The real Russiagate scandal blows away Watergate for crimes and treason by U.S. establishment
Strategic Culture Foundation | August 1, 2025
So the hoax is finally officially acknowledged. “Russiagate” – the mainstream narrative, that is – is now described by American intelligence chiefs as a fabrication that was concocted to overturn the results of the 2016 U.S. presidential elections.
Tulsi Gabbard, the current Director of National Intelligence (DNI), and CIA director John Ratcliffe have both accused former President Barack Obama of engaging in a “treasonous conspiracy” to subvert the constitutional process. It’s not just Obama who is implicated in this high crime. Other former senior officials in his 2013-17 administration, including former DNI James Clapper, CIA director John Brennan, and head of the FBI James Comey, are also implicated. If justice is permitted, the political repercussions are truly earth-shattering.
The potential impact is not confined solely to the violation of U.S. laws and the democratic process – bad enough as that is. The Russiagate scandal that began in 2016 has had a lasting, damaging effect on U.S. and European relations with Russia. The frightfully dangerous NATO proxy war incited in Ukraine, which threatens to escalate into a full-scale world war, was fueled in large part by the hostility generated from the false claims of Russian interference in the U.S. elections.
The allegations that Russian President Vladimir Putin oversaw a subversion campaign against the 2016 U.S. election and colluded with Donald Trump to get him elected were always specious. The scandal was based on shoddy intel claims to purportedly explain how Trump defeated his Democrat rival, Hillary Clinton. Subsequently, the scandal was hyped into a seemingly credible narrative by U.S. intelligence chiefs at the direction of then-President Barack Obama as a way to delegitimize Trump’s incoming first-term presidency.
Years before the recent intelligence disclosures, many independent journalists, including Aaron Maté, and former intelligence analysts like Ray MacGovern and William Binney, had cogently disproven the official Russiagate claims. Not only were these claims false, they were knowingly false. That is, lies and deliberate distortions. Russia did not hack emails belonging to the Democratic National Committee to discredit Clinton. Clinton’s corruption was exposed by a DNC internal leak to Julian Assange’s Wikileaks whistleblower site. That was partly why Assange was persecuted with years-long incarceration.
A large enough number of voters simply despised Clinton and her warmongering psychopathy, as well as her sell-out of working-class Americans for Wall Street largesse.
Furthermore, Moscow consistently denied any involvement in trying to influence the 2016 U.S. election or attempts to favor Trump. Putin has said more than once that Russia has no preference about who becomes U.S. president, implying that they’re all the same and controlled by deeper state forces. Laughably, too, while Washington accused Moscow of election interference, the actual record shows that the United States has habitually interfered in scores of foreign elections over many decades, including those of Russia. No other nation comes close to the U.S. – the self-declared “leader of the free world” – in sabotaging foreign elections.
In any case, it is instructive to compare the Russiagate farce with the Watergate scandal. Watergate involved spying by the White House of President Richard Nixon against a Democrat rival in the 1972 election. The political crisis that ensued led to Nixon’s resignation in disgrace in 1974. The U.S. nation was shocked by the dirty tricks. Several senior White House officials were later convicted and served time in jail for crimes related to the affair. Nixon was later pardoned by his successor, Gerald Ford, and avoided prosecution. Nevertheless, Watergate indelibly disgraced U.S. politics and, at the time, was described as “the worst political scandal of the 20th century.”
Subsequent cases of corruption and malfeasance are often dubbed with the suffix “gate” in a nod to Watergate as a momentous political downfall. Hence, “Russiagate.”
There are hugely important differences, however. While Watergate was a scandal based on factual crimes and wrongdoing, Russiagate was always a contrived propaganda deception. The real scandal behind Russiagate was not Trump’s alleged misdeeds or those of Russia, but the criminal conspiracy by Obama and his administration to sabotage the 2016 election and subsequently to overthrow the Trump presidency and the democratic will of the American people. Tulsi Gabbard, the nation’s most senior intelligence chief, has said that this amounts to “treason,” and she has called for the prosecution of Obama and other former senior aides.
Arguably, the real Russiagate scandal is far more criminal and devastating in its political implications than Watergate. The latter involved illegal spying and dirty tricks. Whereas, Russiagate involved a president and his intelligence chiefs trying to subvert the entire democratic process. Not only that, but the U.S. mainstream media are also now exposed for perpetrating a propaganda heist on the American public. All of the major U.S. media outlets amplified the politicised intelligence orchestrated by the Obama administration, claiming that Russia interfered in the election and that Trump was a “Kremlin stooge.” The hoax became an obsession in the U.S. media for years and piled up severe damage in international relations, a nefarious legacy that we are living with today.
The New York Times and Washington Post, reputedly two of the finest exponents of American journalism, jointly won the Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for their reporting on Russiagate, the official version, that is, which lent credibility to the hoax. In light of what we know now, these newspapers should be hanging their heads in shame for running a Goebbels-like Big Lie campaign to not only deceive the U.S. public but to subvert the democratic process and poison international relations. Their reputations are shredded, as well as those of other major media outlets, including ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC.
Ironically, The Washington Post won the Pulitzer Prize in 1973 for its reporting on the Watergate scandal. The story was made into a best-selling book, All The President’s Men, and a hit Hollywood movie starring Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman, playing the roles of intrepid reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Woodward and Bernstein and The Washington Post were acclaimed as the finest in U.S. journalism for exposing Watergate and bringing a crooked president to book.
How shameful and absurd that an even greater assault on American democracy and international relations in the form of Russiagate is ignored and buried by “America’s finest”. That the scandal is ignored and buried should be of no surprise because to properly reveal it would shatter the foundations of the U.S. political establishment and the sinister role of the deep state and its mainstream media propaganda system.
Obama authorized ‘implausible’ reports about Putin supporting Trump – House Intel Committee
RT | July 23, 2025
Former US President Barack Obama authorized the release of reports claiming Russian President Vladimir Putin backed Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, despite CIA warnings that the information was unreliable, according to a newly declassified report from the House Intelligence Committee.
Last week, the US Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard published more than 100 documents detailing what she described as a coordinated effort by Obama-era officials to fabricate the narrative of Trump-Russia collusion. The effort, she said, aimed to undermine Trump’s legitimacy after his 2016 election victory.
On Tuesday, the DNI released additional declassified findings focused on the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), which claimed that Putin sought to influence the election in Trump’s favor. That assessment became a central foundation for the Russiagate probe.
New evidence shows that the ICA included intelligence that CIA Director John Brennan knew was weak or unverifiable. Brennan reportedly led the drafting process and pushed for the inclusion of discredited material, including the Steele dossier, despite objections from CIA officers who warned there was no direct evidence of Putin backing Trump.
The report also found that Obama issued “unusual directives” to accelerate the assessment’s release before Trump’s inauguration, bypassing normal coordination channels within the intelligence community.
Gabbard has argued that these actions warrant a criminal investigation and has accused Obama officials of manufacturing a false narrative to discredit a sitting president. Trump has endorsed her findings, calling for prosecutions of Obama and his top aides.
She has also revealed that internal US intelligence consistently concluded Russia had neither the capability nor the intent to interfere in the 2016 election, but these assessments were suppressed.
Russia has denied any interference in US elections, while Putin has repeatedly said that Moscow does not prefer any particular candidate.
Russiagate only tip of iceberg in Western demonization of Russia – expert
RT | July 20, 2025
US National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard’s revelations about the role of former President Barack Obama’s administration in the Russiagate scandal are “shocking,” but they expose only the surface of a broader Western anti-Russia campaign, Professor Oliver Boyd-Barrett has told RT.
On Friday, Gabbard released newly declassified documents describing a coordinated effort by senior Obama-era officials – led by Obama himself – to falsely accuse Donald Trump of colluding with Russia during the 2016 election. The documents indicate that Obama ordered officials to discard intelligence assessments that found no Russian involvement in Trump’s campaign and replace them with claims blaming Moscow based on fabricated data. The scandal led to the years-long Trump-Russia probe known as ‘Russiagate.’
“This is an extraordinary moment, that the head of intelligence in the US has made such a bold, in some ways shocking, statement of the truth,” Boyd-Barrett, a professor at Bowling Green State University and author of an in-depth study of Russiagate, said on Saturday. He noted the moment was especially striking as Gabbard called for prosecution of those involved in what she described as a “coup” attempt.
Boyd-Barrett, however, emphasized that to “fully comprehend” Russiagate, it must be viewed as only a small part of a broader Western campaign to demonize Russia, “that goes decades back.”
“It’s part of a much deeper agenda – we’re talking Russia narrative… the broader context of an anti-Russian campaign that was stoked artificially around the time of the late 90s when the West had so clearly decided that NATO was going to move eastwards regardless of whatever anyone in Russia or anyone in the US had to say,” he said. He also warned against reducing Russiagate to a personal political ploy, noting that blaming it solely on Obama or Hillary Clinton’s election anxiety is “too simple an explanation.”
Moscow has repeatedly denied interfering in the US electoral process.
Tulsi Gabbard releases ‘overwhelming evidence’ of Obama coup plot against Trump
RT | July 18, 2025
Former President Barack Obama’s administration deliberately manipulated intelligence to frame Russia for interfering in the 2016 presidential election, according to newly declassified documents released on Friday by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.
Gabbard unveiled more than 100 pages of emails, memos, and internal communications, which she described as “overwhelming evidence” of a coordinated effort by senior Obama-era officials to politicize intelligence and launch the multi-year Trump–Russia collusion investigation. She dubbed it “a treasonous conspiracy to subvert the will of the American people.”
The scandal severely damaged relations between Moscow and Washington, leading to sanctions, asset seizures, and a breakdown in normal diplomacy.
”This intelligence was weaponized,” Gabbard said. “It was used as a justification for endless smears, for sanctions from Congress, and for covert investigations.” She added: “When key internal assessments found that Russia ‘did not impact recent U.S. election results,’ those findings were suppressed.”
“For months before the 2016 election, the Intelligence Community maintained that Russia lacked both the intent and capability to hack U.S. elections,” Gabbard noted. “But once President Trump won, everything changed.”
One document — a draft President’s Daily Brief dated December 8, 2016 — stated Russia “did not impact recent U.S. election results” through cyberattacks. The report, prepared by the CIA, NSA, FBI, DHS, and other agencies, found no evidence of voting interference.
Yet Fox News reported on Friday that the document was pulled — “based on new guidance,” according to internal emails. Hours later, a high-level Situation Room meeting took place, attended by officials including DNI James Clapper, CIA Director John Brennan, National Security Adviser Susan Rice, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
According to declassified notes, attendees agreed to produce a new intelligence assessment at President Obama’s request. That report, released on January 6, 2017, claimed Russia had intervened in the election to help Donald Trump — directly contradicting earlier assessments.
Gabbard claims the revised assessment leaned on the discredited Steele Dossier — compiled by a former British spy — while sidelining dissenting views within the intelligence apparatus. “This was not intelligence gathering,” Gabbard stated. “It was narrative building.”
Confirmed as DNI earlier this year — after a contentious process — Gabbard says she has forwarded the documents to the Department of Justice. She has urged investigations into former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey, who are reportedly facing criminal inquiries. “No matter how powerful, every person involved must be brought to justice,” she stressed. “Our nation’s integrity depends on accountability.”
“The integrity of our democratic republic depends on full accountability,” Gabbard concluded. “Nothing less will restore the public’s trust — and ensure nothing like this ever happens again.”
Ex-CIA chief could face Russiagate ‘perjury’ probe – media
RT | July 7, 2025
Former CIA Director John Brennan could face a perjury probe over his role in the 2016 “Russiagate” conspiracy, which claimed Moscow worked to undermine Hilary Clinton’s unsuccessful presidential campaign in favor of Donald Trump, according to US media.
The current chief of the US spy agency, John Ratcliffe, has claimed that senior security officials manipulated aspects of the investigation, which was commissioned by then-President Barack Obama in 2016.
Republican critics have long maintained that the final document was politically motivated and intended to damage Trump’s first presidency. Moscow has denied interfering in the US electoral process or “colluding” with Trump’s campaign.
Last month, Ratcliffe declassified an internal CIA review of the 2016 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), which some media outlets claim proves that Brennan lied under oath during a closed-door congressional hearing in 2017. Allegations of this nature have circulated for years.
”John Ratcliffe is a genius,” a congressional source told Breitbart News in comments published on Sunday. “He just got career CIA officers to admit the 2016 ICA was corrupted and to offer up Brennan on a silver platter… The DOJ could have a field day with this.”
A second source said lawmakers were “stunned” by the contents of the internal review, claiming Brennan “knew the entire time that he was trying to wreck Trump’s presidency before it even started.”
The declassified review, released June 26, includes testimony from an intelligence official who described Brennan’s influence over the inclusion of references to the Steele dossier in the ICA. The dossier – a collection of unverified allegations linking Trump’s campaign to Russia – was compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele and funded by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
The intelligence official said Brennan “showed a preference for narrative consistency over analytical soundness.” The spy chief reportedly wrote to skeptics: “My bottom line is that I believe that the information warrants inclusion in the report.” In his 2017 testimony, Brennan reportedly claimed he had not advocated for the dossier to be mentioned in the ICA.
Senior US intelligence officials are rarely prosecuted for misleading the public, even when the available evidence appears compelling. One notable example is James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence, who told Congress in 2013 that the National Security Agency was not “wittingly” collecting data on millions of American citizens.
Documents later leaked by Edward Snowden showed that the agency was doing precisely that. The former NSA contractor is facing prosecution in the US for exposing the mass surveillance program and was granted asylum in Russia.
“Smart War” and State Terrorism
By Laurie Calhoun | The Libertarian Institute | July 1, 2025
On June 16, 2025, President Donald Trump threatened the 10 million inhabitants of Tehran, Iran, with death, for their government’s alleged nuclear aspirations.
The message was posted to the president’s Truth Social account, shared on X/Twitter, and then picked up by all major mass media outlets, making it common knowledge to everyone on the planet that Trump was preparing to join Israel’s war on Iran.
On June 17, 2025, President Trump directly threatened Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei with assassination.
Sometimes crazy people issue vague threats which they have no power to follow through on. Such persons are best avoided and ignored. In order to be effective, death threats must be credible, otherwise there is no fear generated in the persons being addressed, for they recognize that they are dealing with no more and no less than a feckless buffoon. Whatever one may think of President Trump, his menacing social media posts are credible threats, given his official role as commander-in-chief with the power to unleash formidable military might on the people of the world. In case anyone did not already know this, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt reminded the press corps on June 20, 2025, that “Iran and the entire world should know that the United States military is the strongest and most lethal fighting force in the world, and we have capabilities that no other country on this planet possesses.”
Trump’s warning to the entire population of Tehran that they should all evacuate the city was a fortiori a credible threat, given the U.S. government’s wide-ranging “War on Terror,” during which both Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded and occupied. Several other countries were subjected to thousands of missile strikes “outside areas of active hostilities,” that is, where there were no U.S. troops present and thus no force-protection pretext for the use of state-inflicted homicide.
Verbal threats of the use of deadly force by a president often culminate in military action because the commander may be easily persuaded by his advisors to believe that he (and the nation) will lose credibility if he fails to follow through on his words, which, he is told, would be a sign of weakness. Predictably enough, then, on June 22, 2025, President Trump delivered on his threat to bomb Iran, although he claimed to have struck only three specific sites: Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz. It was at these sites where nuclear enrichment and the development of nuclear arms were allegedly underway. The Trump administration’s Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard reported to members of congress in March 2025: “The [Intelligence Community] continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.”
On June 17, 2025, when a journalist reminded Trump of Director Gabbard’s assessment, the president bluntly blurted out, “I don’t care what she said.” It has become increasingly obvious that Trump’s foreign policy in the Middle East is primarily informed not by his own cabinet but by the intelligence services of Israel, above all, Mossad.
For anyone unfamiliar with the modus operandi and general demeanor of Mossad, I recommend the films Munich (2005), The Gatekeepers (2012), and The Operative (2020).
That Trump has been decisively influenced by the government of Israel was further evidenced by his direct threat against Supreme Leader Khamenei and the fact that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been calling for regime change in Iran for decades.
On June 20, 2025, two days before Trump’s missile strikes on Iran, Director Gabbard did an about-face, insisting that her earlier testimony before congress had been misrepresented and ignored her finding that Iran had been enriching uranium:
Gabbard’s retraction, or creative reinterpretation, of her former testimony bears similarities to the case of Bush administration Secretary of State Colin Powell, who initially opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq and then for reasons which remain unclear suddenly became one of the mission’s most ardent supporters. In Powell’s case, he went even so far as to present the case for war to a less-than-enthusiastic United Nations Security Council. After a colorful Powerpoint presentation featuring an array of ersatz evidence—ranging from speculation about Iraq’s aluminum test tubes, to a receipt for “yellow cake” purchase, to photos of what were claimed to be mobile chemical labs—Powell recognized that he did not have the votes needed to secure U.N. approval and so abruptly withdrew the war resolution. The United States then proceeded to invade Iraq unimpeded, claiming, among other things, that the 2003 military intervention was legal because of previous U.N. resolutions violated by President Saddam Hussein. In other words, after having sought U.N. approval, the U.S. government suddenly denied that it needed such approval before invading Iraq anyway.
Unlike George W. Bush, when Donald Trump bombed Iran “at a time of his choosing,” as they say, he did not have the support of the U.S. congress. Presidents Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Trump all depended on the Bush-era AUMFs as they continued to lob missiles on several countries beyond Afghanistan and Iraq, including Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, et al. But the carte blanche AUMFs granted to Bush in 2001 and 2002 had nothing whatsoever to do with the conflict between Israel and Iran. Neocons naturally devise all manner of interpretive epicyclic curlicues to arrive at the conclusion that Iran is in fact “fair game” for bombing. As stated and ratified, however, the AUMFs granted by congress to George W. Bush were intended to facilitate the U.S. president’s quest to bring justice to the perpetrators of the September 11, 2001 crimes.
Lest anyone forget, President Trump was not unique among twenty-first century presidents in bombing countries whose residents had nothing to do with the shocking demolition of the World Trade Center. President Obama effected a regime change in Libya without securing the support of congress because, he claimed, it was not really a war, since he was not deploying any ground troops. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did her part to persuade Obama that “Gaddafi must go!” She later characterized the Libya intervention as a shining example of “smart power at its best,” even though a few U.S. State Department officials, including the ambassador to Libya, Christopher Steele, were killed in the post-bombing mêlée. Today, Libya is essentially a failed state. Obama himself has confessed that the biggest regret and worst mistake of his presidency (reported in The Guardian) was not having a plan for the aftermath of his supposedly “humanitarian” intervention, which he enlisted NATO to carry out.
In the immediate aftermath of the June 22, 2025 missile strikes, Trump officials followed the Obama administration’s Libya playbook in insisting that his attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities was not the beginning of a long, protracted engagement in Iran. This was meant to draw contrast with the unpopular multi-decade wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Ignoring Trump’s threat to the residents of Tehran, Vice President J.D. Vance and others recited the Obama administration refrain that the mission was “not a war” with Iran. As Vance explained, the limited missile strikes were carried out only in order to dismantle Iran’s nuclear facilities. According to the government of Iran, a total of 610 people were killed and thousands more injured by the bombs of the U.S. and Israeli governments. However, none of the persons who perished were Americans.
Availing himself of the Obama-era “smart war” trope, Vice President Vance also observed that Trump’s preemptive military strikes differed from those of his predecessors because, unlike Trump, the previous presidents were “dumb”. Oliver Stone produced a film, W (2008), which persuasively portrays Bush as a half-wit, but no one ever suggested that Vice President Dick Cheney or the cadre of other war profiteers and neocons who coaxed Bush into preemptively attacking Iraq were stupid.
In any case, by now, the U.S. government has directly massacred so many thousands of people (and millions indirectly) in so many different countries, often located outside areas of active hostility (war zones or lands under occupation), that the citizenry has become largely inured to it all. Tragically, over the course of the twenty-first century, we have witnessed an apparently permanent paradigm shift to the profligate state use of homicide to terrorize and kill anyone anywhere deemed dangerous or even suspicious by U.S. officials or their contracted analysts. This radical paradigm shift was made possible by a new technology: the weaponized drone, which began to be used by the Bush administration first under a pretext of force protection in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Bush team effectively initiated the Drone Age by firing a missile on a group of terrorist suspects driving down a road in Yemen on November 3, 2002.
