BATR 2020 Election News
Showing posts with label Foreign Policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Foreign Policy. Show all posts
Monday, December 02, 2019
Tuesday, November 19, 2019
Monday, November 18, 2019
National populists in Spain promise to build ‘impassable wall’
Spain’s national populist party Vox, the country’s third-largest party as of this week, has pledged to erect an “impassable wall” around its North African exclaves to prevent illegal immigration.
Ahead of the country’s national elections that were held on last Sunday, Vox presented a list of 100 proposals which included policies that would work to drastically reduce the number of illegal migrants living in Spain.
Increased deportations of illegal migrants, more stringent border controls, and the construction of an “impassable wall” around the country’s North African exclaves were among Vox’s top priorities, online newspaper El Confidencial reports.
Security barriers that separate Spain’s North African exclaves – Melilla and Ceuta – from Morocco have continually proven themselves to be ineffective over the years, with hundreds of migrants scaling the existing fences on several occasions in the past few years.
In July, six Spanish border guards were injured in Melilla after 200 illegal migrants attempted to scale the security barrier which separates Europe from North Africa.
Also within the 100 proposals Vox outlined for voters, the party promised that it would provide additional material and financial support to police, armed forces, and security personnel in charge of patrolling the Spanish border.
Vox leader Santiago Abascal also has said that he would criminalize NGO boats operating in the Mediterranean Sea that assist human traffickers in the ferrying of migrants into Europe from North Africa.
Read the entire article
Friday, November 15, 2019
Tuesday, November 12, 2019
The End Of NATO?
With less than a month until the next big NATO meeting, scheduled for the first week of December, France’s Macron has jumped into public relations mode to prepare the public for some big changes on the horizon. Indeed, Macron’s major interview with the Economist on November 7th on the question of the US’s alleged wavering commitment to NATO is a stunning sign of the times.
Cutting through a lot of intentionally confusing messaging, is that France and Germany are just fine with any end to NATO because it helps justify the coming European Army – one that they want, and believe they need anyhow. It only happens to be part of the same reality that US hegemony, and its ability to finance NATO in turn, are coming to an end. In sounding more like a radical post-structuralist international relations theorist than a fiscally conservative leader of a capitalist democracy, Macron shocked the world when he stated in no uncertain terms that this period we are in marks the end of ‘Western Hegemony’.
The real facts of motives behind big changes have an odd way of ultimately making themselves known for what they are at the end of the day. Often these are cloaked in the underlying framework of the politics of the time. Revealing these in the case of France and NATO can show some top-level word salad at play: justify independence not on the basis that being controlled isn’t fair, but rather that those doing the controlling aren’t doing it well enough and don’t seem committed to it as much as they ought to be. Macron is doing this very well, and mirrors Trump’s own discursive games.
Occupiers aren’t doing their job – the End of Trilateralism
Imagine if you will a French argument against the Nazi occupation not because it placed Germany in control of France’s fate, but rather on the basis that the Wehrmacht was decreasing its troop presence in France, or conversely appeared to be wavering on the Eastern Front, and as a consequence France was worried about Germany’s commitment to the Reich. This is, in short, what Macron is arguing today regarding the US and NATO.
Imagine likewise, that the Wehrmacht said it was considering abandoning its occupation of France not because it had to move resources to the Eastern Front, but because France wasn’t giving enough to the war effort. This is the crux of Trump’s argument for public consumption.
Under any other prior historical iterations, the US’s moves to reduce its NATO commitments to Western Europe would be hailed by progressives in the Democratic Party in the US as a step in the right direction. Yet now in this exciting time, one in which the US Empire is down-sizing and adjusting itself to its real force potential, progressives in the US are making geopolitical realism into a partisan issue: since the most obvious or observable stage is happening under a nominally conservative, Republican administration, it must therefore be a Democratic Party talking point to oppose this in principle.
The matter is of course deeper than this, and the Democratic Party’s investment in the trilateralism (US + EU + Japan) of Rockefeller and Brzezinski has been at odds with the unilateralism of the neoconservatives. We will recall when President George W Bush attacked Iraq, it came not long after moves by the Iraqi government to do their oil dealings in Euros. The Europe-wide hatred for Bush’s war on Iraq seemed to the politically naïve as an expression of social-democratic pacifism, but in reality was an expression of Europe’s sovereign financial interests versus dollar hegemony. These questions really have not gone away.
When NATO came onto the stage, it was couched in terms of protecting Western Europe from the growth of the Soviet sphere of influence which the latter had won from its victory over Germany in WWII.
