Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

US Envoy Ortagus Meets President Aoun, Imposes Dictations on Lebanon

Al-Manar | February 7, 2025

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun met on Friday with US Deputy Special Envoy to the Middle East Morgan Ortagus who said that Washington has set a “red line” over participation of Hezbollah in the new government.

“We are grateful to our ally Israel for defeating Hezbollah,” Ortagus said in a press conference, following a meeting with President Aoun.

“It is thanks to the Lebanese President Aoun and the Prime Minister-designate Nawaf Salam and everyone in this government who is committed to an end of corruption, who is committed to reforms and who is committed to making sure that Hezbollah is not a part of the new government in any form,” the US diplomat added.

“We have set clear red lines from the United States that (Hezbollah) won’t be able to terrorize the Lebanese people and that includes by being a part of the government,” she added, as quoted by Associated Press.

Ortagus’ remarks sparked ire in Lebanon, with some commentators, even those who oppose Hezbollah, considering them as imposed dictations and a violation to the Lebanese sovereignty.

For his part, President Aoun, emphasized that “permanent stability in south Lebanon is closely linked to the completion of the Israeli withdrawal from the territories it occupied during the last war, and the full implementation of Resolution 1701, including the provisions of the November 27 ceasefire agreement.”

“The release of Lebanese prisoners is an integral part of this agreement,” the president added, as cited by Lebanon’s National News Agency.

Later on Friday, the Lebanese Presidency Press Office issued a statement in which it said: “The presidency is not concerned with some of remarks made by US deputy Middle East envoy Morgan Ortagus in Baabda.”

February 7, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Iran condemns ‘illegitimate’ US sanctions targeting oil exports

Press TV – February 7, 2025

Iran has strongly condemned new sanctions slapped by the administration of US President Donald Trump on the country’s oil industry, saying they run contrary to international rules and standards.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei denounced the bans as “completely unjustified” on Friday.

The remarks came a day after the US Treasury Department targeted more than a dozen individuals and companies, as well as vessels, claiming that they are facilitating the shipment of millions of barrels of Iranian oil to China.

The sanctions were the first on Iran after Trump restored his so-called “maximum pressure” campaign on the country.

“The decision of the new US administration to put pressure on the Iranian nation by preventing Iran’s legitimate trade with its economic partners is an illegitimate, illegal and wrongful act, whose responsibility lies on the US government,” Baghaei added.

“The Islamic Republic holds the US accountable for the consequences of such unilateral and bullying measures.”

On Tuesday, Trump signed the presidential memorandum reimposing a tough anti-Iran policy, which he practiced in his first presidential term after unilaterally withdrawing Washington from the historic 2015 nuclear deal.

In an X post, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi called Trump’s measure a failed experience.

He said the decision to restore maximum pressure policy will only compel “maximum resistance” on the part of Iran again, adding, “Smart people ought to choose ‘Maximum Wisdom’ instead.”

During his campaign trail for a second term, Trump had stated at an event in New York in September that, if re-elected, he would minimize the use of sanctions. He argued that employing sanctions excessively “kills your dollar and it kills everything the dollar represents.”

“Look, you’re losing Iran. You’re losing Russia. China is out there trying to get their currency to be the dominant currency, as you know better than anybody,” Trump remarked.

On Tuesday, The New York Times said Trump had also implemented a strategy of maximum pressure in 2018, following his decision to withdraw the US from the nuclear accord with Iran that had been established under the Obama administration three years earlier.

“Mr. Trump still claims that was a major victory, but most outside analysts say it backfired,” the newspaper wrote.

February 7, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , | Leave a comment

Khamenei: Negotiations with US have no effect on solving problems

Press TV – February 7, 2025

Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei says experience has shown that negotiations with the US have no effect on solving Iran’s problems.

His remarks in a meeting with Air Force personnel in Tehran on Friday came hours after the US imposed its first sanctions in the wake of President Donald Trump’s signing of an order to reimpose his “maximum pressure” on Iran.

“Some people pretend that if we sit at the negotiating table, some problem will be solved, but the fact that we must understand correctly is that negotiating with the US has no effect on solving the country’s problems.”

He cited the experience of 2015 when Iran and six other countries, including the US, signed the now-dormant Joint Comprehensive of Plant of Action (JCPOA) after two years of negotiations, only to be discarded by President Trump in 2018.

Ayatollah Khamenei recalled the grueling back and forth, which included a 15-minute stroll by then-US Secretary of State John Kerry and Mohammad Javad Zarif in downtown Geneva and along the Rhone River which landed the former Iranian foreign minister in hot water.

“Our government at the time sat down and negotiated – they continued to come and go, they sat down and stood up and negotiated, they talked, laughed, shook hands, made friends, everyone worked, and a treaty was formed.

“In this treaty, the Iranian side was very generous, giving many concessions to the other side. But the Americans did not implement the same treaty,” the Leader said.

“The same person who is in office now tore up the treaty. He said he would tear it down and he did; they didn’t act upon” the agreement, he said, referring to Trump.

“Therefore, negotiating with such a government is unwise, unintelligent and dishonorable and there should be no negotiation with it.”

Before Trump, even the US administration which had accepted the agreement, did not comply with it, the Leader said, referring to the government of president Barack Obama which had signed it.

“The treaty was meant to lift US sanctions, but they were not lifted. Adding insult into injury, they had the UN to have a constant threat hanging over Iran. This treaty was the product of negotiations that lasted about two years.”

Iran is currently in the midst of celebrations marking the anniversary of the Islamic Revolution which sealed the fate of the US-backed Pahlavi regime in 1979.

Every year on February 8, Iranian Air Force personnel meet the Leader to relive the historic allegiance of Air Force officers with the late founder of the Islamic Republic Imam Khomeini in 1979. The event is viewed as a turning point which led to the victory of the Islamic Revolution three days later.

Ayatollah Khamenei said the Americans are busy working “on paper to change the map of the world”, with Iran also being the subject of their plans.

“Of course, it’s only on paper, it has no reality. They also talk about us, make comments, and threaten us,” the Leader said.

Ayatollah Khamenei said, “If they threaten us, we will threaten them. If they put their threat into practice, we will do the same. If they attack the security of our nation, we will attack their security without hesitation.”

“This is a lesson taken from the Qur’an and the teachings of Islam, and it is our duty to act as such. We hope that God Almighty will make us successful in carrying out our duties,” he added.

February 7, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Trump hands “best friend” Israel gift for false-flag assassination

By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | February 6, 2025

Iran will be obliterated if it assassinates U.S. President Donald Trump. He told reporters this week of his “dead man’s switch” while announcing tougher sanctions on Iran in a renewed maximum pressure campaign.

Asked about the danger of being assassinated by Iranian operatives, Trump appeared to dismiss such fears but disclosed that he had left instructions with his aides to destroy Iran in the event of being killed.

“If they did that, they would be obliterated. I’ve left instructions if they do it, they get obliterated, there won’t be anything left.”

It is unclear who the aides are to whom Trump has entrusted the instructions for retaliation. And it is not a done deal that his orders would be carried out if such an extreme scenario materialized.

Several news media reported his dramatic remarks, including ABC, the New York Times, and Sky. The Associated Press editorialized: “If Trump were assassinated, Vice President JD Vance would become president and would not necessarily be bound by any instructions left by his predecessor.”

Nevertheless, the 47th Commander-in-Chief may be tempting fate. His death wish for Iran could be taken as an opportunity for a false-flag operation by Israel.

Bluntly put, if Israeli agents were to kill Trump in a way to frame Iran, then the Israelis stand to gain their big prize of wiping the Islamic Republic off the map, or so they might calculate.

It would, of course, be a treacherous double-cross by Israel. This week Trump hosted Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu, during which the American president was praised as the “best friend” Israel has ever had in the White House. The praise was in response to Trump’s proposed resettlement of all Palestinians from the Gaza Strip to neighboring Arab countries. No wonder Netanyahu was beaming with delight, as Trump’s proposal effectively completes Israel’s long-held desire to ethnically cleanse the enclave.

So would the Israelis really contemplate whacking “best friend” Trump?

Knowing how the Israelis are serial violators of international law, a rogue regime that exults in war crimes, it is not beyond their thinking or doing.

False flag operations are, by definition, designed to be carried out to blame someone else for the foul deed. If an “executive action” job on Trump were done well, Israel would not be seen as the perpetrator. Instead, all the American fury would be directed at Iran.

There is precedent for such treachery. On June 8, 1967, Israeli forces launched a deadly attack on the USS Liberty in the Mediterranean, killing 34 American Navy crew. The incident was during the Six-Day War between Israel and Arab countries. The Israelis tried to blame Egypt for the deadly attack until an official investigation found that it was Israel. The Israelis later apologized and said it was a mistake in the fog of war. U.S. crew members, however, testified that it was a deliberate attack by a supposed ally.

Another alleged false-flag operation was the 9/11 terror attacks on New York and Washington, DC, in 2001, in which 3,000 Americans were killed. Some investigators believe that Israel masterminded that atrocity to mobilize American military intervention in the Middle East to weaken Arab nations. Investigators pointed to the strange case of the “dancing Israelis” – a group of Mossad agents who watched the planes from a distance as they crashed into the Trade Center towers and duly celebrated the spectacle. The offensive revelers were reported by witnesses (who suspected them of being Arabs) and were later arrested by U.S. law enforcement, only to be released weeks later without charge and sent back to Israel, where they were feted on TV shows and disclosed to be Mossad agents.

Several analysts contend that Israel’s priority goal is to inveigle the United States into a war against Iran. That has been Tel Aviv’s de facto policy for many years, viewing Iran as its top threat. Over the past year, Israel has become emboldened by inordinate U.S. military support and its impunity despite genocide in Gaza and aggression towards Lebanon and Syria.

With the Iranian-led Axis of Resistance across the Middle East subdued by a relentless Israeli onslaught, Netanyahu and the Israeli leadership may feel that Iran is vulnerable. But Iran’s firepower is formidable, having struck Israel twice in recent months with large-scale air assaults that broke through Israel’s defense systems.

The Israelis know that they cannot succeed in attacking Iran alone. They need the U.S. to assist in a calculated devastating blow.

During his election campaign last year, Trump endorsed Israeli air strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, but even the impulsive Trump does not seem ready to launch a war on Iran.

That’s where the Israelis may be tempted to carry out a daring false-flag operation to assassinate Trump and bet on his death wish to obliterate Iran being delivered.

Iran has already been fingered for plotting to kill Trump ever since he ordered the assassination of the revered Iranian military commander, Major General Qasem Soleimani, in Baghdad in January 2021, during his first term in the White House.

Last November, the U.S. Department of Justice under the Biden administration claimed to have uncovered an Iranian plot to murder Trump. The claim was dismissed by Iran as an Israeli psyops to ramp up tensions with the U.S. Tehran has denied any such intention to assassinate Trump. Iran said Trump’s latest speculation was “provocative”.

The DOJ’s allegations of an Iranian plot were flimsy and not credible. But, conveniently for Israel, the reports may have planted the seed of thought in the public mind that the Iranians are out to get Trump.

Israel’s crimes against international law seem to know no bounds. Its military intelligence operates on the principle of “waging war by deception.”

Israel has viewed the Islamic Republic as its nemesis since the Iranian revolution in 1979. All the proxy threats surrounding Israel emanate from Iran – the “head of the snake”. If Iran could be wiped out to install a more pliant pro-Western regime then Israel will feel free to expand its “Greater Israel” ambitions in the Middle East. The prospect of knocking out Iran for the Israelis is the ultimate prize.

Trump’s rashly outspoken arrangement to destroy Iran if he is assassinated just handed Israel a nefarious, golden opportunity.

As Iran said, Trump’s loose talk about assassination is provocative. The question is: provoking who?

February 6, 2025 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

US President resets ‘maximum pressure strategy’ on Iran but adds a nuanced message on US-Iran deal

By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | February 7, 2025

France’s distinguished former career diplomat Sylvie Bermann, wrote an op-ed recently in the leading financial paper Les Echos that a new chapter of ‘transactional geopolitics’ has begun with Donald Trump. 

Extremely unlikely events can be expected, metaphorically called ‘black swans’. The so-called ‘black swan theory’ characterises events that come as a surprise, have a major effect, but can be rationalised only after the fact, with the benefit of hindsight. 

One may say, on February 4, a black swan appeared in the White House, as President Donald Trump signed a National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) restoring “maximum pressure” on Iran, denying that country “all paths to a nuclear weapon.”  

White House Fact Sheet detailed that NSPM establishes the following truism: 

  • “Iran should be denied a nuclear weapon and intercontinental ballistic missiles”;
  • “Iran’s terrorist network should be neutralised”; and, 
  • “Iran’s aggressive development of missiles, as well as other asymmetric and conventional weapons capabilities, should be countered.” 

The black swan was intriguing. On the eve of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s arrival in DC on Tuesday, Jerusalem Post had written: 

“The Trump administration is in the process of formulating its Iran policy, and Netanyahu’s visit at this early stage in the president’s second term affords him a golden opportunity to give his input. And Iran remains Israel’s number one threat and problem… 

“While his (Trump’s) administration still seeks to contain Iran’s regional influence and prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon, there have been early signs of shifts in tone and priorities.

“These shifts may reflect internal divisions within the administration – between Iran hawks like Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Adviser Mike Waltz and isolationists like Vice President JD Vance, who said in October: “Our interest very much is in not going to war with Iran… this is where smart diplomacy really matters.”

At any rate, Trump decided to sign the NSPM without waiting for Netanyahu’s “input.” Equally, Marco Rubio was conspicuous by his absence in Trump’s team for the talks with Netanyahu. And Vice-President Vance not only assisted Trump at the talks but the president made it a point to ostentatiously convey his appreciation by hailing him in the presence of Netanyahu and his entourage, which was striking. 

And the mother of all surprises was that the NSPM document as such studiously avoided any threat of war against Iran. Trump avoids anti-Iran rhetoric, which used to be a running feature of his first term as president. Trump, although a mercurial personality, is not tweaking, either, the complex web of unwritten ground rules and norms of conduct that kept the four decades-old US-Israeli standoff from turning into military confrontation (which of course neither side wants). 

Meanwhile, all indications are that Trump senses that the Iran question has transformed as Tehran’s deterrent capability began  surging, and is no longer a ‘stand-alone’ challenge for the US, as the external environment has changed phenomenally since the Ukraine war began. Russia and Iran are in a quasi-alliance today. That said, Russia is also a stakeholder in nuclear non-proliferation and has a congruence of interests with the US that Iran abides by the NPT.  

A sense of proportions is always necessary to assess the US-Iran tensions. Therefore, Trump’s remarks after signing the executive order on NSPM need to be properly understood. Suffice to say, It was a carefully choreographed performance by Trump, caught on camera and speaking with an eye on a prompter — rather unusual for Trump who is famous for his stream of consciousness on such occasions.  

An announcer in the background introduced almost apologetically that NSPM  seeks to impose “maximum pressure” on Iran, but qualified it saying that many provisions in the document are only  “similar to action taken” during the first Trump administration. 

He continued that the “basic idea” is to ensure every government department and agency acts in unison, “and the intent here is to give you all the possible tools to engage with the Iranian government.” 

Trump spoke calmly in a measured tone of resignation. He noted stoically, “This is what everybody told me to sign. It is very tough on Iran. The Iran situation — hopefully, we don’t have to do very much. 

“We will see whether we can arrange to work out a deal with Iran and everybody can live together. Maybe it is possible, maybe it is not possible.” 

Trump continued: “So, I am signing this and am unhappy to do it. But I really have not so much choice because we have to be strong and firm. And I hope that it does not have to be used in any great measure at all. 

“We could have a Middle East and a world in total peace. Right now, we don’t have that. I like to have peace all over the world but now you have the world blowing up.” 

Trump repeated, “I am signing this but, hopefully, it will be a document which will be important but hardly has to be used.” 

When asked what kind of a deal is envisaged with Iran, Trump replied, “We will see. They (cannot) have a nuclear weapon. With me, it is simple: Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. We don’t want to be tough on Iran…This (deal) could have been done long ago.” But Biden did nothing for whatever reason. 

When asked about alleged Iranian plots to assassinate him,  Trump reacted, “They (Iranians) have not done that. That will be a terrible thing to do. Not because of me, but they will be obliterated… I have left instructions. If they do it, they will get obliterated. There won’t be anything left. If anything like that happens (from any quarter), there will be total obliteration of that state — not only Iran…

Trump concluded by repeating again, “So, I am signing this. It is a very powerful document (read maximum pressure strategy) but, hopefully, I will not have to use it.” 

In essence, Trump conveyed a nuanced message to Tehran before Netanyahu’s arrival that he has an independent line of thinking regardless of what the hotheads in Tel Aviv might be saying. And that is to work for a deal through smart diplomacy — the JD Vance line. 

Trump understands that the Masoud Pezeshkian government also seeks dialogue and negotiations. Trump does not believe that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, no matter the Israeli propaganda to the contrary through the past decade. 

Without doubt, Tehran will grasp Trump’s nuanced message of ‘transactional geopolitics’. Iranian officials have welcomed Trump’s remark that he is willing to work out a deal. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi wrote in a message on X: “In addition to being one of the committed parties to the NPT and other global non-proliferation treaties, Iran has already explicitly declared that ‘Iran will not seek to produce or acquire nuclear weapons under any circumstances’.” 

Araghchi added: “Obtaining practical guarantees that Iran will not attain nuclear weapons is not difficult, provided that, in return, concrete assurances are given to effectively end hostile actions against Iran—including economic pressures and sanctions.”

Tehran has taken note that Trump did not rule out a meeting with Pezeshkian. When asked about Trump’s remark, the government spokeswoman  Fatemeh Mohajerani told reporters at a press conference in Tehran on Wednesday, “Our international issues have been founded upon the principles of dignity, wisdom and expediency. All issues, specifically relations with other countries, are being pursued on the basis of these three principles.” 

In effect, Iran has responded positively to Trump’s estimation that a deal is possible and signalled flexibility and pragmatism on its part. Qatar’s Foreign Ministry Spokesman Majed Al-Ansari told Fox News today that his country is ready to act as mediator. 

February 6, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Iran to Trump: Another maximum pressure, another defeat for Washington

Press TV – February 5, 2025

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has asserted that another round of deployment of the “maximum pressure” policy on the part of the United States against Iran will only lead to another defeat.

“The policy of maximum pressure has already proven to be a failure, and any attempt to revive it will only lead to another defeat,” the top diplomat told reporters on the sidelines of a cabinet meeting on Wednesday.

Araghchi was referring to the policy that the US adopted during Donald Trump’s former tenure, as part of which Washington quit a 2015 nuclear deal with Iran and world powers, returned the sanctions that the agreement had lifted, and piled up even more illegal and unilateral bans against the Islamic Republic.

Retaliating against the measures, Iran took legitimate nuclear steps that have featured its operationalizing advanced centrifuges among other things.

The country also explored various means to skirt the sanctions and boost its economy by fostering foreign trade and enhancing domestic production, causing Washington to suffer “maximum defeat” in adoption of such policy.

On Tuesday, Trump promoted new “tough” measures aimed at, what Washington has called, “deterring” Iran from obtaining a “nuclear weapon.”

Trump also signed a presidential memorandum, authorizing stricter illegal actions against Iran, while saying, “They can’t have a nuclear weapon, we’d be very tough if they insist on doing that.”

Washington’s adversarial stance comes despite Tehran’s repeated assurances that its nuclear activities remain in full compliance with international regulations, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)’s invariable verification of the peaceful nature of the Islamic Republic’s nuclear energy program.

Reacting to Trump’s remarks, Araghchi said, “If the main issue is that Iran should not pursue nuclear weapons, this is achievable and not a difficult matter.”

“Iran’s stance is clear, and it is a member of the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), and there is also the fatwa (religious decree) of the Leader, which has clarified the matter for us,” he added.

Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei’s has prohibited pursuance, attainment, and storage of such non-conventional arms through an official decree as per religious and moral grounds.

“The Leader’s fatwa has made Iran’s position crystal clear,” Araghchi concluded.

‘Iran has never had, will never have nuclear weapons program’

Also on Wednesday, Mohammad Eslami, head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI), likewise reacted to Trump’s remarks, saying, “Iran has never had, does not have, and will not have a nuclear weapons program. Iran’s approach in this regard is absolutely clear.”

He added, “Iran’s peaceful nuclear program is being implemented within the framework of Safeguards [Agreement] and the NPT.”

February 5, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , | Leave a comment

Trump’s call for US ‘takeover’ of Gaza sparks international backlash

The Cradle | February 5, 2025

US President Donald Trump’s declaration that Washington will “own” the Gaza Strip and expel its residents has sparked widespread backlash and condemnation.

Hamas said in a statement on 5 February that it condemns “in the strongest terms and reject[s] the statements of US President Trump aimed at the United States of America occupying the Gaza Strip and displacing our Palestinian people from it.”

“We confirm that these statements are hostile to our people and our cause, will not serve stability in the region, and will only add fuel to the fire,” the statement added. “We … will not allow any country in the world to occupy our land or impose guardianship over our great Palestinian people.”

“We call on the US administration and President Trump to retract these irresponsible statements that contradict international laws and the natural rights of our Palestinian people in their land,” Hamas went on to say, calling on the Arab League, Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), and the UN to hold urgent meetings to address Trump’s statements.

Secretary-General of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and top adviser to Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas said: “The Palestinian leadership … confirms its rejection of all calls for the displacement of the Palestinian people from their homeland. This is where we were born, this is where we lived, and this is where we will remain. We appreciate the Arab position committed to these constants.”

Several regional countries have also expressed their opposition to Trump’s statements.

“Trump’s statements regarding Gaza are unacceptable. Expelling (the Palestinians) from Gaza is an unacceptable issue neither on our part nor on the part of the countries of the region. There is no need to even discuss it,” said Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan.

Saudi Arabia said in a statement that it rejects any attempt to displace Palestinians from their land, adding that Riyadh will not normalize ties with Israel until a Palestinian state is established – in response to the US president’s claim that the kingdom is not demanding statehood in exchange for normalization as it has been publicly calling for.

Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdel Aati and Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Mustafa jointly rejected “the exodus” of the Palestinian people and called for “accelerated” entry of aid and recovery programs.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jiang responded to Trump, telling reporters Beijing “has always believed that Palestinians governing Palestine is the fundamental principle for postwar governance in Gaza.”

“We oppose the forced displacement and relocation of the population in Gaza,” he added.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov referred to Trump’s remarks as a manifestation “of Western cancel culture.”

The French Foreign Ministry said the future of Gaza must be based on a “future Palestinian state” and not controlled by “a third state.”

UK Environment Secretary Steve Reed said that “it is the view of the [British] Government that Palestinians should be able to return to their homes and rebuild their shattered lives.”

Members of the US Democratic and Republican parties also responded. Democratic senator Chris Murphy said Trump has “totally lost it.”

“A US invasion of Gaza would lead to the slaughter of thousands of US troops and decades of war in the Middle East. It’s like a bad, sick joke,” Murphy said.

Democratic representative Jake Auchincloss called the Trump plan “reckless and unreasonable.”

Former Republican member of the US Congress, Justin Amash, said: “If the United States deploys troops to forcibly remove Muslims and Christians … from Gaza, then not only will the US be mired in another reckless occupation but it will also be guilty of the crime of ethnic cleansing. No American of good conscience should stand for this.”

Dan Shapiro, former US ambassador to Israel during Barack Obama’s presidency, said it “was not a serious proposal” and “would require a huge cost in American money and troops, without the support of key partners in the region.”

Trump’s controversial remarks came during a press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on 5 February and during separate statements made during the Israeli premier’s visit.

“The US will take over the Gaza Strip … I see it as a long-term ownership position,” Trump said.

“I have a feeling that the king in Jordan and that … the general president [of Egypt], but the general and Egypt will open their hearts and will give us the kind of land that we need to get this done,” Trump said.

Trump has been insisting that over a million Palestinians in Gaza be expelled and that Jordan and Egypt take them in – which both Cairo and Amman have rejected.

He called Gaza “a symbol of death and destruction” and said that its residents only want to go back there because they have nowhere else to go.

February 5, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Pulling the Money Chain: The NGO Network in Ukraine and the Global War on Terror

By Matt Wolfson | The Libertarian Institute | February 5, 2025

Detritus from Joe Biden’s administration doesn’t just amount to the obvious—inflation and deficit spending, regulations and wars. There’s also been a more subtle shift off of these failures, affecting who has power in our country and how they’ll use it in the future.

Nowhere is the shift less noticed or more definite than in the world of humanitarianism, which has been enriched these past three years by the previous administration’s proxy wars. Since 2022—when the Biden White House responded to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by neither escalating nor defusing but prolonging—a network of humanitarian non-profits has grown up around the conflict. This network has fed off the deaths of Ukrainians and the piling on of debt for future Americans through its operators’ deep contacts with the United States government and its outgrowths.

This network is worth investigating on its own. But with the advent of the second Trump Administration which is looking to wind down the war, its players appear to be pivoting from Ukraine to the Middle East: from ginning up funds for an endless proxy war to ginning them up for a repeat of the Global War on Terror.

The most obvious entry point into this network is Ukraine NGO Coordination Network (UNCN), which has a small staff but a wide reach: forty-two organizations are members. Many of them are some version of globalist: “Cross Border Civilians,” “Aviation without Borders,” “Global Outreach Doctors,” “Medical Teams Worldwide.” And many of these have the institutional links one might expect. Cross Border Civilians recruits from the World Economic Forum while Global Outreach Doctors traffics in Black Lives Matter. But even UNCN non-profits with close connections to Ukraine are much more tied into Washington DC-backed institutions than they first appear.

Listed first of all these organizations is Razom, a Ukrainian-American non-profit active since 2014. Its president, Dora Chomiak, is a Princeton and Columbia graduate who served in the 1990s as a Director of Regional Media Programs for George Soros’ newly-founded Open Society Institute. Under Chomiak’s leadership, Razom has a spot at the World Economic Forum, a regular Soros haunt. It also has a strong presence at Bard College, a major accepter of Ukrainian refugees which recently received a $500 million endowment pledge from Soros, whose second wife directs the Bard Graduate Center.

Razom also has government and university contacts. Samantha Power, the outgoing director of USAID, the government agency responsible for foreign aid, has been a featured speaker at Razom-hosted events, and so has the U.S. State Department’s Special Representative for Ukraine’s Economic Recovery, Penny Pritzker. Columbia University, which has received extensive donations from Soros as well as tax exemptions from Washington, hosts regular pro-Ukrainian events at its Harriman Institute, where Chomiak serves on the board.

Another prominent member of UNCN’s network is Help Ukraine, founded by Brian Mefford, who also founded Wooden Horse Strategies, which by its own description is “a Kyiv-based consulting firm focusing on USAID and EU project development and evaluation, risk analysis, due diligence, political strategy and strategic communications” that “provides clients with both Ukraine and regional insight that achieves results for their projects, businesses and policy objectives.” In 2023, Wooden Horse Strategies was listed by Russian officials as under contract with Ukraine’s Science and Technology Center to help carry out “the United States’ military biological programs in Ukraine.”

This claim isn’t verifiable, but it is verifiable that Ukraine’s Science and Technology Center contracted with Wooden Horse Strategies to combat “disinformation” about the Ukrainian war effort. Mefford was also reliably identified as an attendee at a 2022 Washington summit on the conduct of the war sponsored by “private sector cyber security and intelligence operators and CIA venture capital firm In-Q-Tel,” which, according to its CEO, has seen over thirty of its portfolio companies “deplo[y]” their technologies “as part of Western efforts to support Ukraine.

These players, in other words, are not the Salvation Army. They’re highly plugged into government-funded universities and intelligence agencies as well as the U.S. Department of State. This positions them to be indirect or direct recipients not just of defense and university grants but of staggering amounts of formal humanitarian aid. “Since February 2022,” according to a Congressional Research report released on January 6, 2025, “Congress has appropriated more than $46 billion in emergency funds for accounts solely or partially managed by USAID to address the war in Ukraine” including for “humanitarian assistance.” This is on top of $65.9 billion in direct military assistance in the same period.

It’s not clear, as this report notes, where funds raised and spent this fast actually went. But almost surely some of them percolated directly or indirectly to the organizations which help make up the UNCN. Now, with the Trump administration opposed to further involvement in Ukraine, at least one of UNCN’s players appear to be mobilizing to get funding for a different foreign cause.

This player is Sarah Adams, Chief of Operations for UNCN from January 2022 to January 2024 and an institutional operator par excellence. At the start of her career, Adams worked for a pharmaceutical company with links to Pfizer and in the 2010s she was a CIA analyst abroad, including in Libya. She serves as a Program Analyst for the United States Department of the Air Force in Tampa.

Currently, though, on conservative podcasts like Shawn Ryan’s and Tudor Dixon’s on which she appears, Adams presents herself as a former CIA agent and whistleblower cut from MAGA’s mold: an ex-soldier sounding the alert on jihadi infiltrations. She makes the case for a unified global movement of pre-planned Al Qaeda “wave” attacks which represent a clear and present danger to the United States. Not surprisingly, in the wake of the January 1 terrorist attack in New Orleans, Adams’s supporters claimed validation for her—despite the fact that the attacker was an American-born resident of Texas and a Deloitte employee radicalized online.

Adams claims to be going up against Pentagon pushback when she makes her warnings, despite the fact that she’s employed by the Air Force, which is run from the Pentagon. But the Pentagon’s history of firing employees who dissent, among them decorated Space Force Colonel Matthew Lohmeier, renders this claim extremely dubious. Journalist Max Blumenthal has pointed out other inconsistencies as well. Not only are “Adams’ sources [for her claims] unnamed,” they’re also uncited outside of her constant references to “we.” In only the first fifteen minutes of her appearance on The Shawn Ryan Show, Adams cites “open source” information, i.e. information from publicly available sources or that she got “on the ground”; doesn’t link to those sources (outside of a terrorist training video); and then makes broad claims. One is that Al Qaeda activities in Europe are a planned operation for revenge against America for its interfering in the Middle East. Another is connecting threatened Al Qaeda attacks on America to the October 7 attack against Israel, implying that combating one means combating the other.

The way Adams phrases her warnings reinforces the confusion. She sounds either like she’s not confident in her own material, or that she’s patronizing her audience by talking down. “But it’s just, um, al Qaeda has all these waves of attacks planned, okay” is her way of describing a clear and present threat to Americans. About terrorist trainees: “Remember their life is they train all the time so if that’s all you’re doing all day long, I mean, you’re gonna get really competent at it and then they have different emotions behind it too and, you know, different beliefs, and the religion behind it too, which makes you more devout.” She calls a Pentagon communication to her a “nastygram.” She says (jokingly? not?) that Shawn Ryan’s head of production looks like a terrorist and that she “could have [his address] by the end of the day if I really wanted it.” This doesn’t sound like an experienced veteran delivering a serious warning. It sounds like a self-promoter with a strange side.

When it comes to questions about her analysis or sources, Adams is not tolerant. When I pushed back on X with “total respect” about whether the issue of the Taliban targeting a French Afghani in France was relevant, as Adams claimed, to “all of us,” she responded before blocking me:

One reason Adams may take this attitude is that engaging with American conservatives isn’t really what she wants to be doing; it’s a means to an end. One of her supporters explained to me on X: “Sarah’s focusing on raising attention with ‘the right’ (even though they typically lack nuance) because they’re still national security focused, while Left leaning westerners tend not to [be].” This ally, James Griffin, runs a website titled “Analytica Camillus.” It pairs broad sloganeering (“Morality in Ruthlessness”; “You may not be interested in war but war is interested in you”) with intricately plotted maps of counteroffensives in Ukraine.

All of this raises a question: if Muslim terror tactics have been such clear threats and created such humanitarian calamities, why did self-identified experts in war and humanitarianism like Adams and Griffin spend years focusing on Ukraine and only pivot to Islamism as a new Donald Trump presidency loomed? One answer is that these pivots—from the Russia threat to Muslim terror, from Kosovo to Iraq—have been happening for three decades, executed by the same connected institutional operators in the name of the same general principles applied to different situations based on which administration is in the White House.

These general principles are security and humanitarianism, a double rhetorical punch that has justified the foreign interventions that have created unprecedented non-and-for-profit boondoggles since the 1990s. Tellingly, Adams describes herself as 10% warlord, 90% humanitarian, or a warrior in the name of humanitarian ideals, and neither her pairing of war and human rights nor the profits that accrue from that pairing are new. An early beneficiary was George Soros, whose Open Society Foundations picked up in the Balkans where NATO left off, and who has been heavily invested in Ukrainian companies. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars were also a boondoggle for non-profits as well as for business ventures to “build up” the region America had decimated by players like the Pritzker Family; one of whose members, Thomas Pritzker, set up North America Western Asia Holdings in partnership with a former undersecretary of Defense in the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administration to pursue those opportunities in 2011.

A humanitarian-crusader thru-line also runs through the careers of government officials responsible for these crusades. Biden USAID director Samantha Power made her name in the 1990s with a Pulitzer Prize winning book urging American intervention in the name of human rights and later stage-managed the intervention in Libya, where Sarah Adams served as a CIA analyst. Biden’s Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, a key backer of humanitarianism up to his last days in the State Department, had a father, another humanitarian, who was a key supporter of the NATO expansion off of our 1990s Balkans interventions which began our long cool down with Russia. Both Power and Blinken also  advanced their career off of or in support of the Iraq War. This was the ultimate in humanitarian-security politics gone wrong. It was justified by links between Muslims (Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda) that later proved conflationary and that are uncomfortably similar to the links Sarah Adams is currently making between different Muslim groups.

In between stints in government, both Power and Blinken subsisted off Ivy League research perches with links to nonprofits and security contractors. Almost surely, both will lend their support to policies already being bandied around in Washington, and reinforced by testimony from people like Sarah Adams that empower those institutions. These policies include re-authorizing government surveillance on American citizens and expanding the power of the Department of Homeland Security in the name of combating Muslim terror.

Other prominent supporters of these policies like Aayan Hirsi Ali, operating out of non-profits inside government-funded universities, want Americans to take the same broad-brush approach to national security as Sarah Adams does. But they expand the threats even further, broadcasting a new humanitarian and security crusade against Marxism, Islamism, the Chinese Communist Party, and Vladimir Putin. Tellingly, Hirsi’s husband, Niall Ferguson, an institutionally-connected booster of American interventionism and humanitarianism since a dozen years before the Iraq War, has recently become a Trump supporter, self-professedly dancing at Mar-a-Lago not too long ago.

He, along with longtime interventionist Bret Stephens and Stephens’ protégé, Free Press founder Bari Weiss, have increasingly identified with conservatives while pushing very different focuses. As of January 28, The Free Press’ last twenty international stories have included five on the Western hemisphere or China; the other fifteen have been on Europe and the Middle East. And this doesn’t even mention The Free Press’ separate section on Israel and antisemitism. Whatever one’s views of these issues, these players’ focus is far away from the focus of constitutional conservatives or the Trump White House.

Arguably, these humanitarian-military crusades—the ones which fund people like Sarah Adams, Brian Mefford, and Dora Chomiak, and which open investment opportunities for the Pritzkers and George Soros—are the most durable beneficiaries of America’s post-Cold War deep state apparatus. Quietly since 1995 and loudly since 2001, there has literally not been a year when we weren’t engaged in one of these missions, empowering contractors and non-profits abroad while encouraging surveillance at home.

Today’s latest sales pitch for a new crusade by Ukraine War pushers is something believers in small government and individual liberties should push back against. Profits in the name of war-linked humanitarianism are suspect to begin with. But when they threaten our liberties and our finances, they’re anathema to American interests.

February 5, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Leading War Criminal Benjamin Netanyahu Will Visit Donald Trump

By Philip Giraldi • Unz Review • January 30, 2025

President Donald Trump has invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to meet with him at the White House on Tuesday February 4th. Netanyahu will be the first foreign head of state to visit America’s new president at the White House and the message being sent by virtue of that fact would seem inescapable, i.e. that Israel is in the minds of the country’s powerbrokers and media indeed America’s “best friend” and “closest ally.” Or is it? It is possible, though admittedly less likely, that Trump, he of the enormous ego, might well take the opportunity to suppress any thoughts that the Israeli leader is basically dictating the course of US foreign policy in the Middle East. Trump just might want to make it clear in the face-to-face that he is the one who is in charge.

I must admit that when the story broke my first thought was that Netanyahu might possibly discover that he has been lured to Washington. When his plane lands at Dulles International or Andrews AFB, I even hoped there would be an international police contingent waiting for him to show him the warrant for his arrest, read him his rights, shackle him, and send him off to The Hague to be tried for his numerous war crimes and his involvement in genocide. Hopefully, Joe Biden and Tony Blinken would be treated similarly and sent off on the same plane. But my dream outcome for the visit faded as reality set in and I came to accept that Bibi will be more likely feted as royalty by the neocons and other not-quite-human trash that now infests the US government.

There is however admittedly a distinct possibility that Trump will assert himself as he apparently did recently when a video was posted by him on the Trump social media site Truth Social. The video featured Columbia professor Jeffrey Sachs bad mouthing Bibi, saying “Netanyahu had from 1995 onward the theory that the only way we’re gonna get rid of Hamas and Hezbollah is by toppling the governments that support them. That’s Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Iran. And the guy’s nothing if not obsessive. And he’s still trying to get us to fight Iran this day, this week. He’s a deep dark sonofabitch, sorry to tell you. ’Cause he’s gotten us into endless wars, and because of the power of all of this in the US politics, he’s gotten his way.”

Or, alternatively, Trump could easily continue the Middle East policy that prevailed in his first term as president, which was, like Genocide Joe Biden, to defer to Israel on nearly everything. Trump moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem and violated international law by declaring the city to be the true legal Israeli capital; he endorsed the annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights by Israel; he chose to ignore atrocities committed by Israeli settlers and soldiers directed against the Palestinians living on the West Bank; and he withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreement to monitor and limit a possible Iranian nuclear program. Also regarding Iran, he ordered that country’s Quds Force commander Qassim Soleimani assassinated in January 2020 while Soleimani was on a peace mission to Baghdad.

Iran continues to be the target of both the US and Israel. Lest anyone should think that the JCPOA move was motivated to encourage Iran to develop a weapon, Trump’s argument was that the program was flawed because it did not go far enough in penetrating and investigating Iranian military sites and labs. It also created a national security pretext permitting Israel to insist that Iran was hiding a secret nuke program, an excuse for a preemptive attack on it jointly launched by Israel and the United States. Interestingly, outgoing CIA Director William Burns now claims that the Iranians have no nukes and have no capability to quickly produce one. He also maintains that there is no evidence that they even have any desire to acquire a nuclear weapon, a reality that clearly contradicts the Israeli propaganda regarding an “Iranian nuclear threat.”

Nevertheless, it is regularly reported by Israel and the neocon dominated media in the US that Team Trump and the Israeli security council have been discussing a preemptive strike on the Iranians. But perhaps contrary to that assessment Steve Witkoff, Trump’s Middle East envoy and the man who pressured Netanyahu into agreeing to a ceasefire with Hamas, has since the inauguration been given the portfolio for dealing with the Middle East including responsibility for Iran negotiations. The previous Trump appointee who had that responsibility was Brian Hook, who was a hardliner who believed in applying “maximum pressure” on the Iranians and has now been replaced.

Witkoff is also reported to be continuing to meet with and pressure Netanyahu to complete all three phases of the Gaza agreement, something which is contradicted by Israeli media reporting which suggests that Netanyahu believes that he can resume his military offensive with US support after the six weeks of phase one. In addition to Witkoff, another more recent appointment might give one hope for a gradual reversal of policy in line with Trump’s apparent belief that American involvement in the Middle East has been expensive, destructive, and contrary to the American national interest. Michael DiMino, a former CIA analyst and Department of Defense veteran, is the Trump pick to be deputy assistant secretary of defense with responsibility for the Middle East operations. DiMino is facing fierce Israel Lobby opposition to his appointment, but he continues to maintain very clearly that, in his opinion, Iranian conventional forces do not pose a threat to the US, meaning that war with Tehran should not be viewed as an option.

Some observers think that Trump’s intentions might be most clearly reflected in his choices as US Ambassadors to Israel. His first term produced David Friedman, Trump’s personal lawyer and a passionate Zionist. Friedman functioned more as a cheerleader for Israel and all its works than a promoter or defender of any actual US interest. The new ambassador Evangelical Christian Zionist Mike Huckabee might prove to be even worse than Friedman, which is saying a lot. When making the appointment, Trump said in a statement regarding Huckabee that “Mike has been a great public servant, Governor, and Leader in Faith for many years. He loves Israel, and the people of Israel, and likewise, the people of Israel love him. Mike will work tirelessly to bring about Peace in the Middle East!”

Huckabee’s vision of “peace” will likely be based on a mountain of dead and dispossessed Palestinians. He believes God gave historic Palestine to the modern state of Israel, and is an outspoken advocate of Israel’s planned expansion in the occupied West Bank. While visiting an Israeli West Bank settlement in in 2017, Huckabee claimed the land was not Israeli occupied. “I think Israel has title deed to Judea and Samaria. There are certain words I refuse to use. There is no such thing as a West Bank. It’s Judea and Samaria. There’s no such thing as a settlement… There’s no such thing as an occupation.” In 2008, during his own presidential campaign, Huckabee said there was “really no such thing as a Palestinian.”

Those concerned that Trump might be moving to favor Israel above all nations note that the administration’s directive to halt all spending on foreign assistance programs, which included Ukraine, exempted Israel and also Egypt, where Trump is hoping to dump upwards of a million Palestinians in the Sinai Desert to “clean up” the mess in Gaza. Trump has also approved the sale to Israel of 1800 M-84 2000 pound bombs which are used primarily to destroy large buildings and kill large numbers of people. The transfer of the weapons to Israel had been suspended by the Biden Administration but Trump announced that “A lot of things that were ordered and paid for by Israel, but have not been sent by Biden, are now on their way!” He did not mention that US weapons “sold” to Israel are often paid for by the US taxpayer as part of military aid. The sale of a large number of dual-use armored Caterpillar bulldozers to Israel, useful for knocking down whatever habitable spaces remain in Gaza, has also received the green light from the administration. Trump has also blocked the Biden-imposed sanctions on extremist settler groups that have been harassing, beating, and killing the Palestinians who are trying to survive on the West Bank. Finally, Trump has issued an executive order that will require American universities to monitor the political activities of foreign students in a bid to reduce antisemitism. Those who have gotten involved in pro-Palestinian demonstrations on campus could have their visas canceled and they will be subject to deportation.

That is quite a bit of pro-Israel movement for Donald Trump’s first week in office, don’t you think? Those who believe that Trump might be preparing to lay down the law with Netanyahu must understand that he will also have to contend with the hopelessly Zionist Congress, which gave the monstrous Netanyahu 56 standing ovations when last he appeared in Washington. We will know soon enough what the meeting between Netanyahu and Trump in the White House was all about and we shall also find out whether the bilateral relationship will continue to consist of Israel cracking the whip and the United States government performing. If Trump dares to challenge the status quo it could set the stage for a major conflict between the new president and the immensely powerful Israel Lobby. As Trump is a very stubborn man with a huge ego, that interplay could be very interesting to watch, particularly as it could lead to the United States finally freeing itself from the country that has been pulling its foreign and national security policy strings for so many years.

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.

January 31, 2025 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

‘Conspiracy Theory’ Now Fact: Greater Israel Has Arrived

By Kit Klarenberg | Mint Press News | January 28, 2025

Ever since Tel Aviv’s 1948 creation, much has been said and written about ‘Greater Israel’ – the notion Zionism’s ultimate end goal is the forcible annexation and ethnic cleansing of vast swaths of Arab and Muslim lands for Jewish settlement, based on Biblical claims this territory was promised to Jews by God. The mainstream media typically dismisses this concept as antisemitic conspiracy theory, or at most the fringe fantasy of a minuscule handful of extremist Israelis.

In reality, as The Guardian admitted in 2009, the idea of a Greater Israel has long-appealed to “religious and secular right-wing nationalists” alike at a state and public level in Tel Aviv. They have the shared objective of “[seeking] to fulfill divine commandments about the ‘beginning of redemption’, as well as create ‘facts on the ground’ to enhance Israel’s security.” The outlet acknowledged this motivation was a key contemporary driving force in mainstream Zionist entity politics, which “effectively turned the Palestinians into aliens on their own soil.”

The Nation has described the push to establish Greater Israel as “the central ideological goal” of Benjamin Netyahu’s Likud Party, which has dominated Israeli politics in recent decades. In July 2018 too, the Zionist entity passed the “Nation State of the Jewish People” law. It enshrines “the development of Jewish settlement as a national value.” Meanwhile, the state is legally obligated “to encourage and promote” the “establishment and consolidation” of settlements, in illegally occupied territory.

A proposed map of ‘Greater Israel’

This is based on the Jewish people’s “exclusive and inalienable right” to territory as far away from present Israel as Saudi Arabia. Old Testament terms such as “Judea and Samaria” are also employed. Markedly, this text is absent from the legislation’s official English translation. Zionist entity chiefs may not have wanted to make their irredentist, settler colonial ambitions quite so obvious at the time. Fast forward to today though, and Zionists at every level are wholly unabashed about their grand expansionist plans in West Asia.

The Syrian government’s fall has raised all manner of questions, concerns, and uncertainties locally and internationally. Can the country survive in its present form? Will Western-backed ‘former’ ultra-extremists be able to run a government? May the Iran-led Axis of Resistance, which inflicted such harm to the Zionist entity and its Western puppet masters throughout 2023/4, be under threat? The list goes on. But one thing is certain – Israel is seeking to profit handsomely from the chaos. If successful, the results will be revolutionary.

‘Defensive Position’

On December 8th, a triumphant, smart-casual-bedecked Benjamin Netanyahu made a public address from an Israeli Occupation Force observation point, in the illegally-occupied Golan Heights. Taking personal credit for Bashar Assad’s ouster, he hailed “a historic day” for the region, which offered “great opportunity.” The Israeli leader bragged that the Zionist entity’s “forceful action against Hezbollah and Iran” had “set off a chain reaction” of upheaval, showing no sign of abating. Nonetheless, he warned of “significant dangers”.

One of those hazards, Netanyahu declared, was “the collapse of the Separation of Forces Agreement from 1974.” This largely forgotten accord was signed by Damascus and Tel Aviv following the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Both sides agreed not to mount hostile military operations of any kind against one another from their shared Golan Heights border. Perhaps surprisingly, it was scrupulously adhered to for 50 years. Now, though, Assad’s fall has sparked a Syrian military withdrawal from the area, and, in turn, the IDF is moving in.

Netanyahu announced orders had been given to the IOF to push deep into the demilitarized zone created by the Agreement, which is legally and historically Syrian territory. He claimed this was merely a “temporary defensive position until a suitable arrangement is found.” Yet, ever since, it has become increasingly unambiguous that for the Zionist entity, Assad’s departure not only greenlights the tearing up of longstanding diplomatic agreements, but the entire map of West Asia as we know it.

For the time being, the IOF has captured strategically invaluable Mount Hermon, Syria’s tallest mountain, from which Damascus can be seen just 40 miles away. Concurrently, hundreds of Zionist entity airstrikes have obliterated what remained of Syria’s military infrastructure, leaving the country completely defenseless from any and all incursions by air, land, and sea. The stage is plainly set for a major escalation and attempt by Israel to absorb further territory, at its behest. Who or what could stop them?

IOF militants unfurl an entity flag on Mount Hermon

On December 10th 2024, while testifying at his long-running trial for industrial scale corruption in office, Netanyahu used the occasion to hint strongly at Assad’s defeat heralding a major reshaping of the region afoot. “Something tectonic has happened here, an earthquake that hasn’t happened in the 100 years since the Sykes-Picot Agreement,” the Israeli leader said, referencing the 1916 treaty under which Britain and France carved up the Ottoman Empire.

In an ironic twist, destruction of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which divided West Asia into artificial boundaries under Western colonial rule, was a regular feature of ISIS propaganda. The group cited the pact as a symbol of Western oppression against Islam, presenting its demise as a religious duty. With figures associated with ISIS now taking charge in Damascus, that vision could now be achieved, a prospect both serving Israel’s long-term goals, and aligning with Netanyahu’s long-standing ambitions.

‘Living Room’

In recent weeks, Israeli media has undergone a significant tonal shift. Historically, even critical Israeli news outlets and journalists have been careful to frame the Zionist entity’s most egregious actions – ranging from military operations against neighboring countries to settlement expansion and land confiscation – in terms of “security” and “defense”. However, in the days leading up to Tel Aviv’s invasion of Lebanon on October 1st 2024, The Jerusalem Post published a strikingly candid explainer guide for its readers, enquiring, “Is Lebanon part of Israel’s promised territory?”

The outlet leaned on a Brooklyn-based Rabbi to “graciously” explain in detail how, based on multiple passages in Jewish scripture, “Lebanon is within the borders of Israel,” and Jews are therefore “obligated and commanded to conquer it.” The article was subsequently deleted after mass backlash and condemnation. But lessons from the debacle evidently weren’t learned in some quarters.

On December 4th – four days before the Syrian government’s fall – The Times of Israel published an op-ed on how “Israel’s exploding population” urgently required “Lebensraum”, a notorious German concept meaning “living room”, typically associated with the Nazis. The piece noted the Zionist entity’s population was projected to grow to 15.2 million by 2048, meaning Tel Aviv’s territory rapidly needed to be greatly expanded – perhaps not to the size of Russia, but certainly considerably.

This extremist rant was likewise purged from the web, due to widespread public outcry and mockery. Yet, since Assad’s fall, the term “Greater Israel” abounds readily in Zionist media, and seizure of territory from Tel Aviv’s neighbors is openly and eagerly discussed on primetime entity TV. Geopolitical analyst and founder of The Cradle Sharmine Narwani tells MintPress News that in a sense, the blatant nature of these discussions is a welcome development, as it lays bare Tel Aviv’s most extreme ambitions. However, she warns, attempts to expand the entity’s borders could backfire in catastrophic ways:

“The good news is, Israel has completely dropped all its masks. The bad news is it will go for land grabs everywhere. But this will be done opportunistically, and without much forethought or strategic planning. In the end, which country besides the US will be able to support Israel publicly? Tel Aviv will corner itself because the dominant Western discourse and EU law are still premised on human rights and ‘rules’. Allowing Israel these land grabs will also sink the Western-led global order.”

‘Primary Target’

Academic David Miller concurs the Zionist mask is off once and for all. Gravely, he tells MintPress News, “the fact that the CIA backed regime in Damascus is openly saying it is no threat to Israel is another indication regime change in Syria is a planned attempt to destroy the Axis of Resistance, and finally genocide all Palestinians.” Furthermore, he believes the writings of Zionism’s founder Theodore Herzl make clear seizing Lebanese and Syrian territory was Israel’s plan all along.

This malign objective, Miller adds, was echoed in many statements of countless prominent Zionists over decades, and “even codified and published as the Yinon Plan.” Little-known today, this extraordinary document was published in February 1982 in Hebrew journal Kivunim, under the title “A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s”. Its title is derived from author Oded Yinon, a shadowy former Israeli Foreign Ministry official and advisor to Zionisty entity leader Ariel Sharon.

Some sources claim the Yinon Plan provided a precise blueprint for major future events in West Asia, such as the illegal 2003 Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, Syrian dirty war, and rise of ISIS. It may be an exaggeration to suggest the Plan precisely portended all these developments, but nonetheless, much of the document’s contents are eerily prescient. Moreover, while many of its proposals failed to subsequently materialise, we are left to ponder whether they may now do so in future.

For example, the Plan noted there was significant potential for “domestic trouble” to erupt in Syria between “the Sunni majority and the Shiite Alawi ruling minority” – the latter constituting a “mere 12% of the population” – to the extent of “civil war”. While Damascus’ “strong military regime” was considered formidable, Yinon declared “the dissolution of Syria into ethnically or religiously unique areas” and destruction of its military power should be “Israel’s primary target” on its Eastern front, “in the long run”.

The Plan envisaged similar outcomes for other countries in Israel’s immediate vicinity. Lebanon was to be broken up into “five provinces” along religious and ethnic lines, partition “[serving] as a precedent for the entire Arab world.” Yinon wrote, “this state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run,and that aim is already within our reach today.” Four months later, the Zionist entity invaded Beirut, carrying out ethnic cleansing, massacres, and land theft along the way.

Israel’s June 1982 invasion of Lebanon

Once the Zionist entity’s immediate neighbors were neutralized, Iraq was to be crosshaired “later on”. Baghdad, “rich in oil” while “internally torn” between its Sunni and Shiite population, was “guaranteed as a candidate for Israel’s targets.” Its destruction was “even more important for us than that of Syria,” due to its “power” and strength relative to other regional adversaries. Yinon hoped the then-ongoing Iran-Iraq war would “tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall”, preventing Baghdad from ‘[organizing] a struggle on a wide front against us”:

“Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon… It is possible that the present Iranian-Iraqi confrontation will deepen this polarization.”

‘Permissive Approach’

Yinon also considered it a “political priority” to regain control of the Sinai peninsula, over which the Zionist entity had fought its Arab neighbors since inception, before relinquishing all claims to the region to Egypt under the March 1979 Camp David accords. He slammed these peace agreements, and looked forward to Cairo “[providing] Israel with the excuse [emphasis added] to take the Sinai back into our hands,” due to its vast “strategic, economic and energy” value:

“The economic situation in Egypt, the nature of the regime and its pan-Arab policy, will bring about a situation after April 1982 in which Israel will be forced to act directly or indirectly in order to regain control over Sinai… for the long run. Egypt does not constitute a military strategic problem due to its internal conflicts and it could be driven back to the post 1967 war situation in no more than one day.”

We are now well-past April 1982. In the intervening time, successive Israeli governments have demanded Egypt allow the IOF to relocate Gaza’s population to the Sinai. Netanyahu is particularly taken with the prospect. In the immediate wake of October 7th 2023, official Israeli government and Zionist think tank policy papers openly advocated driving Palestinians into the neighbouring desert. It has been reported entity officials begged the US to pressure Cairo into allowing this mass displacement.

For the Zionist entity, this strategy’s appeal is self-evident. On top of emptying Gaza for settlement, forcing Palestinians into Sinai would inevitably create mass chaos and tensions there, which could in Yinon’s phrase provide “the excuse” for Tel Aviv to militarily occupy the region, in the manner of the West Bank. Just as a “temporary defensive position until a suitable arrangement is found” of course, as Netanyahu said of the IOF’s brazen creation of a prospective beachhead on Mount Hermon.

In December 2024Haaretz observed Netanyahu was “angling for a legacy as the leader who expanded Israel’s borders”, and “wants to be remembered as the one who created Greater Israel.” Simultaneously, neoconservative Brookings Institute vice president Suzanne Maloney wrote for Empire house journal Foreign Affairs that the incoming Trump administration “will surely take a permissive approach to Israeli territorial ambitions.” After all, recent developments showed “a maximalist military approach yields spectacular strategic dividends along with domestic political benefits” for the Zionist entity.

We must hope, as Sharmine Narwani prophesied, Netanyahu’s megalomaniacal reveries of Greater Israel are just that, and come to nothing. Despite understandable mass anti-imperialist mourning over the Assad government’s demise, Tel Aviv faces a panoply of intractable internal problems. Contrary to claims of Tel Aviv’s population “exploding”, tens of thousands of dual-citizenship residents are routinely fleeing due to Resistance attacks, while its economy has perhaps permanently been relegated to the doldrums, the entity entirely dependent on US financial largesse to endure.

January 30, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

New neocon manifesto: Keep US troops in the Middle East forever

The ‘Vandenberg Coalition’ wants Trump to prioritize Israel and maintain Iran as enemy number one

By Jim Lobe | Responsible Statecraft | January 28, 2025

A leading neoconservative for most of the last half century has released a comprehensive series of recommendations on Middle East policy for the new Trump administration nearly all of which are ideas that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Likud Party would happily embrace.

The 16-page report, entitled “Deals of the Century: Solving the Middle East,” is published by the Vandenberg Coalition, which was founded and chaired by Elliott Abrams, who has held senior foreign policy posts in every Republican administration since Ronald Reagan (except George H.W. Bush’s), including as Special Envoy for Venezuela and later for Iran during Trump’s first term.

Created shortly after former President Biden took office, the Coalition has acted as a latter-day Project for the New American Century, a letterhead organization that acted as a hub and platform for pro-Likud neoconservatives, aggressive nationalists, and the Christian Right in mobilizing public support for the “Global War on Terror,” the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and the move away from a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict, particularly under the George W. Bush administration in which Abrams served as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Near East and North African Affairs, surviving a number of purges of leading neoconservatives in that administration after the Iraq occupation went south.

The new report predictably calls for the new administration to “use all elements of [U.S.] national power” to prevent Iran, “the greatest threat to American interests in the Middle East and the cause of most of the region’s security problems,” from acquiring a nuclear bomb. It describes Israel as “our cornerstone ally in the region” to which Washington should provide all “the weapons it needs [to] help it win the war and prevent wider escalation.”

The recommendations also call for Washington to maintain its military presence in both Iraq and Syria, to suspend all aid to the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) “until it demonstrates a willingness to oppose Hezbollah, accelerate U.S. arms sales and broaden intelligence cooperation with the UAE,” and enhance military and security cooperation with Saudi Arabia provided it “pivot[s] away from China and Russia.”

It also calls for the Saudis to “increase [its] foreign direct investment commitments in U.S industries,” and “cease public statements” critical of Israel and supportive of Iran. “…[En]hanced cooperation with Saudi Arabia,” the report insists, “should be contingent on their being unequivocal about what side they are on.”

Washington should also designate Iraq’s Iran-backed Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) and related militias as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) and stop engaging with them politically, and work with Yemen’s Saudi-backed Presidential Leadership Council against the Houthis whose designation as an FTO by the Trump administration last week was applauded in the report. On the new government in Syria, the report says that ongoing sanctions, which helped cripple the country’s economy, should not be lifted “unless the new government proves to be a responsible actor,” although it does not describe what that would mean in any detail.

Aside from Iran’s status as Enemy Number One in the report, special scorn was reserved for Qatar, which has played a central role in mediating between Israel and Hamas regarding the fate of Israelis held in Gaza and Palestinians detained in Israel. Similar contempt is reserved for the Palestinian Authority headed by Mahmoud Abbas, for various U.N. agencies, notably “the nefariousness [sic] UNRWA,” which has worked with Palestinian refugees and their families across the Middle East for more than 70 years, and for senior UN human rights officials who deal with the Israel-Palestine conflict in particular. Washington “should immediately cease all funding to UNRWA” and also to UNIFIL, the U.N. peacekeeping force deployed along the Lebanese-Israeli border unless its troops are given the authority and demonstrate the will to confront Hezbollah forces in the area.

As for Qatar, it “has worked to undermine U.S. interests by cooperating with Iran and sheltering terrorist groups like Hamas,” according to the report. “With much better friends like the Saudis, Washington no longer needs to tolerate destabilizing Qatari behavior,” and thus should move U.S. Central Command’s forward headquarters out of Qatar’s Al Udeid Air Base and revoke Doha’s “Major Non-Nato Ally status unless its behavior changes.” That status should be conferred on the UAE instead, according to the report, provided that it “reduce [its] reliance on Russian and Chinese vendors” of military equipment.

The report, which describes the politics of the Biden administration in the Middle East on more than one occasion as “appeasement,” mainly of Iran, reminds the reader that Trump declared only last month that “the Middle East is going to get solved,” a phrase that undoubtedly inspired the report’s title: “Deals of the Century: Solving the Middle East.” While the report says it was the product of a “working group of Middle East experts,” no names other than Abrams, Gabriel Scheinemann, and Daniel Samet, the latter two neoconservatives from the Alexander Hamilton Society, appear in the report. Normally, reports by letterhead organizations list their contributors.

In presenting what it calls “key American interests in the Middle East,” the report puts “preventing Iran from developing n nuclear weapon at the top of the list” but also expresses alarm at Chinese Communist Party inroads in the region, noting that CCP is Washington’s “key global adversary.” In an echo of the Global War on Terror, Washington, it says, should also “deny jihadi terrorists a safe haven,” a reference in part to the necessity, its authors feel, to retain U.S. forces in Syria and Iraq.

But “America’s alliance with Israel is central to U.S. interests in the region, given that it promotes American values within the Middle East and provides the first line of defense against Iranian aggression.” Moreover, Washington should try to expand the Abraham Accords, and “the Palestinian question must not impede Israel’s normalization with Arab and Muslim countries or otherwise compromise its security.” Washington must “ensure Israel has the tools to defend itself.”

Yet another interest is to expand access of our allies and partners in Europe and elsewhere to the region’s energy supplies, according to the report.

To increase pressure on Iran, Washington should not only reinstate a Trump’s “ maximum pressure” campaign, but include within it convincing Britain, France, and Germany to “snapback sanctions” against Tehran at the U.N. Remarkably perhaps, it offers the possibility of a new nuclear agreement that would “forbid Iranian uranium enrichment beyond the small amounts need for a civilian nuclear program,” something that the 2015 JCPOA, which Trump withdrew from in 2018, actually accomplished before Trump, under the influence of neoconservatives like Abrams, withdrew from in 2018. If a deal can be reached, according to the report, it should be dealt with as a treaty; that is, made subject to a 2/3 majority vote in the Senate.

With respect to the Palestinians in the wake of the last 15 months of war in Gaza, “American policy toward the Palestinians must prioritize the security of Israel and our Arab partners.” Washington “must impose standards for good governance. The U.S. should “allow an Arab trusteeship to control Gaza after the war.” In words that must warm Netanyahu’s heart, the report notes “the weakness and incompetence of the PA mean it cannot govern Gaza,” and “Israel will need to maintain security control to prevent Hamas from rebuilding but should not and does not wish to govern Gaza itself.”

Abrams has a long history with both Palestine and Gaza, notably during the Bush administration. After Hamas was an unexpected election victor over its rival Fatah in the 2006 elections – which were hailed as the freest and fairest elections in the Arab world at the time – Abrams and other senior officials encouraged the mounting of an armed coup against Hamas led by Fatah’s local leader and Abrams’ favorite Muhammad Dahlan which, in turn, sparked a brief civil war in the enclave in which Hamas emerged victorious and stronger than ever. After the fiasco, Dahlan moved to the UAE, and there has been much speculation that he stands to play a key role on behalf of the Emirates if the kind of “Arab trusteeship” alongside Israeli security forces is established as recommended by the report.

Perhaps the most novel recommendation is based on the report’s contention that Iran’s non-state allies in the region typically use non-combatants as human shields — an apparent endorsement of Israel’s defense of its bombing of apartment houses, schools and other buildings in Gaza and Lebanon during the past 15 months that have killed well over 46,000 people, most of them women and children. “The United States should propose a Security Council resolution that states the use of human shields is a crime under international law and that those who use human shields are responsible for the civilian deaths in which they result,” the report advised.

Jim Lobe is a Contributing Editor of Responsible Statecraft. He formerly served as chief of the Washington bureau of Inter Press Service from 1980 to 1985 and again from 1989 to 2015.

January 30, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Compatible Left Joins Imperialism in Celebrating Defeat of Syria

By Stansfield Smith | Covert Action Magazine | January 8, 2025

It may be no surprise that the “mainstream” corporate news media have turned into advertising agencies for U.S. government policy. But it still surprises that what the CIA called a compatible left—those on the left it deemed compatible with maintaining imperialist rule—celebrates another successful U.S. “regime change,” this time, in Syria.

Portsidewhich assembles daily news articles that it advertises as “being of interest to people on the left,” ran an article, “Liberation in Syria Is a Victory Worth Embracing” by Layla Maghribi, which criticized “some self-styled Western ‘anti-imperialists’” for their lack of enthusiasm for the “victory.” While it does note that Israel bombed Syria 220 times up to mid-November this past year, one finds no mention of the long U.S. blockade imposed on Syrians.

CounterPunch has been a compatible left website outspoken in its hostility toward those exposing U.S. coup operations in Syria.

On December 10, CounterPunch published “Understanding the Rebellion in Syria” an interview with Swiss-Syrian socialist Joseph Daher. The introduction made the outlandish assertion that “some on the Left have claimed without foundation that their rebellion was orchestrated by the U.S. and Israel.” Daher himself in turn said that “the U.S. nor Israel had a hand in these events. In fact, the opposite is the case.”

Daher goes on to write off as “campists” and “tankies” those of us who recognize the obvious, “that this military offensive is led by ‘Al-Qaeda and other terrorists’ and that it is a Western-imperialist plot against the Syrian regime intended to weaken the so-called ‘Axis of Resistance’ led by Iran and Hezbollah… [T]he campists claim that the fall of Assad weakens it and therefore undermines the struggle for the liberation of Palestine.”

On December 11, CounterPunch turned to academic Stephen Zunes for an “exclusive interview,” presenting him as a “foreign policy expert” for the left.

Zunes, however, is on the advisory board of International Center for Nonviolent Conflict (ICNC); a group whose founder and primary funder was Peter Ackerman, a member of the Executive Committee of the Atlantic Council and chair of Freedom House. Also, back in 2011, Zunes praised the U.S.-NATO destruction of Qaddafi’s Libya in Truthout.

In the interview, Zunes impugned Assad for his “savage repression” and “endemic corruption” and blamed him for Syria’s growing poverty without mentioning the draconian U.S. sanctions policy or ravaging effects of a war that had been triggered by outsiders.

Zunes went on to characterize the anti-Assad rebels as a “popular resistance movement,” obscuring its domination by jihadist elements, and said that the rebellion “would have happened regardless of U.S. policy,” which obscures the crucial nature of U.S. support.

Zunes showed his true colors subsequently when he defended President Barack Obama, who inaugurated the largest covert operations in Syria since the 1980s Afghan mujahadin and illegally bombed Syria based on fraudulent pretexts, a phony charge of chemical weapons attacks.[1]

According to Zunes, “Many of these Western ‘anti-imperialists’ are themselves stuck in an imperialist mindset which denies agency to people of color in the Global South (or Slavs in Eastern Europe) who are struggling for their freedom against tyranny.”

However, the struggle against tyranny in this case was financed heavily by outside powers, including the U.S., and was led not by “freedom fighters” but jihadist terrorists who came from 84 different countries.

CounterPunch has long supported the fake “Syrian revolution.” They refuse to publish anti-imperialist writers such as Ben Norton, who reported, “a bombshell declassified 2012 memo from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) reveals that, from the start, ‘The Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria.’ AQI is a reference to Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which later evolved into ISIS.”

Even the New York Times disclosed—seven years ago—that the CIA had already spent more than $1 billion to overthrow Assad, “one of the costliest covert action programs in the history of the C.I.A.”

Why do these “left” websites like CounterPunch cover up major CIA regime-change operations?

Truthout on December 11 ran its own pro-U.S. regime-change article, “As Assad Regime Falls, Syrians Celebrate — and Brace for an Uncertain Future” by Shireen Akram-Boshar, a socialist writer and Middle East/North Africa solidarity activist. The article repeats the same apologetics for U.S. imperial rule: “Contrary to common misconceptions, the U.S. and Israel did not aspire to remove Assad after 2013.”

Similarly, Democracy Now ignored the U.S. involvement in the operations against Assad and triumph of al-Qaeda and interviewed an AP reporter, Sarah El Deeb, who pointed to cheering crowds and expressed enthusiasm about the new Syria with Assad’s removal from power.

El Deeb further echoed the mainstream media in pointing out human rights abuses allegedly committed by Assad, while ignoring the record of ethnic cleansing, suicide bombings and massacres carried out by the rebel forces backed by the U.S. which have now succeeded in deposing Assad.

John Feffer of the Institute for Policy Studies published a more sensible article, but one that still covered up the U.S. economic blockade’s destruction of Syria as well as its long regime-change operation. Feffer also repeats the U.S. line that the Syrian government used chemical weapons attacks, even though Seymour Hersh, MIT scientist Theodore Postol and The Grayzone showed that the U.S. concocted this story.

None of the compatible left websites mentioned the words of Biden and Netanyahu, who with legitimate reason took credit for the fall of Assad.

Netanyahu recognized the Assad government as “a central link in Iran’s axis of evil.” The Axis of Resistance to the Israeli-U.S. anti-Palestinian genocidal bloc includes Hamas, Iran, Hezbollah, Assad’s Syria, and Yemen. The Israeli butcher proudly acknowledged the overthrow “is a direct result of the blows we have inflicted on Iran and Hezbollah, the main supporters of the Assad regime.”

Biden spoke likewise: “Neither Russia nor Iran nor Hezbollah could defend this abhorrent regime in Syria. This is a direct result of the blows that Ukraine and Israel have delivered upon their own self-defense with unflagging support of the United States.” Indeed, Israel inflicted heavy damage on Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Russia remains tied up combating the U.S.-instigated war in Ukraine.

Some of the compatible left—LA Progressive and Common Dreams, both orbiting the Democratic Party—ran honest articles on the U.S. role.

On December 11-12, Common Dreams posted “The West Celebrates Assad’s Fall, But What Comes Next May Be Even Worse,” and Jeffrey Sachs’ excellent “How the US and Israel Destroyed Syria and Called it Peace.”

The former noted the so-called “liberation” was “cheered by U.S. President Joe Biden and other major Western leaders, like French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz.” It asked the obvious question: “[W]hy is the West cheering for al Qaeda and its allies?” Indeed, and why are these compatible lefties following suit?

It continues: “Since the fall of Assad, Israel has already carried out hundreds of airstrikes across Syria, targeting airports, naval bases, and military infrastructure. And the U.S. Central Command announced that it has struck more than 75 targets, including ISIS leaders, operatives, and camps…

The Obama administration provided support to the anti-Assad forces, primarily to the Free Syrian Army forces and its affiliates, but the CIA began to support other groups as early as 2013 even though they had jihadi orientations. CIA’s covert operation against the Syrian regime, known as Timber Sycamore, was a joint effort with Saudi Arabia that had long ties with radical Islamist groups…

Syria was under imperialist attack for the past 13 years. The U.S. (along with Turkey) backed and funded mercenaries and terrorist forces against Assad’s regime, imposed economic isolation of the country through sanctions, and denied plans that would have contributed to reconstruction even though aid was desperately needed for civilians.”

Jeffrey Sachs (also here and here) pointed out that U.S. destruction of Syria was planned since 1996. General Wesley Clark revealed in an interview clip, probably seen by leftists of all stripes, that, back in 2001, after Afghanistan, the U.S. intended to wage war and overthrow seven more states in the Middle East: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. The only one not yet destroyed is Iran.

The Long U.S. War Against Syria

Relying on deadly sanctions, an invisible form of carpet bombing, the U.S. starved the Syrian people and hollowed out the Syrian economy until it collapsed.

Before 2011, Syria, just like Qaddafi’s Libya, was a thriving nation, self-sufficient in energy and food, with free health care, free education and no national debt. Then the U.S. and its NATO and Gulf allies orchestrated a dirty war, funding and arming sectarian terrorists to fragment Syria. These groups were deceitfully presented by many on the compatible left as part of a liberation movement.

Even David Sorenson, a professor at the U.S. Air War College recognized, “By 2015, aid to anti-Assad forces became the most expensive U.S. covert action program in history, topping 1 billion USD.” Since 2014, U.S. and Turkish military and proxy forces have occupied about one-third of Syrian territory and appropriated all its oil, gas, and wheat harvests.

Alena Douhan, UN Special Rapporteur on the effect of the U.S. economic blockade against Syria, reported, “The imposed sanctions have shattered the State’s capability to respond to the needs of the population, particularly the most vulnerable, and 90% of the people now live below the poverty line.” They have “limited access to food, water, electricity, shelter, cooking and heating fuel, transportation and healthcare.” The World Food Programme states that almost 13 million Syrians, half the population, lack sufficient food.

How many died from these measures we do not know, but the similar draconian U.S. blockade on Venezuela killed 40,000 in a year and a half.

Douhan continues, “With more than half of the vital infrastructure either completely destroyed or severely damaged, the imposition of unilateral sanctions on key economic sectors, including oil, gas, electricity, trade, construction and engineering have quashed national income, and undermine efforts towards economic recovery and reconstruction.”

We should wonder who CounterPunch is serving when it publishes the claim that “Neither the U.S. nor Israel had a hand in these events.”

The “campists” or “tankies” CounterPunch refers to run the gamut—from Scott Ritter, Ron Paul, Vijay Prashad, Ben Norton, Glenn Greenwald, Colonel Douglas MacGregor, Aaron Maté and JD Vance to Sara Flounders.

They share opposition to the endless neo-con wars advocated by Obama, Hillary, Biden and Cheney.

We find, once again, sectors of the compatible left functioning as a conveyor belt for U.S. regime-change propaganda broadcast into the progressive and anti-war movements, telling us to celebrate another successful U.S. imperial operation.

Meanwhile, the struggle of the Middle East to free itself from U.S.-Israeli domination has suffered a major defeat, on top of that inflicted on Hezbollah and Gaza. The Palestinians’ situation has worsened, Iran is next on the U.S. hit list, and Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua are not far behind. Our active solidarity is needed now more than ever.


  1. Zunes said that “President Obama had been subjected to unfair criticism both for providing some support for the resistance as well as for not doing enough.”

January 29, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment