معركة عفرين: ثمن الشراكة مع واشنطن

محمد بلوط, وليد شرارة

كان من الممكن تجنيب عفرين مصائر الميادين السورية الأخرى. كان الأمر يتوقف إلى حد كبير على «وحدات حماية الشعب» الكردية التي فوّتت على نفسها، وعلى مئات الآلاف من السوريين في أكثر من ٣٠٠ قرية في ريف المدينة، فرصة النجاة من العملية التركية الواسعة التي تبدو قدراً لا بد منه، على ضوء تمسك الأكراد بخيار الذهاب نحو كيان بدأت ملامحه تتبلور تدريجياً، في الأشهر الستة الأخيرة، وبناء مؤسسات الأمر الواقع.

وليس رفض «الوحدات» عودة الجيش السوري إلى عفرين والانتشار فيها بديلاً من الحرب، وتحييدها في الصراع مع تركيا، سوى تفصيل متأخر من المشهد. لم يفاجئ القيادي الكردي البارز، ألدار خليل، أحداً في رفضه عرضاً روسياً دخول الجيش السوري ورفع الأعلام السورية فوقها، إذ يفصل الرفض الكردي التأرجح الطويل بين الروس والأميركيين إلى اعتماد أميركا حليفاً وحيداً رغم غياب طائراتها عن سماء عفرين، فيما ذهبت «الوحدات» أبعد من ذلك بتحميل الوسيط الروسي «مسؤولية المجازر التي ستنتج من الاحتلال التركي».

ثلاثة عوامل رئيسة تضافرت خلال معارك شرق الفرات لتصفية «داعش»، أقنعت الأكراد أن مشروعهم بانتزاع كيان كردي أصبح ممكناً، تحت حدود «سايكس بيكو»، تجنّباً للاصطدام بالاعتراض التركي والإيراني بشكل خاص، مع مواصلة إضعاف الدولة السورية المركزية خلف برنامج فيدرالي، لم يتوافر له حتى اليوم دعم أيّ قوى سورية عربية وازنة: العنصر الأول هو القرار الأميركي بالبقاء في سوريا واعتبارها ميداناً لاحتواء إيران ومواصلة استنزاف روسيا والجيش السوري وحزب الله. الثاني هو الحصول على موارد نفطية ومالية كبيرة بعد الاستيلاء على حقول نفطية ومنشآت استراتيجية في دير الزور ووادي الفرات، والدعم الأميركي لتحويل القوة العشائرية العربية في وادي الفرات إلى حرس حدود لاحتلال شرق الفرات وحماية مكتسبات القوات الكردية من مؤسسات وتوسع في الأرض السورية يصل إلى ٢٥ في المئة منها، فيما يتعدى بكثير المعاقل الكردية التقليدية في الشمال السوري.

يبدو القرار الأميركي الاستراتيجي بالبقاء في الشرق السوري عاملاً أول حاسماً في تعزيز تيار قوي داخل حزب الاتحاد الديمقراطي، الفرع السوري لحزب العمال الكردستاني، يرى في الانخراط الأميركي فرصته التاريخية التي لن تتكرر لبناء مشروعه القومي. في البدء كان الاكتفاء بالشق العسكري وقتال «داعش» برنامج «البنتاغون» الوحيد، مع استبعاد أي شق سياسي، أو احتلال أو إدارة مناطق ما بعد «داعش»، أو محض المشروع الكردي الفيدرالي التأييد والقوة التي تفترض انخراطاً مديداً في الحرب السورية، لم تكن واشنطن قد عقدت العزم عليه. ويقول خبير دولي واكب تطور العلاقات الكردية الاميركية منذ بدايتها إن الانعطافة الاميركية للبقاء في سوريا منذ تشرين الاول الماضي هي التي تدفع الاكراد اليوم نحو المواجهة مع جميع الاطراف في المنطقة، باستثناء الاميركيين. وعوضاً عن الصفقة التي كان ينوي المرشح دونالد ترامب عقدها مع الروس في سوريا، اتجه مجلس الامن القومي، منذ تكليفه صياغة استراتيجية سورية لواشنطن، الى ربط سوريا، «ما بعد داعش»، بخطة احتواء إيران في سوريا وتغيير النظام في دمشق، وهما بندان تحدث عنهما وزير الخارجية الاميركي «المعتدل» ريكس تيلرسون، عكس فيهما طغيان الصقور في الادارة الاميركية، والقطيعة مع سيطرة كوادر وسطى كبيرت ماكغورك من إدارة أوباما السابقة، الفريق القديم الذي أشرف على تدخل الحد الأدنى السياسي في سوريا، ومنع الانزلاق في صراع طويل أو إدارة احتلال ما بعد «داعش».

اكتسب المشروع الكردي في سوريا خلال معارك دير الزور القدرة على توفير موارد نفطية واقتصادية وبنى تحتية مهمة، تجعل مشروع أي كيان كردي قابلاً للحياة اقتصادياً؛ فخلال معارك دير الزور، انضمت أكبر حقول سوريا النفطية وأغناها، كالعمر والجفرة والصيجان، إلى لائحة طويلة من الحقول التي بات الاكراد يسيطرون عليها، كالرميلان والشدادي وجبسة وكراتشوك والسويدية وعليان وحمزة ومعشوق وليلاك. وهي مكتسبات تجعل من سوريا المفيدة مفهوماً نظرياً لا قدرة له على الصمود وإعادة الاعمار من دونها، وهو هدف أميركي واضح من خلال دعم الاكراد، وتحميل المزيد من الأعباء على الحليفين الايراني والروسي. واستولى الاكراد على منشأة كونيكو للغاز، وهي أحدث منشأة سورية، كانت توفر أكثر من ١٣٠ مليون قدم مكعب من الغاز المسيل وألف طن من الغاز المنزلي. وكان الروس قد فشلوا في إقناع الاكراد بإشراكهم في إدارة المناطق التي استولوا عليها شرق الفرات خلال اجتماع عقده في الثالث من الشهر الماضي نائب قائد القوات الروسية، الجنرال الكسي كيم، في قرية الصالحية شمال شرق دير الزور، وعرض عليهم قيام الشركات الروسية بترميم جزء من المنشآت النفطية التي تضررت خلال العمليات العسكرية، على ما يقوله خبير دولي واكب ذلك اللقاء.

أما العامل الأخير في تفضيل الأكراد المواجهة على أي تسوية، فهو اتجاه الاميركيين الى مساعدتهم على ما بدأوه قبل أشهر لتهميش العشائر، ومأسسة القوة العسكرية العربية الرديفة التي كان يصل تعدداها داخل «قسد» إلى ٢٨ ألف مقاتل عربي نهاية الصيف الماضي، مع الإعلان عن قوة حرس حدود عربية رديفة للقوات الكردية في وادي الفرات، وتحويل النهر الى خط حدودي مهمته منع القوات السورية من مهاجمة الكيان المزمع إنشاؤه، أصبح يشكل للمرة الاولى في تاريخ الحركة القومية الكردية في سوريا حدوداً معروفة لمشروعها الذي لم يكن قادراً، حتى الأمس القريب، على وضع خريطة واضحة للمطالب الترابية الكردية في الاراضي السورية.

تحول الاكراد في سياق الصراع السوري الى قوة ارتكاز أميركية للتدخل شرق الفرات ضد سوريا واحتواء إيران واستنزاف الروس ما أمكن. وتجعل الضرورات الميدانية والسياسية الطرفين شركاء استراتيجيين لا يمكن لأحدهما أن يستغني عن الآخر، وتدفع تركيا وإيران وسوريا وروسيا الى إعادة تحديد أولوياتها واستراتيجياتها في الشمال السوري. فالأميركيون يستظلون مشروعاً كردياً «ديمقراطياً فيدرالياً» لتضخيم تموضعهم في الشرق السوري من دون الاضطرار الى نشر قوات كبيرة وتجديد شرعية بقائها بعد نفاد شرعية محاربة «داعش». والأكراد يتوسعون في سوريا بحجة مشروعهم الفيدرالي ويراكمون أوراقاً جديدة من أرض وموارد وقوات عربية رديفة في المناطق التي يدخلون اليها. وليست عفرين، التي كان من الممكن للأكراد تجنّب التضحية بها، سوى الاختبار الاول لقوة التحالف الجديد في مواجهة الجميع.

مقالات أخرى لمحمد بلوط

• معركة الشمال السوري مع موسكو وطهران وأنقرة
• معركة في عفرين ومواجهة مع واشنطن
• المقابلة | فيليب غولوب
• مقابلة | رشيد الخالدي
• المقابلة | حلمي البلبيسي

مقالات أخرى لوليد شرارة:

• معركة الشمال السوري مع موسكو وطهران وأنقرة
• معركة في عفرين ومواجهة مع واشنطن
• صراع في أعلى هرم السلطة
• نقاش حول مستقبل التحالف الأورو ــ أطلسي
• عن إيران وفلسطين

مركز ثقل العالم يتّجه شرقاً وأميركا تنازع الروح في المتوسط

محمد صادق الحسيني

يناير 20, 2018

إنّ دخول الصين وروسيا في شرق المتوسط من البوابة السورية بات قادراً عملياً على خنق أساطيل الولايات المتحدة ومنعها من دخول البحر الأسود، ويكفي خطأ أميركي ثانٍ حتى يغلق عليهم المتوسط كله انطلاقاً من الجزائر باتجاه مضيق جبل طارق…!

هذا ما نطق به في هذه الساعات وزير الحرب الأميركي ماتيس عندما أعلن انّ استراتيجية بلاده الجديدة هي منافسة القوى العظمى وليس مكافحة الإرهاب…!

وإن من سمّاهما بالقوى الرجعية كالصين وروسيا هما المقصودتان في التنافس..!

ولم ينس التعريج على الدولتين «المارقتين» كوريا الشمالية وإيران الذي قال إنهما تعملان مخالفتين للقرارات الدولية..!

طبعاً، لا ننسى أن زميله في مهنة محاربة «الرجعيين» والقوى «المارقة» أي وزير الخارجية تيلرسون كان قد سبقه في الإعلان الى ان قوات بلاده باقية في العراق وسورية، لمنع عودة داعش ومكافحة النفوذ الإيراني ومساعدة السوريين في إطاحة الاسد…!

والرؤية لا تكتمل بالطبع إلا بـ«صفعة القرن»، كما صار اسمها العربي، والتي كلفت فيها القوى الرجعية العربية وهذه المرة فعلاً رجعية بالتسمية العلمية وليس الأميركية المسيّسة، والتي كلفت على ما يبدو بالضغط على الفلسطينيين ليقبلوا بتصفية قضيتهم كرمى عيون بقاء هذه الرجعية العربية حليفة الصهيونية العالمية قابضة على مقدرات الأمة بأمر عمليات أميركي صهيوني عالمي بامتياز..!

ولإكمال بعض المربعات المحيرة في الجدول لا بدّ من تذكر موضوع العاصفة الرعدية القطرية الوهمية التي اخترعها الثنائي كوشنر – محمد بن سلمان والتي يبدو أنها ستنجلي قريباً بإعلان قطر منتصرة، بعدما وقع الناتو معاهدة تعاون أمني معها، لتثبت رؤيتنا التي لطالما قلنا إنها محطة قديمة متجددة للتحشيد الاستراتيجي الأميركي الصهيوني العالمي ضد روسيا والصين وإيران …!

نعم كتبنا عن هذا مبكراً، وقبل اعلان استراتيجية أميركا «الدفاعية» الجديدة على لسان ماتيس. وقلنا إن لا تسويات أميركية مع روسيا، ولا مثل ذلك مع إيران وإن سياسة المواجهة مع محور المقاومة والصين وروسيا ستكون هي الأساس في عهد ترامب الأميركي الذي ثبت انه لا يغرّد خارج السرب، كما يتوهم البعض من العرب «الطيبين» والتقليديين، بل هو يمثل أميركا الحقيقية التي لا تريد لغيرها ان يعيش في العالم، فإما ان يكون معها وفي اطار استراتيجيتها، او تعمل للقضاء عليه وإسقاطه!

وإلا لماذا هي ضدّ حكومة الأسد التي تقاتل الإرهاب، بينما هي مع حكومة بغداد التي تحارب الإرهاب؟

أليس هذا هو الردّ الذي لمّح إليه سيد المقاومة بسؤال آخر غير هذا الذي سألناه وتمنّى على الشعب العراقي والحكومة العراقية والقوى السياسية العراقية أن يكونوا على مستوى هذا الاستحقاق الكبير؟

يبقى المحتال والمراوغ الأكبر حاكم أنقرة السلطان العثماني الجديد، الذي مع كلّ يوم يمرّ يثبت بأنه جزء من هذه الخطة العالمية للتحشيد الاستراتيجي ضدّ شرفاء العالم، عندما نتذكر ونذكّر الرأي العام بأنه هو من عمل بشكل مخاتل ليمدّ نفوذه في إطار تساكن مؤقت مع روسيا وإيران الى كلّ من قطر والسودان بقاعدتين عسكريتين ستكونان جزءاً من سياسة الناتو، وقاعدة نفوذ سياسية متقدّمة في تونس، لتشكل مثلثاً رجعياً حقيقياً في خدمة سياسة الحرب الأميركية الشريرة التي شرح خطوطها العامة الثنائي تيلرسون – ماتيس لتكون رأس الحربة في المخطط الصهيوني الأميركي ضدّ محور شرفاء العالم الذي انتفض بقوة ضدّ الأحادية الأميركية ويكاد يطردها من منطقتنا العربية والإسلامية ويحاصرها في الأطلسي كقوة بحرية تقليدية مسلوبة الأفضلية العالمية التي لطالما كانت تتغنى بها يوماً!

إنها اشارة قوية على هجوم كتلة الأورو آسيويين على أميركا الشريرة، وعلامة واضحة على انتقال مركز ثقل العالم من الغرب الى الشرق!

ونبقى نحن في محور المقاومة وانتصارنا المدوّي في كلّ من لبنان وسورية والعراق وقريباً في اليمن المنتصر بإذن الله على الرجعية العربية والانتفاضة الجماهيرية في فلسطين التي تلتحم قريباً بانتفاضة مسلحة، نبقى نحن بيضة القبان في هذا العالم المتلاطم الذي يقرع طبول الحرب..

تذكروا جيداً كلّ الكلمات التي يردّدها هذه الأيام كلّ من الامام السيد القائد في إيران وسماحة السيد حسن نصرالله وجنرال النصر قاسم سليماني، وهم يصفون انتصاراتنا الكبرى في سورية والعراق والمنطقة، وكيف يحضّرون ليل نهار للمنازلة الكبرى على أرض الرباط، لأنه سيأتي يوم على أمتنا، وهو ليس ببعيد عندما نشهد فيه كيف أنّ جموعاً من المستوطنين وأرتالاً من جيش الصهاينة تبدّل ثيابها وتستعدّ لركوب الأساطيل الأميركية قبل أن تغادر المتوسط مرة واحدة وإلى الأبد تماماً كما فعلت عصابات داعش وتعمل النصرة الآن!

إنهم يرونه بعيداً، ونراه قريباً.

الحلم بدأ يقترب من التحقق.

وماتيس وتيلرسون ومعهما سيّدهما ترامب ومن وراء وراء ترامب من حكومة العالم الصهيونية الخفية يخرّبون بيوتهم بأيديهم وأيدي المؤمنين!

بعدنا طيبين قولوا الله…

Related Articles

• Sayyed Nasrallah Warns Israeli Enemy against Provocative Measures on Lebanese-Palestinian Border

Syrian War Report – January 19, 2018: Syrian Troops Almost Closed Eastern Idlib Pocket

South Front

On January 18, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and Iranian-backed militias liberated the village of Qaytal fom Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra) in southern Aleppo and almost closed the eastern Idlib pocket.

Late on the same day, ISIS reportedly captured thirty villages, including Rasm al-Dhaba, al-Muwaylah, abu Ajwa, Muakar Shamali, Huma, Najm Al-Zuhur, Umm Qurun and Rasm Arira, in northeastern Hama and southwestern Aleppo from Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS).

According to reports, some of HTS members withdrew from the area to avoid being encircled by the SAA while the rest of them just joined ISIS.

The pro-opposition news outlet Enab Baladi also reported that ISIS fighters started an advance to reach the SAA-held village Tell Daman in order to open a route towards Idlib province.

The ISIS Hunters of the SAA’s 5th Assault Corps have repelled a suicide vehicle borne improvised explosive device attack by ISIS in the Euphrates Valley. According to the unit’s media wing, the attack was an attempt to break the blockade imposed by government forces on ISIS units in the Homs desert.

On January 18, two ISIS VBIEDs attacked the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in Gharanij in southeastern Deir Ezzor, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR). The ISIS-linked news agency Amaq added that ISIS fighters targeted a gathering of SDF fighters and destroyed a Humvee with an ATGM.

According to SOHR, ISIS still controls the villages of Abu Hassan, al-Bubadran, al-Baghuz, al-Susah and al-Shaafah as well as large parts of Hajin, Gharanij and al-Bahra on the eastern bank of the Euphrates River.