The idea that NATO was not a collaborative and mutual effort of freely-acting European states in defense of market freedoms and Western values, but instead more like a US led and sustained military occupation in Western Europe, in the past could be criticized as either Communist or even neo-Nazi propaganda. Against this view the entire media-academic industry was mobilized, assuring the public that all the European countries of NATO were members of their own accord and will: an outgrowth of the democratic mandate from the peoples of the member states, arrived at through fair parliamentary processes.
Macron still needs to make everyone look good
All this places Macron in an odd position. NATO is the military component of economic Atlanticism, but this transatlantic relationship experienced a major breach of trust in the years following the US market crash in 2007. This was because US based banks and government colluded to deceitfully push a significant portion of its liabilities onto the EU all the while claiming these were investments – who in turn placed an undue burden in PIIGS countries, in particular Greece. This all in turn has fueled a marked increase in Eurosceptic and ‘exit’ movements across the beleaguered EU.
Read the entire article
Cutting through a lot of intentionally confusing messaging, is that France and Germany are just fine with any end to NATO because it helps justify the coming European Army – one that they want, and believe they need anyhow. It only happens to be part of the same reality that US hegemony, and its ability to finance NATO in turn, are coming to an end. In sounding more like a radical post-structuralist international relations theorist than a fiscally conservative leader of a capitalist democracy, Macron shocked the world when he stated in no uncertain terms that this period we are in marks the end of ‘Western Hegemony’.
The real facts of motives behind big changes have an odd way of ultimately making themselves known for what they are at the end of the day. Often these are cloaked in the underlying framework of the politics of the time. Revealing these in the case of France and NATO can show some top-level word salad at play: justify independence not on the basis that being controlled isn’t fair, but rather that those doing the controlling aren’t doing it well enough and don’t seem committed to it as much as they ought to be. Macron is doing this very well, and mirrors Trump’s own discursive games.
Occupiers aren’t doing their job – the End of Trilateralism
Imagine if you will a French argument against the Nazi occupation not because it placed Germany in control of France’s fate, but rather on the basis that the Wehrmacht was decreasing its troop presence in France, or conversely appeared to be wavering on the Eastern Front, and as a consequence France was worried about Germany’s commitment to the Reich. This is, in short, what Macron is arguing today regarding the US and NATO.
Imagine likewise, that the Wehrmacht said it was considering abandoning its occupation of France not because it had to move resources to the Eastern Front, but because France wasn’t giving enough to the war effort. This is the crux of Trump’s argument for public consumption.
Under any other prior historical iterations, the US’s moves to reduce its NATO commitments to Western Europe would be hailed by progressives in the Democratic Party in the US as a step in the right direction. Yet now in this exciting time, one in which the US Empire is down-sizing and adjusting itself to its real force potential, progressives in the US are making geopolitical realism into a partisan issue: since the most obvious or observable stage is happening under a nominally conservative, Republican administration, it must therefore be a Democratic Party talking point to oppose this in principle.
The matter is of course deeper than this, and the Democratic Party’s investment in the trilateralism (US + EU + Japan) of Rockefeller and Brzezinski has been at odds with the unilateralism of the neoconservatives. We will recall when President George W Bush attacked Iraq, it came not long after moves by the Iraqi government to do their oil dealings in Euros. The Europe-wide hatred for Bush’s war on Iraq seemed to the politically naïve as an expression of social-democratic pacifism, but in reality was an expression of Europe’s sovereign financial interests versus dollar hegemony. These questions really have not gone away.
When NATO came onto the stage, it was couched in terms of protecting Western Europe from the growth of the Soviet sphere of influence which the latter had won from its victory over Germany in WWII.
The idea that NATO was not a collaborative and mutual effort of freely-acting European states in defense of market freedoms and Western values, but instead more like a US led and sustained military occupation in Western Europe, in the past could be criticized as either Communist or even neo-Nazi propaganda. Against this view the entire media-academic industry was mobilized, assuring the public that all the European countries of NATO were members of their own accord and will: an outgrowth of the democratic mandate from the peoples of the member states, arrived at through fair parliamentary processes.
Macron still needs to make everyone look good
All this places Macron in an odd position. NATO is the military component of economic Atlanticism, but this transatlantic relationship experienced a major breach of trust in the years following the US market crash in 2007. This was because US based banks and government colluded to deceitfully push a significant portion of its liabilities onto the EU all the while claiming these were investments – who in turn placed an undue burden in PIIGS countries, in particular Greece. This all in turn has fueled a marked increase in Eurosceptic and ‘exit’ movements across the beleaguered EU.
Read the entire article
Thursday, October 24, 2019
Elizabeth Warren is open to the idea of conditioning aid to Israel
Last month, the progressive think tank Data for Progress released report showing that a net majority of Democratic voters are receptive to the idea of cutting aid to Israel in order to curb their human rights violations.
These statistics certainly didn’t line up with the Beltway consensus on the issue, where it’s assumed that touching the issue could amount to political suicide. When the report was published, only two presidential candidates had floated such an idea: South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who said he’d block any funding that might be used to annex the West Bank, and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who has floated the idea of conditioning aid to impact Israel’s policies multiple times.
We can now add a third name to that list: Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren.
On a Saturday, Warren said she was open to the idea of conditioning aid if Israel continued to expand its settlements:
Right now, Netanyahu says he is going to take Israel in a direction of increasing settlements, [but] that does not move us in the direction of a two-state solution. It is the official policy of the United States of America to support a two-state solution, and if Israel is moving in the opposite direction, then everything is on the table…Everything is on the table.
Read the entire article
These statistics certainly didn’t line up with the Beltway consensus on the issue, where it’s assumed that touching the issue could amount to political suicide. When the report was published, only two presidential candidates had floated such an idea: South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who said he’d block any funding that might be used to annex the West Bank, and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who has floated the idea of conditioning aid to impact Israel’s policies multiple times.
We can now add a third name to that list: Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren.
On a Saturday, Warren said she was open to the idea of conditioning aid if Israel continued to expand its settlements:
Right now, Netanyahu says he is going to take Israel in a direction of increasing settlements, [but] that does not move us in the direction of a two-state solution. It is the official policy of the United States of America to support a two-state solution, and if Israel is moving in the opposite direction, then everything is on the table…Everything is on the table.
Read the entire article
Monday, October 14, 2019
Crises in Iraq and Haiti expose the failure of militarized neoliberalism
This season could be called the Autumn of Discontent, as people from the Middle East to Latin America and the Caribbean have been rising up against corrupt neoliberal governments. Two of the countries in crisis, Haiti and Iraq, are on opposite ends of the earth but have something important in common. Not only are they reeling from protests against government corruption and austerity programs, like Ecuador and Algeria, but in both Haiti and Iraq, their corrupt neoliberal governments were imposed on them by the use of U.S. military force.
In 2003 and 2004 respectively, U.S. forces illegally invaded Iraq and Haiti, removed their internationally recognized governments from power and replaced them with U.S.-backed regimes. Both countries have since been governed in line with the dominant neoliberal ideology that the U.S. and its allies have imposed on most of the world since the 1980s. The protests and savage repression in Iraq and Haiti today are only the latest evidence of the utter failure of neoliberalism and the extraordinary human cost of U.S. efforts to impose it by military force on countries that resist.
In the first week of October, more than 100 people were killed and 6,000 wounded in Baghdad, Nasiriyah and other Iraqi cities, as the Iraqi Army and police fired into large demonstrations. Young Iraqis have risen up against government corruption, unemployment and poverty that leaves them with dismal prospects, even as record oil production fills the pockets of the ruling elite in Baghdad’s Green Zone.
Meanwhile, at least 17 people have been killed in the Haitian government’s repression of protests calling for the resignation of U.S.-backed President Juvenal Moise. Public anger has boiled over into the streets as Moise faces credible charges of embezzlement and corruption. His government has utterly failed to improve the lives of most Haitians. Haiti remains the poorest country in the Western hemisphere, with a per capita GDP of only $870 per year and 60% of the population living below a poverty line of $2.41 per day.
Read the entire article
In 2003 and 2004 respectively, U.S. forces illegally invaded Iraq and Haiti, removed their internationally recognized governments from power and replaced them with U.S.-backed regimes. Both countries have since been governed in line with the dominant neoliberal ideology that the U.S. and its allies have imposed on most of the world since the 1980s. The protests and savage repression in Iraq and Haiti today are only the latest evidence of the utter failure of neoliberalism and the extraordinary human cost of U.S. efforts to impose it by military force on countries that resist.
In the first week of October, more than 100 people were killed and 6,000 wounded in Baghdad, Nasiriyah and other Iraqi cities, as the Iraqi Army and police fired into large demonstrations. Young Iraqis have risen up against government corruption, unemployment and poverty that leaves them with dismal prospects, even as record oil production fills the pockets of the ruling elite in Baghdad’s Green Zone.
Meanwhile, at least 17 people have been killed in the Haitian government’s repression of protests calling for the resignation of U.S.-backed President Juvenal Moise. Public anger has boiled over into the streets as Moise faces credible charges of embezzlement and corruption. His government has utterly failed to improve the lives of most Haitians. Haiti remains the poorest country in the Western hemisphere, with a per capita GDP of only $870 per year and 60% of the population living below a poverty line of $2.41 per day.
Read the entire article
Tuesday, September 17, 2019
Monday, September 16, 2019
After Bolton, Trump’s Second Term Depends on America First
By sacking former national security adviser John Bolton, President Donald Trump has put himself in a better position to keep the campaign promises that distinguished him from the other Republicans who ran against him in 2016 and perhaps pull off another come-from-behind win next year.
Finally, an example of regime change that could actually make our country safer. But while firing Bolton is prerequisite for pursuing a true “America First” foreign policy, it is not sufficient by itself. Trump needs reinforcements if he is to fulfill his pledges to end the wars in Syria and, especially, Afghanistan. The next national security adviser cannot be a Bolton bureaucratic rival who largely holds the same view as the mustachioed militarist or even a Bolton mini-me.
Trump cannot govern the way he wants to by recruiting from the George W. Bush and John McCain B Teams. While his options are limited—realism and restraint has considerable academic support, but less Beltway experience and fewer credentialed Republicans—the alternative is to surrender the advantages that put him in the Oval Office in the first place over the objections of the mainstream media, outraged Democrats, and even some of his own party’s establishment.
So far there has been a disconnect between Trump’s rhetoric and the Trump record. He has allowed underlings to essentially override him on Afghanistan and Syria. He scrapped the Iran nuclear deal without a viable alternative and vetoed a bipartisan resolution rebuking U.S. participation in the unconscionable Saudi war on Yemen. He has escalated many of the ongoing presidential wars that lack constitutionally required congressional authorization.
Read the entire article
Finally, an example of regime change that could actually make our country safer. But while firing Bolton is prerequisite for pursuing a true “America First” foreign policy, it is not sufficient by itself. Trump needs reinforcements if he is to fulfill his pledges to end the wars in Syria and, especially, Afghanistan. The next national security adviser cannot be a Bolton bureaucratic rival who largely holds the same view as the mustachioed militarist or even a Bolton mini-me.
Trump cannot govern the way he wants to by recruiting from the George W. Bush and John McCain B Teams. While his options are limited—realism and restraint has considerable academic support, but less Beltway experience and fewer credentialed Republicans—the alternative is to surrender the advantages that put him in the Oval Office in the first place over the objections of the mainstream media, outraged Democrats, and even some of his own party’s establishment.
So far there has been a disconnect between Trump’s rhetoric and the Trump record. He has allowed underlings to essentially override him on Afghanistan and Syria. He scrapped the Iran nuclear deal without a viable alternative and vetoed a bipartisan resolution rebuking U.S. participation in the unconscionable Saudi war on Yemen. He has escalated many of the ongoing presidential wars that lack constitutionally required congressional authorization.
Read the entire article
Thursday, August 29, 2019
TRUMP FOOLS THE ISRAELI WARMONGERS
So, Trump and President Rouhani of Iran are now openly talking about having a friendly tete-a-tete (a $10 French term for a sit-down), eh? This may have come as a surprise to many, but not to us. Time for a bit of horn-tootin', boys and girls.
Though initially disappointed with the seeming foreign policy aggressiveness of the man whom we used to mock as "Trumpstein" in early 2017; by the middle that first year in office, "The Editorial Board" of The Anti New York-Times became, as far as we know, the first and only to figure out the method behind Trump's fake madness and boldly predict that Trump -- while faking out the warmongers by threatening to start a war -- would actually lead the world to peace. Many of "youse guys" expressed doubt over our Trump-the-Pacifist theory, and a handful even insulted us!
Though Iran is insisting that there will be no talks until Trump lifts the sanctions which he had imposed; that's just posturing on their own part. The talks will eventually happen and -- through back-channel proxies such as Senator Rand Paul, they already are. Trump wants a deal and so does Iran. The purpose of the drama is to keep the Zionist crazies off off-balance.
Read the entire article
Though initially disappointed with the seeming foreign policy aggressiveness of the man whom we used to mock as "Trumpstein" in early 2017; by the middle that first year in office, "The Editorial Board" of The Anti New York-Times became, as far as we know, the first and only to figure out the method behind Trump's fake madness and boldly predict that Trump -- while faking out the warmongers by threatening to start a war -- would actually lead the world to peace. Many of "youse guys" expressed doubt over our Trump-the-Pacifist theory, and a handful even insulted us!
Though Iran is insisting that there will be no talks until Trump lifts the sanctions which he had imposed; that's just posturing on their own part. The talks will eventually happen and -- through back-channel proxies such as Senator Rand Paul, they already are. Trump wants a deal and so does Iran. The purpose of the drama is to keep the Zionist crazies off off-balance.
Read the entire article
Monday, August 19, 2019
Two Formerly Independent Nations Struggle for Re-emergence
Two re-emergent states on opposite shores of the Gulf of Aden are attempting to rise above the ashes of genocidal civil wars to establish themselves among the ranks of nations. On the northern coast of the Gulf of Aden are forces that have been fighting for the restoral of the independence of South Yemen. These secessionists recently succeeded in taking over key government posts in the city of Aden from forces loyal to the Saudi puppet government of Yemeni President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi, who ostensibly rules over Yemen from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. However, Hadi is a puppet leader without territory. If it were not for Saudi control over Hadi and his exiled regime, the so-called president and government of Yemen would not enjoy its current international recognition by the United Nations and major countries.
Even the most seasoned Middle East expert could be forgiven if the situation in Yemen seems confusing and bewildering. There are almost a dozen competing parties all jockeying for all or part of a post-civil way Yemen.
Houthi rebels currently rule over much of North Yemen, which unified with South Yemen in 1990 in what most South Yemenis later viewed as an uneven shotgun marriage that gave greater powers to the North. A civil war between the North and South broke out in 1994, which resulted in a rather quick victory for the North. The Saudis do not recognize the Houthi-led government that rules from Sana’a, the capital of North Yemen, because they see it as aligned with Iran. It is true that the Houthis’ Zaidi sect of Islam has much in common with the dominant Shi’a sect of Iran. However, a series of Zaidi Imams ruled the Mutawakkilite Kingdom of Yemen from 1911 until 1968, when pro-Egyptian army officers seized power and declared the Yemen Arab Republic. The attempt by certain quarters to describe the Houthi government as an inextricable Iranian proxy belies ignorance about the history of North Yemen.
Read the entire article
Even the most seasoned Middle East expert could be forgiven if the situation in Yemen seems confusing and bewildering. There are almost a dozen competing parties all jockeying for all or part of a post-civil way Yemen.
Houthi rebels currently rule over much of North Yemen, which unified with South Yemen in 1990 in what most South Yemenis later viewed as an uneven shotgun marriage that gave greater powers to the North. A civil war between the North and South broke out in 1994, which resulted in a rather quick victory for the North. The Saudis do not recognize the Houthi-led government that rules from Sana’a, the capital of North Yemen, because they see it as aligned with Iran. It is true that the Houthis’ Zaidi sect of Islam has much in common with the dominant Shi’a sect of Iran. However, a series of Zaidi Imams ruled the Mutawakkilite Kingdom of Yemen from 1911 until 1968, when pro-Egyptian army officers seized power and declared the Yemen Arab Republic. The attempt by certain quarters to describe the Houthi government as an inextricable Iranian proxy belies ignorance about the history of North Yemen.
Read the entire article
Wednesday, July 17, 2019
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF): Rep. McCaul Struggles to Keep “War On Terror” Alive
"The repeal of any AUMF does not belong in the NDAA. HFAC has a longstanding, sole jurisdiction over war declarations & intervention abroad... any change to these authorities must be the result of deliberations & votes by committee of jurisdiction." - @RepMcCaul on #NDAA AMD #424
In other words, a single committee, not a majority of Congress, will decide what country to invade and under what false pretext, never mind the presence on the committee of that troublesome freshwoman, Rep. Ilhan Omar, the Somali woman Trump told to get the hell out of his version of a MAGA-ified America.
If we follow the logic here, the power to declare war is reserved for the majority leader, Rep. Eliot Engel, your standard liberal on social issues and a “hawk” (read: neocon) on foreign policy. Engel is one of Israel’s boldest advocates of theft and human rights abuse.
Back in January during a fundraiser hosted by Helene and Robert Rothenberg in Woodmere, New York, Engel “reassured the some 40 attendees that bipartisan support for Israel would be maintained in the 116th Congress” and said the “Golan Heights is part of Israel and should remain part of Israel for strategic purposes,” according to The Times of Israel.
Read the entire article
In other words, a single committee, not a majority of Congress, will decide what country to invade and under what false pretext, never mind the presence on the committee of that troublesome freshwoman, Rep. Ilhan Omar, the Somali woman Trump told to get the hell out of his version of a MAGA-ified America.
If we follow the logic here, the power to declare war is reserved for the majority leader, Rep. Eliot Engel, your standard liberal on social issues and a “hawk” (read: neocon) on foreign policy. Engel is one of Israel’s boldest advocates of theft and human rights abuse.
Back in January during a fundraiser hosted by Helene and Robert Rothenberg in Woodmere, New York, Engel “reassured the some 40 attendees that bipartisan support for Israel would be maintained in the 116th Congress” and said the “Golan Heights is part of Israel and should remain part of Israel for strategic purposes,” according to The Times of Israel.
Read the entire article
Thursday, June 20, 2019
Gulf Of Oman False Flag Attack: Israel Did It Using Popeye Submarine Launched Cruise Missiles
I continue to see a lot of reports today where not only is the US absolutely continuing with the blatant lie that it was the "big bad Iranians" that attacked those two Japanese tankers off the coast of Oman last week, but they are supposedly well into the planning (which they had ready to go for months now) for what apparently will be a "retaliatory" tactical "strike" against Iranian targets inside Iran..... All this is being done while the entire world is now very skeptical of exactly what happened in the Gulf of Oman, and exactly WHO did the deed.... I for one have the answer and I will present the evidence here...
The facts are that the captain of the Japanese tanker, "Kokuka Courageous" that endured the brunt of the "attack" in the Gulf of Oman last week has stated clearly that it was NOT done by mines at all as the criminals in the US government continue to harp, but that he and others on that very ship witnessed an "aerial object" coming towards their vessel and witnessed it make full contact with the hull of the ship... Here in fact is the link to an article from the Washington Post itself covering this fact:
OK, WHY is the US government contradicting these eyewitnesses on the ship itself that most definitely saw missiles coming in to strike their vessel? The answer is obvious, as the US is part of the criminal act themselves as they wanted this false flag to take place so that they could have their fraudulent excuse to go to war against Iran!
So... WHO did the attack and HOW? I will state the obvious here: The criminal state of Israel attacked these tankers using "popeye" class submarine launched cruise missiles fired from their German "donated" Dolphin class submarines....
Read the entire article
The facts are that the captain of the Japanese tanker, "Kokuka Courageous" that endured the brunt of the "attack" in the Gulf of Oman last week has stated clearly that it was NOT done by mines at all as the criminals in the US government continue to harp, but that he and others on that very ship witnessed an "aerial object" coming towards their vessel and witnessed it make full contact with the hull of the ship... Here in fact is the link to an article from the Washington Post itself covering this fact:
OK, WHY is the US government contradicting these eyewitnesses on the ship itself that most definitely saw missiles coming in to strike their vessel? The answer is obvious, as the US is part of the criminal act themselves as they wanted this false flag to take place so that they could have their fraudulent excuse to go to war against Iran!
So... WHO did the attack and HOW? I will state the obvious here: The criminal state of Israel attacked these tankers using "popeye" class submarine launched cruise missiles fired from their German "donated" Dolphin class submarines....
Read the entire article
Monday, June 17, 2019
Wednesday, June 12, 2019
While the world watches Donald Trump, it’s missing what’s really going on with US foreign policy
Our leaders know how to bang the war drums and, by and large, we go along with them. The US threatens Iran with war – so will Iran close the Strait of Hormuz and attack American warships in the Gulf? Israel strikes Iranian targets in Syria after rockets fall on Golan – so does an Arab-Israeli conflict loom closer than at any time since the 1973 conflict? Jared Kushner plans to reveal Trump’s “deal of the century” for peace in the Middle East – but is it dead in the water?
Meanwhile the real stories get pushed down the page – or “to the back of the book”, as we journalists used to say.
Take Donald Trump’s desire to furnish Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates with billions of dollars of extra weapons so that they can increase the ferocity of their war in Yemen against the Houthis – whose support from Iran, such as it is, prompts much of the international abuse against the Islamic Republic. French intelligence officers in Washington have apparently discovered that this is no routine request from Riyadh but a desperate appeal to Washington, because so promiscuous has been the Saudis’ use of US munitions against Houthi rebels (and civilians, hospitals, aid centres, schools and wedding parties) that they are running out of bombs, guided and unguided missiles, drone parts and other “precision” arms to be used on one of the poorest countries in the world.
Thus when Trump found himself confronted by congress, which wanted to halt the supplies – not least because its members are still very angry about the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi – the destination of the weapons supplies was broadened to include America’s plucky little ally, King Abdullah II of Jordan. Yes, we all missed that bit, didn’t we? We added the words “and Jordan” to the headline, but didn’t ask why. And the munitions will come not from direct sales to the Gulf, with a possible congressional cap of $25m (£19.7m), but from US government military stocks and – so the French suggest – a very large part of these weapons will go to Jordan.
Read the entire article
Meanwhile the real stories get pushed down the page – or “to the back of the book”, as we journalists used to say.
Take Donald Trump’s desire to furnish Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates with billions of dollars of extra weapons so that they can increase the ferocity of their war in Yemen against the Houthis – whose support from Iran, such as it is, prompts much of the international abuse against the Islamic Republic. French intelligence officers in Washington have apparently discovered that this is no routine request from Riyadh but a desperate appeal to Washington, because so promiscuous has been the Saudis’ use of US munitions against Houthi rebels (and civilians, hospitals, aid centres, schools and wedding parties) that they are running out of bombs, guided and unguided missiles, drone parts and other “precision” arms to be used on one of the poorest countries in the world.
Thus when Trump found himself confronted by congress, which wanted to halt the supplies – not least because its members are still very angry about the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi – the destination of the weapons supplies was broadened to include America’s plucky little ally, King Abdullah II of Jordan. Yes, we all missed that bit, didn’t we? We added the words “and Jordan” to the headline, but didn’t ask why. And the munitions will come not from direct sales to the Gulf, with a possible congressional cap of $25m (£19.7m), but from US government military stocks and – so the French suggest – a very large part of these weapons will go to Jordan.
Read the entire article
Wednesday, June 05, 2019
Friday, May 31, 2019
How the War Party Broke Trump
Only rarely have I agreed with Trump on anything. His frequent and apparently sincere denunciations of our various wars in the Greater Middle East stand as the principal exception to that statement. As both candidate and president, Trump has repeatedly made clear his intention to extricate the United States from the vast military quagmire that his several predecessors, both Republicans and Democrats, have created in that region.
Consistency has not been a strong suit of Trump’s administration. Yet terminating our interminable wars while lowering the U.S. military profile in the Islamic world does seem to be something to which the president is actually committed.
Yet the national security apparatus and members of his own administration have opposed him every step of the way. Trump wanted U.S. troops out of Afghanistan. They are still there. He wanted U.S. troops out of Syria. They are still there. So, too, are 5,000 more in neighboring Iraq—more than 16 years after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
The nominal rationale for the U.S. military presence and combat actions in the Greater Middle East changes with dizzying frequency. It once had something to do with overthrowing dictators, spreading democracy, and promoting human rights. Then, for a time, the mission was to eliminate terrorism. Somewhere along the line, it changed to promoting stability. Now, the focus has shifted to Iran, assigned a place in the pecking order of official U.S. adversaries that once belonged to Saddam, then to al-Qaeda, and then to ISIS.
Read the entire article
Consistency has not been a strong suit of Trump’s administration. Yet terminating our interminable wars while lowering the U.S. military profile in the Islamic world does seem to be something to which the president is actually committed.
Yet the national security apparatus and members of his own administration have opposed him every step of the way. Trump wanted U.S. troops out of Afghanistan. They are still there. He wanted U.S. troops out of Syria. They are still there. So, too, are 5,000 more in neighboring Iraq—more than 16 years after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
The nominal rationale for the U.S. military presence and combat actions in the Greater Middle East changes with dizzying frequency. It once had something to do with overthrowing dictators, spreading democracy, and promoting human rights. Then, for a time, the mission was to eliminate terrorism. Somewhere along the line, it changed to promoting stability. Now, the focus has shifted to Iran, assigned a place in the pecking order of official U.S. adversaries that once belonged to Saddam, then to al-Qaeda, and then to ISIS.
Read the entire article
Tuesday, May 07, 2019
Bolton’s Vague Press Release Lays Foundation for Military Attack Against Iran
In a late Sunday press release, National Security Advisor John Bolton announced the deployment of the Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group (ABECSG) and a bomber task force to U.S. Central Command as a “clear and unmistakable message to Iran.” The press release claims that the move was made “in response to a number of troubling and escalatory indications and warnings,” which were left unspecified.
The statement further claims that “any attack on United States interests or on those of our allies will be met with unrelenting force” and that, while “the United States is not seeking war with the Iranian regime,” the Trump administration is “fully prepared to respond to any attack, whether by proxy, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or regular Iranian forces.”
Last month, in a move that many viewed as a set-up for a war with Iran — which has long been sought by Bolton as well as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, even prior to their posts in the current administration — the Trump administration labeled the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) of Iran as a terrorist organization. Iran’s government subsequently responded in kind, labeling U.S. soldiers of Central Command as terrorists and designating the U.S. government as a state sponsor of terrorism.
While Bolton framed the latest move as a “warning” to Iran, it turns out that the deployment of the Lincoln Carrier Strike Group to U.S. Central Command was actually announced last month with no mention at all of Iran. Indeed, a Navy press release published on April 8 stated that “the Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group (ABECSG) departed Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia, April 1, for a regularly scheduled deployment.” The fleet has already been stationed in the Central Command region since at least April 15, when the U.S. Naval Institute announced that it was anchored off the coast of Spain.
Read the entire article
The statement further claims that “any attack on United States interests or on those of our allies will be met with unrelenting force” and that, while “the United States is not seeking war with the Iranian regime,” the Trump administration is “fully prepared to respond to any attack, whether by proxy, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or regular Iranian forces.”
Last month, in a move that many viewed as a set-up for a war with Iran — which has long been sought by Bolton as well as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, even prior to their posts in the current administration — the Trump administration labeled the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) of Iran as a terrorist organization. Iran’s government subsequently responded in kind, labeling U.S. soldiers of Central Command as terrorists and designating the U.S. government as a state sponsor of terrorism.
While Bolton framed the latest move as a “warning” to Iran, it turns out that the deployment of the Lincoln Carrier Strike Group to U.S. Central Command was actually announced last month with no mention at all of Iran. Indeed, a Navy press release published on April 8 stated that “the Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group (ABECSG) departed Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia, April 1, for a regularly scheduled deployment.” The fleet has already been stationed in the Central Command region since at least April 15, when the U.S. Naval Institute announced that it was anchored off the coast of Spain.
Read the entire article
Tuesday, April 23, 2019
Ukraine: Why ‘OU’ Lost By a Landslide
With the landslide victory of Volodymyr Zelensky, who won 73 percent of the vote, the comedian will become the president of Ukraine. Understanding how this occurred becomes easy when people review US government documents published by WikiLeaks about the outgoing president.
Who is “OU”? Our Ukraine. In a classified diplomatic cable from 2006 released by WikiLeaks.org, U.S. officials refer to Poroshenko as “Our Ukraine (OU) insider Petro Poroshenko.” “Our Ukraine” has been in the pocket of the US government for 13 years.
The US government knew he was corrupt. A separate cable also released by WikiLeaks makes that clear. The May 2006 cable states “Poroshenko was tainted by credible corruption allegations, but wielded significant influence within OU; Poroshenko’s price had to be paid.” The US government knew he was corrupt, but allowing his corruption was a price the US was willing to pay to have Our Ukraine serving as president.
The document also describes the “bad blood” between Poroshenko and Yuliya Tymoshenko. This bad blood continues to this day as Tymoshenko came in third in the first round of the elections, and it seemed to continue through the General Election, as those who voted for her, voted for Zelensky — or against Poroshenko. The memo describes the Tymoshenko-Poroshenko relationship writing, “there is a thin line between love and hate,” and describing how “Tymoshenko and Poroshenko might appear in public, shake hands, agree to ‘do business’ together” but a coalition between them was unlikely to last.
Read the entire article
Who is “OU”? Our Ukraine. In a classified diplomatic cable from 2006 released by WikiLeaks.org, U.S. officials refer to Poroshenko as “Our Ukraine (OU) insider Petro Poroshenko.” “Our Ukraine” has been in the pocket of the US government for 13 years.
The US government knew he was corrupt. A separate cable also released by WikiLeaks makes that clear. The May 2006 cable states “Poroshenko was tainted by credible corruption allegations, but wielded significant influence within OU; Poroshenko’s price had to be paid.” The US government knew he was corrupt, but allowing his corruption was a price the US was willing to pay to have Our Ukraine serving as president.
The document also describes the “bad blood” between Poroshenko and Yuliya Tymoshenko. This bad blood continues to this day as Tymoshenko came in third in the first round of the elections, and it seemed to continue through the General Election, as those who voted for her, voted for Zelensky — or against Poroshenko. The memo describes the Tymoshenko-Poroshenko relationship writing, “there is a thin line between love and hate,” and describing how “Tymoshenko and Poroshenko might appear in public, shake hands, agree to ‘do business’ together” but a coalition between them was unlikely to last.
Read the entire article
Friday, April 12, 2019
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)