of control – from militarized police to wholesale surveillance, as well as police serving as judge, jury and executioner, now a reality for the underclass – will become a reality for all of us should we begin to resist the continued funneling of power and wealth upward.

“We are tolerated as citizens only as long as we participate in the illusion of a participatory democracy. The moment we rebel and refuse to take part in the illusion, the face of inverted totalitarianism will look like the face of past systems of totalitarianism,” he wrote.

Sinclair Lewis (who did not say that, “when fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in the flag and waving the cross”) actually wrote, in It Can’t Happen Here (1935), that American fascists would be those “who disowned the word ‘fascism’ and preached enslavement to capitalism under the style of constitutional and traditional native American liberty.”

So American fascism, when it happens, will walk and talk American.

George Floyd was the spark. In a Freudian twist, the return of the repressed came out swinging, laying bare multiple wounds: how the US political economy shattered the working classes; failed miserably on Covid-19; failed to provide affordable healthcare; profits a plutocracy; and thrives on a racialized labor market, a militarized police, multi-trillion-dollar imperial wars and serial bailouts of the too big to fail.

Instinctively at least, although in an inchoate manner, millions of Americans clearly see how, since Reaganism, the whole game is about an oligarchy/plutocracy weaponizing white supremacism for political power goals, with the extra bonus of a steady, massive, upwards transfer of wealth.

US President Donald Trump walks back to the White House escorted by the Secret Service after appearing outside of St John’s Episcopal church across Lafayette Park in Washington, DC, June 1, 2020. Photo: AFP/ Brendan Smialowski

Slightly before the first, peaceful Minneapolis protests, I argued that the realpolitik perspectives post-lockdown were grim, privileging both restored neoliberalism – already in effect – and hybrid neofascism.

President Trump’s by now iconic Bible photo op in front of St John’s church – including a citizen tear-gassing preview – took it to a whole new level. Trump wanted to send a carefully choreographed signal to his evangelical base. Mission accomplished.

But arguably the most important (invisible) signal was the fourth man in one of the photos.

Giorgio Agamben has already proved beyond reasonable doubt that the state of siege is now totally normalized in the West. Attorney General William Barr now is aiming to institutionalize it in the US: he’s the man with the leeway to go all out for a permanent state of emergency, a Patriot Act on steroids, complete with “show of force” Blackhawk support.

Amid the Worse Public Crisis in Decades, Trump Admin Finds the Time and Money to Bomb Iraq

By Alan Macleod

Source

Amid a spreading COVID-19 pandemic, the United States government is continuing to ramp up aggression against Iran in lieu of responding to the true threat of disease. Earlier today, the U.S. military launched a number of strikes against five separate targets in Iraq, all of which it alleges are “pro-Iranian” groups. At least six deaths reported. Washington has described the move as retaliation for previous attacks on Western forces. “The United States will not tolerate attacks against our people, our interests, or our allies,” Defence Secretary Mark Esper said. “As we have demonstrated in recent months, we will take any action necessary to protect our forces in Iraq and the region.” The Iraqi government, which has formally requested the United States leave the country, condemned the action.

Iran is reeling from the coronavirus, with over 11,000 confirmed cases and 514 deaths – the most of any country outside of China and Italy. A host of government officials and 23 members of the Iranian parliament have been diagnosed. Yet the U.S. is using their misfortune to further punish and destroy the Islamic Republic.

Iran is suffering from huge shortages of medical supplies, including crucial virus detection kits, precisely because other sovereign nations refuse to sell them to Tehran, fearing reprisals from the Trump administration. Eventually, the World Health Organization was forced to step in and begin sending them directly. Iranian-American blogger Hoda Katebi revealed that her aunt, a doctor in Iran, is even forced to share facemasks with other hospital staff, highlighting the intense shortages the country faces. Because of the sanctions, it is a crime to donate money to Iranian organizations fighting the virus.

In January, MintPress reported that Silicon Valley tech firms had joined the Trump administration’s all-out war against Tehran. The Iranian government recently released an app intended to inform citizens and medical workers about the virus and protect the population from infection. Google, however, following United States law about aiding “terrorist” organizations, duly removed it, noting, “developer accounts from Iran are not allowed on Google Play.”

In January, Trump ordered the assassination of top Iranian general and statesman Qassem Soleimani while he was in Baghdad for peace talks. The U.S. has sent around 2,500 troops to Saudi Arabia and many thousands more to other nations in the region as the buildup of military might continues. Over the vehement protestations of locals, it has also begun to construct three new bases in Iraq, all very close to the Iranian border.

Anti-war group Code Pink are demanding that all sanctions be lifted, writing to the Treasury Department:

Health, hygiene, and access to medical care are fundamental human rights, regardless of race, religion and nationality. For the sake of the health and well-being of 80 million Iranians and their neighbors, we demand that you immediately lift all sanctions on Iran pertaining to healthcare products, medicine, medical laboratory kits, and equipment. In addition, we call on you to lift all the sanctions on Iran, ending the campaign of maximum pressure that is crippling the Iranian economy.

Meanwhile, Minnesota congresswoman Ilhan Omar introduced legislation attempting to rein in aggressive American foreign policy towards Iran.

Ilhan Omar

@IlhanMN

As hundreds of public schools close, *22 million* children who count on their schools for free or reduced-price meals don’t know when they’ll eat next.

I introduced the to make sure no child goes without food. History will judge us if we don’t pass it immediately. https://twitter.com/EdDiveK12/status/1237806493526822912 

Education Dive: K12@EdDiveK12

House members are introducing today 3 proposals for meal assistance for schools closed or transitioned to remote learning due to the ongoing #coronavirus outbreak. An aide says the proposals are expected to pass the full House. http://ow.ly/LuGf50yJhva 

While the government has found plenty of money to carry out wars around the globe (the Trump administration increased the military budget to $934 billion), when it comes to policies protecting public health, money is always apparently lacking. At the Democratic debates, moderators have asked candidates 21 questions about how to pay for social programs, but zero about paying for war.

Omar herself is a vocal proponent of emergency legislation to protect the United States from the worst economic and societal decline the coronavirus threatens to bring. On Wednesday, she introduced a provision of a bill that would introduce free virus testing for all Americans, two weeks’ emergency paid sick leave for all, increased funding for Medicaid and guarantee food for poor children during the crisis. “As the country responds to coronavirus, we cannot forget that many Americans could face hardship as a result of some of our preventative measures,” she said. “Twenty-two million children rely on federal subsidized meals. For many kids, it is the only meal they get each day. It is our responsibility to ensure that kids continue to get the meals they need.”

The deep inequalities in American society are harming the country’s ability to respond to the coronavirus effectively. Without universal healthcare, sick Americans face bills of up to $3,500 simply for being tested, while others face financial ruin or homelessness if they miss work self-quarantining. New York City announced it would only close its schools as a “last resort” on the basis that tens of thousands of homeless children have literally nowhere else to go. “History will judge us if we don’t pass [the legislation] immediately,” Omar added.

Although there is a seemingly bottomless pit of money to fund wars abroad or to bail out the rich (yesterday the Federal Reserve injected $1.5 trillion into the stock market, leading to a 15-minute surge), the government moves at a glacier-like pace when it comes to provisions that would help ordinary citizens. President Trump only recently agreed to make coronavirus testing free. Still, only 8,000 Americans have been tested in total, compared to nearly 20,000 per day in South Korea. The arrival of a worldwide pandemic puts into stark contrast what Washington’s priorities really are.

واشنطن تتهرّب من المواجهة


ناصر قنديل

– عندما بدأت الحشود الأميركية في الخليج صرّح كل قادة أميركا من الرئيس دونالد ترامب إلى وزير الخارجية مايك بومبيو ووزير الدفاع مارك إسبر وقائد الأركان الجنرال بيكيت ماكينزي وقادة المنطقة، أن هذه القوات موجودة لحماية مصالح واشنطن وحلفائها، وأن إيران ستتحمّل مسؤولية أي استهداف لهذه المصالح ولهؤلاء الحلفاء حتى لو جاء ممن تسمّيهم واشنطن بوكلاء إيران في المنطقة. وبعد فترة وجيزة بالأيام لا بالأسابيع تعرّضت المصالح النفطية في الخليج للاستهداف، وتوّجت بإعلان من أنصار الله عن المسؤولية عن استهداف خط نقل النفط بين الدمّام وينبع بطائرات مسيّرة وتدمير محطات الضخّ فيه. فأعلنت واشنطن انها لن ترد إلا إذا استهدفت قواتها، وتخلّت بسرعة عن حلفائها الخليجيين ومصالحهم وأمنهم، وقال الرئيس الأميركي وردّد قوله مراراً في فترات لاحقة، إننا نبيع السلاح لحكومات الخليج لتدافع عن نفسها لا لندافع عنها. وعندما أسقطت طائرة التجسس الأميركية العملاقة بصاروخ إيراني مباشر، قال الرئيس الأميركي إنه طالما لم يسقط قتلى فإن تفادي الحرب يتقدّم على الانتقام والرد.

– مع إقدام واشنطن على اغتيال قائد فيلق القدس الجنرال قاسم سليماني ورئيس أركان الحشد الشعبي العراقي أبي مهدي المهندس، ظنّ كثيرون أن قواعد الاشتباك قد تغيرت، وأن القرار الأميركي قد انتقل من تلقي الضربات إلى توجيهها. وعندما جاء الرد الإيراني باستهداف قاعدة عين الأسد وتدمير منشآتها، امتنعت واشنطن عن الرد رغم أنها هددت بأنها ستستهدف عدداً حدده الرئيس الأميركي بـ 22 هدفاً بينها أهداف ثقافية، وفيما قال الإيرانيون إن سبب عدم الرد هو المعادلة التي تبلغها الأميركي بأن أي رد على أهداف إيرانية سيعني تعريض تل أبيب لضربة إيرانية قاسية تهدّد بإزالتها عن الخريطة، بينما عاد الأميركيون إلى نغمة عدم وقوع قتلى، رغم اعترافهم بعشرات المصابين بالارتجاج الدماغي لاحقاً.

– استهداف قاعدة أميركية في العراق وسقوط قتلى أميركيين باعتراف رسمي هو الأول من نوعه الذي يحرج القيادة الأميركية بتكذيب معادلاتها للردّ. وقد سبق القول بعد قصف قاعدة عين الأسد أن أي استهداف للقوات الأميركية في العراق من حلفاء إيران سيرتب رداً أميركياً على إيران نفسها. وكانت المواقف الأميركية التي ستعقبه موضع تتبع واهتمام لمعرفة القرار الاستراتيجي الأميركي في المنطقة، فإيران المنهمكة بمتابعة فيروس كورونا بنظر أميركا شديدة الضعف، ويفترض أنها تمثل هدفاً نموذجياً للنيل منها الآن، وإلا لا فرصة لاحقة. وكان واضحاً أن الرد الأميركي على مواقع الحشد الشعبي في منطقة البوكمال هو ردّ موضعي تقليدي، وأن الرد الذي يترجم القرار السياسي الكبير سيأتي لاحقاً، حتى خرج الموقف الأميركي الرسمي يتحدث عن تحليل الجهة التي قامت بالعملية، وعن عدم وجود تغيير بتقدير واشنطن لدرجة وجود خطر إيراني على أمن القوات الأميركية. ويبدو أن الأميركيين لم يتردّدوا باستعمال الباب الموارب الذي تُرك لهم للخروج من خيار المواجهة، بعدم إعلان جهة مسؤوليتها عن العملية.

– عملية التاجي رسمت معادلات وقواعد الاشتباك في العراق، وهذا سيعني رسم مسار الانطفاء الأميركي، لأن قرار عدم المواجهة، سيعني التحضير للانسحاب، لأن الذين قاموا بالعملية لن يعتبروها الأخيرة، بل البداية إلا إذا وصلت الرسائل الأميركية الواضحة: لا تطلقوا النار نحن منسحبون !

مقالات متعلقة

U.S. LAUNCHES STRIKES ON KATA’IB HEZBOLLAH IN RESPONSE TO CAMP TAJI ATTACK

The U.S. Department of Defense announced early on March 13 that it had carried out “defensive precision strikes” against Kata’ib Hezbollah (KH) in Iraq.
In an official statement, the DoD said the “defensive strikes” were carried out in direct response to the threat posed by Iranian-backed Shiite militia groups, holding these group responsible for recent attacks on its bases in Iraq.
The U.S. strikes targeted five weapons storage facilities of KH. The DoD claimed that the facilities contained weapons used to target U.S. and coalition troops in Iraq.
“The United States will not tolerate attacks against our people, our interests, or our allies,” Secretary of Defense Dr. Mark T. Esper said. “As we have demonstrated in recent months, we will take any action necessary to protect our forces in Iraq and the region.”
Iraq’s Security Media Cell said a “U.S. aggression” targeted position of the Popular Mobilization Units (PMU), the Iraqi military’s Emergency Regiments and 19th Division in the areas of Jurf Sakhar, Musayib, Alexandria and Najaf.
Airstrikes were also reported near the eastern Syrian city of al-Bukamal on the border with Iraq. A wave of airstrikes targeted Iranian forces’ positions there a day earlier.
Some Iraqi sources claimed that British warplanes took part in the attack. However, this is yet to be confirmed by the UK.
Initial reports indicate that some of the U.S. strikes resulted in causalities. Several sources are talking about at least one civilian casualty in a strikes on an airport near Karbala city. These reports are yet to be verified.
The strikes were meant as response to the March 11 rocket attack on Camp Taji in central Iraq. The attack claimed the lives of three U.S.-led coalition service members, two Americans and a British.
Earlier today, KH released a statement praising the attack on Camp Taji without claiming responsibility for it. The group called on the perpetrators to reveal themselves, promising to support and protect them.
If the reports of human losses are true, the situation could escalate even further in the upcoming few hours. Iraqi Shiite groups had vowed to expel U.S. forces from Iraqi by all possible means.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC:

Holistic Evaluation of Assassination of General Sardar Suleimani – What Next for USA, for Iran, for the Region?

March 6, 2020 – 9:20

TEHRAN – Robert David Steele, a former Marine Corps infantry officer and CIA spy as well as an activist for Open Source Everything Engineering (OSEE), contributes regularly to Tehran Times

Q. From a legal perspective in the context of international law including the law of war, how do you evaluate the assassination of an Iranian official, General Sardar Suleimani, who was on a public diplomatic mission, traveling by commercial air, to a third country, Iraq, which was his host?

As a patriotic American; as an intelligence professional; and as a retired Marine Corps infantry officer, I consider the assassination of General Sardar Suleimani to be an atrocity demanding atonement, and one of the single worst decisions ever made by a US President since Harry Truman was bribed into agreeing to the theft of Palestine from the Palestinians, or Barack Obama agreed to the sale of Libya to France and the sale of Syria and Yemen to Saudi Arabia so that he and Joe Biden and the Clintons could make billions in payoffs. At a very personal level, this act violated all applicable international laws to include directed by name assassination; assassination of an individual on an open diplomatic mission; and assassination of an individual in a third country where he was an invited guest.

I hope that Iran’s leadership is aware – as I have tried to outline in multiple articles for the Tehran Times and in an earlier book, – of the ongoing soft coup in the USA against our President that is led on the outside by John Brennan particularly, and on the inside by Mike Pompeo, a Christian Zionist who I believe should be held personally culpable for deceiving President Trump into ordering this heinous act.

A proportional response from Iran would be the assassination of Secretary of State Pompeo the next time he is traveling overseas. I am not at all certain that anyone in the US Government understands that Iran now has both the right and the capability to assassinate our Secretary of State.

I understand Iran’s earlier need to launch a counter-attack on a US base in Iraq in order to quell public anger over this atrocity but I believe that going forward from today Iran is best served by demonstrating the level of restraint that President Vladimir Putin has demonstrated, to include forgoing any targeted assassination of any US senior official including the fat blustering fool that we have in place as Secretary of State.

Q. The Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, disagreed publicly with President Donald Trump’s declaration that General Suleimani was organizing threatening actions against US Embassies in the region. How do you interpret this public divergence of view?

Although our Secretary of Defense is from the same West Point Class of 1986 as Mike Pompeo, he appears to be much more balanced and I hold him – and the President – blameless for this assassination. From where I sit, three things went very wrong: Secretary Pompeo, arguably an agent of a foreign power (Israel), was able to persuade the President to approve this action; our intelligence community (particularly Gina Haspel, Director of the CIA) failed to provide the President with compelling holistic intelligence (decision-support) against the assassination; and the Secretary of Defense chose not to put his job on the line against the decision. In publicly diverging from the President on this matter after the fact Secretary Esper was making the honest and obvious point: there was no threat to our Embassies and in fact it is known that part of the reason for General Suleimani’s visit to Iraq was to disperse the crowds outside the US Embassy, which was done.

Q. When Iran counter-attacked, in a proportional response, against a US military encampment at Ayn al Asad, President Trump initially claimed no casualties, then a few casualties, then he mocked many of those evacuated to Germany, and now there are one hundred and ten stated casualties.  How do you account for this “casualty creep” and could the President have been aware from the beginning of the facts on the ground?

I grew up in Viet-Nam as the son of an oil engineer, and in my subsequent professional reading as a Marine Corps officer have always marveled as the degree to which we lie to ourselves.  From enemy body counts that are inflated to friendly casualties that are under-stated, we are simply not capable of telling the truth. I like to say that “the truth at any cost lowers all other costs.” Our President has three big problems, all centered on the amount of false information and the lack of truthful information available to him. The Department of State is controlled by Zionists. The CIA is led by professional liars, most of them overweight bureaucrats far removed from the rigors of either clandestine tradecraft on the street or all-source holistic analytics. The Department of Defense has too many officers who believe that telling their chain of command a lie is justified when the chain of command makes it clear that it wants to be lied to. The single greatest work on this point is from the US Army Strategic Studies Institute, Lying to Ourselves: Dishonesty in the Army Profession.

I am quite certain our President was not aware of the casualties from the beginning, and the creeping numbers are more a sign of a very flawed and generally dishonest reporting system within the US military.

Whatever the number of our casualties, they pale in comparison to the 75,000 amputees we have suffered, or the 250,000 mentally injured individuals on disability, unable to find employment, and of course nothing can compare to the pain of the mothers of the Fallujah mutant babies resulting from the use of depleted uranium there, or the hundreds of thousands of dead across the Middle East, and the millions of displaced, a large number now in or about to enter Europe.

I have myself been personally and directly threatened with assassination by the leaders of a country where I was responsible for penetrating the extreme left, and I oppose both directed assassination, and elective wars fought for the profit of the banks without regard to the human and social cost for all engaged countries.

In my view, the 110 casualties are helpful as a stopping point. Restraint should be the order of the day.

Q. Dr. Susan Rice, President Obama’s national security adviser and some other US politicians, believe that the cost of assassinating of Sardar Suleimani has outweighed the US benefits. What do you think about this?

I despise Susan Rice at multiple levels – this is a woman who should be in jail for her complicity in the unmasking of US citizens (which is against the law pertaining to signals intelligence privacy) associated with the totally illegal investigation and framing of our President for collusion with the Russians – the witch-hunt, all lies with the active complicity of MI-6 and the Prime Minister of Great Britain. On this point I have to agree with her. I am particularly upset with the assassination because the US and Iran were on the verge of making some significant advances aided by President Vladimir Putin’s encouragement, and I have to say that I believe that the Zionists fed Secretary of State Pompeo a number of lies – and perhaps some financial incentives if not outright blackmail with Jeffrey Epstein videos – to get him to push our President into approving this utterly terrible and unjustifiable assassination.

