As the US tries to consolidate its strategy for weakening and confronting Iran, the contours of an important geo-political strategy, launched by Syria and Iran, are surfacing. On the one hand, it consists of a multi-layered sewing together of a wide ‘deterrence’ that ultimately could result in Israel being pulled into a regional war – were certain military trip wires (such as air attacks on Syria’s strategic defences) – to be triggered. Or, if the US economic war on Iran crosses certain boundaries (such as blockading Iranian tankers from sailing, or putting a full stranglehold on the Iranian economy).
To be clear, the aim of this geo-political strategy is not to provoke a war with the US or Israel – it is to deter one. It sends a message to Washington that any carelessly thought-through aggression (of whatever hybrid nature) against the ‘northern states’ (from Lebanon to Iraq) might end by putting their ally – Israel – in full jeopardy. And that Washington should reflect carefully on its threats.
The deterrence consists at the top-level of Syrian S300 air defences over which Russia and Syria have joint-key control. The aim here, seems to be to maintain strategic ambiguity over the exact rules of S300 engagement. Russia wants to stand ‘above’ any conflict that involves Israel or the US – as best it can – and thus be positioned to act as a potential mediator and peace-maker, should armed conflict occur. In a sense, the S300s represent deterrence of ‘last resort’ – the final option, were graduated escalation somehow to be surpassed, via some major military event.
At the next level down, deterrence (already well signalled in advance) is focussed on halting Israeli air attacks on either Iranian or Syrian infrastructure (in either state). Initially, air attacks would be countered by the effective (80%) Syrian, Panzir and BUK air defence systems. More ‘substantive’ attacks will be met with a proportionate response (most probably by Syrian missiles fired into the occupied Golan). Were this to prove insufficient, and were escalation to occur, missiles are likely to be fired into the depth of Israel. Were escalation to mount yet further, the risk would be then of Iranian and Hizbullah missiles entering into the frame of conflict. Here, we would be on the cusp of region-wide war.
Of course Hizbullah has its own separate rules of engagement with Israel, but it is a partner too, to the wider ‘resistance movement’ of which the Supreme Leader spoke after his meeting in Tehran with President Assad. As Israel knows, Hizballah possesses ‘smart’ cruise missiles that can cover the length and breadth of Israel. And, it has well experienced ground-forces that can be directed into the Galilee, as well.
But were we to leave matters there – as some responsive deterrence plan – this would be to miss the point entirely. What has been happening at these various meetings amongst military and political leaders in the north is the unfolding of a much wider, forward looking, strategy to frustrate US objectives in the Middle East.
What has emerged from the key visit of President Rouhani to Iraq is something much larger than the military alliance, alluded to above: These states are unfolding a regional ‘Belt-and-Road’ trading area, stretching from Lattakia’s port on the Mediterranean (likely contracted out to Iranian management) across to the border with Pakistan (and perhaps ultimately to India, too).
What is so significant arising from Rouhani’s recent visit to Iraq is that Iraq, whilst wanting to keep amicable relations with Washington, rejects to implement the US siege on Iran. It intends to trade – and to trade more – with Iran, Syria and Lebanon. One major strand to the agreement is to have a road and railway ‘belt’ linking all these states together, for trade.
But here is the bigger point: This regional ‘Belt and Road’ is to be unfolded right into the heart of the Chinese BRI project. Iran always has been envisaged as a – if not ‘the’ – key pivot to China’s BRI in the region. As China’s Minister of Commerce, Zhong Shan, underlined this week: “Iran is China’s strategic partner in the Middle-East and China is the biggest trade partner and importer of oil from Iran”. A senior Chinese expert on West Asia plainly has taken note: Rouhani’s visit has “long-term geopolitical implications” in terms of expansion of Iran’s regional influence.
And here is a second point: The unfolding of this ‘Belt and Road’ initiative, effectively marks the end of the Belt & Road members’ looking to Europe as a principal trading partner. EU equivocation with the US over the JCPOA by trying to tie conditions to their SPV, and by holding reconstruction aid for Syria hostage to their ‘transition’ demands, has back-fired. Together with the US, the EU has become tainted through its efforts to mollify Washington – in the hope of avoiding being tariffed by Trump.
How will the US respond? Well, Secretary Pompeo is about to arrive in the region to threaten Lebanon (as it has already threatened Iraq) with tough sanctions. Russia, Iran and Syria, of course, are already under harsh sanction.
Will it work? Mr Bolton presently is trying to weaken Iran – surrounding it with US special forces hubs, placed in proximity to Iran’s ethnic minority populations, in order to de-stabilise the central authority. And Pompeo is about to land in the Middle East threatening all around with sanctions, and still ‘talking the talk’ of reducing Iranian oil sales to zero, as US oil waivers expire on 1 May.
Of course, zero waivers were never likely, but now with the new trade ‘Belt and Road’ alliance unfolding, the stakes for US foreign policy are doubled: Syria will find investors in its reconstruction precisely because it – like Iran – is a pivotal ‘corridor’ state for trade (and ultimately for energy). And Iran will not be brought to capitulation through economic siege. What Pompeo risks, through his belligerency, or clumsiness, rather, is to lose both Iraq and Lebanon.
In the former, ‘losing Iraq’ could entail the Iraqi government demanding US troops leave Iraq. In the latter case, ‘loosing’ Lebanon, translates into something more sinister: To sanction Lebanon (in order to ‘hurt’ Hizbullah) actually means putting Lebanon’s entire economic stability into play (as Hizbullah is an integral part to Lebanon’s economy – and the Shi’a compose some 30-40% of the population. They cannot be somehow ‘filtered out’, as if some stand-alone sanctions target). Instability in Lebanon is never far away, but to induce it, is crazy.
Wherever Pompeo travels on his journeys through the region, he cannot fail but to notice that US policies – and the constancy of such policies – are not trusted (even this week, ‘old US ally’ Egypt has turned to Russia for the purchase of military aircraft).
It is against this background, that the earlier intelligence service quotes in the NY Times, and its Editorial (i.e. not an op-ed article): Shedding Any Last Illusions about Saudi Arabia, might be understood. US policy across the entire Middle East, and by extension, much of its leverage over Russia and China, stands on extremely weak foundations. The débacle of the US-sponsored Warsaw conference, which was supposed to consolidate support for America’s anti-Iranian ‘war’ – and the silence with which VP Mike Pence’s address at Munich was received – provide clear evidence for this.
Well, the pivot for countering this unfavourable US conjuncture rests on one man: MbS. America’s entire foreign policy, and that of its ally, Israel, has pivoted around this erratic, highly-flawed, psychologically-impaired figure. The NYT leak from CIA officials, with its unqualified endorsement through a NYT board editorial, suggest that the CIA and MI6 have concluded that US global interests cannot be left in such unreliable, unsafe hands.
What this ultimately might mean is unclear, but such a leak would suggest that it stems from a concerted CIA professional assessment (i.e. that it is not just a partisan party warfare). Trump may not concur, or like it much, but the CIA when it does form such a definitive view, is no force to be lightly trifled with.
When President Donald Trump moved the US embassy to occupied Jerusalem last year, effectively sabotaging any hope of establishing a viable Palestinian state, he tore up the international rulebook.
Last week, he trampled all over its remaining tattered pages. He did so, of course, via Twitter.
Referring to a large piece of territory Israel seized from Syria in 1967, Mr Trump wrote: “After 52 years it is time for the United States to fully recognize Israel’s Sovereignty over the Golan Heights, which is of critical strategic and security importance to the State of Israel and Regional Stability.”
Israel expelled 130,000 Syrians from the Golan Heights in 1967, under cover of the Six Day War, and then annexed the territory 14 years later – in violation of international law. A small population of Syrian Druze are the only survivors of that ethnic cleansing operation.
Replicating its illegal acts in the occupied Palestinian territories, Israel immediately moved Jewish settlers and businesses into the Golan.
Until now, no country had recognised Israel’s act of plunder. In 1981, UN member states, including the US, declared Israeli efforts to change the Golan’s status “null and void”.
But in recent months, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu began stepping up efforts to smash that long-standing consensus and win over the world’s only superpower to his side.
He was spurred into action when Bashar Al Assad – aided by Russia – began to decisively reverse the territorial losses the Syrian government had suffered during the nation’s eight-year war.
The fighting dragged in a host of other actors. Israel itself used the Golan as a base from which to launch covert operations to help Mr Assad’s opponents in southern Syria, including Islamic State fighters. Iran and the Lebanese militia Hezbollah, meanwhile, tried to limit Israel’s room for manoeuvre on the Syrian leader’s behalf.
Iran’s presence close by was how Mr Netanyahu publicly justified the need for Israel to take permanent possession of the Golan, calling it a vital buffer against Iranian efforts to “use Syria as a platform to destroy Israel”.
Before that, when Mr Assad was losing ground to his enemies, the Israeli leader made a different case. Then, he argued that Syria was breaking apart and its president would never be in a position to reclaim the Golan.
Mr Netanyahu’s current rationalisation is no more persuasive than the earlier one. Russia and the United Nations are already well advanced on re-establishing a demilitarised zone on the Syrian side of the separation-of-forces line. That would ensure Iran could not deploy close to the Golan Heights.
Mr Netanyahu is set to meet Mr Trump in Washington on Monday, when the president’s tweet will reportedly be converted into an executive order.
The timing is significant. This is another crude attempt by Mr Trump to meddle in Israel’s election, due on April 9. It will provide Mr Netanyahu with a massive fillip as he struggles against corruption indictments and a credible threat from a rival party, Blue and White, headed by former army generals.
Mr Netanyahu could barely contain his glee, reportedly calling Mr Trump to tell him: “You made history!”
But, in truth, this was no caprice. Israel and Washington have been heading in this direction for a while.
In Israel, there is cross-party support for keeping the Golan.
Michael Oren, a former Israeli ambassador to the US and a confidant of Mr Netanyahu’s, formally launched a plan last year to quadruple the size of the Golan’s settler population, to 100,000, within a decade.
The US State Department offered its apparent seal of approval last month when it included the Golan Heights for the first time in the “Israel” section of its annual human rights report.
This month, senior Republican senator Lindsey Graham made a very public tour of the Golan in an Israeli military helicopter, alongside Mr Netanyahu and David Friedman, Mr Trump’s ambassador to Israel. Mr Graham said he and fellow senator Ted Cruz would lobby the US president to change the territory’s status.
Mr Trump, meanwhile, has made no secret of his disdain for international law. This month, his officials barred entry to the US to staff from the International Criminal Court, based in The Hague, who are investigating US war crimes in Afghanistan.
The ICC has made enemies of both Washington and Israel in its initial, and meagre, attempts to hold the two to account.
Whatever Mr Netanyahu’s spin about the need to avert an Iranian threat, Israel has other, more concrete reasons for holding on to the Golan.
The territory is rich in water sources and provides Israel with decisive control over the Sea of Galilee, a large freshwater lake that is crucially important in a region facing ever greater water shortages.
The 1,200 square kilometres of stolen land is being aggressively exploited, from burgeoning vineyards and apple orchards to a tourism industry that, in winter, includes the snow-covered slopes of Mount Hermon.
As noted by Who Profits, an Israeli human rights organisation, in a report this month, Israeli and US companies are also setting up commercial wind farms to sell electricity.
And Israel has been quietly co-operating with US energy giant Genie to explore potentially large oil reserves under the Golan. Mr Trump’s adviser and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, has family investments in Genie. But extracting the oil will be difficult, unless Israel can plausibly argue that it has sovereignty over the territory.
For decades the US had regularly arm-twisted Israel to enter a mix of public and back-channel peace talks with Syria. Just three years ago, Barack Obama supported a UN Security Council rebuke to Mr Netanyahu for stating that Israel would never relinquish the Golan.
Now Mr Trump has given a green light for Israel to hold on to it permanently.
But, whatever he says, the decision will not bring security for Israel, or regional stability. In fact, it makes a nonsense of Mr Trump’s “deal of the century” – a regional peace plan to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that, according to rumour, may be unveiled soon after the Israeli election.
Instead, US recognition will prove a boon for the Israeli right, which has been clamouring to annex vast areas of the West Bank and thereby drive a final nail into the coffin of the two-state solution.
Israel’s right can now plausibly argue: “If Mr Trump has consented to our illegal seizure of the Golan, why not also our theft of the West Bank?”
A senior U.S. government official has told Indian media that private local refiners had stopped importing crude oil from Venezuela, noting the cooperation of Indian companies in this respect.
“My understanding is that Indian private companies, who were importing Venezuelan oil, have stopped,” the official, whose name was not disclosed, said as quoted by Business Standard. He added “The Indians have been cooperative in communicating to the private companies.”
India is one of the largest importers of Venezuelan crude, but it has been concerned about sanction violations as Washington’s pressure on Caracas increases, with the Trump administration asking importers to stop taking in Venezuelan oil in a bid to cut off the Maduro government’s access to oil money.
India has been a priority target in this push to reduce Venezuelan exports. Earlier this month, the U.S. envoy for Venezuela Elliott Abrams told Reuters in an interview, “We say you should not be helping this regime. You should be on the side of the Venezuelan people,” commenting on talks with New Delhi on the topic.
Yet in February, Reuters reported the Indian government had advised at least one company buying Venezuelan oil to avoid paying for the commodity through the U.S. banking system, but not to stop buying Venezuelan oil altogether.
The company in question, which has remained unnamed, “expressed concern that there could be a problem in payments to PDVSA, so we have advised them to move away from the U.S. banking and institutional mechanism,” Reutersquoted an Indian government source as saying at the time.
Earlier this week, media reported on a statement from Azerbaijan’s energy ministry that quoted Venezuela’s oil minister as saying the country had suspended shipments of crude to India. The statement added that Manuel Quevedo had said Venezuela was looking for new markets to keep the oil flowing.
Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez on Sunday called Jerusalem Israel’s capital, saying the Central American country would open a trade office there, but he stopped short of announcing plans to move his embassy from Tel Aviv, Reuters reports.
Hernandez has in recent months signalled that his government is mulling moving the Honduran embassy to Jerusalem, and made his comments on the holy city during his appearance at a conference on U.S.-Israeli relations in Washington.
“Today I have announced the first step, which is to open a trade office in Jerusalem, the capital of the state of Israel, and this will be an extension of our embassy in Tel Aviv,” Hernandez said in a statement issued by his government.
“I’ve said that a second step will draw a lot of attacks from the enemies of Israel and the United States, but we will continue along this path,” Hernandez added.
Hernandez’ comments follow the formal recognition by US President Donald Trump of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. Last May, Trump moved the U.S. embassy to the disputed city.
Trump’s move was criticized by many foreign governments and caused anger among Palestinians, who with broad international backing seek East Jerusalem as the capital of a state they want to establish in the occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
East Jerusalem is still considered occupied under international law, and the city’s status is supposed to be decided as part of an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.
Hernandez, an ally of the United States, said the trade and cooperation office would open immediately in Jerusalem.
His foreign ministry said in a statement that Israel would in a reciprocal gesture open an office for cooperation in Tegucigalpa, giving it diplomatic status.
In 2017, Guatemala and neighbouring Honduras were two of only a handful of countries to join Israel and the United States in voting against a UN resolution calling on Washington to drop its recognition of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital.
Guatemala moved its embassy in Israel to Jerusalem in May after the United States, fueling expectations that Hernandez might follow suit.
Honduras and Guatemala are two of the most violent and impoverished countries in the Americas. Both depend economically to a significant degree on U.S. aid and investment, and the leaders of the two have generated significant controversy.
Hernandez’ legitimacy was called into question during his 2017 re-election bid after the official vote count ground to a halt when he appeared to be headed for defeat.
After the count restarted, the trend turned against his opponent and the electoral authority declared him victor, a decision later backed by the United States.
Meanwhile, his Guatemalan counterpart, Jimmy Morales, has clashed with the United Nations for closing down a UN anti-corruption body that sought to have him impeached.
It’s a simple matter, even if one might lose oneself in the various details, names, places, and dates. The Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM), mostly made up of Anglophone Caribbean states, decisively stood up for non-intervention in the internal affairs of states by going against the push to recognize the illegitimate and illegal claim to power by Juán Guaidó in Venezuela. Such a policy, pushed by the US’ regime change agenda, would have clearly served to undermine the authority of the elected government of President Nicolás Maduro, while legitimating foreign intervention. Just as the US today seeks the overthrow of Venezuela’s government, tomorrow it could seek the overthrow of any other government in the Americas. It is thus the Caribbean’s voice that matters most right now.
Trump: Against Sovereignty
On the other side, Trump’s White House is not only pushing for regime change in Venezuela, Trump’s NSA, John Bolton, has stated repeatedly that the US intends to resurrect and impose the neocolonial and plainly imperialist Monroe Doctrine—claiming effective authority to rule the Western Hemisphere. (That includes Canada, not that Canadians have bothered to take note.) Given Trump’s own stated belief that “to the victor go the spoils,” and the US’ validation of the acquisition of territory by force—backing Israel’s claim to Syria’s Golan Heights—even respect for the territorial integrity of states has gone out the window. Fundamental and basic principles of the UN Charter have thus been unilaterally shredded by the US. CARICOM stands as one impediment. Trump clearly will not let that stand.
Trump has apparently resuscitated divide et impera, trying to not only pry some CARICOM members away from the main body by “dangling investment” promises in front of their eyes, but also setting the stage for CARICOM members to turn on each other. What Trump did was to invite a small, select group of Caribbean leaders—those belonging to the Lima Group (standing outside of any international body, because the Group supports regime change in violation of international law)—to visit him at his Mar-a-Lago estate. Trump thus met with St Lucia Prime Minister Allen Chastanet, Dominican Republic President Danilo Medina, Jamaica Prime Minister Andrew Holness, Haiti President Jovenel Moise, and Bahamas Prime Minister Hubert Minnis at the Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida. These countries, “have all either criticized Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro, or recognized Juan Guaido [sic] as the country’s rightful leader”.
Jamaica’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Kamina Johnson Smith
Among those in attendance, Jamaica recently announced the closure of its embassy in Venezuela, despite the parliamentary opposition in Kingston voicing serious criticisms. Reporting on these events, the Jamaica Observer instead backed CARICOM’s approach to the Venezuelan crisis, reaffirming the value of the UN Charter. As for Jamaica’s Prime Minister, Andrew Holness, he spoke of being pleased with his meeting with Trump, saying that Trump, “wants to encourage and promote a stronger relationship with the region”. (Holness appears to be confusing a “stronger relationship” with a relationship of strength.) Holness’ main concern appeared to be the promise of US investments, saying that he hoped it was “not just talk” but that there would be “instrumental action”. Yet Trump is in no position to order US companies to invest in the Caribbean—he cannot even do that in the US itself. The US is not a state-run socialist economy, where public companies obey public policy—surely Holness understands this? Nonetheless, the affair smelled of something akin to bribery, and if this was representative of Caribbean leaders “standing tall” then language has been inverted, and standing tall is a reference to the humility of beggars. One might recall how the British Colonial Office used to refer to visiting Caribbean Chief Ministers as a “beggars’ opera”.
Rowley: Standing Up for the Caribbean
Once more, the figure standing up to Trump, and standing up for CARICOM and international law, is Trinidad & Tobago’s Prime Minister: Dr. Keith Rowley, of the ruling People’s National Movement (PNM). Dr. Rowley noted that this minority which met with Trump, which was not empowered to speak for CARICOM, were at Mar-a-Lago because they are members of the Lima Group whose objective is regime change in Venezuela. Apparently the US ambassador to Trinidad & Tobago, Joseph Mondello, said that he “viewed with concern” comments made by Rowley last month—in response, Rowley was reportedly angered and he redoubled his efforts to push CARICOM on the path of anti-intervention.
The fact that other Caribbean states such as Trinidad & Tobago and the majority of CARICOM members, who oppose the Lima Group, were logically not invited—why would they be?—has been seized upon by quislings in the region who think the Caribbean’s primary duty is servitude to whomever occupies the Big House in the US. Failure to show deference to US interests, these proxies think, somehow entails a loss of status, a “loss of leadership” even. Real leaders stand up for American interests, apparently. This has been translated into accusations that those who were not at Mar-a-Lago were thus “snubbed,” and missed out on something “special”.
Representative of this pro-US faction are figures such as Ralph Maraj, a former foreign minister of Trinidad & Tobago, and a member of the opposition United National Congress (UNC). According to Maraj, the fact that Trinidad was “excluded” from the Mar-a-Lago meeting means that the US now has a diminished view of the country. He continued:
“We do not stand tall, contrary to what Dr. Rowley has stated, we stand diminished in the region, we have lost our leadership of Caricom which we had. Jamaica now is leading the way…. We’ve really abdicated the leadership in Caricom and we have obviously offended the United States, and while we have sovereign right to deal with our foreign relations we stand by the principles and so, we must also protect our relationships…. The United States does not need to invest in our petrochemical industry anymore. They have the most gas, natural gas in the world…. They don’t need our gas, they don’t need our oil. They are a net exporter now of both oil and gas. We have lost our economic clout”.
Maraj’s message was, at best, confusing. If the US no longer needs Trinidad, and Trinidad has lost its economic clout as a result, then how would a lunch at Mar-a-Lago have altered those basic, objective economic facts? It’s not clear where Maraj’s complaint lies, but it’s also far from obvious that the facts are on his side.
“In regional politics, it could be said that T&T is an opinion shaper. [Prime Minister Patrick] Manning [of the PNM] just completed a six-month tenure as Chairman of CARICOM, a period marked by a renewed emphasis on regional economic integration. T&T receives high marks for its commitment to the needs of the smaller countries of the Eastern Caribbean. Beyond CARICOM, T&T maintains correct but cool relations with Venezuela, largely due to differences of opinion over Petrocaribe and Chavez’s regional aspirations. T&T views Cuba as a Caribbean brother and maintains amicable ties. Manning regularly goes to Cuba for medical attention”.
Did having an independent foreign policy diminish Trinidad, as Maraj argued above? The US Embassy recognized Trinidad & Tobago’s influential leadership position, even as it pointed to serious foreign policy differences between the US and Trinidad & Tobago (repeated here):
“T&T in many ways demonstrates a fierce independence; it has been immovable on several key recent U.S. foreign policy priorities. Because of former President Robinson’s role as a ‘father’ of the International Criminal Court (ICC), T&T was one of the first ICC signatories. It has not signed an Article 98 agreement with the U.S. and likely never will. T&T continues to desire and work towards good relations with Venezuela as they share a long maritime border and common energy concerns. It often defends Cuba, which it sees as a Caribbean brother. T&T, along with its neighbors, did not recognize Haiti’s interim government in the absence of a CARICOM consensus. T&T did not support the U.S. intervention in Iraq, and its media have been openly critical on this issue. T&T’s voting record at the U.N. also leaves much to be desired from a U.S. policy perspective. Most notably, T&T voted, together with its CARICOM partners, in favor of Venezuela’s candidacy for the vacant Latin American Caribbean seat on the UN Security Council”.
If standing up for Trinidad & Tobago’s interests—which are not the same as American interests—is somehow weak or diminished leadership, then that case has not been proven, not even when we refer to the opinions of US diplomats themselves.
Furthermore, during the same weekend that Trump was hosting a small group of Caribbean leaders, CARICOM itself held a dialogue with Juán Guaidó, in an effort to promote peaceful mediation towards an end to the crisis. Unfortunate however was the praise given by CARICOM leaders to Canada, which helped to organize the encounter. The point however is that if CARICOM did not matter, then not even Trump’s instrument in Venezuela would seem to agree—as Trump met with a splinter group, Guaidó spoke with representatives of the larger body, and both events happened at nearly the same time.
Who Was Invited to the Man’s House?
To have them assembled in one place, here are the comments made by Prime Minister Rowley about this weekend’s event at Mar-a-Lago, and what it signifies, gleaned from several sources as indicated below:
Prime Minister of Trinidad & Tobago, Dr. Keith Rowley
“There are people in Trinidad and Tobago who believe that because Trinidad and Tobago was not invited to the private residence of an American president we are somehow diminished…. Ladies and gentlemen, we have never stood taller, we have never stood prouder; and, as I speak to you now, Caricom’s position, as reaffirmed in the last meeting of heads in St Kitts-Nevis, is that there are three people representing and authorised to represent Caricom outside of its heads and caucus, and that’s the chairman of Caricom, who is the prime minister of St Kitts-Nevis (Dr Timothy Harris); Trinidad and Tobago’s prime minister or designate; and Barbados, through its prime minister or designate”. (source)
“A man’s home is his castle—you are free to invite who you want to your house. We can’t stay outside and say we shoulda be invited. Since when are we measuring our stature and station by who invites us to their house? If it is we’re being ‘blanked’ or ‘snubbed’ for steadfastly standing for the principles of the United Nations Charter, history will absolve us”. (source)
“Our foreign policy has always given us an indication of the road ahead. What we’re reacting to is an invitation to a man’s house—a meeting of the Lima Group at the private residence of the US President”. (source)
“I don’t know that T&T or anyone was deliberately, unwittingly or accidentally invited to anyone’s private home. The invitation wasn’t to Caricom, we don’t go around begging for invitations”. (source)
“What we are going to do resolutely and without apology, as a tiny speck on the world’s map, is to stand with the principles of the United Nations where we all have signed on and accept as the best way for peace and security, not only in our region, but the world. We, from early—St Kitts-Nevis, Dominica, Trinidad and Tobago, St Vincent and the Grenadines—we did not sign on to the Lima Group. So we are not reacting to an invitation to a man’s house”. (source)
“There are 14 Caricom countries, how many have gone to Mar-a-Lago? Yet the convseration is about four. The ones who’ve agreed are part of the Lima Group. What’s the group’s objective? Regime change in Venezuela. How that’s to be achieved is for those who’ve embarked on that course”. (source)
“As far as I’m aware, there’s no tear in TT-US relations. The US remains a friendly country and in so far as having a disagreement on the approach of Venezuela, it has nothing to do with the relations between the people of T&T and the people of the US—notwithstanding Opposition’s efforts to create that kind of division!” (source)
“Force Multipliers”
Rather than come out and call them “treacherous servants,” the politically correct term for amplifiers of US power is “force multipliers”. On the same day that Trump announced his Mar-a-Lago meeting, the Leader of the Opposition in Trinidad & Tobago, former Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar of the United National Congress, met with the US Ambassador in Port of Spain. It’s not the first time that Persad-Bissessar, while in the Opposition, has gone to the US Embassy to have private meetings to talk about Trinidadian affairs, slanted in a way that always favoured American interests and those of her party. The party attacking Prime Minister Rowley for not being servile enough to get an invitation to Mar-a-Lago, has a history of going in secret to the US Embassy to lay out its complaints about domestic political matters for the American ambassador to consider—perhaps this is what they mean by “leadership”. From their perspective a figure like Juán Guaidó must be one of the world’s greatest living “leaders”.
Ralph Maraj
The UNC is a party that mostly represents Trinidad’s population of East Indian descendants, which for generations have vied for power against the African-descended population that is mostly represented by the ruling People’s National Movement (PNM). The PNM led the country to independence in 1962, and its leadership was responsible for expelling the US from its air and naval bases in Trinidad. The PNM also nationalized Trinidad & Tobago’s oil and gas industry, and did substantial work in trying to build a nation.
The UNC has long had a particularly cozy relationship with the US, and it’s no secret that many of its followers tend to hold in high esteem all things coded White, looking up to the Global North, with neither the White House nor Donald Trump personally being any exception of course. In fact, the UNC’s long-standing former leader, Basdeo Panday, was the Prime Minister who personally hosted Donald Trump when he traveled to Trinidad for the 1999 Miss Universe Pageant. Trump and Panday spent time dining and golfing together, and apparently the experience made a positive impression on Trump. A few years later, Panday would find himself jailed on corruption charges.
While Trinidadian politics are not organized along left vs. right lines (mistakenly assumed to be universal by most North American and many European writers)—the UNC has nevertheless on occasion lambasted opponents, in a manner uncharacteristic of Trinidad politicians, as “communists”. The UNC’s stance on Venezuela, since the rise of Hugo Chávez, has been consistently hostile to the Bolivarian Revolution.
It was thus telling that this cable, as published by WikiLeaks, showed that, “on October 3 [2006], the [US] Ambassador met with Opposition United National Congress (UNC) Deputy Political Leader Senator Wade Mark, at Mark’s request,” and during that meeting the UNC’s Wade Mark not only assured the US that a future UNC government would favour US interests, but he went as far as linking the then PNM Prime Minister, Patrick Manning, with radical Muslim terrorism—and then linked the PNM and Hugo Chávez to Muslim terrorism. Wade Mark was purposely baiting the US, knowing that the US Embassy was keeping a keen eye on Muslim groups in the country, at the height of the US’ so-called “Global War on Terror”.
Let’s read that document from the US Embassy in Port of Spain in greater depth, which was previously publicized thanks to Guanaguanare—the emphases in bold print are mine:
“Mark said his purpose was to express to the Ambassador the UNC’s shock at the sudden assault on the United States unleashed by Prime Minister Patrick Manning, in his September 5 address before energy industry executives and members of the diplomatic corps…. Mark wished to reassure the Ambassador that a UNC administration would re-establish with the US the same friendly and cooperative relations which has characterized the 1995-2001 period when then UNC Prime Minister Basdeo Panday and Secretary of State Warren Christopher signed an extradition treaty, a mutual legal assistance treaty and an agreement on maritime law enforcement. Mark went on to say that UNC concern with Manning’s undiplomatic outburst was heightened by the fact that Minister of Energy and Energy Industries Dr. Lenny Saith has reportedly signed a memorandum of understanding with Mexico according to which a portion of the liquefied natural gas currently exported by T&T to the US would be assigned to Mexico instead. Such an action could not help but have serious national security implications for T&T, given that T&T depends for much of its food imports on the US. The Ambassador listened to Mark and acknowledged that the Prime Minister’s September 5 criticism of the US had taken him by surprise, too.
“Mark then launched into a litany of allegations and rumors whose veracity it is impossible to gauge. He said it was the UNC’s understanding that newly-appointed foreign minister Arnold Piggott… had, while serving as High Commissioner to Canada, met with elements associated with Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah. (Note: Post has no reason to believe that this is true and has not heard this rumor from any other source). He went on to say that three ships carrying rocket launchers as well as members of Hezbollah, which had left Syria in August en route to Argentina, were diverted to Venezuela’s Margarita island where a Hezbollah base was to be established with the aim of targeting the US. (Note: Post has heard this claim elsewhere, although embassy Caracas would be better placed to ascertain whether it is fact or fiction).
“Mark also drew a connection between Prime Minister Manning, Imam Yasin Abu Bakr, leader of the extremist Jamaat al Muslimeen (JAM) group, and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Referring to Abu Bakr’s release from prison on bail and to his court-authorized leave to travel to Venezuela, Mark said it strains credulity that such a development could have taken place without the knowledge and intervention of the powers that be. Mark said that Abu Bakr is treated like a head of state by the Chavez regime, and hypothesized that his leave to travel to Venezuela could have been intended to cement Manning’s anti-American credentials in return for the JAM’s assistance with voter recruitment at the next election….”
It is from within this fold that Prime Minister Rowley was seen as being “snubbed” by Trump, and that Trinidad lost its leadership status. It’s not surprising then, and in fact it’s quite logical, that on a previous occasion in Parliament, Dr. Rowley blasted the opposition UNC as “traitors”.
A Perspective on Canada
Canada’s government could learn a great deal—first of all, about international law and the UN Charter—from listening to Prime Minister Rowley. Instead, rather than having the post-national state as Justin Trudeau remarked, Canada has more of a post-government state, one that functions almost on auto-pilot by hiring technocrats who are “skilled” in “reading the signals coming out of Washington”. As studious imitators, they would have been well prepared by “universities” in Canada since they are largely just retail outlets for American academic production, training Canadians in the high art of consuming American books, American journals, and traveling to American conferences.
Canada helped found the Lima Group, in an effort to overthrow Venezuela’s government. While Trudeau is defending Canadian corporate interests, he does so using the language and techniques that shore up US interests. It has reached the point where, instead of taking an independent and correct stand like Trinidad & Tobago and CARICOM, Canada instead imagines that Venezuela is part of its “global backyard”. Chrystia Freeland, Trudeau’s minister for foreign affairs, stated to the press:
“the crisis in Venezuela is unfolding in Canada’s global backyard. This is our neighbourhood. We have a direct interest in what happens in our hemisphere”.
Peter Boehm, a Canadian “diplomat,” seconded Freeland, telling the CBC: “This is our backyard, the Western hemisphere. We have a role here too”.
Funny, how the front yard thinks it owns a backyard, ignoring the Big House standing between the two and claiming ownership of both. What both Freeland and Boehm miss, obviously, is that from the US’ standpoint, we are allbackyard.
Canada itself has no backyard, apart from its internal colonies—and there is no such thing as a “global backyard”. It is a semi-peripheral state which, like two centuries ago, still specializes in exporting raw materials. Lacking national leadership means that, in practice, there has been virtually no distinction of any substance that can be made between Donald Trump and Justin Trudeau, apart from superficial matters like style, tone, and virtue signalling (and sometimes not even then). Lacking an independent national government, and worse yet having one that thinks it’s American, means that it has been easy for Trump to effectively dictate terms to Canada and offload some of the costs of US foreign policy onto Canada, with no reward in return for Canada. Whether it is unrelenting trade tariffs, surrender/renegotiation of NAFTA to favour US interests even more, the transfer of asylum-seekers, or the consequences of dragging Canada into the geopolitical conflict between the US and China—Canada under Justin Trudeau has been haemorrhaging both political and economic capital to the US. One ironic and sad consequence is that this has only strengthened Canada’s Conservatives—with all of their supposed “agency,” Canadians vote for either Tweedledee or Tweedledum, generation after generation, and all of the parties are beginning to look and sound alike. With respect to Venezuela, that means more of the same.
US Embassy—Trinidad & Tobago. (2006). “Trinidad: Bi-Weekly Political Roundup”. Port of Spain, Trinidad: US Embassy, February 1. Cable ID: 06PORTOFSPAIN152_a.
Carried out under a false pretext and in disregard of the UN, the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 paved the way for similar US-led operations in Iraq, Libya and elsewhere and over a million were killed, an analyst has told RT.
NATO’s attack 20 years ago, which was launched “without declaring war and without any permission from the UN Security Council, was a transformative act which has changed the world ever since,” Marko Gasic, commenter on international affairs, said.
“This formula… that you don’t need UN Security Council authorization was then implemented at the expense of Iraq and Libya and elsewhere. So far, the decision to bomb Yugoslavia has led to over a million casualties worldwide; and rising.”
Back in 1999, the US and its allies launched airstrikes in what was then Yugoslavia, after blaming Belgrade for “excessive and disproportionate use of force” in a conflict with an ethnic Albanian insurgency in Kosovo.
NATO warplanes carried out 900 sorties during the brutal 78-day bombing campaign, which officially claimed at least 758 civilian lives. But Serbian sources insist the actual death toll was twice as high.
NATO had used depleted uranium in its air strikes on Yugoslavia. Despite the studies showing that children born there after the bombing are prone to cancer, “very little” has been or is being done to hold the bloc accountable, Gasic said.
The Yugoslav authorities tried suing NATO, but its “response was to create a ‘Color Revolution’ (in 2000) there and bring its own puppets to power… who abandoned the lawsuit.”
“The world community really needs to take NATO to task. And If Serbia is too weak to do it, we need other countries to take an interest. If they don’t defend Serbia – it’ll be their borders next that NATO will be coming for,” the analyst warned.
Quelle surprise. After more than two years looking for a non-existent needle in an ever-expanding haystack, Chief Hunter of the Needle, Special Counsel Robert Mueller, has finally declared that he hasn’t been able to find it. This ought to come as no surprise, because as we know non-existent needles don’t exist. Except, of course, in the minds of hundreds of foolish Democrat politicians and their dutiful stenographers in the mainstream media, or Global Pravda as it is known on this blog.
The fascinating thing about it all is that it wasn’t hard to grasp that the needle didn’t exist. It was obvious from the start. Here’s what I wrote back in November 2017, almost 18 months before Robert Mueller finally gave up his pointless hunt:
“Imagine a Convention of Village Idiots holding a never-ending hunt for a non-existent needle in an ever-expanding haystack. Every once in a while one of them finds a twig, or an old sock, or a marble, and with a look of sheer delight on their face they look up and squawk, ‘I’ve found it’. And all the other VIs gather round to marvel at the needle, and the news is published in the press across the country that they’ve got it, and there is much rejoicing. Until that is, someone points out that what they’ve found is not a needle at all, but a twig or an old sock or a marble, and before you know it they’ve quietly put it to one side, and resumed the hunt.
The Convention, which sometimes goes by the name Russiagate, has been going on for more than a year now, and despite its participants claiming on multiple occasions to have found the needle, sadly for them they’ve still to locate it. You might think that after still not finding it after this long, they’d be discouraged enough to give up, go home, and tend to their gardens, or some other such useful endeavour. But not a bit of it. The fact that they keep finding things in the haystack that aren’t needles only convinces them that there must be a needle in there somewhere. And so with a squawk of excitement and a cry of “On with the hunt”, off they go again looking for it with more enthusiasm than ever, ready to unearth yet more non-needles.
What have they actually found? Well, there was the indictment of Paul Manafort. Surely that was a needle, wasn’t it? Well, only in the same way that a needle resembles a brick, the charges against him being utterly unrelated to Russia, but instead about dealings he had in Ukraine years before Donald Trump ever announced he was standing for election. How about the indictment of George Papadopolous by the Mueller inquiry? Well, given that the charge against him is again nothing to do with collusion with Russia, but rather about lying to the FBI, that’s not very needle-like either, is it?”
Somehow though, supposedly serious and powerful people have believed in the non-existent needle with a zeal that might be commendable if it were ever used to do some actual good. As it is, their evidence-free fanaticism has simply shown them to be on the Dark Side of the Moon, many sandwiches short of a picnic, and certainly an indictment short of collusion. The question is why? Chiefly a couple of reasons:
Firstly, although I have zero time for the present incumbent of the White House, who I consider to be a man-child possessing stratospheric levels of folly, egotism and petty vindictiveness, the one commendable thing about him was that in his campaign, he seemed to be fairly keen on not starting a war with Russia. That seems to me be to be a Good Thing! True, his plan was never any more detailed than repeating the phrase,“I think we can get along” over and over, but for anyone who isn’t keen on nuclear war, it was still preferable to the sentiments of his opponent, Mrs Warmonger. Although she didn’t openly campaign on a promise to start a war with Russia, she might just as well have done so given some of the ideas she was espousing.
But apparently some folks got spooked by what Mr Trump was saying because — well because American exceptionalism and all that. And the only explanation they could come up with for his strange sounding words about dialling down tensions with a nuclear-armed country was that he must be in cahoots with the Kremlin. Obvs! Of course, some of them knew this to be baloney, but said it anyway because they foresaw Mr Trump as a huge threat to their neo-globalist project. Others were just “Useful Idiots”, probably truly believing it and being more than happy to peddle it night after night in the TV studios of Global Pravda. I do wonder that it never seems to occur to such people that if tensions with another nuclear-armed power are not dialled down, they stand as much chance of ending up in a cloud of radioactive ash as “the Deplorables” they seem to despise.
Secondly, those who have zealously hunted in the haystack have done so because they could never reconcile themselves to the fact that their beloved candidate did not attain to what she, and they, assumed to be her birthright. Like Gollum, her precious had been stolen from her, but unlike Gollum — a solitary and friendless creature — the Creature Clinton had a multitude of supporters ready to try to move heaven and earth to get back what was apparently rightfully hers. And so rather than facing up to the fact that she lost because she is perhaps the most odious politician in modern America, they instead justified her loss by concocting the most fantastical tale about how the ring was stolen from her by conniving thieves.
However, not only was the tale not true, but its murky origins actually begin with Mrs Clinton’s attempts to deprive her opponent of the Presidency. In other words, Russiagate is really Clintongate, as I now hope to explain.
It was abundantly clear very early on that the whole collusion claim started with a dossier put together by the (former?) MI6 agent Christopher Steele. Not only this, but it was also clear that the dossier itself was not impartial intelligence, but had been commissioned by the Clinton campaign, which paid Fusion GPS for dirt on Mr Trump. Fusion GPS then farmed it out to a private British intelligence company — Orbis Business Intelligence — which is owned by Christopher Steele. As an aside, Christopher is friends with Pablo, who was friends with Sergei, both of whom lived in Salisbury — but that’s another story for another time!
But it gets even murkier. Not only was the dossier put together at the behest of the Clinton gang, but when it was handed over to US Intelligence, its contents were never even verified by the FBI. Yet that didn’t stop its salacious contents being peddled around Washington to various reporters and politicians, prior to the 2016 election. And it was this that formed the beginnings of the whole idea that Mr Trump was in cahoots with Mr Putin.
The dossier itself, which was released into the public domain in January 2017 by Buzzfeed, is full of unverified gossip. And just recently we found out more about why that was. In one of those inconvenient moments when the truth seeps out — although unfortunately the entire Global Pravda press corps seem to have been out at the time — deposition transcripts from a federal court case, in which Mr Steele and Buzzfeed are being sued by Aleksej Gubarev, who is named in the dossier, reveal that Mr Steele took at least some of the information in the dossier straight from CNN iReports. Furthermore, it was also revealed in those transcripts that Mr Steele didn’t even know that the site he was taking the info from was not in any way verified, but rather included postings by members of the public. CNN themselves called it:
“a user-generated site. That means the stories submitted by users are not edited, fact-checked, or screened before they post.”
When asked in court if he understood that CNN iReports were nothing more than any random individuals’ assertions on the Internet, Steele replied:
“No, I obviously presume that if it is on a CNN site that it has some kind of CNN status. Albeit that it may be an independent person posting on the site.”
The astonishing nature of this needs to be digested slowly, but let me try to summarise it for you.
The Hillary Clinton campaign paid Fusion GPS for dirt on Donald Trump.
Fusion GPS farmed this out to a private British Intelligence organisation, run by Christopher Steele, who used to lead the Russia desk for MI6.
Mr Steele based at least some of his dossier on “intelligence” taken from a website where anyone can post information.
This dossier then became the basis for the entire two years of absurd accusations against the President of the United States, that he and his campaign actively colluded with a foreign power to steal the presidency.
Seems unbelievable, doesn’t it? And yet it’s absolutely true.
There is of course another element of all this, which is the claim that the Russian State hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta. Whilst these were not claims that Robert Mueller was specifically investigating, they do of course play a part in the general theory of Russian meddling and collusion with the Trump campaign to rob Mrs Clinton of her birthright. Yet there is no more truth in these claims than in the collusion claims. As I noted here:
“The claims of Russian state involvement in the hacking of the DNC’s and John Podesta’s computers originated from the DNC itself, and from the company they themselves paid to investigate, making the alleged victim — the DNC — the counsel for the prosecution for its own claims. There is the fact that the firm the DNC paid to undertake the investigation — Crowdstrike — is owned by one Dmitri Alperovitch, a Senior Fellow at the rabidly anti-Russian think tank, Atlantic Council, which makes them not exactly what you would call “impartial”. There is the fact that the FBI have never even examined the DNC’s or Mr Podesta’s computers to verify the claims they have made, but have instead relied wholly on the findings of Crowdstrike — the company paid for by the DNC. There is the fact that the FBI has never interviewed the two key witnesses in the whole affair, Britain’s former ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, and Wikileaks’ Julian Assange — both of whom have stated that they know the identity of the individual(s) who leaked (not hacked) the emails.”
But what about the “fact” that all 17 US intelligence agencies signed off on the January 6th document claiming that Russia hacked the DNC and Podesta computers? Problem with this claim is that it’s not true (I wrote about this here at the time). Quite apart from the fact that that report contained no evidence to back up the claim of hacking (most if it bizarrely focuses on RT), it was signed off by four, not 17 agencies, with the NSA — the all-seeing eye that can track all incoming or outgoing server activity — only being willing to express “moderate confidence” in the claims being made. The disclaimer to that document in Annex B is unintentionally hilarious, stating without a trace of irony:
“Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact.”
In other words, they don’t have the proof, which of course the NSA would have if there had actually been a hack and not a leak. Draw your own conclusions.
And so the Mueller Inquiry has now followed the House Intelligence Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee in being unable to find evidence of collusion. There’s a reason for that. Just as you’re never going to find a non-existent needle in a haystack, no matter how hard you look and no matter how many searches you launch, you’re not going to find non-existent collusion either.
What has shown up, however, is this: A junk dossier, cobbled together by a British spy at the behest of the Clinton Gang who wanted dirt to discredit her opponent, was circulated to journalists prior to the 2016 election, even though its contents were unverified by the FBI, and it was this that then kickstarted a frenzy of folly and lies that have poisoned the atmosphere in the US for over two years, polluted the airwaves, led to impeachment calls based on falsehoods, and made the international situation far more dangerous than it has been than at anytime since 1962.
Heads ought to roll. Those involved in creating these lies (including in the FBI and Department of Justice) ought to face investigation. Prosecutions should follow. But of course none of these things will happen. Instead, the non-existent needle hunters will do one of two things: They’ll either move on, pretend it never happened and continue to be feted as experts on Global Pravda. Or they’ll double down on their claims, perhaps saying that Mueller has been compromised (maybe Putin has videos of him as well?). Perhaps they’ll even find another haystack in which to hunt their non-existent needle.
The administration of the US President, Donald Trump, is currently using severe economic sanctions in an unsuccessful, and illegal, attempt to pressurize Tehran into dismantling its rocket program, and weaken its regional influence. The present US leadership is not trying to hide its implacable opposition to any form of political contacts, trade or cultural links between Iran and its neighbors. Washington reacted in an almost hysterical manner to the very successful recent visit to Iraq by Hassan Rouhani, the Iranian President, which was entirely devoted to talks on trade and investment. The volume of trade between the two countries currently amounts to $12 billion a year, and there is every reason to believe this will increase to $20 billion, which would be very welcome for Tehran, given the severity of the US sanctions.
And although the harsh sanctions are aimed at restricting Tehran’s relations with other countries in the region, and despite the fact that Washington is taking great pains to impose so-called secondary sanctions on countries which trade with Iran, the latest statistics show that things are actually moving in the opposite direction: Tehran, blocked off from international markets, is starting to focus on its close neighbors. The recent fall in the value of the riyal means that Iranian goods and services are now much more competitive. As a result, Iraq has been able to overtake China as Iran’s main export market for all goods except for oil.
According to IRNA, the Iranian news agency, as a result of Hassan Rouhani’s successful visit to Iraq the two countries signed 22 agreements on trade and cooperation in industrial projects. The agreements are aimed at increasing trade between Iran and Iraq. The new agreements cover such matters as the development of cooperation between border provinces of both countries, the reduction of trade tariffs, and the simplification of the visa regime for citizens of the two countries. The Iraqi Minister of trade, Mohammad Hashim al-Ani, has announced that under the new agreements a number of infrastructure construction projects are to be launched, and working groups and committees are to be set up to discuss further cooperation between the two countries in a range of different areas.
Arabic media outlets have reported that Iraq and Iran have agreed to set up a barter system, in which manufactured goods from Iraq will be exchanged for Iranian gas and electricity. In this way Baghdad hopes to continue importing energy and fuel from Iran, in exchange for Iraqi products. Economists consider that supplying energy to Baghdad, which does not have enough energy resources to meet its needs, will not only help the country to build new factories but also provide the population with cheap electricity, especially in the summer, when the temperature frequently exceeds 50 degrees and air conditioning is essential.
The Iranian premier’s visit to Iraq, in which the two countries limited themselves to discussing trade and investment-related matters, was greeted positively by the international community, with the notable exception of the USA and the Trump Administration. The facts show that the USA is dedicated to a policy of unleashing conflicts and sowing enmity between countries. This was clearly demonstrated by the recent hostilities between India and Pakistan in Kashmir. An example of this is the many inflammatory comments and groundless predictions by the US “free” media, which filled the country’s newspapers and TV with fake news reports from Kashmir.
But, notwithstanding the unfortunate events in Kashmir, the US administration, and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in particular, has not forgotten about Iran. Speaking in the CERAWeek conference, the US Secretary of State, who is far more comfortable with the language of threats than that of diplomacy, declared that if Iran did not behave “like a normal nation” the sanctions regime would last for a long time. It is completely natural that the USA, which has set itself up as an international policeman, should use its own conduct as a standard for other countries.
So it is worth looking at the way that the USA, a “normal country”, behaves. It bombed the helpless population of the German city of Dresden, dropped atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where no Japanese troops were based, sprayed Vietnam intensively with chemical weapons (defoliants), carpet bombed North Korea (1950-1953) and destroyed the states of Syria, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan. That is the conduct of the USA, a “normal” country. And it advises other countries to behave in the same way.
It is not surprising that the so-called “White Helmets”, an organization protected by the US, follows its example, by initiating chemical attacks in Syria. And what about the International Court of Justice, and other international organizations whose staff are paid high salaries in order to bring the perpetrators of such provocations to justice: where are they looking?
The Secretary of State has, once again, outdone himself: he has ordered a total ban on exports of Iranian oil: “We have every intention of driving Iranian oil exports to zero”. If we take into account the fact that oil is the country’s main export and that the basic needs of the whole population depend on the proceeds from this trade, then Mike Pompeo’s declarations sound rather like the joyful shrieks of a cannibal as he gloats over his helpless victim.
The choice of Mike Pompeo as US Secretary of State, in effect the country’s Foreign Minister, has been greeted with criticism, ridicule and contempt by countries around the world. Many have compared him, unfavorably, with Sergey Lavrov, the Russian diplomat and Foreign Minister, who deals very well with the wide range of global problems that Russia finds itself faced with. One might ask: how can a former unsuccessful spy who was tasked with overthrowing the international order possibly operate on the same level as him? That is why, lacking support from diplomats and himself feeling nothing but contempt for that profession, he decided to “transfer” many of his former henchmen to the diplomatic service.
These one-time spies are attempting, in everything they do, to justify the high level of trust that their guru has placed in them, but they lack the slightest experience of diplomacy, and, hopelessly out of their depth, are doing their country far more harm than good. It is hard to see how else we are to understand the recent incident in Moscow’s Sheremetyevo airport, in which a US diplomat – that, at least, was his job title – tried to bring a bomb through customs in his luggage. The Russian Foreign Ministry has stated directly that it saw the incident as a provocation. As the TASS news agency reported, citing Russian diplomatic staff, “given the heightened attention the USA itself has paid to security on aircraft since the 9/11 attacks, he simply could not be unaware that a bomb in a bag is very serious. That means he was aware of taking such a step.” Obviously a real diplomat would never carry out a provocation of that sort without clear “instructions” from above – that goes without saying. Many global media outlets speculated, rather boldly, that the diplomat was, in a very underhand way, trying to “test Sheremetyevo airport’s security system”.
Looking back over the energetic but fruitless, and in fact extremely dangerous actions of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, we would wish to advise the US President to take more care with his choice of staff, especially at such a senior position. Because absolutely everything he does in his post – a post for which he is completely unqualified – harms his own country and he makes himself a laughing stock for people all over the world when he comes out with his latest “pearls of wisdom” concerning Iran, Russia or any other country. At this point it is worth remembering the words of the great Mark Twain (a writer who may well, we suspect, be unknown to the Secretary of State) in his superb book, Letters from the Earth. Specifically, Letter Eight, in which Twain has nothing good to say about people such as Mike Pompeo.
Romania will move its embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, Prime Minister Viorica Dancila announced at the AIPAC summit in Washington on Sunday, in a controversial move that goes against the rest of the European Union.
Speaking at the Israel lobby group American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s (AIPAC) conference, Dancila said Romania intends to relocate its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, which she referred to as Israel’s capital, in a move that follows the US’ controversial decision to do so last year.
Most nations with diplomatic relations with Israel have their embassies in Tel Aviv, as, although Israel claims Jerusalem as its capital, it is not recognized as such by the international community. Palestinians want East Jerusalem as their future capital, and Israel has occupied East Jerusalem since the 1967 war, when it annexed the area from the rest of the West Bank.
Dancila is currently president of the Council of the European Union and the move is a marked departure from the position held by the rest of the EU. Romania, along with Hungary and the Czech Republic, reportedly blocked an EU resolution objecting to the US embassy move, which said Jerusalem should be capital of both Israel and Palestine.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked Dancila to move Romania’s embassy when she visited Israel in January. “I hope you will act to stop the bad resolutions against Israel in the European Union,” he said. “And also, of course, to move your embassy and other embassies to Jerusalem.”
Romanian President Klaus Iohannis called for Dancila to resign last April after she pushed a secret memorandum to move the embassy without consulting him, and after she went on a state visit to Israel without consulting him. As president, Iohannis is in charge of foreign policy and has the final decision on such moves.
Speaking before another meeting between Romania and Israel in November, Netanyahu explained some of the reasons they enjoy good relations: “We cooperate in matters of security, anti-terror. Romania stands often with Israel in difficult diplomatic arenas and we appreciate this. We recognize our friends and we consider Romania a great friend.” Netanyahu also referred to their shared concerns about “radical Islam.”
The president of Honduras also told AIPAC it would open diplomatic representation in Jerusalem, and hinted that if AIPAC would lobby on behalf of his country, he would consider opening an embassy too, Haaretz reports. Brazil has also said it will consider moving its embassy. Guatemala is the only country apart from the US to have moved its embassy to Jerusalem so far.
Tens of thousands of people in different German cities have gathered for a massive protest against copyright reforms planned by the European Union, DPA reported.
The planned changes would require, in part, that tech giants such as Facebook and YouTube take responsibility for copyright materials users upload to their platforms. Though the measure is claimed to be aimed at protecting copyright holders, many note that it can easily be used to restrict freedom of speech.
The outrage is connected with some parts of the legislation: in particular, Article 11, which allows publishers to charge platforms if they link to their stories (the “link tax”), and Article 13, putting legal responsibility on platforms for users uploading copyrighted material (the so-called ‘upload filter’).
Though the reform is believed to help authors, artists and journalists to ensure payments for their works, opponents of the legislation insist it would force websites to install filters, hinder online creativity and restrict the freedom of speech.
According to the news agency, the biggest demonstration was held in Munich, where some 40,000 to protested the legislation, marching under the motto “Save your internet”.
Who’s afraid of Alan Sabrosky? Whoever they are, they have the ability to monitor and censor YouTube live-streams in real time. And they apparently don’t want you to know what Sabrosky thinks about the Holocaust.
That’s the obvious takeaway from the highly unusual example of YouTube censorship that disrupted the March 22 live broadcast of False Flag Weekly News. The broadcast, which live-streamed from Vimeo to three different YouTube channels, transpired normally up to the 59:31 mark, when Sabrosky stated that the Holocaust was “a technological and logistical impossibility—“ and suddenly his mike was cut… but only on the YouTube stream, archived here:
If you want to hear the rest of Dr. Sabrosky’s Holocaust statement (instead of long stretches of dead air) you’ll have to watch the Vimeo version, which was not censored:
Whoever did this must have been monitoring the broadcast in real time. It must have been a human, not an AI algorithm. The censor must have had his or her finger hovering over the “cut his mike” button throughout the show. And that censor must have been trained and given the power to cut Sabrosky’s mike within a couple of seconds of Sabrosky starting to “deny the Holocaust.” Altogether quite an amazing feat of censorship!
But however logistically and technologically impressive this bizarre crime against free speech may have been, it seems even more impressively stupid and self-defeating. Can they really believe that actions like this are going to stop people from asking questions about the Holocaust? Haven’t they heard of the Streisand Effect? Isn’t everyone who hears about this going to say, “gee, if they have to take such extreme measures to silence this guy, maybe he’s onto something?”
It is really quite a tribute to Dr. Sabrosky and False Flag Weekly News that someone went to so much trouble. They must be spending far more money to monitor and censor us than we are spending doing the show in the first place. Talk about asymmetrical information warfare!
But I don’t believe the people behind this are as stupid as they seem. Such apparently counterproductive acts sometimes do serve strategic purposes. In this case, I assume the censors were beta-testing protocols for censoring live-streams in real time. It is no coincidence that this attack on Alan Sabrosky’s First Amendment rights came exactly one week after the allegedly live-streamed Christchurch shooting. Since the Christchurch terror event, Facebook and YouTube representatives have been all over the MSM announcing that they have to fix their systems to prevent “the live-streaming of hate.”
If I were a paranoid conspiracy theorist I would wonder whether the Christchurch attack was a set-up to roll out the beta testing of precisely this sort of censorship. I would note the incongruity of the fact that the people pushing for internet censorship are almost all Zionist Jews, not Muslims—yet the censorship is being rolled out on the pretext that it is supposed to protect Muslims and “honor the sacred Christchurch victims.” Since when did Zionists care about Muslim lives? They proudly slaughter a Christchurch worth of Palestinian Muslims every month or two. And they have murdered 32 million Muslims, and created tens of millions of refugees, in the 9/11 wars for Israel.
It’s as if the people behind the Christchurch push-for-censorship PR op, and the subsequent deployment of new censorship systems like the one just beta-tested against FFWN, are trying to conceal their true identities. Perhaps that is why they made sure that the word “Jew” was almost entirely absent from the Tarrant manifesto. As Daniel Haqiqatjou notes:
The 73-page document reads like it was written by someone who is trying very hard to pretend to be a White Nationalist… But there is one glaring inconsistency. If you ever visit places on the internet frequented and owned by White Nationalists, such as 4chan, 8chan, Daily Stormer, or Gab, one immediate, indubitable fact hits you in the face: These people hate Jews. More than anyone else, White Nationalists hate Jews and are not afraid of expressing it with thousands of different memes…. What is bizarre about Tarrant’s alleged manifesto is that he says a great deal about this (Jewish) plot. He rails against immigration, fertility rates, and “White genocide.” But he doesn’t mention who the supposed plotters are. Why? Why is Tarrant following the White Nationalist script to the letter but doesn’t mention Jews once in the entire 73 pages?
(Except one passing mention that they’re fine when they’re Israeli!)
If the perps were hiding their identities while orchestrating Christchurch and the internet censorship campaign it launched, they dropped the mask when they silenced Alan Sabrosky. We all know who reacts reflexively against “Holocaust denial.” And we all know who hates Alan Sabrosky, the former US Army War College Head of Strategic Studies who came out as a 9/11 truther on my radio show in March, 2010—and announced that Israel did it.
The Zionist fear and loathing of Sabrosky is so off-the-charts that the mere mention of his name can get you arrested. That’s what happened to Jeremy Rothe-Kushel in May 2016 when he tried to ask Dennis Ross a question during the Q&A after Ross’s talk at the Kansas City Public Library.
Tellingly, the Times of Israel report on Rothe-Kushel’s free speech lawsuit tiptoes around Sabrosky’s unspeakable name.
Alan Sabrosky, “he who must not be named,” is also “he who must not be broadcast.” Bonnie Faulkner’s Guns and Butter radio show, one of the most popular and respected Pacifica staples, was abruptly terminated by KPFA management last August due to Sabrosky’s appearance there.
“Somebody” apparently doesn’t want Sabrosky on False Flag Weekly News, either. Last January 4th Alan Sabrosky made his debut appearance as a regular FFWN co-host. The audience gave him a huge thumbs-up. But when he tried to return on a regular basis, his computer suddenly started coming down with bizarre ailments. It always seemed to happen right before the show. His computer would be working fine, and then suddenly WHAM—it would melt down right before broadcast time and we’d scramble to find a replacement. This has happened so many times in the past three months that I have lost count. Tech experts who have tried to solve the problem say Sabrosky is the victim of a highly sophisticated cyber-attack. It was only this past Friday, March 22, that after elaborate precautions we were finally able to get Alan broadcasting again on FFWN. And miraculously enough, he somehow got through 58 minutes of live-streaming before they cut his mike.
Why is Dr. Alan Sabrosky the most censored man in America? Those seeking to silence him don’t want you to know what he thinks about two issues: 9/11 and the Holocaust. Specifically, they don’t want you to know that he thinks 9/11 was “a Mossad operation, period.” And they don’t want you to know that he thinks the official Holocaust narrative of six million Jews killed mostly in gas chambers is “a technological and logistical impossibility.”
Why are these two issues so sensitive? The Holocaust, whatever it was, happened 75 years ago. And 9/11 happened more than 17 years ago. Isn’t all that stuff ancient history?
The answer, I believe, is that both Official Conspiracy Theories (OCTs) are foundational myths of Zionism. The myth (sacred narrative) of the Holocaust is Israel’s primary basis of legitimacy in global public opinion and especially Jewish opinion. The Platonic guardians of Zionism need the Holocaust horror story to bludgeon world Jewry into accepting the necessity of establishing and maintaining a “Jewish state.”
Likewise the sacred official myth of 9/11 is the lynchpin of the “clash of civilizations,” which in essence is a long-term Western war against Israel’s enemies. Were it widely known that Israel itself orchestrated 9/11 and the ensuing crusade, Israel’s already-dubious future wouldn’t just be dubious—it would be nonexistent.
Alan Sabrosky happens to be one of the world’s best-credentialed and most-eloquent voices debunking the two foundational myths of Zionism. The fact that he hails from a Jewish background makes him that much more annoying—and that much more credible. Dr. Sabrosky is extremely well-informed, and he expresses himself in an engagingly straight-shooting manner. An ex-Marine as well as Strategic Studies professor, Alan Sabrosky has a full clip of info-ammo and unloads it with uncanny accuracy and alacrity. In many respects he is the Zionists’ worst nightmare.
No wonder “Doc Sabrosky” is the most-censored man in America.
On Thursday President Trump announced that the United States should recognize Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights. Israel seized the Golan Heights from Syria in 1967 and effectively annexed it in 1981. The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal characterized Trump’s move as a favor to Netanyahu who is facing a challenge for reelection and Netanyahu called it a “Purim miracle.”
Despite any boost this may give to Netanyahu’s reelection, the effort to persuade Trump to endorse Israel’s claim to Golan began well before Netanyahu’s campaign and was described by Israeli Intelligence Minister Israel Katz as “topping the agenda” in US/Israeli diplomatic talks in May 2018.
Trump’s announcement contravenes the 1981 UN resolution passed in reaction to the annexation and co-written by the United States, that: “The Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void and without international legal effect.”
At least at the moment, action by the US is unlikely to change the European Union or Russia ’s support for the UN resolution and both announced that they would not change their positions on the Golan Heights without a UN declaration. Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, tweeting from a meeting with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, said all the ministers were shocked by Mr. Trump “continuing to try to give what is not his to racist Israel: first al-Quds [Jerusalem] & now Golan.”
It is unclear how Trump’s twitter declaration on its own can change the U.S.’s official position on Golan. But his avowal may soon be law, Senators Cruz and Cotton along with Representative Mike Gallagher who each applauded the president’s move, introduced legislation in the House and Senate to formally “recognize Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights.” Importantly, the proposed bill includes the Golan Heights as part of Israel in any spending and trade bills and approves joint scientific, industrial and agricultural projects in the occupied territory.
Since 1981, Israel has treated the Golan as a resource rich part of its country. The Golan provides over a third of Israel’s fresh water. And the Golan has provided Israel’s first major oil find. Afek Oil and Gas, a division of Genie Oil has obtained oil rights for the huge oil fields in the Golan Heights. In October 2015, October 2015 Afek Oil and Gasconfirmed the discovery of vast oil reserve oil in the Golan Heights. Genie Oil has powerful political connections. Keith Murdock, Vice President Cheney, Michael Steinhardt Jacob Rothschild and Larry Summers are among its Board Members.
Despite Genie’s influence, under current conditions, Genie’s Israeli subsidiary can not sell any oil it extracts from the Golan on the international oil market because that would violate UN resolutions. However, if Washington declares Golan to be part of Israel, then oil could be legally traded with the US. Russia Today speculates that “Genie Energy’s investments in the Golan are likely the strongest factor pushing the U.S. towards the recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the occupied territory.”
The Kevin Barrett-Chomsky Dispute in Historical Perspective – Last part of the series titled “9/11 and the Zionist Question”
By Prof. Tony Hall | American Herald Tribune | August 28, 2016
Amidst his litany of condemnations, Jonathan Kay reserves some of his most vicious and vitriolic attacks for Kevin Barrett. For instance Kay harshly criticizes Dr. Barrett’s published E-Mail exchange in 2008 with Prof. Chomsky. In that exchange Barrett castigates Chomsky for not going to the roots of the event that “doubled the military budget overnight, stripped Americans of their liberties and destroyed their Constitution.” The original misrepresentations of 9/11, argues Barrett, led to further “false flag attacks to trigger wars, authoritarianism and genocide.”
In Among The Truthers Kay tries to defend Chomsky against Barrett’s alleged “personal obsession” with “vilifying” the MIT academic. Kay objects particularly to Barrett’s “final salvo” in the published exchange where the Wisconsin public intellectual accuses Prof. Chomsky of having “done more to keep the 9/11 blood libel alive, and cause the murder of more than a million Muslims than any other single person.” … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.