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson decided to say that Washington has no plans to create a 30,000-strong border force in northern Syria and claimed that the issue has been “misportrayed”. “We are not creating a border security force at all,” he said.

However, just few days ago, the Pentagon officially announced the creation of this border force.

“The Coalition is working jointly with the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) to establish and train the new Syrian Border Security Force (BSF). Currently, there are approximately 230 individuals training in the BSF’s inaugural class, with the goal of a final force size of approximately 30,000,” spokesman for the US-led coalition Colonel Thomas F. Veale said. “The base of the new force is essentially a realignment of approximately 15,000 members of the Syrian Democratic Forces to a new mission in the Border Security Force as their actions against ISIS draw to a close.”

Meanwhile, Turkish Chief of General Staff Gen. Hulusi Akar and National Intelligence Organization (MİT) Undersecretary Hakan Fidan met in Moscow with Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu and other officials for talks on Syria.

It does not look like Ankara is ready to see the US as a reliable partner in this conflict.

MILITARY SITUATION IN SYRIA ON JANUARY 19, 2018 (MAP UPDATE)

This map provides a general look at the military situation in Syria on January 19, 2018:

• ISIS has captured over 30 villages in northeastern Hama and eastern Idlib from Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra). Many Hayat Tahrir al-Sham members defected to ISIS.
• Syrian government forces have liberated the village of Qaytal from Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and de-facto cut off the militants from the rest of Idlib.
• ISIS has attacked positions of US-backed forces in Gharanij and al-Bahrah on the eastern bank of the Euphrates.
• Hayat Tahrir al-Sham has cracked down a Jaish al-Islam cell that had allegedly been preparing attacks against Hayat Tahrir al-Sham commanders in Eastern Ghouta.

Related Videos

Related News

• SYRIAN ARMY TIGHTENS SIEGE ON ABU AL-DUHUR AIRBASE, MILITANTS IN NORTHEASTERN HAMA
• US trying to create alternative govt in swathes of Syrian land – Lavrov on Afrin crisis
• Turkish Army Attemps To Enter Syria’s Afrin – YPG
• Syrian Democratic Forces Repel Large ISIS Attack On Their Positions In al-Bahrah Village
• Washington and Allies Go Orwellian on Korea Peace Talks

As Trump Gives Out Fake News Awards, WikiLeaks Reminds the World BOTH Parties Are Liars

Source

Source: Rachel Blevins

While the same media outlets that have been openly critical of President Trump became the topics of his “Fake News Awards,” the entire event was filled with hypocrisy, and served as a depiction of the pot calling the kettle black—both entities have spent a significant amount of time lying to and misleading the public.

WikiLeaks, an organization that the mainstream media have attempted to claim is a pro-Trump, pro-Russia propaganda firm, took to Twitter to point out the hypocrisy surrounding the awards:

“While WikiLeaks, as a primary source organization with a perfect verification record welcomes debate over ‘fake news’ it should be noted that along with the U.S. establishment press, the Trump administration is a frequent source of false information,” the organization claimed.

 

The statement is notable because it serves as a reminder of the relationship between WikiLeaks and the Trump administration. When Trump was running for office, and WikiLeaks was releasing emails from members of the Democratic National Committee, Trump was more than happy to credit the organization when citing the damning information that it released about his opponent, Hillary Clinton.

However, now that Trump is in office, he has made no attempt to pardon WikiLeaks’ founder, Julian Assange, who is currently living at the London embassy in Ecuador after he was granted political asylum.

Trump has also openly criticized Chelsea Manning, the Army whistleblower who helped to put WikiLeaks on the map by releasing 700,000 files and documents that revealed atrocities committed by the U.S. military in Iraq.

 

Trump’s hypocrisy when it comes to WikiLeaks is notable because it serves as a reminder of his hypocrisy when it comes to foreign policy. He uses stories of innocent children killed by airstrikes and the dangers of blowback when it suits him but ignores those same factors when they challenge his administration’s policies.

When Trump was viewed as the “outsider” candidate in the 2016 election, and he needed support from an anti-establishment fan base, he was fully in support of holding Saudi Arabia accountable for the role it played in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. However, once Trump was in office, his tune quickly changed, and Saudi Arabia became the first stop on his first foreign trip as president—paving the way for the completion of the largest single arms deal in U.S. history.

 

Trump’s cozy relationship with Saudi Arabia has resulted in pure genocide in the poorest country in the Middle East. While the massacre was initially started by the Obama Administration, the Trump Administration’s foreign policy has only made conditions worse in Yemen, where the latest records show that since 2015, 5,000 children have been killed or injured, 3 million were born into war, and 1.8 million children are acutely malnourished.

 

Trump’s hypocrisy on foreign policy extends to Syria, where he began criticizing Obama’s attempts to invade the country in 2013. He also used his time on the campaign trail to accuse the Obama Administration of helping to create ISIS in its attempts to overthrow Assad.

 

However, despite Trump’s rhetoric, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson boasted a “new” strategy in Syria centered around long-term U.S. military presence that would eventually lead to overthrowing President Bashar al-Assad, during a speech at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.

Tillerson vowed that the U.S. will stay until “ISIS and Al-Qaeda in Syria suffer an enduring defeat; do not present a threat to the homeland; and do not resurface in a new form; and that Syria never again serves as a platform or safe haven for terrorists to organize, recruit, finance, train and carry out attacks on American citizens at home or abroad or against our allies.”

Tillerson also said the U.S. still seeks to overthrow Assad “through an incremental process of constitutional reform and UN-supervised elections.”

“A stable, unified and independent Syria ultimately requires post-Assad leadership in order to be successful,” Tillerson said. “The departure of Assad through the UN-led Geneva process will create the conditions for a durable peace within Syria and security along the border for Syria’s neighbors.”

 

Ultimately, Trump is correct in stating that the mainstream media has published stories about him that were false or misleading. But Trump is guilty of the exact same offenses that he accusing CNN and MSNBC of committing.

While one might wonder why the mainstream media would focus more on Russiagate than on the dramatic increase in civilian casualties, or the escalation of military spending under the Trump Administration, they should also realize that in order to provide accurate and honest coverage of Trump, the media would have to admit that he is only continuing the exact same thing his predecessors have been doing—and the media has been covering up—for years.

NYT Trumpwashes 70 Years of US Crimes

Source

Trumpwashing—defined as whitewashing, obscuring or rewriting the broader US record by presenting Donald Trump as an aberration (FAIR.org, 6/3/16)—was on full display Thursday in a nominally straight news report from the New York Times’ Mark Landler (12/28/17) on how Trump has reshaped US foreign policy. Buried in the otherwise banal analysis was this gem of US imperial agitprop:

Above all, Mr. Trump has transformed the world’s view of the United States from a reliable anchor of the liberal, rules-based international order into something more inward-looking and unpredictable. That is a seminal change from the role the country has played for 70 years, under presidents from both parties, and it has lasting implications for how other countries chart their futures.

There’s lots of ideology to unpack here, but let’s start with the empirically false assertion that the “world” viewed the United States as a “reliable anchor of the liberal, rules-based international order.” Poll (Guardian, 6/15/06) after poll (Pew, 3/14/07) after poll (PRI, 1/3/14) throughout the years has shown that much of the world views the United States as threat to peace, often taking the top spot as the single greatest threat. What evidence Landler has for the world viewing the US as a sort of good-natured global babysitter is unclear, as he cites nothing to support this hugely important claim (since if Trump’s cynical disregard for “human rights” is nothing new, then there’s no real story here). It’s just thrown out with the assumption the Times readership is sufficiently nationalistic and/or amnesiac to either not notice or not care. It’s designed to flatter, not to elucidate.

The US invasion of Iraq in defiance of international rules.

The second dubious assertion is the idea that the US is “viewed” as being (or, by implication, objectively is) concerned with “liberal, rules-based international order.” Perhaps Landler missed the part where the US runs offshore penal colonies for untried political prisoners, and a decade-long drone war that’s killed thousands—both entirely outside the scope of international law. Or the time the US invaded and destroyed Iraq without any international authorization, killing hundreds of thousands. Or perhaps he missed the part where the United States refuses to sign “liberal, rules-based international order” treaties such as the International Criminal Court or the ban on bombs and or a prohibition on nuclear weapons. Or the part where the US not only doesn’t recognize the International Criminal Court, but has a law on its books (dubbed “the Hague Invasion Act,” passed in 2002) that if an American is ever held by the ICC for committing war crimes, the US is obligated to literally invade the Hague and free them.

And this is just in the past 15 years. Landler, even more laughably, starts the clock in 1947, which would include dozens of non-“liberal,” non-“rules-based” coups, invasions, bombing campaigns, assassinations, extrajudicial murders and so forth. The number of actions carried out by the US not sanctioned by even the thinnest pretext of “international order” is too long to list.

What exactly is this “liberal, rules-based international order,” and when did “the world” view the United States as its most reliable anchor? Landler doesn’t say, he simply asserts this highly contestable and ideological claim, and moves on to pearl-clutch about Trump ruining the US’s hard-won moral authority. He has some 100 percent uncut pro-US ideology to push under the guise of criticizing Trump, and no amount of basic historical facts will get in his way.

---

h/t @ElwinWay

This is the real US policy on human rights

This is the real US policy on human rights

http://angryarab.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/this-is-real-us-policy-on-human-rights.html

“The May 17 memo https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000160-6c37-da3c-a371-ec3f13380001 reads like a crash course for a businessman-turned-diplomat, and its conclusion offers a starkly realist vision: that the U.S. should use human rights as a club against its adversaries, like Iran, China and North Korea, while giving a pass to repressive allies like the Philippines, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.  “Allies should be treated differently—and better—than adversaries. Otherwise, we end up with more adversaries, and fewer allies,” argued the memo, written by Tillerson’s influential policy aide, Brian Hook.”

Leaked memo schooled Tillerson on human rights

A tutorial from policy aide Brian Hook followed the secretary of state’s controversial remarks about balancing U.S. values and interests.

By NAHAL TOOSI  

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/19/tillerson-state-human-rights-304118

Three months into his tenure as secretary of state, Rex Tillerson alarmed veteran diplomats with remarks that sounded like a potential shift in American foreign policy: The U.S., he said, should be careful not to let values like human rights create “obstacles” to the pursuit of its interests.

The comment, at a gathering of State Department employees, provoked an outcry among former U.S. officials and human rights activists who feared America was abandoning a vital mission. Two weeks later, a top Tillerson adviser wrote up a short tutorial, in the form of a confidential memo to his boss, recapping “the debate over how far to emphasize human rights, democracy promotion, and liberal values in American foreign policy.”

The May 17 memo reads like a crash course for a businessman-turned-diplomat, and its conclusion offers a starkly realist vision: that the U.S. should use human rights as a club against its adversaries, like Iran, China and North Korea, while giving a pass to repressive allies like the Philippines, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

“Allies should be treated differently—and better—than adversaries. Otherwise, we end up with more adversaries, and fewer allies,” argued the memo, written by Tillerson’s influential policy aide, Brian Hook.

It is unclear what prompted Hook to author the memo, and whether he did so at Tillerson’s request amid a furor in foreign policy circles about Tillerson’s May 3 remarks, in which he said that “it’s really important that all of us understand the difference between policy and values” like “freedom, human dignity and the way people are treated.”

But the memo, a photo of which was shown to POLITICO, suggests that Tillerson, a former CEO of ExxonMobil, was still on a steep learning curve when it comes to foreign affairs. It also seems to foreshadow President Donald Trump’s approach to the complex politics of human rights overseas.

During his May visit to Saudi Arabia, and while hosting the leaders of Egypt and Turkey at the White House, Trump did not publicly press the leaders of those countries on their authoritarian policies. But during an address to South Korea’s Parliament in November, Trump spoke at striking length about the brutality of North Korea’s regime. Trump and Tillerson have also repeatedly assailed Iran’s human rights record.

Hook’s memo “tells Tillerson that we should do exactly what Russian and Chinese propaganda says we do—use human rights as a weapon to beat up our adversaries while letting ourselves and our allies off the hook,” said Tom Malinowski, who served as an assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor in the administration of former President Barack Obama.

“He utterly misses the elemental fact that America’s moral authority is one of our main advantages in the world, and that it would disappear if we apply it as selectively as he advises,” Malinowski added.

On Monday, Trump unveiled a new National Security Strategy document that uses the phrase “human rights” just once. (Obama’s last plan, in 2015, mentioned the phrase 16 times.) Trump’s strategy at one point states, “We are not going to impose our values on others,” but later includes a section on how the administration will “Champion American Values.”

The memo also offers a glimpse into how Tillerson’s secretive inner circle shapes foreign policy, leaving many veteran State Department officials feeling sidelined.

Hook heads what’s known as the Policy Planning Staff at the State Department. Policy Planning traditionally has served as an internal think tank doing mid- to long-term strategizing, but under Tillerson it is more involved in day-to-day work that would otherwise be the purview of the department’s many bureaus.

“The classic dilemma of balancing ideals and interests is with regard to America’s allies. In relation to our competitors, there is far less of a dilemma. We do not look to bolster America’s adversaries overseas; we look to pressure, compete with, and outmaneuver them,” Hook wrote.

“For this reason,” Hook continues, “we should consider human rights as an important issue in regard to U.S. relations with China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran. And this is not only because of moral concern for practices inside those countries. It is also because pressing those regimes on human rights is one way to impose costs, apply counter-pressure, and regain the initiative from them strategically.”

It is not clear whether Tillerson ever read the memo, which was categorized as “sensitive but unclassified.” Hook did not answer multiple requests for comment. The memo was shown to POLITICO on the condition that only its text be reprinted.

State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert would not confirm or deny the veracity of the memo. “We can’t comment on alleged internal documents but, as a general matter, human rights remains an integral part of our values that we consistently address with other nations,” she wrote in an email.

Other State Department sources, although not in a position to confirm the authenticity of the memo, said it appeared to follow standard formatting used for such papers.

Long a familiar face in conservative foreign policy circles, Hook held several positions under President George W. Bush, including assistant secretary of state for international organizations.

Hook’s decision to join the Trump administration surprised some in Washington because so many other mainstream conservative foreign policy experts publicly distanced themselves from Trump during the 2016 presidential race. His disproportionate influence at the State Department has unnerved some lawmakers who note that he never had to endure the confirmation process.

Hook’s three-page memo lays out the historical underpinnings of the two main U.S. foreign policy schools on human rights, which Hook divides into “realism” and “liberal/idealist/Wilsonian.”

George W. Bush, like fellow presidents Bill Clinton and Obama, “worked on relatively optimistic assumptions regarding the possibilities for positive social change overseas, as nudged forward by American power and diplomacy,” Hook states. “No doubt this optimism was well-intentioned.

“But in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan, slow economic recovery, the rise of China, and the failed Arab Spring, there is understandably less optimism today that the world can be easily democratized or reshaped simply by expressing American liberal values, or by badgering American allies.”

Hook approvingly writes that Ronald Reagan’s “first instinct was always to back allies against adversaries, even in controversial cases, including through his second term.” But Jimmy Carter, Hook states, damaged American interests because he “badgered” and undermined U.S. allies like the shah of Iran.

Today, “in the case of US allies such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Philippines, the [Trump] Administration is fully justified in emphasizing good relations for a variety of important reasons, including counter-terrorism, and in honestly facing up to the difficult tradeoffs with regard to human rights,” Hook writes. “It is not as though human rights practices will be improved if anti-American radicals take power in those countries.”

Malinowski took issue with some of Hook’s historical lessons. Anti-Americanism in Iran, he argued, was festering before Carter arrived on the scene—thanks in part to the CIA’s role in overthrowing an elected Iranian government in 1953 and America’s longstanding support for the country’s repressive monarch.

Malinowski also dismissed Hook’s claim that Reagan’s policy of “constructive engagement” with South Africa’s apartheid regime worked “in the long run,” noting that it is generally accepted that U.S. sanctions were more effective in changing that government’s behavior. Reagan largely resisted lawmakers’ demands to impose sanctions on South Africa over its segregation policies, even vetoing legislation later overridden by Congress.

A former senior official in the Bush administration, speaking on condition of anonymity, also expressed disappointment in the memo.

“The memo forgets about people entirely. It doesn’t even recognize the existence of cases where criticizing a ‘friendly’ regime will win the United States a lot of support at the street level,” the former official said. “To give an example, the United States didn’t raise human rights issues with the Greek military junta in the 1970s because it was ‘pro-American.’ The result of this abandonment of the people of Greece was long-term anti-Americanism there.”

Tillerson made his comments about balancing values and interests during his first town hall with State Department employees. He tried to be nuanced and cautious with his remarks, emphasizing that American values remain constant, even as policies change over time.

“For me, it’s one of the most difficult areas as I’ve thought about how to formulate policy to advance all of these things simultaneously. It’s a real challenge,” he told the audience.

In more recent months, Tillerson earned applause from some in the human rights community for visiting Myanmar and later declaring that the Asian country was carrying out “ethnic cleansing” against its Rohingya Muslim minority.

Still, Tillerson’s decoupling of American values and American interests has been cited frequently by critics in the months since his May town hall appearance.

The criticism comes as morale in the State Department has plummetedover proposed staff and budget cuts and amid mounting frustration that many career civil and foreign service employees are being shut out of the policy-making process.

One U.S. diplomat’s fiery resignation letter, first reported by Foreign Policy, cited Tillerson’s May 3 comments as one of the reasons she felt compelled to quit.

هل يوقف تيلرسون البلدوزرات التي تهدم العصر الاميريكي؟؟ صح النوم أميريكا

بقلم نارام سرجون

 السياسة ليست الا مسرحا للحياة وفيها نرى الناجحين والفاشلين والمغامرين .. هناك سياسيون يتحولون الى أبطال وفرسان يقهرون الحياة .. وهناك من يتعرضون لحوادث سير في طرقات السياسة حيث تصدمهم عربات لسياسيين آخرين يقودون سياراتهم بسرعة جنونية ..

  كما يحدث في السعودية حيث يقود شاب متهور هو ابن الملك سيارته الجديدة باندفاع وهو لايزال في طور التمرين ويصدم ولي العهد محمد بن نايف الذي أصيب بعجز كامل وهو يرقد في سريره ولاامل له في السير في طرقات السياسة بعد صدمة ولاية العهد .. الا على كرسي متحرك ..

أما السياسيون المحظوظون فهم مثل أولئك الذين يربحون ورقة يانصيب من غير توقع .. وهذا مايجعله مؤمنا بالحظ والمقامرات والرهانات .. وخير مثال على هذا النموذج هو الملك عبدالله الثاني ملك الأردن الذس كان يلعب الورق والروليت ويسابق الريح على دراجاته النارية .. وفجأة صار ملكا من حيث لايتوقع ..

وهناك سياسيون يتحولون الى رواد للمقاهي السياسية للمحالين على المعاش يشربون الشاي ويدخنون الشيشة .. يسعلون وهم يدخنون ويتحدثون عن أمجادهم القديمة .. وفي نهاية اليوم يذهب واحدهم الى الصيدلية السياسية ليشتري حبوب الضغط السياسي ومضادات الامساك السياسي وأحيانا حفاضات لمنع سلس البول السياسي كيلا ينفلت لسانه ويتحدث بما لايجب أن يتحدث فيه .. فلا فرق بين اللسان والمثانة في أواخر التقاعد السياسي .. وكلاهما يحتوي نفس المواد ..

وخير مثال على هذا النموذج المتقاعد هو الأمير الحسن بن طلال الأردني الذي لايبرح مقاهي المتقاعدين السياسيين حيث لم يترك له أخوه الملك حسين الا ذكريات ولي عهد مخدوع انتظر خمسين عاما .. ووجد نفسه في كرسي المقهى بدل كرسي العرش ..

وهناك سياسيون يشبهون أصحاب العيال والأسر الكبيرة التي تعاني من الفقر والعوز فلايجد رب الأسرة الفاشل حلا لمشكلاته الا العمل في حراسة أحد النوادي الليلية أو بيت الأثرياء ويتحول الى ناطور أو الى “بودي غارد” ويتحول تدريجيا الى بلطجي وأحيانا يتصرف مثل كلب من كلاب الثري .. ومع هذا يظل مفلسا فيقرر أن يؤجر أولاده أو يشغلهم باعة متجولين أو يبيعهم .. وهذا يمثله رئيس السودان عمر البشير .. الذي باع نصف بيته .. ونصف أولاده .. وقام بتأجير الباقي ..

ولكن اين هم الساسة الاوروبيون والاميريكيون في شارع السياسة؟؟ السياسيون الأوروبيون تجدهم في شارع السياسة مثل السماسرة وأصحاب المكاتب العقارية .. يبيعونك الأوهام والقصور ويورطونك في صفقات سياسية خاسرة ومغامرات تشتري فيها ابراجا على الورق .. وعندما تخسر الصفقة ينسحبون بأرباحهم ويتركونك محسورا ويقولون لك انها التجارة .. فيها ربح وخسارة .. ولذلك عندما تتعامل مع أي سياسي أوروبي فعليك ان تتذكر أنك أمام سمسار ليس الا ..

أما الساسة الأمريكيون في شارع السياسة فانهم ذلك النوع من “المحامين النصابين” وليس المحامين المحترمين .. المحامون النصابون الذين يعرفون سلفا أن قضيتك خاسرة ومع ذلك يؤكدون لك انهم سيكسبونها لك ويجرجرون خصمك الى المحاكم .. ويقومون برشوة القضاة ورجال الشرطة وتغيير افادات الشهود .. ومع ذلك فالقضية لاتكسب دائما لكنهم وعندما يصدر قرار القاضي النافذ والقطعي بان قضيتهم خاسرة .. يقولون لك سنستأنف الحكم ونطعن فيه .. ويعيدون لك الأمل في أن تكسب القضية الخاسرة .. ولكن ينهون اللقاء بعبارة: اعطنا دفعة على الحساب كي نستأنف الحكم .. وطبعا الزبون المسكين المغفل يصدق الأمل الخادع ويسير من محكمة الى محكمة .. كما سار ياسر عرفات وأنور السادات وسعد الحريري .. وماحدث هو ان ياسر عرفات توفي ولم تتقدم القضية وربما طوي الملف بسبب وفاة صاحب القضية ..

أما أنور السادات فانه أخذ الأرض التي ملك أمه وابيه .. ولكن سيادته على أرضه لم تتجاوز المكان الذي وصل اليه حذاء الجندي المصري على الضفة الشرقية للقناة (المنطقة أ) .. ومافعله المحامي الامريكي أنه لم يغير في الواقع شيئا .. فما حرره المصريون بالدبابات بالعبور هو مايملكونه ملكية كاملة غير منقوصة .. والباقي (المنطقة ب والمنطقة ج) فهي وقف من اوقاف الأمم المتحدة .. أي ملكية مصرية محدودة بدور المدير التنفيذي ربما !!! ..

أما محكمة الحريري فانها تحولت الى مسلسل مكسيكي طويل من طراز السوب اوبرا .. والى مايشبه سلسلة تيرمنيتر لشوارنزنكر .. أو جيمس بوند .. ولكن نكهتها الشرقية تجعلنا نحس أنها احدى مجموعات باب الحارة للمخرج بسام الملا .. حيث يموت أبو عصام ثم لايموت أبو عصام .. وحتى هذه اللحظة لانعرف ماهي نهاية باب الحارة .. الذي ستحل محله سلسلة محكمة الحريري .. محكمة حريري 1 .. ومحكمة حريري 2 ……. ومحكمة حريري 15 .. الخ ..

أحد المحامين الامريكيين النصابين اسمه تيلرسون الذي يعمل في مكتب محاماة معروف أنه من اكبر النصابين الذي تسلم من المحامي النصاب جون كيري الملف السوري الخاسر .. ولكن المحامي النصاب تيلرسون يعلم أن القضية انتهت وخاسرة 100% .. ومع ذلك فانه يقول لموكليه في المعارضة والسعودية:

(سأطعن في الحكم .. وسآخرج الزير من البير .. والأسد من قصر الشعب ..اعتمدوا علينا فالمحامي السابق ومعلمه اوباما حمار وفاشل .. اتركوها علي وسأنهي حكم الأسد .. ولكن هاتوا دفعة على الحساب .. ) ..

في شارع السياسة رجال مهندسون هم مهندسو العصور .. مخلصون أحرار .. يعملون بصمت ويبنون .. يعرفون كل من يمر في الشارع .. ويعرفون الأبنية المتهالكة والتي تحتاج الى ترميم .. ويعرفون من يملك العمارات ومن يستأجرها ومن يستولي عليها بالقوة وبقوة الفساد الدولية .. ويعرفون أين هي الأبنية المخالفة للقانون والمحتلة .. وهم يواصلون هدم الأبنية القديمة .. ويقودون عمالا فقراء ليغيروا خارطة الطرقات التي ملأتها الفوضى الخلاقة ..

شوارع السياسة لايغيرها محامون نصابون .. ولايغيره الرابحون في أوراق اليانصيب .. ولاالسماسرة ولا رواد المقاهي المتقاعدون ولا النواطير والرجال الذين يؤجرون انفسهم واولادهم .. شوارع السياسة يغيرها من يريد ربط البحار وفصل البحار وفصل العصور وربط العصور .. ومن يعرف كل مايدور في شوارع السياسة ولايغرق في أوهامها ومسارحها ..

شارع السياسة الذي بني في القرن العشرين يتهدم وكل الابنية فيه تجرفها بلدوزرات البريكس وجرافات الجيش الروسي والسوري والايراني التي تكنس كل الأنقاض .. وتجرف فيها كل مكاتب السماسرة والمقاهي وتمسح الأبنية المتهالكة والمخالفات .. وهناك أبنية جديدة يوضع الاساس لها .. وعمارات تنهض ..

شارع القرن العشرين الذي كان أميريكيا انتهى عمره .. وانهار .. وبدأ عصر جديد وملامح شارع جديد .. وعصر جديد سيظهر خلال سنوات قليلة .. شارع أميريكا السياسي سينتهي .. ولذلك يمكن أن نقول لمن يقول بأن عصر الأسد انتهى .. بأن حكم أميريكا انتهى ..

استمعوا الى الرئيس الأسد الذي بدأ مع حلفائه هدم شوارع السياسة القديمة عندما فهم السياسة واللاعبين على مسرحها .. ان من يقول هذا الكلام الذي قاله الأسد منذ زمن طويل قبل غزو العراق لايمكن الا أن يكون لديه مشروع بناء شرق أوسط جديد .. يبنيه على حطام الشرق الأوسط الامريكي .. انه أحد المهندسين .. الذين هدموا مابنته أميريكا لبناء جدران السياسة وخطوط الطاقة وانابيبها من الشرق الى البحر المتوسط .. وخوف أميريكا ليس مما هدمه الأسد وحلفاؤه بل مما سيبنيه مع مهندسي القرن العشرين في روسيا والصين وايران .. ان هذا العصر بدأ ولن يتوقف ..

ياسيد تيلرسون يمكن لأميريكا أن تخرج الزير من البير .. ولكن الأصعب من ذلك هو أن تخرج الأسد من قصر الشعب .. والأصعب هو أن تعود أميريكا كما كانت في الشرق .. لأن الأسد وحلفاءه يحضرون لرميها في البير ..

صح النوم ياسيد تيلرسون .. صح النوم أميريكا ..

The Winners & Losers of the Kurdish Independence Referendum

Darko Lazar

28-10-2017 | 07:38

As disgraced American soldiers withdrew from Iraq in 2011, US Secretary of Defense at the time, Leon Panetta, hinted that Washington’s battlefield disaster did not spell the end of US interference in that country.

“We’ve invested a lot of blood in Iraq,” Panetta said. “The bottom line is, whether it’s diplomatic or whether it’s military, we’ve got a long-term relationship with Iraq.”

For many, the US defeat in Iraq marked the end of the golden age of American combat. However, politicians like Panetta and those who came after him insisted on treating their losses in the Middle East as a temporary setback on the road to ultimate triumph.

Just a few years after the 2011 withdrawal, American troops were sneaking back into Iraq under the cover of the black banner of Daesh.

The chaos crafted by the terrorist franchise – paid for by the Americans and their allies – first gave rise to the so-called Islamic State, and later aspiring Kurdish statelets. Both had the same objective: to restructure the region, starting with the division of Iraq and Syria.

But this month’s blitz campaign by Iraqi forces against Kurdish fighters and an offensive to route Daesh out from its final stronghold in the country translates into more of the same for Washington – military frustration and defeat.

The degree of frustration was best summed up by US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who recently called on Iranian-backed groups in Iraq “to go home”.

Tens of thousands of Iraqis heeded a call to arms in 2014, forming the Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) after Daesh seized a third of the country’s territory. Tehran’s invaluable contribution to the fight against the terror group is perhaps most evident in Iraq, where the Iranians funded and trained the PMU, which was integrated into the Iraqi security apparatus.

Tillerson’s suggestion that these fighters should now “go home” was met with condemnation and mockery.

“I don’t know how we can remove 65% of the Iraqi population and tell them to go home,” a member of Iraq’s State of Law Coalition, Saad al-Muttalibi said in reference to the country’s Shiite majority, which makes up the bulk of the PMU.

“A law passed by the parliament dictated that all the PMUs are part of the Iraqi armed forces,” Muttalibi added. “They cannot move without the approval of the Iraqi defense minister.”

Of course, it is highly improbable that Rex Tillerson did not know this.

The unrealistic request from the top US diplomat was a way of telling the Iranian-allied PMU, which is at the forefront of safeguarding Iraq’s territorial integrity, to make way for the real “foreign fighters” in Iraq – the tens of thousands of U.S. troops.

Winner and losers

The opportunistic Kurdistan Regional Government in Erbil increased its territory by at least 40% between 2014 and 2017. Kurdish Peshmerga fighters occupied a number of disputed areas, including the oil-rich Kirkuk region, after the Iraqi army withdrew in the face of advancing militants.

Last month’s Kurdish independence referendum claimed all of the newly conquered territory.

The hope in Washington and Tel Aviv was that the Kurds could serve as the new force for destabilizing the region, and a base of operations for the project aimed at undermining the Iranian-led resistance axis.

However, one month on, and the entire scheme appears to be doomed.

Iraqi Prime Minister Haidar al-Abadi adopted an unusually hawkish stance following the referendum. He gave the Kurdish leader, Massoud Barzani, an ultimatum, and then delivered on his threat by taking back Iraqi territory while using the country’s armed forces.

The PMU was at the forefront of that effort. Qassem Soleimani’s presence on the ground was also instrumental. The commander of Iran’s Quds Force is widely believed to have made arrangements with local political and Peshmerga leaders, dissuading them from fighting.

As a testament to just how desperate things have become in Erbil, the KRG’s has offered to suspend its drive for independence in return for a promise from Baghdad to halt its military activity.

And in a display of just how confident Abadi has become, the Iraqi premier rejected the offer, demanding an annulment of the referendum results.

Meanwhile, Iran’s role as a guarantor of stability in Iraq has been sealed. The developments on the ground have only served to bring Baghdad and Tehran closer together, leaving Washington out in the cold yet again.

As such, the real winners of the Kurdish independence referendum are Abadi – whose handling of the crisis has likely secured him a second term in office – and certainly Iran, which further increased its influence in Iraq by quashing Washington’s grand designs for the region.

The threat of more war

Iraq is a country that can often be described as a place that produced too much history. It is the sight of seismic events that have a ripple effect on the entire region and beyond.

Over the last couple of years, these colossal developments have frequently given way to existential challenges for the country.

Despite the recent successes, Iraq is still at a crossroads. The threat of full-scale war between Baghdad and the Kurds remains a very real prospect.

And while Tillerson’s call for the PMU to “go home” may be a sign of growing desperation, it also suggests that the tussle for Iraq is still very much an ongoing affair.

Source: Al-Ahed News

Trump`s UN speech `belongs in medieval times,` says Iran’s Zarif

Trump`s UN speech `belongs in medieval times,` says Iran’s Zarif

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif looks on as he attends the Executive Committee Meeting of Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) on August 1, 2017 in Istanbul. (Photo by AFP)

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has said that US President Donald Trump’s UN address is not worth of a reply.

“Trump’s ignorant hate speech belongs in medieval times – not the 21st century UN – unworthy of a reply,” Zarif tweeted on Tuesday.

“Fake empathy for Iranians fools no one,” he stressed.

Since Trump took office, the US has launched an attack against the nuclear deal negotiated between Iran and the world powers, including Washington, threatening to abandon the deal on multiple occasions.

Trump told the United Nations General Assembly earlier Tuesday that the nuclear agreement, dubbed as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), is an “embarrassment” to the United States.

The US president repeated baseless allegations against Tehran, accusing it of engaging in “destabilizing activities” in the region.

Trump claimed that Iran’s “support for terror is in stark contrast to the recent commitments of many of its neighbors to fight terrorism and halt its financing,”

The US and some of its regional allies, including Saudi Arabia, have been staunch supporters of Takfiri terrorists in the Muslim states of Syria and Iraq.

Tehran has, meanwhile, been praised for its support for anti-terrorism efforts by the governments in Damascus and Baghdad.

The Takfiri terrorists of Daesh were initially trained by the CIA in Jordan in 2012 to destabilize the Syrian government.

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson (R) exits the Russian Permanent Mission to the UN following a meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on September 17, 2017 in New York. (Photo by AFP)

Trump’s top diplomat appeared on the US media later to highlight his boss’s stance on the JCPOA.

“If we’re going to stick with the Iran deal there has to be changes made to it. The sunset provisions simply is not a sensible way forward,” said US State Secretary Rex Tillerson. “It’s just simply … kicking the can down the road again for someone in the future to have to deal with.”

Tillerson made the comments as the October 15 deadline was approaching for the president to certify that Iran is complying with the pact.

 

If Trump refuses to do that, then the Republican-controlled Congress will have 60 days to decide whether to reimpose sanctions waived under the deal.

Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council – the United States, France, Britain, Russia and China – plus Germany signed the nuclear agreement on July 14, 2015 and started implementing it on January 16, 2016. Under the JCPOA, Iran undertook to put limitations on its nuclear program in exchange for the removal of nuclear-related sanctions imposed against Tehran.

Who Rules America?

Who Rules America?

By Prof. James Petras,

The Power Elite in the Time of Trump

In the last few months, several competing political, economic and military sectors – linked to distinct ideological and ethnic groups – have clearly emerged at the centers of power.

We can identify some of the key competing and interlocking directorates of the power elite:

1. Free marketers, with the ubiquitous presence of the ‘Israel First’ crowd.

2. National capitalists, linked to rightwing ideologues.

3. Generals, linked to the national security and the Pentagon apparatus, as well as defense industry.

4. Business elites, linked to global capital.

This essay attempts to define the power wielders and evaluate their range of power and its impact

The Economic Power Elite: Israel-Firsters and Wall Street CEO’s

‘Israel Firsters’ dominate the top economic and political positions within the Trump regime and, interestingly, are among the Administration’s most vociferous opponents. These include: the Federal Reserve Chairwoman, Janet Yellen, as well as her Vice-Chair, Stanley Fischer, an Israeli citizen and former (sic) Governor of the Bank of Israel.

Jared Kushner, (image right) President Trump’s son-in-law and an Orthodox Jew, acts as his top adviser on Middle East Affairs. Kushner, a New Jersey real estate mogul, set himself up as the archenemy of the economic nationalists in the Trump inner circle. He supports every Israeli power and land grab in the Middle East and works closely with David Friedman, US Ambassador to Israel (and fanatical supporter of the illegal Jewish settlements) and Jason Greenblatt, Special Representative for International negotiations. With three Israel-Firsters determining Middle East policy, there is not even a fig leaf of balance.

The Treasury Secretary is Steven Mnuchin, a former Goldman Sachs executive, who leads the neo-liberal free market wing of the Wall Street sector within the Trump regime. Gary Cohn, a longtime Wall Street influential, heads the National Economic Council. They form the core business advisers and lead the neo-liberal anti-nationalist Trump coalition committed to undermining economic nationalist policies.

An influential voice in the Attorney General’s office is Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Robert Mueller the chief investigator, which led to the removal of nationalists from the Trump Administration.

The fairy godfather of the anti-nationalist Mnuchin-Cohn team is Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman Sach’s Chairman. The ‘Three Israel First bankerteers’ are spearheading the fight to deregulate the banking sector, which had ravaged the economy, leading to the 2008 collapse and foreclosure of millions of American homeowners and businesses.

The ‘Israel-First’ free market elite is spread across the entire ruling political spectrum, including ranking Democrats in Congress, led by Senate Minority leader Charles Schumer and the Democratic Head of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff. The Democratic Party Israel Firsters have allied with their free market brethren in pushing for investigations and mass media campaigns against Trump’s economic nationalist supporters and their eventual purge from the administration.

The Military Power Elite: The Generals

The military power elite has successfully taken over from the elected president in major decision-making. Where once the war powers rested with the President and the Congress, today a collection of fanatical militarists make and execute military policy, decide war zones and push for greater militarization of domestic policing. Trump has turned crucial decisions over to those he fondly calls ‘my Generals’ as he continues to dodge accusations of corruption and racism.

Trump appointed Four-Star General James ‘Mad Dog’ Mattis (retired USMC) – a general who led the war in Afghanistan and Iraq – as Secretary of Defense. Mattis (whose military ‘glories’ included bombing a large wedding party in Iraq) is leading the campaign to escalate US military intervention in Afghanistan – a war and occupation that Trump had openly condemned during his campaign. As Defense Secretary, General ‘Mad Dog’ pushed the under-enthusiastic Trump to announce an increase in US ground troops and air attacks throughout Afghanistan. True to his much-publicized nom-de-guerre, the general is a rabid advocate for a nuclear attack against North Korea.

Lieutenant General H. R. McMaster (an active duty Three Star General and long time proponent of expanding the wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan) became National Security Adviser after the purge of Trump’s ally Lt. General Michael Flynn, who opposed the campaign of confrontation and sanctions against Russia and China. McMaster has been instrumental in removing ‘nationalists’ from Trumps administration and joins General ‘Mad Dog’ Mattis in pushing for a greater build-up of US troops in Afghanistan.

Lt. General John Kelly (Retired USMC), another Iraq war veteran and Middle East regime change enthusiast, was appointed White House Chief of Staff after the ouster of Reince Priebus.

The Administration’s Troika of three generals share with the neoliberal Israel First Senior Advisors to Trump, Stephen Miller and Jared Kushner, a deep hostility toward Iran and fully endorse Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s demand that the 2015 Nuclear Accord with Tehran be scrapped.

Trump’s military directorate guarantees that spending for overseas wars will not be affected by budget cuts, recessions or even national disasters.

The ‘Generals’, the Israel First free marketers and the Democratic Party elite lead the fight against the economic nationalists and have succeeded in ensuring that Obama Era military and economic empire building would remain in place and even expand.

The Economic Nationalist Elite

The leading strategist and ideologue of Trump’s economic nationalist allies in the White House was Steve Bannon. He had been chief political architect and Trump adviser during the electoral campaign. Bannon devised an election campaign favoring domestic manufacturers and American workers against the Wall Street and multinational corporate free marketers. He developed Trump’s attack on the global trade agreements, which had led to the export of capital and the devastation of US manufacturing labor.

Equally significant, Bannon crafted Trumps early public opposition to the generals’ 15-year trillion-dollar intervention in Afghanistan and the even more costly series of wars in the Middle East favored by the Israel-Firsters, including the ongoing proxy-mercenary war to overthrow the secular nationalist government of Syria.

Within 8 month of Trump’s administration, the combined forces of the free market economic and military elite, the Democratic Party leaders, overt militarists in the Republican Party and their allies in the mass media succeeded in purging Bannon – and marginalized the mass support base for his ‘America First’ economic nationalist and anti-‘regime change’ agenda.

The anti-Trump ‘alliance’ will now target the remaining few economic nationalists in the administration. These include: the CIA Director Mike Pompeo, (right) who favors protectionism by weakening the Asian and NAFTA trade agreements and Peter Navarro, Chairman of the White House Trade Council. Pompeo and Navarro face strong opposition from the ascendant neoliberal Zionist troika now dominating the Trump regime.

In addition, there is Secretary of Commerce, Wilbur Ross, a billionaire and former director of Rothschild Inc., who allied with Bannon in threatening import quotas to address the massive US trade deficit with China and the European Union.

Another Bannon ally is US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer a former military and intelligence analyst with ties to the newsletter Breitbart. He is a strong opponent of the neoliberal, globalizers in and out of the Trump regime.

‘Senior Adviser’ and Trump speechwriter, Stephen Miller actively promotes the travel ban on Muslims and stricter restrictions on immigration. Miller represents the Bannon wing of Trump’s zealously pro-Israel cohort.

Sebastian Gorka, Trump’s Deputy Assistant in military and intelligence affairs, was more an ideologue than analyst, who wrote for Breitbart and rode to office on Bannon’s coat tails. Right after removing Bannon, the ‘Generals’ purged Gorka in early August on accusations of ‘anti-Semitism’.

Whoever remains among Trump’s economic nationalists are significantly handicapped by the loss of Steve Bannon who had provided leadership and direction. However, most have social and economic backgrounds, which also link them to the military power elite on some issues and with the pro-Israel free marketers on others. However, their core beliefs had been shaped and defined by Bannon.

The Business Power Elite

Exxon Mobile CEO Rex Tillerson, (left) Trump’s Secretary of State and former Texas Governor Rick Perry, Energy Secretary lead the business elite. Meanwhile, the business elite associated with US manufacturing and industry have little direct influence on domestic or foreign policy. While they follow the Wall Street free marketers on domestic policy, they are subordinated to the military elite on foreign policy and are not allied with Steve Bannon’s ideological core.

Trump’s business elite, which has no link to the economic nationalists in the Trump regime, provides a friendlier face to overseas economic allies and adversaries.

Analysis and Conclusion

The power elite cuts across party affiliations, branches of government and economic strategies. It is not restricted to either political party, Republican or Democratic. It includes free marketers, some economic nationalists, Wall Street power brokers and militarists. All compete and fight for power, wealth and dominance within this administration. The correlation of forces is volatile, changing rapidly in short periods of time – reflecting the lack of cohesion and coherence in the Trump regime.

Never has the US power elite been subject to such monumental changes in composition and direction during the first year of a new regime.

During the Obama Presidency, Wall Street and the Pentagon comfortably shared power with Silicon Valley billionaires and the mass media elite. They were united in pursuing an imperial ‘globalist’ strategy, emphasizing multiple theaters of war and multilateral free trade treaties, which was in the process of reducing millions of American workers to permanent helotry.

With the inauguration of President Trump, this power elite faced challenges and the emergence of a new strategic configuration, which sought drastic changes in US political economic and military policy.

The architect of the Trump’s campaign and strategy, Steve Bannon, sought to displace the global economic and military elite with his alliance of economic nationalists, manufacturing workers and protectionist business elites. Bannon pushed for a major break from Obama’s policy of multiple permanent wars to expanding the domestic market. He proposed troop withdrawal and the end of US military operations in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq, while increasing a combination of economic, political and military pressure on China. He sought to end sanctions and confrontation against Moscow and fashion economic ties between the giant energy producers in the US and Russia.

While Bannon was initially the chief strategist in the White House, he quickly found himself faced with powerful rivals inside the regime, and ardent opponents among Democratic and Republican globalists and especially from the Zionist – neoliberals who systematically maneuvered to win strategic economic and policy positions within the regime. Instead of being a coherent platform from which to formulate a new radical economic strategy, the Trump Administration was turned into a chaotic and vicious ‘terrain for struggle’. The Bannon’s economic strategy barely got off the ground.

The mass media and operatives within the state apparatus, linked to Obama’s permanent war strategy, first attacked Trump’s proposed economic reconciliation with Russia. To undermine any ‘de-escalation’, they fabricated the Russian spy and election manipulation conspiracy. Their first successful shots were fired at Lt. General Michael Flynn, Bannon’s ally and key proponent for reversing the Obama/Clinton policy of military confrontation with Russia. Flynn was quickly destroyed and openly threatened with prosecution as a ‘Russian agent’ in whipped-up hysteria that resembled the heydays of Senator Joseph McCarthy.

Key economic posts in the Trump regime were split between the Israel-Firster neoliberals and the economic nationalists. The ‘Deal Maker’ President Trump attempted to harness Wall Street-affiliated neoliberal Zionists to the economic nationalists, linked to Trump’s working class electoral base, in formulating new trade relations with the EU and China, which would favor US manufacturers. Given the irreconcilable differences between these forces, Trump’s naïve ‘deal’ weakened Bannon, undermined his leadership and wrecked his nationalist economic strategy.

While Bannon had secured several important economic appointees, the Zionist neoliberals undercut their authority. The Fischer-Mnuchin-Cohn cohort successfully set a competing agenda.

The entire Congressional elite from both parties united to paralyze the TrumpBannon agenda. The giant corporate mass media served as a hysterical and rumor-laden megaphone for zealous Congressional and FBI investigators magnifying every nuance of Trump’s US Russia relations in search of conspiracy. The combined state-Congressional and Media apparatus overwhelmed the unorganized and unprepared mass base of Bannon electoral coalition which had elected Trump.

Thoroughly defeated, the toothless President Trump retreated in desperate search for a new power configuration, turning his day-to-day operations over to ‘his generals’. The elected civilian President of the United States embraced his generals’ pursuit of a new military-globalist alliance and escalation of military threats foremost against North Korea, but including Russia and China. Afghanistan was immediately targeted for an expanded intervention.

Trump effectively replaced Bannon’s economic nationalist strategy with a revival Obama’s multi-war military approach.

The Trump regime re-launched the US attacks on Afghanistan and Syria – exceeding Obama’s use of drone attacks on suspected Muslim militants. He intensified sanctions against Russia and Iran, embraced Saudi Arabia’s war against the people of Yemen and turned the entire Middle East policy over to his ultra-Zionist Political Advisor (Real Estate mogul and son-in-law) Jared Kushner and US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman.

Trump’s retreat turned into a grotesque rout. The Generals embraced the neoliberal Zionists in Treasury and the Congressional global militarists. Communication Directory Anthony Scaramucci was fired. Trump’s Chief of Staff General Joe Kelly purged Steve Bannon. Sebastian Gorka was kicked out.

The eight months of internal struggle between the economic nationalists and the neoliberals has ended: The Zionist-globalist alliance with Trump’s Generals now dominate the Power Elite.

Trump is desperate to adapt to the new configuration, allied to his own Congressional adversaries and the rabidly anti-Trump mass media.

Having all but decimated Trump’s economic nationalists and their program, the Power Elite then mounted a series of media-magnified events centering around a local punch-out in Charlottesville, Virginia between ‘white supremacists’ and ‘anti-fascists’. After the confrontation led to death and injury, the media used Trump’s inept attempt to blame both ‘baseball bat’-wielding sides, as proof of the President’s links to neo-Nazis and the KKK. Neoliberal and Zionists, within the Trump administration and his business councils, all joined in the attack on the President, denouncing his failure to immediately and unilaterally blame rightwing extremists for the mayhem.

Trump is turning to sectors of the business and Congressional elite in a desperate attempt to hold onto waning support via promises to enact massive tax cuts and deregulate the entire private sector.

The decisive issue was no longer over one policy or another or even strategy.

Trump had already lost on all accounts. The ‘final solution’ to the problem of the election of Donald Trump is moving foreword step-by-step – his impeachment and possible arrest by any and all means.

What the rise and destruction of economic nationalism in the ‘person’ of Donald Trump tells us is that the American political system cannot tolerate any capitalist reforms that might threaten the imperial globalist power elite.

Writers and activists used to think that only democratically elected socialist regimes would be the target of systematic coup d’état. Today the political boundaries are far more restrictive. To call for ‘economic nationalism’, completely within the capitalist system, and seek reciprocal trade agreements is to invite savage political attacks, trumped up conspiracies and internal military take-overs ending in ‘regime change’.

The global-militarist elite purge of economic nationalists and anti-militarists was supported by the entire US left with a few notable exceptions. For the first time in history the left became an organizational weapon of the pro-war, pro-Wall Street, pro-Zionist Right in the campaign to oust President Trump. Local movements and leaders, notwithstanding, trade union functionaries, civil rights and immigration politicians, liberals and social democrats have joined in the fight for restoring the worst of all worlds: the Clinton-Bush-Obama/Clinton policy of permanent multiple wars, escalating confrontations with Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela and Trump’s deregulation of the US economy and massive tax-cuts for big business.

We have gone a long-way backwards: from elections to purges and from peace agreements to police state investigations. Today’s economic nationalists are labeled‘fascists’; and displaced workers are ‘the deplorables’!

Americans have a lot to learn and unlearn. Our strategic advantage may reside in the fact that political life in the United States cannot get worse – we really have touched bottom and (barring a nuclear war) we can only look up.

Featured image is from The Unz Review.

The original source of this article is The Official James Petras Website

It’s not just U.S. politicians, it seems the majority of Americans are frigging mad

Survey: Most Americans Accept Preemptive Nuclear Strike Against Iranian Civilians

As the survey notes, a clear majority of Americans “would approve of using nuclear weapons first against the civilian population of a nonnuclear-armed adversary, killing 2 million Iranian civilians, if they believed that such use would save the lives of 20,000 U.S. soldiers.”

A new survey published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) suggests Americans are willing to make a first nuclear strike against Iran and kill millions of civilians in the process.

According to the report, entitled “Revisiting Hiroshima in Iran,” although the majority of Americans initially approved of President Harry S. Truman’s decision to drop the nuclear bomb in 1945 on two civilian populations in Japan, a poll conducted in 1998 showed the number of Americans who approved of the decision had dropped since the 1970s and 1980s. This trend carried on even until the early 2000s and arguably to the present day.

However, the new survey shows that many Americans continue to support nuclear warfare when posed with a hypothetical (albeit currently nonexistent) threat. As the survey notes, a clear majority of Americans “would approve of using nuclear weapons first against the civilian population of a nonnuclear-armed adversary, killing 2 million Iranian civilians, if they believed that such use would save the lives of 20,000 U.S. soldiers.”<img src=”http://www.mintpressnews.com/wp-content/themes/core/images/ads/ad-mp-squigl.jpg” class=”no-thickbox”/>

 

<img class=”size-full wp-image-231502″ src=”http://www.mintpressnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Capture-1.jpg” alt=”Source: MIT’s What Americans Really Think About Using Nuclear Weapons And Killing” width=”588″ height=”505″ srcset=”http://www.mintpressnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Capture-1.jpg 588w, http://www.mintpressnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Capture-1-300×258.jpg 300w” sizes=”(max-width: 588px) 100vw, 588px” />

Source: MIT’s What Americans Really Think About Using Nuclear Weapons And Killing
Noncombatants

Around 60 percent of respondents polled said they would approve of the decision to kill two million Iranians.

As Bloomberg explained:

The survey casts doubt on the power of what experts call the ‘nuclear taboo,’ said Stanford University historian David Holloway, author of ‘Stalin and the Bomb.’ The idea, or hope, behind the concept is that it’s not just luck that humans haven’t dropped any nuclear weapons for 70 years — that there’s a stigma that makes the use of nuclear weapons unthinkable.”

One would have to wonder if most Americans are even aware that the Trump administration is spending billions of dollars developing its nuclear technology far beyond what America’s rivals can match. Recognizing the nuclear threat America poses to Russia and its interests, particularly by having NATO members surround Russia with its anti-missile defense system, Russian President Vladimir Putin issued a warning last year that Russia was modernizing its missile systems in preparation for what’s to come.

Russia has also warned multiple times about attacking Iran and views Iran as a strategic ally. This is just one of the factors Americans should take into account when considering the use of nuclear weapons.

---

Related | Demand Grows To Strip Trump Of Nuclear Authority

---

As Bloomberg noted, there are a number of other factors that should also be examined:

That just means they haven’t thought about it,’ said Brian Toon, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Colorado. They think nuclear weapons are just big bombs that blow up lots of people, he said, without considering the way a nuclear conflict -– even a ‘small’ one involving some 10 percent of the U.S. arsenal — might poison millions of men, women and children and change the climate enough to starve hundreds of millions.”

What it ultimately shows is that Americans want to fight (and instigate) wars but no longer want to expend their own people commissioning such conflicts. Polls have also demonstrated that the majority of Americans approve of the use of drone warfare against suspected terrorists, another example of Americans approving of killing people without realistically endangering personnel.

In Libya, an American drone flown out of Sicily by an American pilot based in Nevada directly struck Muammar Gaddafi’s motorcade. Little thought is paid to the fact that the U.S. helped assassinate a foreign leader in direct contravention of international law, arguably because no American personnel were killed or even endangered (in contrast, when many Americans think of Libya, they focus on the handful of American lives lost in Benghazi).

This paradigm, identified as one of three schools of thought by the MIT study, is solely concerned with “winning wars and the desire to minimize the loss of lives of their nation’s soldiers.”

This view appeared to hold even when the scenario presented to the respondents was one in which the U.S. aggravated Iran via sanctions and Iran responded with a direct attack on a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 was also provoked via U.S.-led crippling economic restrictions on Japan, and even the number of military personnel killed in the hypothetical scenario MIT presented to subjects was the same as the number of U.S. personnel who died at Pearl Harbor (though this was not mentioned to respondents).

As we all know, this particular story ended with the complete destruction of Japan’s major cities through conventional bombing, as well as the nuclear decimation of two civilian populations. Also bear in mind that America’s modern day nukes are far more dangerous than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, meaning any future nuclear strike would have an even worse impact on the civilian population.

In addition to a majority of Americans’ willingness to use nuclear weapons on civilians, the survey found “an even larger percentage of Americans would approve of a conventional bombing attack designed to kill 100,000 Iranian civilians in the effort to intimidate Iran into surrendering.”

Read the full report What Americans Really Think About Using Nuclear Weapons And Killing below:

Top photo: Frank Gaffney, founder and CEO of the Center for Security Policy, speaks during a rally organized by Tea Party Patriots in on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Sept. 9, 2015, to oppose the Iran nuclear agreement. (AP/Carolyn Kaster)

Trump, The Last of the Mad Pirates?

The Last of the Mad Pirates?

Exclusive: President Trump’s erratic behavior and careless bellicosity could have dire consequences for the world, but he also demonstrates the need to rethink America’s global power, notes David Marks.

By David Marks

There is clear evidence of a world increasingly steeped in conflict and violence: The degradation of U.S.-Russian relations, territorial tensions in the South China Sea, the hostile rhetoric between North Korea and the United States, an escalation of the border conflict between China and India, growing tension between Israel and Iran, and the continuing wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Ukraine; among other hostilities around the globe yielding death and destruction.

A pirate flag from the early Eighteenth Century.

Yet there is some indication that what we may be witnessing is darkness before a new dawn.

In his historical essay of 1968, Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth, Buckminster Fuller, futurist and inventor of the geodesic dome, describes the conquest and colonization of the planet by Europeans as the age of the great pirates. He marks the end of that era with World War I, followed with a subsequent attempt by lesser pirates taking advantage of a time when the planet’s fate was precarious.

Fuller concluded that the later events of the Twentieth Century and beyond would be determined by the wisdom and strength of those who recognized that Spaceship Earth has limited resources that need to be appreciated and protected. As with others who consider our predicament, he saw only two possibilities:

“We are not going to be able to operate our Spaceship Earth successfully nor for much longer unless we see it as a whole spaceship and our fate as common. It has to be everybody or nobody.”

The reign of the last of the pirates in their final self-destructive, single-minded grasp for profits would either destroy human life as we know it or be countered with a new sustainable relationship with the Earth.

The struggle between the conflict generating profiteers and those who recognize that reducing conflict is the only path to sustaining human life on the planet, is coming to a head. Despite hard evidence that environmental traumas are increasing and will dominate the near future, the modern pirates are in defiant denial, leading their final charge against anything that might get in the way of gargantuan treasure chests. They must lie, cheat, pillage or kill in order to maintain the facade that everything is okay with the planet.

One of the most critical tools of the great pirates and their modern heirs is the ability to prey on the ignorant and misinformed.

The pirates of old applied the sword to abscond with valuables; and more often committed genocide to steal land and resources from the indigenous.

Propaganda Power 

Modern pirates inherited these tools and became specialists in others. They deceive, entice and encourage scapegoating to obtain treasures or protect their fortunes. Ignorance is fertile ground for their work. Anyone opposing these marauders and their skewed vision of the world become the objects of derision, ridicule and threats of violence.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson at his swearing-in ceremony on Feb. 1, 2017. (Screen shot from Whitehouse.gov)

Yes, this tale may sound familiar as we watch world events unfold. In that sense, the Trump presidency is a dramatic test of the planet’s fate; the last desperate, inane, final gasps of piracy confront us all.

Some recent U.S. Presidents, other world leaders, corporations and industrialists bear some resemblance to the pirates of old, and certainly there are current conflicts that are fueled outside the scope of U.S. influence. But Trump is straight out of Central Casting. And in contrast to his self-aggrandizement, he is not the heroic leader, but rather the mad, despised black pirate awash in his own darkness and loathing.

The glimmer of light comes because President Trump, pirate extraordinaire, is unwittingly doing everything to ensure that no one will ever tolerate a pirate again.

Because he is great at alienating others, Trump’s enemies begin to unite. Some of his previous supporters and loyalists have mutinied in reaction to his unwillingness to condemn racism and his willingness to pardon political allies. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson recently spoke an amazing phrase to encapsulate and isolate the so-called leader of the free world: “The President speaks for himself.”

The greatest danger, which was noted by some before he was elected and is just being recognized by those who have been on board his ship until now, is Trump’s proclivity to embrace violence, however and wherever it might suit him, such as his rush-to-judgment missile strike against a Syrian airbase in April. Many an eyebrow was raised at Trump’s “fire and fury like the world has never seen” threat against North Korea – suggesting a nuclear strike – but very few have broached the touchy subject of taking away his role as commander in chief, including his nuclear sword, via impeachment or the Twenty-fifth Amendment’s provision for declaring the President “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office” (requiring a finding by the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet).

A Pattern of Violence

Veiled hope percolates that Trump’s words are no more than bluster – and it must be acknowledged that Trump’s predecessors resorted to violence repeatedly around the world, including Nobel Peace laureate Barack Obama, who acknowledged bombing seven countries, and George W. Bush, who invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and lusted for more wars, and that Trump’s rival last year, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, may have surpassed even Trump in her hawkishness, having pushed for the invasion of Libya in 2011 and supporting the bloody proxy war in Syria.

Barack Obama and George W. Bush at the White House.

But the current mad pirate, if nothing else, excels at unpredictability. The world watches in amazement as a buccaneer steers the most powerful ship on the planet with egoistic lunacy. How might this precarious tale have a happy end?

If we manage to survive these dangers, the Trump presidency could engender a new era of consensus. Perhaps with the maddest of the pirates gone, recognition of the causes of his ascendency might be considered. First and foremost: the last U.S. presidential election presented only a choice between an unsustainable status quo and a role of the dice.

In that sense, it is not enough for Trump simply to be replaced by another pirate, even one with a calmer disposition and a better vocabulary. For the U.S., a period of serious self-criticism is warranted. Without that, it is hard to envision how candidates seeking a more peaceful future can succeed.

President Trump’s crass destructiveness – and the more suave advocacy of violence by Bush, Obama and Clinton – should be a mirror for all Americans to reflect upon. The image of Trump is more garish and thus more obvious in its ugliness, but that may finally shake Americans of all ideological persuasions awake in the recognition of the viciousness that has absorbed American politics and society.

Trump’s unintended contribution is that he makes obvious how dangerous it is for the planet to have mad pirates at the helm. He has given re-birth to a concept that Fuller succinctly expressed: “If humanity does not opt for integrity we are through completely. It is absolutely touch and go. Each one of us could make the difference.”

Perhaps – once Americans are awake to this reality – simple things might be prioritized; like reducing violence between nations and religions, reversing the abuses that have bruised the planet and polluted its atmosphere. And maybe working to ensure that everyone on Spaceship Earth is fed, sheltered and educated.

Unlikely, naive and idealistic you say? Perhaps, but the moral health of the United States is a strong influence on the rest of the world. The direction that the U.S. takes after Trump will be a key factor in future global stability, both politically and environmentally.

The veil hasn’t quite lifted and the pirates still dominate, but there’s potential for recognizing we’re all on a mother ship worth protecting.

David Marks is a veteran documentary filmmaker and investigative reporter. His work includes films for the BBC and PBS, including Nazi Gold, on the role of Switzerland in WWII and biographies of Jimi Hendrix and Frank Sinatra.

Israel’s Chorus Sings Again

Less than total loyalty to Israel is un-American

By Philip Giraldi

August 15, 2017 “Information Clearing House” – Congress is on a one-month summer recess. You would think that given the recent turmoil over the bill to eliminate Obamacare and the upcoming debate over tax policy the nation’s legislators would be back in their home districts talking to the voters. Some are, but many are not. “More than fifty” Congressmen are off on an all-expenses paid trip to Israel to demonstrate that “there is no stronger bond with any ally we have.” Yes indeed, a congress which cannot pass legislation to benefit the American people finds that it has only one voice when it comes to our troublesome little client state that also doubles as the leading recipient of U.S. tax dollars in the world.

How do they do it? They do it by relentless courting of the congress critters and media talking heads, all of whom know how to repay a favor. Some readers might be asking how Congress (spouses included) can accept these free trips from a foreign government? The current trip is estimated to be costing $10,000 per person. Well, the answer is that they can’t do it directly, which would be illegal, so the clever rascals at the American Israel Political Affairs Committee (AIPAC) have created an “charitable” foundation that pays the bills. It’s called the American Israel Education Foundation (AIEF). AIEF is a tax exempt 501(c)3 foundation that had income of more than $80 million in 2015. As it is tax exempt that means that its activities are, in effect, being subsidized by the U.S. Treasury so the congressmen are being “charitably educated” while they are also being wined and dined and propagandized in part on the taxpayers’ dime. A couple of the congress critters hardly hit the ground before they were singing the praises of their hosts, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy crooning “We have shared values! Shared security interests! No stronger bond!” And plenty of feel-good all around as Israel is “The Only Democracy in the Middle East!”

Democratic House Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland, who has had his head up the Israeli derriere for decades, was also quick on the uptake, enthusing how support for Israel is completely bipartisan, “We are not here as Democrats and Republicans, we are here as Americans who support Israel’s security, its sovereignty and the safety of its people.” And as if it is not enough to go around bragging how one is subordinating U.S. sovereignty to that of Israel, the gnomes are hard at work back at home preparing to pass into law the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, which will criminalize for many Americans their First Amendment right to criticize Israel, and a completely bipartisan bit of new legislation being pushed by the Israeli government that will take away aid currently given to the Palestinians as long as the Palestinian Authority continues to provide subsidies to help support the families of those individuals being held prisoner by the Israelis. As most aid actually goes towards training Palestinian security forces that are intended to prevent terror attacks against Israelis, the bill is as wrong-headed as can be, but it just goes to show how far Congress will go to punish Arabs on behalf of Israel.

And finally there has been a series of Israel-centric attacks on leading members of the Trump Administration. A month ago, the State Department released its annual Country Reports on Terrorism for 2016. The report, as always, describes threats of violence in the Middle East from an Israeli perspective, but it was honest enough to also include two sentences that state that

“Continued drivers of violence included a lack of hope in achieving Palestinian statehood, Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank, settler violence against Palestinians…and IDF tactics that the Palestinians considered overly aggressive. The PA has [also] taken significant steps…to not create or disseminate content that incites violence.”

B’nai B’rith immediately blasted the report for “parroting the false Palestinian narrative” and the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) demanded that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson resign because the report was “bigoted, biased, anti-Semitic, Israel hating, error ridden.” ZOA went on to praise the co-chairman of the Republican Israel Caucus, Congressman Peter Roskam for demanding that the State Department correct the “numerous mischaracterizations” in the report.

Tillerson has long been a target of the American-Jewish media because of the perception that oil company executives are traditionally not friendly to Israel. There have also been claims that he is “less hard” on Iran than the Israel Lobby would like. But what Tillerson is really experiencing is the hard truth regarding Israel: that its Lobby and friends in congress are both unrelenting and unforgiving. Even when they get 90% of the pie they are furious over someone else getting 10%.

Donald Trump’s National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster has also been under siege for the past several weeks and his “loyalty” to Israel is now under the microscope. McMaster made the mistake of firing three National Security Council officials that were brought in by his predecessor Michael Flynn. The three – Ezra Cohen-Watnick, Rich Higgins, and Derek Harvey – are all regarded by the Israel Lobby as passionately pro-Israel and virulently anti-Iran. It was therefore inevitable that McMaster would take some heat, but the “speed and intensity” of the attacks has surprised even The Atlantic, which failed to note in its thorough examination of the development that while much of the anger flows from extreme right-wing sources there is also considerable pressure coming directly from friends of Israel.

It is interesting to note just how and by whom the argument against McMaster is being framed. Caroline Glick, an American-born Israeli journalist who might reasonably be described as extreme right wing, has led the charge in a posting that described McMaster as “deeply hostile to Israel.” She cites anonymous sources to claim that he refers to Israel as an occupying power and also has the audacity to claim that there once existed a place called Palestine. Oh, and he apparently also supports the nuclear agreement with Iran, as does Tillerson.

McMaster’s other crimes consist of allegedly altering the agenda of Donald Trump’s recent trip to Israel in ways that are somewhat arcane but which no doubt contributed to Glick’s sense of grievance. What is most interesting, however, is the unstated premise supporting Glick’s point of view, which is that the United States national security team should be subject to approval by Israel. Her view is not dissimilar to what lies behind the attacks on Tillerson and the real irony is that neither Tillerson nor McMaster has actually demonstrated any genuine animosity towards Israel, so the whole process is part of a perverse mindset that inevitably sees nearly everything as a threat.

We Americans are way beyond the point where we might simply demand that Israel and its partisans butt out of our politics. Israel-firsters are literally deeply embedded everywhere in the media, in politics at all levels, in academia, and in the professions. They are well funded and highly disciplined to respond to any threats to their hegemony. Their policy is to never give an inch on anything relating to Israel and their relentless grinding is characteristic of how they behave. The Israel Lobby controls Congress and can literally get any bill it wants through the legislature. And it also has its hooks in the White House, though the unpredictable Trump obviously makes many American Zionists nervous because it is rightly believed that once the president takes a position on anything he cannot be trusted either to understand what he has committed to or to stick with it subsequently.

So what is to be done? To match the passion of the Israel Lobby we Americans have to become passionate ourselves. Do what they do but in reverse. Write letters to congressmen and newspapers opposing the junkets to Israel. When a congress critter has a town hall, show up and complain about our involvement in the Middle East. Keep mentioning the pocket book issues, i.e. how Israel costs the taxpayer $9 million a day. Explain how its behavior puts our diplomats and soldiers overseas in danger. The reality is that Israel is built on a lot of lies promoted by people who frequently cite the holocaust every time they turn around but who have no actual regard for humanity outside their own tribe. The hypocrisy must stop if the United States is to survive as a nation. Pandering to Israel and engaging in constant wars to directly or indirectly defend it, be they against Iran or in Syria, will wear our country down and erode our freedoms. We are already on a slippery slope and it is past time to put our own interests first.

This article was first published by Unz Review –

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

Support Information Clearing House

Your support has kept ICH free on the Web since 2002.

