Syria’s permanent representative to the UN, Ambassador Bassam Sabbagh, said that Syria has repeatedly warned that the incorrect and unprofessional track adopted by The OPCW Fact-Finding Mission in Syria on Douma alleged incident will lead to false and null conclusions.
Sabbagh was regretted that the fact-finding committee had not correct the method of its work despite all the demands addressed to it to commit to the rules included in the Chemical Weapons Convention.
“Syria took a strategic decision in 2013 to join the Chemical Weapons Convention and has eliminated all its stockpile in a record time despite difficult conditions the country has been passing through,” Sabbagh said at UN Security Council session on “the Chemical File in Syria.”
He added that Syria has persistently stressed its firm stance to condemn the use of chemical weapons by any one, at any time or place.
The Syrian diplomat recalled Washington’s scenario to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003 on the false pretext to Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction, saying that Washington’s crimes in Iraq are imprescriptible.
هؤلاء الذين يضحّون بأنفسهم ليصنعوا تاريخ بلدانهم المشرّف ينتظرون على الأقلّ أن ننصفهم ونسجّل ونوثّق ما حدث وألّا نسمح للأعداء أن يصادروا حقيقة ما جرى.
مــعــارك السّرديّات
تشعر وأنت تقرأ مقال توماس فريدمان في جريدة نيويورك تايمز، بتاريخ 15/12/2022 أنّك كنت غائباً عن هذا العالم أو نائماً نومة أهل الكهف، وأنّ هذا المقال يفتح عينيك على كلّ ما يجب أن تعرفه عن آخر الأحداث في فلسطين، وإن كان عنوان مقاله: «ماذا في العالم يحدث في “إسرائيل”»؛ أي أنّه ومن العنوان لم يعترف بفلسطين ولا بالحقّ الفلسطينيّ، وكي يزيد ثقتك بأنّ هذا هو النصّ الوحيد الذي عليك أن تقرأه كي تفهم القصّة المعقّدة لما يجري في فلسطين المحتلّة، أضاف إلى العنوان المضلِّل عنواناً فرعياً، وهو أنّه تمّ تحديث هذا المقال كي يأخذ بعين الاعتبار تطوّرات الأخبار.
وقد نفى في بداية المقال إمكانية حلّ الدولتين، الذي أصبح شبه مستحيل، ولكن مخيلته جادت بحلول قد توهم غير المهتمّين حقيقةً والمتابعين للشأن الفلسطينيّ بدقّة بحرصه على حل هذه “المسألة” على أسس إنسانية وواقعيّة ولمصلحة الطرفين “المتخاصمين”، وبعض القواعد التي استند إليها للتوصّل إلى حلوله المقترحة المتخيَّلة هي أنّ المجتمعين الفلسطينيّ و”الإسرائيلي”، ورغم بعض الأحداث، قد عاشا في حالة من التوازن منذ اتفاقيات أوسلو عام 1993، والشكر يعود للاقتحامات “الإسرائيلية”، وعمل السلطة الفلسطينية، والنموّ الاقتصادي، ومجموعة كبيرة من المهادنات “وضبط النفس” التي قامت بها جميع الأطراف.
ولإعطاء روايته مصداقية، يشير إلى إحصائية «منظّمة بتسليم الإسرائيلية» أنّه في العام الماضي “مات 20 إسرائيلياً”، و”150” فلسطينياً في أحداث عنف. لقد أعلنت منظّمات حقوق الإنسان التابعة للأمم المتحدة ومهتمون كثر أنّ عام 2022 كان الأعنف الذي أعدمت فيه مخابرات وجنود الكيان الصهيونيّ رقماً قياسياً من المدنيين الفلسطينيين، وخاصّة الشباب والأطفال، والذي هو الأعلى منذ عقود. وأيضاً، وفي محاولة تضليلية أخرى، يعتبر الأقصى أيضاً مهمّاً للمسلمين، العبارة التي توحي أنّ أهميته الأولى هي للطرف الآخر، وأنّ الإرهابي العنصريّ بن غفير محقّ فيما يقوم به، مع أنّ جنوده العنصريين رفعوا شعار “طلقة واحدة يجب أن تقتل، من دون أسف، نحن أصحاب القرار”.
ثمّ يروي للقارئ كيف أنّ عدداً من الإسرائيليين اليساريين ذهبوا لدعم الفلسطينيين في مواجهة اليمين المتطرّف، الذي أصبح الجزّار بن غفير الإرهابي قائداً رسمياً له، وأنّ “القضاء” الصهيونيّ قد حكم على الجندي الذي قتل فلسطينياً بالسجن ثلاثة أشهر، ليقنع القارئ أنّ هذا الكيان يطبّق “القانون” وإلى ما هنالك من سرديات مضلّلة هدفها الأساس هو الدعاية لتغطية جرائم هذا الكيان الصهيوني العنصريّ، وتشوّيه أصول الحقّ الفلسطينيّ، وتبرير الجرائم التي تُرتكب بحقّ هذا الشعب يومياً من قبل قوات نظام الأبارثايد الصهيوني، والتي يجب أن يندى لها جبين أيّ إنسان، وهو يتفادى ذكر جرائم الأبارثايد الصهيوني في تدمير القرى الفلسطينية لمرّات من قبل قوّات الكيان العنصريّ، فيقول فريدمان إنّ المجتمعات “البدوية” والمدارس العامة في الجنوب قد عانت من بعض الإهمال.
السبب في أنني أتناول هذا المقال المسيء جداً للحقّ الفلسطيني والحقّ العربي، والمشوِّه لحقيقة الإجرام العنصري الذي يتمّ ارتكابه من قبل العصابات الصهيونية في الاستيلاء على الأرض، وقتل الشباب الفلسطيني بدم بارد، واقتطاع عقود من عمر شباب وشابات في الأسر، هو أنّ مثل هذه السرديات لا تهدف فقط إلى تشويه الحاضر في أذهان القرّاء، وإنما تهدف أيضاً إلى تثبيت سرديات تاريخية في أذهان الأجيال القادمة، فتكون مثل هذه المواد متاحة للباحثين والكتاب المهتمين بهذا الشأن، وتصبح المستند الذي يبنون عليه استنتاجاتهم البحثية، وينالون شهادات الماجستير والدكتوراه في إعدام آخر ليس فقط للشباب الفلسطينيّ، وإنما لحقّ أبنائهم في محاكمة القتلة واسترداد حقوقهم ولو بعد حين.
وكمثال قريب لم يمضِ عليه زمن، فقد تداول بعض القرّاء مؤخراً مقالاً نشرته مجلّة النيويورك تايمز عام 2016، وأفردت له مساحة كاملة بعنوان: «الأرض المتصدّعة: كيف تُمزّق العالم العربي». وتصدّر هذا النصّ مقدمة من قبل رئيس تحرير المجلة جيك سيلفرستون، أشار فيها إلى عدد المراسلين من دول مختلفة الذين ساهموا في إنتاج هذا النصّ، والمصوّرين، وحرصهم على أن يقولوا حقيقة ما حدث، واعتذارهم عن طول النصّ الذي تمّ تكريس عدد المجلة كاملاً له في 2016، ويركّز على حياة أناس من دول مختلفة، وكيف أنّ هذا الغزو الأميركي الغاشم للعراق قد غيّر حياة كثيرين، وأنهى حياة أكثر من مليون عراقي.
ومع أنّ البعض محقّ في القول، إنّهم على الأقلّ يعترفون بما فعلوه ولو بعد حين، ولكن لا بدّ من ذكر أمرين اثنين هنا: أولاً أنّ اعتراف مجلّة أميركية معادية للعرب ببعض من كارثة دمويّة غير مبرّرة حلّت ببلد غني عريق مثل العراق، لن يغنيَ أهله عن شيء، وخاصّة أنّ الاستهداف مستمرّ على المستوى السياسيّ، وأنّه من الممنوع على العراق حتى اليوم أن يتواءم مع جارته سوريا على سبيل المثال، أو أن يخرج من العباءة الطائفية التي خطّها بريمر لمستقبل العراق والعراقيين.
ولكن الأمر الآخر والأهمّ هو أين هي الرواية الدقيقة الكاملة لما حدث في العراق، والتي تمّ توثيقها من قبل مرجعيّة عربية تعلم علم اليقين أبعاد ما حلّ بالعراق، وتلقي ضوءاً على ما كان للعراق والشعب العراقيّ من خير وثروات وقوّة اقتصادية وفكرية. ولا شكّ أنّ تدمير هذه البنية كلّها لم يكن ضرورياً حتى لتغيير نظام سياسيّ، مع أنّ هذا ليس من مسؤولية الولايات المتحدة التي تذرّعت بذرائع كاذبة لغزو العراق، والذي لم يذكره مثل هذا الاستقصاء الذي لاقى المديح حتى من كتاب ومثقفين.
لقد اعتبروا أنّه دلالة على الإعلام الحرّ، وأنّ الآخرين يكتبون ويعترفون بأخطائهم ولكنَّ الولايات المتحدة اليوم، ومنذ غزو العراق، تنهب نفط العراق، وتمنع أيّ استقرار سياسي في العراق كي لا تعود ثروات هذا البلد ليد أبنائه، ولخدمة ورفاه شعبه. أي أنهم يذكرون بعض ما حدث من دون كشف الغطاء عن جوهر ومنطلق وهدف العملية برمّتها.
الاستنتاج من كلا البحثين اللذين تمّ الترويج لهما في بلداننا العربية هو أنّه لا يجوز ولا بأيّ شكل أو منطق أن تقرأ تاريخك بأقلام وأعين أعدائك، وأنّ من أول واجبات أصحاب القضية، أيّ قضية، ليس فقط أن يدافعوا عنها، وإنما أن يخطّوا سردياتها بأقلامهم هم، وأن يسجّلوا تاريخها للأجيال القادمة احتراماً وإنصافاً لمن ضحّوا من أجلها، وحرصاً على أن تأخذ الأجيال القادمة حقّها في الثّأر لآبائها وأجدادها، أو في تصويب المسار والسمعة والسردية التي قد يجود بها المؤمنون بخدمة أهدافهم الاستعمارية المعادية للعرب.
لقد ناضلت كلّ دولنا العربية لنيل استقلالها من المحتلّ الاستعماري لكنّها لم تولِ تسجيل الأحداث الأهمية التي تستحقّها وما زال هذا النقص قائماً في ثقافتنا، وهو نقص خطير يؤثّر ليس فقط على المرجعية المستقبلية، وإنما على المرجعية الراهنة، وحتى على سير المعارك إذا كان الصراع ما زال قائماً كما هو الحال في الشأن الفلسطيني وشؤون أخرى في الواقع العربي بحاجة ماسّة إلى تخصيص موارد لدعم إحقاق الحقوق إعلامياً وتاريخياً وفكرياً.
هؤلاء الذين يضحّون بأنفسهم ليصنعوا تاريخ بلدانهم المشرّف ينتظرون على الأقلّ أن ننصفهم ونسجّل ونوثّق ما حدث وألّا نسمح للأعداء أن يصادروا حقيقة ما جرى، ويسجّلوا الوثيقة التي تخدم أهدافهم، وتبخس نضالنا وتضحياتنا ودماء أبنائنا المؤمنين بأوطانهم والصادقين.
إن الآراء المذكورة في هذه المقالة لا تعبّر بالضرورة عن رأي الميادين وإنما تعبّر عن رأي صاحبها حصراً
The Cradle speaks with a senior Hezbollah military official in Iraq on the crucial role played by Iran’s late Quds Force Commander Major General Qassem Soleimani in leading the resistance against ISIS.
Qassem Soleimani, the Iranian commander of the elite Quds Force in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), played a significant role in launching the Iraqi resistance against the US occupation, and subsequently, against the self-proclaimed caliphate of ISIS.
The story of the military operation that led to ISIS’ defeat began with a meeting between Soleimani and Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah in Beirut, who decided to summon a group of Hezbollah field officers based in Syria and Lebanon to a meeting in Damascus. There they would gather to determine how they would help the Iraqis defeat ISIS.
One of these officers, a senior Hezbollah military commander who accompanied Soleimani and fought alongside him in many battles, shared the details of this story in an exclusive interview with The Cradle. To preserve his anonymity, we have used the name Sajed below.
The Cradle:With the emergence of ISIS, Qassem Soleimani’s name began to feature more prominently, both globally and in the region. However, his work in Iraq had begun long before that. What was his role in the Iraqi resistance against the US occupation of Iraq?
Sajed: Hajj Qassem is the commander of the Quds Force in the IRGC, he was a veteran of the Iran-Iraq war, and he knew Iraq well. When the Americans occupied Iraq, some formations that were active against Saddam Hussein’s regime decided to direct their efforts to resisting the occupation.
They asked for Hajj Qassem’s help, and he did not delay in responding. He helped organize these groups, establish training camps, and personally supervised the provision of support, equipment, and weapons to the Iraqi resistance factions.
The Cradle:Following the expansion of ISIS control, Soleimani began to appear more often in public. In one of his speeches, Nasrallah said that Hezbollah was at the forefront of those who were with him. What was the task assigned to Hezbollah and its field officers by Soleimani, and what were the instructions and objectives provided by Nasrallah?
Sajed: After a meeting between Hajj Qassem and Sayyed Nasrallah, a decision was taken to summon a group of Hezbollah cadres, between 12 and 13 people, to a meeting with Hajj Qassem in Damascus. There he informed them that they would go to Iraq to help our brothers in the Iraqi resistance, by transferring the experiences they gained in resisting the Israeli occupation and in the Syrian war.
They were of various specializations, including operational commanders. Everyone was surprised that the mission had just begun and that they were to travel to Baghdad immediately. Some of them asked for an opportunity to bring their personal belongings or to say goodbye to their families, but Hajj Qassem insisted that some of them would leave with him that same night for Baghdad, while the rest were to meet him there shortly afterwards.
The first batch left with Hajj Qassem on the same flight to Baghdad and spent their first night at the home of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis (the late deputy head of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Units or PMUs). After that, the rest arrived, and the number reached about 30. Hajj Qassem personally distributed roles and missions, and said:
“All of you participated in major operations against Israel and against the takfiris in Syria. What is required of you is to transfer your experiences to our Iraqi brothers, and to show them the same spirit with which you fought the Israelis and defended the shrine of Sayyida Zainab (the burial place outside Damascus of the Prophet Muhammad’s granddaughter).”
Simply put, that was the mission.
After distributing the tasks, each headed to the location assigned to him. This was before the fatwa of the supreme Shia authority in Iraq, Sayyed Ali al-Sistani, on 13 June, 2014, which led to the formation of the PMU, with the aim of confronting the expansion of ISIS and its control over large parts of Iraq.
In addition to ISIS at the time, there were other armed factions [aligned with the terror group] such as the Military Council, which included various militant organizations, including the Twentieth Revolution, the Salah al-Din Brigades, the Brigade of the Messenger of God, the Al-Qaqaa Brigades, and groups from the Baath Party. At that time, they [ISIS] were mainly extending their control towards western Baghdad, after they had captured the city of Mosul, and approached the city of Samarra.
The Cradle:Western and Persian Gulf media promoted the narrative that Soleimani was implementing an Iranian agenda in Iraq. You worked closely with him – is this true, and what was his actual goal in defending Iraq and achieving victory over ISIS and other terrorist organizations?
Sajed: This question should be directed to the Iraqis. I believe that anyone who aims to implement a private agenda will not go so far as to endanger his life. Many times, Hajj Qassem was at the forefront of the attacking groups, and he could have died at any moment.
For example, he was in one of the Hummers that opened the road to Samarra. I do not think that Iran’s agenda in Iraq is based on opening a road to a city, and requires endangering the life of a leader like Hajj Qassem.
His mission was to place all his capabilities and the capabilities of the Islamic Republic in Iran at the service of the Iraqi government. In all his meetings with the Iraqis, he used to tell them:
“The decision is yours. We are only here to help, and anyone who does not comply with your orders can be asked to leave immediately.”
Even on the behavioral level, it was not possible to distinguish between him and any of the other fighters.
The Cradle: We have heard that Soleimani is called the “Man of the Ditches.” Does that mean he was present, on the ground, in some of the battles? Tell us about that.
Sajed: I can say that Hajj Qassem was personally present in all the battles. On 31 August, 2014, he participated in lifting the siege on the city of Amerli. The siege of the city, inhabited by Shia Turkmen, began after the fall of Mosul in July 2014. ISIS militants took control of all the villages surrounding Amerli, isolating the city and depriving it of water, food and medicine for 80 days.
Hajj Qassem was at the forefront of the attacking convoy to lift the siege, and he was ambushed tightly when an explosive device exploded in the Hummer he was traveling in, killing two of those who were with him and injuring two others.
A similar thing happened in the battle of Jurf al-Sakhar in October 2014. This is a very complex area geographically for any attacking forces because of the dense palm groves that surround it, which serves as a cover for the forces defending it. It is also a very important area from a strategic point of view, and it formed an enclave for ISIS through which it can reach the holy cities such as Karbala and Najaf.
After two weeks of attacks, the attacking forces were unable to cut off the road and reach the river bank until Hajj Qassem came. He asked to bring an armored Hummer to head to the river bank, which was about three kilometers away. Getting there practically meant liberating the area from the grip of ISIS. He wanted to explore the area, so he climbed the berm, which was under fire by medium weapons.
One of us said to him, “Do you want us to die?” He replied: “I do not want us to die, but rather that we open the road.” Then the commander of Badr Operations, Abu Muntazer, said to him: “I will take care of things.” To which Hajj Qassem replied: “I will be with you.” But Abu Muntazer insisted that he advance with a group of fighters, and that Hajj Qassem join them later.
After less than ten minutes, Hajj Qassem decided to set off. Immediately, as soon as we crossed the road, Jurf al-Sakhar slipped out of ISIS control like magic. Also in the battle of Al-Dhuluiya, in December 2014, Hajj Qassem insisted on accompanying a young man on a motorbike to explore ISIS-controlled territory on his own. This battle constituted a quantum leap in the war against ISIS, after it liberated the road between Baghdad and Samarra from the terrorists.
The Cradle:There are those who claim that Soleimani fought alongside the US, with the Americans providing air cover while he was on the ground. How true is this assumption?
Sajed: The Americans did not participate in any operation to liberate Iraq from ISIS. In the battle of Tikrit, in March 2015, the PMU finished their preparations to liberate the city, but the Americans intervened with the Iraqi government to prevent the PMU from carrying out the attack.
Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi decided to assign the anti-terrorism forces and the federal police to carry out the operation, and US planes bombed targets inside the city. When the government forces entered, they were unable to advance much, and it turned out that the American bombing did not cause much damage to ISIS.
As a result, the city was not liberated until after the participation of the PMU in the battle. The US military did not provide air coverage for any of the PMU operations, nor did they participate in any operation to liberate Iraq from ISIS.
The Cradle:After the defeat of ISIS, there was a widespread narrative that attributed the victory to the US-led coalition and tried to present Soleimani as an international terrorist. What is the real story?
Sajed: The coalition forces have not participated in any operations against ISIS. It rejected the request of the government of (former Iraqi Prime Minister) Nuri al-Maliki to intervene against the terrorist organization, and refused to provide the Iraqi army with weapons. The Iraqi army had only four tanks without ammunition, and they were used as binoculars for night vision only.
The only battle in which the Americans participated was in Mosul. For us, resistance is resistance to occupation whoever it may be. But for the Americans, resistance is legitimate when it is against, say President Bashar al-Assad, and it becomes “terrorism” when it is against Israel.
The Cradle:What was the turning point in the war that marked the beginning of ISIS’ defeat?
Sajed: The Battle of Baiji from late December 2014 until late October 2015 was the decisive battle that allowed the resistance to take control of the highway from Baghdad to Baiji, and use Baiji as a base to launch a counter offensive on Mosul.
The fall of Mosul began when the PMU cut the road between Mosul and Syria and prevented supplies from reaching the terrorists in the city. Although the Americans contributed to the battle of Mosul, they were responsible for 99 percent of the losses suffered by the resistance forces.
The Cradle:How were the US responsible?
Sajed: Most of the casualties were caused by suicide bombers. They were driving cars full of explosives, armored and closed on all sides, so that their drivers could not see the road. It was US drones that guide them to the paths that they should take.
The Cradle:Were the PMU limited to Shias only?
Sajed: Of course not. There were and still are Sunnis, Christians, and Yazidis.
The Cradle:There are about 5,000 ISIS members in prisons controlled by the Kurds today. In the event of facilitating their escape, is there a possibility to revive the organization?
Sajed: If this happens the game will be exposed. However, 5,000 is a meager number in a country like Iraq. I think it is impossible for them to be able to even form a small emirate.
The Cradle:Despite the role played by Iran in achieving victory over ISIS, there are negative feelings towards it among a large number of Iraqis – why is this the case?
Sajed: The reason is the media machine that blamed the Islamic Republic for the widespread corruption in Iraq, once under the pretext of its support for the government of Nuri al-Maliki, and again under the pretext of its support for the government of Haider al-Abadi.
Yes, Iran supported the Iraqi government, but it is not responsible for the policy adopted by this government. Supporters of the US and its followers in Iraq made great efforts in the media to hold Iran responsible for all the mistakes committed by Iraqi politicians, in order to turn the Iraqis against the Iranians.
The Cradle:What do you think was the motive behind the assassination of Soleimani on Iraqi soil?
Sajed: They [the US] felt that the presence of Hajj Qassem would be an obstacle to their adoption of the victory over ISIS. He was a major obstacle to the American project in West Asia, just as Hajj Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis was a major obstacle to the same project in Iraq.
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.
Related Videos
The approach of the martyr Soleimani on the way to Palestine
Karim Younes is free after 40 years… A scene that disturbs the occupation
On 3 January 2020, the US military assassinated Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani, the commander of the elite Quds Force in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), along with his companion, the deputy head of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Units, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis.
Three years later, the motives for this decision – and its timing – are still being debated. The reasons for the US’s shock killing, however, may not be solely related to Soleimani’s role in regional conflicts, but could also arguably stem from his growing international clout.
Why was Soleimani assassinated?
Soleimani was reportedly responsible for leading Iran’s plan to surround Israel with an arc of missiles and precision drones in the West Asian region – from Lebanon to Syria, Iraq and Gaza, all the way to Yemen – which was viewed by Israeli officials as an existential threat to the Jewish state.
The US has long accused Soleimani of being behind much of the resistance it faced after invading Iraq in 2003, as well as allegedly ordering operations against US forces in the period leading up to his assassination.
The Quds Force commander – along with Muhandis – were critical in the Iraqi effort to defeat ISIS, outside of the control and agenda of the US and its regional allies, who often used the terrorist group to secure political and geographic gains.
Furthermore, the US held Iran, and by extension Soleimani, responsible for the Yemeni attack on Saudi Arabia’s Aramco oil facilities on 14 September, 2019. The Aramco attack was so massive that it disrupted half of Saudi oil production, and was the largest of its kind since former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990.
A leader in the Resistance Axis
Soleimani was the “keyholder” in the Axis of Resistance, according to an Arab politician with strong ties to decision-making circles in both Washington and Riyadh.
“Hajj Qassem,” says the politician, was uniquely capable of making decisions and then implementing them, which is considered a “rare advantage” among leaders. He was able to achieve significant strategic results – rapidly – by moving freely and negotiating directly with various statesmen, militias, and political movements.
Examples of this are rife: The Quds Force commander persuaded Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2015 to intervene militarily in Syria, and organized the complex ‘frenemy’ relationship between Turkiye and Tehran through Turkish intelligence director Hakan Fidan.
Soleimani played a pivotal role in preventing the fall of Damascus, maintained and developed important links with Lebanese resistance movement Hezbollah in Beirut, led a region wide campaign to defeat ISIS, and successfully managed the delicate balances between various political components in Iraq. In Yemen, he was able to supply the Ansarallah movement with training and arms that arguably changed the course of the Saudi-led aggression.
Together or separately, the aforementioned points made him a desired target of assassination for both the US government and the security establishment in Israel.
A visit to Venezuela
There may, however, be additional factors that contributed to the US decision to assassinate Soleimani on 3 January, 2022. While some analysts cite, for instance, the storming of the 2019 US embassy in Baghdad by demonstrators three days before the extrajudicial killing, US decision makers were unlikely to have mobilized its assassins in reaction to this relatively benign incident.
More significant for them would have been Soleimani’s unannounced trip to Venezuela in 2019, which crossed Washington’s red lines within its own geographic sphere of influence.
His visit to the South American country was publicly revealed more than two years later by Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, during an interview with Al-Mayadeen in December 2021.
Maduro stated that Soleimani visited Caracas between March and April 2019, during which time the US launched a cyber and sabotage attack on Venezuela, resulting in widespread power outages. He glorified the Iranian general as a military hero who “combated terrorism and the brutal terrorist criminals who attacked the peoples of the Axis of resistance. He was a brave man.”
Although Maduro did not reveal the exact date of the visit, it can be assumed that it took place on 8 April, 2019, and that Soleimani came on board the first direct flight of the Iranian airline Mahan Air between Tehran and Caracas.
At that time, the US attack on Caracas was at its peak: Washington’s recognition of Juan Guaidó as president of Venezuela, comprehensive economic sanctions, and then, at the end of April, the organization of a coup attempt that succeeded only in securing the escape of US-backed opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez to the Spanish embassy.
Expanding military ties with Caracas
During Soleimani’s Caracas visit, military cooperation between Iran and Venezuela was likely a key topic of discussion. Prior to his visit, Maduro had announced the establishment of “Popular Defense Units,” or revolutionary militias, to maintain order in the face of US-backed coup attempts.
Both Iranian and Latin American sources confirm that Tehran had a role in organizing these militias. However, the most significant military cooperation between the two countries has been in the field of military industrialization.
Since the tenure of late, former President Hugo Chavez, Venezuela has been working on a project to manufacture drones. This was announced by Chavez on 13 June, 2012, noting that “We are doing this with the help of different countries including China, Russia, Iran, and other allied countries.”
A few months earlier, the commander of the US Army’s Southern Command SOUTHCOM (its assigned area of responsibility includes Central and South America), General Douglas Fries, spoke about the same project, downplaying its importance by claiming that Iran was building drones with “limited capabilities” in Venezuela for internal security purposes.
Developing drones
In fact, Iran, represented by Soleimani’s Quds Force, was busy increasing military cooperation with Venezuela by developing new generations of drones and providing Caracas with spare parts for its existing American-made aircrafts. Interestingly, the raising of the Iranian flag has become routine in the Venezuelan Air Force’s military ceremonies.
On 20 November, 2020, President Maduro delivered a speech announcing plans to produce different types of drones. Near him, on display, was a miniature model of a drone which appeared to be that of the Iranian “Muhajer 6” aircraft that entered service in Iran in 2018.
This issue was raised by then-Israeli Minister of Defense, Benny Gantz, while receiving the heads of American Jewish organizations in February 2022.
Soleimani’s legacy in Latin America
These developments were the direct result of Qassem Soleimani’s efforts. A Venezuelan official has confirmed to The Cradle that the country’s drone project was built with full Iranian support: from training engineers to setting up research and manufacturing centers, all the way to production.
In October 2019, the commander of US Southern Command, Navy Admiral Craig S. Faller, warned that Russia, China, Iran and Cuba were operating in varying capacities in SOUTHCOM’s area of responsibility. He noted, specifically, that Iran’s influence and presence is being felt in South America.
In March 2020, the US SOUTHCOM commander repeated the same warning, placing Iran at the “top of the list of countries” that have assisted Venezuela in skirting US sanctions.
The US has long viewed Latin America as its “backyard” and has sought to prevent the influence of rival or hostile powers in the region through its adherence to the Monroe Doctrine. The influence of Soleimani in the western hemisphere may have been viewed as a threat to US interests and a crossing of this “red line.”
His role in assisting Venezuela in developing military capabilities, including the production of drones, was seen in Washington as a qualitative leap in Iran’s foreign relations and was likely a factor in the decision to assassinate Soleimani.
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.
Related Videos
On the Anniversary of Victory Leaders: Which Equations Does Sayyed Nasrallah Draw?
A reading of the positions of Sayyed Nasrallah and the conditions of Lebanon, the region and the world in the dialogue of the resistance community via the Twitter platform
US President Donald Trump’s so-called ‘Deal of the Century’ was meant to represent a finality of sorts, an event reminiscent of Francis Fukuyama’s premature declaration of the ‘End of History’ and the uncontested supremacy of western capitalism. In effect, it was a declaration that ‘we’ – the US, Israel and a few allies – have won, and ‘you’, isolated and marginalized Palestinians, lost.
The same way Fukuyama failed to consider the unceasing evolution of history, the US and Israeli governments also failed to understand that the Middle East, in fact, the world, is not governed by Israeli expectations and American diktats.
The above is a verifiable assertion. On October 17, the Australian government announced that it is revoking its 2018 recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Expectedly, the new decision, officially made by Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong, was strongly criticized by Israel, celebrated by Palestinians and welcomed by Arab countries who praised the responsible diplomacy of Canberra.
Any serious analysis of the Australian move, however, must not be confined to Australia’s own political shifts but must be extended to include the dramatic changes underway in Palestine, the Middle East and, indeed, the world.
For many years, but especially since the US invasion of Iraq as part of the politically-motivated ‘war on terror’, Washington perceived itself as the main, if not the only, power that is able to shape political outcomes in the Middle East. Yet, as its Iraq quagmire began destabilizing the entire region, with revolts, social upheavals and wars breaking out, Washington began losing its grip.
It was then rightly understood that, while the US may succeed in waging wars, as it did in Iraq and Libya, it is unable to restore even a small degree of peace and stability. Though Trump seemed disinterested in engaging in major military conflicts, he converted that energy to facilitate the rise of Israel as a regional power, which is incorporated into the Middle East’s political and economic grids through a process of political ‘normalization’, which is wholly delinked from the struggle in Palestine or the freedom of the Palestinians.
The Americans were so confident in their power to orchestrate such a major political transformation to the extent that Jared Kushner – Trump’s Middle East advisor and son-in-law – was revealed to have attempted to cancel the very status of Palestinian refugees in Jordan, an attempt that was met with a decisive Jordanian rejection.
Kushner’s arrogance reached the point that, in January 2020, he declared that his father-in-law’s plan was such a “great deal” which, if rejected by Palestinians, “they’re going to screw up another opportunity, like they’ve screwed up every other opportunity that they’ve ever had in their existence.”
All of this hubris was joined with many American concessions to Israel, whereby Washington virtually fulfilled all Israeli wishes. The relocation of the US embassy from Tel Aviv to occupied Jerusalem was merely the icing on the cake of a much larger political scheme that included the financial boycott of Palestinians, the cancellation of funds that benefited Palestinian refugees, the recognition of the illegally occupied Syrian Golan Heights as part of Israel and the support of Tel Aviv’s decision to annex much of the occupied West Bank.
The then Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his allies had hoped that, as soon as Washington carried out such moves, many other countries would follow, and that, in no time, Palestinians would find themselves friendless, broke and irrelevant.
This was hardly the case, and what started with a bang ended with a whimper. Though the Biden Administration still refuses to commit to any new ‘peace process’, it has largely avoided engaging in Trump’s provocative politics. Not just that, the Palestinians are anything but isolated, and Arab countries remain united, at least officially, in the centrality of Palestine to their collective political priorities.
In April 2021, Washington restored funding to the Palestinians, including money allocated to the UN refugees’ agency, UNRWA. It did not do so for charitable reasons, of course, but because it wanted to ensure the allegiance of the Palestinian Authority, and to remain a relevant political party in the region. Even then, the PA President, Mahmoud Abbas, still declared, during a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Kazakhstan on October 12, that “we (Palestinians) don’t trust America”.
Moreover, the annexation scheme, at least officially, did not go through. The rejection of any Israeli steps that could change the legal status of the occupied Palestinian territories proved unpopular with most UN members, including most of Israel’s western allies.
Australia remained the exception, but not for long. Unsurprisingly, Canberra’s reversal of its earlier decision regarding the status of Jerusalem earned it much criticism in Tel Aviv. Four years following its initial policy shift, Australia shifted yet once more, as it found it more beneficial to realign itself with the position of most world capitals than to that of Washington and Tel Aviv.
Trump’s ‘Deal of the Century’ has failed simply because neither Washington nor Tel Aviv had enough political cards to shape a whole new reality in the Middle East. Most parties involved – Trump, Netanyahu, Scott Morrison in Australia, and a few others – were simply playing a political game linked to their own interests at home. Similarly, the currently embattled British Prime Minister Liz Truss is now jumping on the bandwagon of relocating the British embassy to Jerusalem so that she may win the approval of pro-Israel politicians. The move further demonstrates her lack of political experience and, regardless of what Westminster decides to do next, it will unlikely greatly affect the political reality in Palestine and the Middle East.
In the final analysis, it has become clear that the ‘Deal of the Century’ was not an irreversible historical event, but an opportunistic and thoughtless political process that lacked a deep understanding of history and the political balances that continue to control the Middle East.
Another important lesson to be gleaned from all of this is that, as long as the Palestinian people continue to resist and fight for their freedom and as long as international solidarity continues to grow around them, the Palestinian cause will remain central to all Arabs and to all conscientious people around the world.
– Ramzy Baroud is a journalist and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of six books. His latest book, co-edited with Ilan Pappé, is “Our Vision for Liberation: Engaged Palestinian Leaders and Intellectuals Speak out”. Dr. Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA). His website iswww.ramzybaroud.net
Former head of IRGC’s Al-Quds Force General Martyr Qassem Suleimani and Deputy Head of the Hashd Shaabi Committee Hajj Martyr Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis
Ahmad Farhat, Translated and Edited by Mohammad Salami
Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah warned during a speech on October 1, 2022, against the anti-Iran propaganda promoted in Iraq, underlining the Iranian support to the Iraqis in their fight against ISIL terrorist group.
The two civilizations of Iraq, Mesopotamia, and Iran, Persia, are said to be among the most ancient civilizations throughout history. Iraqis and Iranians have been sharing joys and griefs and confronting the foreign interventions, especially the British influence on Shah regime in Iran and the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Numerous are the Iraqi civilization’s, Mesopotamia, feats, including Hammurabi code of laws, and the geographical location of features exposed Iraq to the foreign greedy attacks in light of the oil excavations in the twenties of the twentieth century.
The ambitions of the enemies and the foreign sides have been endless and concentrated on partitioning Iraq and divide its population over sectarian segments in order to plunder the Iraqi resources.
The historical paradox lies in the fact that the states which supported Saddam Hussein’s war on the Islamic Republic were the same that backed the US invasion of Iraq in addition to Britain.
The same paradox extends and shows that the same states are stirring sedition between Iraq and Iran and instigating the Iraqis against improving the relations with the Islamic Republic, knowing that some of those Arab regimes participated in besieging the Iraqi people and imposing the oil-for-food program.
In this regard, the former Iraq foreign minister, Naji Al-Hudaithi, exposed many of the scandals of the oil-for-food program, indicating that $50 billion had been plundered to fund the UN agencies and compensate the foreign states which supported Saddam Hussein in his war on Iran.
The UN agencies and inspectors used to waste huge amounts of money to purchase new gadgets and devices even before the old ones break down, Al-Hudaithi said.
Those countries did not stop at that limit; Saudi, for instance, dispatched 5000 suicide bombers to carry out attacks in Iraq and facilitated the movements of the two terrorist groups of Al-Qaeda and ISIL.
The former Iraqi premier Haidar Abadi announced a related Saudi confession:
After the Iraqis managed in 2011 to expel the US occupation forces, the entire Middle East witnessed the advent of the so-called Arab Spring which turned to be a black winter in Iraq.
Head of the Badr Organization Hadi Al-Ameri and the former premier Nuri Al-Maliki reflect on the Iranian support to Iraq:
108374
The enemies wanted Iraq to confront solely the terrorist era; however, the fraternal relations with the Islamic Republic were stronger than the colonial schemes.
The Iranian military support to Iraq moved swiftly into the front of confrontation with the US occupation, and the former head of IRGC’s Al-Quds Force General Martyr Qassem Suleimani coordinated with the Deputy Head of the Hashd Shaabi Committee Hajj Martyr Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis all the operations.
Many questions can be raised in this domain about Iraq’s destiny, ruling system, political creed, defense capabilities and economic situation it in case the terrorist groups or the US occupation have prevailed.
A thorough look at the scene affirms that the endeavor to demonize Iran betrays the history, present and the future of Iraq. Those attempts have been launched by some Arab and Western states, which supported the Saddam Hussein’s war on Iran and the US invasion of Iraq, via media outlets.
Nevertheless, the majority of the Iraqi people rejects this approach and underscores the fraternal relations between Iraq and Iran, knowing that this stance is always reiterated by the Iraqi officials.
Aerial footage shows the heavy participation in the popular event marking the first anniversary of the martyrdom of the two leaders, Suleimani and Al-Muhandis
The Islamic Republic blocked all the schemes to destroy the Iraqi state and displace its people, sending the military personnel and equipment to help the Iraqi army and popular forces to overcome the ISIL terrorists.
Martyrs Suleimani and Al-Muhandis participating in relieving Al-Basra and Khuzestan locals in Iraq
While, the martyr leaders Suleimani and Al-Muhandis and their brethren in the IRGC as well as Hashd Shaabi fighting the terrorist groups, certain Arab regimes were dispatching suicide bombers to commit massacres against the Iraqis.
Iran sacrificed its elite commanders and fighters, headed by General Suleimani who has been a great symbol for the Iranian and most of the Iraqis.
The two leaders Suleimani and Al-Muhandis embraced martyrdom together in the US drone attack on their convoy near Baghdad airport on January 3, 2020, underlining the US keenness on the Israeli interests and the Iraqi fuel.
The United States has continued to intervene in all the local Iraqi politics and plundering the Mesopotamian resources. Whereas, the Islamic Republic has been offering Iraq economic aids and investment projects.
The Islamic Republic of Iran has never requested any Iraqi services in return. Its intention has been always concentrated on defending the sanctities and supporting the vulnerable against oppression, which in consecrated in its Constitution.
Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution in Iran Imam Sayyed Ali Khamenei highlights the importance of the fight against ISIL terrorists in protecting Imam Hussein (P) Holy Shrine in Karbala City. Martyr Suleimani, moreover, indicates that the terrorists plotted to destroy the Holy Shrines in Iraq.
Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian and Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad talked about the regional and international cooperation between the two allies at a meeting in Damascus.
The new foreign minister of the Islamic Republic, who is visiting Syria with a high-ranking delegation, held talks with Assad on Sunday.
Amir Abdollahian congratulated Assad on holding a successful presidential election, and hailed Syria’s political and international victories and its achievements on the battlefield, and extended top Iranian officials’ greetings to the Syrian president.
He further referred to the economic cooperation between the two countries, highlighting the need to activate the Joint Commission of Economic Cooperation and other existing related mechanisms, according to the Iranian Foreign Ministry’s website.
Additionally, Abdollahian briefed Assad on a summit in Baghdad which he had attended a day earlier.
The Syrian president, for his part, expressed pleasure at Iran’s support for his country and outlined his views on the bilateral ties and also cooperation between Tehran and Damascus in the regional and international spheres.
The Iranian diplomat has traveled to Syria after a visit to Iraq, where he attended the Baghdad Conference for Cooperation and Partnership, a summit with the objective of calming regional tensions.
Before leaving Tehran for Baghdad on Saturday, Amir Abdollahian complained that Syria had not been invited to the summit, saying, “However, we are in contact and hold consultations with Syria’s leadership about the region’s security and sustainable development.”
Watch Behind The Headlines correspondent Dan Cohen explain how top foreign policy reporters are linked to the U.S. government, weapons industry and oil corporations – the very forces they are supposed to hold accountable.
Imagine a country where there’s no separation between the government, the military, and the media. A lot of Americans would think of China, Russia or North Korea, but it’s a perfect description of the United States today. And here in Washington, the think tank inside this nondescript building – Center For A New American Security (CNAS) – is the clearest example of just that.
CNAS is a premier militarist think tank in the nation’s capital, especially for Democratic Party administrations. It is funded by the State Department and Pentagon and has taken more money from weapons companies over the last several years than any other think tank. On top of that, it’s funded by oil companies, big banks, and right wing governments – basically the most destructive forces on the planet.
For President Joe Biden, CNAS serves as a farm, from which key positions in his administration are cultivated. In fact, at least 16 CNAS alumni are now in key positions in the Biden Pentagon and State Department.
But what’s most shocking is that several national security and foreign policy reporters from elite U.S. media outlets are affiliated with CNAS – and therefore indirectly affiliated with, and likely paid by, the U.S. government and corporations – the very forces that they should be holding accountable.
For more than twenty years, New York Times Washington correspondent David Sanger has relentlessly pushed deceptions to con the public into supporting U.S. aggression and war.
From the George W. Bush administration’s lies about WMDs in Iraq to lies about Iran attempting to create nuclear weapons and evidence-free claims from intelligence agencies about Russian cyberattacks – these incendiary allegations were taken at face value with a clear goal to pressure then-President Donald Trump to ramp up aggression against Moscow while conveniently filling the pockets of Sanger’s weapons-industry benefactors.
Sanger’s neocon cyberwar fantasy was even turned into a movie by HBO. Today, David Sanger is onto the COVID-19 lab leak theory. He’s been at the forefront of every propaganda campaign that not only provides justification for aggression and war but also helps generate huge profits for CNAS funders.
Sanger is just one of several New York Times, Washington Post and Foreign Policy reporters who have residencies at CNAS. Presumably, that comes with a sizable financial component. I emailed CNAS to ask whether it pays these reporters but they didn’t respond.
Sanger’s colleague Eric Schmitt, senior correspondent covering national security for The New York Times, is also in residence at CNAS.
Back in 2020, Schmitt was promoting the obviously false Russian bounties story, which was later retracted after it had served its political purpose to force Trump to take a harder anti-Russia stance.
Of course, Schmitt was a reliable promoter of intelligence claims about Russian hacking – never displaying a scintilla of skepticism.
And he dutifully portrayed the Trump administration’s aggression against Iran as defensive.
The Washington Post, at one point, found this kind of blatant media corruption at least questionable. In 2011, Time magazine launched a series in collaboration with CNAS to promote war propaganda; the Post published an article questioning the ethics of that partnership.
Fast-forward to 2013: billionaire Jeff Bezos buys the Post, and its correspondent, David Finkel, becomes a writer in residence at CNAS. During that time, Finkel wrote two books on the U.S. war in Iraq: “The Good Soldiers” and “Thank You For Your Service.” Just the kind of whitewash of the war that CNAS’s funders would want the public to consume.
Michael Gordon is another. He spent three decades at the Times. Among his greatest accomplishments was, alongside Judith Miller, promoting the Bush administration’s Iraqi WMD deception. Gordon wrote that “Iraq has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb” – citing anonymous U.S. officials.
Now at The Wall Street Journal, Gordon has spent months pumping out Wuhan lab-leakpropaganda – once again promoting claims of intelligence officials without any skepticism.
Greg Jaffe is a Washington Post national security reporter and another writer in residence at CNAS. His article on the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan quotes Eliot Cohen – a former Bush administration official who is now a fellow at CNAS. Jaffe and Cohen’s shared affiliation is never disclosed in the article – an obvious breach of the most basic journalistic ethics.
Thom Shanker used to be part of the CNAS writer-in-residence program when he was at the Times writing on U.S. wars. In 2012, Shanker wrote this blog post promoting a CNAS study without revealing his affiliation. Once again, a major conflict of interest and ethics out the window.
There’s also Rajiv Chandrasekaran, who spent two decades doing public relations for U.S. wars at the Post and is now doing PR for Starbucks.
And Thomas Ricks, whose career has spanned posts at The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and Foreign Policy magazine. Ricks is a cold-warrior who has publicly stated that Putin is attacking the United States just like Osama Bin Laden did and that Americans defending Putin are no different from those defending Bin Laden.
Some of this information isn’t new. It was reported in The Nation more than a decade ago, but the issue has only gotten worse as U.S. politics have shifted right, spy agencies have gained more power in the media, and the new cold war has accelerated.
There’s no real separation between the myriad of revolving doors and cash flow between the weapons manufacturers, think tanks, the U.S. government and media. It’s an incestuous, bloviating blob capable of producing one thing and one thing only: war.
So when you think of the military industrial complex and the permanent war state, don’t forget about what might be the most important component of all: the media.
There are more than enough reasons for this: the activity of pro-Iranian groups in Iraq after the assassination of nuclear physicist Mohsen Fakhrizade Makhabadi, the increasing attacks of the Iraqi people’s militia and Hezbollah brigades on the building of the American embassy in the vicinity of Baghdad, and the COVID-19 pandemic, which has pushed Iraq to the brink of a humanitarian disaster.
As a result of Joe Biden’s victory in the US presidential election, the belief was formed that the new head of the White House would lift the restrictive measures imposed by Donald Trump’s cabinet on Muslims. However, considering the fact that the ideas of Islamophobia have been actively cultivated in American society for decades, Joe Biden probably will not be able to do anything to improve the situation of the Muslim community. In line with Barack Obama’s policies, the new US president is likely to significantly expand the patriotism law, according to which Muslims will continue to be considered a “source of terrorist threat” and in respect of which new restrictive procedures will be introduced. One of such procedures, according to experts, could be an indefinite observation of all followers of Islam living in the United States, and a new military invasion of Iraq. Based on this, Joe Biden not only will not eradicate American Islamophobia, but also greatly contribute to its further spread.
Modern Islamophobia is not a manifestation of the activities of an individual politician. It is a systemic phenomenon that has become an integral part of American life at all levels, from marginalized declassed circles to government institutions. As such, regardless of whether Joe Biden and his deputy, Kamala Harris, speak out from a position of love for Muslims, it is unlikely to meet with the support of most Americans, who have been taught throughout their lives to perceive Muslims as “hated combatants” …
Building its policy on the basis of the thesis of the “purity of the American nation,” the United States will undoubtedly continue to be an Islamophobic country. At the same time, the struggle between the Democratic and Republican parties does not at all affect the system-forming factors of religious intolerance. Islamophobia for American politicians is an opportunity to mobilize their electorate, constantly keeping them in a state of fear of a possible attack from Muslims. This fear became especially prevalent in the United States after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. And to this day, most Americans fear a repeat of these events. Influenced by their own fear, they prefer to use preventive measures of pressure against Muslims, thereby mistakenly identifying every follower of Islam as a potential terrorist.
For most Americans, Muslims are a priori guilty, if only because they profess the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad. This misconception allowed Washington to justify its military invasion of Iraq in 2003 in order to overthrow Saddam Hussein, as well as launch a military operation in Syria.
So it shouldn’t come as a surprise that this fear ultimately became a guide to action. In 2003, almost every fifth American was absolutely sure that the terrorist attacks in the United States were organized on the orders of the Iraqi leader, and in 2011, Washington placed the main blame for ethnic crime on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
It is important to note that it was the Democratic Party, of which Joe Biden is a member, that was the main ideologist of the US military invasion of Iraq. Based on this, it is likely that after January 21, 2021 and until 2025, a new military operation on Iraqi territory may be organized at the initiative of the White House. Moreover, now there are more than enough reasons for this: the activity of pro-Iranian groups in Iraq after the assassination of nuclear physicist Mohsen Fakhrizade Makhabadi, the increasing attacks of the Iraqi people’s militia and Hezbollah brigades on the building of the American embassy in the vicinity of Baghdad, and the COVID-19 pandemic, which has pushed Iraq to the brink of a humanitarian disaster.
The reason why the U.S. Government must be prosecuted for its war-crimes against Iraq is that they are so horrific and there are so many of them, and international law crumbles until they become prosecuted and severely punished for what they did. We therefore now have internationally a lawless world (or “World Order”) in which “Might makes right,” and in which there is really no effective international law, at all. This is merely gangster “law,” ruling on an international level. It is what Hitler and his Axis of fascist imperialists had imposed upon the world until the Allies — U.S. under FDR, UK under Churchill, and U.S.S.R. under Stalin — defeated it, and established the United Nations. Furthermore, America’s leaders deceived the American public into perpetrating this invasion and occupation, of a foreign country (Iraq) that had never threatened the United States; and, so, this invasion and subsequent military occupation constitutes the very epitome of “aggressive war” — unwarranted and illegal international aggression. (Hitler, similarly to George W. Bush, would never have been able to obtain the support of his people to invade if he had not lied, or “deceived,” them, into invading and militarily occupying foreign countries that had never threatened Germany, such as Belgium, Poland and Czechoslovakia. This — Hitler’s lie-based aggressions — was the core of what the Nazis were hung for, and yet America now does it.)
Invoking the precedent set by the United States and its allies at the Nuremberg trial in 1946, there can be no doubt that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a war of aggression. There was no imminent threat to U.S. security nor to the security of the world. The invasion violated the U.N. Charter as well as U.N. Security Council Resolution #1441.
The Nuremberg precedent calls for no less than the arrest and prosecution of those individuals responsible for the invasion of Iraq, beginning with President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Condoleez[z]a Rice, former Secretary of State Colin Powell and former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.
Take, for example, Condoleezza Rice, who famously warned “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.” (That warning was one of the most effective lies in order to deceive the American public into invading Iraq, because President Bush had had no real evidence, at all, that there still remained any WMD in Iraq after the U.N. had destroyed them all, and left Iraq in 1998 — and he knew this; he was informed of this; he knew that he had no real evidence, at all: he offered none; it was all mere lies.
So, the Nuremberg precedent definitely does apply against George W, Bush and his partners-in-crime, just as it did against Hitler and his henchmen and allies.
The seriousness of this international war crime is not as severe as those of the Nazis were, but nonetheless is comparable to it.
On 15 March 2018, Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J.S. Davies headlined at Alternet “The Staggering Death Toll in Iraq” and wrote that “our calculations, using the best information available, show a catastrophic estimate of 2.4 million Iraqi deaths since the 2003 invasion,” and linked to solid evidence, backing up their estimate.
On 29 September 2015, I headlined “GALLUP: ‘Iraqis Are the Saddest & One of the Angriest Populations in the World’,” and linked to Gallup’s survey of 1,000 individuals in each of 148 countries around the world, which found that Iraq had the highest “Negative Experience Score.” That score includes “sadness,” “physical pain,” “anger,” and other types of misery — and Iraq, after America’s invasion, has scored the highest in the entire world, on it, and in the following years has likewise scored at or near the highest on “Negative Experience Score.” For example: in the latest, the 2019, Gallup “Global Emotions Report”, Iraq scores fourth from the top on “Negative Experience Score,” after (in order from the worst) Chad, Niger, and Sierra Leone. (Gallup has been doing these surveys ever since 2005, but the first one that was published under that title was the 2015 report, which summarized the 2014 surveys’ findings.) Of course, prior to America’s invasion, there had been America’s 1990 war against Iraq and the U.S. regime’s leadership and imposition of U.N. sanctions (which likewise were based largely on U.S.-regime-backed lies, though not totally on lies like the 2003 invasion was), which caused massive misery in that country; and, therefore, not all of the misery in Iraq which showed up in the 2015 Global Emotions Report was due to only the 2003 invasion and subsequent military occupation of that country. But almost all of it was, and is. And all of it was based on America’s rulers lying to the public in order to win the public’s acceptance of their evil plans and invasions against a country that had never posed any threat whatsoever to Americans — people residing in America. Furthermore, it is also perhaps relevant that the 2012 “World Happiness Report” shows Iraq at the very bottom of the list of countries (on page 55 of that report) regarding “Average Net Affect by Country,” meaning that Iraqis were the most zombified of all 156 nationalities surveyed. Other traumatized countries were immediately above Iraq on that list. On “Average Negative Affect,” only “Palestinian Territories” scored higher than Iraq (page 52). After America’s invasion based entirely on lies, Iraq is a wrecked country, which still remains under the U.S. regime’s boot, as the following will document:
Bush’s successors, Obama and Trump, failed to press for Bush’s trial on these vast crimes, even though the American people had ourselves become enormously victimized by them, though far less so than Iraqis were. Instead, Bush’s successors have become accessories after the fact, by this failure to press for prosecution of him and his henchmen regarding this grave matter. In fact, the “Defense One” site bannered on 26 September 2018, “US Official: We May Cut Support for Iraq If New Government Seats Pro-Iran Politicians”, and opened with “The Trump administration may decrease U.S. military support or other assistance to Iraq if its new government puts Iranian-aligned politicians in any ‘significant positions of responsibility,’ a senior administration official told reporters late last week.” The way that the U.S. regime has brought ‘democracy’ to Iraq is by threatening to withdraw its protection of the stooge-rulers that it had helped to place into power there, unless those stooges do the U.S. dictators’ bidding, against Iraq’s neighbor Iran. This specific American dictator, Trump, is demanding that majority-Shiite Iraq be run by stooges who favor, instead, America’s fundamentalist-Sunni allies, such as the Saud family who own Saudi Arabia and who hate and loathe Shiites and Iran. The U.S. dictatorship insists that Iraq, which the U.S. conquered, serve America’s anti-Shiite and anti-Iranian policy-objectives. “The U.S. threat, to withhold aid if Iran-aligned politicians occupy any ministerial position, is an escalation of Washington’s demands on Baghdad.” The article went on to quote a “senior administration official” as asserting that, “if Iran exerts a tremendous amount of influence, or a significant amount of influence over the Iraqi government, it’s going to be difficult for us to continue to invest.” Get the euphemisms there! This article said that “the Trump administration has made constraining Iran’s influence in the region a cornerstone of their foreign policy.” So, this hostility toward Iran must be reflected in Iraq’s policies, too. It’s not enough that Trump wants to destroy Iran like Bush has destroyed Iraq; Trump demands that Iraq participate in that crime, against Iraq’s own neighbor. This article said that, “There have also been protests against ‘U.S. meddling’ in the formation of a new Iraqi government, singling out Special Presidential Envoy Brett McGurk for working to prevent parties close to Iran from obtaining power.” McGurk is the rabidly neconservative former high G.W. Bush Administration official, and higher Obama Administration official, who remained as Trump’s top official on his policy to force Iraq to cooperate with America’s efforts to conquer Iran. Trump’s evil is Obama’s evil, and is Bush’s evil. It is bipartisan evil, no matter which Party is in power. Though Trump doesn’t like either the Bushes or Obamas, all of them are in the same evil policy-boat. America’s Deep State remains the same, no matter whom it places into the position of nominal power. The regime remains the same, regardless.
On April 29th, the whistleblowing former UK Ambassador Craig Murray wrote:
Nobody knows how many people died as a result of the UK/US Coalition of Death led destruction of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and, by proxy, Syria and Yemen. Nobody even knows how many people western forces themselves killed directly. That is a huge number, but still under 10% of the total. To add to that you have to add those who died in subsequent conflict engendered by the forced dismantling of the state the West disapproved of. Some were killed by western proxies, some by anti-western forces, and some just by those reverting to ancient tribal hostility and battle for resources into which the country had been regressed by bombing.
You then have to add all those who died directly as a result of the destruction of national infrastructure. Iraq lost in the destruction 60% of its potable drinking water, 75% of its medical facilities and 80% of its electricity. This caused millions of deaths, as did displacement. We are only of course talking about deaths, not maiming.
UK’s Prime Minister Tony Blair should hang with the U.S. gang, but who is calling for this? How much longer will the necessary prosecutions wait? Till after these international war-criminals have all gone honored to their graves?
Although the International Criminal Court considered and dismissed possible criminal charges against Tony Blair’s UK Government regarding the invasion and military occupation of Iraq, the actual crime, of invading and militarily occupying a country which had posed no threat to the national security of the invader, was ignored, and the conclusion was that “the situation did not appear to meet the required threshold of the Statute” (which was only“Willful killing or inhuman treatment of civilians” and which ignored the real crime, which was “aggressive war” or “the crime of aggression” — the crime for which Nazis had been hanged at Nuremberg). Furthermore, no charges whatsoever against the U.S. Government (the world’s most frequent and most heinous violator of international law) were considered. In other words: the International Criminal Court is subordinate to, instead of applicable to, the U.S. regime. Just like Adolf Hitler had repeatedly made clear that, to him, all nations except Germany were dispensable and only Germany wasn’t, Barack Obama repeatedly said that “The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation”, which likewise means that every other nation is “dispensable.” The criminal International Criminal Court accepts this, and yet expects to be respected.
The U.S. regime did “regime change” to Iraq in 2003, and to Ukraine in 2014, and tried to do it to Syria since 2009, and to Yemen since 2015, and to Venezuela since 2012, and to Iran since 2017 — just to mention some of the examples. And, though the Nuremberg precedent certainly applies, it’s not enforced. In principle, then, Hitler has posthumously won WW II.
Hitler must be smiling, now. FDR must be rolling in his grave.
The only way to address this problem, if there won’t be prosecutions against the ‘duly elected’ (Deep-State-approved and enabled) national leaders and appointees, would be governmental seizure and nationalization of the assets that are outright owned or else controlled by America’s Deep State. Ultimately, the Government-officials who are s‘elected’ and appointed to run the American Government have been and are representing not the American people but instead represent the billionaires who fund those officials’ and former officials’ careers. In a democracy, those individuals — the financial enablers of those politicians’ s‘electoral’ success — would be dispossessed of all their assets, and then prosecuted for the crimes that were perpetrated by the public officials whom they had participated in (significantly funded and propagandized for) placing into power. (For example, both Parties’ Presidential nominees are unqualified to serve in any public office in a democracy.)
Democracy cannot function with a systematically lied-to public. Nor can it function if the responsible governmental officials are effectively immune from prosecution for their ‘legal’ crimes, or if the financial string-pullers behind the scenes can safely pull those strings. In America right now, both of those conditions pertain, and, as a result, democracy is impossible. There are only two ways to address this problem, and one of them would start by prosecuting George W. Bush.
UPROOTED PALESTINIANS: SALAM ALQUDS ALAYKUM 