Let me emphasize this: I believe the assassination was intended to destroy the growing rapprochement between Iran and the USA, which President Trump was actively seeking and to the best of my knowledge continues to seek today. It is my hope that Iran will join me and others in focusing on justice against those who manipulated our President, and not make the mistake of being manipulated, as our President was manipulated, into further escalation.

Q. Since the assassination of General Suleimani, one of Iran’s most beloved leaders, Israel and Turkey have become more aggressive against Syria, Russia has become more engaged, and China was briefly sidelined by the coronavirus panic.  How do you evaluate the current and near future of the West Asian region and do you anticipate the complete US withdrawal from Iraq and the region?

I am not an expert on this region so my impressions are based on general reading. As best I can tell, history and the passage of time favor Iran, Syria, and Palestine. Turkey is over-extended and I have the impression that President Erdogan is nearing the end of his life. Russia and China will continue to grow in influence while the US does eventually withdraw militarily from the region. I anticipate some major changes in US national security policy after President Trump’s inevitable re-election. Put simply, the return on investment for military occupation forces that cannot win wars or repress belligerent native tribes is not as great as the return on investment in homeland infrastructure and job creation, or in emerging markets development. China’s One Belt One Road initiative – and its cyber overlay – have finally forced the Americans to confront the fact that they have been willfully stupid for the past fifty years, allowing the Deep State to use our military as enforcers (General Smedley Butler was the first to say this in his book War is a Racket), and our military bases as lily pads for smuggling guns, drugs, cash, gold, and small children.

Our President is going to be inaugurating a new national monument soon, to General and President Ike Eisenhower, whose great-grand-daughter I know. I expect the President to use that occasion to reflect on President Eisenhower’s earlier warning against the military-industrial complex, and perhaps to announce his own vision for a future in which America is no longer engaged in endless war.

At some point the Middle East is going to have to deal with the reality that the current crop of Arab dictators is unsustainable; the current oil-based economies are unsustainable; and the current practice of sending millions of refugees to Europe is unsustainable. We must create peace and prosperity across the Middle East for the good of all including the hapless Europeans whose leaders sold them out with the 1995 Barcelona Declaration, which loosened migration controls in return for bribes.

The single greatest lesson I have learned in my life about transformation and reform is that it must be job and revenue neutral at the sub-state level.  George Will’s new book, The Conservative Sensibility, is strongly against what he calls “rent seekers” – companies that use the bribing of Members of Congress, and federal contracts, as a substitute for hard work and innovation. I am more practical – I now know how to make this corrupt system migrate from wars that profit the banks to peace profiting the poor.

I have outlined my personal vision for the future of America and the world in three recently published books on Reinventing National SecurityReinventing Intelligence, and Reinventing Engineering.

My vision calls for the closure of all US military bases overseas, to bring all those jobs – both military jobs and the support jobs that now go to local citizens – back to America. We need to redirect at least 40% of what we spend on a heavy-metal military that cannot win wars toward diplomacy, development, and commerce. My vision also applies to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and is outlined for them in NATO 2040: Intelligence (Decision-Support) as Root for Transformation.

Let me end by saying that I believe the way is open for Iran and Russia to facilitate a new form of information sharing and intelligence (decision-support) for the Middle East that integrates open sources of information in all languages, holistic analytics, true cost economics, and Open Source Everything Engineering (OSEE) including free energy and unlimited water desolation.

General Suleimani was assassinated by order of President Trump in the context of a dysfunctional US government process incapable of telling our President the truth. It is my personal goal to wage peace and enable prosperity with both open and secret intelligence that is shared among nation-states and I am deeply and personally committed to ensuring President Trump is never again blind-sided by lies.

I pray that day might come when the Supreme Leader of Iran, and the President of the United States of America, can share the same intelligence (decision-support) about every aspect of the Middle East, toward making evidence-based decisions that create peace and prosperity for all.

%d bloggers like this: