Tehran rules out talks on US terms, says ‘Libya-style deal a dream’
Al Mayadeen | April 6, 2025
Iran has restated its refusal to hold direct talks with the United States over its nuclear program, instead demanding that all negotiations proceed through intermediaries. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi reaffirmed Tehran’s position on Sunday, saying that no discussions with Washington have occurred and none will take place without mediation.
“We have stated our position – we are in favor of the diplomatic path and negotiations, but via mediators. Of course, it should be emphasized that not a single round of such talks has been held yet,” Araghchi said in a statement posted on Telegram.
His comments came after US President Donald Trump threatened Iran with bombings if it refuses to accept his new ‘nuclear deal’. Araghchi firmly rejected the idea of Iran following the model imposed on Libya in 2003—when Libya abandoned its WMD program in exchange for sanctions relief, only to later be invaded and see its leader killed.
“The US can only dream” of such an outcome with Iran, he stated.
Araghchi’s reference to Libya alludes to the fate of former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, who was captured and killed by NATO-backed rebel forces in 2011 after agreeing to disarm years earlier. Gaddafi, who had pushed for African unity and economic sovereignty through efforts like a gold-backed currency, was eliminated following a NATO airstrike on his convoy and extrajudicial execution by opposition forces. His death, seen by many as a betrayal of a disarmament deal, has deeply influenced how nations like Iran assess US diplomatic overtures under threat.
Regional Warning
Against this backdrop, Iran has also warned its neighbors—including Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE, Turkey, and Bahrain—not to allow their airspace or territory to be used for any US military action.
“Such an act will have severe consequences for them,” a senior Iranian official said, confirming that Leader Sayyed Ali Khamenei has placed Iran’s armed forces on high alert.
The official also suggested that indirect talks could resume soon via Oman, a long-standing diplomatic channel, but stressed that progress will depend on Washington’s willingness to de-escalate. They warned that the process may be “rocky” and pointed to a narrow two-month window before potential Israeli military action or a reimposition of UN sanctions.
Iran insists its nuclear program is peaceful, but the International Atomic Energy Agency recently reported that enrichment has reached 60%—dangerously close to weapons-grade. Tehran has ruled out discussing its missile capabilities and continues to reject negotiations conducted under pressure or military threat.
IRGC commander Amirali Hajizadeh has warned that in the event of full-scale conflict, US military installations across the region will be treated as legitimate targets.
The High Price of War with Iran: $10 Gas and the Collapse of the US Economy
By Dennis J. Kucinich | March 25, 2025
Israel is currently in turmoil, marked by widespread protests demanding Netanyahu’s resignation. Critics accuse him of prolonging war for political gain, while his dismissal of top security officials and ongoing attacks on the judiciary have further intensified the unrest.
Meanwhile, Washington DC’s drumbeat for war never stops. It’s always at the expense of a decent and secure standard of living for people in this country and abroad.
The Trump Administration, after the series of heady airstrikes against Yemen, is at this moment being beseeched by Netanyahu and his associates to prepare for a seemingly consequence-free nuclear strike against Iran, completing the trifecta of Netanyahu’s long-standing dream.
I have consistently warned against the consequences of an attack on Iran, delivering 155 speeches to the House, 63 presentations alone in the 109th Congress, between 2005 and 2007, when the Bush Administration deliberated using nuclear “bunker-busters” as a means of bringing Iran to heel.
I understood the politics then and I understand them today. I warned hundreds of times that it was not in America’s interests to go to war against Netanyahu’s hit list: Iraq, Iran, Libya…
IRAQ
In 2002, the Bush Administration caused Americans grieving over 9/11 to believe Iraq had a direct role in the attacks which took over 3,000 lives. Except, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Bush claimed Iraq was pursuing nuclear weapons and other “Weapons of Mass Destruction” (WMDs) and was an imminent threat to the U.S. Iraq did not have WMD’s. Iraq was not a threat to the U.S. Iraq had no ability to attack America. Didn’t matter.
The war against Iraq began 22 years ago and lasted eight years. One million innocent Iraqi men, women and children perished because of lies. They were killed in relentless bombings and aggressive ground operations.
At least 4,443 U.S. servicemen and women were killed, and an estimated 32,000 wounded during “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” because of lies.
The lies cost U.S. taxpayers at least $3 trillion. Three trillion hard-earned tax dollars of the American people were spent to pay for the destruction of the people of Iraq while Americans struggled to pay bills for housing, health care, and education and the nation went further into debt.
Remember this diabolical playbook: Create a pretext. Lie to the American people about a threat. Hype the threat. Create irrational fear. Tell them military action is needed to eliminate the threat, and their fears. Bombs away.
On September 12, 2002, as a Member of Congress, I grilled then-former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a congressional hearing entitled, “An Israeli Perspective on Conflict with Iraq” (video and transcript link below). Despite evidence to the contrary, he testified that Iraq and its leader, Saddam Hussein, were a direct threat to America due to an alleged pursuit of WMDs including a nuclear weapon. He urged the U.S. to take military action against Iraq.
I inquired of him who else he would have the United States attack.
“Iran and Libya,” he said.
I spoke to Mr. Netanyahu outside the hearing room and asked him that if he was so convinced those countries were a threat, why didn’t Israel commence the attacks?
“Oh no,” he responded. “We need you to do it.”
On October 10, 2002, the House of Representatives, by a vote of 296-133, authorized the use of military force against Iraq. I led the opposition. The war bill passed the Senate the next day, 77-23, and was signed into law by President Bush on October 16, 2002.
On March 20, 2003, the President describing Iraq as part of an “Axis of Evil,” commenced a “Shock and Awe” onslaught by American warships, aircraft and submarines, launching cruise missiles and “precision guided bombs” roundly murdering people in Baghdad. Iraq was destroyed. Saddam was deposed, captured and hung.
Libya
On March 19, 2011, despite lacking formal congressional authorization, President Barack Obama authorized an attack on Libya to depose Muammar Gaddafi. I led the opposition. Hillary Clinton’s State Department, the EU, NATO, the UK and France to name but a few, lobbied Congress hard to accelerate actions against Libya.
That country’s leaders were dumbfounded as to why, considering that they had done everything America had asked, such as open markets to foreign investment. I held up the bombing for some time by building a bi-partisan coalition of Members of Congress to vote no.
Alas, Obama and the Clinton State Department prevailed. Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner negotiated a redraft of the authorization bill and the Republicans fell in line.
The U.S., with NATO allies, joined forces, wreaking destruction and havoc upon Libya. Gaddafi was deposed, captured and killed, at an estimated cost of over a billion dollars. Obama admitted years later that this was the worst decision of his Presidency.
Iran
On July 25, 2024, Prime Minister Netanyahu, (while under a criminal investigation by the Israeli judiciary), addressed the U.S. Congress concerning Iran, which he characterized as not only a deadly enemy of Israel, but also of the United States.
“Iran’s axis of terror confronts America, Israel and our Arab friends,” Netanyahu declared.
The interests of Israel and America were and are inseparable, he proclaimed – to 58 standing ovations. One could take that heroic reception as rubberstamping an authorization for war. As Netanyahu had told me years ago, “…we need you [the U.S.] to do it.”
Today, the Houthis of Yemen continue their attacks on Israeli shipping interests in the Red Sea, in protest to the Netanyahu government’s genocidal attack on Gaza.
President Trump, ever sensitive to and allegiant to Israel, views the Houthis as proxies of Iran. The President directed America’s air forces to rain down fire and brimstone upon Yemen, a nation of teenagers. The median age in Yemen is 18.4 years. The country spends about 1/1000 of the U.S. military budget for its own defense.
Trump threatened the Iranian government: “Every shot fired by the Houthis will be looked upon from this point forward, as being a shot fired from the weapons and leadership of IRAN (his emphasis). And IRAN will be held responsible, and suffer the consequences, and those consequences will be dire.”
The Administration followed up with Executive Order (E.O.) 13902, which, according to the U.S. Treasury Department was part of a “campaign of maximum pressure” which “targets Iran’s petroleum and petrochemical sectors and marks the fourth round of sanctions targeting Iranian oil sales…”
The first Trump Administration withdrew from a Joint Plan of Action agreement (JCPOA) which provided Iran relief from sanctions in exchange for accepting limitations which would preclude nuclear weaponization.
President Trump ordered the assassination by drone strike of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, considered the second most powerful person in Iran, at the Baghdad airport, underscoring his determination to strike at Iran.
Iran has consistently asserted its nuclear research is for peaceful purposes. There has been a long-standing formal prohibition in Islamic law, a fatwa, issued by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, against the development or use of nuclear weapons.
Recently, President Trump said he would love a deal to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon, “I would love to make a deal with them without bombing them.”
At the same time, U.S. B-52 bombers, capable of delivering nuclear bunker-busting bombs, were engaged in joint exercises with the Israeli Air Force, in preparation for a potential strike at Iran’s underground nuclear sites.
These joint maneuvers were reminiscent of the cooperation and interoperability exercises that took place between the UK and French forces in preparation for a real-world offensive against Libya in 2011.
Ayatollah Khamenei replied “…threats will get them (the Americans) nowhere,” and refused talks under such conditions as “deceptive.” Iranian Brigadier General Kiumars Heidari added, for emphasis, “Iran is ready to crush its enemies if it makes mistakes.”
The dialectic of conflict is escalating.
It was not in America’s interest then, nor is it now, to go to war with Iran, a nation of 90 million people, a technologically advanced society, with nearly a million-person army.
President Trump should not be misled. War with Iran would be the end of his presidency. Here is why:
Iran supplies 3% of the world’s oil. If the U.S. goes to war with Iran, crude oil prices per barrel (currently ranging from $68.86 (West Texas Intermediate) – $72.28 (Brent Crude), could rise to $200 per barrel.
The Strait of Hormuz, a major conduit for the transport of oil would be disrupted. Iran has the capability retaliate by targeting Gulf oil infrastructure, including Saudi Arabia. Market panic would ensue.
The price of a gallon of gas, currently averaging $3.13, would double, approach $7 a gallon, and in some cases, reach $10 a gallon, in states with higher fuel taxes. (This is based on historical data which calculates that every $1 increase in crude oil per barrel translates to about a 2 to 3 cent increase per gallon at the pump).
Attempts to manage supply disruptions and market distortions through the release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve would do little to offset panic buying and stockpiling by consumers. Nor would an increase in U.S. domestic drilling be sufficient to offset lost Middle East oil supplies, due to supply shortage, infrastructure constraints and limitations on refining capacity.
Major disruptions, including high inflation, recession risks, and market instability would hit the US economy. Consumer retail spending would sink while prices rose for food and other goods, as energy costs for manufacturing, agriculture and transportation spiraled out of control.
Slower economic growth would push the U.S. into a recession, with the Fed forced to try to maintain control over inflation by hiking interest rates well beyond the current 4.25% – 4.50 % range.
Auto sales would take a hit. Corporate profits in transportation, airlines, trucking would nosedive. The Dow Jones and S& P 500 would be in shock, with major selloffs. America would arrive at stagflation, high inflation rates and negative growth as it did during the 1973 Oil Embargo.
The multiple economic impacts of the 2008 subprime meltdown and subsequent financial crash which cost the US economy $16 to $20 trillion dollars would become the morbid benchmark for the descent of the American economy.
Now contemplate this concatenation: War with Iran, reciprocal high tariffs, massive cuts in the federal workforce and domestic federal spending and you have an economy in a tailspin, with high inflation, rising unemployment, falling consumer spending, leading to an economic contraction requiring a system of government intervention which is currently being dismantled. Then there is the permanent restructuring of the tax code to accelerate wealth upwards. These conditions create political combustibility.
In the end, Iran will never crush Donald Trump. The U.S. will crush itself trying to wipe out Iran.
The economic effects of war with Iran could spell the end, not only of the viability of the Trump Presidency, but of the Republican House and Senate, a political turnaround the likes of which has not been seen in American politics since the 1932 sweep led by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal.
In 1928 Republican Herbert Hoover took 58.2% of the popular vote and defeated Democrat Al Smith 444-87 in the Electoral College. Amidst a complete rejection of Republican economic policies and the Depression, Roosevelt took 57.4% of the popular vote in 1932 and defeated Hoover in the Electoral College 472-59.
The 270-164 advantage which House Republicans held in 1928 evaporated in 1932 as Democrats crushed Republicans with a 313-117 majority.
There has not been another turnaround like this in American political history and it was driven by the economic forces which overwhelmed a Republican Administration, followed by a program of promised reform which the new Administration delivered.
While the Administration is at the fullness of its expression of unbridled power, it faces a fateful decision regarding Iran which will determine whether the mandate received by Trump in 2024 evaporates as quickly as did Hoover’s in 1932.
Israel itself is in turmoil, with mass protests calling for Netanyahu’s resignation, charges he is prolonging the war for his political benefit, his firing of top security officials and his attacks on the judiciary.
Netanyahu is on shaky ground, pummeled by his fellow countrymen and women who worry, far from ensuring the future of Israel, his deadly policies threaten it.
One could imagine Trump, considering his own and America’s interests, could call Netanyahu and say, “Bibi, we are friends ‘til the end. This is the end.”
Links: 2002 Congressional Hearing “Conflict in Iraq: An Israeli Perspective” video and transcript
Will Trump Deliver Peace?
Glenn Diesen | January 11, 2025
I had a conversation with Professor Jeffrey Sachs and Alexander Mercouris about the possibility of Trump delivering peace in the Middle East and Ukraine. Trump recently posted a video of Professor Sachs criticising the presentation of international conflicts as a struggle between democracy and authoritarianism. In the video, Professor Sachs also scolded Netanyahu and blamed Israel for America’s wars in the Middle East over the past 30 years (Netanyahu will reportedly not attend Trump’s inauguration). Trump has also recognised that NATO expansionism was the source of the proxy war in Ukraine, and has been vocal about his desire to end the proxy.
These actions give some reason for cautious optimism that peace can be achieved at a time when the world appears to be heading toward major wars. The false narratives that conflict in the world derives from a struggle between democracy and authoritarianism create a dangerous Manichaean worldview. Peace then requires good defeating evil, while compromise and workable peace are derided as appeasement. Anyone contesting the Manichaean worldview can be accused of betraying liberal democratic values. Trump has many flaws, but his greatest strength is his ability to say what he wants and break away from the West’s ideological narratives and Manichaean worldview. By recognising the security interests of rival powers (a big taboo in the West), Trump can also mitigate these concerns as the foundation for any durable peace.
Jeffrey Sachs, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen on the Duran:
The strange case of Didier Reynders and Ursula von der Leyen
By Sonja van den Ende | Strategic Culture Foundation | December 24, 2024
On December 5, various Western media reported that Didier Reynders, a former Belgian EU Justice Commissioner, had been buying lottery tickets with dubious funds in the Belgian National Lottery for approximately ten years in order to launder the winnings into his account. Didier Reynders, who served as European Commissioner for Justice under the current Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, until December 1, 2024, is currently under investigation by Belgian authorities.
This raises questions about Ursula von der Leyen’s awareness of her closest colleague’s money laundering activities. Moreover, this is not the first time such a scandal has surfaced, raising questions about the integrity of EU-MEPs.
We start with Didier Reynders, as the so-called “laundering of lottery money” is just the tip of the iceberg for this extremely corrupt individual. Another investigation into Didier Reynders, former EU Justice Commissioner and a pillar of the Belgian establishment, has linked him to a wider probe into money laundering through state-owned institutions. This has sparked fresh interest in allegations of Belgium’s political interference in Congo and Libya and associated arms deals.
In 2019, Nicolas Ullens, a former undercover Belgian agent, accused Reynders of corruption and money laundering in connection with several projects, including the construction of the Belgian embassy in the Democratic Republic of Congo and arms trafficking.
Nicolas Ullens de Schooten is the full name of this former Belgian undercover agent and criminal, who apparently enjoyed high regard in noble circles. This royal criminal and former member of State Security shot his stepmother, Myriam Lechien, dead on March 29, when she and her husband, Baron Guy Ullens, left the driveway of their villa in Ohain, Walloon Brabant. He was acquitted at the request of Didier Reynders, according to the Belgian media. The reason for the shooting was that he did not receive enough inheritance from his stepmother according to her will, which sounds like an old-fashioned crime plot from a real-life crime series.
“The Congo Free State” was a privately governed state by King Leopold II of Belgium through the so-called Association Internationale Africaine, supposedly for humanitarian purposes. However, it was actually a form of colonialism, and to this day, the traces of this brutal Belgian rule can be seen in Congo.
Under the rule of King Leopold II, the so-called Congo Free State became the site of one of the most infamous international scandals of the early 20th century. Colonists brutally exploited the local population in order to produce rubber, which was in high demand due to the growing international market for automobiles and rubber tires. The crimes committed were brutal, and there are no words to describe the suffering endured by the people.
But that’s not all. After the fall and assassination (by Western-sponsored terrorists) of Muammar Gaddafi, the late president of Libya, in 2011, pressure was increased on the then Belgian government over payments of hundreds of millions of euros to unknown recipients. We now know that Didier Reynders received parts of these euros, but how much is not exactly clear. The money came from frozen accounts in Brussels that once belonged to Libyan president Muammar Gaddafi.
These payments from Libyan accounts in Brussels were also used for arms deliveries, according to opposition Belgian politicians. Mr. Reynders also has to explain the disappearance of valuable African artworks (from Libya and the Congo) that came into his possession.
Belgian Foreign Minister Didier Reynders has been accused of involvement in the loss of Libyan funds from Belgian banks. — The Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Didier Reynders, was directly cited by an ex-undercover agent of Belgium, Nicolas Ullens. He accused Reynders of being involved in the disappearance of Libyan funds in Belgium. The media reported that the UN had placed these funds in several banks, including $14 billion in Belgium, where they were frozen.
Despite the ban imposed on banks to lift the freeze on these assets years ago, Belgium ordered the transfer of $1.4 billion, representing 10% of the interest generated by half of the funds placed in Belgian banks. In other words, the Libyan money was stolen and used for weapons deals and private goals, as Didier Reynders allegedly did.
But the story of this individual goes back even further. In 2012, he served as the Belgian Foreign Minister and paid a private visit to Saudi Arabia, where he met with Prince Najef bin-Fawaz al-Salan. In 2007, a French court sentenced the prince to ten years in prison for smuggling two tons of cocaine into France during a diplomatic flight. Despite this, the prince remained loyal to Saudi Arabia, as leaked documents from the United Nations show.
Now, we can draw a parallel with the current situation, where frozen assets (money) from Russia were used to purchase weapons for Ukraine and for the so-called “reconstruction” of Ukraine. Additionally, we see the case of Ursula von der Leyen, who is proud of stealing Russian funds with which more weapons are being purchased, just as they were back in Libya. It is likely that there are still millions of euros remaining for corrupt European Union members like Ursula von der Leyen.
The revelations about Didier Reynders supposedly sent shockwaves through Brussels, coinciding with the start of Ursula von der Leyen’s second term as President of the European Commission. She has made it clear that one of her priorities is to strengthen the rule of law in order to protect fundamental rights and ensure the integrity of the EU budget.
But is this really the case? It seems unlikely that she was unaware of Reynders’ criminal activities. After all, she herself has been implicated in criminal activity and money laundering scandals, such as the Pfizergate affair.
Pfizergate is the scandal involving Ursula von der Leyen, the current President of the European Commission, and the American pharmaceutical company Pfizer regarding the purchase of COVID-19 vaccines. The controversy revolves around the lack of transparency in communication and negotiation processes regarding the purchase of a significant number of vaccine doses during the pandemic. Von der Leyen allegedly purchased too many vaccines, and it is alleged that she did not know if they were reliable, safe, or tested for use on humans. However, as it turns out, these vaccines are not safe or reliable, and they are actually biological weapons designed to reduce the population, as demonstrated by the murdered Russian Lieutenant General Kirillov, as several articles have reported.
Even if prosecutors believe they have sufficient evidence to bring a case to trial, Reynders’ political background may protect him. As a former minister in Belgium and European commissioner, he would still need to have his immunity lifted if the authorities wanted to arrest him. In Belgium, money laundering carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. Of course, Reynders has done much more than simply laundering money. He has stolen money from Muammar Gaddafi, the former Libyan president and his people, and more recently, from the Russian government. Freezing funds is illegal, as well as using them for weapons in Libya.
But Reyners and von der Leyen are not the only ones in the EU engaged in money laundering or deleting emails containing suspicious texts and evidence of their criminal activities. In 2015, the Greek Prime Minister, Alexis Tsipras, and German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, reached a new low with accusations about Greece and its bailout, with compromising texts. Former Dutch Prime Minister, Mark Rutte, (now head of NATO), waited outside closed doors with other European leaders and sent a text message to the European Council President, Donald Tusk, proposing a compromise that would appeal to all parties involved. Within an hour, a deal was reached and the euro was saved. However, according to undisclosed documents, the Greek prime minister was blackmailed by Merkel, Rutte, and most other EU leaders.
In May 2022, a Dutch newspaper reported that Prime Minister Mark Rutte had developed a habit of regularly deleting his text messages. He only forwarded the messages he considered important to his staff, and called this process “real-time archiving”. However, it could more accurately be described as “real-time deletion”. The prime minister is known by the nickname “Pinocchio” in the Netherlands, as he often lies and continues to do so.
We can safely assume that Ursula von der Leyen, as head of the EU, was aware of the criminal activities of Didier Reynders, as she is also involved in Pfizergate, and both of them can be blackmailed. Her husband, Heiko von der Leyen, is also involved in Pfizergate through his role in a biotech company. He is a director of Orogenesis, an American biotech firm, and has benefited from EU funds on two separate occasions. Together, they buy each other’s silence and blackmail one another with money from public funds or simply steal money from state budgets. They have stolen money from Libya, the Congo, and now Russia.
The Israeli Hit List – Iran Remains
If Americans Knew | December 18, 2024
The seven countries that the U.S. continues to meddle with and antagonize have a shared history and connection: Israel and the Zionists who pushed for the Jewish state want them to be destabilized, weakened, or eliminated. Jeffrey Sachs is a world-renowned economics professor, bestselling author, innovative educator, and global leader in sustainable development. Sachs serves as the Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, where he holds the rank of University Professor, the university’s highest academic rank. From 2001-18, Sachs served as Special Advisor to UN Secretaries-General Kofi Annan (2001-7), Ban Ki-moon (2008-16), and António Guterres (2017-18). Alison Weir is the founder of If Americans Knew and president of the Council for the National Interest, which works for “U.S. Middle East policies that represent the highest values of our founders and our citizens and that work to sustain a nation of honor, decency, security, and prosperity.” Weir is also author of the book, Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel.
Source videos:
Jeffrey Sachs on Piers Morgan 
• “WHY Are We Doing Netanyahu’s Bidding…
Alison Weir’s speech February 2017 • Israel-Palestine: Essential facts on …
Alison Weir – Iraq Tribunal: The Israel Connection – 2022 • Iraq Tribunal: The Israel Connnection…
Alison Weir’s speech September 2019 • Alison Weir Visits Clovis Community C…
Donald Trump on the invasion of Iraq 2016 • Does Trump think George W. Bush lied …
General Wesley Clark on Democracy Now • Gen. Wesley Clark reveals 2001 plan t…
General Wesley Clark’s speech at the Commonwealth Club of California • Gen. Wesley Clark reveals 2001 plan t…
Benjamin Netanyahu in Congress 2002 • Israeli Perspective on Conflict with …
How the US and Israel Destroyed Syria and Called it Peace
By Jeffrey D. Sachs | Common Dreams | December 12, 2024
In the famous lines of Tacitus, Roman historian, “To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace.”
In our age, it is Israel and the U.S. that make a desert and call it peace.
The story is simple. In stark violation of international law, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his ministers claim the right to rule over seven million Palestinian Arabs. When Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands leads to militant resistance, Israel labels the resistance “terrorism” and calls on the U.S. to overthrow the Middle East governments that back the “terrorists.” The U.S., under the sway of the Israel Lobby, goes to war on Israel’s behalf.
The fall of Syria this week is the culmination of the Israel-U.S. campaign against Syria that goes back to 1996 with Netanyahu’s arrival to office as Prime Minister. The Israel-U.S. war on Syria escalated in 2011 and 2012, when Barack Obama covertly tasked the CIA with the overthrow of the Syrian Government in Operation Timber Sycamore. That effort finally came to “fruition” this week, after more than 300,000 deaths in the Syrian war since 2011.
Syria’s fall came swiftly because of more than a decade of crushing economic sanctions, the burdens of war, the U.S. seizure of Syria’s oil, Russia’s priorities regarding the conflict in Ukraine, and most immediately, Israel’s attacks on Hezbollah, which was the key military backstop to the Syrian Government. No doubt Assad often misplayed his own hand and faced severe internal discontent, but his regime was targeted for collapse for decades by the U.S. and Israel.
Before the U.S.-Israel campaign to overthrow Assad began in earnest in 2011, Syria was a functioning, growing middle-income country. In January 2009, the IMF Executive Board had this to say:
Executive Directors welcomed Syria’s strong macroeconomic performance in recent years, as manifested in the rapid non-oil GDP growth, comfortable level of foreign reserves, and low and declining government debt. This performance reflected both robust regional demand and the authorities’ reform efforts to shift toward a more market- based economy.
Since 2011, the Israel-U.S. perpetual war on Syria, including bombing, jihadists, economic sanctions, U.S. seizure of Syria’s oil fields, and more, has sunk the Syrian people into misery.
In the immediate two days following the collapse of the government, Israel conducted about 480 strikes across Syria, and completely destroyed the Syrian fleet in Latakia. Pursuing his expansionist agenda, Prime Minister Netanyahu illegally claimed control over the demilitarized buffer zone in the Golan Heights and declared that the Golan Heights will be a part of the State of Israel “for eternity.”
Netanyahu’s ambition to transform the region through war, which dates back almost three decades, is playing out in front of our eyes. In a press conference on December 9th, the Israeli prime minister boasted of an “absolute victory,” justifying the on-going genocide in Gaza and escalating violence throughout the region:
I ask you, just think, if we had acceded to those who told us time and again: “The war must be stopped”– we would not have entered Rafah, we would not have seized the Philadelphia Corridor, we would not have eliminated Sinwar, we would not have surprised our enemies in Lebanon and the entire world in a daring operation-stratagem, we would not have eliminated Nasrallah, we would not have destroyed Hezbollah’s underground network, and we would not have exposed Iran’s weakness. The operations that we have carried out since the beginning of the war are dismantling the axis brick by brick.
The long history of Israel’s campaign to overthrow the Syrian Government is not widely understood, yet the documentary record is clear. Israel’s war on Syria began with U.S. and Israeli neoconservatives in 1996, who fashioned a “Clean Break” strategy for the Middle East for Netanyahu as he came to office. The core of the “clean break” strategy called for Israel (and the US) to reject “land for peace,” the idea that Israel would withdraw from the occupied Palestinian lands in return for peace. Instead, Israel would retain the occupied Palestinian lands, rule over the Palestinian people in an Apartheid state, step-by-step ethnically cleanse the state, and enforce so-called “peace for peace” by overthrowing neighboring governments that resisted Israel’s land claims.
The Clean Break strategy asserts, “Our claim to the land—to which we have clung for hope for 2000 years—is legitimate and noble,” and goes on to state, “Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon…”
In his 1996 book Fighting Terrorism, Netanyahu set out the new strategy. Israel would not fight the terrorists; it would fight the states that support the terrorists. More accurately, it would get the US to do Israel’s fighting for it. As he elaborated in 2001:
The first and most crucial thing to understand is this: There is no international terrorism without the support of sovereign states… Take away all this state support, and the entire scaffolding of international terrorism will collapse into dust.
Netanyahu’s strategy was integrated into U.S. foreign policy. Taking out Syria was always a key part of the plan. This was confirmed to General Wesley Clark after 9/11. He was told, during a visit at the Pentagon, that “we’re going to attack and destroy the governments in seven countries in five years—we’re going to start with Iraq, and then we’re going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.” Iraq would be first, then Syria, and the rest. (Netanyahu’s campaign for the Iraq War is spelled out in detail in Dennis Fritz’s new book, Deadly Betrayal. The role of the Israel Lobby is spelled out in Ilan Pappé’s new book, Lobbying for Zionism on Both Sides of the Atlantic). The insurgency that hit U.S. troops in Iraq set back the five-year timeline, but did not change the basic strategy.
The U.S. has by now led or sponsored wars against Iraq (invasion in 2003), Lebanon (U.S. funding and arming Israel), Libya (NATO bombing in 2011), Syria (CIA operation during 2010’s), Sudan (supporting rebels to break Sudan apart in 2011), and Somalia (backing Ethiopia’s invasion in 2006). A prospective U.S. war with Iran, ardently sought by Israel, is still pending.
Strange as it might seem, the CIA has repeatedly backed Islamist Jihadists to fight these wars, and jihadists have just toppled the Syrian regime. The CIA, after all, helped to create al-Qaeda in the first place by training, arming, and financing the Mujahideen in Afghanistan from the late 1970s onward. Yes, Osama bin Laden later turned on the U.S., but his movement was a U.S. creation all the same. Ironically, as Seymour Hersh confirms, it was Assad’s intelligence that “tipped off the U.S. to an impending Al Qaeda bombing attack on the headquarters of the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet.”
Operation Timber Sycamore was a billion-dollar CIA covert program launched by Obama to overthrow Bashar al-Assad. The CIA funded, trained, and provided intelligence to radical and extreme Islamist groups. The CIA effort also involved a “rat line” to run weapons from Libya (attacked by NATO in 2011) to the jihadists in Syria. In 2014, Seymour Hersh described the operation in his piece “The Red Line and the Rat Line”:
“A highly classified annex to the report, not made public, described a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdoğan administrations. It pertained to the rat line. By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria.”
Soon after the launch of Timber Sycamore, in March 2013, at a joint conference by President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu at the White House, Obama said: “With respect to Syria, the United States continues to work with allies and friends and the Syrian opposition to hasten the end of Assad’s rule.”
To the U.S.-Israeli Zionist mentality, a call for negotiation by an adversary is taken as a sign of weakness of the adversary. Those who call for negotiations on the other side typically end up dead—murdered by Israel or U.S. assets. We’ve seen this play out recently in Lebanon. The Lebanese Foreign Minister confirmed that Hassan Nasrallah, Former Secretary-General of Hezbollah had agreed to a ceasefire with Israel days before his assassination. Hezbollah’s willingness to accept a peace agreement according to the Arab-Islamic world’s wishes of a two-state solution is long-standing. Similarly, instead of negotiating to end the war in Gaza, Israel assassinated Hamas’ political chief, Ismail Haniyeh, in Tehran.
Similarly in Syria, instead of allowing for a political solution to emerge, the U.S. opposed the peace process multiple times. In 2012, the UN had negotiated a peace agreement in Syria that was blocked by the Americans, who demanded that Assad must go on the first day of the peace agreement. The U.S. wanted regime change, not peace. In September 2024, Netanyahu addressed the General Assembly with a map of the Middle East divided between “Blessing” and “Curse,” with Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Iran as part of Netanyahu’s curse. The real curse is Israel’s path of mayhem and war, which has now engulfed Lebanon and Syria, with Netayahu’s fervent hope to draw the U.S. into war with Iran as well.
The U.S. and Israel are high-fiving that they have successfully wrecked yet another adversary of Israel and defender of the Palestinian cause, with Netanyahu claiming “credit for starting the historic process.” Most likely Syria will now succumb to continued war among the many armed protagonists, as has happened in the previous U.S.-Israeli regime-change operations.
In short, American interference, at the behest of Netanyahu’s Israel, has left the Middle East in ruins, with over a million dead and open wars raging in Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine, and with Iran on the brink of a nuclear arsenal, being pushed against its own inclinations to this eventuality.
All this is in the service of a profoundly unjust cause: to deny Palestinians their political rights in the service of Zionist extremism based on the 7th century BCE Book of Joshua. Remarkably, according to that text—one relied on by Israel’s own religious zealots—the Israelites were not even the original inhabitants of the land. Rather, according the text, God instructs Joshua and his warriors to commit multiple genocides to conquer the land.
Against this backdrop, the Arab-Islamic nations and indeed almost all of the world have repeatedly united in the call for a two-state solution and peace between Israel and Palestine.
Instead of the two-state solution, Israel and the U.S. have made a desert and called it peace.
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.
American Pravda: Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead in San Bernardino
BY RON UNZ • UNZ REVIEW • MAY 20, 2024
Being a college town, Palo Alto once offered a multitude of excellent new and used bookstores, perhaps as many as a dozen or so. But the rise of Amazon produced a great extinction in that business sector, and I think only two now survive, probably still more than for most towns of comparable size.
Amazon and its rivals have obviously become hugely beneficial book-buying resources that I frequently use, but they fail to offer the benefit of randomly browsing shelves and occasionally stumbling across something serendipitous. So I regularly stop by the monthly used book sale put on by Friends of the Palo Alto Library, whose offerings are also very attractively priced, with good quality paperbacks often going for as little as a quarter.
While browsing that sale a couple of weeks ago, I noticed a hardcover copy of Newsroom Confidential, a short 2022 insider account of mainstream journalism by Margaret Sullivan, who had spent four years as the Public Editor of the New York Times. I’d occasionally read her columns in that paper and had seen one or two favorable reviews of the book, so despite its pricey cost—a full $3—I bought and read it, hoping to get a sense of what she’d observed during her term as the designated reader-advocate at our national newspaper of record.
As she told her story, prior to joining the Times she had spent her entire career at the far smaller Buffalo News of her native city, eventually rising to become its editor. Although she’d been happy in that position, after eight years she decided to apply for an opening at the Times, and jumped at the offer when she received it.
Based upon her narrative, Sullivan seems very much a moderate liberal in her views, not too different from most others in her journalistic profession despite being raised in a family of more conservative blue-collar Catholics in Upstate New York. She opened the Prologue of her book by denouncing Donald Trump’s infamous “Stop the Steal” DC rally of early 2021 and she described the invasion of our Capitol by outraged Trumpists as “one of the most appalling moments in all of American history,” sentiments probably shared by at least 90% of her mainstream colleagues.
Born in 1957, Sullivan explained that as a first grader she and everyone else in her community had been horrified by the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy, our first Catholic president. Less than a decade later, she was transfixed by the Watergate Scandal and the subsequent Senate hearings that led to the fall of President Richard Nixon. Like so many others of her generation, she had idolized Woodward and Bernstein, the crusading young reporters who broke the case and brought down a crooked president, especially admiring their portrayal by movie stars Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman in the film version of All the President’s Men. Along with many other idealistic young Americans, Sullivan decided to embark upon a journalistic career as a consequence.
As far as I can tell, Sullivan seems to have been a committed and honest professional during the decades that followed, describing some of her mundane minor conflicts with colleagues but generally trying to tell their side of the story as well. As a lateral hire from a smallish Upstate newspaper, she had moved rather cautiously after joining the illustrious Times, and although she sometimes took a bit of pride in a few of her columns that attracted considerable readership or were widely Tweeted out, none of these much stuck in my mind.
As the end of her four year tenure approached, the Times tried to persuade her to extend it, but she preferred to move over to the Washington Post and become one of their media columnists.
The various tidbits of gossip she reported from those newspapers were hardly earth-shattering. She’d had a private dinner with top Times editor Jill Abramson one evening only to be shocked the next morning when the latter was summarily fired by the publisher, so she passed along the speculation about what combination of factors might have been responsible for that sudden purge. Abramson had been the first woman to serve as executive editor of the Times, and she was replaced by her deputy Dean Baquet, who became the first black to hold that post. Sullivan explained that the two had long had a contentious relationship, and many members of the newsroom speculated that Baquet had demanded that the Times leadership choose between the two of them. Apparently Abramson had a difficult personality while Baquet was much more charming, so even though he sometimes threw “temper tantrums” he was able to get away with such behavior, and he came out on top.
Although Sullivan never broke a major story nor won any important journalistic prize, she seemed very much a solid team-player rather than a prima donna and got along well with her professional colleagues. Therefore, I was hardly surprised that she was chosen to join the Pulitzer Prize Board in 2011 and eventually became executive director of a Columbia University center for journalist ethics.
Her book was a rather short one, so although I didn’t really get much out of it, it also hardly absorbed too many hours of my time. But what struck me in reading it was how a longtime editor and media columnist could have lived through some of the most shocking and dramatic events of the last sixty years without ever seeming to seriously question any of them. The Kennedy Assassinations of the 1960s, the 9/11 Attacks and the long War on Terror, the 2016 Russian election interference that put Donald Trump in the White House, the global Covid epidemic beginning in early 2020 and the massive social upheaval following the police murder of George Floyd later that same year—all those seminal incidents were discussed in her text yet she never seemed to entertain the slightest doubts about those standard narratives.
At one point she noted the striking collapse of public confidence in the honesty and reliability of American journalism, which had plummeted from around 72% soon after Watergate to just 36% these days. But she never asked herself whether the public might have a sound basis for such rapidly growing distrust of our media.
In reading Sullivan’s account of her journalistic career, two names from Shakespeare’s Hamlet came to mind: Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Those two Danish courtiers had remained totally oblivious to the enormous events taking place around them and suffered a dire fate as a consequence, though they later became the protagonists of Tom Stoppard’s absurdist play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. Although fifteen or twenty years ago, I might have shared Sullivan’s tendency to ignore any deeper realities of modern American history, her book was published in 2022 and I wondered whether she had ever seriously explored the full range of information available on the Internet during the decades she had spent as an editor and a media columnist.
As she casually described some of the watershed events of her lifetime, always seeming to take them entirely at face value, I smiled a bit since over the years I had carefully analyzed most of them in my own American Pravda series and usually come to very different conclusions. But what jumped out at me was her discussion of a much smaller incident from near the end of her tenure at the Times. Although that story has been almost totally forgotten, it filled nearly four pages of her short book, occupying almost as much space as Watergate and far more than the 9/11 Attacks.
In December 2015, terrorist gunmen had attacked the public employees of San Bernardino, California at their offices, killing fourteen and wounding more than twenty, the worst mass shooting in America since Sandy Hook three years earlier. Within hours, a massive local police mobilization had located, shot, and killed the Islamic fanatics responsible and all the details of the case are provided in a very comprehensive Wikipedia article that runs more than 19,000 words.
Sullivan became involved in a controversy over whether the pro-jihadi social media posts left by one of the killers had been correctly described by an anonymous government source, whose information was the basis of a provocative front page Times story that became an important element in the political debate. Her critical column made waves and even drew the involvement of her newspaper’s top editor before the matter was ultimately settled to her complete satisfaction.
At the time of that mass shooting, I was heavily focused upon the final stages of preparing my ultimately unsuccessful campaign for the Harvard Board of Overseers, but certain elements of that incident stuck in my mind, and although Sullivan never seemed to have questioned any of its strange details, I certainly did.
During the previous few years I’d grown increasingly suspicious of many of the watershed events of our country’s modern history, but I hadn’t yet launched my American Pravda series nor even published a single article outlining any of my conspiratorial views. However, certain elements of this mass shooting raised red flags in my mind, and I soon republished a short column by longtime libertarian writer Gary North highlighting some of those issues.
On December 2nd, public employees of San Bernardino County were holding a day-long training exercise and holiday party at their offices when a deadly attack suddenly began. According to all the eyewitnesses, three large white men, wearing ski masks and dressed head-to-toe in military-style commando-outfits suddenly burst into the gathering and began raking the terrified victims with gunfire from their assault-rifles, killing fourteen and wounding more than twenty others. Although after nine years many of the YouTube videos providing the statements of survivors are no longer available, the CBS Evening News phone interview with a seemingly very credible eyewitness is still on the Internet and worth viewing.
Another witness interviewed by NBC News similarly reported seeing “3 white males” in military gear fleeing the scene of the shooting, and a later Time Magazine article seemed to confirm those same reports by all the early eyewitnesses. So three large white men dressed in commando-gear had apparently committed the brutal massacre, then escaped the scene in a black SUV.
Some 300 local law enforcement officers were quickly mobilized and although they arrived too late to catch the perpetrators, they began patrolling the vicinity, hoping to find the killers before they struck again. Their efforts were soon rewarded and four hours later they located the black SUV driving less than two miles away, and after a massive gun-battle with hundreds of rounds fired, they shot the terrorists to death. Yet oddly enough, the slain culprits turned out to be a young Pakistani Muslim married couple living nearby, Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, whose six-month-old baby girl had fortunately been left at the home of her grandmother when the parents said they needed to drive to a doctor’s appointment.
Government officials and their media allies all soon declared the case closed, explaining that the Pakistani couple had apparently self-radicalized themselves by reading Islamicist tracts on the Internet and becoming followers of the dread ISIS terrorist movement. ISIS had been much in the news during 2015, allegedly responsible for staging numerous attacks all across Western countries.
But the total divergence between the two descriptions of the suspects seemed quite remarkable, especially once the news media revealed that Malik was a very short woman, standing barely five feet tall. In conversations and later posted comments, I joked that America’s ISIS foes were formidable indeed if they possessed the magical power to transform themselves from one very short woman into two large men and then back again.
Eyewitness testimony at horrific events is notoriously unreliable and although the shooters had been described as white based upon visible portions of their skin, the commando-outfits they were wearing would have concealed most of that, so such identification might have easily been mistaken. Perhaps many of the County employees were relatively short individuals from a Hispanic, Asian, or Middle Eastern immigrant background and they merely assumed that someone large and tall was more likely to be of white European ancestry. But a tiny woman looks very different from a large man and it’s hard to confuse two shooters with three. Even after the official narrative had congealed into its final form, the eyewitness interviewed by CBS News stuck to her story when later questioned by ABC News, saying “I know what I saw.”
The background of the terrorist couple also seemed quite odd. According to news accounts, Farouk had spent the previous five years working as a County food inspector, generally known as someone who got along well with others, with baffled co-workers saying that the young couple were “living the American dream.” Meanwhile, although she’d originally trained as a pharmacist, Malik had become a stay-at-home mom, apparently still nursing her six-month-old baby girl. While I suppose it’s possible that a young, nursing mother has sometimes gone on a wild terrorist rampage, I’d never previously heard of such a case.
A few years earlier I’d become friendly with a prominent mainstream academic and had been shocked to discover that for decades he had become a strong if silent believer in all sorts of “conspiracy theories.” Later that month I happened to have lunch with him and learned that he was also very skeptical of the official story of that terrorist massacre. He’d come of age during the Vietnam War era and served in the ROTC while a student at Harvard, training on weapons during those years. So he explained that a tiny woman such as Malik would have had a very hard time handling a powerful assault-rifle such as an AR-15, revealing another major hole in the official story.
We were also told that after staging their brutal massacre, the two married terrorists had behaved in a strange way. Instead of either fleeing the area or committing other attacks, they had apparently changed back into their civilian clothes and were later caught by the swarming law enforcement officers while slowly driving their vehicle a mile and a half from the crime scene. According to the media accounts, the Bonnie and Clyde terrorist couple had gone out in a blaze of glory, killed after engaging in a huge shootout with the pursuing police. But the photos seemed to show that the windows of their bullet-riddled SUV were tightly closed, and surely they would have rolled them down if they were firing their weapons at the officers chasing them.
Given these severe inconsistences, some conspiratorially-minded individuals naturally suggested that the two Pakistani Muslims had been selected as patsies for a terrorist false-flag attack organized by our government or its allies. But that hypothesis also seemed to make little sense to me. Why would the government stage a false-flag massacre involving three large gunmen and then try to pin the blame on a Pakistani immigrant and his very short wife?
Nine years have now passed and much of the video evidence has disappeared, so determining exactly what happened seems quite difficult. But at the time I believed that a completely unrelated shooting incident in the Los Angeles area a couple of years earlier provided some important insights for this case and I still think the same today.
During February 2013, a black former LAPD officer named Charles Dorner became outraged over what he regarded as his unfair treatment and he began an assassination campaign against other police officers and their families, eventually killing four victims and wounding three more before he was finally trapped in a huge manhunt and committed suicide. During the ten days of his rampage, police departments across much of Southern California were in a state of extremely high alert, mobilizing officers for guard duty outside the homes of those officials and their families that they believed might be among his next targets. But their trigger-happy fears of that deadly cop-killer led to some unfortunate accidents.
Very early one morning, the seven police officers guarding the home of an LAPD official noticed a nearby pickup truck driving in a suspicious manner. So mistakenly believing that it matched the description of Dorner’s vehicle, they fired without warning and riddled it with more than 100 bullets. But instead of Dorner, the occupants turned out to be an elderly Hispanic woman and her middle-aged daughter, who were out delivering the Los Angeles Times in that neighborhood as they did every morning. Less than a half-hour later, other police officers opened fire on another misidentified vehicle, injuring a white surfer who had been on his way to the beach. Fortunately, the victims of those mistaken police shootings all survived and they eventually received multi-million-dollar settlements from their lawsuits.
I think we should at least consider the possibility that Farook and Malik died for similar reasons. Their fatal mistake may have been that they were driving a black SUV that closely resembled the getaway vehicle of the attackers and doing so in an area filled with hundreds of fearful officers on the lookout for terrorist commandoes armed with assault weapons. The limited visual evidence seems to show their SUV was proceeding quietly along the road at normal speed before being attacked and perforated by hundreds of bullets from the police vehicles tailing them.
Obviously, this reconstruction is quite speculative, and Wikipedia summarizes the long list of media reports providing a cornucopia of highly-incriminating evidence. These describe the enormous arsenal of weapons and home-made bombs that the young immigrant couple had allegedly amassed in preparation for their terrorist rampage. So interested readers should weigh that supposed evidence against the seemingly contrary facts that I have described above.
However, consider that the massacre prompted President Barack Obama to broadcast a rare Oval Office address, his first in five years. Given our ongoing international war against the terroristic ISIS movement of the Middle East, any admission that our police had mistakenly shot and killed a young Pakistani couple with an infant daughter might have been hugely damaging to American national security. The alternate choice of fabricating a case against two already dead foreigners would hardly have been the worst crime ever committed by a government desperate to hide its severe embarrassment.
The number of victims in the San Bernardino attack had not been that large, but wider fears of international Islamicist terror attacks had probably been responsible for Obama’s national address on the incident. Indeed, 2015 produced a bumper-crop of such terrorist assaults, with the Wikipedia page devoted to the topic showing nearly 100 such incidents, far more than for any other year. Moreover, many of these attacks occurred in the West, stoking the enormous fears of domestic terrorism that may have helped explain the massive, trigger-happy local police response in San Bernardino.
Probably the highest-profile 2015 attack had taken place in early January at the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical French magazine. That Jewish-dominated publication had long directed the crudest and most vicious insults against the deep religious beliefs of Christians and Muslims, and although the former took those barbs in stride, threats from the latter had been so numerous that the government stationed a police guard outside the premises. But when the attack finally came on January 7th, he proved helpless against the two assailants, clad in commando-outfits and heavily armed with assault-rifles. They forced their way into the building and quickly executed a dozen of the staff while wounding a similar number, then shot the guard on the street while escaping. The choice of dress, weapons, and style of the two attackers seemed rather similar to those who would attack the public employees of San Bernardino eleven months later.
Nearly all of France’s political class treated the brutal killing of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists and writers as an outrageous assault against France’s long Voltairean traditional of freedom of speech and the incident was widely described as France’s own “9/11 Attack.” Within a couple of days, the Islamicist killers responsible had been identified by the police, tracked down, and killed but the political reverberations continued. Two days later, Paris saw a gigantic march of two million protesting the attacks and denouncing Islamic extremism. More than 40 world leaders led that procession, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu taking a prominent but controversial place at the front, and similar protests of some 1.7 million additional people occurred elsewhere in the country. France contained a large Muslim population with immigrant roots and French leaders united to endorse a severe political crackdown on perceived Islamic extremism and those who supported it. The standard account of all these events is provided in the Wikipedia page that runs around 17,000 words.
As these important French events unfolded, I’d been reading very detailed coverage in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, and initially accepted this entire narrative without question. But I soon discovered that others took a much more conspiratorial line, and a series of email exchanges with that same well-connected academic friend of mine brought those surprising possibilities to my attention, gradually winning me over to his perspective. Based upon some of his discussions with knowledgeable friends in France, he believed that there was a strong possibility that the attacks may have been some sort of government false-flag operation, aimed at justifying a sharp crackdown against political dissent, though the exact details were not at all clear. He also said that such suspicions were very widespread in certain French intellectual and political circles, but almost no one dared voice them in public.
Prompted by those claims coming from someone whose opinion I respected, I began noticing certain elements of the story that greatly multiplied my suspicions.
Much like their later counterparts in San Bernardino, the two terrorist attackers had been wearing face-masks and commando-outfits, and after killing their victims with bursts of assault-weapons gunfire they had easily escaped long before the French police could respond. The only reason that they were quickly identified and caught was that one of the terrorists had carelessly left his ID card behind in an abandoned getaway vehicle, a crucial fact oddly excluded from the very comprehensive Wikipedia article. This seemed a remarkably suspicious detail, eerily similar to the undamaged hijacker passport found on the streets of NYC after the fiery crash of the jetliners into the WTC towers during on September 11th, or the lost luggage of 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta that later provided a wealth of incriminating background material regarding the terrorist plot and his motives.
For many decades, former Presidential candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen had been the leader of France’s Far Right anti-Muslim political movement, and he had strong personal connections to the country’s military and security circles. Based upon his ideological beliefs, he might have been expected to welcome the anti-Muslim crackdown prompted by the terrorist massacre, but in an interview with Britain’s Daily Telegraph he said that the attacks seemed extremely suspicious to him and might have been a false-flag operation by some intelligence service. No other major English-language publication reported his surprising views and just a week or so later, Le Pen narrowly escaped death when his house suddenly caught fire, with that story also only being reported in the Telegraph. I later discussed these surprising developments in several comments, but the original articles themselves have now apparently vanished from the Telegraph archives, seemingly underscoring their significance. Naturally none of this information appears in the comprehensive Wikipedia articles on either the Charlie Hebdo attacks or Le Pen himself.
Wikipedia did devote a single sentence to another very odd development in the case. One day after the terrorist attack, the French police commissioner responsible for the investigation suddenly decided to commit suicide at his government office while preparing his official report, choosing to shoot himself in the head.
In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks, France’s entire political leadership class declared themselves the absolute guarantors of the country’s freedom of speech and thought against the Islamic militants who challenged those sacred values. But the actual consequences that followed were somewhat different. Over the years France’s large Muslim population had become increasingly hostile to Israeli policy and Jewish influence, and such sentiments were now outlawed as constituting sympathy for terrorism, given that the alleged terrorists had come from that community and background. These harsh new prohibitions were enforced by a huge wave of arrests and investigations.
As an example of this ironic situation, consider the case of Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, a French-born citizen of half-African ancestry. Although he was one of the France’s most popular comedians, over the years his stinging criticism of overwhelming Jewish influence had caused him enormous legal and professional difficulties. So a few days after the Charlie Hebdo attacks, he posted some mocking comments on his Facebook page, noting that the same authorities who now loudly proclaimed their support for free speech had regularly persecuted him for his humor, and he was quickly arrested on charges of publicly supporting terrorism.
Later that same year, Kevin Barrett released We Are NOT Charlie Hebdo, his edited collection of about two dozen essays highlighting many of the strange and suspicious aspects of that important terrorist incident. I finally read it a couple of years ago and I would strongly recommend it as a very helpful balance to the version of events provided by the mainstream media and codified in Wikipedia. In doing so I am merely seconding the favorable verdict of Prof. Richard Falk of Princeton University, an eminent expert on international law and human rights policy.
Around that same time I also read two other books released by Progressive Press, a small alternative publisher located in Southern California. These both provided a highly-conspiratorial counter-narrative to the mainstream account of our struggle against the Islamicist terrorists of the Middle East.
A decade ago, the terroristic forces of ISIS had become notorious throughout that region and the entire world for their brutal atrocities. These were demonstrated in the videos they regularly released showing the horrific beheadings they inflicted upon their enemies in Syria and Iraq, and ISIS supporters were usually blamed for terrorist attacks in the West, including those in France and San Bernardino. As a result, ISIS allegedly became the primary target of American military operations in the Middle East, but our efforts seemed surprisingly ineffective.
However, a 2016 collection of articles and essays descriptively entitled ISIS Is Us told a very different story. A number of alternative writers and bloggers presented arguments that the CIA and our own regional allies such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel had actually been responsible for creating and equipping that fanatical group of Sunni Muslim jihadists, then deploying them as a means of overthrowing Syria’s Shiite-aligned government, an important Iranian ally.
Indeed, that project came very close to success until Russian military intervention in September 2015 helped to turn the tide, along with the ground forces already committed by the Shiite Hezbollah militia of Southern Lebanon. Although I’d regularly seen these arguments floating around in corners of the Internet, I found it useful to have them presented in the pages of a book.
Over the last couple of decades French journalist Thierry Meyssan has become an influential figure in left-wing, conspiratorial circles, and his 2002 book 9/11: The Big Lie was one of the earliest works attacking the official 9/11 narrative, quickly becoming a huge best-seller in France and soon translated into English. That publishing success led him to establish the VoltaireNet website in Lebanon, which has maintained a strong focus on Middle Eastern issues while being sharply critical of Western policies.
In early 2019 he published Before Our Very Eyes: Fake Wars and Big Lies, adopting a very similar approach to the story of the “Arab Spring” and the Western use of Muslim Jihadists in attempts to overthrow the governments of Libya and Syria, with the former effort being successful. Although some of his claims were already known to me and seemed solidly documented, others were much more surprising. But although he provided a vast number of specific statements about important matters, he usually did so without providing any sources for his material, so it was difficult for me to judge its credibility. I assume that much of his information came from his personal contacts with various regional intelligence organizations, who obviously would have had vested interests in promoting their desired narratives, whether or not those happened to be true.
In many respects, I think these three books constituted the photographic inverse-image of Margaret Sullivan’s text, focusing exactly upon the conspiratorial elements of all the major stories that she herself had carefully avoided noticing during her decades of mainstream journalism. So I suspect that the truth lies somewhere between those two extremes.
It’s also quite possible that Sullivan knows or at least suspects far more than she indicated in her book and she was being less than candid with her readers. Positions in elite mainstream journalism or academia are difficult to obtain and can easily be lost if someone strays outside accepted boundaries. After all Jill Abramson had held the top position in all of American journalism and then was suddenly fired for unclear reasons. Times Opinion Editor James Bennet had been a leading candidate to run his newspaper but had suddenly been forced to resign merely for publishing a controversial op-ed by a leading Republican Senator. The forty-year Times career of prominent science journalist Donald McNeil came to an end when he made a few incautious remarks at an extracurricular student outing in Peru. All these individuals far outranked Sullivan and their transgressions were very minor ones compared to the deadly journalistic sin of becoming a suspected “conspiracy theorist.” Indeed, if Sullivan had raised any of the dangerous points I have discussed above, I doubt her manuscript would have even been accepted for publication.
I actually think that there exists evidence that some elite journalists may have much broader views on various issues than they would ever admit in print.
A couple of months after the very suspicious case of the Charlie Hebdo attacks, I decided to publish a highly-controversial analysis of Sen. John McCain’s Vietnam War record, an article that represented something of a sequel to Sydney Schanberg’s seminal expose of McCain’s role in the POW cover-up.
Although all my facts were drawn from fully mainstream sources—much of it from the Times itself—my analysis and conclusions were quite explosive, as indicated by a couple of my closing paragraphs:
Today when we consider the major countries of the world we see that in many cases the official leaders are also the leaders in actuality: Vladimir Putin calls the shots in Russia, Xi Jinping and his top Politburo colleagues do the same in China, and so forth. However, in America and in some other Western countries, this seems to be less and less the case, with top national figures merely being attractive front-men selected for their popular appeal and their political malleability, a development that may eventually have dire consequences for the nations they lead. As an extreme example, a drunken Boris Yeltsin freely allowed the looting of Russia’s entire national wealth by the handful of oligarchs who pulled his strings, and the result was the total impoverishment of the Russian people and a demographic collapse almost unprecedented in modern peacetime history.
An obvious problem with installing puppet rulers is the risk that they will attempt to cut their strings, much like Putin soon outmaneuvered and exiled his oligarch patron Boris Berezovsky. One means of minimizing such risk is to select puppets who are so deeply compromised that they can never break free, knowing that the political self-destruct charges buried deep within their pasts could easily be triggered if they sought independence. I have sometimes joked with my friends that perhaps the best career move for an ambitious young politician would be to secretly commit some monstrous crime and then make sure that the hard evidence of his guilt ended up in the hands of certain powerful people, thereby assuring his rapid political rise.
-
- John McCain: When “Tokyo Rose” Ran for President
Ron Unz • The Unz Review • March 9, 2015 • 4,200 Words
- John McCain: When “Tokyo Rose” Ran for President
My piece received a very favorable response in alternative media circles. But to my considerable surprise, a week or two later I was contacted by a Times editor who solicited my participation in a symposium on college reform, my first appearance in several years. And the favorable reaction to my piece arguing that our elite colleges should abolish tuition prompted me to launch my campaign for the Harvard Board of Overseers at the end of that year.
Similarly, my enormous suspicions that our media was hiding the truth about both the Charlie Hebdo and San Bernardino terrorist attacks gradually convinced me that many other important stories were also being concealed or distorted by our mainstream media and I began thinking of expanding my original 2013 American Pravda article into an entire series. The July 2016 death of Sydney Schanberg prompted me to launch that series, which opened with the following paragraphs, perhaps helping to explain much of the bland and blinkered material in Sullivan’s book:
The death on Saturday of Sydney Schanberg at age 82 should sadden us not only for the loss of one of our most renowned journalists but also for what his story reveals about the nature of our national media.
Syd had made his career at the New York Times for 26 years, winning a Pulitzer Prize, two George Polk Memorial awards, and numerous other honors. His passing received the notice it deserved, with the world’s most prestigious broadsheet devoting nearly a full page of its Sunday edition to his obituary, a singular honor that in this degraded era is more typically reserved for leading pop stars or sports figures. Several photos were included of his Cambodia reporting, which had become the basis for the Oscar-winning film The Killing Fields, one of Hollywood’s most memorable accounts of our disastrous Indo-Chinese War.
But for all the 1,300 words and numerous images charting his long and illustrious journalistic history, not even a single mention was made of the biggest story of his career, which has seemingly vanished down the memory hole without trace. And therein lies a tale.
Could a news story ever be “too big” for the media to cover? Every journalist is always seeking a major expose, a piece that not merely reaches the transitory front pages but also might win a journalistic prize or even change the history books. Stories such as these appear rarely but can make a reporter’s career, and it is difficult to imagine a writer turning one down, or an editor rejecting it.
But what if the story is so big that it actually reveals dangerous truths about the real nature of the American media, portrays too many powerful people in a very negative light, and perhaps leads to a widespread loss of faith in our major news media? If readers were to see a story like that, they might naturally begin to wonder “why hadn’t we ever been told?” or even “what else might be out there?”
-
- American Pravda: The Legacy of Sydney Schanberg
Ron Unz • The Unz Review • July 13, 2016 • 3,500 Words
- American Pravda: The Legacy of Sydney Schanberg
Audio version of this article:
Imperial Assisted Suicide
By John Weeks | The Libertarian Institute | March 11, 2024
The United States Imperial Government (USIG) claims to be keeping the peace, underwriting the liberal, rules-based international order and safeguarding the global security architecture. This is not true. What the USIG is actually doing is killing people, helping get lots of people killed, and assisting foreign states as they commit corporate suicide. Israel’s ongoing, “plausibly genocidal” slaughter in Gaza and the West Bank is the latest example of this.
The United States is an empire and empire is murder-suicide. Since 9/11, U.S. soldiers have directly killed more than 400,000 civilians and indirectly contributed to the deaths of more than four million civilians. Meanwhile, more soldiers who served in the U.S. government’s Global War On Terror have committed suicide than have been killed in combat. Four times more.
The American People have not escaped suffering as the USIG and its empire have dished out catastrophic devastation in Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, Pakistan, Egypt, Yemen, Libya, Syria, and Mali. The cost of living has exploded. Our infrastructure is in shambles. Public trust in government has collapsed. The military’s “recruitment landscape” is in free fall. And things are so bad at home the government has found a new job: attacking “tent cities” filled with “under-sheltered” people. Murder-suicide.
Then there are the vassal or “client” states. In the propaganda, the empire defends these states from…whatever. But in reality, it helps these states murder people all while creating the conditions for these states to kill themselves. This has been demonstrated recently in Afghanistan (state committed suicide), Ukraine (state is trying to commit suicide) and Israel (state is thinking about committing suicide).
In October, 2001, the USIG invaded Afghanistan and smashed the Taliban-controlled state. In its place was installed a new state with a new military, which Libertarian Institute Director Scott Horton describes:
“The new regime was also largely a coalition government of ethnic minorities, the Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazaras, being leveraged against the 40 percent plurality Pashtuns, dominant in the east and south of the country where the Taliban are from.”
This coalition regime could not exist without billions of U.S. dollars in its coffers, U.S. boots on the ground, and U.S. air power in the sky. As predicted by Horton, as soon as U.S. forces began their withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Afghan state (along with its military) immediately killed itself. The Taliban resurrected their state which the U.S. had smashed almost twenty years earlier.
In February 2014, the USIG backed a violent, neo-Nazi led coup in Ukraine. Instead of smashing the entire state, the coup overthrew President Viktor Yanukovych’s administration. Unlike Afghanistan’s anti-Taliban government in a box, the Ukrainian government under new management was capable of existing without a massive U.S. military presence. It was not, however, capable of winning a war with Russia. It took eight years, but the USIG managed to provoke a war with Russia.
Ukraine has been defeated but the imperial wizards in DC refuse to admit this truth and seek peace. There could have been a peace deal two years ago, when it was still fashionable for Americans to fly the Ukrainian flag outside their front doors, but the USIG crushed it. The Ukrainian state is bleeding out and continuing the war at this point puts the entire Ukrainian nation at risk. Russia could seize all of Ukraine and downgrade it from sovereign nation to a Russian aircraft carrier.
Israel has been fortunate to never have its state murdered or regime changed by the USIG. Quite the opposite; Israel has intervened in USIG affairs to a shocking extent. The Israel lobby wields massive influence in Washington DC, so much so that President Joe Biden is risking his re-election chances by refusing to stop producing Israel’s “plausibly genocidal” mass killing spree in Gaza.
This gleeful and live streamed spree of sadism has not been good for Israel. Its state is provoking the global community to view it as a deranged pariah, including the great powers of Russia and China. Even within America, the people want a ceasefire. We want it to stop.
Meanwhile, Israeli society is cracking. Approximately 200,000 Israelis have been displaced from their homes in the south and north of the country. The IDF has suffered thousands of casualties, the economy is destabilized, and fear has blanketed the land.
And now Israel is planning an invasion of southern Lebanon. Such an invasion would be a hoped for but unexpected gift to Hamas. Experts such as Col. Douglas Macgregor, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Lt. Col Daniel Davis, Alastair Crooke, John Mearsheimer and Robert Pape have all warned against the invasion. They have argued that Israel risks catastrophic fallout from such a move, from mass causalities to provoking a regional war and even suffering strategic defeat.
Israel supporters seem confident in its security state, despite its massive failure on October 7. Tel Aviv appears to be operating with the assurance that the U.S. military will step in with strike packages and boots on the ground if and when needed. And yes, DC will let American cities die while it views Israel as too big to fail.
But the empire is beset by incompetence and anyone who paid attention to the self-immolation of the Afghan state and the slow suicide of the Ukrainian state knows this isn’t going to end well.
Taiwan, watch your six.
Featured Video
How Bill Gates Monopolized Global Health
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
How Troublesome Presidents Are Disposed of
By Paul Craig Roberts | Institute For Political Economy | January 21, 2023
Tucker Carlson provides an excellent 12 minute report about the CIA’s removal of President Kennedy and President Nixon. … continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
papasha408 on The Empire of Lies: How the BB… loongtip on US Weighs Port Restrictions on… Bill Francis on Chris Minns Defends NSW “Hate… Sheree Sheree on I was canceled by three newspa… Richard Ong on Czech–Slovak alignment signals… John Edward Kendrick on Colonel Jacques Baud & Nat… eddieb on Villains of Judea: Ronald Laud… rezjiekc on Substack Imposes Digital ID Ch… loongtip on US strikes three vessels in Ea… eddieb on An Avoidable Disaster Steve Jones on For Israel, The Terrorist Atta… cleversensationally3… on Over Half of Germans Feel Unab…
Aletho News- Australia evaluates purchase of Israeli AI-powered weapons used in Gaza: Report
- US war hawk senator calls for seizure of Russian oil tankers
- The Geopolitical Imperative Behind US Policy Toward Venezuela
- Venezuela’s Drug-running Hobbyists
- Honduras: The Making of a Controlled Democracy
- US officials admit to major violations during 2020 election
- Trump Administration Moves to Overhaul Childhood Vaccine Schedule, Embrace Informed Consent Model
- Hepatitis B Vaccination of Newborns: Seriously Misleading Media Reports
- South Carolina Measles Outbreak Spurs Renewed Debate About MMR Vaccine
- UK doctor arrested under pressure from Israel lobby over ‘anti-genocide posts’
- If Americans Knew
- From Churches to ChatGPT: Israeli Contracts Worth Millions Aim to Influence U.S. Public Opinion
- Who is the Pro-Israel Clique behind TikTok’s US Takeover?
- Medical Crisis in UK Prisons – 800 Doctors Warn of ‘Imminent Deaths’ Among Palestine Action Strikers
- The New York Times ignores an essential part of the Jeffrey Epstein story — Israel
- Trump’s Gaza grift and starving children – Not a Ceasefire Day 73
- Anti-Palestinian Billionaires Will Now Control What TikTok Users See
- Israel is directly responsible for babies freezing to death – Not a Ceasefire Day 72
- U.S. Pastors Become Willing Ambassadors for Israel’s War
- The 2028 Presidential Candidates – TrackAIPAC Scoresheet
- “Trump Riviera” is back on the table – Not a Ceasefire Day 71
- No Tricks Zone
- Two More New Studies Show The Southern Ocean And Antarctica Were Warmer In The 1970s
- Der Spiegel Caught Making Up Reports About Conservative America (Again)
- New Study: 8000 Years Ago Relative Sea Level Was 30 Meters Higher Than Today Across East Antarctica
- The Wind Energy Paradox: “Why More Wind Turbines Don’t Always Mean More Power”
- New Study Reopens Questions About Our Ability To Meaningfully Assess Global Mean Temperature
- Dialing Back The Panic: German Physics Prof Sees No Evidence Of Climate Tipping Points!
- Astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon Challenges The Climate Consensus … It’s The Sun, Not CO2
- Regional Cooling Since The 1980s Has Driven Glacier Advance In The Karakoram Mountains
- Greenland Petermann Glacier Has Grown 30 Kilometers Since 2012!
- New Study: Temperature-Driven CO2 Outgassing Explains 83 Percent Of CO2 Rise Since 1959
Aletho News 