Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

US Military Exports Skyrocketing as Washington Continues to Fuel Global Conflicts

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 09.08.2024

The US’ arms exports have risen dramatically since 2022 and may top $100 billion by the year’s end, according to the Pentagon.

In fiscal year (FY) 2022, sales through the US government’s Foreign Military Sales (FMS) system jumped to $49.7 billion from $34.8 billion in FY2021; in FY2023, this number rose again to around $66.2 billion.

So far, FMS sales are already above $80 billion for FY2024, as per the Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

Still, the total value of transferred weapons, services and security cooperation activities conducted under the Foreign Military Sales system in FY2023 was $80.9 billion, representing a 55.9% increase from a total of $51.9 billion in FY2022.

In 2024, the US State Department unveiled government-to-government FMS sales for FY2023, which required congressional notification:
Poland:

  • AH-64E Apache Helicopters – $12 billion;
  • High mobility artillery rocket systems (HIMARS) – $10 billion;
  • Integrated air and missile defense (IAMD) battle command systems (IBCS) – $4 billion;
  • M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks – $3.75 billion.

Germany:

  • CH-47F Chinook helicopters – $8.5 billion;
  • AIM-120C-8 advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles (AMRAAM) – $2.9 billion.

Norway:

  • Defense articles and services related to the MH-60R multi-mission helicopters – $1 billion.

Czech Republic:

  • F-35 aircraft and munitions – $5.62 billion.

Bulgaria:

  • Stryker vehicles – $1.5 billion.

Australia:

  • C-130J-30 aircraft – $6.35 billion.

Canada:

  • P-8A aircraft – $5.9 billion.

South Korea:

  • F-35 aircraft – $5.06 billion;
  • CH-47F Chinook helicopters – $1.5 billion.

Japan:

  • E-2D advanced Hawkeye (AHE) airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft – $1.381 billion.

Kuwait:

  • National advanced surface-to-air missile system (NASAMS) medium range air defense systems (MRADS) – $3 billion;
  • Follow-up technical support – $1.8 billion.

Qatar:

  • Fixed site-low, slow, small unmanned aircraft system integrated defeat system (FS-LIDS) – $1 billion.

In addition to that, direct commercial sales (DCS) between foreign nations and US defense contractors jumped from $153.6 billion in FY2022 to $157.5 billion for FY2023. These sales included unspecified military hardware, services and technical data.

The US State Department provided a glimpse on what major DCS Congressional Notifications included in FY2023:

  • Italy – For the manufacturing of F-35 wing assemblies and sub-assemblies – $2.8 billion;
  • India – For the manufacturing of GE F414-INS6 engine hardware – $1.8 billion;
  • Singapore – F100 propulsion system and spare parts – $1.2 billion;
  • South Korea – F100 propulsion system and spare parts – $1.2 billion;
  • Norway, Ukraine – National advanced surface to air missile systems (NASAMS) – $1.2 billion;
  • Saudi Arabia – Patriot guided missile – $1 billion.

Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) highlights that arms exports by the US rose by 17% between 2014–18 and 2019–23. The US share of total global arms exports increased from 34% to 42%. Between 2019 and 2023, the US delivered major arms to 107 states, which was more than the next two biggest exporters combined, as per SIPRI.

The largest share of US arms went to the Middle East (38%), mostly to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and Israel.

US arms exports to states in Asia and Oceania increased by 14% between 2014–18 and 2019–23; 31% of all US arms exports in 2019–23 went to the region with Japan, South Korea and Australia being the largest buyers.

Europe purchased a total of 28% of US arms exports in 2019–23. US arms exports to the region increased by over 200% between the 2014–18 and 2019–23 periods. Ukraine accounted for 4.7% of all US arms exports and 17% of those to Europe.

The institute projects that the US will continue to ramp up military sales in 2024 and beyond, with the focus on combat aircraft, tanks and other armored vehicles, artillery, SAM systems and warships.

August 9, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Iran enhances naval capabilities with new radar-evading anti-ship missiles with high-explosive warheads

Press TV – August 9, 2024

Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Navy has received new domestically-made equipment, including cruise missiles equipped with highly explosive warheads capable of evading current missile systems.

The naval force took delivery of 2,640 missile systems, drones, and other equipment in a Friday ceremony attended by IRGC chief commander Major General Hossein Salami.

Among the deliveries are new radar-evading cruise missiles that feature high-explosive warheads, capable of causing severe damage and sinking destroyers.

The addition also includes various types of long-range and medium-range missiles, combat and reconnaissance drones, unmanned aerial vehicles featuring electronic warfare (EW) capabilities, as well as electronic warfare systems.

Only 210 homegrown systems out of a total of 2,654 were put on display on Friday as other strategic weapons systems could not be showcased for security considerations, Tasnim News Agency reported, adding that these systems represent some of the navy’s most advanced anti-surface and sub-surface weapons.

“In today’s world, nations must choose between becoming strong and independent or giving in to external pressures; there is no middle ground,” Salami said in the event, adding, “Nations can either strive for strength and freedom, breaking free from the control of global powers, or opt for compromise and submission.”

The sea is a vast arena where all military powers converge, making it a critical meeting point for global forces, he said, noting, “Naval combat and defense represent a comprehensive level of warfare. The sea itself is a complete battlefield, and naval powers are typically self-sufficient in all aspects of combat.”

Naval battles are “decisive,” he stressed. “At sea, speed equates to power, allowing one to outmaneuver the opponent. Precision is crucial; the volume of fire is less important than the accuracy. You must be able to destroy a target with a single hit.”

“In naval operations, utilizing artificial intelligence across all levels—from vessels to missiles, defenses, submarines, and mines—is a crucial aim,” he said elsewhere.

Iranian military experts and engineers have in recent years made remarkable breakthroughs in manufacturing a broad range of indigenous equipment, making the armed forces self-sufficient.

Iranian officials have repeatedly underscored that the country will not hesitate to strengthen its military capabilities, including its missile power, which are entirely meant for defense, and that Iran’s defense capabilities will be never subject to negotiations.

Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei has repeatedly called for efforts to maintain and boost Iran’s defense capabilities.

August 9, 2024 Posted by | Aletho News | , | 1 Comment

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the Problem of Torture

By Andrew P. Napolitano | Ron Paul Institute | August 8, 2024

In the months following the attacks of 9/11, the government laid the blame for orchestrating them on Osama bin Ladin. Then, after it murdered bin Ladin, the government decided that the true mastermind was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

By the time of bin Ladin’s death, Mohammed had already been tortured by CIA agents for three years at various black sites and charged with conspiracy to commit mass murder, to be tried before an American military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Mohammed and four other alleged conspirators have been awaiting trial since their arrivals at Gitmo in 2006. Since then, numerous government military and civilian prosecutors, as well as numerous military judges, have rotated into and out of the case. Two weeks ago, the government and the defendants agreed to a guilty plea in return for life in prison at Gitmo. Then, last week, the Department of Defense abruptly changed its mind and rescinded its approval of the guilty pleas.

Here is the backstory.

The concept of military tribunals for the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks was born in the administration of President George W. Bush, who argued that the attacks, though conducted by civilians on civilians, were of military magnitude and thus warranted a military response. Throughout the entire 22-year existence of the U.S. military prison at Gitmo, no one has been tried for causing or carrying out the crimes of 9/11. The government tried only one person for crimes related to 9/11. That was Zacarias Moussaoui, who pleaded guilty in federal court in Virginia to conspiracy for being the 20th hijacker and then was tried in a penalty phase trial where the jury chose life in prison.

Bush’s rationale not only brought us the fruitless and destructive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; it also brought a host of legal problems unforeseen by Bush and his revenge-over-justice colleagues. The first legal issue was conspiracy. Since Mohammed did not carry out the attacks, he could only be charged with planning them. But conspiracy is not a war crime, and thus no military tribunal could hear the case. So Congress came up with a historic first — a military tribunal that would try civilian crimes.

The next issue was where to try Mohammed and his colleagues. President Barack Obama wanted to close Gitmo, which costs $540 million annually, and try Mohammed and the others in federal courts. This would have been consistent with federal law and the U.S. Constitution. But Republicans in Congress viewed Mohammed as too dangerous to bring onto U.S. soil, and so Congress enacted legislation that prohibits the removal of Mohammed and the others to the U.S. for any purpose.

The prohibition on removal means that any life terms would need to be spent at Gitmo. It also means that there would be a legal obstacle to the execution of a death sentence, as Gitmo is not equipped to execute anyone.

Most troubling, however, is the government’s problem of how to address the issue of torture. Bush believed that military men on military juries would neither cringe at torture nor hesitate to impose a death sentence. Yet, when defendants at Gitmo, in non-9/11-related cases, described the torture that CIA agents and military officials had inflicted upon them, military jurors were repulsed at what they heard and recommended clemency even for those who caused deaths.

These events — filing legally baseless charges, prohibiting the removal of civilian defendants to civilian courts, and fear of the likely reaction of military jurors to testimony about torture — caused the prosecution team to rethink the entire idea of putting Mohammed on trial, and thus in March 2022, the government initiated secret plea-bargaining negotiations with defense counsel.

In large measure, government prosecutors — now the fourth team since 2006 — recognized that Bush’s torturers had so brutalized the defendants that their so-called voluntary confessions would likely be tossed by the trial judge or rejected by a jury. Moreover, there are serious ethical issues when lawyers defend torture — so serious that it could jeopardize their careers.

Why would the government agree to such a plea bargain for the persons it claims are the monsters who murdered 3,000 Americans on 9/11 and triggered all the horrors that followed those murders? What does the government fear?

What does it always fear? THE TRUTH.

Since the trial judge — the fourth judge on the case — had already accepted the guilty pleas before the DoD changed its mind, it is unclear if he will enforce them.

If he does not, one day there will be a trial. At trial, the defendants will be permitted to bring the government’s imperialistic wars, its tortures and its foreknowledge of 9/11 into the courtroom. The government knows that much of its behavior — from the CIA-orchestrated overthrow of a popularly elected prime minister of Iran in the early 1950s to the untruthful excuses for toppling Saddam Hussein — will show American foreign policy at its imperialistic and violent worst.

And the hours and weeks and months and years of repeated torture — all of it criminal — will undermine the case against Mohammed and the others.

This is what happens when the fabric of our legal system is interfered with for authoritarian reasons. The tragedy of 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch. What did the CIA know before 9/11? Bush compounded his ignorance and failures with boasts of bravado and torture — all of which have come back to haunt his current successor in the White House.

Defense and Justice Department lawyers have recognized that they cannot try this case without material damage to the scheme of American empire, built on death, lies and torture, without revealing the names and methods of the folks who did these horrible deeds and the lies of the presidents who authorized them — and without the truth coming out at last.

What good has come from Bush’s torturers? None.

To learn more about Judge Andrew Napolitano, visit https://JudgeNap.com.

COPYRIGHT 2024 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

August 8, 2024 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Subjugation - Torture, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Why The Zionist Entity Decided To Take The Risk Of Regional War?

By Robert Inlakesh | Al Mayadeen | August 8, 2024

Despite the Israeli-US alliance pulling off two high-profile assassinations within hours and posed as if they are ready for an all-out war, it is clear that they could only handle a regional conflagration which would quickly end in a stalemate. If this escalation goes the wrong way, however, there are only two options left for them, and both are terrible.

The Zionist Entity was faced with a choice, after failing to reach victory in Gaza: either end the war or escalate. It was clear from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to the US Congress that the leader of the Entity was bent on escalation and that he would receive bipartisan support in the United States for carrying out actions designed to achieve the desired goal.

Finding their justification in the massacre of 12 Syrian-Druze children in the occupied Golan Heights, quickly jumping to accuse Hezbollah, the Israeli military launched their attack on a multi-story building in southern Beirut. While the Zionists attempted to use the blood of the indigenous people of the Golan, living in Majdal Shams, for their own propaganda purposes, the people refused to allow them and blamed the Zionists for the massacre in their village, as Hezbollah vehemently denied any involvement.

The timing of the massacre came at a convenient time for the Zionist Regime, as the Israeli PM was at the tail end of his trip to the United States. Shortly afterward, the Israelis murdered seven Lebanese and injured around 80 in their attack on the southern suburbs of Beirut. The primary target was Hezbollah military leader Fouad Shokor, who was martyred along with three children and two women on Tuesday, July 30. Then, just hours later, the Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh was assassinated in the Iranian capital, Tehran.

None of this is by accident and the suggestion that the United States was not involved is simply ludicrous.

What Is The US-Israeli Strategy?

An all-out regional war will result in the annihilation of the Zionist Entity, for even with direct US involvement, the Zionists still can’t win. Even if we assume that nuclear weapons might be used, the firepower of the Resistance is such that the Israelis would experience a similar blow from the sheer scale of missile power directed toward them.

Knowing that victory is not possible, it appears evident, therefore, that strategies are in place to prevent a war from reaching its inevitable conclusion. The Israelis and Americans are frustrated by their devastating failures since the Hamas-led October 7 attack, whether it be in the inability of the Zionist military to secure a victory against the Palestinian Resistance in Gaza, or the US’ embarrassing defeat at the hands of Yemen’s Ansar Allah. The blows dealt to the Zionist Entity, in the security, military, political, societal, and economic spheres, are so great that it is unclear how they can ever recover.

Faced with such a predicament, the US-Israeli alliance had two options, either accept the strategic defeat and pursue a diplomatic solution to the chaos they have wrought over the past 10 months, or, escalate. The assassinations in Beirut and Tehran indicate they chose escalation.

The Israelis themselves have conducted two major war games over the past years, testing the capabilities of the Zionist military to fight a multi-front war, losing both times. Keep in mind that these military exercises were also conducted while assuming that the full strength of the Israeli military would be intact. At this time, the Zionist army is stretched thin, it is undertrained, overworked, and suffers from a lack of motivation and discipline. Additionally, it has lost many of its tanks and armored personnel carriers, as thousands have been damaged and destroyed in Gaza.

It suffices to say that Israel does not possess the capacity to fight the war it is pursuing, which is why the assassinations came as such a shock to many. However, as I have previously written here for Al Mayadeen, the Israelis had one last option left to prolong the war and the strategy is as follows:

Open up a war with Lebanon, but attempt to keep it limited to trade off blows and close the conflict with a stalemate. A war with Hezbollah will bring great carnage to Israeli infrastructure and result in scores of dead Israelis, thereby distracting the population from the war in the Gaza Strip. This would create an environment that could enable the Israeli prime minister to close a ceasefire deal with Hamas in Gaza. From there, the Zionist regime could then pivot to the West Bank, annexing around 60% of its territory and launching a military operation – similar to “Operation Defensive Shield” in 2002 – to murder the majority of the Resistance fighters there.

Under such a scenario, Benjamin Netanyahu will use the assassinations of Resistance leaders as trophies to brag about a supposed victory, while presenting the argument that his regime confronted an existential threat from multiple foes and survived. He will then use the land grab in the West Bank as proof of conquest and the killing of Resistance fighters there as a “security” achievement. This situation is what both the US and their Israeli allies see as the best-case scenario.

However, the situation could quickly spiral out of control and the damage done to the Zionist Entity could prove so great that it remains only a shell of itself if it manages to survive at all. It is a dangerous strategy, to say the very least, and although they may see it as a bold attempt to restore US-Israeli hegemony in West Asia, it also projects weakness and a lack of options. Such a risk, which could result in the end of the Zionist Entity, would only be taken if their backs were against the wall.

If this goes sideways for the Zionists, then they will likely have two options left. The first will be the infamous Samson Option, to use their nuclear weapons. The second could involve the deployment of regional forces into occupied Palestine to prevent the fall of the Zionist Entity.

The first option needs no further explanation; it is pure terror. The second has not been publicly discussed as of now but could also be implemented if it looks like the Israeli regime is about to collapse on the ground and Palestinian territory is close to liberation. If such an event occurs, it is plausible that the Jordanian and Egyptian armies could be deployed into occupied Palestine, in order to prevent the land from being taken over by Resistance fighters who are less likely to engage regional armies, this would also likely involve the presence of the Turkish armed forces who could potentially be deployed as well. Although there is no evidence to support this theory, it might be seen as the only way to de-escalate the situation if the Zionist Entity is on the brink of disintegration.

Regardless, the Zionists have gambled, and only time will tell how this will turn out.

August 8, 2024 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Jordan, Qatar, KSA balk at US-led ‘peacekeeping force’ for post-war Gaza: Report

The Cradle | August 7, 2024

Jordan, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia have reportedly refused requests to take part in a US-led “peacekeeping force” for Gaza once Israel’s genocide of Palestinians comes to a stop, according to informed sources who spoke with the Times of Israel.

One of the sources told the Israeli outlet that troops from the Arab nations would be seen to be “protecting Israel from the Palestinians.”

The reported positions of Aman, Doha, and Riyadh contrast starkly with those of the UAE and Egypt, which have reportedly expressed willingness to participate in the effort.

Abu Dhabi made this position public last month when Lana Nusseibeh, the country’s Permanent Representative to the UN and special envoy of the Emirati Foreign Ministry, penned an op-ed for the Financial Times (FT) in which she called for the establishment of a “temporary international mission” in Gaza.

“Any ‘day after’ effort must fundamentally alter the trajectory of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict towards the establishment of a Palestinian state that lives in peace and security with the state of Israel … A first step in such an effort is to deploy a temporary international mission that responds to the humanitarian crisis, establishes law and order, lays the groundwork for governance and paves the way to reuniting Gaza and the occupied West Bank under a single, legitimate Palestinian Authority (PA),” Nusseibeh declared.

The UAE in June hosted a secret gathering with US and Israeli officials to discuss plans for Gaza after the genocidal war ends. Abu Dhabi has also stepped up joint efforts with Tel Aviv since 7 October to construct military and intelligence infrastructure on the Socotra Archipelago off the coast of Yemen.

During trips to Qatar, Egypt, Jordan, and Israel in June, US State Secretary Anthony Blinken reportedly informed officials that Washington had received “support from Cairo and Abu Dhabi for the creation of a force that would work alongside local Palestinian officers” in Gaza, the Times of Israel reports.

“Blinken told counterparts that the US would help establish and train the security force and ensure that it would have a temporary mandate so that it could eventually be replaced by a fully Palestinian body, the third source said, adding that the goal is for the PA to eventually take over full control of Gaza. Blinken clarified, though, that the US would not be contributing troops of its own, the officials said,” the report adds.

August 7, 2024 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Resistance Axis: a calculated, simultaneous strike on Israel

Hezbollah source: Iran, Lebanon, and Yemen will launch simultaneous retaliatory strikes against Israel, to overwhelm the Iron Dome.

By Ali Rizk | The Cradle | August 5, 2024

West Asia stands on a knife’s edge as the region’s Axis of Resistance prepares to retaliate against a series of recent Israeli assassinations and aggressions.

Iran, Hezbollah, and Yemen’s Ansarallah-aligned armed forces have vowed to make the occupation state pay a heavy price following the targeted killing of Hamas political bureau chief Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran and Hezbollah senior commander Fuad Shukr in southern Beirut.

Additionally, Israel bombed the Hodeidah port in Yemen following Sanaa’s successful ‘Yafa’ drone operation in Tel Aviv on 19 July.

An official from the Lebanese resistance has informed The Cradle that “The response will come at once from Iran, Hezbollah, and Yemen,” adding that the goal was to “inflict a painful blow to Israel which may not be achieved should separate retaliations be pursued.”

Executing the ‘Unity of Fronts’ 

Retaliation is all but certain and could happen within hours, according to senior US officials. A report yesterday by Axios claims that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken informed his G7 counterparts that the response could begin as early as within the next 24 hours.

Just yesterday, Ali al-Qahoum, a member of the political bureau of Ansarallah, emphasized that the response to Israel will not just come from Tehran:

We affirm our commitment to the battle, steadfastness, awareness, honor, and pride in standing with Palestine, the cause of the nation.

The critical question now is the scope and severity of the retaliation. Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah has promised a painful yet calculated blow to Tel Aviv. During Shukr’s funeral procession, Nasrallah warned that Israel had crossed the line, promising “a real and well-calculated response” – distinct from the cross-border operations Hezbollah has conducted against Israel since 8 October.

Flattening the Iron Dome 

Other well-informed sources agree that the response could be coordinated, suggesting that retaliation from multiple fronts simultaneously is likely. They tell The Cradle that such an approach could take Israel’s primary air defense system, the Iron Dome, out of commission by preventing it from rapidly rearming. They believe this is achievable given Hezbollah’s capacity to launch a significant barrage of missiles and given Lebanon’s geographical proximity to potential Israeli targets.

These assessments appear to be consistent with those made by US officials who have warned that the Iron Dome could be overwhelmed by Hezbollah’s missile and drone arsenal should a full-scale war erupt.

Senior US military officials, meanwhile, have gone on the record cautioning that Washington would probably be unable to provide Tel Aviv with sufficient protection even in a single front, full-scale war with Hezbollah. US Joint Chief of Staff Charles Brown said as much in his remarks to the press in late June.

From our perspective, based on where our forces are, the short-range between Lebanon and Israel, it’s harder for us to be able to support them [Israel] in the same way we did in April [with Operation Truthful Promise].

Unwilling US support for Tel Aviv 

Although much has been said about the US and its allies successfully thwarting Iran’s response to the Israeli attack on its consulate last April, it is noteworthy that all targeted Israeli military bases were hit during the Iranian retaliatory strikes. Operation Truthful Promise was intended more as a message, indicating that Tehran would no longer tolerate Israeli aggression against its interests.

US military reinforcements in the region may help intercept missiles and drones coming from Lebanon, while vassal state Jordan could also play a part as it did during Iran’s retaliatory strikes. However, this also makes US military assets and those of its partners legitimate targets for the Resistance Axis.

As former Pentagon analyst Michael Maloof explains to The Cradle:

Hezbollah would likely target US warships in the region that would take part in intercepting missiles directed at Israeli targets.

“As in 2006, I envision US involvement focused more on evacuating many of the 86,000 Americans now in Lebanon who would want to leave,” adds Maloof.

Washington’s top military officials also appear firmly opposed to being drawn into an active offensive role should a wider war erupt with Hezbollah, let alone a dreaded multi-front war. This stance is supported by statements from US Joint Chiefs of Staff Charles Brown, indicating the Pentagon’s limited willingness to protect the occupation state.

Note that Washington’s pledges to defend Israel have made no mention of potential offensive action, reflecting an American desire to avoid a wider war. Experts doubt the US will become heavily involved in any full-scale war, supported by public statements underscoring the importance of avoiding regional escalation – and voiced more privately, the desire to keep US military targets safe from retaliatory strikes.

Military risk and political calculations 

As Brown said at the time, Washington’s main message is:

To think about the second order of effect of any type of operation into Lebanon, and how that might play out and how it impacts not just the region, but how it impacts our forces in regions as well.

The general – the most senior ranking US military official and the senior military advisor to the White House – was delivering a message that carries special significance amidst the recent developments.

By stating that an Israeli-initiated war on Lebanon put US troops at risk, Brown was essentially saying that a wider regional war was not seen as helping US interests by the Pentagon’s top brass.

Given these statements, it remains possible – though far from guaranteed – that the outgoing Biden administration may rein in Israel regardless of how painful a blow is delivered to it by the Axis of Resistance.

The upcoming US election in November is another factor that may prevent a regional conflagration. “The US getting more militarily involved with Israel,” warns Maloof, “would lead to riots in the streets of Chicago at the Democratic Convention later this month.”

These realities suggest a scenario where Washington might force Tel Aviv to absorb the Axis of Resistance’s retaliation, however severe it may be.

August 5, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What arsenal will Iran use to punish Israel over Haniyeh’s assassination?

By Ivan Kesic | Press TV | August 5, 2024

The stage is set for the retaliatory military operation against the Israeli regime following the assassination of Hamas political bureau leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran on Wednesday.

A series of statements by the Iranian leadership, including Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, President Masoud Pezeshkian and the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) indicate that the regime must brace up for a severe and unprecedented punishment.

Haniyeh was assassinated along with his bodyguard in a terrorist attack in the Iranian capital early on Wednesday. He was in Tehran to attend the swearing-in ceremony of President Pezeshkian.

The attack came barely hours after Israel killed top Hezbollah military commander Fuad Shukr in an airstrike on a residential area in the southern suburb of Beirut, in which an Iranian military advisor and some civilians were also martyred.

Following the attack on Haniyeh, Iran called upon the UN Security Council to take immediate and decisive action, describing the attack as a “serious infringement on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iran” and a “blatant violation of the basic norms and principles of international law.”

In a letter to the world body, Amir-Saeed Iravani, Iran’s permanent ambassador to the UN, emphasized the country’s right to self-defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.

“This rogue and terrorist regime and its accomplices bear responsibility. The Islamic Republic of Iran will not hesitate to exercise its inherent right to self-defense, as enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter to respond decisively and promptly,” he said.

In a statement on Sunday, IRGC said the attack was carried out with a “short-range projectile” with a warhead of approximately 7 kg fired from outside the residence of Haniyeh in north Tehran.

How will retaliation unfold?

There is an intense and animated debate in military and policy circles about the nature of Iran’s response to the terrorist attack against Haniyeh and the kind of weapons that could be used.

Iran possesses a massive arsenal of long-range precision strike weapons, which it has demonstrated in recent years against regional terrorist strongholds and with direct strikes on the Zionist entity in April.

The country has a massive arsenal of ballistic, quasi-ballistic, cruise and hypersonic missiles, by far the largest in the region and one of the four largest in the world, as well as some of the most advanced models of loitering munitions, also in colossal quantities.

The long ballistic missiles tailor-made for retaliation against the Zionist regime include Shahab-3, Ghadr-110, Fajr-3, Ashura, Sajjil, Emad, Qiam-1, Rezvan, Khorramshahr and Kheibar, while relatively smaller ballistic missiles include Dezful, Kheibar Shekan and Haj Qasem.

The first group of ballistic missiles has a range of 1,000 to 2,500 km and a warhead of 700 to 1,500 kg, while the second group has a range of 1,000 to 1,500 km and mostly carries a half-ton warhead.

Some of them can also carry several warheads, each capable of aiming different targets and some are fitted with submunitions dispensers for striking wide areas like air bases.

This means that Iran is capable of hitting Zionist targets from every ballistic base or site across the country, and the large payload is equivalent to the most powerful bunker busters and can penetrate hardened targets protected by several meters of concrete.

Novelties in Iran’s missile arsenal are the precision-guided Fattah hypersonic missiles with a terminal speed of Mach 13 to 15, and the new Fattah-2 glider version, both untouchable for existing air defense systems.

Furthermore, the last stages of these models also have hypersonic speeds, from Mach 5 to 12, so they are also difficult to intercept by enemy systems, as proved by the operation ‘True Promise’ in April.

Iranian long-range cruise missiles include Soumar, Meshkat, Ya-Ali, Hoveyzeh, Abu Mahdi, Paveh, Talaiyeh and Qadr-474, while long-range loitering munition (kamikaze drones) include Ababil, Arash, Shahed-131, Shahed-136 and Shahed-238.

Iran also has a large fleet of warplanes and drones capable of carrying various bombs and air-to-ground missiles, but previous experience shows that the above-mentioned expendable weaponry is favored for retaliatory operations of this type.

In the April operation against Israel, Iran did not use the most capable ballistic missiles or loitering munition, but still managed to successfully hit Israeli air bases with Kheibar Shekan missiles and engaged numerous Israeli, American, British and French aircraft in the interception of Shahed-136 kamikaze drones.

In that operation, the main purpose of small, cheap and slow kamikaze drones with 50 kg warheads was not to cause damage but to load radar systems in a simultaneous attack with more powerful missiles.

A flight hour of modern jets and their air-to-air missiles, or air defense missiles, cost several times more than kamikaze drones, hence the successful shooting down of swarms represents a cost-efficiency loss.

Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, the commander of the IRGC’s Aerospace Division, said that in the operation “True Promise” only 20 percent of the originally planned weapons were used, but the enemies had to mobilize everything at their disposal to counter them.

This time, for the announced new strike on the Zionist entity, it is possible to see newer models of missiles and kamikaze drones or those relatively older models in larger quantities.

This time, the targets could be new, since the Ramon and Nevatim air bases were targeted in April as warplanes that took part in the attack on the Iranian consulate in Damascus had taken off from there.

Since the latest terrorist attack in Tehran was most likely carried out by Zionist intelligence operatives, the headquarters of Israeli spy organizations are potential targets.

These headquarters, unlike the two mentioned air bases, are not in uninhabited desert regions but in the densely populated metropolitan Tel Aviv, where half of the population of the Zionist entity lives.

Other likely targets are military bases, vital industrial infrastructure, ports or regime buildings, also in the areas of ​​Tel Aviv, Haifa and other major cities in the occupied territories.

Due to the high sophistication and precision of Iranian missiles, the only danger for ordinary settlers in the occupied territories is the debris of their own interceptor missiles, either in the case of successful or unsuccessful shooting down.

Warnings from Iran

On Wednesday, Ayatollah Khamenei had warned the Israeli regime of a “harsh response” for the assassination of a “dear guest” – the leader of the Hamas resistance movement.

“The criminal and terrorist Zionist regime martyred our dear guest in our homeland and left us bereaved, but it also set the ground for a harsh punishment for itself,” the Leader said.

“He was not afraid of embracing martyrdom in the way of God and saving God’s servants, but we consider it our duty to avenge his blood in this bitter and horrific incident that took place in the Islamic Republic’s territory,” he asserted.

President Pezeshkian, in a meeting with Jordanian top diplomat Ayman Safadi on Sunday, described the assassination of Haniyeh as a “great crime” that he said “will not go unanswered.”

The IRGC said in a statement that the terrorist attack was “planned and executed” by Israel with the support of the US government, warning that the Zionist regime would receive “a severe punishment at the appropriate time, place and manner.”

The top commander of IRGC, Major General Hossein Salami, strongly warned the Israeli regime of the consequences of the recent assassinations in Tehran and Beirut.

The perpetrators, he said, “should await sacred fury, harsh revenge, and vengeance on the part of the devoted, resolute, and determined mujahedeen of the various fronts of the regional resistance.”

On Friday, Ali Baqeri Kani, acting Foreign Minister, said Iran will certainly exercise its inherent and legitimate right to punish the “criminal Zionist gang” for its terrorist attack.

Baqeri made these remarks during a phone call with Josep Borrell, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs, emphasizing that the Israeli regime’s terrorist act, in addition to violating Iran’s territorial integrity and national sovereignty, has endangered regional and international peace and stability.

Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf in remarks on Sunday said Iran’s “crushing and smart response” to the Israeli regime and the US will make them regret the assassination

Meanwhile, the Pentagon has announced the deployment of additional warplanes and warships to the Persian Gulf region, as well as an additional 4,000 Marines and sailors amid heightened tensions.

August 5, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , | Leave a comment

Shoigu Arrives in Iran to Discuss Global, Regional Security

Sputnik – 05.08.2024

TEHRAN – Russian Security Council Secretary Sergei Shoigu has arrived in Iran for a planned working visit to discuss global and regional security issues, the Russian Security Council said on Monday.

Shoigu will hold talks with his Iranian counterpart, Ali Akbar Ahmadian, and Chief of the General Staff of the Iranian armed forces Mohammad Bagheri. Shoigu will be received by Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian.

The agenda includes a wide range of issues of cooperation between Russia and Iran in Tehran, including security and economy.

Previously, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry revealed that Russian President Vladimir Putin would be meeting with Masoud Pezeshkian at the BRICS summit in Kazan in October. In July, the Iranian President-elect released a message underscoring that Russia is “a valued strategic ally and neighbor to Iran and my administration will remain committed to expanding and enhancing our cooperation.”

“I will continue to prioritize bilateral and multilateral cooperation with Russia, particularly within frameworks such as BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and Eurasia Economic Union,” Pezeshkian stated.

Sergei Shoigu’s visit comes as Israel has been bracing for a potential attack from Iran and Lebanese Shiite movement Hezbollah in the wake of the assassination of Haniyeh and Hezbollah commander Fuad Shukr last week.

August 5, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Solidarity and Activism | , , , | 1 Comment

America’s Syrian Gulag

By Brad Pearce | The Libertarian Institute | August 1, 2024

At the beginning of last month the U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, Ethan Goldrich, granted an interview to Rudaw, which is something like PBS for Iraqi Kurdistan. He emphasized that the United States has no plan to end its occupation of northeast Syria, where the U.S. continues to maintain some nine hundred troops under the guise of preventing the resurgence of the Islamic State. The U.S. claims it is in Syria under the authorization of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2254 to bring an end to the “Syrian Crisis,” however much of the crisis has ended, and where it has not it is primarily due to foreign occupation. Overall, the interview shows that the U.S. is continuing its dead-end policy, but Goldrich does say something interesting: the United States has concerns about providing “humanitarian” assistance for a network of prisons for IS fighters.

To those who know about the United States’ continued presence in Syria supporting the Kurdish separatists and their military known as the Syrian Democratic Force [SDF], it is commonly said that the American motive is to steal Syrian oil and grain. One would also wonder how much nine hundred soldiers could accomplish, but of course as usual they are actually there as hostages, to ensure that in Syria cannot try to retake this area without killing Americans and thus unleashing the wrath of the U.S. government. This prison network provides another important angle to the occupation. While the prisons in Syrian Kurdistan are not secret, they are also not well known. However, CNN (of all places) recently featured an excellent investigation exposing that more than 50,000 humans are kept in a network of twenty-seven facilities in Syria. CNN’s chief international correspondent Clarissa Ward was given rare access to the prisons and her reporting is illuminating. All of the inmates are denied access to any form of legal process and have no chance of release besides a vague hope that their home countries may repatriate them. Everything the United States has done in Syria, of course, it has been done in the name of human rights; but it seems to be the case that all of these individuals would have had a better chance of receiving some form of trial and definite sentencing under the government of the Syrian Arab Republic. At the very least, they could not be denied a legal process to a greater extent than they currently are.

There are two primary categories of prisoners the U.S.-funded facilities are holding in Syria. The first are accused Islamic State terrorists—most of them probably are fighters captured by the SDF, but in the absence of a legal process it is impossible to know—and families of Islamic State militants. The largest prison is known as “Panorama” and holds 4,000 inmates. According to CNN, legal experts have called it, “A U.S.-funded legal black hole, worse than Guantanamo Bay.” Clarissa Ward was allowed to see two cells and speak to a handful of prisoners. The first thing one notices is that this is a “nice” facility. One would imagine the SDF would hold prisoners in some ancient Ottoman fortress, but this is clearly a modern and newly built prison for which the U.S. taxpayer has paid a fortune. It is overcrowded, but nothing like the images one commonly sees of third world prisons. Of course it was a managed tour, as Ward acknowledged in her report. The problem is that the inmates have been there for years and have no legal rights, though an SDF official claimed that they intend to reintegrate these people into society; it has just not been possible to make progress in that regard as no country will take them.

While the men are mostly kept in conventional prisons, the women and children, who are not accused of any crime, are kept in what must be the world’s largest literal concentration camp, Al Hol. The camp holds 40,000 people. Five years after the fall of the caliphate there is no plan for what to do with the individuals stored at this desert camp. Many of the women remain ideologically committed, though Ward also spoke to one former American citizen who has fully turned against IS and even stopped covering in the camp, but she has had her U.S. citizenship stripped on grounds that there was an error in her naturalization process. At a certain age—supposedly eighteen, but according to inmates as early as fourteen—the boys are removed from the camp and sent to the prisons to stop the teens from marrying and producing a “new generation of Islamic extremists.” While the conditions appear to to be broadly humane, if bleak, it is indeed hard to imagine a better breeding ground for radical Islam than this desert city of IS wives denied human rights by a United States proxy. It is of course the case that IS arose from American managed prisons in Iraq in the first place.

The biggest question is why CNN was given this access, with the SDF volunteering information about a prison system which has been criticized by basically every major human rights organization. Based on the interviews it seems to me that the SDF wants out of this obligation. The United States is functionally making them run a Gulag Archipelago and even if they are paid for it, running the prisons consumes an enormous amount of man hours by personnel who could be put to other uses. Further, there is the constant risk of breakouts (as happened in 2022) and of terrorist groups trying to liberate the camp. However, the United States clearly has no other plan for the ultimate fate of these humans, unless they intend to use them to unleash a new wave of terrorism. This is simply yet another policy where our ruling class has no exit strategy. It seems that the U.S. will occupy northeast Syria forever, if only to imprison some 50,000 people without trial. The irony, of course, is that they will continue to justify their presence by saying they need to bring human rights to Syria, just not for those trapped in this desert Guantanamo.

August 1, 2024 Posted by | Illegal Occupation | , , , , | Leave a comment

Slanders against China over Ukraine crisis fall apart on their own

Global Times | July 26, 2024

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi held talks with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba in the southern Chinese city of Guangzhou on Wednesday. The Ukraine crisis has entered its third year, with the conflict ongoing and risks of escalation and spillover still present. As the highest-ranking Ukrainian official to visit China since the outbreak of the conflict, the discussions and the signals sent during the talks, as well as whether there are signs of peace in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, have garnered international attention. Particularly in light of China’s successful mediation efforts in re-establishing diplomatic relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and promoting internal reconciliation of Palestine, there are heightened expectations for China’s constructive role in promoting peace talks in the Russia-Ukraine issue.

As part of China’s recent diplomatic efforts to mediate international and regional hotspots, China’s proactive invitation to Kuleba to visit has garnered international attention. According to Reuters, citing Ukrainian accompanying officials, the talk lasted over three hours, longer than planned, and was “very deep and concentrated.” The word “deep” is rarely used in diplomatic settings. In a statement after the meeting, the Ukrainian side stated, “China’s role as a global force for peace is important.” This reaffirms China’s role as a peacemaker and highlights the effectiveness of the meeting.

As a direct party to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Ukraine has shown greater interest in China’s positions than before. This has led international public opinion to cautious optimism about the direction of the Russia-Ukraine issue and to pay more attention to China’s role in major regional conflicts. Even Western media, which often distorted and smeared China’s stance on the Russia-Ukraine issue, is now speculating whether China intends to preempt the US in playing the role of peacemaker. These discussions in various directions all confirm that China’s efforts to promote peace are increasingly prominent and have become an acknowledged reality in the international community.

The distortions and slanders against China by the West have largely fallen apart on their own. The fairness of China’s position has been once again validated, and China’s proposals have withstood the test of time. Western efforts to stoke the fire have only prolonged the conflict. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stated in a recent interview, “We have to finish the war as soon as possible.” More and more signs point to the fact that the resolution of all conflicts will ultimately return to the negotiating table; all disputes will eventually be resolved through political means. This is precisely what China has consistently advocated.

From the handshake between Saudi Arabia and Iran, to the historic reconciliation within Palestine, to the complex and challenging Ukraine crisis, why does China’s position repeatedly manage to gather the broadest consensus in the international community? First, it is because China maintains an objective and fair stance and is committed to mediation and promoting dialogue. Second, China adheres to the concept of common, comprehensive, cooperative, and sustainable security, working tirelessly to maintain world peace, stability, and development. In the face of crises, China does not stoke the flames or take advantage of the situation for its own gain. This stance is visible to the international community and the parties involved in the conflict.

There is an Arabic proverb: “Seek knowledge, even if you have to go as far as China.” Now, the saying “Seek peace in China” is also becoming popular. On the complex international stage, China’s role as a responsible major power maintaining world peace is increasingly recognized. As China called for in the Global Security Initiative Concept Paper in 2023, “countries need to work in solidarity to foster a community of shared security for mankind and build a world that is free from fear and enjoys universal security.” China’s stance is clear and consistent: between peace and war, it chooses peace; between dialogue and sanctions, it chooses dialogue; between cooling down and fueling the fire, it chooses cooling down. On the Ukraine crisis, China remains straightforward and sincere, without political self-interest or geopolitical manipulation. China is truly dedicated to mediation and promoting dialogue to achieve a cease-fire and an end to the conflict.

Of course, the Ukraine crisis did not form overnight, and resolving the issue will not be accomplished in a single step. It requires the joint efforts of the international community. Recently, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken once again claimed at the Aspen Security Forum that “China can’t have it both ways.” Many in the West remain stuck in the mindset of “supporting one side,” which only complicates and intensifies the conflict. Influential major countries, in particular, should align with China to create conditions and provide support for direct dialogue and negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. Only when major powers contribute positive energy rather than negative energy can there be an early glimpse of a cease-fire in this conflict.

July 26, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Russia Ready for Ukraine Peace Talks With Focus on Clear Security Agreements

Sputnik – 17.07.2024

Russia is ready for negotiations on Ukraine and European security issues and will incorporate safeguards against dual interpretations in any future European security treaty said Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

“We are ready for negotiations, but considering the sad experience of talks and consultations with the West and Ukrainians… I hope a treaty will be reached at some stage on European security, and in this context the Ukraine crisis will be resolved,” Lavrov stated during a press conference following a UN Security Council meeting.

“We will, of course, be very careful with the wording and will incorporate safeguards into this document against repeated unscrupulous, unreliable interpretations,” the foreign minister added.

Lavrov emphasized that, unlike China, the West does not address the root causes of the conflict in its initiatives on Ukraine.

“This already concerns the content of the dialogue; China has very clearly indicated in its first initiative the need to start with addressing the root causes of the current crisis in Europe and to work on agreements to eliminate these causes,” he said.

He noted that “no one at the Copenhagen or Burgenstock meetings even mentioned the root causes.”

Thus, the West is trying to push through Volodymyr Zelensky’s plan by all possible means.

“A course has been set to push through at any cost the so-called Zelensky plan, which has a clearly defined form of an ultimatum,” Lavrov emphasized.

Lavrov’s comments were in response to a question about Russia’s possible participation in the second summit on the Ukraine conflict and the outcomes of the recent conference in Switzerland.

On Russia-US Unofficial Contacts Regarding Ukraine

Russia and the United States have held unofficial and so-called “second level” expert level contacts to discuss issues related to the conflict in Ukraine, Minister Lavrov added.

“I will tell you in confidence — we have had unofficial contacts with the Americans involving political experts, political experts who know each other and understand the policies of their governments,” Lavrov told the press conference, adding that Ukraine was on the agenda of such contacts.

Despite the fact that the two countries are holding phone conversations from time to time, there is nothing significant in these talks, he noted.

On Russia’s Readiness to Work With a New US President

Russia will be ready to work with any elected president of the United States, the foreign minister claimed.

“Once again I want to say: we will work, we will be ready to work with any American leader that the American people elect and who … will be ready for an equal, mutually respectful dialogue,” Lavrov said at the press event.

On Israel Seeking to Involve the US in Regional Escalation

It appears that Israel’s goal is to involve the United States in the escalation of tensions with Iran, the minister observed.

“The sense is that they want to provoke them into full-scale involvement with Hezbollah. The purpose of such a provocation, analysts suggest, is to draw the United States directly into the involvement of its armed forces in this [regional] conflict,” Lavrov emphasized.

Russia hopes the West will do everything to ensure that such ideas, “if they exist in the Israeli leadership,” will remain only ideas.

Moscow is doing everything to “calm down the situation,” Lavrov added.

On the Nord Stream Explosions

Russia will continue seeking the truth regarding the explosions of the Nord Stream gas pipelines, Lavrov said.

“We will pursue the truth – since I’ve mentioned the Nord Streams, we’re going to seek the truth,” he highlighted.

July 17, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | 2 Comments

JFK Jr. and the Jewish Curse on the Kennedys

BY LAURENT GUYÉNOT • UNZ REVIEW • JULY 12, 2024

John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Jr. died 25 years ago, with his wife and his sister-in-law.

He was assassinated. I’ll summarize the evidence below.

He was assassinated because he was JFK’s son, and had political ambitions driven by a strong filial piety. He had to die for the same reason his uncle RFK had to die in 1968: no Kennedy should ever approach the White House again — unless, Rabbi Jeffrey Salkin suggests, he is also a Schlossberg. And JFK Jr. could have reached the White House in eight years (he would have been 48 in November 2008; his father became president at 43).

“The Kennedy family is a clan, a tribe, a sovereignty, and a dynasty,” once wrote Arthur Krock, who knew them well.[1] None of the Kennedys can be understood as mere individuals. And so, in a deeper sense, the reason JFK Jr. had to die is that he was the grandson of the founding patriarch, Joe Kennedy. The point was candidly made by John Podhoretz in an op-ed piece for the New York Post, published on the very day when JFK Jr.’s body was recovered from the ocean floor, together with the bodies of his wife and sister-in-law. In that most disgusting piece of fiction, Podhoretz imagines that the Devil is telling Joe in Hell: “every time you think your family is on its way back to glory, I just have to do something. Like I did this weekend, with your grandson John.” According to Podhoretz, speaking in the name of the Devil to Joe, JFK Jr. died in retribution for what his grandfather did to the Jews, “when you were America’s ambassador to England, saying all those nice things about Hitler, doing everything you could to prevent Jewish emigration from Nazi Germany. Thousands of Jews died because of you.”

Note that, logically, the Jewish god Yahweh, not the Devil, should want to punish Joe by killing his grandson. Unless, of course, Yahweh is the Devil. Podhoretz took no time to ponder this question; he could not wait one day to voice his delight, while all Americans were mourning the prince of Camelot.

John Podhoretz is the son of Norman Podhoretz (his colleagues at the Washington Times used to call him “John P. Normanson” because he had been introduced to them as “John Podhoretz, Norman’s son”). Norman will be remembered as the man who wanted so much to launch World War IV. The Podhoretz love world wars because world wars are always good for Israel. Which is also why they have an eternal hatred for Joe Kennedy, the man who almost succeeded in averting World War II. As I explained in “Joseph P. Kennedy, the Cursed Peacemaker,” Joe Kennedy was not a friend of Hitler, but a friend of peace, just like Neville Chamberlain. “I am pro-peace, I pray, hope, and work for peace,” he declared on his first return from London in December 1938.[2]

For trying to prevent the Jews from drawing America into the war, Joe Kennedy was deemed a holocaustic arch-anti-Semite. It is quite astonishing, actually, that his sons could do so well in American politics, despite their father’s reputation as a Hitler-appeaser. It is, in part, a tribute to Joe’s political shrewdness. Here is a funny story told by John Hughes-Wilson:

Joseph Kennedy solved the problem in 1956 by secretly asking a prominent media and entertainment business mogul called Joe Hooker to orchestrate a right-wing press campaign against his son, by accusing the then Senator Jack Kennedy of being a “Jewish puppet”, secretly in hock to Jewish interests and influences. Hooker and his neo-Fascist contacts duly smeared JFK in the Press. “Kikes for Kennedy” ran one headline. The American Nazi party denounced him as a “Jew lover”. The Jewish lobby was impressed and so, when the request for campaign funds duly appeared, Jewish political financiers decided to back Kennedy.[3]

I doubt if the trick impressed the group of financiers gathered by Abraham Feinberg after the 1960s primaries. “Jack,” they said to JFK, “everybody knows the reputation of your father concerning Jews and Hitler. And everybody knows that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.” They gave him $500,000 as campaign fund nonetheless, according to Seymour Hersh[4].

They thought they had bought Kennedy’s foreign policy, but they would soon feel cheated: as promised, Kennedy did name Mike Feldman as his advisor on the Middle East, but he treated him as the Israeli agent that he was, and went on befriending Nasser.

The Zionists thought Joe Kennedy’s background could provide them with some leverage on his son. Their preferred Democratic candidate had been Lyndon Johnson, who during the primaries had attacked John as being the son of a “Chamberlain umbrella man” who “thought Hitler was right” (the black umbrella had become a symbol of Chamberlain and the 1938 Munich Conference).[5] When LBJ lost to JFK, JFK was blackmailed, through Philip Graham and Joseph Alsop of the Washington Post, into picking Johnson as vice-president. No one knows for sure what the blackmail was about. Kennedy’s long-time secretary Evelyn Lincoln thought it was “about womanizing, and things in Joe Kennedy’s background.”[6] Since the sex life of politicians was not the type of things that the press reported back then — and the Washington Post was no exception — my guess is that it was more about “Joe Kennedy’s background”. Like Feinberg’s Jewish friends, Graham and Alsop must have reminded JFK of “the reputation of your father concerning Jews and Hitler.”

President Kennedy became a huge problem for Israel, not only for wanting to deprive Israel of the holy nuke, but also for trying to end the Cold War: a rapprochement between Kennedy and Khrushchev, both supporting Nasser’s secular nationalism and pan-Arabism, was Ben-Gurion’s worst nightmare. The Soviet minister of Foreign Affairs Andrei Gromyko recalled in his memoirs a revealing conversation he had with President Kennedy in the White House, October 3, 1963 — a conversation which, he writes, “left a deep impression in my mind.”

As I entered his study, I found him smiling and as usual in a good mood. He said, ‘Why don’t we go out on to the terrace and talk one to one without interpreters?’

Naturally I agreed, and we left the room.

He immediately began to talk about the internal situation in the USA: ‘The fact is, there are two groups of the American population which are not always pleased when relations between our two countries are eased. One group consists of people who are always opposed to improvement for ideological reasons. They are quite a stable contingent. The other group are people “of a particular nationality’” — he meant the Jewish lobby — who think that always and under all circumstances, the Kremlin will support the Arabs and be an enemy of Israel. This group has effective means for making improvement between our countries very difficult.’ He ended briefly: ‘That is the reality. But I think it is still possible to improve relations, and I want Moscow to know that.’

… At the end of our conversation, Kennedy said, ‘I just wanted you to know some of the difficulties the President of the United States has to face when dealing with questions of Soviet-US relations.’

… I don’t know why, but when I first heard the Tass report of Kennedy’s murder it was that talk on the White House terrace that came into my mind — what he had said about there being opponents to his policy.[7]

From Israel’s point of view, JFK was definitely an appeaser like his father. Israel had needed WWII, and Israel now needed WWIII (as neocon Norman Podhoretz insists on calling the Cold War). “What’s wrong with the Kennedys? Why do they always want to prevent or end the wars that Israel needs? A curse on their house!”

The Kennedy curse is a kabbalistic concept that has been thrown to the public in such books as The Sins of the Father (Ronald Kessler) and The Kennedy Curse (Edward Klein). The title of the first book, written in 1997, is a reference to Exodus 20:5: “I, Yahweh, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.” The second book, published in 2004, includes in its introduction a story “told in mystical Jewish circles”, of a rabbi who was “fleeing the Nazis” “shortly before the outbreak of World War II, and “put a curse on Kennedy, damning him and all his male offspring to tragic fates.”[8] It easy to see what the “Kennedy curse” has in common with John Podhoretz’s op-ed: blame it on Satan, but know it’s about messing with the Jews.

Implicit in Klein’s story is that the curse entered into action with the death of Joe Kennedy Jr., the eldest of the brothers, who was killed in action on August 12, 1944, as a patrol bomber pilot. He would have been President Kennedy. The destiny passed to the second son.

The Kennedy Curse fell again on November 22, 1963. In my article “The Umbrella Man, the Sins of the Father, and the Kennedy Curse,” I highlighted the significance of the 39-year-old man named Louie Steven Witt who had decided to open a black umbrella at the precise spot and time of President Kennedy’s execution. In 1978, he explained to the House Select Committee on Assassinations that he intended to “kind of do a little heckling” to JFK about his father’s support for Chamberlain’s appeasement policy. But the coincidence between the heckling and the killing was … well, pure coincidence, he said, and the HSCA asked him no more questions.

I had failed to pay attention to the fact that Witt was not alone in doing his “little heckling”. On the Zapruder film and on several photos, we can see, on his front right, a man saluting JFK. This “dark complected man,” as he is sometimes referred to by JFK researchers, has never been identified. This is odd, because he was obviously with Witt. Minutes after the shots that killed Kennedy, they were sitting beside each other. This suggests that their actions were a coordinated symbolic act. And this in turn suggests that the salute of Witt’s fellow was meant as a Nazi salute. The black umbrella by itself might not have been a clear enough message, so the nazi salute made the message much clearer.

Were they cognizant Zionist agents? I don’t think so. Their sitting together after seeing JFK’s head blown before their eyes suggests that they were stunned and wondering what the hell they had been doing. I suppose they had been sent to do their “little heckling” without being told that it would spice up the killing. Who would be so crazy as to put himself in that position knowingly, standing almost in the line of the Grassy Knoll sniper? Perhaps they had been convinced to do it for money, or as a wager, or as a service to Witt’s Jewish boss at the Rio Grande National Life insurance Co where he worked.

Whatever the case may be, if there was still any doubt that Israel was the prime mover in the assassination of John Kennedy (the evidence is in my book The Unspoken Kennedy Truth), Umbrella Man and Nazi-Salute Man are the ultimate signature. But to see this, you need some spiritual insight into Jewishness and Kennedyness.

Jewishness is the evil soul of the U.S., best embodied today by the neocons (of whom Norman Podhoretz, editor-in-chief of Commentary for 35 years, is the founding father). Kennedyness was the good soul of America. Above anything else, the Kennedys stood for strong family values and service to country to the point of sacrifice. “Joseph P. Kennedy,” writes Laurence Leamer, “created one great thing in his life, and that was his family. . . . Joe taught that blood ruled and that they must trust each other and venture out into a dangerous world full of betrayals and uncertainty, always returning to the sanctuary of family.”[9] Joe also taught his children that they had to pay back to America what America had given them. The Kennedy family symbolized the America that Americans and the world loved.

This is why John F. Kennedy, Jr. was the “charismatic crown prince of America’s royal family,” as the New York Daily News wrote the day after his death.[10] He was Prince Hamlet haunted by the ghost of his murdered father, destined to avenge him and save the kingdom from the usurpers. The Kennedy tragedy is the most Shakespearian, the most paradigmatic, the most archetypal story in all American history. And America has not a worthy monument in their honor. So many Holocaust museums to honor the Jews’ dead, and not one chapel to pray for the Kennedys!

As a matter of fact, only Israel has a Kennedy memorial of any significance. It was explicitly designed to look like “the stump of a felled tree,” and it does. Do you get the idea? It symbolizes Israel’s plan for the Kennedy dynasty. You can trust Jews to choose their symbols carefully. And don’t imagine people can see any statue or even a single photo of Kennedy inside; it is as hollow as a dead stump. It is a memorial to erase the memory of Kennedy. It reminds me of the paradoxical command: “remember to erase Amalek’s memory” (Deuteronomy 25:19 and Exodus 17:14).

The Zionists’ hatred for the Kennedys runs deep, despite their histrionic “crocodile tears” after JFK’s death. When meeting the new president on May 30, 1961 in New York, Ben-Gurion could not help but see in him the son of a Hitler-appeaser. Abraham Feinberg (who arranged the meeting) recalls that “Ben-Gurion could be vicious, and he had such a hatred of the old man [Joe Kennedy].”[11] Ben-Gurion had no illusion about the fact that John was very much his father’s son. Had he not, in his 1956 Pulitzer-Prize-winning book Profiles in Courage, vindicated Senator Robert Taft for denouncing the Nuremberg Trials as a parody of justice, and the hanging of German officials as “a blot on the American record which we shall long regret”?[12] It certainly didn’t escape the Zionists that, on May 11, 1962, President Kennedy invited Charles Lindbergh and his wife at a grand reception at the White House, sitting them at the presidential table and hosting them overnight. Lindbergh had been the most prominent voice for the America First Committee in 1940, publicly accusing the Jews of pushing America into the war. Since then, he had been living in reclusion.

Moreover, Ben-Gurion believed that JFK was paving the way for a new Holocaust by preventing Israel from acquiring the indispensable nuclear deterrence against the Arabs. This is what Ben-Gurion meant when describing Nasser as a new Hitler and the Arabs as the new Nazis, in one of his last letters to Kennedy, May 12, 1963, in response to Kennedy’s demand for immediate inspections of Dimona: “Knowing them I am convinced that they are capable of following the Nazi example. … Mr. President, my people have a right to exist … and this existence is in danger.” Monika Wiesak has noted that, in that very letter, the father of the Jewish State made a cryptic digression about Jordanian King Hussein, writing: “there is always a danger that one single bullet might put an end to his life and regime.”[13]

Salvator Astucia has, I think, well captured the essence of the Kennedy problem for Israel:

The Israelis distrusted President Kennedy because of his father. It is widely known that Joseph Kennedy Sr. developed a strong loathing of Jews from his business dealings with them in finance, Hollywood, and politics. And the elder Kennedy had groomed four sons for the White House, but his oldest — Joe, Jr — had been killed in World War II. President Kennedy’s inauguration in January 1961 marked the beginning of a dynasty that would likely continue until 1985 (after the three surviving sons had each completed two terms). With this background information, it becomes clear that there was one primary motive for the assassination: to destroy the Kennedy Dynasty.[14]

Under a Kennedy presidency, there would be no Six-Day War, the Palestinian refugees would recover their land, AIPAC would be registered as a foreign agent, and the Holocaust would certainly not become a State cult enforced by ADL inquisition. And of course, Israel would never have become a nuclear State.

Destroying the Kennedy dynasty was probably a sacred oath taken by all B’nai B’rith top officials (Dallas was full of them). JFK Jr. was a marked man, if not from the moment he saluted his father’s coffin on his third birthday, at least from the moment it became clear that he had the ambition and the potential to reach the White House. Killing his political future was not enough, and probably not possible.

I wrote a long article in January 2019, titled “The Broken Presidential Destiny of JFK, Jr.”, reviewing the evidence that JFK Jr. was assassinated. I will now summarize it.

Evidence of assassination

It was Friday July 16, 1999, at 9:39 pm, when JFK Jr.’s voice was last heard by Martha’s Vineyard air traffic controller Buddy Wyatt, asking, in a calm voice, instruction for landing. (This was reported the next day by U.S. Coast Guard Petty Officer Todd Burgun in a live phone interview with anchor Susan Wornick of Boston WCVB-TV.)

About two minutes later, John’s plane suddenly plummeted into the ocean at the radar-recorded speed of 4,700 feet per minute. Victor Pribanic, an attorney from Pennsylvania who was fishing for striped bass that night and had noticed the aircraft flying toward the island, reported to the The Martha’s Vineyard Times (cited in the New York Daily News, July 21, 1999): “I heard an explosion over my right shoulder. It sounded like an explosion. There was no shock wave, but it was a large bang.”

Based on these facts, the only rational explanation is that the plane suffered a sudden structural damage by explosive, making it impossible to maintain in the air; blowing off a part of a wing or the tail would have been enough, and would have required only a very small device magnetically affixed to the plane.

These facts, however, were quickly removed from public awareness. Pribanic’s testimony never made it to the national news. And Kennedy’s 9:39 call to Martha’s Vineyard airport was quickly denied and erased from the narrative. Instead, on July 18, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) produced some “newly found” radar “evidence” which supposedly showed Kennedy’s flight exhibiting signs of difficulties and irregularities long before it disappeared from the radar.

The official narrative was a mix of two ingredients, bad weather and pilot recklessness, coated by a heavy layer of “the Kennedy curse”. Not a word of the possibility of foul play.

When the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) concluded its investigation eleven months later, it issued a news release that attributed the plane crash to “the pilot’s failure to maintain control of the airplane during a descent over water at night, which was a result of spatial disorientation. Factors in the accident were haze and the dark night.” That is all the corporate news retained. However, a close reading of the full report reveals many unanswered questions and even contradictions with its conclusion. For example, the NTSB final report quotes Martha’s Vineyard air traffic controller Buddy Wyatt as stating that the visibility was good: “I remember aircraft on visual approaches saying they had the airport in sight between 10 and 12 miles out. I do recall being able to see those aircraft and I do remember seeing the stars out that night.”

Also, the sudden drop of altitude from 2,200 feet to 1,100 feet in 14 seconds, stated in the full report, is hard to reconcile with the news release statement. Disorientation implies that the pilot was not aware that he was flying straight into the ocean. But that is impossible, as the NTSB Investigator-in-Charge, Robert Pearce, had admitted as early as July 20, 1999: “They were aware they were going down. With that kind of descent rate, it is going to be noisier than hell in the cockpit.”

In contrast to what the news media kept hammering, the NTSB report reckoned that JFK Jr. had a flight experience of “about 310 hours, of which 55 hours were at night.” During the last fifteen months, he had made 35 flights between Fairfield airport, N.J., and Martha’s Vineyard, including five at night. Three certified flight instructors (CFI) quoted in the report describe John as an “excellent”, “methodical” and “very cautious” pilot.

No matter how we twist or downplay all other data, the very conditions of the plane’s sudden dive, which is an undisputed fact, should raise a strong suspicion of a major and sudden mechanical failure. As Anthony Hilder put it:

A finely-tuned, well-kept first-class airplane doesn’t just drop out of the sky and head straight down into the ocean unless it’s blown out of the sky or the pilot deliberately sends it into a dive to kill himself and his passengers.

Evidence of cover-up

Some testimonies used in support of the theory of JFK Jr.’s incompetence and recklessness are highly suspicious. A case in point is Kyle Bailey, “the last man to see Kennedy alive at the Fairfield airport,” who claimed to have had bad a premonition on seeing him take off: “I told my family, ‘I can’t believe he’s going up in this weather’,” he said on July 18. Bailey went on becoming an aviation analyst specialized in plane crashes, and regularly working for major network such as Fox News, CBS, ABC, NBC, and BBC. Bailey appeared in the documentary Curse on the Kennedys? and then in the ABC documentary The Last Days of JFK Jr., aired in January 2019, in which he repeated his story. Kyle Bailey is to JFK Jr.’s death what Mark Walsh is to 9/11.

The search for the plane and the bodies was entirely controlled by the military, although JFK Jr. had never been in the army. A 17-nautical mile no-fly zone and no-entry zone was established around the crash site. No civilians or media crew were allowed in this area. On July 20, 1999, as we read in the NTSB report, “the airplane wreckage was located by U.S. Navy divers from the recovery ship, USS Grasp.” Why was the Navy, rather than civilian rescue craft, tasked with the retrieval of JFK Jr.’s crashed airplane? More disturbing still, why did the Pentagon take exclusive control of news reporting from July 18?

There are issues also with the botched autopsies, as Joanna Weiss and Matthew Brelis of the Boston Globe wrote on July 23, 1999 in an article titled “JFK Autopsy Rushed.”

But the most suspicious thing of all is the way the bodies were disposed of: they were cremated, then their ashes were taken aboard a Navy destroyer, and scattered into the sea, near the place where they had met their death. “The burial for the 35th president’s son was reportedly carried out in keeping with his expressed wishes,” noted journalist Paula Maxwell. What? At age 39, JFK Jr. had expressed his will not to be buried with his father and mother at Arlington cemetery and instead to be cremated and his ashes spread above the ocean? Who can believe such a thing? The Boston Globe reported on July 22 “Kennedy’s family requested a burial at sea, and the Pentagon granted that request.” But, the next day, the same newspaper expressed surprise:

The cremated remains of John F. Kennedy Jr., his wife, and her sister were cast from a warship to the ocean currents in a manner not favored by the Catholic Church and in a ceremony that occurred only after the intercession of Pentagon brass. The Roman Catholic Church prefers the presence of a body at its funeral rites. And the Defense Department rarely accords the honor of burial at sea to civilians.

No other Kennedy had ever been cremated. The reasons given for cremating JFK Jr. body do not make any sense and are contradictory. The New York Times wrote:

“Kennedy family members, citing his wishes and hoping to avoid having a spectacle made of Mr. Kennedy’s final resting place, have decided to have his body cremated and his ashes scattered at sea in a Navy ceremony, a family adviser said.”

That is utterly unbelievable. The bodies must have been cremated and scattered for another reason: to prevent any possibility of ever finding traces of explosives in the bodies.

But the idea of wanting to deprive JFK Jr. of a final resting place that could possibly encourage a popular Kennedy cult has also a strong biblical and B’nai B’rith smell. Who, among “Kennedy family members”, could possibly have wanted this? It happens that, according to information found in RFK Jr.’s diary, published by the New York Post, Ann Freeman, Carolyn and Lauren Bessette’s mother, “began asking that her two daughters be buried near her home in Greenwich, Connecticut.” It was Edwin Schlossberg, Caroline Kennedy’s Jewish husband, who convinced her to have her two daughters cremated and their ashes spread in the ocean. “He bullied, bullied, bullied the shattered grieving mother,” writes RFK Jr.

The heir and the Avenger

JFK Jr. had grown up with a sense of destiny. According to biographer Christopher Andersen (The Good Son): “Jackie made sure that John was constantly exposed to the people who knew John [President Kennedy] best.” In her last letter to her son before dying to lymphoma in 1994, she wrote: “You, especially, have a place in history.” John told Lloyd Howard in 1997: “She expected me to follow in my father’s footsteps, and of course I will. But I don’t think the time is right just yet.” Just like his father before him, John Jr. first pursued a career in journalism: in 1995, he founded the magazine George, which engaged in controversial issues of deep politics. His longtime friend Robert Littell wrote, in The Men We Became: My Friendship with John F. Kennedy Jr. (St. Martin’s Press, 2004): “George was also an opportunity for John to build a platform from which he might possibly move into political life.” George was also a means for John to interact with political actors and thinkers.

Brought up in the worship of his father, John had taken a keen interest in “conspiracy theories” about his death at least since his late teens. His knowledge deepened in his thirties, and motivated him to publish in a special “conspiracy issue” of his magazine George, eight months before his death, a cover article by Oliver Stone, director of the groundbreaking film JFK, titled “Our Counterfeit History”.

At age 39, John had made up his mind to launch his political career by seeking an electoral mandate in New York State, and he was about to announce it publicly. According to his friend Billy Noonan (Forever Young: My Friendship with John F. Kennedy, Jr., Viking Press, 2006), he was about to enter the race for the New York Senate seat left vacant by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, which Hillary Clinton also coveted (and ultimately got). John was a New Yorker, and Clinton would have stood no chance against him.

JFK Jr. had also voiced privately his ambition to ultimately reach for the presidency. Given his personality and his popularity, he had high chances to make it in less than 20 years. Pierre Salinger, one of the men Jackie had asked to educate John about his father, had become very close to him, and declared on French radio Europe 1, on July 19, 1999: “I felt that in the coming year John Junior would also become a politician. It’s my point of view. And with other people, we thought he was going to be a Democratic candidate for the next presidential election.” Others, such as John’s assistant at GeorgeRoseMarie Terenzio, thought “he would’ve run for president … in 2008.”

In 1968, John Kennedy’s brother ran for President with the intention, not just to save the Kennedy legacy, but to reopen the investigation on his brother’s death (as David Talbot has demonstrated in his book Brothers). He was assassinated. In 1999, Robert Kennedy’s nephew was about to announce his entry into politics, with the clear intention to go all the way to the White House. There is no question that one of his goals in life was to expose the murderers of his father. His old high school girlfriend Meg Azzoni, in her self-published book, 11 Letters and a Poem (2007), writes that as a teenager, “his heartfelt quest was to expose and bring to trial who killed his father, and covered it up.”

I rephrase my conclusion from my longer 2019 article:

So, was JFK Jr. himself assassinated? Here is man whose road to the presidency seemed traced. No other man of his age had better chances to reach the White House one day. And no other man in the world had more reasons to want the 1963 Kennedy assassination reinvestigated. He was already trying to educate the public through his magazine, at the risk of exposing his own beliefs, something no other Kennedy had ever done (even RFK had kept his doubt on the Warren report private, and his plan to reopen the case secret). And this man, his friend Billy Noonan believes, was just about to announce his candidacy for a New York Senate seat, which everyone would have understood as the first step toward the White House. Pierre Salinger and others even believe he would have run for president in 2000. What are the odds that he would die at this precise moment by accident? … If it was an accident, then the Devil caused it. Or was it Yahweh?

One more thing: JFK Jr. died two years before 9/11. Who knows what influence he would have had on the American public, either as a senator or as the editor of a magazine with a strong interest in conspiracies? He may very well have stood in the way of the War on Terror, the WWIV that Norman Podhoretz was calling for. You never know, with those Kennedy peacemakers!

Israel believes in preemptive assassinations, as demonstrated by Ronen Bergman in Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations.

Israel killed JFK Jr.

A curse on Israel!

Notes

[1] Arthur Krock, Memoirs: Sixty Years on the Firing Line, Funk & Wagnalls, 1968, p. 328.

[2] Michael R. Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt: The Uneasy Alliance, Open Road, 1979, p.187.

[3] John Hughes-Wilson, JFK: an American coup d’état, John Blake, 2013, pp. 88-89.

[4] Seymour Hersh, The Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy, Random House, 1991 p. 96.

[5] Robert Caro, The Years of Lyndon Johnson, vol. IV: The Passage of Power, Alfred Knopf, 2012, p. 104. Also in Krock, Memoirs, op. cit., p. 362.

[6] Seymour Hersh, The Dark Side of Camelot, Little, Brown & CO, 1997, p. 129.

[7] Andrei Gromyko, Memoirs, Doubleday, 1989, pp. 181-182.

[8] Edward Klein, The Kennedy Curse: Why Tragedy Has Haunted America’s First Family for 150 Years, Saint Martin’s Press, 2004.

[9] Laurence Leamer, Sons of Camelot: The Fate of an American Dynasty, HarperCollins, 2005, kindle l. 262-267.

[10] Dave Saltonstall, Austin Fenner, Helen Kennedy and Greg B. Smith, “John F. Kennedy Jr. went missing after taking a flight with his wife and her sister in 1999,” New York Daily News, July 18, 1999, on nydailynews.com

[11] Hersh, The Samson Option, op. cit., p. 103.

[12] Robert Taft, October 6, 1946, quoted in John F. Kennedy, Profiles in Courage, 1956, Harper Perennial, 2003 p. 199.

[13] Monika Wiesak, America’s Last President, 2022, p. 214.

[14] Salvador Astucia, Opium Lords: Israel, the Golden Triangle, and the Kennedy Assassination, 2002, p. 5, on www.whale.to/b/astucia.pdf.

July 13, 2024 Posted by | Russophobia, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment