Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Russia: Comprehensive deal with Iran will include defense, security ties

Press TV – November 24, 2024

Russia’s deputy foreign minister says the treaty on a comprehensive strategic partnership between his country and Iran will include cooperation in the defense and security sectors.

Speaking to Russia’s TASS news agency on Sunday, Andrei Rudenko said he would not disclose the details of the agreement that is expected to be signed in the near future.

“I would only note [that] it will meet challenges and requirements of our time and cover almost all current and promising spheres of Russian-Iranian cooperation, including defense and security,” he added.

In 2001, Tehran and Moscow signed a long-term cooperation deal, officially known as the Treaty of the Foundation of Mutual Relations and the Principles of Cooperation. It was initially set for 10 years but was extended up until 2026.

Now, the two capitals are making final arrangements for the comprehensive partnership pact, which may determine their bilateral ties in all fields for the next 20 years.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has announced that his country will sign a strategic partnership agreement with Iran “in the near future.”
Rudenko emphasized that the nature of Iran-Russia interactions has notably changed over the past two decades.

“We are closely coordinating approaches with our Iranian friends and take necessary measures to strengthen peace and security” in the region, he added.

Last month, Iran’s Ambassador to Russia Kazem Jalali said the strategic partnership treaty would be signed during Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian’s visit to Moscow. The date of this visit has yet to be decided.

Iran and Russia are both subject to illegal Western sanctions. They have over the past years deepened their relations in various fields, including military and defense, and become close allies.

November 24, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

The Counter-insurgency Is “On” – Against Trump’s ‘storm’

By Alastair Crooke | Strategic Culture Foundation | November 22, 2024

More than just a dangerous provocation aimed at Russia, the ATACM and Storm Shadow attacks represent an attempt to turn foreign policy on its head.

“The Deep State whispered to Trump: ‘You cannot withstand the storm’. Trump whispered back: “I am the storm”. The war is on. The Deep State has launched a war of disruption to disable Trump’s ‘storm’. This week’s ATACM strike was but one part to an inter-agency counter-insurgency – a political strike directed at Trump; so too are all the inter-agency false narratives attributed to the Trump camp; and so too, the escalating provocations directed at Iran.

Be assured the Five Eyes are full participants in the counter-insurgency. Macron and Starmer openly conspired together in Paris ahead of the U.S. announcement to promote the ATACMS strike. The inter-agency grandees clearly are very fearful. They must worry that Trump may expose the ‘Russia Hoax’ (that Trump in 2016 was a Russian ‘asset’) and put them in jeopardy.

But Trump understands what’s afoot:

“We need peace without delay … The foreign policy establishment keeps trying to pull the world into conflict. The greatest threat to Western civilization today is not Russia. It’s probably more than anything else ourselves… There must be a complete commitment to dismantling the entire Globalist Neo-con establishment that is perpetually dragging us into endless wars, pretending to fight for freedom and democracy abroad while they turn us into a Third World country and a Third World dictatorship right here at home. The State Department, the Defense bureaucracy, the intelligence services and all of the rest need to be completely overhauled and reconstituted. To fire the Deep Staters and put America first – we have to put America First”.

Whilst the long-range ATACM launch on ‘deep Russian pre-2014 territory’ is no game-changer – it will not change the course of the war (ATACMS regularly are – at 90% – downed by Russian Air Defences); the salience of this act however, is not strategic; rather, it lies with the crossing into the realm of direct NATO attacks on Russia.

Colonel Doug MacGregor reports that two sources are telling him that “Russian nuclear rocket forces are on full alert. They are at the highest level of readiness ever achieved. It suggests that Russia has taken this crossing of the line very seriously”.

Yes, it was a provocation, and President Putin will respond appropriately. He has to – but not necessarily through nuclear escalation. Why? Because the war in Ukraine is moving rapidly in his direction, with Russian forces closing-in on the Dnieper east bank. Effectively, facts on the ground will be the outcome determinant, leaving little point to external mediation.

But more than just a dangerous provocation aimed at Russia, the ATACM and Storm Shadow attacks represent an attempt to turn foreign policy – literally – on its head. Instead of policy being aimed directly at a rising foreign adversary threatening U.S. hegemony, it is being transformed into a loaded weapon locked onto America’s domestic war. It is aimed specifically at Trump – to ‘hog tie’ him in, and to divert his attention to wars that he does not want.

Logic suggests that Trump would want to keep clear of Netanyahu’s scheming for a war against Iran. But the ‘Israel Firsters’ and the Lobby (as Professor Jeffrey Sachs argues) long have had effective control over Congress and the U.S. military – more than does the President. Explains Sachs:

“Because the Zionist Lobby is so powerful, Netanyahu basically has had control over the Pentagon to fight wars on behalf of Israeli extremism. The war in Iraq in 2003 was a Netanyahu War. The attempt to overthrow Bashar al-Assad in Syria, the overthrow of Moamar Gaddafi – All were ‘Netanyahu Wars’”.

The important point is that Netanyahu can ‘do what he does’ because it was always planned this way – a plan that has been 50 years in execution. The ‘Israel First’ strategy was fully embraced by Scoop Jackson (a two-times Presidential candidate). And just so the policy could not be rolled back, Scoop insisted on Zionists staffing the State Department, and that neo-cons and Zionists hold the reins at the NSC. That same pattern continues until today.

At bottom lies the ultimate boondoggle by which the political class of both U.S. parties become wealthy and afford the campaign costs of remaining legislators: “It’s quite a dandy deal that the Israel Lobby or the Zionist Lobby puts in, say, a hundred million dollars into campaigns and it gets trillions out –trillions, not billions, trillions out [in government] expenditures. And so, when Netanyahu speaks, it’s bizarre to me, but it is not Trump who is appointing or naming [those ‘Israel Firsters’ who are part of his Team, but Netanyahu]”, Sachs says.

When Netanyahu describes Trump’s ‘Israel First’ nominations as his ‘dream U.S. team’, the explanation is not difficult to see. On the one hand, Trump has a ‘Revolution’ to conduct in America and wants his nominations to office approved. And, on the other, Netanyahu has a further war he wants the U.S. to fight for him.

