Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Dissembling in Diplomacy: Israel’s Secret Weapon

The Jerusalem Fund & Palestine Center | May 10, 2018

Dr. John Quigley discusses Israel’s history of diplomacy in his delivery of the 2018 Hisham Sharabi Memorial Lecture.

May 12, 2018 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, Video, Wars for Israel | , , | Leave a comment

GOP Hostility Toward Iran Secured After Adelson Gives $30 Million To Top Super PAC

By Whitney Webb | Mint Press News | May 12, 2018

WASHINGTON – With the 2018 Congressional midterm elections approaching, Republicans – eager to keep their control of both houses of Congress – have been seeking lucrative donations that would give Republican candidates an advantage in the lead-up to November.

On Thursday, those efforts paid off in a big way as the top Republican congressional political action committee (PAC), the Congressional Leadership Fund, secured a massive $30 million donation from Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson. Adelson’s massive donation will account for just over 41 percent of all donations made to the group since January 2017.

According to Politico, the deal was brokered in part by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) even though, as a federally elected official, he is not permitted to solicit such eight-figure donations from private donors. In order to get around this inconvenience, Ryan briefly left the room while Norm Coleman of the Republican Jewish Coalition, who was also present at the meeting, asked Adelson for the funds during Ryan’s conveniently timed absence, and thus secured the multi-million dollar contribution.

Adelson’s willingness to help the GOP stay in power come November is unsurprising. The Republican mega-donor gave heavily to the Trump campaign and Republicans in 2016, donating $35 million to the former and $55 million to the top two Republican Super PACs, the Congressional Leadership Fund and the Senate Leadership Fund, during that election cycle.

Getting what he paid for, and more

After investing so heavily in the GOP in 2016, Adelson’s decision to again donate tens of millions of dollars to Republican efforts to stay in power is a direct consequence of how successfully Adelson has been able to influence U.S. policy since Trump and the GOP rode to victory in the last election cycle.

In his media appearances and past interviews with journalists, Adelson has always made it clear that he is a “one-issue voter” and that his central concern is always Israel. Adelson’s belief that Trump would be “good for Israel” was the main driver behind his decision to spend more than $90 million on helping Trump and other Republicans win in the last election.

While Trump’s campaign promises – particularly those populist and anti-war in nature – have rung hollow, the President has notably fulfilled his campaign promises that were of prime importance to Adelson. Those promises were the moving the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, which Adelson has aggressively promoted and is even helping to finance, and removing the U.S. from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), better known as the Iran nuclear deal.

Adelson has also been successful in installing Iran war-hawks and pro-Israel stalwarts in the top government positions. Adelson-supported appointees include Nikki Haley, long-time recipient of Adelson campaign funds who now serves as U.S. ambassador to the UN; Mike Pompeo, former CIA director who has advocated for bombing Iran and now serves as secretary of state; and John Bolton, a close confidante of Adelson’s who is now National Security Adviser. Adelson was also instrumental in removing Pompeo and Bolton’s predecessors, Rex Tillerson and H.R. McMaster, from their respective posts, due to their support for JCPOA.

If anything, Trump’s presidency has shown that, while Trump has left the promises he made to his base largely unfulfilled, he gladly keeps the promises made to his biggest donor. Adelson’s new donation to the Congressional Leadership Fund shows that he has been extremely pleased with the performance of Trump and the Republican Party.

An alarming vision and a hard line bordering on insanity

Though Adelson has successfully used his donations to obtain policy decisions he has long desired, his work is still not done. Adelson, like many of the government officials he has put into power, is an advocate of a U.S./Israel war with Iran. With the U.S. out of JCPOA and now set to promote regime change as part of its official Iran policy, the foundation is quickly being laid for a military confrontation with Iran. Israel, whose leadership is also funded by Adelson, is also busy preparing for a major conflict with Iran.

Adelson’s perspectives on U.S. foreign policy, particularly towards Iran, are alarming, given that his influence on U.S. politics is set to grow in the wake of his latest donation to the Republican party. For instance, in 2015, Adelson advocated for a U.S. nuclear attack on Iran without provocation, so the U.S. could “impose its demands [on Iran] from a position of strength” during the negotiations that eventually led to the JCPOA.

Per Adelson’s plan, the U.S. would drop a nuclear bomb in the middle of the Iranian desert and then threaten that “the next one is in the middle of Tehran” to show that “we mean business.” Tehran, Iran’s capital, is home to nearly 9 million people, with 15 million more in its suburbs. Were Tehran to be attacked with nuclear weapons, an estimated 7 million would die within seconds. Any sort of diplomatic engagement with Iran, according to Adelson, is “the worst negotiating tactic I could ever imagine.”

Adelson has also given millions of dollars to the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a pro-war think tank whose “experts” on Iran have pushed for pre-emptive military strikes targeting the country as well as blockades on food and medicine to Iranian civilians. He also has contributed nearly one-third of all donations to the anti-Iran group, United Against Nuclear Iran.

With a $30 million dollar infusion during a difficult and critical midterm election, the Republican party – with Trump still at the helm – will likely show its gratitude towards its most generous benefactor by continuing to heed his beck and call, including driving the U.S. to support a major military confrontation with Iran.

May 12, 2018 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Israel Now Faces New Rules Of Engagement In Syria

By Tyler Durden | Zero Hedge | May 11, 2018

Even as CNN is out with a new report condemning Iran for denying any responsibility or role in the latest massive exchange of fire between Israel and Syria, The New York Times has admitted (albeit buried deep in the story) that Israel was the actual aggressor and initiator of hostilities which threatened to spiral out of control overnight Wednesday and into Thursday morning.

While CNN and most Israeli and mainstream media sources blame Iran for initiating an attack on Israel, on the very day of the early morning strikes (Thursday), the Times acknowledged, “The barrage [of Syria/Iran missiles] came after an apparent Israeli missile strike against a village in the Syrian Golan Heights late Wednesday.”

This is significant as Israel is seeking to cast Iran as an aggressor on its border which must be dealt with preemptively; however Syria’s response—which involved between 20 and 50 missiles launched in return fire—imposed new rules of engagement on a situation in which Israel previously acted with impunity. 

And though multiple international reports have pointed to strikes landing on the Israeli side, Israel has apparently been extremely careful in preventing photographs or video of any potential damage to see the light of day. According to professor of Middle East history Asad AbuKhalil, “Israel censor still hasn’t allowed any reports about casualties or damage.”

Up until recently, Assad had not taken the bait of Israeli provocation for years now in what we previously described as a kind of “waiting game” of survival now, retaliation later. But with the Syrian Army now victorious around the Damascus suburbs and countryside, and with much of Syria’s most populous regions back under government control, it appears that Assad’s belated yet firm response to the Israeli large scale attack has changed the calculus.

Damascus has now signaled to Israel that its acts of aggression will be costly as Syrian leadership has shown a willingness to escalate. But how did this new and increasingly dangerous situation come about, and which side actually has the upper hand? 

* * *

Below is a dispatch authored and submitted by Elijah Magnier, Middle East based chief international war correspondent for Al Rai Media, who is currently on the ground in the region and has interviewed multiple officials involved in the conflict.

Israel hits Syrian and Iranian objectives and weapons warehouses again (evacuated weeks before) for the fourth time in a month. 28 Israeli jets participated in the biggest attack since 1974. Tel Aviv informed the Russian leadership of its intentions without succeeding in stopping the Syrian leadership from responding. Actually, what is new is the location where Damascus decided to hit back: the occupied Golan Heights (20 rockets were fired at Israeli military positions).

Syria, in coordination with its Iranian allies (without taking into consideration Russian wishes) took a very audacious decision to fire back against Israeli targets in the Golan. This indicates that Damascus and its allies are ready to widen the battle, in response to continual Israeli provocations.

But what is the reason why new Rules of Engagement (ROE) were imposed in Syria recently?

For decades there was a non-declared ROE between Hezbollah and Israel, where both sides were aware of the consequences. Usually, Israel prepares a bank of target objectives with Hezbollah offices, military objectives and warehouses and also specific commanders with key positions within the organization. Israel hits these targets, updated in every war. However, the Israelis react immediately against Hezbollah commanders, who have the task of supporting, instructing and financing Palestinians in Palestine, and above all the Palestinians of 1948 living in Israel. This has happened on many occasions where Hezbollah commanders related to the Palestinian dossier were assassinated in Lebanon.

Last month, Israel discovered that Iran was sending advanced low observable drones dropping electronic and special warfare equipment to Palestinians. The Israeli radars didn’t see these drones going backward and forward with their traditional radars, but were finally able to identify one drone using thermal detection and acoustic deterrence, to down it on its last journey.

In response to this, Israel targeted the Syrian military airport T-4 used by Iran as a base for these drones. But Israel was not satisfied and wanted to take further revenge, hitting several Iranian and Syrian targets during the following weeks.

Tel Aviv believed it could get away with repetitively hitting Iranian objectives without triggering a military response. Perhaps Israel really believed that Iran was afraid of becoming engaged in a war with Israel, with the US ready to take part in any war against the Islamic Republic from its military bases spread around Syria, in close vicinity to the Iranian forces deployed in Syria. Obviously, Iran has a different view from the Israelis, the Americans and even the Russians, who like to avoid any contact at all cost.

Regardless of how many Israeli jets took part in the latest attack against Iranian and Syrian objectives and how many missiles were launched or intercepted, a serious development has occurred: the Syrian high command broke all pre-existing rules and found no obstacle to bombing Israel in the occupied Golan Heights.

Again, the type of missiles or rockets fired by Syria against Israeli military objectives it is not important or whether these fell into an open space or hit their targets. What is important is the fact that a new ROE is now in place in Syria, similar to the one established by Hezbollah over Kiryat Shmona near the Lebanese border, when militants fired anti-aircraft cannons every time Israel violated Lebanese airspace in the 2000.

Basically Israel wanted to hit objectives in Syria but claims not to be looking for confrontation. Israel would have liked to continue provoking Syria and Iran in the Levant, but claims to be unwilling to head towards war or a battle. Israel would like to continue hitting any target it chooses in Syria without suffering retaliation.

But with its latest attack, Israel’s “unintended consequences” or provocation has forced the Syrian government to consider the occupied Golan Heights as the next battlefield. If Israel continues and hits beyond the border area, Syria will think of sending its missiles or rockets way beyond the Golan Heights to reach Israeli territory.

Actually, Hezbollah’s secretary general Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah said a few years back: “Leave Lebanon outside the conflict. Come to Syria where we can settle our differences.” Syria, logically, has become the battlefield for all countries and parties to settle their differences, the platform where the silent war between Israel and Iran and its allies is finding its voice.

In Damascus, sources close to the leadership believe Israel will continue attacking targets. However, Israel knows now where Syria’s response will be.This is what Israel has triggered but didn’t expect. Now it has become a rule.

The Israeli Iron Dome is inefficient and unable to protect Israel from rockets and missiles launched simultaneously. Now the battle has moved into Syrian territory occupied by Israel to the reluctance of Tel Aviv, and Russia. Iran and Syria are not taking into consideration Russia’s concern to keep the level of tension low if Israel is not controlling itself. Syria recognizes the importance of Russia and its efficient role in stopping the war in Syria and all the military and political support Moscow is offering.

However, Damascus and Tehran have other considerations, especially the goal of containing Israel. They have trained over 16 local Syrian groups ready to liberate the Golan Heights or to clash with any possible Israeli advance into Syrian territory.

Israel triggered what it has always feared and has managed to get a new battlefield, the Golan heights. It is true that Israel limited itself to bombing weapons warehouses never hit before. It has bombed bases where Iranian advisors are based along with Syrian officers (Russia cleared most positions to avoid the embarrassment of being hit by Israel). It is also true that Israel didn’t regularly bomb Iranian military and transport aircraft carrying weapons to Syria, or the main Iranian center of control and command at Damascus airport. This means that not all parties are pushing for a wider escalation, so far.

Can the situation get out of control? Of course it can, the question is when?!?

May 12, 2018 Posted by | Illegal Occupation | , , , , , | 2 Comments

Mexico: Mayoral Candidate of AMLO’s Party Murdered

Jose Remedios Aguirre Sanchez (L) with presidential hopeful Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. | Photo: Twitter @AvseFernando
teleSUR | May 11, 2018

Electoral campaigns in Mexico suffered another casualty on Friday with the murder of Jose Remedios Aguirre Sanchez, a mayoral candidate from the same coalition as presidential hopeful Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, commonly known as AMLO.

The 35-year-old candidate was shot dead at close range in the Ecological Park of the Apaseo el Alto. Two other people were reportedly injured. The perpetrators escaped in a white convertible Ford Mustang with a U.S. license plate, according to witnesses.

Aguirre was competing in the race for mayor in the municipality of Apaseo el Alto, in Guanajuato, with the Movement of National Regeneration (Morena) party.

Before entering the race for Apaseo el Alto’s mayor, Aguirre had served as the director of public security in the same municipality between 2012 and 2015.

Since September when electoral campaigns began around the country, over 90 candidates, politicians and officials have been violently murdered.

Aguirre was a member of the progressive Morena party that is backing the coalition of Andrez Manuel Lopez Obrador, one of the top picks for Mexico’s presidency.

May 12, 2018 Posted by | Aletho News | , | Leave a comment

Israel Took out a Syrian Pantsir Air Defense Unit, S-200 Radars. Russia: ‘No S-300 Transfer, Syria Has All It Needs’

By Marko Marjanović | Checkpoint Asia | May 12, 2018

Rather than admit it has its own reasons why it is unwilling to boost Syrian air defenses Russia plays up their effectiveness and pretends these are perfectly adequate — when in 7 years they haven’t been able to deter Israel from nearly weekly attacks.

On May 10th Israeli strikes on Syrian army positions across southern Syria Israel fired at least 60 cruise missiles. The Russians say that Syrian air defenses destroyed nearly half of these before impact. That would be quite the accomplishment indeed.

However there is another side to the story. Israel has released footage from one of the missiles as it hits a Syrian Russian-made Pantsir-S1 short-range air defense units. This is highly embarrassing for Russians and Syrians both as Pantsir with its fast-firing cannons and missiles of its own was designed to defend key positions from precisely these sort of threats — yet it could not defend even itself. Now, the unit was not camouflaged or dug in. It was sitting out in the open on airbase tarmac. That is extremely reckless and amateurish. Most likely the unit wasn’t even switched on, or was waiting for an ammunition refill (why out in the open??).

However, the Pantsir wasn’t the only kill. The Israelis also destroyed a number of S-200 radars. The S-200 system comes with a heavier missile for long-range air defense. It is positively ancient having entered service in the 1960s and is no longer in use by Russia. Yet it is the best that Syria has.

At the same time Russia has stated the transfer of the newer S-300 systems to Syria is not in the cards right now. The very Russian official in charge of military assistance to other nations has stated that “Syria has all it needs”. This strikes me as a very weird thing to say at a moment when its S-200s are getting blown up.

The Israeli media is tying the Russian statement to Netanyahu lobbying against the transfer on his May 9th Moscow visit, but Russia claims the two are not linked. I am actually willing to buy the latter just not the Kremlin’s explanation of it.

There are valid reasons why Russia would balk at giving Syria the S-300. Firstly there are political and optical problems involved. The Israelis are now firing off their missiles from Israeli (Palestinian) and Lebanese airspace. Defending against them would entail downing Israeli jets over Israel. Now, if that is accomplished by Russian military aid (Syria can’t realistically pay for the S-300s) you start to see my point… If thanks to Putin Israeli jets start falling down from the sky in Israel the US elites can fan the flames of Russophobia in the famously pro-Israeli Middle America all the more easily.

Also it is entirely possible that Russia doesn’t fancy having to foot the bill. The Israeli air force is a large one and highly technically sophisticated. There is no guarantee that it can be deterred or defended against by just a battery or two of S-300s. Quite possibly it would take a much larger buildup of Syrian air defenses, a buildup which Russia perhaps doesn’t want to finance. Especially at a time when it is reducing even its own defense spending.

In the 1970s Israel and Egypt fought an air war of attrition. Egypt’s Soviet-trained and Soviet-supplied air defenses inflicted unacceptable losses on the Israeli air force, but Moscow ended up footing the bill. Putin, who commands a smaller country than Brezhnev and a far, far less ambitious one, is probably not too keen on walking in the Soviets’ path.

That’s quite understandable and probably wise, but to say that Syria has all the air defenses it needs right now — when Israel has been striking it with virtual impunity now for almost seven years is patently untrue and a very bizarre thing to say.

The real explanation is that Russia is unwilling to assume the risks and the burdens of the kind of buildup of Syria’s military that would actually take to check the Israelis if the latter decide to be really stubborn about it.

It would provoke the pro-Israeli Washington elites and burden Russia financially and politically for little gain given that Netanyahu keeps reassuring Putin that Israel does not seek to alter the outcome of the Syrian civil war, but is merely pushing back against Iranian influence in Syria.

As long as Moscow buys that it won’t react. Russian anger rises only when Israel acts in such a way as to set up a war between the US and Assad as was the case last month. This gave rise to the Russian threat they may supply Syria with improved air defenses but the threat now appears to be empty.

May 12, 2018 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , | 1 Comment

Long past time for Canada to exit NORAD

By Yves Engler · May 11, 2018

This weekend the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) celebrates its 60th anniversary. On May 12, 1958, Canada and the US officially signed their most significant bilateral military accord.

The Cold War agreement was supposed to defend the two countries from an invasion by Soviet bombers coming from the north. But, the Berlin Wall fell three decades ago and NORAD continues. In fact, the agreement was renewed indefinitely in 2006.

Initially NORAD focused on radar and fighter jets. As technologies advanced, the Command took up intercontinental ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and space-based satellites.

Thousands of Canadian military personnel support NORAD’s operations. One hundred and fifty Canadians are stationed at NORAD’s central collection and coordination facility near Colorado Springs, Colorado. Hundreds more work at regional NORAD outposts across the US and Canada and many pilots are devoted to the Command. A Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) general is deputy commander of NORAD and its commander-in-chief is a US Air Force general.

In the lead-up to its establishment newly elected Prime Minister John Diefenbaker faced “heavy pressure from the military” to back the agreement. Then chairman of the chiefs of defence staff, Charles Foulkes, later admitted to a House of Commons defence committee that “we stampeded the incoming Conservative government with the NORAD agreement.”

Before NORAD’s creation the RCAF had been expanding ties to the US command in Colorado Springs and misled the politicians about the scope of these efforts. In Dilemmas in Defence Decision-Making: constructing Canada’s role in NORAD, 1958 – 96 Ann Crosby points out that the RCAF pursued NORAD discussions secretly “in order to address the politically sensitive issues without the involvement of Canadian political representatives.”

While the Canadian Forces frame the alliance as an exclusively military matter, NORAD’s political implications are vast. The accord impinges on Canadian sovereignty, influences weapons procurement and ties Canada to US belligerence.

External Affairs officials immediately understood that NORAD would curtail sovereignty. An internal memo explained, “the establishment of NORAD is a decision for which there is no precedent in Canadian history in that it grants in peace time to a foreign representative operational control of an element of Canadian Forces in Canada.” Under the accord the Colorado-based commander of NORAD could deploy Canadian fighter jets based in this country without any express Canadian endorsement.

For over a decade the US commander of NORAD effectively controlled nuclear tipped Bomarc missiles based near North Bay, Ontario, and La Macaza, Québec. According to the agreement, the Canadian battle staff officer on duty in North Bay would receive authorization from the Colorado Springs commander, “allow[ing] for the release and firing of nuclear armed Bomarc missiles without specific Canadian government authorization.”

NORAD also deepened the US military footprint in Canada. As part of the accord, the US set up the Distant Early Warning (DEW) line across the Arctic in the late 1950s. NORAD also drove Ottawa to formally accept US Bomarc missiles in 1963. According to Crosby, the agreement that laid the basis for NORAD effectively – unbeknownst to Prime Minister Diefenbaker – committed Canada to acquiring US nuclear weapons for air defence.

NORAD has pushed the CF towards US arms systems. It’s also heightened pressure to add and upgrade radar, satellite, jets, vessels, etc. In the late 1950s the RCAF pushed for interceptor jets so Canada could be “a full partner in NORAD”. Air Marshal Hugh Campbell explained that “if Canada was not providing any effective weapons in the air defence system… Canada could no longer be a full partner in NORAD.” More recently, CBC reported that Canada may be “compelled to invest in technology that can shoot down cruise missiles as part of the upcoming overhaul of the North American Aerospace Defence Command.”

NORAD is presented as a defensive arrangement, but that can’t be taken seriously when its lead actor has 1,000 international bases and special forces deployed in 149 countries. Rather than protect Canada and the US, NORAD supports violent missions led by other US commands. In 1965 NORAD’s mandate was expanded to include surveillance and assessment sharing for US commands stationed worldwide (United States European Command, United States Pacific Command, United States Africa Command, etc.).

NORAD has drawn Canada into US belligerence. During the July 1958 US invasion of Lebanon NORAD was placed on “increased readiness” while US troops checked secular Arab nationalism after Iraqis toppled a Western-backed King (at the same time British troops invaded Jordan to prop up the monarchy there).

In a higher profile incident, Canadian NORAD personnel were put on high alert when the US illegally blockaded Cuba in October 1962. This transpired even though Prime Minister Diefenbaker hesitated in supporting US actions during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

During the 1973 Ramadan/Yom Kippur/Arab–Israeli War NORAD was placed on heightened alert. Washington wanted to deter the USSR from intervening on Egypt’s behalf.

NORAD systems offered surveillance and communications support to the 1991 war on Iraq. They also supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The same can be said for US bombing in Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, etc.

Unfortunately, public opposition to NORAD has largely dried up. While anti-war activists won the NDP over to an ‘out of NORAD’ position in the 1960s, the party’s current defence critic recently complained that the Trudeau government hasn’t done more to strengthen the bilateral military accord. In November Randall Garrison criticized the Liberals for failing to follow its defence policy review’s recommendation to upgrade a multi-billion dollar early-warning radar system used by NORAD. In a story headlined “Conservatives, NDP call on Liberal government to match rhetoric with action on NORAD” Garrison told the Hill Times, “so they put in that they are going to replace it, and that’s certainly the biggest thing we need to do in terms of our cooperation with NORAD, [but] I don’t see the follow through down the road on it, in terms of planning, implementation, or budgeting.”

As NORAD turns 60, it’s time to rekindle opposition to this odious accord.

May 12, 2018 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment