Aletho News


Whitney Webb Interview – Starbucks COVID Connection, GameStop Suspicions & WEF Cyber Pandemic Simulations

Ryan Cristián | The Last American Vagabond | February 1, 2021

Joining me today is Whitney Webb to discuss some of her recent research into an alarming connection Starbucks has to the COVID-19 vaccine agenda, as well as some suspicions about the GameStop fiasco, as well as the WEF and its “Cyber Pandemic” simulations.

Video Source Links:



February 2, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | Leave a comment

Why the Biden regime has set itself up for failure on the Iran nuclear deal

By Scott Ritter | RT | February 2, 2021

By laying out unrealistic demands to Iran and engaging in fearmongering about its nuclear program, Secretary of State Tony Blinken has underscored America’s real intent about rejoining the controversial agreement.

[Proclaimed] President Joe Biden has made rejoining the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA, popularly known as the Iran nuclear deal) one of the top priorities of his administration, reversing course from the direction taken by former President Donald Trump who, in May 2018, withdrew the US from the landmark 2015 agreement.

However, the gap between Biden’s stated desire and the ability of his foreign policy team, headed by Secretary of State Antony Blinken, to bring it to fruition may be insurmountable.

In a recent statement, Blinken warned that if Iran continued to unilaterally lift the various restrictions on its nuclear program mandated under the JCPOA, it would be able to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon within “a matter of weeks.”

But this assertion is fundamentally flawed. In keeping with its policy of ending JCPOA restrictions as a remedial action permitted under Article 36 of the agreement should other parties be in fundamental noncompliance (which the US is, by issuing sanctions), Iran has begun the process to enrich uranium to 20 percent, and convert that uranium to metal. This would be used to produce fuel plates needed to power a research reactor in Tehran used to produce medical isotopes.

As of January 29, Iran had accumulated some 17 kilograms of 20 percent uranium, part of a strategic plan to produce 120 kilograms of the material per year, at a rate of 10 kilograms per month on average.

Iran would need to convert some 250 kilograms of 20 percent enriched uranium into 25 kilograms of the 90 percent enriched uranium needed for a nuclear weapon. Under Iran’s plans, which have been briefed to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and are being monitored by IAEA inspectors, it would take approximately two years for Iran to accumulate that amount of 20 percent enriched uranium – a fact incompatible with Blinken’s assessment of “a matter of weeks.”

Further undermining Blinken’s contention is the fact that, by converting the 20 percent enriched uranium into metallic fuel plates, Iran has made it impossible to use this material in any “breakout” weapons program, given the complexities associated with reconverting the metal into uranium hexafluoride for subsequent insertion into gas centrifuges for follow-on enrichment to 90 percent. As such, Iran’s actions actually inhibit its ability to pursue a nuclear weapon, something Blinken ignores completely.

But Blinken’s Iran problem goes much further than giving misleading statements about the country’s nuclear capabilities and intent. His prescription for the US rejoining the JCPOA is little more than a poison pill designed to kill the agreement. “Iran is out of compliance on a number of fronts,” Blinken recently said, ignoring the country’s citation of its rights under Article 36 (which means that until the US lifts sanctions, Iran is in fundamental compliance), and the fact that Iran has signaled that all of its measures taken to date are “fully reversible.”

“[I]t would take some time, should it [Iran] make the decision to do so, for it to come back into compliance and time for us then to assess whether it was meeting its obligations,” Blinken said. If Iran were to return to the deal, it would only serve as a precursor to what Blinken called a “longer and stronger agreement” that would address other “deeply problematic” issues.

The biggest hurdle is that Iran has ruled out linking a US return to the JCPOA with any negotiation of a new agreement along the lines that Blinken spoke of. An Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Saeed Khatibzadeh, rejected any notion of US-Iranian bilateral negotiations about the JCPOA. “The US needs to return to its commitments,” Khatibzadeh said, “and if that happens, it will be possible to negotiate within the framework of the joint commission of the JCPOA.”

The Iranian position makes sense from a legal standpoint – it is, after all, the US that has left the agreement and, if it seeks to rejoin it, all negotiations must take place within the framework of the agreement itself, and not some new negotiating mechanism that does not conform to the letter of the law.

Some of these mechanisms of control are permanent, such as a ban on any Iranian work on nuclear explosive devices and on the reprocessing of spent reactor fuel, needed for the separation of plutonium. These two bans represent the most effective means of blocking Iran’s path toward a nuclear weapon. So, too, do the enhanced inspection arrangements which enable inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency to request access to undeclared sites.

One of the fundamental flaws in the Iranian position, however, is its failure to recognize that, from the US’ perspective, the JCPOA was never meant to be an agreement which would reach fruition, but rather a stop-gap tool used by the US to contain Iran’s nuclear program in a manner which conformed to US domestic political concerns, and not the reality of Iran’s nuclear ambition. In short, the JCPOA was designed to ensure that Iran would not be able to acquire enough fissile material usable in a nuclear device for at least a year after violating the mechanisms of control envisioned under the agreement.

Others, however, expire under the terms of so-called ‘sunset clauses’. Two of the most important ‘sunset clauses’ involve Iran’s ability to increase the number and types of enrichment centrifuges (expiring in 2025) and increase the amount of low enriched uranium it can stockpile (expiring in 2030). The Iranians view these two clauses as the most important achievements of the JCPOA negotiations, as they guarantee that Iran will be able to fulfil its plans for a viable indigenous nuclear energy program, a right guaranteed to it under Article IV of the nonproliferation treaty, to which it is a signatory.

This, however, was never the intent of the US. According to President Barack Obama, whose administration negotiated the JCPOA, the purpose of the ‘sunset clauses’ was to buy time for Iran, once sanctions were reduced, to “start focusing on its economy, on training its people, on reentering the world community, to lessening its provocative activities in the region.”

According to Obama, by entering the JCPOA, the US made it possible to “strengthen the hand of those more moderate forces inside of Iran.” The JCPOA was “not dependent on anticipating those changes. If they don’t change at all, we’re still better off having the deal.”

Obama’s point of view was driven by US intelligence assessments which, in 2015, put Iran’s “breakout times” at two or three months. By entering the JCPOA, the US was “purchasing for 13, 14, 15 years assurances that the breakout is at least a year … that – that if they decided to break the deal, kick out all the inspectors, break the seals and go for a bomb, we’d have over a year to respond. And we have those assurances for at least well over a decade.”

The important takeaway is what Obama said next. “And then in years 13 and 14, it is possible that those breakout times would have been much shorter, but at that point we have much better ideas about what it is that their program involves. We have much more insight into their capabilities. And the option of a future president to take action if in fact they try to obtain a nuclear weapon is undiminished.” In short, if Iran did not use the JCPOA as a vehicle to understand that it did not need a nuclear program, and voluntarily abandon its nuclear activities, then the US would take action that would prevent the ‘sunset clauses’ from ever expiring.

Time is running out for Biden and Blinken if they hope to revive the JCPOA. Iran’s conservative-dominated parliament has set a deadline of February 21 for the US to lift sanctions that had been reimposed when Trump removed the US from the JCPOA. If the US fails to act, then Iran will likely suspend the enhanced inspections of its nuclear sites by the IAEA, and further increase its uranium enrichment capacity.

Unfortunately for Obama, Biden, and the proponents of the JCPOA, Trump wasn’t willing to play that game. Recognizing that the underlying logic behind the Obama approach to the JCPOA was predicated on the belief that Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions were only being temporarily delayed by the ‘sunset clauses’, Trump simply withdrew from the agreement, moving the time for presidential action forward by a decade. In many ways, Trump’s approach to Iran, while fundamentally flawed, was at least honest. The same cannot be said about the Obama administration which negotiated the original deal, or the Biden administration which is now compelled to deal with the fallout of Obama’s deceit and Trump’s actions in response to that deceit.

“We have said time and again that if the US decides to go back to its international commitments and lift all the illegal sanctions against Iran, we will go back to the full implementation of JCPOA, which will benefit all sides,” Majid Takht-Ravanchi, Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations, said recently. But Takht-Ravanchi’s comments assume that the Biden administration can move forward on the JCPOA in good faith, rather than with the intent of the original US negotiation.

The Obama administration, however, never intended the JCPOA to be anything other than a stop-gap measure designed to buy the US time when it came to managing Iran’s nuclear program. Thanks to Trump, the clock has run out. For Biden, Blinken, and the rest of the Obama-era policy makers who are now back in power and who sowed the seed of this, the time has come to reap the whirlwind. Biden may seek to blame Trump for failing to rejoin the JCPOA, but he only has himself to blame.

Scott Ritter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer and author of ‘SCORPION KING: America’s Suicidal Embrace of Nuclear Weapons from FDR to Trump.’ He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf’s staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. Follow him on Twitter @RealScottRitter

February 2, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , | Leave a comment

Claims of Silicon Valley bias are ‘disinformation’, say researchers citing disgraced partisan ‘experts’ and Big Tech itself

By Nebojsa Malic | RT | February 2, 2021

Silicon Valley wants you to know that even thinking they might be biased against conservatives is ‘disinformation,’ and cite a paper informed by censorious busybodies, partisan hacks and their own executives to prove it.

Twitter spokesman Nick Pacilio approvingly quoted the Washington Post story about a report arguing that the “claim of anti-conservative animus on the part of social media companies is itself a form of disinformation: a falsehood with no reliable evidence to support it.”

Nothing to see here, folks, just a former press secretary for Democrat Kamala Harris (it’s in his bio) retweeting a newspaper that openly endorsed the Biden-Harris ticket saying that Democrats are right and Republicans are wrong, right?

Before the “fact checkers” declare that actually, Pacilio was a spokesman for Harris in 2011-2014, when she was California’s attorney general – the point is that he doesn’t bother hiding his political allegiance, and neither does the Post. But it would be wrong to judge a report solely by the people who endorse it, so let’s take a look at it, shall we?

Authored by Paul M. Barrett, deputy director of Stern Center for Business and Human Rights at New York University (NYU) and research fellow J. Grant Sims, the 28-page paper is a regurgitation of talking points by mainstream media, “disinformation researchers” advocating for censorship under the guise of ‘Russiagate,’ and Big Tech companies themselves. Looking at their 74 endnotes, one finds multiple mentions of mainstream media outlets, but also citations of the Democrat propaganda shop Media Matters, the German Marshall Fund, and even the Biden-Harris campaign.

Any study of social media censorship that doesn’t address the New York Post getting locked out by Twitter and suppressed by Facebook over the story about Hunter Biden’s laptop in the run-up to the 2020 election is a farce. This report mentions it exactly once – in a “conservatives pounce” way, no less.

Describing the NY Post story as “questionable” and “apparently based on stolen emails,” the researchers claim it was a case of “reasonable decisions wrapped in mystifying processes.” Their conclusion mirrors the (footnoted) Washington Post editorial, literally headlined “Twitter and Facebook were right to suppress a Biden smear. But they should tell us why they did.” No bias here, everyone!

In other words, they literally want increased censorship on social media platforms, justified by the conservatives supposedly “falsely” claiming they’re being censored.

To no one’s surprise, the researchers conclude that platforms need a “content overseer” executive who would report directly to the top, and “do a better job of protecting users and society at large from harmful content.” They also want the Biden administration to either set up a new agency for digital oversight or give more power to existing ones, and reform Section 230 – the legal shield protecting platforms from lawsuits over content – to make it conditional on their censorship, or as they put it, “acceptance of a range of new responsibilities related to policing content.”

Now comes the best part. Among the people the authors thanked for their “time and insight” are representatives of Google, Twitter, and Facebook; two people from NewsGuard, a few Big Tech apologists from the neoliberal and neoconservative circles, a former Obama White House tech policy advisor – identified here by his new gig at Harvard Kennedy School – and Renée DiResta of the Stanford Internet Observatory. 

DiResta has made herself quite a career at Stanford, producing alarmist reports of what Russia “might” do to harm American democracy or something, but she started out as research director at a shop called New Knowledge. This group of “tech specialists who lean Democratic,” to use a New York Times understatement, was literally caught running a false flag “Russian bot” operation on Twitter in 2017, during the US Senate special election in Alabama, in order to elect a Democrat.

Her inclusion is just the cherry on top of the giant hypocrisy cake that is the Barrett-Sims paper. It’s worse than merely factually wrong: it’s an exercise in gaslighting, projection and breath-taking dishonesty, it relies on self-serving and dishonest sources, and literally advocates for censorship. Whatever it takes to protect Our Democracy from “disinformation,” I guess.

Once the story of that broke – in December 2018, too late to change anything – New Knowledge quietly rebranded as Yonder, and that was it. No accountability. Instead of being disqualified as partisan hacks, the Senate Intelligence Committee doubled down on “insights” from New Knowledge/Yonder to insist there was “Russian meddling” in the 2016 election. DiResta simply moved to Stanford and kept doing the same thing.

Nebojsa Malic is a Serbian-American journalist, blogger and translator, who wrote a regular column for from 2000 to 2015, and is now senior writer at RT. Follow him on Telegram @TheNebulator and on Twitter @NebojsaMalic

February 2, 2021 Posted by | Fake News, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Progressive Hypocrite | , | Leave a comment

Fake News Over What’s Fit to Print a NYT Specialty

By Stephen Lendman | February 2, 2021

Like other establishment media, the NYT operates as a mouthpiece for wealth, power and privilege.

It long ago abandoned news fit to print, state-approved propaganda featured instead.

Relying on its reports for news, information and analysis assures mind manipulation over truth and full disclosure on major issues of the day.

The self-styled newspaper of record is consistently on the wrong side of cutting-edge ones relating to the health, welfare, and rights of ordinary Americans and others abroad.

Instead of denouncing US imperial wars on invented enemies, it cheerleads them.

Instead of opposing hazardous to health covid vaccines, it supports mass-vaxxing in flagrant violation of the Nuremberg Code.

Instead of advocating for peace, equity, justice and the rule of law, it long ago abandoned these principles.

In its latest edition, the Times reinvented what happened in the run-up to last November’s US presidential election and its aftermath.

It continued to suppress indisputable evidence of election fraud in a fake news piece titled: “Trump’s Campaign to Subvert the Election (sic).”

What happened last November was a selection, not an election, for the nation’s highest office.

Trump won. Biden lost. He’s now America’s 46th president, his predecessor a private citizen again.

The will of US dark forces triumphed over popular sentiment, rendering Biden/Harris illegitimate.

To its disgrace, the Times pretends otherwise.

A litany of bald-faced Big Lies defined its election reporting.

In its latest edition, it defied reality once again by falsely claiming the following:

“There was no substantial evidence of election fraud (sic), and there were nowhere near enough ‘irregularities’ to reverse the outcome in the courts (sic).”

“Mr. Trump did not, could not, win the election, not by ‘a lot’ or even a little (sic).”

“Allegations of (Dem) malfeasance had disintegrated in embarrassing fashion (sic).”

No “suitcase(s) of illegal ballots” were found (sic).”

“Dead voters… turn(ed) up alive (sic).”

No evidence showed “Dominion Systems voting machines had transformed thousands of Trump votes into Biden votes (sic).”

All of the above are bald-faced Big Lies, further proof that the self-styled newspaper of record is a lying machine, that nothing it reports on major issues can be taken at face value.

It called legitimate efforts to expose brazen election fraud by Trump’s legal team “an extralegal campaign to subvert the election (sic), rooted in a lie so convincing to some of his most devoted followers that it made the deadly Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol almost inevitable (sic).”

No “deadly” assault on Capitol Hill occurred.

It was stormed by anti-Trump hooligans, bussed in for the orchestrated anti-DJT false flag — falsely blamed on him and his supporters who had nothing to do with what happened.

The Times reinvented reality with its fake news claims.

Throughout Trump’s tenure, it consistently bashed him for the wrong reasons, ignoring his real wrongdoing because the vast majority in Washington share guilt.

Trump’s upcoming Senate trial next week for inciting insurrection lacks legitimacy.

With the vast majority of Republicans opposing the phony charge, acquittal is virtually certain.

A two-thirds Senate super-majority required to convict is nowhere in sight.

Substituting fiction for fact, the Times said the following:

Pre-and-post-Election 2020, “forces of disorder were… directed by (Trump) in one final norm-defying act of… reality-denying (sic).”

His legal team “skated the lines of legal ethics and reason (sic).”

Daily “the lie grew (sic), finally managing to… upend the peaceful transfer of power that for 224 years had been the bedrock of American democracy (sic).”

What the Times calls “democracy,” is government of, by, and for privileged interests exclusively at the expense of most others.

It’s been the American way from inception that includes numerous past instances of federal, state and local election fraud since at least the early 19th century.

Throughout his tenure, Trump was wrong time and again on domestic and geopolitical issues.

On brazen Election 2020 fraud, he’s right. Indisputable evidence backs him.

Anti-Trump dark forces manipulated results in key battleground states to hand Biden/Harris the election DJT legitimately won.

Elected to a second term, he’s out, Dems in the old-fashioned way — by brazen election fraud carrying the day.

Claims by the Times otherwise blackens its tattered reputation more than already.

Its overly-lengthy piece was long on fake news propaganda — bereft of journalism the way it should be, what’s absent in virtually all its reports on major issues, rubbish featured instead.

The bottom line is that now-private citizen Trump was denied reelection by brazen fraud.

Fake news claims otherwise by the Times and other establishment media represent some of the worst fourth estate rubbish in memory.

Their Election 2020 reports read like bad fiction, reality airbrushed out in support of loser Biden over winner Trump.

February 2, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , | 1 Comment

New York Times Calls For Biden to Appoint “Reality Czar” to Fight “Disinformation”

RT | February 2, 2021

Striving to silence voices with which the mainstream media disagrees, the New York Times has urged President Joe Biden to appoint a “reality czar” to lead the fight against “disinformation and domestic extremism.”

And yes, George Orwell fans, America’s supposed newspaper of record used the phrase “reality czar” in describing the task-force leader that several “experts” recommended would be needed to take charge of the cross-agency “strategic response” to those odious people who say things deemed false by the government. This would be equivalent to the Ministry of Truth in Orwell’s ‘1984’, and the New York Times’  ‘experts’ see the secretary of truth, or reality czar, turning loose the tools of Big Brother to crack down on those conspiracy theorists who have created “the reality crisis.”

Of course, Roose’s experts also said Biden’s administration would need to be given peeks into those “black-box algorithms” at Twitter, Facebook, etc. to “open the hood on social media” and properly investigate reality offenders.

“It sounds a little dystopian, I’ll grant,” Times technology columnist Kevin Roose conceded on Tuesday, “but let’s hear them out.” He went on to say that the “tip-of-the-spear” task force could hold regular meetings with social media platforms and demand “structural changes,” such as violating the privacy of their customers under special government exemptions.

The targets of such scrutiny would, of course, include purveyors of the QAnon conspiracy theory. Roose’s other examples of “collective delusions” included the “baseless theory” that Covid-19 was manufactured in a Chinese lab.

In lieu of having a reality czar installed already, it’s not clear where the Times got the official ruling that the Chinese lab theory is baseless. Just last month, the US State Department said it had new information suggesting that the pandemic could have emerged from a lab in Wuhan, China, where evidence claimed to show researchers became sick with coronavirus-like symptoms in the fall of 2019, months before the first identified case of Covid-19 was reported in Wuhan. China has vehemently refuted such allegations, reminding that it was the first country to identify and report its cases to the world in what they say was likely one of multiple simultaneous outbreaks of the new disease.

The call for a reality czar comes amid assertions by media outlets and Democrat politicians that the US has a domestic terrorism crisis, rooted largely in white supremacy and unhinged support for former President Donald Trump. CNN has campaigned for its largest competitor, Fox News, to be forced off the air for reporting falsehoods.

Some observers suggested that the reality task force should start by responding to the falsehoods reported by the mainstream media, including false allegations that Trump’s campaign colluded with the Russian government to steal the 2016 presidential election.

Free-speech advocates said the Times’ call for a reality czar was predictable. “Ah, the Ministry of Truth,” UK journalist Raheem Kassam said. “I’ve been waiting for this one.”

“People who spent four years ranting about Russians taking over the government and now ranting about a coup want to appoint themselves to explain reality to the rest of us,” one Twitter user said.

See also:

NYT editor apparently deactivates Twitter account after being ridiculed for tweeting ‘I HAVE CHILLS’ when Biden plane landed

February 2, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Progressive Hypocrite | , | 1 Comment

Foreign Office maintains deafening silence on Chagos Islands despite UN ruling

Press TV – February 2, 2021

Five days after a legal body of the United Nations dismissed British claims of sovereignty over the Chagos Islands, the Foreign Office continues to avoid meaningful engagement the issue.

The United Nation’s International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea ruled on January 28 that Mauritius has sole sovereignty over the Chagos Islands, thus delivering a fatal blow to the UK’s weak legal position.

The UN body’s judgment follows a ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in February 2019 that the UK must end its occupation, which in turn triggered a vote to that effect in the UN General Assembly in May 2019.

Despite the gravity of the situation, the British Foreign Office has hitherto released just a single terse statement on the issue, essentially reaffirming the UK’s recalcitrant attitude.

“The UK has no doubt as to our sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), which has been under continuous British sovereignty since 1814. Mauritius has never held sovereignty over the BIOT and the UK does not recognize its claim”.

That curt statement, and the subsequent silence, underscores the UK’s resolve to flout international law and maintain a stranglehold over the occupied Chagos Islands.

But despite London’s oft-stated determination to hold onto the Chagos Islands indefinitely, there will inevitably be concerted legal push back by the international community, the state of Mauritius and even by individual aggrieved Chagos islanders.

On the issue of Chagos islanders – who were forcibly removed from their ancestral lands by the UK in the mid-1960s – the long-delayed issue of compensation by the British government is finally attracting attention.

According to the Observer (January 31), less than £12,000 of a £40 million fund set up to compensate Chagos islanders for the loss of their homeland has actually been given to those islanders living in Britain.

The fund was reportedly set up four years ago and yet the Foreign Office has distributed less than one percent in direct support to Chagos islanders who have lost homes and livelihoods as a result of the 55-year British occupation.

According to the Observer, which claims to have seen internal documents, the “English council” tasked with allocating the money has “abandoned the work” and “returned the funds” to the Foreign Office.

The FCO’s mistreatment of Chagos islanders over a 55-year period has even elicited criticism from some sections of the ruling Tories, a party committed to keeping occupied territories around the world.

The Tory MP Henry Smith, whose Crawley constituency is home to the majority of Chagossians living in the UK, has described the process of extracting compensation money from the Foreign office as “tortuous”.

“While there’s some uncertainty among the Chagos community about engaging with the UK government over these funds, it’s outrageous that next to none of this funding has actually been utilized. The fact that this sort of funding hasn’t been deployed is another failure of Foreign Office promises over half a century to the Chagossian community”, Smith said.

It remains to be seen if class action undertaken by the Chagossian community – coupled with pressure from the UN and the broader international system – will produce a shift in the UK’s position in the mid to long term.

February 2, 2021 Posted by | Illegal Occupation | , , | Leave a comment

Five Palestinian minors say they were severely beaten, tortured by Israeli soldiers during detention

Israeli occupation forcing detaining Palestinian minors in the occupied territories
WAFA – February 2, 2021

Five Palestinian minors said they were severely beaten and tortured by Israeli soldiers and interrogators during detention, today said the Palestinian Commission for Detainees and Ex-Detainees Affairs.

It said it got affidavits from the five minors, who gave details of the beating and torture they were subjected to at the hands of Israeli soldiers and security agents during arrest and interrogation.

Mustafa Salameh, 17, was detained at his family home in Azzoun town, east of the northern West Bank city of Qalqilya. He was beaten with the butt of guns, smacked and kicked around, then shoved into an army jeep where he was thrown on the floor as soldiers kept trampling on him with their army boots, and kicking him while cursing him.

He said in his affidavit that he lost consciousness after that for a while and when he woke up he found himself in Jalama detention center where he was later interrogated for long hours while tied to a chair before being moved to the Majeddo prison for minors.

Mohammad Zalloum, 17, was detained at his family home in Silwan neighborhood of occupied East Jerusalem. He was dragged out of his house, severely punched on his stomach causing him to vomit, and then moved to Asqalan detention center where he was kept in the cells for 23 days, occasionally severely beaten.

Hani Rmeilat, 17, from Jenin refugee camp in the north of the West Bank, was interrogated in difficult conditions at Jalama detention center, assaulted with clubs by five prison guards causing him bruises on his body which required hospitalization at an Israeli hospital, after which he was taken back to the Jalama prison where he was kept for 20 days before being moved to Majeddo prison.

Majd Waari, 17, from Beit Hanina neighborhood of East Jerusalem, underwent severe interrogation at the infamous Russian Compound detention center in West Jerusalem for several hours while tied up on a small chair, smacked on the face and insulted.

Munir Arqoub, 17, from Kufr Ein, north of Ramallah, was detained at the Beit El military checkpoint north of Ramallah, attacked by three soldiers and thrown to the ground, beaten severely, then thrown into an army jeep before he was taken to a nearby military base. He was there left in an open area during cold weather conditions for several hours and denied sleep. He was taken the next day to Ofer military camp and detention center for interrogation and then moved to Majeddo prison.

The Commission said Israel is holding 170 Palestinian minors in its prisons, most of them were subjected to some form of cruelty, abuse, and brutality during their arrest.

February 2, 2021 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Subjugation - Torture | , , , , | 1 Comment

The Palestinian boycott of Israel is not racist, it is anti-racist

By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | February 2, 2021

The claims made by Democratic New York City mayoral candidate Andrew Yang in a recent op-ed in the Jewish weekly The Forward, point to the prevailing ignorance that continues to dominate the US discourse on Palestine and Israel. Yang is a former Democratic Presidential candidate and is vying for the Jewish vote in New York City.

According to the reductionist assumption that all Jews must naturally support Israel and Zionism, Yang constructed an argument that is based entirely on a tired and false mantra equating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. His pro-Israel logic is not only unfounded, but also confused.

“A Yang administration will push back against the BDS movement which singles out Israel for unfair economic punishment,” he wrote, referring to the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. Shamelessly, Yang compared BDS to the “fascist boycotts of Jewish businesses”, most likely a reference to the infamous Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses in Germany, starting in April 1933.

Not only does Yang fail to construct his argument in any historically defensible fashion, but he also claims that BDS is “rooted in anti-Semitic thought and history.” The concept of BDS is indeed rooted in history, but not that of Nazi Germany and anti-Semitism. It goes back to the Palestinian General Strike of 1936, when the Palestinian Arab population took collective action to hold colonial Britain accountable for its unfair and violent treatment of Palestinian Muslims and Christians. Colonial Britain backed the political aspirations of European Zionists who wanted to establish a “Jewish homeland” in Palestine.

Sadly, the efforts of the indigenous Palestinians failed, and the State of Israel became a reality in 1948; nearly one million Palestinian refugees were uprooted and ethnically cleansed as a result of a violent and very deliberate Zionist campaign, the aftershocks of which continue to this day. Israel’s ongoing military occupation and apartheid are all rooted in that tragic history.

This is the reality that the boycott movement is trying to change. No anti-Semitic, Nazi or — according to Yang’s ahistorical account — “fascist” love affair is at work here; just a beleaguered and oppressed nation struggling for its most basic and legitimate rights.

Yang’s ignorant and self-serving comments were duly answered appropriately by many anti-Zionist Jewish intellectuals and other activists across the US and around the world. Alex Kane, a writer in Jewish Currents, for example, tweeted that Yang made “a messed up, wrong comparison”, and that the politician “comes across as deeply ignorant about Palestine, Palestinians and BDS.” US Congresswoman Ilhan Omar and the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) added their voices to numerous others, all pointing to Yang’s opportunism, lack of understanding of history and distorted logic.

However, this goes beyond Yang, as the debate over BDS in the US is almost entirely rooted in fallacious comparisons and ignorance, of history and much else. Those who had hoped that the unceremonious end of the Donald Trump Administration would bring about a measure of justice for the Palestinian people will surely be disappointed, as the American discourse on Palestine and Israel rarely changes, regardless of which president is in the White House and what political party dominates Congress.

Hence, reducing the boycott debate to Yang’s confused account of history and reality is, in itself, a reductionist understanding of US politics. Indeed, similar language was used by President Joe Biden’s nominee for America’s UN envoy, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, during her confirmation hearing at the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee on 27 January7. Like Yang, Thomas-Greenfield conflates legitimate criticism of the state of Israel and its apartheid policies with racism. Boycotting Israel is “unacceptable” and “verges on anti-Semitism,” she told Senators.

The presumptive envoy supported the return of the US to the Human Rights Council, UNESCO and other UN-affiliated organisations. Her reasoning for such a move, though, is merely to ensure that Washington has a place “at the table” so that it may monitor and discourage any criticism of Israel.

Yang, Thomas-Greenfield and others perpetuate such inaccurate comparisons with full confidence that they have strong support among the country’s ruling elites from the two dominant political parties. They do. Moreover, according to the latest count produced by the pro-Israel Jewish Virtual Library website, “32 [US] states have adopted laws, executive orders or resolutions that are designed to discourage boycotts against Israel.”

In fact, the criminalisation of the entirely peaceful boycott movement has taken centre stage of the federal government in Washington DC. Anti-boycott legislation was passed with overwhelming majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives in recent years and more is expected to follow.

The popularity of such measures prompted former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to declare the Israel boycott movement to be anti-Semitic. Standing alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at a press conference in the illegal settlement of Psagot in November, Pompeo described BDS as “a cancer”.

While Pompeo’s position is unsurprising, as members of minority groups that have suffered immense racism and discrimination, it behoves Yang and Thomas-Greenfield to brush up on the history of popular boycott movements in their own country. The boycott weapon was a very effective platform to translate political dissent into tangible achievements for oppressed Black people in the heyday of the US civil rights movement in the mid-20th century. Arguably the most memorable and consequential of these boycotts was the Montgomery Bus Boycott of 1955.

Moreover, beyond America, numerous volumes have been written about how the boycott of the White supremacist apartheid government in South Africa ignited a global movement which, combined with the sacrifices of non-white South Africans, brought apartheid to an end in the early 1990s.

The Palestinian people do not learn history from Yang and others, but from the collective experiences of oppressed peoples and nations around the world. They are guided by the wisdom of Dr Martin Luther King Jr., who once said, “We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor, it must be demanded by the oppressed.”

The boycott movement aims to hold the oppressor colonial state of Israel accountable as it places a price tag on its military occupation and apartheid. Not only is the Palestinian boycott movement not racist, but it is essentially an anti-racist rallying cry against oppression.

February 2, 2021 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Solidarity and Activism, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | 1 Comment

Meet Mr. New World Order, Joe Biden

By Timothy Alexander Guzman | Silent Crow News | January 31, 2021

Some call it the New World Order, others call it ‘the liberal international order’ or Globalism. Whatever they call it, the idea is real and it is not a conspiracy theory, it is a plan that has been pushed by the establishment to rule the world for quite some time. Several politicians including former US President George H.W. Bush, Henry Kissinger to banking moguls such as David Rockefeller to the mainstream-media all have said at one time or another that the New World Order is inevitable. Last November, The New York Times published an opinion piece ‘The New World Order That President Biden Will Inherit’ concluded that the idea of a new world order will return to the White House with Biden at the helm, “President-elect Biden has signaled that he intends to lead America back into the international arena, and whatever their qualms or doubts, America’s friends and allies should not wait to join forces in tackling the business of the day — a global pandemic and the future of the planet, to name just two items on the agenda.” 

In 2017, as vice-president under then-President Obama, Biden gave his last speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on the accomplishments of the New World Order led by the US and its European allies, “For the past seven decades, the choices we have made—particularly the United States and our Allies in Europe—have steered our world down a clear path” he said.  Biden claimed that the world actually “enjoyed” what he termed the “liberal international order”“Our careful attention to building and sustaining a liberal international order—with the United States and Europe at its core—was the bedrock of the success the world enjoyed in the second half of the 20th Century.” He said that it was the US together with Europe who has pushed the world into a “just direction”, “After World War II, we drew a line under centuries of conflict and took steps to bend the arc of history in a more just direction.” However, since 1945, the US has bombed numerous countries including Korea (1950-53),Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia (1955-75), Yugoslavia–Serbia (1999), Iraq (1997-present), Afghanistan (2001-present), Libya (2011) and Syria (2014-present) and many other nations since the end of World War II including US-backed coups, imposing harsh economic sanctions and assassinating political leaders. Yet, Biden said the world is much safer than ever before with the US and its European allies in charge of the order, “If you look at the long sweep of history, or even just the trend lines in wars and other incidents of large-scale violence over the past 50, 60, 70 years—as a practical matter, we are probably safer than ever, But it doesn’t feel that way” he says. Yes, it does not feel that way because the US and its allies have created chaos and destruction with their regime change policies and interventions around the world since the end of WWII. “Daily images of violence and unrest from all over the world are shared directly on our televisions and smart phones—images we rarely would have seen in a pre-digital age.” Here is where his hypocrisy shines “It’s fostered a feeling of perpetual chaos—of being overrun by outside forces.” The “outside forces” he claimed that were responsible for creating “perpetual chaos” were mostly conducted by his own CIA and the Military-Industrial Complex.

In 1992, The Wall Street Journal tapped then Senator Joseph Biden to write an article ‘How I Learned to Love the New World Order’ where he said that “Imagine my surprise when a Wall Street Journal editorial appointed me dean of the Pat Buchanan school of neo-isolationism.” Biden was referring to Patrick Buchanan, a long-time anti-globalist who worked as a senior advisor to three presidents and was a two-time presidential nominee for the Republican Party and a presidential nominee for the reform party in 2000. He is a journalist and has authored numerous books including ‘A Republic, Not an Empire: Reclaiming America’s Destiny An interesting article from 2013 on Buchanan’s website ‘ titled ‘Why Neo-Isolationism Is Soaring’ quotes what Buchanan thought about globalism or the New World Order, “Neo-isolationism is the direct product of foolish globalism. … Compared to people who thought they could run the universe, or at least the globe, I am neo-isolationist and proud of it.” Buchanan is clearly adamant about ending the US empire:

The roots of the new isolationism are not difficult to discern. There is, first, the end of the Cold War, the liberation of the captive nations of Europe, the dissolution of our great adversary, the Soviet Empire, and the breakup of the Soviet Union. The Cold War, our war, was over. Time to come home. The Bushes and Bill Clinton said no. So we let the New World Order crowd have its run in the yard. We invaded Panama, intervened in Haiti and Mogadishu, launched Desert Storm to liberate Kuwait, bombed Serbia for 78 days to force it to surrender its cradle province of Kosovo.

Came then the blowback of 9/11, following which we had the Afghan war to overthrow the Taliban and create a new democracy in the Hindu Kush, the invasion and occupation of Iraq to strip Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction he did not have, and the air war on Libya. Others may celebrate the fruits of these wars but consider the costs:

A decade of bleeding with 8,000 U.S. dead, 40,000 wounded, $2 trillion sunk, Iraq and Libya disintegrating in tribal, civil and sectarian war, Afghanistan on the precipice, and al-Qaida no longer confined to Tora Bora but active in Pakistan, Libya, Iraq, Yemen and Syria

Biden basically mocked Buchanan’s ideas of being an isolationist at the time. Many people in Washington, D.C. did not agree with Buchanan’s assessment of ending the US empire around the world. Biden is the complete opposite, he wrote “Believing that the Pentagon’s new strategy-America as globo-cop-could render the United States a hollow superpower.” He continued “all agree we need the military to defend our vital interests-by ourselves when need be, The question is grand strategy. With the journal’s endorsement, the pentagon has called for a Pax-Americana: The U.S. should cast so large a military shadow that no rival dare emerge.”  As Biden continued his argument for a US-led world order, he rejected Buchanan’s “America First” isolationist policy:

Pat Buchanan’s “America First” preaches martyrdom: We’ve been suckered into fighting “other” people’s battles and defending “other” people’s interests. With our dismal economy, this siren song holds some appeal.

But most Americans, myself included, reject 1930s-style isolationism. They expect to see the strong hand of American leadership in world affairs, and they know that economic retreat would yield nothing other than a lower standard of living. They understand further that many security threats — the spread of high-tech weapons, environmental degradation, overpopulation, narcotics trafficking, migration — require global solutions

Biden said that being a “globocop” comes with the ability to use its economic influence as a diplomatic tool and by using NATO’s containment policy as a strategy. Biden asked the question, “What about America as globocop?” he continued ” First, our 21st-century strategy has to be a shade more clever than Mao’s axiom that power comes from the barrel of a gun. Power also emanates from a solid bank balance, the ability to dominate and penetrate markets, and the economic leverage to wield diplomatic clout.” Biden also called for an aggressive foreign policy against those who are considered rogue states or simply put, those who don’t follow the rules:

Second, the plan is passive where it needs to be aggressive. The Journal endorses a global security system in which we destroy rogue-state threats as they arise. Fine, but let’s prevent such problems early rather than curing them late. Having contained Soviet communism until it dissolved, we need a new strategy of “containment” — based, like NATO, on collective action, but directed against weapons proliferation.

The reality is that we can slow proliferation to a snail’s pace if we stop irresponsible technology transfers. Fortunately, nearly all suppliers are finally showing restraint. The maverick is China, which persists in hawking sensitive weapons and technology to the likes of Syria, Iran, Libya, Algeria and Pakistan — even while pledging otherwise

Biden’s conclusion on how the U.S. and its allies can succeed in establishing a world order through a revised United Nations charter:

Rather than denigrating collective security, we should regularize the kind of multilateral response we assembled for the Gulf War. Why not breathe life into the U.N. Charter? It envisages a permanent commitment of forces, for use by the Security Council. That means a presumption of collective action — but with a U.S. veto.

Rather than defending military extravagance, the Bush administration should be reallocating Pentagon funds to meet more urgent security needs: sustaining democracy in the former Soviet empire; supporting U.N. peacekeepers in Yugoslavia, Cambodia and El Salvador; and rebuilding a weakened and debt-burdened America.

If Pentagon strategists and their kneejerk supporters could broaden their horizons, they would see how our superpower status is best assured. We must get lean militarily, revitalize American economic strength, and exercise a diplomatic leadership that puts new muscle into institutions of collective security

During the George W. Bush administration, then Senator Joe Biden was the chair of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations supported the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 that granted President Bush the authority to invade Iraq. The war in Iraq has killed more than a million Iraqis with millions more injured including those who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from the horrors of war. There are over 4,800 US military deaths and 10s of thousands more seriously injured. Many US soldiers also suffer from PTSD who eventually end up committing suicide. Biden also supported the wars against Serbia in 1999 followed by his support for the wars in Libya and then Syria.

In his Wall Street Journal piece, President Biden said that the liberal international order establishment faces many obstacles including security threats such as the proliferation of high-tech weaponry, the environment, overpopulation, immigration issues on south of the US border and drug trafficking, all “require global solutions.” One of his main issues he spoke about was overpopulation. CNN recently reported with enthusiasm ‘Biden signs memorandum reversing Trump abortion access restrictions’ said that “President Joe Biden signed a presidential memorandum on Thursday to reverse restrictions on abortion access domestically and abroad imposed and expanded by the Trump administration.”

According to the report:

“The memorandum will “reverse my predecessor’s attack on women’s health access” and that it “relates to protecting women’s health at home and abroad, and it reinstates the changes that were made to Title X and other things making it harder for women to have access to affordable health care as it relates to their reproductive rights.” The memorandum reverses the Mexico City Policy which is “a ban on US government funding for foreign nonprofits that perform or promote abortions.”

Obviously, abortions reduce population growth and that’s a goal of the establishment because with less people on the planet, it is much easier to control the remaining population. A dream come true for the establishment.

Who knows how long Biden has in office since his mental capabilities are in decline, but it is certain that he will introduce many aspects of his liberal international order while he’s still in office.  Rest assured, Biden, Kamala Harris or whoever takes his position will continue to implement policies that will complement the establishment who seeks to rule the world by coercion or even by force, if needed.


*Joe Biden Calls For A New World Order At The 2014 U S Air Force Academy Graduation May 29, 2014

February 2, 2021 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Biden/Harris Aren’t Serious About Rejoining the JCPOA

By Stephen Lendman | February 2, 2021

Time and again, public rhetoric of US officials and actions are world’s apart — why trusting them to do the right thing is foolhardy.

Candidate Biden publicly favored returning to the JCPOA nuclear deal Trump unlawfully abandoned in May 2018.

Selected, not elected, Biden won’t rejoin the landmark agreement unless Iran agrees to his regime’s unacceptable first-step demands.

Straightaway in his tenure, hardliners surrounding Biden seem more intent on abandoning the JCPOA than rejoining it by their rhetoric and actions.

Having breached the deal, it’s for the US to take good faith first steps by reversing Trump’s unlawfully imposed sanctions — a step the new US regime appears unwilling to do.

Iran vowed to reciprocate in good faith if Biden does the right thing by observing his obligations under Security Council Res. 2231.

Instead of agreeing to comply as the rule of law demands, the hardline new US regime is going the other way.

Based on what’s gone on since replacing Trump on January 20, unacceptable US hostility toward Iran appears unbending.

It’s an ominous sign for what may lie ahead.

To his credit, Trump launched no new hot wars on invented enemies.

Bush/Cheney raped and destroyed Afghanistan, Yemen and Iraq.

Obama/Biden continued inherited wars, waging its own on nonbelligerent Libya and Syria.

To his discredit, Trump continued wars he inherited, breaching his vow to end them — along with waging all-out war by other means on China, Russia, Iran, and other nations free from US control.

In its first few days in office, the Biden/Harris regime shows it’ll continue dirty business as usual that includes hostile actions against nations free from US control.

Are plans in place for escalating hot war in Syria? Will intermittent fighting in Libya heat up?

Will war by other means on China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and other nations escalate?

Will one or more nations free from US control be preemptively attacked in the weeks or months ahead?

Will Biden regime rhetoric favoring return to the JCPOA be replaced by escalated harshness against Iran?

Will a US staged false flag trigger a hostile move already planned?

Was returning to the JCPOA rhetoric by Biden and regime hardliners surrounding him head fake deception all along?

Knowing how the US operates against nations unwilling to subordinate their sovereign rights to a higher power in Washington, Biden/Harris regime war on Iran by other means is far more likely than good faith steps toward returning to JCPOA compliance.

On Sunday, Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf slammed Biden’s unacceptable demands on Iran, including Blinken’s hostile remarks, saying:

“Instead of setting preconditions for carrying out its commitments… Biden (and regime members surrounding him) must determine how it is going to fulfill the commitment to the removal of sanctions practically,” adding:

“Iran won’t take good faith first-step actions in return for US promises to be breached like before.”

“It is like we have paid the seller for a commodity, but have not received anything. Who would make such a bargain?”

Separately, Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif tweeted:

“Throughout that sordid mess, Iran abided by the JCPOA, only took foreseen remedial measures. Now, who should take 1st step?”

“Never forget Trump’s maximum failure.”

Claims by Blinken about wanting to negotiate with Iran on returning to the JCPOA — provided its government acts first with no assurance of compliance steps Biden may take — ring hollow.

On Monday, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh said the following:

“The US needs to return to its commitments, and if that happens, it will be possible to negotiate within the framework of the Joint Commission of the JCPOA.”

Unless Biden fully complies with SC Res. 2231 and lifts unlawfully imposed sanctions on Iran, preserving the JCPOA will be jeopardized.

Khatibzadeh stressed that rhetoric and signing “a piece of paper will not suffice.”

If Biden “intends to correct the US’ wrong path, it should take practical measures.” Nothing less is acceptable.

On Sunday, IRGC commander General Hossein Salami said Iranian self-sufficiency showed it can operate successfully with or without Washington’s return to the JCPOA and removal of sanctions.

Over the weekend, Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) head Ali Akbar Salehi said the following:

Iran is “producing 20 grams (of 20% enriched uranium) every hour.”

“We are producing half a kilo every day.”

“We produce and store this 20% (enriched uranium) and if they return to the nuclear deal, we will return to our undertakings too.”

The AEOI is required to implement policies adopted by Iranian lawmakers.

“(B)oth the government and the AEOI have declared that they do not have any technical problems with implementation of parliament(ary) (laws) and we launched 20% enrichment within 24 hours.”

If the US complies with SC Res. 2231 requirements that include lifting unlawful sanctions on Iran, the above policy can be reversed with equal swiftness.

Iranian lawmakers approved the Strategic Counteractive Plan for Lifting Sanctions and Safeguarding Rights of Iranian People.

The measure highlights Iran’s legitimate right to use nuclear technology with no military component and be free from unlawfully imposed US sanctions.

It calls for increased production of 500 kg per month of uranium enriched to 20% purity and be stored at the Fordow nuclear site, along with other provisions being implemented.

If unlawful actions against Iran by the US and E3 countries are reversed, Iran will return to JCPOA compliance as affirmed by SC Res. 2231 in 2015.

If not, current actions permitted under the agreement’s Article 26 and 36 will continue.

At this time, rhetoric and actions by Biden/Harris suggest continued noncompliance with their JCPOA obligations.

If this policy continues unchanged, the landmark agreement will unravel altogether.

That’s where things appear heading — Iran no doubt to be falsely blamed for lawless US/E3 actions against the country.

If things turn out this way, it’ll be further proof that these countries can never be trusted.

Further negotiations with them will be a waste of time.

A Final Comment

Biden demands what Iran won’t accept — renegotiating the JCPOA to include restrictions on its legitimate missile program.

He also wants constraints on Iran’s lawful involvement with and support for Syria’s Bashar al-Assad and Lebanon’s Hezbollah.

In response to unacceptable Biden regime demands, Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif said the US side in violation of its JCPOA obligations is in no position to demand conditions for Biden’s return to the landmark agreement.

Iran won’t change a single word in what was agreed on following years of negotiations, Zarif stressed.

The Security Council affirmed agreement is binding international and US constitutional law — what no nation can unilaterally change.

February 2, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Netanyahu tells Biden how to deal with Iran

By Philip Giraldi • Unz Review • February 2, 2021

Anyone who persists in believing that the United States is not Israel’s poodle should pay attention to the comedy that is playing out right now. Joe Biden was [proclaimed] president for less than a week when the Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu government announced that he would soon be receiving a possibly unwelcome visitor in the form of the Israeli foreign intelligence service Mossad’s chief Yossi Cohen, who will be flying to Washington in February to explain the correct policy when dealing with Iran. And lest there be any confusion on the issue, the Israel Defense Force chief of staff Lieutenant General Aviv Kochavi also announced that any Biden attempt to mend fences with the Islamic Republic will have to meet certain conditions or Israel will exercise other options. He said “In light of this fundamental analysis, I have instructed the Israel Defense Forces to prepare a number of operational plans, in addition to those already in place. It will be up to the political leadership, of course, to decide on implementation but these plans need to be on the table.” Another government minister clarified that the options would include “an attack” on Iran, though there has been no indication whether or not Israel would possibly contemplate deploying its tactical nuclear weapons to prevent retaliation by Iranian forces.

There is no limit to Israeli hubris. A leading Rabbi in Israel is predicting that as the United States is in decline it is up to the Jewish state to take over the role of “guiding civilization forward.” And that kind of thinking shapes how Israel treats the United States with condescension, acting as if it is the knowledgeable elder statesman whose guidance must be respected. In this case the Zionist solution to the Iran problem will by design be unpalatable for the government in Tehran if it intends to remain sovereign. For Israel the correct policy for dealing with Iran is to effectively disarm it and make it impossible to establish any sphere of influence in the countries adjacent to it, to include Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. That would be to concede Israeli dominance over the entire region and if the Iranians do not play ball the next step would be to convince the United States to attack it on some pretext, possibly to include an Israeli “false flag” to start the process going.

The Times of Israel sums up the Israeli official position as “… Iran must halt the enriching of uranium; stop producing advanced centrifuges; cease supporting terror groups, foremost Lebanon’s Hezbollah; end its military presence in Iraq, Syria and Yemen; stop terror activity against Israeli targets overseas; and grant full access to the IAEA on all aspects of its nuclear program.” Completing the disarming of Iran would also include requiring Tehran to abandon its ballistic missile program.

The irony is, of course, that it is Israel that has a secret nuclear arsenal that it created by stealing uranium and triggers from the United States and it is also the leading regional supporter of terrorist groups, to include al-Qaeda and ISIS. Iran’s presence in Syria is due to its lending assistance to the Damascus government’s resistance to the insurgencies supported by Israel and the United States. And Iran has not targeted Israeli citizens and groups overseas, but Israel and the U.S. have assassinated Iranian officials while also bombing both government and civilian targets in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon. And all of the kinetics occur in a context where Israel continues its illegal occupation of Palestine and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people replete with both war crimes and crimes against humanity. Iran is also a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Israel is not, so who is the rogue state?

Biden will likely fold like a cheap suit when confronted by the force majeure of Cohen. The new American president has assembled a national security team for dealing with the Middle East that is nearly all Jewish and all Zionist, an affliction that he himself claims to suffer from. The Biden nominee for secretary of state Tony Blinken said at a confirmation hearing last week that the new administration would “consult with Israel” before any possible return to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA) nuclear deal and he also made clear that there would be additional conditions for Iran. It was an odd comment for a government official who is supposed to support American interests, but it was predictably what Congress wanted to hear. As Iran has already indicated that it is unwilling to abandon its defenses and its role in the region, the Biden proposal will be a non-starter in any case, though Israel will be prepared to apply its own veto if anything undertaken by the State Department moves beyond the talking stage.

Currently there is credible speculation that Israeli intelligence has been able to compromise most if not all of the U.S. government’s information systems as well as those of major corporations. As the Jewish state is the most active in spying against the United States, that should surprise no one. For Israel to interfere in U.S. politics or government blatantly is not exactly new, though it is rare to have anyone in the mainstream media or in government say anything about. That is because Israel’s ability to wage war against critics is second to none, having at its back nearly unlimited financial resources and easy access to the media as well as active supporters from among the nearly six hundred Jewish organizations that exist in the United States.

Indeed, Israel has been involved in American politics frequently, one might even argue incessantly, even if it is predictably never held accountable. To cite only one well known example, it has been suggested that Russiagate was really Israelgate based on what actually took place shortly after the 2016 election. The contact with Russia was set up by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was at the time seeking to kill an anti-Israeli vote in the United Nations. He sought to do so by lobbying Donald Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner on the matter shortly after the 2016 election. Netanyahu was particularly close to the Kushner family, having on at least one occasion slept overnight at their mansion in Manhattan.

Prompted by Netanyahu, Kushner dutifully contacted Trump National Security Advisor-designate Michael Flynn and asked him to privately call Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak to lobby Moscow to vote against the bill. There were two phone calls but Kislyak refused to cooperate. It should be noted that while all of this was taking place Barack Obama was still president and his intention to abstain on a vote on Israel’s illegal settlements is what provoked Netanyahu to act, so Netanyahu-Kushner-Flynn were subverting their own elected government and were definitely in the wrong. Flynn was subsequently thrown under the bus by his Jewish friends without any mention in the media of the Israeli role, thereby becoming the first casualty of “Russiagate.” He was subsequently forced to resign from his post in disgrace in February 2017.

The whole issue of the U.S.-Israel relationship constitutes one of the most formidable “red lines” in American politics as part of its power comes from the fact that the media and political classes pretend that it does not even exist. Israel’s power was poisonous enough prior to the election of Donald Trump, but Trump, “advised” by a gaggle of orthodox Jews, dramatically shifted the playing field to favor Israel in ways that will define the relationship for years to come. Biden’s team is little better and the president will be taking his orders from Jerusalem and saluting as long as he stays in the White House. Will it lead to a totally unnecessary and unwinnable war with Iran? That is what Israel demands above all, and Israel always gets what it wants.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is

February 2, 2021 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Military coup in Myanmar a blow against the Biden regime

By Lucas Leiroz | February 2, 2021

This week, news of a coup in Myanmar shocked international society. Official statements by the UN and several Western governments condemning the attitude of the Burmese military in overthrowing Aung San Suu Kyi and its allies are sharing space in public opinion with neutral statements that only call for the country’s stabilization, as was the Chinese position. Between having been dangerous to democratic institutions or merely changing the government by armed means, there is a range of different possibilities, making the case worthy of a technical and impartial analysis.

The events of February 1, 2021 can be summarized as follows: Burmese State Adviser Aung San Suu Kyi, who heads the country’s government, and President Win Myint were detained by the Burmese army, under extremely obscure circumstances. Previously, tensions between the government and the military of this Asian country had been growing, generating fears of a coup in some sectors of Burmese society – however, such a quick and incisive attitude on the part of the military was not expected by the population.

The root of the conflict of interest between the government and the military was, in short, the last electoral process, which the Army classified as fraudulent and illegal. As a result of the crisis, the country’s political leader was arrested, in what was considered a coup by the media and some foreign governments. Some regional ministers were also captured by the military, as well as several other government’s allies. Citizens’ reports attest that military personnel are spread throughout the country’s streets, carrying out patrolling services and avoiding possible riots.

The military’s distrust of the electoral process is due to several factors. The election was held on November 8 and was the second general election since the end of the military government in 2011. Since the fall of the military, a scenario of tension of interests has been established among the civil political elite, interested in the preservation of democratic institutions, and the military elite, interested in conserving their power and continuing their national project. The country’s ruling party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), led by Aung San Suu Kyi, won by an immense advantage, getting 396 seats out of a total of 476. On the other hand, the Union, Solidarity and Development Party, supported by the Army, took the minimum number of seats in Parliament, which further aggravated the rivalry.

The speech of the Burmese military since the elections was unique in stating that there was large-scale electoral fraud. For this reason, the military had been demanding for months that the government postpone the summons to Parliament, which was scheduled for February 1 – which did not occur, resulting in the coup. Before that, representatives of the Burmese Government and Army met to resolve the conflict but were unable to reach an agreement of common interest.

Previously, in the midst of such fears of a possible anti-democratic coup, the country’s military has on several occasions denied the intention to do anything in this sense, categorically claiming that these accusations were unfounded and disseminated by a pro-government media. However, there are reports that the commander of the armed forces, Min Aung Hlaing, said on January 27 that the national constitution could be repealed if the laws were not properly implemented – and this in fact happened.

However, it would be naïve to believe that this event has no sign of external interference. In fact, a polarized political scenario has been outlined in Myanmar for years. Historically, the military has sympathy with China and Democrats sympathize with the West. Last month, Min Aung Hlaing and the head of Chinese diplomacy, Wang Li, met to discuss the Burmese political crisis and the chief of the armed forces alleged electoral fraud in the November process.

Chinese interest in Myanmar is clear. Maintaining an allied government in a border country is extremely strategic for Beijing and avoids a greater degree of Western influence in its continental zone. Bilateral trade between China and Myanmar has always been intense, but it has declined with the rise of the recently overthrown government, whose pro-Western positions have weakened ties with Beijing. Also, due to the latest events of ethnic conflict and persecution of the majority Buddhist military against Islamic minorities, the West has imposed several sanctions on the Burmese military, which have been consented by the civilian government. It does not seem to be by chance that the Chinese reaction to the coup was limited to a request for both sides to resolve their differences, without any condemnation against the military.

If Chinese influence is real, the military coup in Myanmar can be interpreted as a test and a warning against Washington. Losing space on the Chinese border is unpleasant for American interests but, in the midst of a strong internal crisis, will Biden really react strongly or will his response be limited to mere notes of repudiation?

Lucas Leiroz is a research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.

February 2, 2021 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | Leave a comment