“The ‘Big Ugly’ was always a description of the battle that few understood”, another commentator notes:

“The Senate is factually the core of republican opposition to MAGA and President Trump. The visible battle … consumes the most attention. However, it is the less-visible battle against the entrenched ideological Republicans that proves to be the hardest”.

“The Republicans in the upper chamber will not relinquish power easily. They have a multitude of weapons to use against the (Trump) insurgency … We are seeing this play out now in the alignment of Republican Senators who stand in opposition to Trump’s nomination of Matt Gaetz as Attorney General, [as] this recent report [explains]”.

“The basic outline is that the senate leadership will reluctantly support Matt Gaetz for Main Justice, where ‘support’ means they will not directly oppose; in exchange for the nomination of FBI Director Mike Rogers [a co-founder of the ‘Never Trump’ group] to defend inter-agency interests at FBI”.

The prospective Republican Senate Leader, John Thune, will play his cards carefully in order to extract maximum damage . He has leverage by trying to connect Trump to Netanyahu’s carnage in the region.

Thune, whilst announcing huge quantities of weapons for Israel, said:

“To Our Allies in Israel, and to the Jewish People Around the world, my message to you is this: Reinforcements are on the way. In six weeks, Republicans will reclaim the Senate Majority, and we will make clear that the United States Congress stands squarely In Israel’s Corner”.

Trump will need to play his cards carefully, too. Since, for his purposes, the absolute priority are his two domestic wars: First, “dismantling the entire Globalist Neocon Establishment”, and secondly, ending the out-of-control government expenditure that has bloated the Deep State boondoggle and turned the U.S. real economy into a shadow of its former self.

Trump needs those radical reform nominations to pass, even if he has to sacrifice one or two to secure Senate approval for the others. The Israel First nominees, needless to add, will be approved seamlessly.

Of the two ‘entanglement’ threats to Trump’s reform agenda, Russian escalation is the lesser of the two. The Ukraine war is motoring steadily towards some form of dénoument. One that works for Russia. Putin is in the driving seat, and does not need a major war with NATO. Nor does Putin need Trump’s ‘art of the deal’. A resolution of some sort will occur without him.

However, Trump’s role will be important subsequently to define a new border between the security interests of the Atlanticists and those of the Asian heartland (including China and Iran).

The other putative war – Iran – is the more dangerous to Trump. Jewish political influence and the Lobby has taken the U.S. into multiple disastrous wars before. And now, Netanyahu desperately needs a war and he is not alone. Much of Israel is clamouring for war that would end ‘all the fronts’ facing it. There is a profound conviction in this prospect as the solution and the ‘Great Victory’ that Netanyahu and Israel so desperately need.

The ground has been dug-over, both by propaganda that Iran’s nuclear programme is ‘staggeringly vulnerable’ (which it isn’t), and by the media’s onslaught that replays the meme that to attack Iran now represents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, with Hizbullah and Hamas already weakened. War with Iran – totally erroneously – is thus being sold as an ‘easy war’.

There is an unshakeable certitude that it must be so. ‘We are strong, and Iran is weak’.

Who will roll-back the Israel Firsters? They have the momentum and the fervour. A war against Iran will fare badly for Israel and the U.S. The wide ramifications likely will precipitate precisely the severe financial and market crisis that could derail Trump’s ‘Storm’.

November 22, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

In the beginning was the Pax Americana

By Lorenzo Maria Pacini | Strategic Culture Foundation | November 21, 2024

We often speak of the collective West, Hegemon, Seapower and Civilization of the Sea in relation to the United States of America. It is necessary to understand well what is the origin of this geopolitically determinant power for the world order.

He who wins the war, dictates the rules

Let us make clear at once an empirically incontrovertible factual truth: He who wins the war, dictates the rules of the post-war order. Whoever wins, writes history. Whether we like it or not, the defeated never had much decision-making power (which is not to say that they could not organize well to retaliate and return to power – but that is another matter).

World War II ended with the victory of the United States of America as the first, undefeated and predominant power. From there followed an expansion of U.S. influence toto orbe terrarum in all respects (cultural, economic, military, political).

The twentieth century was the “American century.” Almost the whole world took the shape the U.S. wanted to give it. The second half of the century was marked by the low-tension conflict of the Cold War, which ended-if it really did-with the collapse of the Soviet political system in the USSR and the beginning of the unipolar phase of American global domination. That period aroused much optimism in the West for a new world order, marking the end of the military and ideological rivalry of the 20th century. Two possibilities were on the horizon: a system based on balance of power and egalitarian sovereignty, or a U.S.-led liberal hegemony based on the values of democracy. The first approach evoked perpetual conflict, while the second promised lasting peace and global stability.

U.S. hegemony, already dominant in the transatlantic region after World War II, was seen as a model of peace and prosperity. However, the collapse of the Soviet Union removed the justification for a world order built on the balance of power, pushing the United States toward a mission of recognized hegemony to prevent the rise of new rivals. American supremacy, as declared by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, was deemed “indispensable to ensure global stability.”

This was the Pax Americana: the U.S. would ensure a period of prosperity and global peace – as early as the end of WWII – by extending control over the entire world. A peace for America was equivalent to a peace for the globe; a war for America would mean war for the entire globe. The stated goal of building a peaceful world often justified imperialistic approaches, revealing the contradictions of the hegemonic project.

Set this paradigm as an axiom of reasoning in international relations and geopolitical programming, lo and behold, everything acquired new meaning. The world had been formatted and the “control room” was now in Washington.

The time of ideologies

It was the time of ideologies. In the “short century” everything had changed rapidly. The great world chessboard was constantly being shaken and reshuffled. The clash between the Western bloc and the Eastern – or Soviet – bloc characterized all concepts of each country’s politics in an extremely powerful way.

In the 1990s, two visions dominated the debate on world order: that of Francis Fukuyama and that of Samuel Huntington. Fukuyama in his famous book The End of History, envisioned a future in which liberal democracy and capitalism would triumph universally, leading to perpetual peace under the leadership of the United States: he argued that economic interdependence, democratic reforms, and shared institutions would unite the world around common values, which were, of course, American values. Any other model of civilization would have been beside the point, because History was finished, there would be nothing left to write about. In contrast, Huntington, wrote The Clash of Civilizations, in which he predicted that the world would be fragmented into distinct cultural blocs based on civil, religious and economic identities. Individualism and human rights, according to him, were peculiar to the West and not universal. His theorizing assumed a future marked by conflicts between civilizations, fueled by the decline of Western hegemony and the emergence of alternative powers, particularly in Confucian and Islamic societies.

The influence of Fukuyama’s ideas shaped post-Cold War Western politics, justifying the expansion and exceptionalism of Pax Americana. Exceptionalism that has been one of the U.S.’s most pragmatic “values”: there are rules and only we can break them, when we want, how we want and without having to account to anyone.

History, however, does not have only one actor: other countries, such as Russia, have chosen to be fascinated by Huntington’s proposal – confrontational, certainly, but not already “final.” In Russia, this debate has deep roots, linked to the historical rivalry between Westernists and Slavophiles. In the 1990s, Russia initially tried to move closer to the West, but the West’s failure to include it reinforced the idea of a distinct Russian civilization, culminating in Vladimir Putin’s view that no civilization can claim to be superior.

A matter of ideologies, indeed, a low-profile but very high-value battle in which the steps of the new century that was beginning would be defined. These divergences highlighted the tension between universalist aspirations and distinctive cultural identities, defining the geopolitical conflicts of the 21st century.

Building Pax Americana at any cost

Washington promoted a world order based on the Pax Americana, a liberal hegemony that reflected the success of the peaceful and prosperous transatlantic system created by the United States during the conflict with the Soviet Union. It proposed to extend this model globally, citing as examples Germany and Japan, transformed from militaristic and imperialist nations into “peaceful”-or, rather, defeated-democracies under U.S. influence. But the success of these transformations had been made possible by the presence of a common adversary, Russia, and the history of Latin America suggested that U.S. hegemony was not always synonymous with progress and peace.

Charles Krauthammer described the post-Cold War period as a “unipolar moment,” characterized by American dominance, where the new Hegemon dictated the rules and the others had little choice. Although he recognized that a multi-participant set-up (today we can say “multipolarism”) would inevitably return, he believed it was necessary to exploit unipolarity to ensure temporary peace, avoiding a return to turbulent periods. There was a weakness, however: the United States was unlikely to voluntarily relinquish its dominant role, preferring instead to counter any threat by force, fueled by an obsession with its own historical greatness. It is a missile issue: whoever has it bigger, wins. Let us not forget that the U.S. invented the strategic concept of deterrence precisely by virtue of the atomic weapon it held, throwing the world into a climate of constant fear and risk in which we still live today.

It is equally true that many Americans wished for a dismantling of the U.S. empire, proposing a less interventionist foreign policy focused on domestic challenges: abandoning the role of superpower would allow the United States to strengthen its society by addressing economic, industrial and social issues. Walter Lippmann argued that a mature great power should avoid global crusades, limiting the use of power to preserve internal stability and coherence. Sort of like a “good hegemon.” But this has not been the case.

The notion of “good hegemon” has been criticized for the risk of corruption inherent in power itself. John Quincy Adams warned that the search for enemies to fight could turn the United States from a champion of freedom into a global dictator. Similarly, President Kennedy, in his 1963 speech at American University, opposed a Pax Americana imposed by arms, calling instead for a genuine and inclusive peace that would promote global human progress, which he called “The Peace of All Time.” An ideal that has faded into the oblivion of collective memory.

American hegemony is the sine qua non for having a Pax Americana. The universalism that characterizes this hegemony admits of no discounts. Inequality among global powers has been exploited as a pivot to increase U.S. profits and administrative expansion at the expense of weaker countries. Neoliberally speaking, there is no error in this. Everything is very consistent. The struggle of the strongest to destroy all the smallest. Not only the one who produces and earns the most wins, but the one who can maintain the power to produce and earn the most wins.

A hegemonic system needs internal stability without which it cannot subsist. A kingdom divided in itself cannot function. This applies to economics as well as politics. It is essential that the ideological paradigm does not change, that power can always be understood and transmitted, from leader to leader, as it has been successfully established. Because the “peace” of the ancient Romans was a peace given by the maintenance of political control to the very ends of the empire, which only came about through a solid military administration.

The Americans did not invent anything. To really control (realpolitik) one must have military control. In front of an atomic bomb, reasoning about political philosophies is worth little. The U.S. knows this very well and its concept of Pax has always been unequivocally based on military supremacy and the maintenance of it.

Something changed when with the first decade of the 2000s new poles, new civilization-states, began to appear that promoted alternative models of global life. The U.S. began to see its power wane, day by day, until today, where the West is worth less than the “rest of the world,” the U.S. no longer has its “exclusive” status, and we are not even so sure that it is then so strong that it can control the globe. The geometries change again. What Pax for what borders of what empire?

Is Trump ready to give up his Pax?

The crux of the question is, if imperialistic military supremacy is what has allowed the U.S. to maintain its dominance and this dominance is precipitating today, will the newly elected U.S. President Donald Trump really be ready to compromise the Pax Americana?

We are talking about a polymorphous compromise:

– Economically, he would have to accept the end of the dollar era and downsize the U.S. market on comparison with sovereign global currencies. Practically throw a century of global financial architecture in the trash.

– Politically, accept that it is possible to think otherwise and do otherwise. Politics is not just American “democracy.” There are so many possibilities, so many different models, so many futures to be written according to other scripts.

– Militarily, it means stopping with the diplomacy of arrogance and threats, accepting that we cannot arbitrarily decide how to deal with anyone and stop aiming missiles at the flags of other states.

– Most complicated and risky of all, all this means giving up peace within the United States. If the balances of power implemented externally are broken, those internally begin to falter and the organism undergoes remodeling.

Giving up the Pax Americana as it has been known does not mean that alternatives do not exist. The concept of “pax” is broad and can be interpreted differently by the American school. Taking this step, however, involves giving up a “tradition” of global power, having to go through the collapse of the entire U.S. domestic system and then rebuilding an alternative.

Make America Great Again will mean what? Restoring American hegemony in the world, or rebuilding America?

November 21, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Iran dismisses claims of plotting to assassinate former Canadian minister Irwin Cotler

Press TV – November 19, 2024

A senior Iranian diplomat has vehemently rejected the allegations of Tehran’s involvement in a plot to assassinate former Canadian justice minister Irwin Cotler.

Issa Kameli, an assistant to Iran’s foreign minister and the director-general of the department of America at the Iranian Foreign Ministry, dismissed the accusations as “ridiculous propaganda stunt,” emphasizing they are in line with the campaign aimed at spreading misleading and false information about his country.

He strongly denounced the anti-Iran claims, stating that such spurious and unfounded allegations come from a county which has turned into a safe haven for fugitive terrorists and wanted fraudsters.

The Iranian official noted that the baseless accusations against the Islamic Republic cannot divert the world public opinion from the ongoing Israeli crimes, including the massacre of Palestinians in Gaza, and the complicity of Canada as one of the main sponsors of the occupying Tel Aviv regime.

This came after Cotler’s office said he had been informed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) of an Iranian-backed attempt on his life on October 26, two days before he was purportedly set to be attacked, according to the Globe and Mail newspaper in Canada.

The octogenarian, who is Jewish, is said to have been under 24/7 protection by the RCMP for more than a year since the large-scale surprise attack by Hamas and other Gaza-based resistance groups against Israel on October 7 last year.

Cotler, who is now retired, was a member of parliament in Canada from 1999 to 2015. He served as the minister of justice and attorney general under the Liberal government of former prime minister Paul Martin from 2003 until 2006.

He has strong ties to Israel, and had previously tabled a motion in the Canadian parliament in 2013 asking that Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) be sanctioned and designated as a terrorist entity. Canada officially took the measure against the IRGC in June of this year.

His daughter, Michal Cotler-Wunsh, is an Israeli politician and diplomat who previously served as a member of the Israeli Knesset (parliament).

November 19, 2024 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | Leave a comment

Russia’s Amended Nuclear Doctrine Signals Willingness to Take On ‘Global Power Obligations’ – Expert

Sputnik – 19.11.2024

The latest changes to Russia’s nuclear doctrine were likely made for two main reasons, Mikael Valtersson, former Swedish military officer and ex-chief of staff with the Sweden Democrats, tells Sputnik.

“One is to make it even clearer that even attacks from Ukraine with conventional weapons with the active support of Western powers will be seen as a combined attack on Russia,” he says. “This will give Russia the opportunity to claim Casus belli [an event that either provokes or is used to justify a war], and legitimate defensive military action according to international law and the UN Charter.”

This move, Valtersson argues, is essentially an attempt by Russia to “strengthen deterrence towards the West and reduce the risk of Western escalation in Ukraine.”

“The second and very interesting aspect is the inclusion of allies in the nuclear deterrence,” he continues. “This must be seen in the light of the recent ratification of the new defense cooperation agreement with the DPRK (North Korea) that includes a paragraph akin to the NATO article 5. This stipulates mutual military aid to defend each other in case of aggression from other countries.”

“With the changes of Russian nuclear strategy, Russia says that aggression towards it’s allies will be seen as aggression towards Russia and might include a nuclear response,” Valtersson notes. “The Russian nuclear doctrine now reflects the fact that Russia has formal allies again.”

As Russia’s actions resulted in NATO ceasing to be the only military bloc in the post-Cold War world whose members “have been included in a common nuclear umbrella,” Valtersson suggests that this development has both pros and cons for Moscow.

“This makes Russia a more attractive ally, but also puts Russia into a more precarious situation, since it now has stronger obligations to live up to. A failure to live up to these obligations would result in a huge loss of confidence in Russian willingness to support allies, and the Kremlin of course knows this,” he elaborates. “That means that this decision to change the nuclear doctrine must be seen as a real willingness of Russia to extend its nuclear deterrence to other allies.”

Valtersson also remarks that it would be interesting to see what new defense agreements Russia might sign with nations such as Iran, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela, Algeria “and a multitude of Sub-Saharan states,” which could both “greatly increase the security of these states and Russian standing in the world” and, “increase the risk of Russian involvement in new conflicts.”

“To summarise, this is a clear signal that Russia now is willing to take on the obligations that are needed to be a real global power,” he adds.

November 19, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Against Rubio

By Connor Freeman | The Libertarian Institute | November 17, 2024

Marco Rubio’s foreign policy vision is the antithesis of America First as he advocates for wars and increased military spending in Ukraine, the Middle East, and the Asia-Pacific. During the 2015/2016 GOP presidential primaries, Rubio was a fervent supporter along with Hillary Clinton, of a no-fly-zone in Syria which could have sparked World War III. “The United States should work with our allies, both Arab and European, to impose a no-fly zone over parts of Syria,” Rubio said.

Rubio has been on the America Last side of every foreign policy issue since he took office, he was a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton’s disastrous regime change war in Libya and he opposed Barack Obama’s modest troop withdrawal in Afghanistan after his surge accomplished nothing besides making the Taliban stronger and getting more American soldiers killed.

More recently, Rubio has insisted that Israel should attack Iran “disproportionately” which is a direct call for an all out war with Iran and risks the safety of US troops in the region.

Rubio co-authored an amendment to the 2024 NDAA with Senator Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton’s former running mate, that would prevent Donald Trump or any future president from exiting the free-riding, war-seeking NATO alliance without Senate approval or an Act of Congress.

Regarding Beijing, he has boasted, “We need a military focused on blowing up Chinese aircraft carriers.”

