Turkey vows to retaliate if US imposes sanctions on Russian gas pipeline
RT | December 20, 2019
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has hit back against US threats to impose sanctions on the TurkStream pipeline that is set to deliver Russian gas to Turkey and further to southern and southeastern Europe starting next year.
“Now they [the US] say ‘we will impose sanctions on TurkStream,’” Erdogan told reporters on Friday in Malaysia. “This is a complete violation of our rights,” he said, adding that Ankara would retaliate against such a step.
The TurkStream project was created as an alternative to the South Stream pipeline. The project to deliver Russian gas to southern Europe was blocked by Bulgaria in 2014 under pressure from the US.
TurkStream is a two-string pipeline that will go from Russia along the bottom of the Black Sea to the European part of Turkey and will have a throughput capacity of 31.5 billion cubic meters. The official launch of the pipeline is scheduled for January 8, when Russian President Vladimir Putin comes to Turkey to met Erdogan.
Earlier this week, the US Senate adopted the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, which stipulates sanctioning vessels that engaged in pipe-laying for the TurkStream project as well as punitive measures against companies working to complete the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline from Russia to Germany. The bill is now on the way to the White House where President Donald Trump is set to sign it into law.
The bill also sanctions Turkey for its acquisition of the Russian-made S-400 air defense system and implies prohibiting the transfer of F-35 jets to the country. Addressing the matter, the Turkish leader said these issues are “closed” and warned against treating Ankara as a “tribal nation.”
Yang tells Democrats to stop obsessing over impeachment & deal with issues that helped Trump get elected
RT | December 20, 2019
Breaking away from his Democratic peers, Andrew Yang called on the party to get over impeachment and stop pretending like President Donald Trump or Russia – not their own policy failures – caused their 2016 election loss.
In his opening remarks at the last Democratic presidential debate of the year on Thursday, Yang attempted to give his colleagues, still gloating over Trump’s impeachment in the House, a rare reality check, urging them to stop putting all their eggs in a basket that nobody cares about in the first place.
“We have to stop being obsessed over impeachment, which unfortunately strikes many Americans like a ballgame where they already know the score, and start digging in and solving the problems that got Trump elected in the first place.”
The widespread view among many liberals that the ‘racist’ Trump along with evil Russian trolls snatched victory from under the Dems’ noses in 2016, Yang argued, can be blamed in part on the media, which has tirelessly peddled these narratives.
“If you’d turn on a cable network news today, you’d think he’s our president because of some combination of Russia, racism, Facebook, Hillary Clinton and emails all mixed together.”
This notion cannot be further from the truth and “Americans around the country know different,” the entrepreneur argued, adding that Trump’s stunning victory was a result of the Democratic administration’s systematic neglect of blue-collar workers.
“We blasted away 4 million manufacturing jobs that were primarily based in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Missouri. I just left Iowa. We blasted 40,000 manufacturing jobs there,” Yang said. Effectively echoing Trump on the matter, the 2020 hopeful said that the harder Democrats push for president’s removal from power (which is extremely unlikely given that it is up to the Republican-controlled Senate to carry out his trial), the fewer chances they have to win next year.
Instead of keeping themselves busy with the impeachment saga, Democrats should pay more attention to the real issues that concern their constituents, Yang said.
“The more we act like Trump is the cause of all our problems, the more Americans lose trust that we can actually see what’s going on in our communities and solve those problems.”
Argentina to Freeze Gas and Electricity Rates
teleSUR | December 18, 2019
The Government of Alberto Fernández sent the draft law on Social Solidarity and Productive Reactivation to Congress on Tuesday morning, which, among other matters, plans to freeze gas and electricity rates for six months.
The bill also contemplates a “reduction of the real tariff burden on households and businesses by the year 2020”, a policy that will reverse the tariffs imposed since the Mauricio Macri regime took over.
The rates of these two basic services will be frozen for 180 days, while the executive branch begins a “renegotiation process of the current Comprehensive Rate Review” or “an extraordinary revision”.
Likewise, the bill authorizes the Argentine Government to intervene in the National Electricity Regulatory Entity (ENRE) and the National Gas Regulatory Entity (Enargas), for a period of one year.
The Solidarity Law seeks “the rate restructuring of the energy system with criteria of distributive equity and productive sustainability”, as well as “reorder the operation of the regulatory entities of the system”.
This latest bill is one of the first major moves by the Fernandez government to reverse the neoliberal policies of the previous regime.
Genocide, Sanctions and Incirlik: Erdoğan Will Not Kick Out NATO From Its Bases Despite Threats
By Paul Antonopoulos | December 18, 2019
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has dropped a bombshell by announcing that he could shut down the NATO-controlled Incirlik airbase that hosts U.S. nuclear bombs and the U.S. missile warning radar at Kurecik military base, in response to Washington’s threats of sanctions against Turkey. These nuclear bombs are of course placed purposefully close to Russia. The Incirlik air base in the southern Turkish province of Adana is used by the U.S. Air Force while the U.S. military also maintains a missile warning radar in the Kurecik district in Turkey’s southeastern Malatya province, which is part of NATO’s missile defense system in Europe.
“If it is necessary for us to take such a step, of course, we have the authority… We will close down Incirlik if necessary,” Erdoğan said on A Haber TV on Sunday.
Last week, the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the Senate of the United States Congress approved the “Promoting American National Security and Preventing the Resurgence of ISIS Act” bill that directly targets Turkey’s military and economic apparatus. According to the draft bill, the Turkish acquisition of the powerful Russian S-400 missile defense system gives grounds to impose sanctions against this country, under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), including against the Minister of National Defense of Turkey, the Chief of the General Staff of the Turkish Armed Forces, the Commander of the 2nd Army of the Turkish Armed Forces, the Minister of Treasury and Finance of Turkey, the Halkbank and a whole host of other senior officials.
This action could further isolate Turkey from NATO, especially after the latest blow against the Eurasian country came last Thursday when the U.S. Senate finally passed S.Res.150 that recognizes the Turkish perpetrated genocide(1915-1923) against Turkey’s Christian minority that saw millions of Greeks, Armenians, and Assyrians exterminated. There is no doubt the long-awaited U.S. recognition of the genocide is politically motivated, and Erdoğan understands this, threatening to recognize the U.S. genocide against Native Americans.
However, there are key differences between a potential Turkish recognition of the U.S. genocide against the Native Americans and the Turkish genocide against the Christians of Anatolia. There are hundreds of thousands, if not over a million, Greeks, Armenians and Assyrians living in the U.S. who have direct ancestry to genocide survivors who lost their entire lives including houses, farms, shops and other associated wealth. These descendants could pressure Washington to seek compensation from Ankara and could intensify sanctions against Turkey if they refuse too. Although the likelihood of compensation is extremely low, it could be used as a justification to strengthen sanctions against Turkey, which in turn will only push Turkey further away from the U.S./NATO and potentially closer to Russia.
On the other side, although Turkey may acknowledge the genocide against Native Americans, I would imagine there are no Native Americans, or maybe just a few, living in Turkey. Ankara could reciprocate sanctions against the U.S., but they would be virtually ineffectual as the world’s monetary system is still overwhelmingly dominated by the U.S. Dollar, despite efforts by Russia and China to de-Dollarize the international economy.
Turkey’s potential closure of the Incirlik and Kurecik bases from the U.S. military would effectively mean freezing relations with NATO. Even a Turkish reclamation of its military bases poses problems however – the obvious being political, but also the military and budgetary costs. However, discussions of Turkey closing the bases are not new. Ankara believes the Incirlik base was a staging point for the 2016 coup attempt against Erdoğan and has already contemplated kicking NATO out of there.
Despite the threat from Erdoğan, Washington will likely not be fazed by the threat for a number of reasons:
1) Washington has already turned Greece into its Plan B option in case Turkey leaves NATO.
2) Turkey leaving NATO could mean the U.S. backing a number of issues that have been frozen because of Washington’s policy of appeasing Turkey for geostrategic reasons, such as the unresolved status of Cyprus.
3) The Incirlik base is also used by other NATO states at times such as the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Italy, and a Turkish reclamation of the base could see Turkey further souring its relations with the European Union.
Although removing the U.S. military from the Incirlik Airbase would be a huge blow to NATO, Erdoğan is unlikely to do this despite Ankara’s strengthening relations with Moscow. Even if this were the case, the most important question still remains, would U.S. President Donald Trump accept this? It is highly unlikely that Trump will want to surrender the base that is critical for U.S. interests and aggression in the Middle East. Although Greece is a Plan B, it is a Plan B for a reason – it is not as strategically placed as Turkey towards the Middle East, and therefore the U.S. will not surrender such a great advantage it has so easily.
Paul Antonopoulos is a Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies.
Rouhani: US sanctions unsustainable, world wants ties with Iran
Press TV – December 17, 2019
President Hassan Rouhani says the United States’ “cruel and unlawful” sanctions against Iran will not be sustainable, and that all countries are want to foster close and friendly relations with the Islamic Republic.
“The conditions caused by the cruel pressure and illegal US sanctions will not be sustainable. All countries want to have close relations with Iran, especially the ones with whom we have traditionally enjoyed good relations,” Rouhani said on Tuesday.
The Iranian president made the remarks before departing Tehran for the Malaysian capital to attend the Kuala Lumpur Summit, which is set to take place from December 18 to 21.
The event, themed “The Role of Development in Achieving National Security,” will gather around 450 leaders, scholars, clerics, and thinkers from 52 countries including Iran, Indonesia, Pakistan, Qatar, and Turkey.
Fifty-two countries have confirmed their participation in the event, which will seek solutions to problems afflicting the Muslim world.
“The Muslim world has vast potential when it comes to geography, energy, population, industry and culture, but it is unfortunately grappling with problems such as armed conflicts and terrorism” in addition to foreign intervention, Rouhani said.
He said Iran and Malaysia share “common views” regarding the developments in the region and the Muslim world, describing diplomacy as the sole way to resolve the issues.
Rouhani said he would highlight Iran’s peace initiative for the Persian Gulf region at the Kuala Lumpur meeting.
He initially introduced the Hormuz Peace Endeavor (HOPE) in September at a meeting of the UN General Assembly.
President Rouhani also said he would hold multilateral meetings with senior Malaysian officials as well as leaders from different participating countries on the sidelines of the event.
Wrapping up his three-day stay in Malaysia, Rouhani will then head to Tokyo for a visit upon an official invitation by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.
On visit to Japan
Regarding his upcoming visit to Japan, Rouhani said he would discuss mutual Tehran-Tokyo ties as well issues related to regional security, particularly for shipping lines, during his meeting with Abe.
Hailing economic ties between Iran and Japan, Rouhani said Japanese companies made sizeable economic investment in Iran following the 1979 Islamic Revolution and “currently, we are in close talks on environmental issues.”
He said the current decline in Iran-Japan relations is temporary and a by-product of Washington’s “illegal and cruel” sanctions.
Rouhani will be the first Iranian president to visit the Asian country since 2000. The visit comes amid heightened tensions between Iran and the US.
Back in June, Abe traveled to Iran on a first visit by a Japanese premier in more than 40 years.
Abe said in his meetings with Iranian officials that Japan sought to play a maximum role in preventing tensions.
Bolivia’s New US-Backed Interim Gov’t Wastes No Time Privatizing Economy
By Alan Macleod | MintPress News | December 16, 2019
It has been barely one month since the administration of Jeanine Añez seized power in a military coup in Bolivia, but it has wasted no time in attempting to transform the economy and society. Its latest move is aimed at privatizing the country’s economy. A government spokesperson confirmed the fears of many, claiming that “I believe the government should reduce its own size” and a protagonistic role should be given to private enterprises. In case that was not clear enough, he emphasized, “Yes, I’m talking about privatization.” Bolivia’s economy is dependent on its nationalized oil and gas industries.
After military generals appeared on television demanding his resignation, longtime president Evo Morales stepped down, citing the growing, targeted paramilitary violence against his MAS (Movement towards Socialism Party) colleagues. Morales, and his Vice-President Alvaro Garcia Linera, fled to Mexico for safety. The military chose Senator Jeanine Añez as his successor.
Añez is a strongly conservative Christian who has described Bolivia’s indigenous majority as “satanic” and vowed to bring the Bible back into politics. She has also provided the military carte blanche to use unlimited force in suppressing all resistance to her rule, even creating a squad of masked, heavily armed death squads aimed at uprooting leftist and foreign “terrorists.” Despite this, large areas of the country are in open rebellion and completely uncontrolled by the new government.
For a supposed “transitional” government, a caretaker regime holding the reins until imminent elections are organized, the Añez administration has certainly made some bold moves. It has already pulled Bolivia out of multiple international and intercontinental political and economic organizations, such as ALBA (the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas) and UNASUR (the Union of South American Nations), both of which had a more left-of-center outlook.
Meanwhile, it has expelled large numbers of foreign nationals, including around 700 Cuban doctors that made up the backbone of the country’s new free healthcare system. It has also recognized U.S.-backed anti-president Juan Guaidó as the rightful ruler of Venezuela. With U.S. support, Guaidó attempted another Bolivia-style coup last month. Interior Minister Arturo Murillo has accused the Venezuelan government of being at the head of a vast narcotics conspiracy, ignoring his own boss’s ties to drug-runners (Añez’s nephew was caught with more than half a ton of cocaine in Brazil).
Murillo has formally requested the Israeli military come to train Bolivia’s armed forces and has eliminated entry visas for Americans and Israelis. Considering the IDF’s expertise in suppressing an indigenous population, Murillo’s intentions are worrying an increasing number of his countrymen. The government has also participated in a crackdown on dissenting journalism, closing down many TV networks including Bolivia TV, RT and TeleSUR. Even foreign journalists have been assaulted, detained and killed.
This latest move at privatizing the economy is part of an effort to “dismantle the apparatus of the dictatorial regime of Evo Morales,” as the Minister of Communication, Roxana Lizarraga, put it. On the orders of the International Monetary Fund, criticized by many as simply an extension of the U.S. government, the country’s oil and gas industries were privatized in 1996. International corporations like Enron, Shell and Repsol YPF were not even required to pay for their shares, making the move tantamount to the biggest giveaway in modern Bolivian history. Furthermore, royalties paid to the government were slashed to just 18 percent.
Water was also privatized. Bechtel, an American corporation, increased the prices to levels almost no Bolivian could afford to the point where water and sewage cost over half of an average Bolivian’s yearly wage. Bechtel also persuaded the government to privatize the sky, making it illegal to gather rainwater. The result was mass thirst that led to nationwide protests that became known as the Water War.
Within months of gaining office, Morales made good on his promise to nationalize key sectors of the economy. The move generated an extra $31.5 billion in government revenue over the next decade. He used the money to fund ambitious social programs. For example, over 11 percent of the revenues went to fund public universities, indigenous associations and a basic income grant to all low-income Bolivians over 60 years old.
Under Morales’ guidance, poverty halved and extreme poverty fell even further as citizens felt the benefits of the country’s natural resources. This, the Center for Economic Policy Research stresses, could not have been possible without nationalizing the hydrocarbons industry. Perhaps more important than all this, however, was the newfound dignity Bolivia’s indigenous majority felt at seeing the first indigenous president in the country’s history. The community is often treated with contempt bordering on revulsion by the light-skinned elite, but Morales has been part of a movement that inspired them to organize and take a protagonistic role in their country’s politics and society.
With the U.S. and the local elite back in charge of Bolivia and promising to re-privatize the economy, both their newly won social status and their improved economic circumstances are at imminent risk. A reversal of this policy will take coordinated resistance on the scale of the 2000 Water War.
Alan MacLeod is a MintPress Staff Writer as well as an academic and writer for Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. His book, Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting was published in April.
Jordan protests expected ahead of Israel gas deal
MEMO | December 16, 2019
Jordan is expected to witness a wave of popular protests as the implementation of a $10 billion gas deal with Israel looms on the horizon. Activists and lawmakers in the Hashemite Kingdom have been calling on the government to cancel the agreement with Israel, saying that the US has forced Jordan to sign the deal despite its economic and moral prejudices.
According to its opponents, the agreement about “the gas stolen from Palestine” stipulates that if any gas fields are discovered in Jordan during the lifespan of the deal, the buyer (Jordan) may not reduce the import price by more than 20 per cent.
Campaigners calling for the cancellation of the agreement have asked for a meeting next Tuesday to discuss ways to convince the government to cancel it. The Coordinator of the national campaign to cancel the gas agreement with Israel, Hisham Al-Bustani, told Quds Press : “There are two ways to confront the agreement with its imminent implantation date at the beginning of next month. We either press parliament to stop its implementation, or wait for popular escalation through vigils.”
Raed Al-Khazaaleh is the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Jordanian House of Representatives. He has also called for the gas agreement with Israel to be cancelled. Anyone who signed it, he insists, must be held accountable.
In 2016, Israel signed a $10 billion deal with the Jordan Electric Power Company to supply Amman with natural gas for 15 years. The agreement will provide the Kingdom with approximately 45 billion cubic metres of gas from the Leviathan offshore gas field.
Israel has previously stated that some of the deal’s revenues will be paid towards the military budget. It is expected to start pumping gas to Jordan in January.
‘We’ve always been on receiving end of US hegemony’: Pakistan seeks closer ties with Russia, and has a real chance of success
RT | December 15, 2019
Islamabad, which just settled a Soviet-era debt dispute with Moscow, now wishes for “a new phase” in relations with Russia. Geopolitics, coupled with promising new trade opportunities, could help them thrive, analysts explain.
Russia-Pakistan relations returned to a brighter place this week, when Prime Minister Imran Khan voiced his desire to give them a powerful boost. While hosting a sizable Russian delegation led by Trade Minister Denis Manturov, Khan signaled that his country is ready to open its doors to Russian businesses and investors.
And it doesn’t look like wishful thinking at all. Under a massive deal signed in Islamabad, Russia will pour $1 billion into the revival and upgrade of the Pakistan Steel Mills (PSM), built with Soviet assistance. The two also had in their sights reconstructing a gas pipeline, building a railway network and procurement of the Sukhoi-built SSJ-100 narrow-body jets.
Pakistan has also agreed to pay off $93.5 million it had borrowed from the Soviet Union, thus dismantling the last hurdle affecting its commercial ties with Russia. Obviously, both Moscow and Islamabad want the ball to roll faster – at least when it comes to doing business – but could they engage each other, given Russia’s time-tested ties with India, and Pakistan’s alignment with the US?
Well, geopolitical considerations may previously have played a role, but old alliances shift or become more flexible, some analysts RT has talked to believe.
“A new world order is in the making that provides Pakistan a window of opportunity to diversify its foreign policy options,” Dr Khuram Iqbal, assistant professor at the National Defense University of Pakistan, pointed out.
Islamabad sided with the US during the Soviet military presence in Afghanistan and contributed to the post-9/11 War on Terror, but being “on the receiving end of American global hegemony” didn’t yield much.
Back in the 1980s, Pakistan antagonized the USSR by aiding and abetting the Islamist Mujahideen fighting Soviet troops; in the 2000s, it suffered from a terrorist spillover from neighboring Afghanistan, and saw numerous unauthorized US drone strikes on its own soil.
“There is a growing realization in Pakistan that the American-led world order has benefited only a few, at the expense of too many.”
By contrast, Russia has been instrumental in cooling down – if not defusing – some tensions Pakistan has had with its neighbors. “Russia has a proven history of acting as an effective mediator between India and Pakistan,” Iqbal noted.
On numerous occasions since the Cold War, Moscow managed to get both nuclear-armed arch-rivals to the table and to avert an all-out war, he recalled.
In modern times, Russia brokered Pakistan’s and India’s entry to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) – “the only functional multilateral forum” in which Islamabad and New Delhi could talk about countering “the common threat of transnational terrorism.”
For his part, Alexey Kupriyanov, a research fellow at Moscow’s Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO) suggests that Russia will not go to extremes even if Pakistan truly wishes this to come true. When engaging Islamabad, Moscow could rely on “some traditional spheres of cooperation,” namely economy and security, provided that “it doesn’t touch upon Pakistani actions and claims regarding Jammu and Kashmir.”
In recent years, the Pakistani and Russian militaries held an array of joint counter-terrorism drills; there have also been some remarkable arms deals, not to mention Islamabad’s appetite for Russia’s top-notch aircraft, firearms and armor.
Whatever political strains exist, Pakistan is hoping for bigger things to come. As Iqbal said, there could be a “major breakthrough” in relations if Vladimir Putin visits Islamabad in the near future as it would serve as a real opportunity to prove to Pakistani policy-makers that this chance is real.
New sanctions to ban humanitarian trade with Iran: US Treasury
Press TV | December 13, 2019
The US Treasury Department has stressed that Washington’s newly announced sanctions targeting Iran’s air and maritime transport industries will lead to the restriction of trade related to humanitarian goods.
“US persons will be prohibited from engaging in transactions involving Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL) or E-Sail, including transactions for the sale of agricultural commodities, food, medicine, or medical devices,” the Treasury’s guidelines on Iran sanctions read.
“In addition, non-US persons that knowingly engage in certain transactions with IRISL or E-Sail, even for the sale to Iran of agricultural commodities, food, medicine, or medical devices, risk exposure to sanctions under additional authorities,” it added.

Screenshot showing a segment of the US Treasury Department’s guidelines on Washington’s new sanctions against Iran announced on December 11, 2019.
The announcement comes after the Trump administration announced Wednesday that it was targeting IRISL and Iran’s major airline, Mahan Air, over baseless allegations of Tehran supporting “terrorists” in the region.
The Wednesday order put IRISL and Mahan under US presidential Executive Order (EO) 13382, which allegedly targets “weapons of mass destruction proliferators”.
The Treasury’s guidelines on the new sanctions stressed that entities put under EQ 13382 would not be eligible for any humanitarian sanction exceptions.
The statement comes despite Washington’s claim that its sanctions do not affect Iran’s access to humanitarian goods.
US officials have, nonetheless, signaled on numerous occasions that Washington’s sanctions seek to harm Iran’s general population in a bid to force Tehran to accept Washington’s dictates.
Earlier this year, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that Tehran had to listen to Washington “if they want their people to eat”.
The new bans mark the latest round of Washington’s wide sweeping sanctions against the country after the US government unilaterally pulled out of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal and re-imposed sanctions lifted under the deal last year.
Speaking on Thursday, US Special Representative for Iran Brian Hook boasted that US sanctions targeting Iran’s oil sector have led to more than $50 billion in revenue losses, have hindered Iran’s refined-oil products and have undermined foreign investment.
“Both upstream and downstream investments in Iran’s oil and gas sector have stopped,” Hook said.
“Foreign investors have almost entirely pulled out of Iran due to the risks and billions in investment has been lost,” he added.
Hook said that the wide sweeping oil sanctions seek to force Iran to negotiate with the US, a demand which Iranian officials have firmly rejected as long as Washington fails to uphold the previously negotiated nuclear deal agreement.
US-backed figure claims Iranians ‘understand’ Trump
Following Washington’s withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal, the US has since adopted a policy of “maximum pressure” against Tehran, coupling sanctions with stepped up regional provocations and military deployments aimed at Iran.
The US has also sought to provoke internal unrest in the country by supporting various destabilizing elements targeting the country, such as the terrorist Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) and violent separatist groups.
According to observers, Reza Pahlavi, son of deposed Iranian king Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, is one of the main figureheads being “groomed” by Washington as part of its campaign to destabilize Iran amid recent foreign-backed riots in Iran.
In recent remarks to the US-based magazine Newsweek, Pahlavi expressed his support for Trump’s aggressive policies targeting the Iranian economy and called for stepped-up western intervention in Iran.
He also claimed that the Iranian people “understand and appreciate” the US-imposed sanctions and believe that the Iranian government is to blame for the “maximum pressure” targeting Iran.
Pahlavi’s remarks come despite numerous studies indicating that Iranian resentment against Washington has largely increased amid the US’ wide sweeping sanctions.
A recent study published by the University of Maryland’s Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM) and the Toronto-based IranPolls shows that an overwhelming 86 percent of Iranians despise US policies.
The study’s results come despite stepped-up efforts by foreign media outlets to stir unrest in Iran and promote anti-government sentiment amid tightening US sanctions crippling the country’s economy.
Washington’s Proposed New Sanctions Against Turkey also Aimed Against Russia
By Paul Antonopoulos | December 13, 2019
With the world fixated on Turkish actions against Syria, Greece and Libya at the moment, the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the Senate of the United States Congress approved a bill, “Promoting American National Security and Preventing the Resurgence of ISIS Act,” spearheaded and thoroughly promoted by staunch anti-Syria/Venezuela/Iran/Russia Democratic Senator Robert Menendez who celebrated the bills passing on his Twitter. The Republican-led Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 18-4 to send the bill for a vote in the full Senate.
The approval of the bill was widely reported in the mainstream media as an “anti-Turkey bill.” Senator Jim Risch, the panel’s Republican chairman, a fellow endorser of the bill with Menendez, said that the approval of this bill is because of the “drift by this country, Turkey, to go in an entirely different direction than what they have in the past. They’ve thumbed their nose at us, and they’ve thumbed their nose at their other NATO allies.”
According to the draft bill, the Turkish acquisition of the powerful S-400 missile defense system gives grounds to impose sanctions against this country, under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA). In particular, the document restricts the sale of U.S. weapons to Turkey and imposes sanctions on Turkish officials responsible for supplying weapons towards their illegal military operation in Syria.
Turkey signed in December 2017 the first contract with Russia for the purchase of the S-400 for a value of $2.5 billion, which caused tension in relations between Ankara and Washington. The U.S. demanded that Ankara renounce that transaction and buy U.S. Patriot systems, and threatened to delay or cancel the sale of the F-35 fighters to Turkey. Ankara refused to make concessions and assured that its purpose of acquiring Russian systems remains firm.
What was missed, perhaps intentionally by the majority of the mainstream media is that this bill has a heavy anti-Russian/Syrian component to it. Although not as detailed and expansive as the Turkish section of the bill, it claims that “the Russian Federation and Iran continue to exploit a security vacuum in Syria and continue to pose a threat to vital United States national security interests,” without explaining what these security interests are, exactly as we have become accustomed to.
According to the bill, there will be a “list of each Russian person that, on or after such date of enactment, knowingly exports, transfers, or otherwise provides to Syria significant financial, material, or technological support that contributes materially to the ability of the Government of Syria to acquire defense articles, defense services, and related information.” Although the bill has not said which specific Russians, the nature of the bill means that there will be inevitable sanctions against Russia as it is a top weapon exporter to Syria, which will unlikely change despite of the new sanctions. Those in the eventual sanction list will face an American blacklist, which means a ban on entry, freezing of assets in the United States, a ban on doing business with this person for American citizens or companies. At the same time, the bill allows that the US President can consider each case separately and refuse to impose sanctions.
These proposed new sanctions that will have to pass the House of Representatives, which passed its own anti-Turkish sanctions bill by an overwhelming 403-16 vote in October, is part of a wider effort for the U.S. to keep pressurizing Russia’s economy. On December 9, the committees of both chambers of the U.S. Congress previously agreed on the military budget for 2020, which includes restrictions against the Nord Stream 2 and Turk Stream pipelines to bring Russian energy to Europe, infrastructures designed to raise Europe’s energy security. The U.S. bill that provides sanctions against companies participating in the laying of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline aims to obtain unilateral advantages in the gas area to the detriment of the interests of the countries of Europe. This prompted the chairman of the Board of Directors of the Russian-German Foreign Chamber of Commerce, Matthias Schepp, to explain that the new measures against Nord Stream 2 affect not only Russia, but, above all, European companies and Germany’s energy interests.
Washington is frustrated that European energy policy is decided in Europe, not in the U.S., which calls into question the cooperation between the U.S. and Europe. It is a very risky measure and Europe would need to have a blunt attitude of rejection of these measures imposed by the U.S., because its own economy is at risk.
Effectively, the “Promoting American National Security and Preventing the Resurgence of ISIS Act,” which strangely targets Russia who had a greater role than the U.S. in defeating ISIS terrorists, is just another way for Washington to warn other countries not to buy the S-400 or Russian military equipment or engage in energy diplomacy with Moscow. It is unlikely that this will deter states from conducting arms and energy deals with Russia as Moscow has been pioneering anti-sanction measures to protect financial transactions without punishment, and rather it demonstrates a Washington that is becoming increasingly desperate in the Era of Multipolarity.
Paul Antonopoulos is a Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies.
US Weaponizing Space in Bid to Launch Arms Race
By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | December 12, 2019
While the spats between President Trump and other NATO leaders at the rancorous 70th summit garnered most media attention, barely noticed was the alliance’s announcement to make “space an operational domain”.
The move represents a grave assault on existing treaties forbidding the weaponization of space. The NATO announcement is doubly insidious because it gives the appearance of a multilateral acceptance of US attempts to open up the “final frontier” for militarization. A move which is far from acceptable. In fact, illegal, under international law.
Earlier this year, Donald Trump unveiled a new branch of the US armed forces, Space Command, separate from the Air Force. “Spacecom will defend America’s vital interests in space, the next war-fighting domain, and I think that’s pretty obvious to everybody. It’s all about space,” said Trump at a White House ceremony.
It is the first time that a new branch of the US armed forces has been created since 1947 when US Air Force was created out of the Army. The other existing armed services are the Marine Corps, Navy and Coast Guard. Legislation is currently going through Congress which will authorize the president’s order for setting up the new branch, to be known henceforth as Space Force.
All this is happening with barely any public debate or scrutiny. Even though it represents a dramatic escalation of military dimensions. To the existing domains of land, air and sea the United States under Trump is pushing ahead for weaponization of space. As the “war-fighting” rationale of the president makes clear, the development is explicitly about leveraging new military strike potential.
US weaponization of space has been underway for decades, going back to the “star wars” initiative of the Reagan administration in the 1980s and during the GW Bush presidency in the 2000s. However, Trump is taking the program to a whole new level by implementing a separate dedicated Space Force.
This is in spite of the existing UN-ratified 1967 Outer Space Treaty which prohibits any introduction of weapons, including nuclear weapons, into space.
“States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner,” reads the treaty, which provides the basic legal framework for international space law.
Russia and China have been consistently strong advocates for upholding the treaty.
Yet proponents of the US Space Force routinely claim that America is being threatened by Russian and Chinese advances in space military technology. It is not clear on what basis these American claims are made.
Republican Alabama Representative Mike Rogers is quoted by Space News as saying: “We have allowed China and Russia to become our peers, not our near peers and that’s unacceptable.”
But like so many other US claims about Russia and China supposedly threatening American interests, there is little or no evidence presented. The claims rely on ideological prejudice and/or a cynical lobbying service for the military-industrial complex. Going into space will convey billion-dollar contracts to US aerospace corporations.
Indeed, there is a resonance with US claims made in the 1950s and 60s of a “missile gap” which alleged back then that the Soviet Union was outpacing America’s arsenal of strategic nuclear weapons. The putative missile gap was invoked as a pretext for greatly expanding the US arsenal, thereby creating an international arms race, only for the so-called missile gap to be found out years later to be a fiction of American scaremongering. Cynically, that fiction was deliberately propagated to the American public in order to provide a tax-payer-funded pork-barrel production line for the Pentagon and the military-industrial complex.
The same process seems to be underway with Trump’s much-vaunted Space Force.
There is another strategic aspect to this American “weaponization of the heavens”. That is, to force Russia and China into an arms race which Washington calculates would be economically ruinous for Moscow and Beijing. What’s at stake here is a pivotal struggle between Russia and China’s vision of a multipolar world and Washington’s desire to be the globe’s hegemonic uni-power. If the US can break Russia and China economically then it wins this era-defining struggle. Launching an arms race is Washington’s gambit for taking down Russia and China.
The precedent is the arms race in the 1980s under Reagan which brought the Soviet Union to collapse. Because of Washington’s presumed right to print endless amounts of dollars and rack up seemingly limitless national debt, the US is wagering that it will be the last man standing in an arms race with Russia and China.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly said that Russia will not fall into the trap of unleashing an arms race. At a recent meeting in Sochi with his top defense officials, Putin emphasized the imperative need to focus on efficiency in weapon systems. Russia’s latest-generation of hypersonic missiles which apparently can evade any US defense shield – despite the latter costing trillions of dollars to develop – is one example.
Nevertheless, if – and it is a big if – the US manages to develop space weaponry, the pressure will be on Russia and China to respond in kind to counter a whole new threat level. That would mean both nations diverting resources into another realm of weaponry instead of developing their economies.
The US Space Force has to be seen in the wider context of Washington unravelling the entire system of global arms controls. The US withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty in 2002 was followed by its withdrawal from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty last year. The Trump administration is moving towards scrapping New START in 2021, the third and last nuclear-arms control treaty.
There is an unconscionable effort by US governments over many years to incite a new arms race. Going into outer space is part of that effort. It is a gross violation of international law and the United Nations by the US to open up a new frontier for military dominance. And the US has utilized the 29-nation NATO alliance to rubber-stamp its criminal weaponization of space.
