EU to renew Iran sanctions under defunct nuclear deal: Report
The Cradle | June 29, 2023
European officials recently informed Iran that they plan to renew EU ballistic missile sanctions set to expire in October, according to sources in the know that spoke with Reuters.
The renewal will be conducted under the parameters of the defunct Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which officials say Iran “violated” by moving forward with developing its nuclear energy program after the US unilaterally exited the deal in 2018 and reimposed crushing sanctions.
Other reasons the EU is giving for renewing the sanctions are Russia’s use of Iranian drones in Ukraine and “the possibility of Iran transferring ballistic missiles to Moscow.”
“The Iranians have been told quite clearly [of plans to keep the sanctions], and now the question is what, if any, retaliatory steps the Iranians might take and [how] to anticipate that,” a western diplomat told Reuters on condition of anonymity.
The decision to uphold the sanctions would be the first significant instance of the E3 group of nations — France, Germany, and the UK — not abiding by the terms of the nuclear deal.
EU mediator Enrique Mora, who co-ordinates talks to restore the 2015 deal, raised the issue of keeping the sanctions when he met Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Bagheri Kani in Doha on 21 June, but the latter reportedly refused to discuss the matter, according to an unnamed Iranian official who spoke with Reuters.
“Maintaining sanctions, in any capacity and form, will not hinder Iran’s ongoing advancements,” the Iranian official is quoted as saying. “It serves as a reminder that the west cannot be relied upon and trusted.”
Since 2017, the Islamic Republic has significantly advanced with its ballistic missile and satellite launch programs. The country last month made waves by revealing a hypersonic missile with a potential 2,000-km range.
This progress, on top of Tehran’s enrichment of uranium at 60 percent purity and a China-brokered détente with Saudi Arabia, set off alarms in the west and pushed Washington to begin ‘de-escalation talks‘ with Iran.
Washington Loves War Criminals
Madeleine Albright to be honored with a post office in her name
BY PHILIP GIRALDI • UNZ REVIEW • JUNE 27, 2023
It is generally accepted in government circles as well as in the media that covers Washington politics that both major political parties now embrace foreign and national security policies that are both aggressive and brutally conducted, essentially products of the so-called neoconservatives, or neocons for short. Ron Unz has recently written a lengthy 6500 word article describing how the neocons rose to power, beginning with their relatively humble origins as a gathering of frequently radicalized Jewish students at the City College of New York in the 1930s. Their disenchantment with Stalin turned them away from the Soviet communist model and they frequently self-described as Trotskyites or other fringe elements on the political left. Some of the founders of the movement later elaborated how they were in many cases “Liberals who had been mugged by reality” as they drifted in a conservative direction to gain political power. Ironically, or perhaps as a calculated strategy, Unz notes how many of the young Jewish neocons retained their “leftist” social attitudes even as they drifted to the right over national security, a posture that gave them a foot in the door of both major political parties.
Unz describes the neocons’ utter ruthlessness in their climb to power, starting in the Reagan Administration, where they obtained key positions in the Pentagon and in the national security structure. I personally witnessed some of their presence and ambitions in the 1980s when I was in the CIA base in Istanbul. They would show up at the Consulate General in small groups drawn from the Pentagon or under the aegis of the American Jewish Committee and other similar organizations to enter into discussions with the diplomatic personnel as well as Turkish officials. They were frequently agitating for military action against Iran, Iraq and Syria and were always apologists for Israel. When Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard was arrested in 1985 and then convicted in 1987 Jewish organizations were thick on the ground arguing that he was mentally unbalanced and could not possibly be a spy for good friend and close ally Israel. One of our Consuls General bought into the argument to such an extent that he tried to sell it to the Turks, who were not buying it. I had a heated exchange with him regarding what he was ignorantly peddling, to no avail.
It is not as if the neocon reckless definition of “national security” is consequence free, as we are currently seeing in the war going on largely driven by its imperatives in Ukraine. Ron Unz had preceded his dissection of the neocon “rise to power” with an article entitled “Dislodging the Neocons, Difficult but Necessary.” Unz describes how the neocons at one level have been completely successful. “After having controlled American foreign policy for more than three decades, promoting their allies and protégés and purging their opponents,” the adherents of the view that the United States must absolutely dominate the world militarily and set the rules of behavior for everyone now is agreed upon by nearly the entire political establishment, including both political parties as well as the leading thinktanks, lobbying groups and media. By now, there are hardly any prominent figures in either party who adhere to a significantly different line, which has made “antiwar” Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard so attractive to some of us. More to the point, over the last two decades, the “national security focused neoconservatives have largely joined forces with the economically-focused neoliberals, forming a unified ideological block that represents the political worldview of the elites running both American parties.”
Unz has recognized how the neocons have infiltrated both political parties and their foreign policy vision has been adopted by all, with some like Victoria Nuland posing as Democrats while others continue to pretend to be Republicans. To put it another way, progressives in the Democratic Party do not feel particularly threatened by the neoconservatives as most neocons are conventional Jewish liberals on social issues, which are what is most important to Democrats. This all means that legislators and government officials can all agree on the necessity to maintain a brutal foreign policy based on military force since it has nothing to do with abortions, race or gender issues.
I recently witnessed a manifestation of this seriously skewed and dangerous world view in my own congressional district in Virginia. Our Democratic Party congresswoman Jennifer Wexton is functionally as woke as can be. When she was first elected back in 2018 and moved into her office in the following January, one of her first gestures was to hang a transgender pride flag outside her door. Since that time, she has been an active supporter of the usual Democratic Party endorsed woke catalog of grievances. She is certainly a good fit in a county in which a biological boy who chose to identify and dress like a girl exploited high school gender neutral policies to rape one genuine girl in a unisex school toilet before being sent to another high school rather than expelled and prosecuted where he raped a second girl. One of the girl’s fathers was silenced when he sought to protest against the policies at a School Board meeting.
Wexton has now introduced into Congress a bill which will change the name of our local post office, which is currently named after the town it is located in, to honor Madeleine Albright, the recently deceased former UN Ambassador and Secretary of State under Bill Clinton. My immediate reaction to news of the bill, which will likely pass easily through Congress as it is unimportant to most legislators, is that I would not want to enter into a building that honors an unindicted war criminal. Indeed, I will not do so. I drafted up a short dissent from the move supported by an account of just how Albright was a war criminal, including her comment that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children due to her and Clinton’s sanctions were “worth it,” and posted it on Facebook, where the administrators immediately removed it.
Wexton, of course, praises Albright as if she were the greatest US Secretary of State since George Marshall. She enthuses in support of her bill that “Secretary Madeleine Albright was a fearless trailblazer for women and a devoted public servant who touched the lives of so many whom she taught, mentored, and worked with… Her relentless defense of democracy and advocacy for human rights, inspired by her own lived experience fleeing Nazi persecution, made her an icon here at home and around the globe.” Citing “Fleeing Nazis?” What could be a better conventional endorsement? And it is a lie. Albright and her family survived the Second World War comfortably and left Czechoslovakia on their own volition in 1948, when she was eleven, long after the conflict had ended.
And that faux glorification is precisely where the hypocrisy of most of the sanctimonious congressional parasites comes in. Here we have an ultra-liberal congresswoman promoting purely on partisan political grounds someone whose malignant and even criminal career is readily discernible, to include also her role in enabling US intervention in the Balkans, sometimes referred to as “Madeleine’s war.” And then there were Bill Clinton’s diversionary missile attacks on the Sudan and Afghanistan and the expansion of NATO contrary to agreements made with Russia. Albright also ignored direct, emotional requests by the US Ambassador to Kenya that the embassy was vulnerable to attack by terrorists and needed an urgent security upgrade. The embassy in Nairobi and in neighboring Tanzania were subsequently bombed in 1998, killing 12 American diplomats and 200 Africans.
I would point out that going beyond the dead Iraqi children, Albright was borderline deranged about the neocon-ish belief in the righteousness of the applicability of US power as a solution for every problem. When demanding the US military intervention in Bosnia she reportedly turned to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell, who was reluctant to get involved, and asked “What’s the point of you saving this superb military for, Colin, if we can’t use it?” And then there is her famous quote justifying America’s lead role in the world, saying “If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see further into the future.” Excuse me, but what sanctimonious and ultimately malicious bullshit that is!
In any event, rather than spend taxpayer money to rename a perfectly functional public building after an unindictable war criminal, Congresswoman Wexton might consider reaching into her own pocket to purchase a small commemorative plaque that can be placed in an inconspicuous location, possibly in front of her own home since she is so interested in cultivating the legend of one of America’s “finest” public servants. It would look real nice there, I am sure, and I wouldn’t have to see it when I go to pick up my mail.
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 councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.
The US can’t stop the rise of Iran, but it can make a truce
By Timur Fomenko | RT | June 25, 2023
In 2018, the Donald Trump administration ripped up the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), known as the “Iran nuclear deal,” which had been signed by his predecessor Barack Obama.
The decision to scrap the deal was thoroughly influenced by neoconservative members of his cabinet, including National Security Advisor John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who not only saw the opportunity to take a swipe at Trump’s predecessor, but argued that placing crippling unilateral sanctions on Tehran would bring the country to the negotiating table, and if not, bring the regime down altogether.
Thus began a five-year campaign of brutal pressure against Iran, which sought to destroy its economy and attempted to coerce third-party countries away from doing business with it. But the initiative didn’t go according to plan. Rather, the world changed. The flagrant disregard of international law by Washington was a catalyst in the emergence of de-dollarization. The global shake-ups that came next, including the Covid-19 pandemic, US competition with China, and the war in Ukraine, gave Tehran strategic space and leverage it had previously lacked.
Now, Iran has substantially increased its uranium enrichment, has continued to build its drone and missile capabilities, has an enhanced military relationship with Russia, and thanks to Beijing, has been able to normalize its relationship with its regional arch-rival Saudi Arabia. In the process of doing so, it has reduced the regional influence of the US and its partner, Israel. US foreign policy on Iran has revolved around exploiting regional tensions in order to justify its own security footprint, but Iran has seemingly been able to begin to supersede a campaign of US containment against it while not being overtly belligerent.
This has set alarm bells off in Washington. The US has been desperate to try and reinforce its relationship with Saudi Arabia, but has reportedly been engaging in secret negotiations with Tehran not to revive the JCPOA, but to keep it away from further uranium enrichment and off the nuclear path, a move which of course will have to come with sanctions relief. While the US, presumably with the support of Israel, has threatened unspecified military action if Tehran goes further, it seems clear that Iran now has all of the cards and that a temporary “truce” must therefore come at the expense of the US containment campaign.
Because of the regional dynamic shifting in its favor, Tehran is highly unlikely to actually go down the path to developing a full-fledged nuclear bomb, given the opportunities it would provide to Washington. Unlike a country like North Korea, Iran doesn’t truly need nukes in order to establish a doctrine of deterrence for its own regime’s survival. It is a large country with a population of over 80 million. While the United States could hypothetically conduct air or missile strikes on key Iranian facilities to try and impede its nuclear program, what the US could not do, especially in this environment, is a full-scale invasion and occupation of the country. It would cost trillions of dollars, and there would be no support for it.
Rather, Iran’s deterrence ability is premised on its drone and missile programs, which have grown in their capabilities over the years despite US sanctions. The country recently claimed to have developed hypersonic missiles, which while some skepticism is warranted, is not completely fictional. Tehran has, after all, in response to the assassination of Revolutionary Guards Corps commander Qasem Soleimani, shown its ability to destroy US military bases within its range, and therefore demonstrate what it could do to Israel if things turned nasty. In doing so, it is demonstrating that regardless of US sanctions, it is a significant regional player, and will continue to be.
US foreign policy towards adversaries has repeatedly attempted to seek maximum strategic gain, eschewing the idea of compromise, be it China or Russia. But when it comes to Iran, Washington is stumped on what to do without taking the risk of provoking a wider conflict. This is why the Biden administration is leaning towards giving in, knowing that the regional dynamic of the Middle East is shifting away from its favor, and taking punitive action which may provoke war is unwelcome. In other words, Iran is winning. The only question which remains is whether or not the US wants a truce or to keep pressuring Tehran until it snaps? Even if the outcome ends in a sheer stalemate, with no nuclear lines crossed, it’s still a lose-lose situation for Washington in the end as Iran re-establishes itself diplomatically.
Why the US sought secret talks with Iran
By Batoul Suleiman | The Cradle | June 20 2023
In an unforeseen development, the US initiated indirect talks with Iran in May, signaling Washington’s desire to de-escalate tensions between the two adversary states – even while publicly acting otherwise.
Hosted by the Sultanate of Oman, the indirect talks were attended by delegations of US and Iranian diplomats, but it is unclear whether any final agreement was reached, or, for that matter, what topic occupied the negotiations.
Despite countless rumors of nuclear negotiations being on the agenda in Muscat, Tehran has point-blank denied this. The Iranians have held firm that they will not entertain any temporary fixes to the 2015 nuclear agreement, which was unilaterally abandoned by the US in 2018.
While the secret negotiations may not directly pertain to Iran’s nuclear program, a potential formula for a deal has reportedly emerged, involving the mutual release of prisoners and the unfreezing of up to $10 billion held in South Korean banks and in Iraq, currently blocked by US sanctions.
But why would Washington offer up a slate of “rewards” to Iran for no obvious price? Especially given that the US has been the primary spoiler in prisoner exchange deals and the release of Iranian funds for years?
Washington’s two faces on Iran
On the surface, the US is assisting in the release of Iranian funds at the same time as the Pentagon escalates its threats against the Islamic Republic and stirs maritime tensions between their respective navies.
This kicked off in February, when Bloomberg published an unverified news report quoting two unnamed “senior diplomats” saying that Tehran had enriched uranium to 84 percent – “the highest level found by inspectors in the country to date, and a concentration just 6 percent below what’s needed for a weapon.” A nuclear bomb requires a 90-95 percent enrichment purity of 25 kilograms.
Iran immediately dismissed these reports, confirming through a senior official that Tehran had not carried out any uranium enrichment procedure to more than 60 percent.
In an unusual show of support for Tehran’s position, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in late May shut down the “84 percent” rumors by declaring its investigation of those allegations to be closed.
But as likely intended, the anonymously-sourced Bloomberg story spawned months of “Iran is close to a nuclear bomb” narratives, which has conveniently provided an excuse for increased US and Israeli threats against the Islamic Republic to gain leverage at the negotiating table.
‘Two weeks away’
In March, US Army Chief of Staff Mark Milley testified before a Congressional committee that Iran could potentially produce sufficient material for a nuclear bomb within a span of two weeks, requiring only a few additional months to complete the construction of the weapon.
Milley’s statement, it appears, was the start of a leverage-building campaign against Iran on the ground.
First, the US Navy in the Arabian Sea seized Iranian oil aboard a tanker en route to China. In response to the move, Iran detained in the Gulf of Oman a tanker carrying American oil en route from Kuwait to the United States. Less than a week later, Iran also detained an oil tanker as it transited the Strait of Hormuz towards the port of Fujairah in the United Arab Emirates.
This comes after statements by White House Spokesman John Kirby in which he claimed that his country has detected repeated Iranian threats to commercial shipping in the Gulf, and that the US Department of Defense will begin to strengthen its defense position in the region.
That round was like a field test to increase pressure before returning to the negotiating table, but the Iranian response, according to political sources in Tehran, thwarted American pressure.
After this public escalation, Washington secretly requested – via Oman – to open communications with Iran. US sources familiar with the indirect talks told Axios that “the goal of the negotiation is to reach an understanding on ways to de-escalate Iran’s nuclear program, its behavior in the region, as well as its intervention in the conflict in Ukraine.”
But actual US aims are far less ambitious than what is stated for public consumption, Iranian analyst Amin Berto tells The Cradle:
“The only thing the US wants now is to stop the increase in uranium enrichment in Iran, without military conflict, because the US is involved in the crisis of Russia and Ukraine and tension with China.”
The US is reluctant to engage in further conflicts in West Asia, as it recognizes the potential consequences of an Israeli aggression against Iran, which could escalate into a larger war in the geostrategic Persian Gulf.
Additionally, the US is not interested in allowing Iran to become a “nuclear threshold” state, where it possesses the capability to produce a nuclear bomb at any given time without actually taking that final step.
Turning things up a notch
Presupposing Tehran reaches 90 percent enrichment, both Israel and the US would find themselves with limited options.
They would either have to resort to war or accept the new reality, wherein they could attempt to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program, impose stricter sanctions, or incite internal unrest within Iran. However, it is important to note that all of these options have been previously explored without causing a significant shift in Tehran’s “behavior.”
Confronted with this reality, Washington is compelled to engage in negotiations with Iran and strive to reach an agreement that curbs the enrichment rate. The objective is to avert a war that would detrimentally impact American and Israeli interests in the region.
Furthermore, it aims to prevent the emergence of a “nuclear threshold” state in Iran, which could have far-reaching regional deterrent effects. It is important to note that tightening sanctions could potentially push Iran towards strengthening its alliances with counterweights Russia and China.
Sources familiar with the ongoing negotiations in Muscat suggest that the current discussions revolve around a new, partial agreement rather than a comprehensive one similar to the 2015 deal.
The proposed understanding requires the US to take the initial step of releasing Iran’s funds held abroad, reportedly in exchange for Iran not enriching uranium past 60 percent purity. The process of releasing Iranian funds has already commenced, including the transfer of over $6 billion in Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and more than $3 billion in Iranian funds from Iraq.
While the coming days are expected to witness the mutual release of prisoners, the sources indicate that what hinders reaching a final solution is determining the maximum enrichment level to which Iran is willing to adhere. The negotiation revolves around whether it will be set at 60 percent or 20 percent, in exchange for freezing the sanctions imposed on Iran.
What does Iran want?
Iran has shown openness to reaching a new understanding that would lead to the lifting of sanctions, the release of seized funds, and enhanced economic opportunities. The understanding would serve as a placeholder for the defunct Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear deal and not a replacement.
And Iran’s willingness to negotiate does not by any means imply acceptance of all US conditions. Tehran’s end goal will require the complete, verifiable lifting of US sanctions in exchange for establishing parameters on the country’s enrichment rate and nuclear activities.
This has been explained by recent statements of the Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, who said that “There is nothing wrong with the agreement (with the west), but the infrastructure of our nuclear industry should not be touched.”
The comments were made during a meeting with a group of Iranian nuclear experts on 11 June, during which Khamenei also explained that:
“We were dealt blows because of these misplaced trusts. It is very important that a nation and the officials of a country know and understand where they should trust and where not. We have understood it over the past twenty years. We understood who is trustworthy and who is not.”
Notably, Khamenei’s statements came shortly after the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Mohammad Eslami, stated that Iran’s objective in enriching uranium is to lift US sanctions. Observing the historical context, it becomes apparent that Iran has increased its enrichment levels in response to persistent Israeli hostilities, often with US support, targeting its nuclear infrastructure. These escalations have also been prompted by incidents like the assassination of nuclear scientists, exemplified by the case of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh in 2020.
Where does this leave Israel?
Only Israel, who incidentally views a nuclear-armed Iran as an existential threat, maintains that a US-Iran backroom agreement is imminent.
While Tehran and Washington have denied making any significant progress in reviving the nuclear agreement, Israel expresses doubts over these claims. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated during a phone call with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, after his visit to Saudi Arabia, that Israel opposes any US agreement with Iran, and that “No deal with Iran will oblige Israel, which will do everything to defend itself.”
According to a report by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, any new nuclear agreement between Washington and Tehran will reflect a danger to Israel through several factors, most notably that “Iran is likely to continue to develop nuclear weapons technology and ballistic missile programs”; and that the agreement will provide Iran with tens of billions of dollars, which will enable it to enhance its military capabilities and the capabilities of its allies in West Asia.
The Israeli think-tank also noted the great concern experienced by the entity’s officials in terms of their inability to influence the Biden administration and Congress:
“However, some senior officials in the Israeli security establishment believe that a new temporary nuclear agreement between Iran and the major powers might be the lesser of two evils compared to the current situation, where Iran continues to pursue its nuclear ambitions unchecked.”
The last point about Iran’s unchecked pursuit of nuclear ambitions is a key driver for Washington to seek an understanding with Tehran – mainly so that it can placate Tel Aviv and turn its geopolitical attentions to more pressing matters elsewhere.
Fact check: Blinken’s claim that US strived to revive JCPOA holds no water
By Syed Zafar Mehdi | Press TV | June 10, 2023
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken made a low-key visit to Saudi Arabia earlier this week, which coincided with the reopening of Iranian diplomatic missions in the Arab kingdom after seven years.
The whirlwind visit primarily focused on rebuilding ties between Washington and Riyadh but also involved other issues including the Joe Biden administration’s aggressive but unsuccessful push to mediate Riyadh-Tel Aviv normalization.
During the visit, the top American diplomat sat down for an interview with Arabic-language Asharq News, fielding questions on a range of subjects from Iran’s nuclear program to the Ukraine war.
Blinken’s responses were riddled with glaring inconsistencies and false assertions, in particular regarding efforts to revive the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal.
On being asked whether the US was “trying to revive the negotiations” over the 2015 nuclear accord, the US Secretary of State said “from day one” the US “made a significant effort in that direction”.
“So we, from day one, sought to determine whether a return to mutual compliance with the JCPOA was possible, and we made a significant effort in that direction, as did the European partners, and, for that matter, Russia and China,” Blinken said in the interview.
“But Iran either couldn’t or wouldn’t do what was necessary to get back into compliance with the JCPOA. So the JCPOA is not our focus,” he hastened to add.
A simple fact-check is in order to set the record straight.
It was the US government, under the megalomaniac former President Donald Trump, which unilaterally abandoned the landmark nuclear agreement in May 2018, and reinstated an array of sanctions on Iran.
The move was in complete breach of the agreement and Washington’s legal obligations under Resolution 2231, the United Nations Charter and international law.
Iran adopted strategic patience for one year, waiting for European signatories to salvage the deal, and only then announced retaliatory measures, which included gradually scaling up uranium enrichment in line with a law passed by the Iranian parliament.
Trump’s successor, Joe Biden, pledged to reverse the so-called “maximum pressure campaign” against Iran that violated the multilateral deal and laid bare the infamous American hypocrisy.
However, more than two years into office, Biden has not only failed to reverse his predecessor’s hard-nosed measures but has doubled down and escalated the situation.
Since April 2021, Iran and the remaining parties to the 2015 nuclear deal have been engaged in marathon negotiations in Vienna to revive the accord and lift sanctions, facilitated by the European Union.
Despite a degree of progress, the consensus has been eluding mainly due to the policy of procrastination adopted by the Biden administration, with Blinken and his Iran pointsman Rob Malley playing a key role in letting the process drag on.
Blinken’s remarks about the US mulling “a return to mutual compliance” with the deal and making “a significant effort in that direction” hold no water when we examine the ground realities and actions taken by the US over the past two years.
Iran continues to be a key party to the deal, unlike the US which unilaterally and irresponsibly walked out of it. Iran has maintained that measures it has taken since May 2019 to scale up its uranium enrichment are reversible if the US returns to the deal in good faith and lifts all illegal sanctions.
Blinken’s statement that Iran “either couldn’t or wouldn’t do what was necessary to get back into compliance with the JCPOA” also fails the fact-check test.
United States left the deal. United States reneged on its commitments under the deal. United States stopped compliance with the deal. United States imposed and reimposed sanctions on Iran. United States launched the so-called “maximum pressure campaign” against the Islamic Republic.
In the last two years, it is the United States that has failed to provide guarantees to Iran that it won’t violate the terms of the agreement again. It is the United States that has weaponized sanctions against the people of Iran while harping about human rights.
The United States has also refused to compensate Iran for the losses caused by sanctions while exerting pressure on the UN nuclear agency to politicize its purely technical work.
The culprit here is the United States. Iran is well within its rights as the signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) to pursue its nuclear energy program for peaceful, scientific purposes.
The peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program has been attested by the International Atomic Energy Agency which regularly conducts inspections at various nuclear facilities in the country and has to date failed to notice or report any activity that points to divergence or deviation in the program.
The ball is in the Biden administration’s court. It has to save the deal through action, not rhetoric.
Is a Change of Course at State Department Coming?
Some senior officers are retiring but who and what will replace them?
BY PHILIP GIRALDI • UNZ REVIEW • JUNE 6, 2023
There are a lot of anonymous bureaucrats that man the offices in the nation’s capital. If one were to mention the name Wendy Sherman at a Washington DC cocktail gathering it is likely that few in the room will have ever heard of her, but she has long been one of the most important players in Democratic Party administrations when it comes to foreign policy in key parts of the world. Sherman, the Deputy Secretary of State, will be retiring this summer after more than thirty years with the Foreign Service. She has been a fixture in often controversial top level policy making since Bill Clinton was in the White House, where she served as a top adviser to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, also taking on the role of lead negotiator in the ultimately unsuccessful talks to stop North Korea’s ballistic missile program in the late 1990s. With a return to power of the Democrats in 2008, she served as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs under Obama. To her credit, she was a lead negotiator with Iran on the 2015 nuclear agreement (JCPOA), which Donald Trump acting on bad advice subsequently withdrew from.
More recently, Sherman has been a key part of the Biden administration’s efforts to develop strategies to confront China in the Indo-Pacific and elsewhere whenever Beijing has sought to develop trade relationships with key suppliers of essential raw materials. This has included putting pressure on allies like Australia and New Zealand in the Pacific to reject Chinese commercial initiatives, elevating what began as competitive trade policies into a perception that China was becoming a threat to American national security. Sherman also played a significant role in encouraging international diplomatic and military support for Ukraine after Russia’s invasion.
Sherman’s current position as State Department number two was bestowed on her by President Joe Biden. Her comments relating to her retirement reveal something of her own philosophy as well as the views of the current administration. She said “The arc of history will only bend toward justice if people of conscience steer it in the right direction. That it is our job to have courage, to collaborate with others and seek out common ground, to persist against the odds, to use our voice and our power for good—to keep faith with the promise of our democracy and to never, ever lose hope. Diplomacy is not for the faint of heart…”
Secretary of State Antony Blinken not surprisingly praised Sherman’s career, saying that “President Biden asked Wendy to serve in this role because he knew he could count on her to help revitalize America’s alliances and partnerships and manage our complex relationships with competitors.” Blinken described Sherman’s lengthy career as a diplomat in a statement after her resignation was announced, saying she has “helped lead our engagement in the Indo-Pacific, the region where the history of the 21st century will be written. She has deepened our bonds with our friends around the world, especially with the Republic of Korea, Japan, and the European Union. She has overseen our efforts to strengthen the Department’s capabilities to manage our relationship with the People’s Republic of China, and built greater convergence with allies and partners… Her remarkable career – which spans more than three decades, three presidents, and five secretaries of state – addressed some of the toughest foreign policy challenges of our time. Our nation is safer and more secure, and our partnerships more robust, due to her leadership.”