Moreover, Rubio supports keeping American troops in harm’s way in Iraq indefinitely and even opposed repealing the outdated 2002 AUMF which unconstitutionally authorized the catastrophic Iraq War. Likewise, he backs the open-ended illegal US occupation of roughly a third of Syria, launched by Obama, which Trump attempted to end and finally bring our troops home.

November 17, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Iran ‘categorically’ dismisses NYT report about its envoy’s meeting with Musk

Press TV – November 16, 2024

The Iranian Foreign Ministry has “categorically” dismissed an American newspaper report on a meeting between Tehran’s ambassador to the United Nations and Elon Musk, a close ally of US President-elect Donald Trump.

The New York Times on Friday cited two Iranian officials as saying that the meeting between Musk and Iran’s permanent representative to the United Nations Amir Saeid Iravani was held at a secret location in New York on Monday and lasted more than an hour.

The officials reportedly described the discussion as focused on how to defuse tensions between Tehran and Washington.

The Times said Musk, the world’s richest man, himself initiated the meeting, held at a location chosen by the Iranian side.

In an interview with IRNA on Saturday, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei rejected the report of the meeting and expressed surprise over “extensive” media coverage by American outlets in this regard.

November 16, 2024 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , | Leave a comment

The Islamic world reorganizes the strategy in Riyadh

By Lorenzo Maria Pacini | Strategic Culture Foundation |  November 15, 2024

On 11 November, an emergency Arab-Islamic summit on the question of Palestine was held in Riyadh. It was an extremely important event, from which the directives of the coming months for the Middle Eastern Islamic world and beyond will take their course. A shared international strategy emerged, even if contradictions and risks are not entirely absent.

A necessary window for dialogue

On Monday, 11 November, Riyadh invited the 22 countries of the Arab League and the 50 or so states that make up the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation to take part in a summit dedicated to the ongoing conflicts in the region. The meeting focused on ongoing conflicts in the region, with a particular focus on Donald Trump’s return to the Oval Office.

At the opening of the summit dedicated to Israel’s wars in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman used the term ‘genocide ’ to describe Israel’s military operations in the Gaza Strip: ‘We call on the international community to assume its responsibility […] by immediately ending Israeli attacks against our brothers in Palestine and Lebanon’.

The assembled Arab and Muslim leaders took the same stance towards Israel, condemning the horrific and shocking crimes committed by the Israeli army in Gaza, denouncing torture, executions, disappearances and outright ethnic cleansing, as stated in the final communiqué of the meeting.

Mohammed bin Salman also called on Israel to ‘respect the territorial sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran” and to ”refrain from attacking its territory’. Most members of the Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation will support these very firm statements. Although there are big differences between the countries that have normalised relations with Israel and those that oppose it, starting with the Islamic Republic of Iran. MBS explicitly said that not only the very existence of Palestine is now in question, but also the fate of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the second holiest shrine in Islam after Mecca, a statement reminiscent of the name of the Hamas operation entitled ‘Storm Al-Aqsa’. Evidently, Hamas leaders expected that such an emergency Arab-Islamic summit would convene much earlier, for instance soon after the start of Israel’s ground operation in Gaza.

In this regard, the Crown Prince referred to Iran as a ‘sister republic’, which made the press throughout the Islamic world rejoice, signalling a detente in relations between the two countries. Diplomatic relations were officially reopened in March 2023, after a seven-year blockade, thanks to an agreement brokered by China, and after the infamous 7 October 2023, dialogue resumed and intensified. Iran supports the Palestinian Islamist movement, while Saudi Arabia tries to contain the spread of the conflict.

At the summit, Iran’s First Vice-President Mohammad Reza Aref called Israel’s assassination of the leaders of Palestinian Hamas and Lebanese Hezbollah ‘organised terrorism’, adding that ‘Operations misleadingly described as “targeted killings”, in which Palestinian elites and leaders of other countries in the region are killed one by one or en masse, are nothing but organised terrorism’. Similarly expressed by Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati, who called on the international community to continue sending aid to Lebanon. It should be noted that Mikati spoke a few days ago of ‘interference by Iran’ in Lebanon, an accusation rejected by Tehran.

It is worth noting the simultaneous involvement of Assad and Erdogan. Only recently, such crossovers were impossible. The government in Ankara has spoken increasingly strong and clear words against the extermination that Israel is perpetrating, certainly favouring a round table with the neighbouring Islamic countries, at least from the point of view of positive intentions.

Why only now?

There is almost nothing left of the leadership of Hamas and Hezbollah. This is a fact to be confronted with. Such a summit would have been very different if the leaders of the Resistance were still alive.

The reason for this delay is perhaps the American elections. While the BRICS+ summit in Kazan had paved the way and pointed in a direction of international cohesion in condemning Israel’s actions and the need to restore Palestinian autonomy, it is true that the final placet was missing to move from theory to action.

Donald Trump’s victory must be framed from an Arab-Islamic perspective. Trump is a supporter of right-wing Zionism, that of Netanyahu and certain radicals such as Smotrich, Ben Gvir and Rabbi Dov Lior, who have never shied away from proclamations of massacres, sacrifices and religious destruction. For Zionists, Jerusalem is as important as Al Quds for Islamists (Al Quds is the Arabic name for Jerusalem). In the election campaign, Trump never gave an inch about his pro-Zionist position and support for the government in Tel Aviv. It was he who proposed moving the capital of the Zionist entity to Jerusalem and it was he who ordered the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani. Trump’s election strengthened the prospects for US-Israeli collaboration, so much so that Smotrich immediately declared his intention to attack the Palestinians in the West Bank and blow up the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

Trump has accelerated these processes. The next goal, which he personally supported and financed, is the construction of the Third Temple, an eschatological keystone for the entire American neocon world. The physical destruction of all of Israel’s enemies is not a side effect or minor harm, but a duty inherent in Jewish messianism.

The emergence of the Islamic pole in the multipolar world is acquiring an increasingly recognisable and identifiable form. Of course, there are still many problems to be solved: Saudi Arabia and Turkey do business with the US and Israel, continue to play on opposing sides, and are historically unreliable. The countries of South East Asia still have to define their position with regard to international relations with the West, in order to definitively emancipate themselves and make themselves safe from blackmail and retaliation.

The questions many are asking themselves are various: will the next American president commit himself to ending the ongoing conflicts as he has promised? Or will he be an unconditional supporter of Israel, both in the war and in his plans to torpedo any prospect of establishing a Palestinian state? Saudi Arabia makes any normalization with Israel conditional on the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. The two-state solution is supported by much of the international community as a means to resolve the decades-long Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Arab and Muslim leaders hold firm to the position, in accordance with UN resolutions and the 2002 Arab peace plan, that Israel must return all territories occupied since 1967.

The Abrahamic agreements are no longer enough. This time, however, the US can no longer decide the entire future of the Middle East on its own, because the chessboard has changed and the new positions taken by the Islamic countries will force Washington to weigh up more elements. Russia and China will not let the multipolar project be compromised. Not even the African countries, where the Palestinian cause is a deeply felt and shared issue of freedom, identity and anti-colonialism, are going to give way in the fight against this historic injustice.

The Muslim population of Islamic countries, seeing the passivity of the rulers, will not tolerate the ongoing extermination and attack on the holy places of their religion much longer.

Probably, only a common war against a common enemy can unite Muslims. And that could happen very soon.

November 16, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, War Crimes | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Iran dismisses claims of Biden letter over Trump assassination attempt

Al Mayadeen | November 15, 2024

Iran’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations dismissed US media reports claiming that Tehran sent a letter to incumbent US President Joe Biden last month, in which it asserted that it did not seek to eliminate former US President Donald Trump.

Citing American officials, The Wall Street Journal claimed Friday that Iran confirmed in a written message to the Biden administration on October 14 that it did not seek to kill Trump, whom Tehran holds directly responsible for the assassination of the former commander of the IRGC’s Quds Force martyr General Qassem Soleimani.

Commenting on these reports, the mission pointed out that it does not issue public statements on the details of official correspondence exchanged between the two countries.

Iran’s UN mission underscored that Tehran has long committed to pursuing the matter of the assassination of martyr Soleimani through legal and judicial means and in full adherence to recognized principles of international law.

In June, Iran issued an indictment against the United States government and American military officials regarding the 2020 assassination of martyr Soleimani.

Ali Alghasi-Mehr, the judiciary chief for Tehran province, said that after collecting more than 12,000 pages of documents, the 164-page indictment was issued against 73 American officials, adding that “all the defendants, who are US statesmen and military officials, have been officially notified of the case and required to introduce their lawyers.”

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi last week dismissed US allegations linking Tehran to an alleged plot to assassinate Trump.

Earlier, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei also denounced the claim as a “repulsive” scheme orchestrated by “Israel” and opposition groups outside Iran, aimed at complicating matters between the United States and Iran.

Baghaei called the allegations “totally unfounded” and rejected “allegations that Iran is implicated in an assassination attempt targeting former or current American officials.”

The Iranian diplomats’ statements came after US prosecutors announced last week charges related to an alleged Iranian plot to assassinate Trump and a prominent Iranian-American opposition journalist.

The US Justice Department alleged that the foiled plot to kill Trump was orchestrated by Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guard Corps as retaliation for the assassination of General Soleimani, who was killed in 2020 in a US strike authorized by then-President Trump.

November 15, 2024 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , | Leave a comment

This time Trump really means business

By Fyodor Lukyanov | Rossiyskaya Gazeta | November 13, 2024

US President-elect Donald Trump has moved quickly to form his proposed new administration. His team is better prepared to take power than it was in 2016 – when neither the candidate himself nor the vast majority of his supporters believed he could win.

It’s too early to draw far-reaching conclusions, but in general, the composition of the preferred government reflects the ideological and political coalition that has gathered around the president-elect. From the outside, it may look motley, but so far it is all in line with Trump’s views.

Contrary to the perception actively propagated by Trump’s opponents, he is not an unpredictable and inconsistent eccentric. More precisely, we should separate his character and mannerisms, which are flighty, from his overall worldview. The latter has not changed, not only in the years since Trump entered big politics, but more generally in his public life since the 1980s. It suffices to look through the old interviews of the famed tycoon to see this: ‘Communism (in the broadest sense) is evil’, ‘the allies must pay up’, ‘the American leadership does not know how to make favorable deals but I do’, and so on.

Trump’s personal qualities are important. But more importantly, in a somewhat cartoonish way, he embodies a set of classic Republican notions. America is at the center of the universe. However, not as a hegemon that rules everything, but simply as the best and most powerful country. It must be the strongest, including (or especially) militarily, in order to advance its interests wherever and whenever it needs to. Essentially, there is no need for Washington to get directly involved in world affairs at all.

Profit is an absolute imperative for the future president (he is a businessman), and this does not contradict conservative ideals. America is a country built on the spirit of enterprise. Hence his rejection of over-regulation and his general suspicion of the extensive powers of the bureaucracy. In this, Trump joins forces with the equally flamboyant libertarian Elon Musk, who promises to rid the state of a hodgepodge of bureaucrats.

Musk himself is unlikely to be hanging around the president’s office for long, but politicians who think along these lines are likely to be there.

An important difference between the new Trump cohort and traditional Republicans is a significantly lower degree of ideologization of politics in general and international politics in particular. Domestically, the rejection of an aggressive agenda in the spirit of the Woke movement and the imposition of the cult of minorities (which the Republicans call ‘Marxism’ and ‘communism’) plays an important role. It’s about imposition, because the human right to any lifestyle is not in itself questioned by conservatives. For example, key figures around Trump – ardent supporter and former ambassador to Germany Ric Grenell and billionaire Peter Thiel – are married to men.

In foreign policy, the conceptual difference is that Trump and his entourage do not believe, as the Biden White House does, that at the core of international relations is the struggle of democracies against autocracies. This does not mean ideological neutrality. The idea of the ‘free world’ and criticism of ‘communism’ (in which they include China, Cuba, Venezuela, and by inertia, Russia) plays an important role in the thinking of many Republicans. But the defining factor is something else – intolerance of those who for various reasons do not accept American supremacy.

Trump’s choice for national security adviser, Michael Waltz, for example, speaks negatively and disparagingly of Russia, but not in terms of a need to be ‘re-educated’, but because it interferes with America. Marco Rubio, who is being considered for secretary of state, does not oppose regime change in his ancestral homeland of Cuba, but is otherwise not a militant supporter of American intervention anywhere.

The undoubted priority of the Trumpists and those who have joined them is to support Israel and confront its opponents, first and foremost Iran. Last year, Elise Stefanik, the likely US ambassador to the UN, publicly shamed the presidents of leading American universities in Congress for alleged anti-Semitism. It is worth remembering that the only really effective use of force in Trump’s first term was the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani, the head of the special forces of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Trump is not a warrior. Threats, pressure, violent demonstrations – yes. A large-scale armed campaign and mass bloodshed – why? Perhaps because of the peculiarities of relations with China, which is clearly seen as the number one rival. Not in a military sense, but rather in the political and economic sphere, so any ‘war’ with it (forcing it to accept terms favorable to America) should be cold and ruthless. This also applies in part to Russia, though the situation is very different. All of this is neither good nor bad for Moscow. Or to put it another way, it’s both good and bad. But the main thing is that it is not the way it has been up to now.

Fyodor Lukyanov is the editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs, chairman of the Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, and research director of the Valdai International Discussion Club.

This article was first published by the newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta and was translated and edited by the RT team

November 15, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

There are no “Easy Wars” left to fight, but do not mistake the longing for one

By Alastair Crooke | Strategic Culture Foundation | November 15, 2024

Israelis, as a whole, are exhibiting a rosy assurance that they can harness Trump, if not to the full annexation of the Occupied Territories (Trump in his first term did not support such annexation), but rather, to ensnare him into a war on Iran. Many (even most) Israelis are raring for war on Iran and an aggrandisement of their territory (devoid of Arabs). They are believing the puffery that Iran ‘lies naked’, staggeringly vulnerable, before a U.S. and Israeli military strike.

Trump’s Team nominations, so far, reveal a foreign policy squad of fierce supporters of Israel and of passionate hostility to Iran. The Israeli media term it a ‘dream team’ for Netanyahu. It certainly looks that way.

The Israel Lobby could not have asked for more. They have got it. And with the new CIA chief, they get a known ultra China hawk as a bonus.

But in the domestic sphere the tone is precisely the converse: The key nomination for ‘cleaning the stables’ is Matt Gaetz as Attorney General; he is a real “bomb thrower”. And for the Intelligence clean-up, Tulsi Gabbard is appointed as Director of National Intelligence. All intelligence agencies will report to her, and she will be responsible for the President’s Daily briefing. The intel assessments may thus begin to reflect something closer to reality.

The deep Inter-Agency structure has reason to be very afraid; they are panicking – especially over Gaetz.

Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy have the near impossible task of cutting out-of-control federal spending and currency printing. The System is deeply dependent on the bloat of government spending to keep the cogs and levers of the mammoth ‘security’ boondoggle whirring. It is not going to be yielded up without a bitter fight.

So, on the one hand, the Lobby gets a dream team (Israel), but on the other side (the domestic sphere), it gets a renegade team.

This must be deliberate. Trump knows that Biden’s legacy of bloating GDP with government jobs and excessive public spending is the real ‘time bomb’ awaiting him. Again the withdrawal symptoms, as the drug of easy money is withdrawn, may prove incendiary. Moving to a structure of tariffs and low taxes will be disruptive.

Whether deliberate or not, Trump is keeping his cards close to his chest. We have only glimpses of intent – and the water is being seriously muddied by the infamous ‘Inter-Agency’ grandees. For example, in respect to the Pentagon sanctioning private-sector contractors to work in Ukraine, this was done in coordination with “inter-agency stakeholders”.

The old nemesis that paralysed his first term again faces Trump. Then, during the Ukraine impeachment process, one witness (Vindman), when asked why he would not defer to the President’s explicit instructions, replied that whilst Trump has his view on Ukraine policy, that stance did NOT align with that of the ‘Inter-Agency’ agreed position. In plain language, Vindman denied that a U.S. president has agency in foreign policy formulation.

In short, the ‘Inter-Agency structure’ was signalling to Trump that military support for Ukraine must continue.

When the Washington Post published their detailed story of a Trump-Putin phone call – that the Kremlin emphatically states never happened – the deep structures of policy were simply telling Trump that it would be they who determine what the shape of the U.S. ‘solution’ for Ukraine would be.

Similarly, when Netanyahu boasts to have spoken to Trump and that Trump “shares” his views regarding Iran, Trump was being indirectly instructed what his policy towards Iran needs to be. All the (false) rumours about appointments to his Team too, were but the interagency signalling their choices for his key posts. No wonder confusion reigns.

So, what can be deduced at this early stage? If there is a common thread, it has been a constant refrain that Trump is against war. And that he demands from his picks personal loyalty and no ties of obligation to the Lobby or the Swamp.

So, is the packing of his Administration with ‘Israel Firsters’ an indication that Trump is edging toward a ‘Realist’s Faustian pact’ to destroy Iran in order to cripple China’s energy supply source (90% from Iran), and thus weaken China? – Two birds with one stone, so to speak?

The collapse of Iran would also weaken Russia and hobble the BRICS’ transport-corridor projects. Central Asia needs both Iranian energy and its key transport corridors linking China, Iran, and Russia as primary nodes of Eurasian commerce.

When the RAND Organisation, the Pentagon think-tank, recently published a landmark appraisal of the 2022 National Defence Strategy (NDS), its findings were stark: An unrelentingly bleak analysis of every aspect of the U.S. war machine. In brief, the U.S. is “not prepared”, the appraisal argued, in any meaningful way for serious ‘competition’ with its major adversaries – and is vulnerable or even significantly outmatched in every sphere of warfare.

The U.S., the RAND appraisal continues, could in short order be drawn into a war across multiple theatres with peer and near-peer adversaries – and it could lose. It warns that the U.S. public has not internalized the costs of the U.S. losing its position as the world superpower. The U.S. must therefore engage globally with a presence—military, diplomatic, and economic—to preserve influence worldwide.

Indeed, as one respected commentator has noted, the ‘Empire at all Costs’ cult (i.e. the RAND Organisation zeitgeist) is now “more desperate than ever to find a war it can fight to restore its fortunes and prestige”.

And China would be altogether a different proposition for a demonstrative act of destruction in order “to preserve U.S. influence worldwide” – for the U.S. is “not prepared” for serious conflict with its peer adversaries: Russia or China, RAND says.

The straitened situation of the U.S. after decades of fiscal excess and offshoring (the backdrop to its current weakened military industrial base) now makes kinetic war with China or Russia or “across multiple theatres” a prospect to be shunned.

The point that the commentator above makes is that there are no ‘easy wars’ left to fight. And that the reality (brutally outlined by RAND) is that the U.S. can choose one – and only one war to fight. Trump may not want any war, but the Lobby grandees – all supporters of Israel, if not active Zionists supporting the displacement of Palestinians – want war. And they believe they can get one.

Put starkly and plainly: Has Trump thought this through? Have the others in the Trump Team reminded him that in today’s world, with U.S. military strength slipping away, there no longer are any ‘easy wars’ to fight, although Zionists believe that with a decapitation strike on Iran’s religious and IRGC leadership (on the lines of the Israel’s strikes on Hizbullah leaders in Beirut), the Iranian people would rise up against their leaders, and side with Israel for a ‘New Middle East’.

Netanyahu has just made his second broadcast to the Iranian people promising them early salvation. He and his government are not waiting to ask Trump to nod his consent to the annexation of all Occupied Palestinian Territories. That project is being implemented on the ground. It is unfolding now. Netanyahu and his cabinet have the ethnic cleansing ‘bit between their teeth’. Will Trump be able to roll it back? How so? Or will he succumb to becoming ‘genocide Don’?

This putative ‘Iran War’ is following the same narrative cycle as with Russia: ‘Russia is weak; its military is poorly trained; its equipment mostly recycled from the Soviet era; its missiles and artillery in short supply’. Zbig Brzezinski earlier had taken the logic to its conclusion in The Grand Chessboard (1997): Russia would have no choice but to submit to the expansion of NATO and to the geopolitical dictates of the U.S.. That was ‘then’ (a little more than a year ago). Russia took the western challenge – and today is in the driving seat in Ukraine, whilst the West looks on helplessly.

This last month, it was U.S. retired General Jack Keane, the strategic analyst for Fox News, who argued that Israel’s air strike on Iran had left it “essentially naked”, with most air defences “taken down” and its missile production factories destroyed by Israel’s 26 October strikes. Iran’s vulnerability, Keane said, is “simply staggering”.

Kean channels the early Brzezinski: His message is clear – Iran will be an ‘easy war’. That forecast however, is likely to be revealed as dead wrong. And, if pursued, will lead to a complete military and economic disaster for Israel. But do not rule out the distinct possibility that Netanyahu – besieged on all fronts and teetering on the brink of internal crisis and even jail – is desperate enough to do it. His is, after all, a Biblical mandate that he pursues for Israel!

Iran likely will launch a painful response to Israel before the 20 January Presidential Inauguration. Its riposte will demonstrate Iran’s unexpected and unforeseen military innovation. What the U.S. and Israel will then do may well open the door to wider regional war. Sentiment across the region seethes at the slaughter in the Occupied Territories and in Lebanon.

Trump may not appreciate just how isolated the U.S. and Israel are among Israel’s Arab and Sunni neighbours. The U.S. is stretched so thin, and its forces across the region are so vulnerable to the hostility that the daily slaughter incubates, that a regional war might be enough to bring the entire house of cards tumbling down. The crisis would pitch Trump into a financial crisis that could sink his domestic economic aspirations too.

November 15, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

US appeals court overturns 1983 Beirut bombing victims’ $1.68B judgment against Iran

Press TV – November 14, 2024

A US appeals court has revoked a $1.68 billion judgment against Central Bank of Iran (CBI), known as Bank Markazi, regarding the damages won by the families of the victims of a 1983 bombing in Beirut, which targeted a US Marine Corps barracks in the Lebanese capital and was blamed on the Islamic Republic.

The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan threw out the $1.68 billion judgment on Wednesday and said a lower court judge should have addressed questions of state law before ruling against Bank Markazi and Clearstream, a subsidiary of Germany’s stock exchange operator Deutsche Boerse where Iranian assets are held.

In a 3-0 decision, the panel also rejected a claim that a 2019 federal law designed to make it easier to confiscate Iranian assets outside the United States waived Bank Markazi’s sovereign immunity.

That law “neither abrogates Bank Markazi’s jurisdictional immunity nor provides an independent grant of subject matter jurisdiction,” Circuit Judge Robert Sack wrote.

The court returned the case to US District Loretta Preska in Manhattan to address state law questions in the 11-year-old case, and decide whether the case can proceed in Bank Markazi’s absence.

Bombing victims sought to hold Iran liable for what they claimed to be providing material support for the October 23, 1983, suicide attack that killed 241 US service members, by seizing bond proceeds held by Clearstream in a blocked account on the CBI’s behalf.

The CBI declared immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which generally shields foreign governments from liability in US courts.

The plaintiffs sued in 2013 to partially satisfy a $2.65 billion default judgment they had won against Iran in 2007. Another judge dismissed the case in 2015, but the 2nd Circuit Court revived it in 2017.

Then in 2020, the US Supreme Court ordered a fresh review in light of the 2019 law, which then-President Donald Trump signed as part of the National Defense Authorization Act.

The plaintiffs have said they hold more than $4 billion of judgments against Iran and have been unable to collect for decades.

November 14, 2024 Posted by | Islamophobia | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »