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.”
A White House Fact Sheet detailed that NSPM establishes the following truism:
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 2024, Haaretz 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.
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.
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.
Portside, which 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.
Al Mayadeen | January 27, 2025
President Donald Trump has signaled an unexpected shift in the conventional US policy regarding Iran, revealing that the only issue his administration would face with the Islamic Republic is its development of a nuclear weapon.
Speaking on Fox News’ Hannity show on January 23, Trump did not address Iran’s regional policies, its defiance of the Israeli occupation, or the possibility of enforcing a regime change. Rather, his only focus was preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
In this regard, a Responsible Statecraft report, written by Eldar Mamedov, recalled previous statements by Iranian officials, confirming that the nation does not seek nuclear weapons, adding that this could facilitate a political agreement between Washington and Tehran.
Tehran has also gestured its willingness to re-engage with the West, particularly following the election of Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and his government coming to power. However, despite the mutual political willingness, the path to a deal remains highly complex and is vastly different from 2015, when the JCPOA curtailed Iran’s nuclear program.
Is a nuclear deal possible?
Following Trump’s 2018 withdrawal from the JCPOA, his imposition of sanctions, and the EU’s failure to abide by the terms of the deal, Iran significantly advanced its program, including enriching uranium to 60%—a step away from weapon-grade levels (90%)—and deploying advanced centrifuges. Nuclear expert Kelsey Davenport notes that Iran could now produce enough material for five to six nuclear bombs in just two weeks, according to Mamedov.
The situation is further complicated by the limited access the IAEA has had to Iran since 2021, heightening concerns about unmonitored nuclear material potentially being moved to covert sites, as well as shifts in Iran’s nuclear rhetoric that suggest a potential rethinking of its doctrine.
While Tehran officially maintains it is not pursuing nuclear weapons, regional challenges could incentivize Iran to consider a nuclear deterrent, Mamedov explained.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s threats of a direct attack, possibly with US support and cover, could possibly motivate Iran to contemplate threshold weaponization as a defensive measure.
Mamedov writes that negotiations to achieve a potential deal would have to consider Iran’s extensive nuclear program, as well as the set of motivations it has to expand its nuclear manufacturing. In this context, concessions would have to be made, addressing the regional situation and Iran and its allies’ security concerns, which prompted nuclear development in the first place.
Although Iran’s Leader Sayyed Ali Khamenei approved re-engagement and Pezeshkian’s reformist government advocated for a more proactive approach, majorly to ease US sanctions on the Islamic Republic, some Iranian politicians still have reservations, citing the US decision to withdraw from the JCPOA. This makes the matter one of “how to engage”, rather than if engagement should be initiated.
Some Iranian officials see little benefit in trading their nuclear leverage for uncertain sanctions relief. They are also bolstered by a new strategic partnership with Russia, which includes military and security cooperation, providing deterrence against potential attacks by “Israel” or the US.
The time is now!
Currently, proponents of waiting for a US initiative hold sway in Tehran at the moment. Reformists, however, argue this approach wastes time, suggesting Trump may seek a quick deal to enhance his peace-making image, especially with the Ukraine conflict dragging on. A limited framework deal, similar to Trump’s DPRK agreement, could be quickly drafted if the political decision is made, according to Mamedov.
While doubts remain about achieving a substantive follow-up deal, even a symbolic agreement—such as a handshake between Trump and an Iranian leader—could de-escalate tensions, marginalize pro-Netanyahu factions, and create room for broader negotiations addressing nuclear issues, sanctions, and regional concerns, Mamedov wrote.
Diplomatically, Iran has engaged with the EU and E3 (Britain, France, Germany) to prevent them from undermining progress by invoking UN sanctions before the October 2025 deadline. While Tehran has no illusions about the EU’s ability to restore the JCPOA without US involvement, these talks signal Iran’s seriousness about a deal and aim to avoid the E3 acting as spoilers out of fear of being excluded from future US-Iran agreements.
The most viable path forward seems to be a limited bilateral deal between the US and Iran to ease tensions, followed by multilateral negotiations with the original JCPOA signatories. With political will apparent on all sides, the opportunity to advance diplomacy is now.
Sputnik – 25.01.2025
Yemeni movement Ansar Allah, known as the Houthis, is considering a ban on US ships passing through the Bab al-Mandab Strait and the resumption of full-scale military operations in Yemen as retaliatory measures for the US’s designation of the movement as a foreign terrorist organization, a source in the movement told Sputnik.
US President Donald Trump on Wednesday signed an order launching the process of designating the Houthis as a foreign terrorist organization. On Thursday, the Houthis said that this decision was directed against the entire people of Yemen and was revenge for Yemen’s “noble” position in supporting the Palestinians.
“The movement is considering taking measures against America, including imposing a ban on the passage of US ships through the Bab al-Mandab Strait, which connects the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden and the Arabian Sea,” the source said.
The Houthis would also bar the passage of ships from any country that follows the US example of listing the movement as a terrorist organization, the source added.
One of the possible measures that the movement could take is “countering any military escalation that the US may take in response to the ban on the passage of its ships, as well as ending the truce in Yemen and resuming hostilities on all fronts,” the source said.
Sputnik – 22.01.2025
Former CIA analyst and counterterrorism officer Michael P. DiMino, who advocated for humanitarian aid to Gaza and against escalation with Iran, has been sworn in as the Pentagon’s Middle East policy chief.
He will be responsible for signing off on all foreign military agreements on the supply of weapons to US-aligned countries in the region, including Israel.
Earlier, DiMino criticized Biden’s administration for failing to pressure Israel on opening the humanitarian flow to Gaza; meanwhile, he praised the former administration for refusing to participate in Israel’s retaliatory strikes on Iran, Al-Monitor reports.
By Ted Snider | The Libertarian Institute | January 21, 2025
Before the first day of Donald Trump’s second term in office, he already had more diplomatic achievements than Joe Biden did on the last day of his. The entrance of the Trump team into the negotiations was the difference in Gaza. Biden opened his administration with the promise of “a new era of relentless diplomacy.” But after four years of wasted opportunity, the Biden administration would struggle to name a single diplomatic accomplishment.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s inclusion in his January 2 exit interview with The New York Times of the Biden administration’s “core goal” of making “sure that the war [in Gaza] wouldn’t spread, the conflict wouldn’t spread to other fronts, to other countries” and that they have “been working” on that “every day since,” is risible because it spread to Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Iran.
Blinken was asked how he looks back on the decision “to support Ukraine’s military offensive without a parallel diplomatic track to try and end the conflict.” His answer, as America’s chief diplomat, is no less humiliating. He defined bringing fifty countries together, who waged war on Russia militarily and economically, as “extraordinary diplomacy,” while conceding that, since the war began, there was not one “opportunity to engage diplomatically in a way that could end the war on just and durable terms.”
Biden opened his presidency with the promise to “offer Tehran a credible path back to diplomacy,” to “promptly reverse the failed Trump policies that have inflicted harm on the Cuban people and done nothing to advance democracy and human rights,” to correct the course on Trump’s “abject failure” in Venezuela, and to bring in a new approach to North Korea that “is open to and will explore diplomacy.”
Biden failed on all four. Instead, he ushered in an era in which the State Department has been reduced to the hawkish arm of the Defense Department.
At the end of his term, far from reversing Trump’s policies, Biden’s Cuba policy looks more like Trump’s than like Barack Obama’s. Biden maintained, and even increased, sanctions. The United States continued to support dissident activists and to fund regime change. Most importantly, and most devastatingly, the Biden administration continued to uphold the illegal embargo of Cuba in every single vote at the United Nations. In October 2024, only one other country in the world joined the U.S. in support of its embargo with one other abstaining.
On January 14, with less than a week in his term, Biden announced that he would, at last, remove Cuba from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list. Four years ago, that would have counted as a diplomatic accomplishment. Now, it is an ineffectual gesture that will simply be erased. William LeoGrande, professor of Government at American University and a specialist in U.S. foreign policy toward Latin America, told me that “with just days left in his presidency, [Biden] relaxed sanctions he should have relaxed four years ago—sanctions that will almost certainly be reimposed by Donald Trump.” Mike Waltz, Trump’s pick for national security advisor, told Fox News that “anything they [the Biden Administration] are doing right now we can do back, and no one should be under any illusion in terms of a change in Cuba policy.”
LeoGrande summarized Biden’s diplomatic legacy in Cuba by telling me that “Joe Biden’s Cuba policy accomplished nothing—actually, worse than nothing, because it left both Cubans and the United States worse off. He reneged on his campaign promise to return to Obama’s policy of engagement, a policy that was enormously popular in Latin America, Europe, and in the United States—everywhere except south Florida. In a vain quest for votes in Miami, Biden left most of Donald Trump’s extreme sanctions in place, immiserating the Cuban people in the midst of the pandemic.”
Biden’s diplomatic legacy in Iran is no less disappointing. Biden promised a quick return to the JCPOA nuclear agreement. Instead, he refused to end sanctions—the flesh of the agreement—and refused to promise that the U.S. would not break the deal again even for the duration of Biden’s term—the soul of any agreement. Though it was the United States that illegally pulled out of the deal, Biden demanded additional concessions from Iran.
Instead of following Obama’s diplomacy with Iran, Biden followed Trump’s maximum pressure on Iran. In order “never to allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon,” Biden said the U.S. “is prepared to use all elements of its national power to ensure that outcome.”
But the United States does not believe Iran is trying to acquire a nuclear weapon. The 2022 U.S. Department of Defense’s Nuclear Posture Review concludes that “Iran does not today possess a nuclear weapon and we currently believe it is not pursuing one.” CIA Director William Burns has repeatedly said that there is no evidence Iran has decided to build a nuclear bomb. Most recently, Burns reiterated in a January 10 interview, “We do not see any sign today that any such decision has been made.”
The election of Dr. Masoud Pezeshkian brought a reformist back to the presidency of Iran. Pezeshkian has emphasized the need to mend relations with the U.S. and the West. He has called for bypassing intermediaries in favor of direct negotiations. But that did not influence the Biden administration in its stubbornness not to negotiate. When asked at a July 8 press briefing if “the U.S. now ready to resume nuclear talks, other talks, or make any diplomatic moves with Iran in light of this new president,” National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby responded, “No, we’re—we’re not in a position where we’re willing to get back to the negotiating table with Iran just based on the fact that they’ve elected a new president.” Another missed diplomatic opportunity.
Lack of willingness to engage with Iran diplomatically has, instead of the strategically important goal of mending relations between Iran and the West, pushed Iran closer to China and Russia. During the Biden years, Iran joined the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and BRICS, two China-Russia led international organizations. On January 17, 2025, Iran signed a comprehensive strategic partnership with Russia. The details are not yet public, but Russian President Vladimir Putin says it includes bilateral cooperation in “politics and security” and collaboration on “the development of nuclear power plants.”
During Biden’s presidency, diplomacy with China has been set aside in favor of increased confrontation. Biden has sullied the One China policy, declared Taiwan a critical strategic location for U.S. defense, said that the U.S. would send troops to Taiwan if China attacked and weaponized and militarized the conflict.
Perhaps most dangerously of all, Biden pursued the opposite of diplomacy in the Russia-Ukraine war. When diplomacy offered a real chance to avoid the war before it began and to end the war in the weeks after it did, the U.S. refused to negotiate with Russia in the first instance and discouraged and blocked Ukraine from negotiating with Russia in the second. Since then, Biden and Blinken have abdicated diplomacy. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has barely, if ever, officially spoken to Russia foreign minister Sergei Lavrov since the war began, and President Biden has not met with President Putin once. By the summer of 2024, Biden was still maintaining that “I have no good reason to talk to Putin right now.”
Relations with Russia and China are more dangerous as Biden leaves office. Relations have not improved in Cuba and Iran, despite Obama setting the platter to which Biden could have easily returned. Biden’s promise of “relentless diplomacy” devolved into the abdication of diplomacy and a tragically wasted opportunity.
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
By Lisa Pease | Consortium News | September 16, 2013
More than a half century ago, just after midnight on Sept. 18, 1961, the plane carrying UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld and 15 others went down in a plane crash over Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia). All 16 died, but the facts of the crash were provocatively mysterious. … continue
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
Aletho News 