Israel’s Mossad liaising with UAE ahead of Dubai Expo
MEMO | May 28, 2019
The director of Israel’s national intelligence agency Mossad is liaising with high profile officials from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to arrange Israel’s participation in the Dubai Expo 2020.
Israel’s public broadcaster Kan yesterday reported that Mossad chief Yossi Cohen is in “direct contact” with Emirati officials to arrange the visit, which will see an Israeli delegation visit the Emirati city in October next year. Kan’s political correspondent, Gili Cohen, noted that “the Mossad chief discussed all the arrangements with the UAE side, including technical matters relating to the arrival of the Israeli mission and its place of residence in Dubai.”
Israel’s Foreign Ministry announced in April that it would participate in the event, saying it “welcomed the opportunity to share our spirit of innovation and entrepreneurship and to present Israeli innovations and trailblazing technology in various fields such as water, medicine and information technology.”
“Expos are meeting places where people all over the world come together and take advantage of each other’s talents to face joint challenges and advance society,” the ministry added.
For his part, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lauded the announcement, writing on Twitter that Israel’s participation represented “another expression of Israel’s rising status in the world and the region”.
That Cohen has been working with high profile Emirati ministers will be seen as yet further evidence of the close cooperation between Mossad and the Gulf state.
These relations were thrust into the spotlight following the assassination of Hamas leader Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh in the UAE in 2010. Al-Mabhouh had been staying in Dubai’s Al-Bustan hotel when, on 20 January, a hit squad seemingly waited for its victim in his hotel room. It is thought that this assassination squad was overseen by Mossad and used European passports to enter the UAE.
Israeli journalist Edy Cohen has since accused Dubai’s Deputy Chairman of Police and Public Security, General Dhahi Khalfan, of being complicit in Al-Mabhouh’s murder. Al-Mahbouh’s family have echoed these suspicions, submitting a complaint to the UK-based Arab Organisation for Human Rights (AOHR) in which they argued the Emirati authorities had covered up their alleged involvement in the assassination.
The family argued that “the recordings of the assassination broadcast by Dubai Police Chief Dhahi Khalfan resemble a movie designed to absolve the authorities and deny rumours regarding the UAE’s involvement in the assassination”. They added: “Then the case was buried and the UAE authorities did not take any serious action to arrest the accused or bring those who were arrested to justice. This is what is suspicious about their behaviour.”
Since Al-Mahbouh’s assassination, relations between Israel and the UAE have increasingly been conducted in the open as part of Israel’s normalisation drive.
This has taken many forms, including the visit of high profile Israeli officials to the UAE and visits by Emirati military delegations to Israel. In addition, last week human rights organisation Amnesty International released a report detailing Israeli arms sales to the UAE. This has included the purchase of Israeli spyware firm NSO Group’s Pegasus software, a tool which has been used to hack into the iPhones of prominent activists, journalists and Amnesty International staff.
In January it emerged that the UAE had used Pegasus spyware to spy on the Emir of Qatar, Tamim Bin Hamad Al-Thani, and Qatari Foreign Minister Mohammed Bin Abdulrahman Al-Thani. Head of NSO Group, Shalev Hulio, explained that the Israeli Defence Export Control Agency (DECA) had authorised three deals with the UAE for the sale of NSO software, which were allegedly mediated by former Israeli defence officials with close ties to a senior Emirati official. The deals are thought to have been worth $80 million.
This was not the first time the UAE was found to have used Israeli spyware. In 2016, Canada-based research institute Citizen Lab and Apple revealed there were attempts to infect an iPhone owned by the Emirati human rights activist Ahmed Mansoor. Mansoor had raised the alarm after receiving suspicious text intended to “bait to get him to click on a link, which would have led to the infection of his Apple iPhone 6 and control of the device through a spy software created by the NSO Group”.
The EU should be calling out Israeli colonialism for its violence and incitement
By Ramona Wadi | MEMO | May 28, 2019
Palestinian school textbooks are once again under public scrutiny, this time after a report published by Israel’s Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance in School Education (IMPACT-se) claimed that material was “more radical than previously published”. The EU has since confirmed that it will be funding an assessment to be carried out “by an independent and internationally recognised research institute.”
According to IMPACT-se, “This new curriculum deliberately omits any discussion of peace education or reference to any Jewish presence in Palestine before 1948.” EU Foreign Affairs Representative Federica Mogherini said that the study will identify “possible incitement to hatred and violence and any possible lack of compliance with UNESCO standards of peace and tolerance in education.”
Once again, the Palestinians are being coerced into adopting standards determined by the political actors that have normalised Israel’s colonial presence in Palestine. The question is not whether there is any reference to Jewish presence in Palestine, but why there is such concentrated opposition to Palestinians asserting their own history and identity, both bludgeoned by Israel in the ongoing Nakba.
Lest anyone forgets, the entire international community has, in one way or another, endorsed the Zionist narrative when it comes to Palestine. This narrative leaves no space for Palestinians to assert their indigenous presence in Palestine before 1948; the “land without a people for a people without a land” myth and subsequent variations of it were used by the Zionists to justify their intent to colonise Palestine, as well as its implementation. It is the Zionist narrative that has eliminated Palestinians. In escaping from that premise, it is clear that Palestinians have an obligation towards their own people, history and memory if they are to fight against the complete disappearance of their own identity as a distinct people under Israeli oppression supported by the international community.
It is imperative that Palestinians set their own agenda by their own standards. Israel has done so in contempt of human rights violations and its actions are now normalised as “security concerns” and “self-defence” by the international community. Palestinians have legitimate reasons to pursue their own liberation trajectory – a right granted by international law – yet they are constantly expected to abide by international norms which do not address the specifics of Israel’s ongoing colonial expansion and violence.
UNESCO describes peace education as “promoting peace-building through education in situations of both conflict and peace.” The terminology used is ideal for the international community, which has spent decades reinventing Israel’s colonialism in Palestine as the “Israeli-Palestinian conflict” that can purportedly be solved through “peace negotiations”. There couldn’t have been a better combination for the EU to promote its diplomacy. UNESCO’s promotion of normalised discourse to alter the possibilities of education is a harmful agenda for Palestinians and an opportunity for the EU to portray itself as abiding by international norms.
Since there is no collective criticism of these accepted norms, any action that shows the slightest hint of legitimate repudiation in favour of a stance that clearly speaks for the oppressed – in this case, the Palestinian people – the EU can continue to recruit individuals and institutions to reinforce what is accepted at an international level. Palestinian textbooks and their content, however, have not emerged from a vacuum. The EU should not be funding studies that impede Palestinians from asserting their right to historic Palestine in their own educational curriculum. On the contrary, it should be calling out Israel’s presence in Palestine as a permanent form of colonial violence and incitement.
Taliban insurgents want peace, senior leader says at Moscow talks

Head of Political Office of the Taliban Sher Mohammad Abbas Stanakzai (L) and member of Political Office of Taliban Shahabuddin Delawar (R) in Moscow, May 28, 2019.
© Reuters / Mikhail Antonov
RT | May 28, 2019
Senior Taliban officials including the group’s top political advisor met with Afghan political figures in Moscow on Tuesday, saying they were committed to peace in Afghanistan.
The statement comes as US-led talks appear to have stalled, AFP said.
Taliban co-founder and political leader Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar said the insurgents want an end to 18 years of conflict – but would only sign a deal after foreign forces quit Afghanistan.
The Taliban are “really committed to peace, but think the obstacle for peace should be removed first,” Baradar said in a rare televised appearance at the start of the two-day meeting marking 100 years of diplomatic ties between Russia and Afghanistan. “The obstacle is the occupation of Afghanistan, and that should end,” Baradar said.
US boycotts arms control conference in protest at Venezuela
RT | May 28, 2019
The United States walked out of a UN disarmament forum in protest after Venezuela took up the conference’s rotating chairmanship, insisting it would not participate in a conference led by a “rogue state.”
“Whatever is discussed in there, whatever is decided, has absolutely no legitimacy because it is an illegitimate regime presiding over that body,” US ambassador to the Conference on Disarmament (CD) Robert Wood told reporters Tuesday after he stormed out of the meeting.
Wood ditched the forum as soon as his Venezuelan counterpart Jorge Valero was granted the conference’s presidency – which rotates on a monthly basis – calling Valero’s acceptance speech a “diatribe of propaganda.”
The US and its allies in the Lima Group – comprised of more than a dozen Latin American allies including Mexico, Colombia, Brazil and Chile – will boycott the CD for the next four weeks, until the new chair takes over, Wood said in a statement after the meeting.
The CD was established in 1984 to provide an international forum for arms control negotiations, and is held three times a year in Geneva. Sixty-five countries currently participate in the conference, including all states with a declared nuclear arsenal.
Washington, along with a handful of allies, supports Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido, who declared himself ‘interim president’ in January, with US recognition. The pro-Guaido bloc considers Venezuela’s elected president, Nicolas Maduro, to be illegitimate.
Wood demanded the CD chairmanship be granted to a member of the opposition.
“A representative of Juan Guaido, the interim president, should be in this body, should be sitting in that chair right now,” he said, adding that the Maduro government “is in essence dead, it just doesn’t want to lay down.”
US President Donald Trump has ramped up sanctions on Venezuela in recent months, crippling energy exports of a country already in dire straights and depriving the socialist government of much needed revenue. Washington considers sanctions part of another “maximum pressure campaign,” designed to coerce the Maduro government into compliance.
The US endorsed an opposition coup attempt in late April, but the uprising failed to inspire mass defections from the security forces and fizzled out within days, leaving Washington and the Guaido faction frustrated.
Ambassador Wood staged a walkout at last year’s CD as well, in that case over Syria’s elevation to the chair position. Wood worked off a similar script then, ditching the meeting as the Syrian ambassador began his address and complaining to reporters outside the chamber.
Peace with Iran is a Good Thing
By Renee Parsons | OffGuardian | May 28, 2019
After weeks of drama perpetuating assorted Iranian ‘threats’ and after having conducted classified briefings with Congress on Tuesday, acting Pentagon chief Patrick Shanahan, with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo by his side, informed a press briefing that:
there will be no war with Iran”
And the US had,
deterred an Iranian attack based on our reposturing of assets, deterred attacks against American forces”
And that now:
[The] focus is to prevent an Iranian miscalculation. We do not want the situation to escalate. This is about deterrence; not about war. We’re not about going to war.”
Shanahan’s words could not have been more clear and definitive and yet, they have been met with silence by the Democrats and the MSM as if peace is less desirable, less profitable commodity than war. At the same press briefing Sen. Lindsay Graham, Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, added his own pirouette as if there had been verifiable evidence of an Iranian threat:
We are ready to respond if we have to. The best thing would be for everyone to calm down and Iran to back off. I am hoping that this show of force will result in de-escalating.”
In other words, the US was selling the notion to anyone who would buy that the Iranians would have launched an attack if not for an increased US military build up that forced the Iranians to backpedal. It makes little difference who or what takes credit in the final analysis since peace is of the essence.
Donald Trump very likely won the 2016 election with pronouncement such as:
Obviously the war in Iraq was a big fat mistake.”
“We should have never been in Iraq.”
“We have destabilized the middle east.”
“We will stop racing to topple foreign regimes that we know nothing about.”
In view of the recent escalation of threats to Venezuela and collapse of the summit with North Korea, it has been unclear exactly who is administering US foreign policy given the President’s consistently inconsistent views and with the B Team filling a prominent role in what appears to be a presidential vacuum.
As unconfirmed, undefined “Iranian threats” first surfaced and the President’s closest national security advisors fanned the flames, he told White House reporters
It’s going to be a bad problem for Iran if something happens, I can tell you that. They’re not going to be happy.”
And later tweeting:
If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran. Never threaten the United States again!”
Declaring “heightened tensions” as if Iran was out-of-their-minds crazy enough to imminently launch an attack on a US facility, the Trump Administration evacuated non essential US Embassy personnel from Baghdad after two Saudi oil tankers were ‘attacked’ off the UAE coast, a low grade rocket exploded near the Embassy, three mortar shells landed within Baghdad’s Green Zone and a Yemeni drone ‘attacked’ a Saudi pipeline.
Combining an alarming sense of panic with an overly zealous response, all of that confluence of confusion was sufficient for the US to react with its usual belligerence dispatching a B52 bomber task force, an aircraft carrier strike group led by the USS Abraham Lincoln aimed for the Strait of Hormuz (where one third of all oil passes through) and the release of a Pentagon “just in case” contingency for 120,000 troops in preparation for Armageddon.
History has its irony as it was the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln where President GW Bush grandstanded with his Mission Accomplished strut in May, 2003 announcing the end of major combat operations in Iraq, six weeks after the US invasion.
With no moderating voice on the President’s national security team, National Security Advisor John Bolton, also known as the “devil incarnate,” has been aided and abetted by ‘bull in a china shop’ Pompeo to create a neocon foreign policy strategy that was not what Trump campaigned on.
While the combative trio is equally obsessive regarding Iran, Bolton and Pompeo organized the recent military buildup in the Persian Gulf in anticipation of a rapid response deployment when the next Iranian ‘threat’ occurred. While Bolton holds dual citizenship with Israel and the US, both Israel and Saudi Arabia have long targeted Iran for a direct military confrontation and would relish the opportunity.
Not surprisingly, there was push back from some of the usual coalition allies with British deputy commander Maj. Gen. Chris Ghika daring to suggest “There’s been no increased threat from Iranian backed forces in Iraq and Syria,” and Germany’s Foreign Minister Heiko Maas that he made it clear to Pompeo that a unilateral strategy of increasing pressure against Iran was ‘ill-advised.’
Pompeo’s hastily arranged ‘drop in’ on a European foreign ministers meeting in Brussels did little to instill confidence in sloppy US intel or the administration’s Iran agenda as Pompeo related the details.
The Pentagon helpfully pointed out that 120,000 troops would be insufficient if a ground mission was ordered which led Rep. Tulsi Gabbard to remark that war in Iran would make the Iraq war look like a “cake walk” referring to the fact that Iran is a cohesive country, four times larger than Iraq and has more than double the population of Iraq.
In other words, a recipe for an environmental, humanitarian and military disaster of epic proportions – in addition it should be expected that Russia and China would not be content to sit on the sidelines.
Many will recall the 2003 prediction that the Iraqi people would welcome American troops as liberators, strewing roses in their path, just prior to the war descending into unthinkable carnage.
As a result of all the uncertainty, Trump gave up the trash-talk and told Shanahan during a military briefing last week that he does not want to go to war with Iran letting his hawkish aides know that he did not want the “intensifying American pressure campaign against the Iranians to explode into open conflict.” It is worth knowing whether the President directly ordered Bolton and Pompeo to back off.
Trump’s assertion that “I make the final decision” is as if to reassure himself that he is in charge belies a reputation for vacillating and a weak-will that continues to plague his Administration especially on foreign policy.
While Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei has refused to negotiate with the US, explaining that “negotiating with the current US Government is toxic,” the Iranians have no interest in bargaining away their ballistic missiles which could reach Tel Aviv or putting limits on their operational range. As with North Korea, Iran is well aware of Libya’s Mummar Quaddafi fate as he laid down his weapons only to have HRC organize a revolt and order his untimely demise.
A recent FoxNews interview added some clarity and further confusion as Trump totally buys the neocon view that:
Iran has been a problem for so many years, look at all the conflicts they have caused.” Further explaining “I want to invade if I have to economically” to provide jobs. While Trump agreed that “there is a Military Industrial Complex” and “they do like war” and yet complaining that “I wipe out 100% of the caliphate and people here in DC, they never want to leave.”
When asked about his campaign pledges in 2016, Trump responded “I’m not somebody that wants to go into war” offering the assurance that “I have not changed” and yet the belligerent talk comes too easily as if Bolton was the last person he spoke with.
As he has expressed little public reaction to the administration’s ineptitude with North Korea at the Vietnam summit or the fiasco in Venezuela, Trump allows himself to be played like a fiddle, complicit with the neocon’s latest nefarious schemes that reveal him as a second-rate player; deteriorating before the public with a history of clumsy international gaffes. There is no question that neither Bolton nor Pompeo are to be trusted and that Bolton’s over reach of authority is the key driver pushing for confrontation and divisiveness while Pompeo is a more personally shrewd team player and somewhat less of a loose cannon.
Thanks to the high level of public awareness that nailed down the faulty details of this latest kerfuffle and its excessive harangues, Trump needs to relieve Bolton of his keys to the office before the next ‘threats’ take the US to the brink and find someone who better reflects his 2016 campaign promises.
Robert Stuart vs the BBC: One Man’s Quest to Expose a Fake BBC Video about Syria

By Rick Sterling and Susan Dirgham* | American Herald Tribune | May 28, 2019
It’s a David vs Goliath story. A former local newspaper reporter, Robert Stuart, is taking on the British Broadcasting Corporation. Stuart believes that a sensational video story about an alleged atrocity in Syria “was largely, if not entirely, staged.” The BBC would like it all to just go away. But like David, Stuart will not back down or let it go. It has been proposed that the BBC could settle the issue by releasing the raw footage from the event, but they refuse to do this. Why?
The Controversial Video
The video report in controversy is ‘Saving Syria’s Children‘. Scenes from it were first broadcast as a BBC news report on August 29, 2013 and again as a BBC Panorama special in September. ‘Saving Syria’s Children’ was produced by BBC reporter Ian Pannell with Darren Conway as camera operator and director.
The news report footage was taken in a town north of Aleppo city in a region controlled by the armed opposition. It purports to show the aftermath of a Syrian aerial attack using incendiary weapons, perhaps napalm, killing and burning dozens of youth. The video shows the youth arriving and being treated at a nearby hospital where the BBC film team was coincidentally filming two British medical volunteers from a British medical relief organization.
The video had a strong impact. The incident was on August 26. The video was shown on the BBC three days later as the British Parliament was debating whether to support military action by the US against Syria. As it turned out, British parliament voted against supporting military action. But the video was effective in demonizing the Syrian government. After all, what kind of government attacks school children with napalm-like bombs?
The Context
‘Saving Syria’s Children’ was produced at a critical moment in the Syrian conflict. Just days before, on August 21, there had been an alleged sarin gas attack against an opposition held area on the outskirts of Damascus. Western media was inundated with videos showing dead Syrian children amidst accusations the Syrian government had attacked civilians, killing up to 1400. The Syrian government was assumed to be responsible and the attack said to be a clear violation of President Obama’s “red line” against chemical weapons.
This incident had the effect of increasing pressure for Western states or NATO to attack Syria. It would be for humanitarian reasons, rationalized by the “responsibility to protect”.
The assumption that ‘the regime’ did it has been challenged. Highly regarded American journalists including the late Robert Parry and Seymour Hersh investigated and contradicted the mainstream media. They pointed to the crimes being committed by the armed opposition for political goals. A report by two experts including a UN weapons inspector and Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity also came to the conclusion that the Syrian government was not responsible and the attack was actually by an armed opposition group with the goal of forcing NATO intervention.
Why the Controversial Video is Suspicious
After seeing skeptical comments about ‘Saving Syria’s Children’ on an online discussion board, Robert Stuart looked at the video for himself. Like others, he thought the hospital sequences looked artificial, almost like scenes from a badly acted horror movie.
But unlike others, he decided to find out. Thus began his quest to ascertain the truth. Was the video real or was it staged? Was it authentic or contrived propaganda?
Over almost six years his research has revealed many curious elements about the video including:
* Youth in the hospital video appear to act on cue.
* There is a six hour discrepancy in reports about when the incident occurred.
* One of the supposed victims, shown writhing in pain on a stretcher, is seen earlier walking unaided into the ambulance.
* The incident happened in an area controlled by a terror group associated with ISIS.
* One of the British medics is a former UK soldier involved in simulated injury training.
* The other British medic is daughter of a prominent figure in the Syrian opposition.
* In 2016 a local rebel commander testified that the alleged attack never happened.
Support for Robert Stuart
Robert Stuart’s formal complaints to the BBC have been rebuffed. His challenges to those involved in the production have been ignored or stifled. Yet his quest has won support from some major journalistic and political figures.
Former Guardian columnist Jonathan Cook has written several articles on the story. He says, “Stuart’s sustained research and questioning of the BBC, and the state broadcaster’s increasing evasions, have given rise to ever greater concerns about the footage. It looks suspiciously like one scene in particular, of people with horrific burns, was staged.”
Former UK Ambassador Craig Murray has compared scenes in ‘Saving Syria’s Children’ with his own harrowing experience with burn victims. He says, “The alleged footage of burn victims in hospital following a napalm attack bears no resemblance whatsoever to how victims, doctors and relatives actually behave in these circumstances.”
Film-maker Victor Lewis-Smith has done numerous projects for the BBC. When learning about Stuart’s research he asked for some explanations and suggested they could resolve the issue by releasing the raw video footage of the events. When they refused to do this, he publicly tore up his BBC contract.
Why it Matters
The BBC has a reputation for objectivity. If BBC management was deceived by the video, along with the public, they should have a strong interest in uncovering and correcting this. If there was an error, they should want to clarify, correct and ensure it is not repeated.
The BBC could go a long way toward resolving this issue by releasing raw footage of the scenes in ‘Saving Syria’s Children’. Why have they refused to do this? In addition, they have actively removed youtube copies of ‘Saving Syria’s Children’. If they are proud of that production, why are they removing public copies of it?
Has the BBC produced and broadcast contrived or fake video reports in support of British government foreign policy of aggression against Syria? It is important that this question be answered to either restore public trust (if the videos are authentic) or to expose and correct misdeeds (if the videos are largely or entirely staged).
The issue at stake is not only the BBC; it is the manipulation of media to deceive the public into supporting elite-driven foreign policy. ‘Saving Syria’s Children’ is an important case study.
The Future
Robert Stuart is not quitting. He hopes the next step will be a documentary film dramatically showing what he has discovered and further investigating important yet unexplored angles.
The highly experienced film producer Victor Lewis-Smith, who tore up his BBC contract, has stepped forward to help make this happen.
But to produce a high quality documentary including some travel takes funding. After devoting almost six years to this effort, Robert Stuart’s resources are exhausted. The project needs support from concerned members of the public.
If you support Robert Stuart’s efforts, go to this crowdfunding website. There you can learn more and contribute to this important effort to reveal whether the BBC video ‘Saving Syria’s Children’ showed true or staged events. Was the alleged “napalm” attack real or was it staged propaganda? The project needs a large number of small donors and a few substantial ones to meet the June 7 deadline.
As actor and producer Keith Allen says,” Please help us to reach the target so that we can discover the facts, examine the evidence, and present the truth about ‘Saving Syria’s Children’. I think it’s really important.”
*Susan Dirgham is editor of “Beloved Syria – Considering Syrian Perspectives” published in Australia.
*(Top image courtesy of Robert Stuart/ Twitter)
Iran Ready for Talks with Regional States, No Such Prospect for US
Al-Manar | May 28, 2019
Noting Iran’s proposal for signing a non-aggression pact with regional countries, FM spokesman Mousavi said there is currently no prospect for talks with US.
“The Persian Gulf littoral states are among the most important neighboring countries for Iran; therefore, what foreign minister Zarif has put forward- i.e. the non-aggression pact- is not a new topic,” Sayyed Abbas Mousavi said in a news conference on Tuesday.
“Iran does not want to be in an insecure and stressful region,” he underlined.
Iran, in the past years, has always reiterated its readiness to sign a non-aggression pact with regional countries in a bid to build trust and confidence, and help eliminate concerns originating from other countries’ fear-inducing tactics. Most recently, Foreign Minister Zarif in a meeting with Iraqi President Barham Salih in Baghdad on Saturday repeated the suggestion to Persian Gulf states to sign a non-aggression pact. The move was praised by Russian FM Sergey Lavrov as the first step to reduce regional tensions.
Addressing Trump’s recent claims that the US is “not looking for regime change” in Iran, rather all pressures are aimed at preventing Iran from achieving nuclear weapons, Mousavi said that “Iran is not interested in empty rhetoric and pays more attention to behaviors and will decide and act upon them.”
“We do not have any talks with the US, and our basis is on respecting international pacts to which the US can return,” Mousavi said.
The US’ illegitimate withdrawal [from the nuclear deal] and some of its illusions have ruined any chance for negotiations, he said, adding that currently there is no prospect for talks with Washington. “We should wait for new developments,” he added.
Elsewhere, he noted Zarif’s recent regional tour to India, Turkmenistan, Syria, Japan, Pakistan and Iraq, saying the visits have been in line with clarifying Iran’s stance. He also voiced hope that a new round of talks would commence with Iran’s northern neighbors at the ministerial and even head of state levels.
Mousavi then criticized European’s flimsy commitment to implementing JCPOA, saying that Iran always gives diplomacy a chance, but that does not mean pinning its hope on Europe.
He added that Iran expects Europeans to act within the set 60-day deadline by Iran and if they do not do so Iran will take the next step regarding its reduction of commitments to the JCPOA.
Addressing the latest situation of EU’s trade mechanism INSTEX, Mousavi said that the first transaction between Iran and Europe has been done. Some Iranian INSTEX-experts have traveled to Europe and have conducted some negotiations. A group of European INSTEX managers will travel to Iran in future to continue talks, he added.
About other countries proposing to mediate between Iran and US amid heightened tensions, Mousavi said that “we are not at that level yet, since having other countries to mediate needs some requirements. It is vital to pay attention to the roots of Iran-US tensions, which are in the reinforcement of sanctions on Iran, US’ illegal withdrawal form JCPOA and its economic terrorism.”
He also noted that Zarif’s meetings with US senators cannot be translated as holding talks with the US since Congress members are not considered as US government officials.
Settler filmed starting fire in West Bank field is Israeli soldier

MEMO | May 27, 2019
One of the two Jewish settlers recently caught on video starting a fire in the occupied West Bank is an Israeli soldier, it has been revealed.
According to reports in the Israeli media, “the army knows the identity of the settler”, and “two security sources confirmed the details, saying that the soldier was on leave when the arson took place”.
The military said that “the Israel Police are expected to handle the incident”, while “the police said that they have yet to arrest the soldier”.
The incident took place on Friday, 17 May, when settlers attacked Palestinians and their properties in three West Bank villages.
While the Israeli military initially blamed Palestinians for starting the fires, the army was forced to change its story after a video clip published by human rights NGO B’Tselem clearly showed settlers lighting fires in fields.
In a separate video taken by local Palestinians that day, settlers are seen throwing rocks at villagers’ homes, while Israeli soldiers “can be seen standing among the settlers and doing nothing to stop them”.
To date, no one has been arrested for any of these attacks.
Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank routinely assault Palestinians and vandalise their property, attacks which are almost never investigated or prosecuted by Israeli occupation authorities.
All Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem are illegal under international law.
China Will Not Participate in US-Led Bahrain Conference
Palestine Chronicle | May 27, 2019
Ambassador of the People’s Republic of China to the State of Palestine, Guo Wei, said that his country will not take part in the US-led ‘Peace to Prosperity’ conference, scheduled on June 25-26 in Bahrain’s capital, Manama.
In a meeting with Nabil Shaath, advisor to President Mahmoud Abbas for external affairs and international relations, the ambassador of China said that boycotting the Bahrain conference comes within the framework of a bilateral Russian-Chinese agreement not to participate in it.
The ambassador stressed his country’s position in support of the Palestinian cause and people, including their right to self-determination and the establishment of an independent state of Palestine within the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital.
For his part, Shaath stressed the Palestinian rejection of the US-led economic workshop set to be held in Bahrain, considering it part of the US so-called ‘deal of the century’.
Shaath briefed the Chinese ambassador on the Palestinian political situation and the serious Israeli violations against the Palestinian people, land, and holy sites in violation of international law and signed agreements, praising China’s role and that of all other friendly countries.
Bolton’s Trap: Iran Cast as a Nuclear Threat, Diverting us from his Occulted Project
By Alastair Crooke | Strategic Culture Foundation | May 27, 2019
President Putin was correct when he foresaw that the US actions which forced Iran towards default on the JCPOA would be quickly forgotten – as they have – and that the US mainstream ‘narrative’ would be turned wholly against Iran (which it has).
John Bolton has activated his ‘trap’, which inevitably will lead to ratchetting tensions between Iran and the US: He has inverted the paradigm from that of the ‘Greater Israel’ (the Deal of the Century) project requiring the blunting of Iranian opposition, to that of the ‘threat’ of potential Iranian nuclear ‘break out capacity’ – as Iran is effectively forced to accumulate enriched uranium (even at 3.67%).
Precisely by withdrawing US ‘waivers’ permitting Iran to stay within the JCPOA strict limits on Iran’s holding of uranium and heavy water (from Arak), by sanctioning the export of any Iranian surplus (a JCPOA obligation), Pompeo and Bolton made a default inevitable – and intentional. And with the prospect of Iranian default (and Iran’s response of threatening to go to higher levels of enrichment), Trump’s team have rewritten ‘the story’ as one of Iran grasping after nuclear weaponisation.
Why does this serve Pompeo and Bolton’s aim to drive Iran into the corner? To understand this, we have to reach back to Rand Corporation’s Albert Wohlstetter’s seminal policy doctrine (in 1958) — that there is, and can be, no material difference between peaceful and weapons enrichment of uranium. Wohlstetter said that the processes for both were identical, and therefore to halt proliferation, (untrustworthy) states such as Iran must not be allowed any enrichment: i.e. no nuclear programme at all.
This Wohlstetter ‘doctrine’ underlay all the heated arguments leading up to the JCPOA. Obama finally came down from the fence on the side of allowing Iran internationally surveilled, low enrichment – in an agreement that ensured that Iran would be at least a year away from breakout capacity (i.e. it would take Iran more than a year to switch toward assembling enriched material sufficient to build a bomb).
Pompeo and Bolton have effectively unilaterally decided that Iran may only have 0% enrichment. And the western press has taken up again the cry of the renewed ‘threat’ of Iranian breakout. Let us be clear — this is where Bolton wants Iran. He has undercut the only compromise that had halted that earlier march toward a military ‘solution’ being imposed by the US, under threats of imminent military action threatened by Israel. And the Wohlstetter thesis, which still has a significant following in the US, offers no ‘off-ramp’ to ratchetting tensions.
Just to be clear: There was no proliferation ‘threat’ at all from Iran, which has been in compliance with the JCPOA, as verified by the IAEA multiple times, until the US made compliance literally impossible by withdrawing the very waivers that made compliance possible. This was President Putin’s point. The origins to the issue will now be drowned out by the clamours about proliferation.
Why are Pompeo and Bolton’s so intent on this project to corner Iran?
Well, who is pushing it? Who stands behind it? One key constituency – for Trump – is his Evangelical base (one in every four Americans say they are Evangelists). It was they who insisted on the move of the US Embassy to Jerusalem; they supported Trump’s assertion of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan; they support the annexation of Israeli settlements; and they were behind the demand that the US scrap the JCPOA. But above all – and they feel truly empowered by their achievements – and now look to Trump, finally, to actuate a (biblical) Greater Israel.
Trump is not Evangelical (he is Presbyterian by upbringing), but has over the years moved closer to the Evangelical wing, and has given signs that he believes that the actuation of a Greater Israel would finally end the conflict in the Middle East, and bring lasting peace to the region. It would be his legacy.
Whilst it is true that Trump keeps repeating (perhaps truthfully) that he does not want war, the act of creating Greater Israel, nonetheless, is no minor real estate re-shuffling of the Palestinians into alternative ‘accommodation’, so that his Israel project can unfold, and expand into a Greater Israel. Laurent Guyénot, an authority on Biblical studies writes that it possesses another, often overlooked, but highly significant dimension:
“Zionism cannot be a nationalist movement like others, because it resonates with the destiny of Israel as outlined in the Bible … It may be true that Theodor Herzl and Max Nordau sincerely wished Israel to be “a nation like others”… [But the assertion] that Zionism is biblical doesn’t mean it is religious; to Zionists, the Bible is both a “national narrative” and a geopolitical program, rather than a religious book (there is actually no word for “religion” in ancient Hebrew).
“Ben-Gurion was not religious; he never went to the synagogue and ate pork for breakfast. Yet he was intensely biblical. Dan Kurzman, [Ben Gurion’s biographer] who calls him “the personification of the Zionist dream”, [nonetheless] was a firm believer in the mission theory, saying explicitly: “I believe in our moral and intellectual superiority, in our capacity to serve as a model for the redemption of the human race”.
“Ten days after declaring Israel’s independence, [Ben Gurion] wrote in his diary: “We will break Transjordan [Jordan], bomb Amman and destroy its army, and then Syria falls, and if Egypt will still continue to fight—we will bombard Port Said, Alexandria and Cairo.” Then he adds: “This will be in revenge for what they (the Egyptians, the Aramis and Assyrians) did to our forefathers during biblical times.”
This is the point from which Bolton and Pompeo are deliberately diverting attention by laying a nuclear breakout false scent. The project to realise Greater Israel – resonating with metaphysical destiny, and redolent of special status, as when “all the nations” will pay tribute “to the mountain of Yahweh, to the house of the god of Jacob,” when “the Law will issue from Zion and the word of Yahweh from Jerusalem” – is music to Christian Zionist ears, since they believe this precisely is what will advance the return of their Messiah and bring Rapture closer.
Of course, any such project – implicit or explicit – could be expected to be opposed by a civilisation-state such as Iran, with its own very powerful, but contrasting metaphysics. For Greater Israel to be actualised, Iranian opposition to the Israeli ‘divine election’ plan must be curbed.
Bolton is no Evangelical, but is closely allied with the Israeli Right. Ben Caspit, a leading Israeli commentator, expands:
“The US has no intention of invading Iran,” [my] Israeli source clarified, “but the Iranians are trying to signal to the Americans that [any escalation] … could cause serious damage to American interests and at a steeper cost than anything Saddam Hussein’s regime was able to achieve. […]
“Netanyahu’s distance from the escalating tension can be understood from [his appearance] before a Congressional committee in the days leading up to the invasion of Iraq to claim that Hussein was attempting to build nuclear weapons and that toppling the regime in Iraq would rein in Iran and create greater stability throughout the entire Middle East. History proved all Netanyahu’s predictions wrong … Now, Netanyahu is attempting to tone it down, so that he will not be thought of as the person pressuring the Americans to launch a military strike against Iran. It is not at all certain that he will succeed.
“Israel is now trying to downplay its support for the stance of US national security adviser John Bolton, who advocates for direct conflict with the Iranians and is therefore considered the most hawkish in the administration. According to someone who has worked with Netanyahu on military matters for years who spoke on condition of anonymity, “It should be obvious that behind closed doors, Netanyahu is praying that Bolton succeeds in convincing the president to launch a military attack on Iran, but this cannot be too obvious. [Netanyahu] cannot be identified with this approach, particularly after he has already come under fire for being the person who pressured the US to invade Iraq.” Jerusalem is watching the conflict between President Donald Trump’s current conciliatory tone, which leads him to avoid unnecessary American military adventurism, and Bolton’s more belligerent approach. The fear is that Trump will blink first in this war of nerves with the Iranians and eventually lose interest and tone down the pressure”.
![Normalisation with Israel -Cartoon [Arabi21News]](https://i0.wp.com/www.middleeastmonitor.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Normalisation-e1550487985834-500x300.jpg?resize=500%2C300&quality=75&strip=all&ssl=1)
![Image of Israel supporters rally in London against UN resolution [ Zionist Federation/Facebook]](https://i2.wp.com/www.middleeastmonitor.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/2016_1_7-pro-Israel-activists-demostrate-against-UN-Council-Vote.jpg?resize=500%2C333&quality=75&strip=all&ssl=1)