One can expect kind words wrapped around positive government-speak both from Blinken and from Sherman herself after her admittedly long years of service, but there is something manifestly false about the euphoria over a US foreign policy that has during the Biden time in office eschewed diplomacy in favor of military threats and thousands of punitive Treasury Department sanctions. If anything, contradicting Blinken, the United States is in no way “safer and more secure” thanks to his and Wendy Sherman’s efforts, quite the contrary. It has, inter alia, converted major powers Russia and China, who were actively seeking normalized relations, into de facto enemies with all that implies, a result that, even if it does not turn into World War 3, might well mean the end of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency as the world moves towards increased financial and banking system multipolarity.
If Sherman and Blinken, acting on behalf of Joe Biden, have had a success it would consist of getting the allegedly defensive alliance NATO on board the China-phobia train, with Beijing joining Russia as one of the two great autocratic “threats to democracy.” At the end of June 2022, Jens Stoltenberg, the NATO Secretary General, declared that China does represent “serious challenges” to the alliance, which, for the first time agreed to include “threats posed by Beijing” into plans for its “future strategy” concept (PDF), joining Russia as a threat to “NATO’s interests, security and values.” Stoltenberg explained how “We now face an era of strategic competition … China is substantially building up its forces, including in nuclear weapons, bullying its neighbors, including Taiwan. China is not [yet] our adversary but we must be clear-eyed about the serious challenges it represents.”
Antony Blinken also climbed on to the horse that Stoltenberg was riding, commenting in familiar terms how “One of the things that [China’s] doing is seeking to undermine the rules-based international order that we adhere to, that we believe in, that we helped build. And if China’s challenging it in one way or another, we will stand up to that.” That the rules-based order is little more than a contrivance to maintain political and military dominance by Washington and its friends is by now clear to everyone except the people sitting in and around the White House, most particularly to include Blinken and Sherman.
So what comes next as the featured act post Wendy Sherman? It should be noted that the State Department top level is completely staffed by Jewish Americans who are politically-speaking neocons with close ties to Israel who also believe that the maintenance of total military dominance by the United State is good both for them and good for the Jewish state. All of them are Russo-phobes for various reasons often related to the history of Jews in Russia. Sherman recently participated in discussions in Washington with her Israeli counterpart intended to “…further deepen and expand the US-Israel relationship.” Someone should tell her that it is already far deeper than it should be if one were to go by American interests.
The current third in line at State is the notorious Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland who started the problems in Eastern Europe when she worked with her colleagues to overthrow and replace the existing government in Ukraine in 2014. Nuland, who recently spilled the beans about direct US involvement in the Ukraine war, is married to leading neocon Robert Kagan. It has often been observed that neocon foreign policy, which originated with the Republican Party and is based on maintaining a US government monopoly on forms of international violence, has now come to dominate both parties.
If Biden chooses to pull a rabbit out of his hat and comes up with a replacement for Wendy Sherman who is actually in favor of active diplomacy as a mechanism to avoid war, I and many others will be pleasantly surprised and even astonished. More likely it will be Nuland or a Nuland clone or possibly someone having all the Democratic Party boxes checked, i.e. black, Jewish and a transexual who uses the right pronouns and pretends to be a woman. The fundamental problem is that the United States government is no longer run by people capable of acting in rational self-interest, which would mean doing things for the good of the country. The system is in reality broken and it is now clear that something has gone terribly wrong. The sad truth is that the United States is in decline, wallowing in debt and corruption, and Joe Biden and company have lost control, lying and misrepresenting nearly everything. So good bye Wendy! It was great having you at State where you and your friends turned competitors into enemies. It will be interesting to see what happens next!
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 councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.
Zionist Circles: Threats against Iran Disregard Mistaken US Withdrawal from Nuclear Deal
Al-Manar – June 2, 2023
The Zionist circles commented on the threats issued by some Israeli officials against Iran, stressing that they disregard the mistaken withdrawal of Trump’s administration from the deal.
It is worth noting that the Israeli threats came in light of the reports that indicate the rapid progress of the Iranian nuclear program and Washington’s endeavor to conclude a new deal with Tehran.
Israeli Channel 12 correspondent Nir Devori considered that intensifying threats is caused by the US tendency to strike a new nuclear deal with Iran away from the Zionist will.
The former Zionist prime minister Ehud Olmert noted that the Israeli failure occurred when Tel Aviv convinced Washington to withdraw from the deal, adding that reports confirmed Iran did not violate the pact.
Israeli circles also warned against an imminent rift between ‘Israel’ and the international community amid deep local crises.
US, UK disrupt peace efforts in Yemen
The Cradle | June 2, 2023
Washington and the UK have been continually disrupting peace negotiations in Yemen, informed sources in Sanaa were cited as saying in a report by Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar on 2 June.
“Washington and London are actively disrupting the Yemeni-Saudi political negotiations,” the newspaper wrote.
According to Al-Akhbar, the US and UK are trying to “obstruct all efforts that could lead to peace, and put among their first considerations the Israeli interest.”
This “Israeli interest” is the reason that Saudi Arabia has been “procrastinating” in the agreements it made with Sanaa, which include lifting all blockades and paying government employee salaries, Al-Akhbar said.
This, along with US and UK involvement, aim to keep Yemen in “a state of no war but no peace.”
Al-Akhbar’s sources were quoted as saying: “The political leadership in Yemen knows from the outset that … Riyadh is unable to abide by the terms of the agreement and … end the repercussions of the war due to the divergent regional interests.”
“The [coalition], as much as they agree on undermining Yemeni independence and sovereignty, they are in conflict with each other,” the sources added.
They went on to say that the Ansarallah resistance movement and the Sanaa government do not regret the political flexibility they showed during recent Omani-mediated talks with the kingdom. They warned, however, that time is not on the coalition’s side and that their military power has grown significantly.
The report goes on to explain how Saudi interests diverge from those of the UAE, the west, and Israel.
According to the Al-Akhbar report, Saudi Arabia has realized – despite its procrastination as a result of external pressure – that its interest lies in ending the war and withdrawing from “the Yemeni quagmire.”
However, the UAE wishes to maintain its occupation of Yemen’s ports and oilfields, as well as its occupation of the country’s waterways and particularly its islands, including the Socotra archipelago, which Abu Dhabi has been working in collaboration with Israel to transform into joint military and intelligence hubs. There have also been recent concerns over UAE-backed separatist ambitions in the south.
This also falls in line with the US and Israeli interest to maintain and bolster influence in the Red Sea.
The report adds that Israel is also particularly interested in the Bab al-Mandab Strait, which it considers a “vital artery” for trade with the east, and a key factor in strengthening influence in the Horn of Africa.
It concludes that the Israeli security establishment has significant concerns over Ansarallah’s capability to strike Israel with missiles.
Syria’s return to Arab fold sign of Global South manifesting itself: Diplomat
By Somayeh Khalili | Press TV | May 19, 2023
Syria’s triumphant return to the Arab League fold after almost 12 years shows not just that Arab countries now recognize the failure of the “regime change” project in Damascus but also that they can defy the United States, according to a former British diplomat.
In an exclusive interview with the Press TV website, Peter Ford, a former UK diplomat who served as ambassador in Syria between 2003 and 2006 and before that in Bahrain from 1999 to 2003, said the importance of the recent turn of events in the Arab world “goes beyond Syria”.
“It is a symptom of the development of a new multipolar world order where not just Russia, China and Iran refuse to accept US hegemony but also countries like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Brazil and South Africa. This is the Global South manifesting itself,” Ford asserted, referring to Arab normalizations.
Syria has restored diplomatic ties with many Arab countries recently after years of hostility, including Saudi Arabia, and is set to formally return to the Arab League, a 22-member body of Arab states.
This wave of normalization comes more than a decade after Syria’s Arab neighbors severed their diplomatic ties with the Bashar al-Assad government in Damascus and demanded his ouster.
On Thursday, Assad touched down in the Saudi port city of Jeddah to attend the Arab League summit, marking another step toward the full restoration of ties between Syria and its Arab neighbors.
Ford said Syria’s return to the Arab League, in defiance of US warnings, has raised expectations that the Arab world will now “show more support for Palestine and less concern for their ties with Israel”.
“The Abraham Accords was founded on hostility to Iran and fear of the US. These conditions no longer apply,” the former British diplomat told the Press TV website.
On whether these developments will bring regional countries closer in fighting the menace of terrorism, Ford said he expects “much more intra-Arab security cooperation” now, adding that Syria has “more experience with this phenomenon than any country in the world”.
The veteran diplomat noted the US interference in the Arab country hasn’t ended but that it has “got tired” and is going through the motions “with no real hope of achieving anything”.
“It keeps up the economic war, the propaganda war and legal war, and it maintains a military presence to control Syria’s oil, but it’s all to no purpose,” he said about the US.
The restoration of diplomatic ties between Iran and Saudi Arabia, Ford said, augurs well for the region, as both countries have “a shared interest in modernization and the peaceful Persian Gulf”.
“The only beneficiaries from hostility (between Tehran and Riyadh) have been the US and Israel. The new perspectives for cooperation (between them) are exciting. No wonder the US think tanks are bitter in their commentaries,” he remarked.
Iran and Saudi Arabia restored diplomatic ties in March following two years of negotiations brokered by Baghdad. The breakthrough, however, came courtesy of Beijing.
Ford stated that while Western countries “stubbornly persist in economic warfare against Syria, Iran’s role in Syria’s post-war reconstruction and rebuilding “remains crucial”.
On President Ebrahim Raeisi’s recent historic visit to the Arab country, the former American ambassador in Damascus said it “set the seal on the success of Syria and Iran in standing firm against Western-directed attempts to overturn the Syrian government and weaken Iran.”
“It also signaled that the normalization of Syria’s relations with Saudi Arabia came not at Iran’s expense but because of what’s now triangular Syrian-Saudi-Iranian cooperation,” Ford stressed.
While warning that the US power to do harm “should never be underestimated”, he said the US “is now beating a retreat from the Middle East and is focused more and more on China”.
US mulls sanctioning Arab League for Syria normalization efforts
By Drago Bosnic | May 12, 2023
There are very few things that have been as unifying for America’s political establishment as the belligerent thalassocracy’s propensity to impose sanctions. Republicans and Democrats will almost always be at each other’s throats for virtually any issue, but when it comes to sanctions, particularly against the Syrian people, their unity is unquestionable. For well over a decade, the unfortunate Middle Eastern country has been at the forefront of Washington DC’s regime change efforts, with the United States using everything from sanctions and financing various “moderate democratic opposition forces” (i.e. head-chopping terrorists) to direct attacks on Syria and its armed forces.
Unfortunately, the Arab League actively took part in this comprehensive attack on a fellow Arab country and it took years of active Russian and Chinese diplomatic efforts to have the organization reengage with Damascus. In the last couple of months, there have been several major breakthroughs in this regard, culminating with announcements that Syria will be readmitted into the organization. President Bashar al-Assad even visited several prominent Arab countries, some of which previously played an extremely active role in attempts to oust him. The likes of the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia went from “Assad must go!” to “We’re happy to see Assad stay” in mere months.
And while Damascus must tread carefully when reengaging countries that actively took part in a comprehensive aggression against it, this opportunity is something that should not be missed. As previously mentioned, it was only thanks to the sustained diplomatic efforts of the multipolar world that this inter-Arabic conflict came to an end, inflicting a devastating blow to US plans for Syria’s destruction. However, the warhawks in Washington DC are far from giving up. Top GOP and DNC members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee are pushing for a bipartisan initiative to sanction anyone taking part in Syria’s full diplomatic reinstatement. Since May 8, they made several announcements about this.
The bipartisan group is now urging President Joe Biden and his deeply troubled administration to impose “crippling sanctions” on any state or entity engaged in attempts of normalizing relations with Syria. Expectedly, the initiative is led by one of the most prominent neocon warmongers, Texas Republican Michael McCaul.
“Readmitting Assad to the Arab League is a grave strategic mistake that will embolden Assad, Russia, and Iran to continue butchering civilians and destabilizing the Middle East,” McCaul and Gregory Meeks (NY DNC Rep.) said in a statement, further adding: “The United States must fully enforce the Caesar Act and other sanctions to freeze normalization efforts with this war criminal.”
The aforementioned Caesar Act, hypocritically designated as the so-called Syria Civilian Protection Act of 2019, is a US legislation that sanctions the Syrian government, including President Bashar al-Assad himself, for bogus “war crimes”. It was signed into law in December 2019 and came into force on June 17, 2020. The illegal exterritorial legislation targets virtually the entire Syrian industrial capacity, including its ability to build and maintain infrastructure, as well as energy production. It also targets individuals and businesses accused of allegedly “funding or assisting the President of Syria”. This also includes entities from other countries, including Russian and Iranian companies taking part in the reconstruction efforts in Syria.
Essentially, the Caesar Act adds insult to injury in terms of well-over-a-decade-long unprovoked US aggression on Syria by imposing economic sanctions that are specifically designed to prevent the rebuilding of the devastated country, further prolonging the suffering of the Syrian people. Worse yet, all this is done under the endlessly hypocritical pretext of “protecting” the same people whose lives it has been destroying for more than ten years. The US political establishment decided to keep enforcing the illegal sanctions even after the disastrous earthquake that killed thousands and left tens of thousands homeless in the already ravaged country. It has also prevented or at least significantly complicated international relief efforts.
However, it seems the Caesar Act will soon be used against US “partners” that have been nearly 100% compliant up until recently. This includes Saudi Arabia and Jordan, both of which still have extremely close relations with the Pentagon. On May 9, Damascus and Riyadh formally announced the restoration of their official diplomatic relations. The move is directly tied to Syria’s readmission to the Arab League.
“The State Department denounces Syria’s readmission to the Arab League. We do not believe that Syria merits this decision by the Arab League at this time,” State Department spokesman Vedant Patel said on May 8, adding: “We continue to believe that we will not normalize our relations with the Assad regime, and we don’t support our allies and partners doing so either.”
As previously mentioned, sanctions are not the only way in which the US is conducting its well-over-a-decade-long and truly unprovoked aggression on Syria. The Pentagon has approximately 1000 soldiers illegally occupying nearly all of eastern Syria, as well as an occupation force in the area around their base of Al-Tanf. The forces deployed in the east are openly stealing Syrian oil, while those in Al-Tanf are training and equipping several US-backed terrorist groups whose sole purpose is to continue destabilizing the country. If Syria normalizes relations with virtually the entire Middle East, this could severely undermine US efforts to keep its war on Syria going on indefinitely. This is yet another proof that war, death and destruction are the primary “export commodities” of the world’s terrorist No. 1.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
The Difference Between Secrets and Lies
Can the White House even understand the difference?
BY PHILIP GIRALDI • UNZ REVIEW • MAY 9, 2023
Recent developments in Washington relating to Ukraine and the Middle East remind me that there is a big difference between maintaining secrecy when a situation warrants it and lying over issues where there is no compelling reason to do so beyond political expediency. Having spent more than twenty years in American intelligence agencies where secrecy was the operative norm, I would illustrate that difference as follows: a legitimate secret would be something like not revealing information that would place people or vital national interests in jeopardy, while a lie would be committing a crime and fabricating a narrative that would deny or obfuscate that anything dire had actually taken place. When it comes to lying, I am, of course, referring to the bizarre behavior by the United States government, most particularly ever since 9/11, to commit war crimes and then come up with reasons for its foreign and national security policies to have taken a singular aggressive and coercive turn not justified by reality or by any real threat. That shift in behavior has had a profoundly negative consequence, with much of the world now inclined to identify the United States as the most dangerous country globally speaking in terms of being the greatest threat to peace among nations.
One might reasonably award the gold medal for creative destruction in that light to the Administration of George W. Bush, which elevated lying to a level hitherto hardly imagined in Washington. Bush had a neocon dominated foreign policy team, concentrated in the Pentagon with Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Doug Feith and with Scooter Libby in the Vice President’s office, which did not hesitate to stovepipe fabricated information through the system to justify a totally fraudulent war against Iraq. The conspirators, most of whom were Jews who had close ties to the Israeli government, were supportive of the Jewish state’s desire to have the US attack Baghdad. They were joined in their drive to war by a hapless Secretary of State Colin Powell, a woefully ignorant National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and a ruthlessly ambitious George Tenet at CIA to go along for the ride. Within that context, what the president of the United States actually thought, if he was thinking at all, remains unknowable. The result was the catastrophe of Iraq, with hundreds of thousands of dead civilians over a totally invented threat of “weapons of mass destruction” in the hands of Saddam Hussein. Currently, twenty years after the event, Washington still has soldiers in Iraq even though the Iraqi parliament has repeatedly asked them to leave.
Interestingly, however, what played out under George Bush was child’s play compared to the contemporary political environment where the media has joined the Joe Biden Administration in lying about nearly everything. This has included an act of war committed against both a nuclear armed adversary and an ally in the form of the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline, which was clearly carried out by the United States against Russia and Germany after Biden even incoherently warned publicly that he would do it. Since investigative journalist Seymour Hersh blew the lid off the story, the US and its captive media have responded by helping to float a completely implausible alternative tale of how it may have been accomplished by a handful of rogue Ukrainians operating off a fishing boat. Russian attempts to get the incident investigated by the United Nations and/or the International Criminal Court (ICC) have been successfully blocked by the US, which has in response supported a British jurist’s successful attempt to get the Russians themselves investigated for war crimes by the ICC.
In the latest edition of lies and more lies, the US is hanging out to dry a twenty-one year old Air National Guardsman Jack Teixeira whom it is charging with stealing and making public on an internet chat room highly classified national security related information. The airman might indeed be guilty of having done just that though his motive continues to be elusive and his actual ability to access some of the material he obtained is questionable. More to the point, however, is the back story, which is that the documents reveal that the Ukrainians are clearly losing the war against Russia, prompting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to seek both NATO membership and newer longer-range weapons so he can hit Russia directly and hard enough to bring the US and NATO directly and fully into the conflict. The recent possible attempt to kill Vladimir Putin using a drone may be part of such planning and, if it had come closer to being successful, the Russian overwhelming response would likely have escalated the conflict to produce a disaster of possibly global proportions.
The leaked intelligence suggests that Ukraine will not be able to defend its airspace at all after this month and will also soon be running out of ammunition. These “facts” were known to Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin when he testified several weeks ago that the Kiev was winning its war against Moscow. Biden, for his part re the conduct of the war, has continued to deny that US soldiers are “boots on the ground” engaged in Ukraine. The leaked documents demonstrate that he is also either lying or poorly informed about that. The only intelligence item that seems to reflect some measure of acknowledgeable truth is the information indicating that there is no intention on the part of Washington to take steps to initiate peace talks to put an end to the fighting in 2023. That is clearly what the White House wants going into the 2024 elections, where Joe Biden or whoever succeeds him will want to look like a “war president,” a vigilant defender of the United States to appeal to voters.
From the viewpoint of a tax paying American citizen, the fact that the US Treasury has given or promised well in excess of $100 billion to a hopelessly corrupt Ukrainian government to oppose a nuclear-armed Russia that did not threaten the United States in any way prior to the fighting breaking out last February should be significant. And what happened to the so-called War Powers Act requiring Congress to make a declaration of war? So where is the upside of all of this for the American people?
And there’s more. There is also the recent revelation, also from Sy Hersh, that Volodymyr Zelensky and his gang of crooks have stolen $400 million from the cash provided by the Biden Administration to buy diesel fuel for the Ukrainian Army. The fraud was discovered by the CIA, whose Director William Burns actually personally confronted Zelensky with the numbers and names of those involved in January. Zelensky and his profiteers carried out their project by obtaining the money from the United States Treasury at the US petrodollar rate per gallon plus shipping costs before turning around and buying the fuel from cheaper suppliers located regionally, including the Lukoil Neftohim Burgas refinery located in Bulgaria. The difference then disappeared into the pockets of Zelensky and his generals. And where did the less expensive fuel come from? Mostly from Russia and also from Iran!
To be sure there has been some pushback from a small group of mostly Republican congressmen. Matt Gaetz has introduced a bill in the House of Representatives requiring the White House to provide full information, to include “copies of any and all documents outlining plans for military assistance to Ukraine. Additionally, the resolution directs Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin to disclose the number of United States Armed Forces, including special operators, deployed to Ukraine without Congressional authority. The Biden Administration and other allied countries have been misleading the world on the state of the war in Ukraine. There must be total transparency from this administration to the American people when they are gambling war with a nuclear adversary by having special forces operating in Ukraine.”
Maverick GOP Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene also got into it with her GOP colleagues after she praised the alleged leaker of the Pentagon documents due to his exposure of the lies surrounding the Ukraine war. She said “Jack Teixeira is white, male, Christian, and antiwar. That makes him an enemy to the Biden regime. And he told the truth about troops being on the ground in Ukraine and a lot more. Ask yourself who is the real enemy?” Senator Lindsey Graham as well as the Republican Party leadership immediately jumped on Greene, denouncing her for being against the war. Graham, who recently advocated invading Mexico to solve America’s drug problem, in particular dubbed her response “one of the most irresponsible statements she could make,” adding that it would “destroy America’s ability to defend itself.”
Former CIA Director John Brennan also denounced Greene’s comments, declaring that “From my perspective, I think Marjorie Taylor Greene has demonstrated time and time again that she’s not fit to hold public office…” Recall for a moment that Brennan was himself one of the most disastrous CIA Directors to ever hold office. He advocated torture of “terrorists” by the Agency as well as “signature” drone strikes to kill suspects on the ground in the Middle East and Asia. He collaborated with efforts to derail the Donald Trump campaign and signed on to a letter in October 2020 claiming that Trump’s re-election campaign might well be benefitting from a Russian disinformation operation, an initiative that may have influenced the election outcome. On one occasion, after a Trump meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2018, Brennan observed that “Donald Trump’s press conference performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of ‘high crimes & misdemeanors.’ It was nothing short of ‘treasonous.’ Not only were Trump’s comments ‘imbecilic,’ he is wholly in the pocket of Putin.”
The exchanges with the GOP as well as from nearly all Democrats serve as one more indication that the problem with the United States government is systemic: going to war while also denigrating critics and then lying about it all to avoid a perceived problem is always the preferred option for both the White House and Congress. No matter who wins in 2024, with the possible exceptions of Robert Kennedy Jr. or Tulsi Gabbard, the outcome in terms of a fractured and incoherent foreign policy that actually itself threatens the United States at every level will be roughly the same.
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 councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.
Featured Video
Argentina’s Javier Milei sells out his country for Israel
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Review
The Greatest Threat to World Peace? A Review of Daniele Ganser’s ‘USA: The Ruthless Empire’
Review by Marilyn Langlois | November 10, 2023
If you regard the United States as perhaps flawed but overall a force for good in the world . . .
If you scoff at the notion that the US, a republic founded on principles of freedom and democracy, has morphed into a world empire, perpetrating assassinations, coups d’état, acts of terror and illegal warfare . . .
If you want to promote peace but haven’t yet explored deceptive events that precipitate US warmongering . . .
. . . here is a volume that will clear the air and paint an honest picture of the significant, not-so-rosy impact US foreign policy and actions have had in the world around us.
USA: The Ruthless Empire, by Swiss historian and peace researcher Daniele Ganser, is the newly published English language translation of his book Imperium USA, originally written in German and published in 2020. Here is a summary of key points — including some lesser-known ones — along with remedies for a more peaceful future, that are covered in the book. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Argentina’s Javier Milei sells out his country for Israel
- Putting Nukes in Finland Won’t Make Country Safer, Finnish Politician Cautions
- Ukrainian drone strike kills worker at Europe’s largest nuclear power plant
- What the West Hides About Soviet Role in De-Colonization
- Villains of Judea: Douglas Feith
- US pension fund invests hundreds of millions in weapons firms supplying Israel
- US bill to grant Americans serving in Israeli army same rights as US troops
- What a president, a movie star, a congressman, and a cell phone all dared to say
- ‘An entire nation is being humiliated by the Iranian leadership’: Merz
- Pakistan Throws Open Its Gates for Iran’s Transit Trade to Third Countries
- If Americans Knew
- Palestinians in Gaza Want to Rebuild Food Systems. Israel Isn’t Letting Them.
- Under Trump, Green Card Seekers Face New Scrutiny for Views on Israel
- Sheep Theft Sent Shockwaves Through a Palestinian Village. Then, a 12-year-old Boy Was Shot Dead
- Trump alum helps Israel mount AI influence campaign
- Dispatches From Catastrophe
- Despite Denials, AIPAC Is Now Funding Campaign of Ala Stanford In Philadelphia
- Israel’s neighbors are irate about its treatment of religious sites
- Israel escalates in Gaza: killing, torture, hunger – Daily Update
- Six Months into Gaza Ceasefire, Setting the Record Straight About Aid
- ‘Silent suffering’: Why children in Gaza are losing their ability to speak
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Extreme Heat Records, Heatwaves, Extreme Cold Records Declining Across US Since 1899
- It’s The Cold, Stupid! Cold 20 Times More Lethal Than Heat, Multiple Studies Show
- European Institute For Climate And Energy: “Climate Debate is Seldom About Science”
- New Study: The Climate May Be 5 Times More Sensitive To Solar Forcing Than Commonly Assumed
- EV Industry Reached $70 Billion In Losses In 2024 Due To Delusional Green Ideologies
- Reality Check: Maldives Have Actually Grown In Size Or Remained Stable Over Recent Decades
- Abrupt Climate Change Also Occurred NATURALLY In The Past …25 Times During Last Ice Age
- Cave Discovery Reveals Today’s Desert Climates Were Recently Far Warmer, Wetter, Teeming With Life
- German Expert: Heat Dome Led To Record Temps In Western USA…Warmer In 1934, 1936
- New Study: No Linear Warming Or Glacier Retreat Along Northern Antarctic Peninsula Since 1980s
Aletho News 