======

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

Voice of Sanity Missing in Korean Showdown

Posted on August 9, 2017 

by Richard Edmondson

[ Ed. note – If you’re looking for a leader of enlightened wisdom, or even one who simply manages to display prudence and sanity on a somewhat regular basis, Donald Trump doesn’t seem to fit the bill. For all the foolhardy, misguided decisions he made in choosing his cabinet and staff, Trump’s threat to unleash “fire and fury” upon North Korea may be the stupidest move we’ve seen from him yet. In addition to Trump, Mattis, the Secretary of Defense, is threatening the “destruction” of the North Korean people, and if all that isn’t bad enough, the North Korean government is threatening to attack Guam. ]

***

Relations Between US and North Korea Deteriorate to New Low

Izvestia — translated by Inessa Sinchougova — Aug. 9, 2017

A meeting of the UN Security Council on the situation on the Korean peninsula has taken place in New York. A new cause for concern – the words of Donald Trump: they say, the US will respond to the dangers of the North Korea “by force, fury and fire,” which “the world has not yet seen.” In response, on North Korea’s Central Television, it was said: Pyongyang is ready to strike a missile at the US military base on Guam. How will this clattering with weapons end?

Angry rhetoric between the North Korea and the US has reached a new level. Now Pyongyang has announced to the States not just new missile tests, but a blow, the goal of which is quite specific.

“North Korea is developing a plan for a preemptive missile strike against US military facilities on the Pacific island of Guam, including the Andersen airbase, where strategic bombers are deployed,” Korean television reported.

The North Korean military said that they would use medium-range ballistic missiles Hwasong-12 for their purposes. Theoretically, the rocket can reach the island of Guam.

“The missile, Hwasong-12, is theoretically capable of flying to the island of Guam,” said military expert Ivan Konovalov. “It was already tested in May of this year, it flew only 700 kilometers. But it had a very steep trajectory. Experts say that the missile can “strike” at 4,500 kilometers. This missile – if it will be launched – will still be intercepted by the US missile defense THAAD, which is in South Korea. But this complex is precisely designed to intercept such missiles.”

However, even if the missile is intercepted, the consequences can be disastrous for both sides. The crisis will shift to a new level – from rhetoric to concrete actions.

Perhaps, it is precisely the continuation of a verbal skirmish, and not the development of the conflict, that is expected in Washington. Governor of Guam Edward Calvo said “I want to reassure people that there is currently no threat to our island. I remind you that there are several levels of protection that are strategically located to protect our island and our nation. An attack or threat on Guam is a threat or an attack on the United States. ”

The Secretary of State of the United States, Rex Tillerson, was quick to introduce clarity in the dialogue. His statement sounded much more gentle than the emotional statement of Trump. “The harsh statements by US President Donald Trump about North Korea do not mean that Washington will abandon attempts to settle the problem peacefully,” the US Secretary of State explained. “What the president is doing is a message to North Korea in a language that Kim Jong-un can understand, because he does not seem to understand the diplomatic language. ”

The possible development of the conflict on the Korean peninsula has already affected the Asian market. The Korean stock index, which includes more than 700 companies, fell by 0.8 percent. Outside military threat, the deterioration of the situation in the region can affect the profits of companies and reduce business activity in the region.

***

Breaking: North Korea Developing Final Plan to Hit Guam in Mid-August

By Adam Garrie – The Duran

North Korean media has announced that the leadership is finalising plans for hitting Guam with intermediate range missiles which are apparently to be launched in mid-August.

Sputnik quotes General Kim Rak Gyom who said the following to North Korean media,

“The Hwasong-12 rockets to be launched by the KPA (Korean People’s Army) will cross the sky above Shimane, Hiroshima and Koichi Prefectures of Japan.

They will fly 3,356.7 km (2,085.8 miles) for 1,065 seconds and hit the waters 30 to 40 km away from Guam”.

Several things are curious about this statement.

First of all, by stating that the preparations for the attack to apparently take place in mid-August are being made now, North Korea seems to be validating the Russian statement that it takes a significant amount of time for North Korea to launch missiles that countries like Russia, China and the US can generally launch in a matter of seconds or at the very most, a matter of hours, depending on the kind of warhead payload attacked to the missile in question.

Secondly, by telling the United States that it plans to launch an attack in the direction of Guam, the crucial element of surprise is totally lost.

North Korea further stated that Trump’s remarks threatening to hit north Korea with “fire and fury” the likes the world “has never seen before”, amount to “A load of nonsense”.

North Korea further stated that Donald Trump is only capable of understanding force, because he is “bereft of reason”. Such statements far from being classic North Korean rhetoric soudn a great deal like commentators on CNN and op-ed pieces in the Washington Post, New York Times and Guardian.

Sputnik reports,

“Pyongyang also said that America’s “frantic moves” on the Korean Peninsula will be reined by the action the North’s military “is about to take.”

First the communist nation will develop a plan for the historic “enveloping fire at Guam,” communicate the nuclear force of the attack to Kim, then, “wait for is order.”
The DPRK has said it will “keep closely watching the speech and behavior of the US.”

Earlier today, US Secretary of State James Mattis warned the North in a statement that they should “cease any consideration of actions that would lead to the end of its regime and the destruction of its people.”

He added, “While our State Department is making every effort to resolve this global threat through diplomatic means, it must be noted that the combined allied militaries now possess the most precise, rehearsed and robust defensive and offensive capabilities on Earth.  The DPRK regime’s actions will continue to be grossly overmatched by ours and would lose any arms race or conflict it initiates.”

Either this is the ultimate test of brinkmanship on both sides, or the world’s most dangerous game of chicken. This comes as Russia, China and Philippines repeat calls for dialogue as the only safe and sensible way forward.

Trump’s Knowledge of Lebanese Situation Is Non-Existent

WAYNE MADSEN | 08.08.2017 | OPINION

US President Donald Trump, hobbled by a two-minute attention span, demonstrated his utter lack of knowledge about the political situation in Lebanon during a recent visit to the White House of Lebanese prime minister Saad Hariri. During a press conference outside the White House, Trump opened his remarks by stating to an astonished Hariri and the viewing Lebanese television audience, «Lebanon is on the front lines in the fight against ISIS, Al Qaeda, and Hezbollah».

Trump was correct that Lebanon is battling the Islamic State and Al Qaeda but is doing so with the assistance of Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shi’a movement with which Hariri’s government maintains a fragile but maturing political accommodation. Trump followed his opening remarks by stating, «Hezbollah is a menace to the Lebanese state, the Lebanese people, and the entire region. The group continues to increase its military arsenal, which threatens to start yet another conflict with Israel, constantly fighting them back. With the support of Iran, the organization is also fueling the humanitarian catastrophe in Syria. Hezbollah likes to portray itself as a defender of Lebanese interests, but it’s very clear that its true interests are those of itself and its sponsor – Iran».

Following his meeting and news conference with Trump, Hariri was forced to correct the record in order not to face a government collapse back in Beirut. Hariri said,

«We fight ISIS and al-Qaida. Hezbollah is in the government and part of parliament and we have an understanding with it».

There is little doubt that Trump, under the influence of Israeli agents-of-influence like his son-in-law Jared Kushner, was not briefed on Hezbollah’s critical role in supporting the Hariri government, to bring about a Lebanese political crisis. Fortunately, Hezbollah did not fall for the Israeli subterfuge and gimmickry carried out by the White House.

Kushner obviously had help in briefing Trump on the need to attack Hezbollah. Just after Trump’s misguided comments on Hezbollah, US National Security Adviser Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster fired an unwanted staff member, Ezra Cohen-Watnick, a leftover from retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn’s regime at the National Security Council. After Flynn was fired by Trump in February 2017, McMaster attempted to oust Cohen-Watnick, who was attempting to use sectors of the Central Intelligence Agency and Defense Intelligence Agency, where the staffer once worked, to overthrow the government of Iran. Israel’s propaganda network within the United States and abroad began beating the tired old «anti-Semite» canard to criticize McMaster and call for his firing by Trump. Immediately, «rumors» began circulating from the White House, most of them originating with the Kushner circle, that Trump was considering relieving McMaster as National Security Adviser and sending him to command US troops in Afghanistan, a move like Adolf Hitler sending rebellious German generals off to the «Russian front».

The Kushner crowd also suggested that Trump was misled about the situation in Lebanon by Hariri, who was accused of colluding with Hezbollah, Lebanese president Michel Aoun – a political ally of Hezbollah, the Lebanese Armed Forces, Directorate of General Security (Lebanese Intelligence) General Abbas Ibrahim, and unnamed Lebanese lobbying organizations in Washington, DC of trying to «sell» a «pro-Iran order» in Lebanon and Syria. Only seasoned cabalists who make up the Israel Lobby, itself possessing a rich history of advancing actual conspiracies, could concoct such an intricate fictional conspiracy theory to complement their hysterical rhetoric concerning Lebanon.

With Cohen-Watnick out at the National Security Council and Trump’s new chief of staff, retired Marine General John Kelly, attempting to limit Kushner’s access to the Oval Office and involvement with crucial Middle East policy decisions, perhaps Trump can be educated about Israel’s documented military, logistical, and intelligence support for the Sunni jihadist groups in Syria that have been battling against the Syrian Army and volunteers from Hezbollah and Iran. However, Trump has been found loathe to listen to advice from anyone who commands more knowledge of international affairs than himself, which may be anyone possessing a Bachelor’s degree in political science or history.

Trump’s siding with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in a sanctions showdown with Qatar, engineered by Abu Dhabi’s computer hacking of the Qatar News Agency, is a case in point. The entire Qatar episode appears to have been engineered by Kushner, who was miffed after Qatar rejected his request for a $500 million investment in the failing Kushner office building at 666 Fifth Avenue in Manhattan, and the UAE’s pro-Israel and anti-Qatar ambassador in Washington, Yousef Al Otaiba. Trump found it preferable to heed the advice of Kushner and the Saudis and Emiratis over that provided by McMaster and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

Trump was obviously operating from an outdated neo-conservative playbook when he met with Hariri. True, Hariri has long been considered a Sunni pro-Saudi political power in Beirut. But, Hariri is prime minister as the result of a carefully-negotiated power sharing agreement that saw Aoun become president, Hariri become prime minister, and Hezbollah backing the national unity arrangement. While Trump fails to meet the most minimum degree of a working knowledge of international politics, the same does not hold true for operatives like Kushner and his allies in the White House. It is likely that these pro-Israeli elements were trying to engineer a political crisis in Lebanon, an event that would have worked in Israel’s favor.

Hezbollah, which has scored impressive military successes against Israeli military forces and which has managed to harden its telecommunications systems from Israeli eavesdropping, did not take Kushner’s bait. Hariri has publicly recognized and lauded Hezbollah’s role in militarily defeating Al Qaeda and Islamic State jihadist forces on Lebanon’s northern border, calling it a «big achievement». Hariri stated,

«We have our opinion and Hezbollah has its opinion, but in the end, we met on a consensus that concerns the Lebanese people for the [welfare of the] Lebanese economy, security and stability».

Hezbollah leader Nasrallah also held back from falling into the Israeli and Wahhabist trap. Rather than denounce Trump for his ill-informed comments on Hezbollah, Nasrallah merely said he would withhold comment to not embarrass Hariri and his entourage. The words of Hariri and the «no comment» by Nasrallah were irritants to the Israelis and their Wahhabist allies in Riyadh and Abu Dhabi, who were hoping to upset the political apple cart in Beirut.

For years, the Israelis and Saudis have attempted to force a Sunni radical government on Lebanon. Both countries’ intelligence services had their fingerprints on the November 2005 car bombing assassination in Beirut of Hariri’s father, former prime minister Rafik Hariri.

This was borne out by a United Nations panel headed by former Canadian prosecutor Daniel Bellemare, which concluded that Rafik Hariri was assassinated by a «criminal network», not by Syrian intelligence or Hezbollah as proffered by the neo-conservative propaganda mill operating out of Washington, DC and Jerusalem.

In fact, Lebanese intelligence ascertained that the assassination of Hariri and twenty-two other persons was carried out by rogue Syrian, Druze, and Palestinian intelligence operatives in Lebanon who were in the pay of Israel’s Mossad intelligence service.

The entire operation was designed to besmirch Hezbollah and Syria and their Lebanese Christian allies. The Israelis were fishing for a casus belli to justify a Western military attack on Syria. War with Syria would be put off until the Barack Obama administration’s ill-fated decision to support «Arab Spring» uprisings throughout the secular Arab world. Mr. Trump, knowingly or unknowingly, attempted to set off a political time bomb in Lebanon with his comments about Hezbollah. Lebanese politics has matured greatly since 2005 and neither Hezbollah, Hariri, Aoun, or other legitimate Lebanese political voices will fall again for the gimmickry engineered in Jerusalem, Riyadh, and the Israeli-directed think tanks in Washington.

Related Articles

• Preparing for War on Hizbullah
• Lebanon Elects New President: Opportunities for Russia-Lebanese Cooperation
• Saudis, Turks Bid to Open Lebanon Front

Gas wars: Syria, Qatar, and Putin- Trump Summit حروب الغاز: سورية وقطر وقمّة بوتين ترامب

Gas wars: Syria, Qatar, and Putin- Trump Summit

يوليو 17, 2017

Written by Nasser Kandil,

Energy experts say that the Twentieth century was the century of oil par excellence, while the Twenty-first century is the gas century, and that the global status of America in the twentieth century which is associated with its dominance on oil markets, oil exploration, and export companies is threatened to be moved to Russia which has parallel strength in gas markets, in addition to the inability of Washington to be able to follow Moscow in this filed, so it is not a prediction to say that the wars of Afghanistan( 2001) Iraq( 2003 ) and Lebanon (2006) were the last oil wars, because Afghanistan was a pipeline passage of the Kazakhstan’s oil to China and India, Iraq was an oil spare reserve, while Lebanon is a sea passage of oil pipeline that links Jihan the Turkish port with Haifa, coming from within Nayako project for transferring Kazakhstan oil to the Mediterranean and Europe. The war on Syria was the first gas wars on behalf of its two allies the Russian and the Iranian the major players in the global gas market, in addition to its geographical location between Turkey with its European extension and between the Gulf on one hand and its location on the Mediterranean Sea on the other hand, so this grants a strategic value to the pipelines which pass by it. Qatar and Turkey are two pivotal players in this war, because they locate at the two sides of the pipeline which links the Qatari gas resources with Europe under German finding. Now the war of Qatar is the second war of Gas wars.

The production of the global gas market is close to three hundred billion dollars annually where Qatar takes one-third of it, while it shares with Russia and Iran the markets, which the Russians serve the European part of them, while the Qataris and the Iranians serve the Asian part. After Washington tried to produce the shale gas in response to the failure of its two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan it re-overlooked it due to the difference of cost from the Gulf oil on one hand, and the decline of oil status in confronting the gas on the other hand. The US companies spent time and money to produce the share gas; it reached the stage of entering to the markets since the beginning of the year, in a capacity that is equal 60% of the productive capacity of Qatar, but it searched for a market that absorbs its production. But the Russian gas competes it in Europe and the Qatari gas in Asia. Russia and Qatar are preparing themselves to protect their shares in the markets through price cuts. So if this happens then the US companies investigating in the shale gas will go bankrupt. The agency granted to Saudi Arabia to have control on Qatar is just a part of war, but the Russian and the Iranian protection of Qatar, its independence and its role as a commercial partner in gas market is not mere a maneuver or manipulating with adversaries or tactics to invest in the crises-market between the partners of the war on Syria but a strategic movement that is related to the earlier knowledge of the meaning of the US-Qatari crisis which the Arabs were called to cover it as camouflage, as was the image of showing the war of Syria as a revolution, opposition calls, and reformist endeavors but the password is gas.

Today a summit between the US President Donald Trump and the Russian President Vladimir Putin will be held. Between a businessman who represents his partners in the US shall gas market supported by his Secretary of State Rix Tilerson whose his file is well known, and who was appointed as a General Manager of Exxon Mobil company one of the most important involved countries in the shale gas market, and a former general manager of Russian-American Mobil Oil Gas which is interested in coordinating the US-Russian interests in the oil and gas market ,  and the godfather of Gazprom company which announced its readiness to reduce its prices to 3 dollars per unit of production instead of 5,  versus 4.5 of the American gas which is proposed to Europe, he is supported by Sergey Lavrov the consultant in the Brom Gas.

The regional files are not an obstacle in front of the understanding; their roadmap is drawn since the days of John Kerry and Sergey Lavrov talks. It is not in vain that the files are related directly with the gas market from Ukraine to Syria towards Kores and the Sea of China. The password will be Qatar and the seeking for a peaceful settlement of the crisis, as the Syrian-Iraqi borders were the password in the Russian –Iranian resolving against the US real red lines, due to the linkage of the borders with the gas pipelines which pass from Iran to the Mediterranean.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

 

(Visited 17 times, 2 visits today)

حروب الغاز: سورية وقطر وقمّة بوتين ترامب

 

يوليو 7, 2017

ناصر قنديل

– يقول خبراء الطاقة إنّ القرن العشرين كان قرن النفط بامتياز، لكن القرن الحادي والعشرين هو قرن الغاز، وإنّ مكانة أميركا العالمية في القرن العشرين المقرونة بهيمنتها على أسواق النفط وشركات التنقيب والتصدير النفطية مهدّدة بالانتقال لصالح روسيا كقوة موازية تملكها في أسواق الغاز وعجز واشنطن عن مجاراة موسكو في هذا المجال، وليست مجرد تكهّنات عن المعادلة التي تقول إنّ حروب أفغانستان 2001 والعراق 2003 ولبنان 2006 كانت آخر حروب النفط. فأفغانستان ممرّ أنابيب الشركات الناقلة لنفط كازاخستان إلى الصين والهند، والعراق خزان احتياط النفط، ولبنان ممرّ بحري لأنبوب نفط يربط مرفأ جيهان التركي بحيفا آتياً من ضمن مشروع ناباكو لنفط كازاخستان إلى المتوسط وأوروبا، وأنّ الحرب على سورية هي أولى حروب الغاز، بالوكالة عن حليفيها الروسي والإيراني اللاعبين الكبيرين في سوق الغاز العالمية، وبالأصالة عن موقعها الجغرافي بين تركيا بامتدادها الأوروبي وبين الخليج من جهة، وموقعها على البحر المتوسط من جهة مقابلة، ما يمنح قيمة استراتيجية لأنابيب النفط، العابرة فيها وكانت قطر وتركيا لاعبين محوريّين في هذه الحرب كواقفين على طرفي الأنبوب الواصل من منابع الغاز القطري نحو أوروبا بتمويل ألماني، وها هي حرب قطر الحرب الثانية من حروب الغاز.

– تقارب سوق الغاز العالمية الـ 300 مليار دولار سنوياً، تقتطع قطر ثلثها، وتتقاسم مع روسيا وإيران الأسواق، التي يتولى الروس تخديم الجانب الأوروبي منها، بينما يقوم القطريون والإيرانيون بتخديم الجانب الآسيوي. وبعدما كانت واشنطن قد خاضت تجاربها لإنتاج النفط الصخري رداً على فشل حربيها في العراق وأفغانستان، وعادت فصرفت النظر عنه بسبب فوارق التكلفة عن نفط الخليج من جهة، وتراجع مكانة النفط في مواجهة الغاز من جهة مقابلة، أنفقت الشركات الأميركية وقتاً ومالاً لإنتاج الغاز الصخري، وبلغت مرحلة الاستعداد لدخول الأسواق منذ مطلع العام، بطاقة تعادل 60 في المئة من طاقة قطر الإنتاجية وتبحث عن سوق تناسب إنتاجها، حيث ينافسها الغاز الروسي في أوروبا والغاز القطري في آسيا، وحيث تستعدّ روسيا وقطر لحماية حصصهما من الأسواق بتخفيضات في الاسعار إذا تمّت ستفلس الشركات الأميركية المستثمرة في الغاز الصخري، وليست الوكالة الممنوحة للسعودية لوضع اليد على قطر إلا جزءاً من هذه الحرب، لكن الحماية الروسية والإيرانية لقطر واستقلالها وبقائها شريكاً تجارياً في سوق الغاز، ليس مجرد مناورة ولا تلاعبَ الخصوم، أو تكتيكات للاستثمار في سوق الأزمات بين شركاء الحرب على سورية، بل حركة استراتيجية تتصل باكتشاف مبكر لمغزى الأزمة القطرية الأميركية التي استدعي العرب لتغطيتها تمويهاً، كما كان الحال بتصوير حرب سورية ثورة ودعوات معارضة ومساعيَ إصلاح، وكلمة السرّ هي الغاز.

– تنعقد اليوم قمة الرئيسين الأميركي والروسي دونالد ترامب وفلاديمير بوتين. وهي في المناسبة قمة يجلس فيها على طرف الطاولة، رجل أعمال يمثل شركاءه في سوق الغاز الصخري الأميركي هو دونالد ترامب، يعاونه وزير خارجية هو ريكس تيلرسون يعرف تفاصيل ملفه عن ظهر قلب، وهو الآتي من موقع المدير العام لشركة أكسون موبيل، أحد كبار المعنيين بسوق الغاز الصخري ومدير عام سابق لشركة موبيل نفط غاز الروسية الأميركية المهتمّة بتنسيق المصالح الأميركية الروسية في سوق النفط والغاز، ويجلس قبالتهما على طرف الطاولة فلاديمير بوتين عرّاب شركة غاز بروم التي أعلنت استعدادها لتخفيض أسعارها إلى 3 دولارات للوحدة الإنتاجية، بدلاً من 5، مقابل 4 ونصف للغاز الأميركي المعروض على أوروبا، ويعاونه سيرغي لافروف مستشار الظلّ لغاز بروم.

– الملفات الإقليمية ليست عائقاً للتفاهم وخريطة طريقها مرسومة من أيام مباحثات جون كيري وسيرغي لافروف، وليس عبثاً أن تكون الملفات ترتبط مباشرة بسوق الغاز من أوكرانيا إلى سورية وصولاً إلى كوريا وبحر الصين، وكلمة السرّ ستكون قطر والسعي لتسوية سلمية للأزمة، كما كانت الحدود السورية العراقية كلمة سرّ موازية في الحسم الروسي الإيراني بوجه الخطوط الحمر الأميركية الحقيقية، لارتباط الحدود بأنابيب الغاز العابرة من إيران نحو المتوسط.

(Visited 360 times, 360 visits today)

 Related Videos

Related Articles

• Deep State Begins Anti-Russia Media Blitz Ahead Of Trump-Putin Meeting
• المحمّدان» لقطر: الاستسلام … أو حرب مفتوحة
• أبواب الخليج تُشرَّعُ لصراع «عنقودي»
• » قمة ترامب وبوتين: محاولة صفقة تاريخية أم ربط نزاع أم قواعد اشتباك؟ عودة النازحين مؤجَّلة بقرار أميركي كخزان انتخابي لما بعد التسوية… ولبنان رهينة
• بوتين ـ ترامب: هل تسوّى الخلافات؟
• ترامب يؤكد دعمه الأطلسي محذّراً من خطر محدق بالعالم الغربي
• ربحت قطر على السعودية … وهُزمت
• البنتاغون: ماتيس يؤكد على الشراكة الأمنية والاستراتيجية بين الولايات المتحدة وقطر

 

US Intel: UAE Orchestrated Qatari Gov’t Sites Hacking

Local Editor

US intelligence officials said the United Arab Emirates orchestrated the hacking of Qatari government news and social media sites in order to post incendiary false quotes attributed to Qatar’s emir, Sheikh Tamim Bin Hamad al-Thani, in late May that sparked the ongoing upheaval between Qatar and its neighbors.

Officials became aware last week that newly analyzed information gathered by US intelligence agencies confirmed that on May 23, senior members of the UAE government discussed the plan and its implementation. The officials said it remains unclear whether the UAE carried out the hacks itself or contracted to have them done. The false reports said that the emir, among other things, had called Iran an “Islamic power” and praised Hamas.

The hacks and posting took place on May 24, shortly after US President Trump completed a lengthy counterterrorism meeting with Gulf leaders in neighboring Saudi Arabia and declared them unified.

Citing the emir’s reported comments, the Saudis, the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt immediately banned all Qatari media. They then broke relations with Qatar and declared a trade and diplomatic boycott, sending the region into a political and diplomatic tailspin that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson warned could undermine US counterterrorism efforts against the Daesh.

In a statement released in Washington by its ambassador, Yousef al-Otaiba, the UAE said the Post article was “false.”

“The UAE had no role whatsoever in the alleged hacking described in the article,” the statement said. “What is true is Qatar’s behavior. Funding, supporting, and enabling extremists … Inciting violence, encouraging radicalization, and undermining the stability of its neighbors.”

The revelations come as emails purportedly hacked from Otaiba’s private account had circulated to journalists over the past several months. That hack has been claimed by an apparently pro-Qatari organization calling itself GlobalLeaks. Many of the emails highlight the UAE’s determination over the years to rally Washington thinkers and policymakers to its side on the issues at the center of its dispute with Qatar.

The ongoing crisis threatened to complicate the US-led coalition’s fight against the Wahhabi Daesh [Arabic acronym for “ISIS” / “ISIL”] as all participants are US allies and members of the anti-Daesh coalition. Qatar is home to more than 10,000 US troops and the regional headquarters of the US Central Command while Bahrain is the home of the US Navy’s 5th Fleet.

President Donald Trump had sided strongly with Saudi Arabia and the UAE in the dispute, publicly backing their contention that Doha is a supporter of extremist militant groups and a destabilizing force in the Middle East. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson recently concluded several days of shuttle diplomacy in the Gulf, but he departed the region without any public signs of a resolution.

Qatar had repeatedly charged that its sites were hacked, but it has not released the results of its investigation. Intelligence officials said their working theory since the Qatar hacks has been that Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt or some combination of those countries were involved. It remains unclear whether the others also participated in the plan.

US intelligence and other officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment, as did the CIA. The FBI, which Qatar has said was helping in its investigation, also declined to comment.

Source: WP, Edited by website team

17-07-2017 | 10:31

Poll: Americans’ Massive Disapproval of Both Parties

ERIC ZUESSE | 17.07.2017 | WORLD

The «Monthly Harvard-Harris Poll: June 2017» is the latest poll in that series, and it scientifically sampled 2,258 U.S. registered voters, of whom (as shown on page 30) 35% were «Democrat», 29% were «Republican», and 30% were «independent»). It indicates (page 24) that 37% «approve» and 63% «disapprove» of «the way the Republican Party is handling its job». It also indicates (page 25) that 38% «approve», and 62% «disapprove», of «the way the Democratic Party is handling its job». So: despite there being 6% more self-described «Democrat»s than «Republican»s, there was only 1% more disapproval of the Republican Party than of the Democratic Party; and, this indicates that there was a substantial disapproval of «the Democratic Party» by Democratic voters (more disaffection by them for ‘their’ Party, than Republicans have for theirs).

The answers to other questions in the poll also help to provide an answer as to why this is so, and why the voting public don’t hold either Party in high regard — why America’s supposedly ‘democratic’ (small-«D») politics is currently a contest between uglies, with neither Party offering anything like what the U.S. voting public want their government to do (i.e., it fits what this scientific study found actually to control U.S. politics):

(Page 27) 41% think «President Trump should be impeached and removed from office», and 45% think «no action should be taken» against him.

(Page 28) 36% think «the investigations into Russia and President Trump» are «helping the country», and 64% think they’re «hurting the country».

(Page 39) Of listed U.S. government officials, the highest percentage-favorable ratings were: Bernie Sanders (52%), Mike Pence (47%), Donald Trump (45%), Hillary Clinton (39%), Paul Ryan (38%), Elizabeth Warren (37%), Jim Comey (36%), Robert Mueller (34%), Nancy Pelosi (31%), Jeff Sessions (28%), and Rex Tillerson (28%).

(Page 40) The highest percentage-unfavorable ratings were: Hillary Clinton (56%), Nancy Pelosi (51%), Donald Trump (50%), Paul Ryan (45%), Mitch McConnell (42%), Jeff Sessions (41%), Mike Pence (40%), Jared Kushner (39%), Bernie Sanders (38%), Jim Comey (36%), and Elizabeth Warren (36%).

(Page 72) 48% think «President Trump colluded with the Russians during the election over the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and John Podesta’s emails». 52% say «No» — Trump did not do that.

(Page 73) 54% say «associates of President Trump» did it; 46% say «No» to that.

(Page 74) 38% say «There is evidence» of such «collusion» by Trump; 62% say «No».

(Page 75) 54% say this is a «legitimate investigation»; 46% say it’s «fueled to create a cloud over the Trump administration».

(Page 79) 44% say «Keep the focus on the Russia investigation»; 56% say «Move on to other issues».

(Page 83) 73% say they are «concerned» that there has been «lost focus and energy by the administration and Congress because of the Russia investigation». 67% say they’re «concerned» about «future interference by Russia in U.S. elections».

(Page 95) 54% say «Yes» and 46% say «No» to «Do you think the so called ‘Deep State’ — the collection of intelligence agencies and holdover government workers from the Obama administration — is trying to unseat President Trump?»

(Page 96) When asked «Who do you think is more to blame for Hillary Clinton’s loss of the election?» 67% choose «Hillary Clinton and her campaign team for running a weak campaign» and 33% choose «Forces like the Russians, former FBI director Comey, and the Democratic National Committee not having reliable voter data».

(Page 124) 74% «Favor» «Offering incentives for electric cars and renewable energy such as wind and solar». 62% «Favor» Setting much tougher emission standards for cars and other vehicles». 34% «Favor» «Putting coal, and all coal and clean coal plants, out of business». Today’s American public take global warming seriously — or at least more seriously than Republican public officials do..

(Page 133) 47% think it was «Right» and 53% think it was «Wrong» for Trump «to pull the United States out of the current version of the Paris Climate Agreement.”

(Page 151) 49% think «the media is being fair» to President Trump; 51% say «Unfair».

(Page 154) 21% «Favor «raising the U.S. government’s debt ceiling». 69% «Oppose».

(Page 155) 36% «Favor» «a government shut down» over the issue; 64% «Oppose».

What this poll found is basically the same thing that has been shown in many different polls. So: former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, who was the last person who was able to win the White House without needing to rely upon billionaires in order to do it, was correct when he said that, «Now it’s just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or being elected president. And the same thing applies to governors, and U.S. Senators and congress members». Anybody who refers to this government as being a ‘democracy’ is way behind the times, because it has been, ever since 1980, controlled by its aristocracy; it is an «oligarchy» instead of a democracy; it is a «regime» instead of a government that represents its public. This regime represents its aristocrats. And that is why the public’s disapproval of this country’s leaders is so high. That happens in a regime, not in a democracy. Both of America’s Parties represent this country’s aristocracy, not America’s public. The latest Harvard-Harris poll simply adds to the already-overwhelming evidence of this. But the basic evidence on the matter was the Gilens-Page study. In their section «American Democracy?» they said:

What do our findings say about democracy in America? They certainly constitute troubling news for advocates of «populistic» democracy, who want governments to respond primarily or exclusively to the policy preferences of their citizens. In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule — at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.

One of the aristocracy’s many magazines, The Atlantic, headlined on June 21st, «Is American Democracy Really Under Threat?» and tried to fool their readers to think the answer is no; but, of course, they were pointing, as ‘evidence’, merely to nominal adherence to ‘democratic’ forms, and ignored the actual evidence on the matter, such as Gilens and Page examined in depth, and such as the many polls that have also been referred to in the links here have additionally reinforced. None of this actual evidence was even so much as mentioned. The honest answer to the article’s title-question is not just «Yes» but more than that: their question itself is more like their having asked «Is there a danger of the horse being stolen?» after the horse was already stolen, and has for decades (since at least 1980) already been absent from the barn; so, that article’s very title is a deception, even without its text (which is written for outright fools who can’t recognize what constitutes «evidence» that is suitable for a given allegation). A better question would therefore be: Why do people still subscribe to vapid propaganda-magazines like that? All propaganda should be free of charge. But, of course, in a dictatorship like this, people pay even for the right to be deceived. It’s no longer free-of-charge. That’s just the way things are — really are. It’s shown in the data — not in anybody’s mere platitudes about the matter. People pay to embellish the lies that they already believe. Most people want that, more than they want to come to know the truth. The worse the truth is, the more that people crave the myth which contradicts it — they’ll pay good money to mainline that into themselves: evidenceless reassurances, such as that article. But anyone who takes that type of pap seriously, won’t be able sensibly to understand such findings as were reported in the latest Harvard-Harris poll.

P.C. Roberts on ‘the ignorant, stupid Nikki Haley’ and the destruction of the Trump Administration

Posted on July 11, 2017 

by Richard Edmondson

[ Ed. note – A very interesting commentary by Paul Craig Roberts, who argues that Trump is powerless–he is under the complete control of the Deep State–and that the president is furthermore being treacherously undermined by his own appointees. The Trump administration is full of Russophobes like UN Ambassador Nikki Haley who, rather than  pursuing the peaceful relations with Russia that Trump seemed to promise during the campaign, have instead become parrots essentially, repeating the mainstream media mantra about “Russian interference” in the election. What are the implications of all this? Not good, says Roberts. Trump has become nothing more than a “figurehead” president, he argues, while the media and the Deep State are committed to  “raising tensions between the US and Russia to the point of nuclear war.” ]

By Paul Craig Roberts

President Trump Has Been Contradicted by His Own Government, Which Has Lined Up Against Him in Favor of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee, and the Russophobic Presstitute Media that serves the military/security complex and the neoconservatives.

I am afraid that The Saker and Finian Cunningham are correct. Nothing can come of Trump’s meeting with Putin, because, as Cunningham puts it,

“Trump doesn’t have freedom or real power. The real power brokers in the US will ensure that the Russophobia campaign continues, with more spurious allegations of Moscow interfering to subvert Western democracies. Trump will continue to live under a cloud of media-driven suspicions. And thus the agenda of regime change against Syria and confrontation with Russia will also continue. Trump’s personal opinions on these matters and towards Vladimir Putin are negligible—indeed dispensable by the deep powers-that-be.”

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/395782-trump-putin-meeting-media-syria/

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47392.htm

Cunningham points out that instead of lauding the meeting as the beginning of the process to defuse the high tensions between the two major nuclear powers, the US media denounced Trump for being civil to Putin in the meeting.

What is missing from the media in the entirety of the Western world and perhaps also in Russia is the awareness that the dangerous tensions are orchestrated not only by Hillary and the Democratic National Committee, the neoconservatives, the US military/security complex, and the presstitutes, but also by President Trump’s own appointees.

Trump’s own ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, and Trump’s own Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, sound exactly like Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee, the neoconservatives, the Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN and the rest of the totally discredited presstitute media that is committed to raising tensions between the US and Russia to the point of nuclear war.

Continued here

***

Click the link just above to read the rest of Roberts’ commentary. Meanwhile, the “Russia conspiracy soap opera” continues in the media. The lone exception to this seems to be one program on Fox News.

The Trump-Putin Meeting: Establishment of a Personal Relationship, “There was Positive Chemistry Between the Two”

White House Press Briefing

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, July 10, 2017

On July 7  following Trump’s meeting with Putin, a US Press Briefing was held at the G20 in Hamburg.

It is important to analyze the shift in political discourse of both President Trump and Secretary of State Tillerson.

The main contribution of the Trump-Putin meeting was to establish communication at a personal level.

The World is at a dangerous crossroads. That Trump-Putin personal relationship is fundamental.

History tells us that political misunderstandings can lead to war.

Admittedly no significant shifts in US foreign policy have occurred: the Pentagon’s military agenda prevails. Media lies and political deceit also prevail.

Yet at the same time, discussion and diplomatic exchange have resumed –which in many regards is an important achievement.

” The two leaders, I would say, connected very quickly.  There was a very clear positive chemistry between the two.  I think, again — and I think the positive thing I observed — and I’ve had many, many meetings with President Putin before — is there was not a lot of re-litigating of the past.  I think both of the leaders feel like there’s a lot of things in the past that both of us are unhappy about.  We’re unhappy, they’re unhappy.

I think the perspective of both of them was, this is a really important relationship.  Two largest nuclear powers in the world.  How do we start making this work?  How do we live with one another?  How do we work with one another?  We simply have to find a way to go forward.  And I think that was — that was expressed over and over, multiple times, I think by both Presidents, this strong desire.  (Tillerson)

In this regard, a certain sanity in the international relations narrative has been restored. Ironically, Washington casually admits it’s mistakes in relation to Russia. In the words of Secretary of State Tillerson:

“So we want to build on the commonality, and we spent a lot of time talking about next steps.  And then where there’s differences, we have more work to get together and understand.  Maybe they’ve got the right approach and we’ve got the wrong”(emphasis added)

Moreover, the meeting is also a slap in the face for the Deep State Neocons, the US media not to mention Hillary et al, who continue to blame Moscow for having intervened in the 2016 US presidential elections while casually portraying Trump as a Manchurian candidate controlled by the Kremlin.

The “Russia Did It” narrative, which borders on ridicule, no longer holds. In turn, Trump’s position has to some extent also been reinforced. Not surprisingly, the US media has slashed back at Trump accusing him of having been manipulated by Putin. According to CNN “Putin may have less of a warm diplomatic bedside manner, but he understands the art of presentation and how to set a trap.”

An important threshold has been reached

Has talking to the Kremlin rather than waging war on Russia become the “new normal” (at least at the level of political discourse)? Not yet.

Nonetheless, an important transition has taken place. Talking to the Kremlin sets a new momentum. Lest we forget, history tells us that all out war could unfold as a result of a personal political misunderstanding. Remember World War I.

Michel Chossudovsky, July 9, 2017

---

For the complete transcript of the Press Briefing click below

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/07/07/press-briefing-presidents-meetings-g20-july-7-2017

Selected quotes with notes and emphasis  

SECRETARY MNUCHIN:  Hi, everybody.  I just want to highlight very briefly, and then Secretary Tillerson will go on, and then afterwards we’ll both answer a few questions.

SECRETARY TILLERSON:  Thank you, Steve, and thanks for staying with us late these evening.

President Trump and President Putin met this afternoon for 2 hours and 15 minutes [for a longer period of time than what was initially agreed upon by the two governments] here on the sidelines of the G20.  The two leaders exchanged views on the current nature of the U.S.-Russia relationship and the future of the U.S.-Russia relationship.

They discussed important progress that was made in Syria, and I think all of you have seen some of the news that just broke regarding a de-escalation agreement and memorandum, which was agreed between the United States, Russia and Jordan, [this agreement was no doubt drafted before the Trump Putin meeting] for an important area in southwest Syria that affects Jordan’s security, but also is a very complicated part of the Syrian battlefield.

This de-escalation area was agreed, it’s well-defined, agreements on who will secure this area.  A ceasefire has been entered into.  And I think this is our first indication of the U.S. and Russia being able to work together in Syria.  And as a result of that, we had a very lengthy discussion regarding other areas in Syria that we can continue to work together on to de-escalate the areas and violence once we defeat ISIS, and to work together toward a political process that will secure the future of the Syrian people.

As a result, at the request of President Putin, the United States has appointed — and you’ve seen, I think, the announcement of Special Representative for Ukraine, Ambassador Kurt Volker.  Ambassador Volker will draw on his decades of experience in the U.S. Diplomatic Corps, both as a representative to NATO and also his time as a permanent political appointment.

The two leaders also acknowledged the challenges of cyber threats and interference in the democratic processes of the United States and other countries, and agreed to explore creating a framework around which the two countries can work together to better understand how to deal with these cyber threats, both in terms of how these tools are used to in interfere with the internal affairs of countries, but also how these tools are used to threaten infrastructure, how these tools are used from a terrorism standpoint as well.

The President opened the meeting with President Putin by raising the concerns of the American people regarding Russian interference in the 2016 election.  They had a very robust and lengthy exchange on the subject.  The President pressed President Putin on more than one occasion regarding Russian involvement.  President Putin denied such involvement, as I think he has in the past.  

The two leaders agreed, though, that this is a substantial hindrance in the ability of us to move the Russian-U.S. relationship forward, and agreed to exchange further work regarding commitments of non-interference in the affairs of the United States and our democratic process as well as those of other countries.  So more work to be done on that regard.

Q    Mr. Secretary, Nick Waters (ph) from Bloomberg News.  Can you tell us whether President Trump said whether there would be any consequences for Russia to the interference in the U.S. election?  Did he spell out any specific consequences that Russia would face?  And then also, on the Syria ceasefire, when does it begin?  And what makes you think the ceasefire will succeed this time when past U.S.-Russian agreements on a ceasefire have failed?

SECRETARY TILLERSON:  With regard to the interference in the election, I think the President took note of actions that have been discussed by the Congress.  Most recently, additional sanctions that have been voted out of the Senate to make it clear as to the seriousness of the issue.  But I think what the two Presidents, I think rightly, focused on is how do we move forward; how do we move forward from here.  Because it’s not clear to me that we will ever come to some agreed-upon resolution of that question between the two nations.

So the question is, what do we do now?  And I think the relationship — and the President made this clear, as well — is too important, and it’s too important to not find a way to move forward — not dismissing the issue in any way, and I don’t want to leave you with that impression.  And that is why we’ve agreed to continue engagement and discussion around how do we secure a commitment that the Russian government has no intention of and will not interfere in our affairs in the future, nor the affairs of others, and how do we create a framework in which we have some capability to judge what is happening in the cyber world and who to hold accountable.  And this is obviously an issue that’s broader than just U.S.-Russia, but certainly we see the manifestation of that threat in the events of last year.

And so I think, again, the Presidents rightly focused on how do we move forward from what may be simply an intractable disagreement at this point.

As to the Syria ceasefire, I would say what may be different this time, I think, is the level of commitment on the part of the Russian government.  They see the situation in Syria transitioning from the defeat of ISIS, which we are progressing rapidly, as you know.  And this is what really has led to this discussion with them as to what do we do to stabilize Syria once the war against ISIS is won.

And Russia has the same, I think, interest that we do in having Syria become a stable place, a unified place, but ultimately a place where we can facilitate a political discussion about their future, including the future leadership of Syria.

So I think part of why we’re — and again, we’ll see what happens as to the ability to hold the ceasefire.  But I think part of what’s different is where we are relative to the whole war against ISIS, where we are in terms of the opposition’s, I think, position as to their strength within the country, and the regime itself.

In many respects, people are getting tired.  They’re getting weary of the conflict.  And I think we have an opportunity, we hope, to create the conditions in this area, and the south is I think our first show of success.  We’re hoping we can replicate that elsewhere.

MR. SPICER:  Abby.

Q    Mr. Secretary, you spoke, when you were speaking of the ceasefire, about they’re being detailed information about who would enforce it.  Can you give any more information on what conclusions were reached?  And you spoke of the future leadership of Syria.  Do you still believe that Assad has no role in their government?

SECRETARY TILLERSON:  I would like to defer on the specific roles in particular of security forces on the ground, because there is — there are a couple of more meetings to occur.  This agreement, I think as you’re aware, was entered into between Jordan, the United States, and Russia.  And we are — we have a very clear picture of who will provide the security forces, but we have a few more details to work out.  And if I could, I’d like to defer on that until that is completed.

I expect that will be completed within the next — less than a week.  The talks are very active and ongoing.

And your second question again?

Q    Does the administration still believe that Assad has no role in the future government of Syria?

SECRETARY TILLERSON:  Yes, our position continues to be that we see no long-term role for the Assad family or the Assad regime.  And we have made this clear to everyone — we’ve certainly made it clear in our discussions with Russia — that we do not think Syria can achieve international recognition in the future.  Even if they work through a successful political process, the international community simply is not going to accept a Syria led by the Assad regime.  

[Points to the insistance of Washington on regime change, Will that position be in any way modified?]

And so if Syria is to be accepted and have a secure — both a secure and economic future, it really requires that they find new leadership.  We think it will be difficult for them to attract both the humanitarian aid, as well as the reconstruction assistance that’s going to be required, because there just will be such a low level of confidence in the Assad government.  So that continues to be the view.

And as we’ve said, how Assad leaves is yet to be determined, but our view is that somewhere in that political process there will be a transition away from the Assad family.

Q    Thank you.  Demetri Sevastopulo, Financial Times.  On North Korea, did President Putin agree to do anything to help the U.S. to put more pressure on North Korea?  And secondly, you seem to have reached somewhat of an impasse with China in terms of getting them to put more pressure on North Korea.  How are you going to get them to go beyond what they’ve done already?  And what is President Trump going to say to President Xi on that issue tomorrow?

SECRETARY TILLERSON:  We did have a pretty good exchange on North Korea.  I would say the Russians see it a little differently than we do, so we’re going to continue those discussions and ask them to do more.   

Russia does have economic activity with North Korea, but I would also hasten to add Russia’s official policy is the same as ours — a denuclearized Korean Peninsula.

And so I think here, again, there is a difference in terms of view around tactics and pace, and so we will continue to work with them to see if we cannot persuade them as to the urgency that we see.

I think with respect to China, what our experience with China has been — and I’ve said this to others — it’s been a bit uneven.  China has taken significant action, and then I think for a lot of different reasons, they paused and didn’t take additional action.  They then have taken some steps, and then they paused.  And I think in our own view there are a lot of, perhaps, explanations for why those pauses occur.  But we’ve remained very closely engaged with China, both through our dialogues that have occurred face-to-face, but also on the telephone.  We speak very frequently with them about the situation in North Korea.

So there’s a clear understanding between the two of us of our intent.  And I think the sanctions action that was taken here just in last week to 10 days certainly got their attention in terms of their understanding our resolve to bring more pressure to bear on North Korea by directly going after entities doing business with North Korea, regardless of where they may be located.  We’ve continued to make that clear to China that we would prefer they take the action themselves.  And we’re still calling upon them to do that.

So I would say our engagement is unchanged with China, and our expectations are unchanged.

Q    And you haven’t given up hope?

SECRETARY TILLERSON:  No, we have not given up hope.  When you’re in an approach like we’re using — and I call it the peaceful pressure campaign.  A lot of people like to characterize it otherwise, but this is a campaign to lead us to a peaceful resolution.  Because if this fails, we don’t have very many good options left.  And so it is a peaceful pressure campaign, and it’s one that requires calculated increases in pressure, allow the regime to respond to that pressure.  And it takes a little time to let these things happen.  You enact the pressure; it takes a little while for that to work its way through.

So it is going to require some level of patience as we move this along, but when we talk about our strategic patience ending, what we mean is we’re not going to just sit idly by, and we’re going to follow this all the way to its conclusion.

Q    Thank you.  Mr. Secretary, I have issue — you just mentioned on the DPRK.  We note China and Russia recently said — they asked North Korea to stop the — to freeze, actually, the nuclear activities, and also they asked the U.S. to stop the deployment of THAAD system.  So did President Putin bring up his concern about the deployment of THAAD system?  And also, what’s the expectation of President Trump on tomorrow’s meeting with President Xi Jinping, other than the DPRK issue?  Thank you.

SECRETARY TILLERSON:  The subject of THAAD did not come up in the meeting with President Putin.

In terms of the progress of North Korea and this last missile launch, again, those are some of the differences of views we have between ourselves in terms of tactics — how to deal with this.  President Putin, I think, has expressed a view not unlike that of China, that they would support a freeze for freeze.

If we study the history of the last 25 years of engagement with various regimes in North Korea, this has been done before.  And every time it was done, North Korea went ahead and proceeded with its program.

The problem with freezing now — if we freeze where they are today, we freeze their activities with a very high level of capability.  And we do not think it also sets the right tone for where these talks should begin.  And so we’re asking North Korea to be prepared to come to the table with an understanding that these talks are going to be about how do we help you chart a course to cease and roll back your nuclear program?  That’s what we want to talk about.  We’re not interested in talking about how do we have you stop where you are today.  Because stopping where they are today is not acceptable to us.

…

SECRETARY TILLERSON:  And the national security advisor’s office.

As to the nature of the 2 hours and 15 minutes, first let me characterize — the meeting was very constructive.  The two leaders, I would say, connected very quickly.  There was a very clear positive chemistry between the two.  I think, again — and I think the positive thing I observed — and I’ve had many, many meetings with President Putin before — is there was not a lot of re-litigating of the past.  I think both of the leaders feel like there’s a lot of things in the past that both of us are unhappy about.  We’re unhappy, they’re unhappy.

I think the perspective of both of them was, this is a really important relationship.  Two largest nuclear powers in the world.  It’s a really important relationship.  How do we start making this work?  How do we live with one another?  How do we work with one another?  We simply have to find a way to go forward.  And I think that was — that was expressed over and over, multiple times, I think by both Presidents, this strong desire.

It is a very complicated relationship today because there are so many issues on the table.  And one of the reasons it took a long time, I think, is because once they met and got acquainted with one another fairly quickly, there was so much to talk about — all these issues.  Just about everything got touched on to one degree or another.  And I think there was just such a level of engagement and exchange, and neither one of them wanted to stop.  Several times I had to remind the President, and people were sticking their heads in the door.  And I think they even — they sent in the First Lady at one point to see if she could get us out of there, and that didn’t work either.  (Laughter.)

But I think — what I’ve described to you, the 2 hours and 15 minutes, it was an extraordinarily important meeting.  I mean, there’s just — there’s so much for us to talk about.  And it was a good start.  Now, I will tell you we spent a very, very lengthy period on Syria, with a great amount of detailed exchange on the agreement we had concluded today — it was announced — but also where we go, and trying to get much greater clarity around how we see this playing out and how Russia sees it playing out, and where do we share a common view and where do we have a difference, and do we have the same objectives in mind.

And I would tell you that, by and large, our objectives are exactly the same.  How we get there, we each have a view.  But there’s a lot more commonality to that than there are differences.  So we want to build on the commonality, and we spent a lot of time talking about next steps.  And then where there’s differences, we have more work to get together and understand.  Maybe they’ve got the right approach and we’ve got the wrong approach. [a strong statement by US Secretary of State]

So there was a substantial amount of time spent on Syria, just because we’ve had so much activity going on with it.
 
Q    Thank you very much.  Mr. Secretary, can you say if the President was unequivocal in his view that Russia did interfere in the election?  Did he offer to produce any evidence or to convince Mr. Putin?

SECRETARY TILLERSON:  The Russians have asked for proof and evidence.  I’ll leave that to the intelligence community to address the answer to that question.  And again, I think the President, at this point, he pressed him and then felt like at this point let’s talk about how do we go forward.  And I think that was the right place to spend our time, rather than spending a lot of time having a disagreement that everybody knows we have a disagreement.

MR. SPICER:  Thank you, guys, very much.  Have a great evening.

END
7:41 P.M. CET

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Prof Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2017

Related 

• Germany Begins Withdrawing Forces From Turkey’s Incirlik Air Base
• Syrian Army, Allies Prepare For Major Push Against ISIS Along Palmyra-Deir Ezzor Road
• United States To Establish Military Base In Al-Shaddadi Town Near Iraqi Border
• Iraqi Forces Are Close To Full Liberation Of Mosul City (Map Update)