As the Global War on Terror stretched on and angry jihadists began to proliferate and spread throughout the region, President Obama assumed the drone warrior mantel with alacrity, opting to kill rather than capture thousands of suspected terrorists outside areas of active hostilities. In his enthusiasm for drone killing, Obama went even so far as to intentionally and premeditatedly hunt down and kill U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki (located in Yemen at the time, in 2011), without indicting him, much less allowing him to stand trial, for his alleged crimes.
Following the Obama precedent, in 2015, U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron opted to execute British nationals Ruhul Amin and Reyaad Khan, who were suspected of complicity in terrorism, after they had fled from the U.K. to Syria, and despite the fact that the parliament had rejected Cameron’s call for war on Syria. Cameron’s missile strikes against British citizens located abroad was all the more surprising because capital punishment is illegal in the U.K. as well as the European Union, of which Britain was a member at that time.
One state-perpetrated assassination leads to another, and on January 3, 2020, President Trump authorized the targeted killing via drone strike of a top Iranian commander, Qassem Soleimani, who was in Baghdad on a diplomatic mission at the time. Trump openly proclaimed, and indeed bragged, that the homicide, which he authorized, was intentional and premeditated. According to the president, Soleimani was responsible for past and future attacks against both Israel and the United States. The summary execution of a specific, named individual would have been considered an illegal act of assassination in centuries past but today is accepted by many as an “act of war” for the sophomoric reason that it is carried out by a military strike rather than undercover spies armed with poisons or garrottes.
In view of Trump’s unabashed, vaunted, assassination of Soleimani, and his full-throated support of Netanyahu, the threat to liquidate Supreme Leader Khamenei was just as credible as the “evacuation order” to the entire population of Tehran. Leaders today exult over their use of cutting-edge technology to eliminate specific, named individuals, as though summarily executing the victims were obviously permissible, given that targeted killing is now regarded by governments the world over as one of the military’s standard operating procedures. Such unlawful actions were fully normalized as a tool of “smart war” during the eight-year Obama presidency.
Shortly after Trump officials went out on the media circuit to insist that the bombing of Iran’s alleged nuclear production facilities was not the initiation of a U.S.-Iran war, Trump took to social media again, this time to suggest that his administration’s ultimate goal might really be regime change:
Less than one day later, the new official narrative became that Trump had masterfully brought the “twelve-day war” to a miraculous close, thanks to his superlative deal-making capabilities.
All of this would be risible, if not for the fact that many millions of persons in Iran continue to live under a persistent threat of death, given the wildly unpredictable comportment of President Trump, seemingly exacerbated by his longstanding commitment to stand by Israel, regardless of how outrageously Netanyahu behaves. The more and more daring acts of assassination perpetrated by the government of Israel clearly illustrate where state-perpetrated homicide and its attendant terrorist effects under a specious guise of “smart war” eventually lead.
Targeting named terrorist suspects allegedly responsible for previous crimes swiftly expanded to include signature strikes against groups of unarmed persons designated potentially dangerous and located anywhere in the world—in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, or anywhere else they please. The Israeli government has even deployed exploding cellphones and car bombs, the latter of which was once a tactic primarily deployed by dissident anti-government groups and crime syndicates. The repeated use by the Israeli government of car bombs to kill research scientists illuminates the slippery slope from missile strikes outside areas of active hostilities to what are empirically indistinguishable from Mafia hits. Car bombs have long been used by the Mafia and other nongovernmental organized crime groups, but the Israeli government openly perpetrates the very same acts under cover of “national self defense”.
Washington’s normalization of assassinations has emboldened leaders such as Netanyahu, who today conducts himself according to the principle “everything is permitted” in the name of the sacrosanct State. Witness what has been going on in Gaza since October 7, 2023: terrorism, torture, starvation, and summary execution. All of this is being condoned by every leader in the world who continues to voice support for, or even aids and abets, Netanyahu’s mass slaughter. This support for mass slaughter is provided ostensibly under the assumption that the perpetrators are doing no more and no less than defending the State of Israel.
Following the examples of U.S. Presidents Trump and Obama, and UK Prime Minister Cameron, all of whom publicly vaunted their assassination prowess, Prime Minister Netanyahu, having apparently recognized that the implement of homicide is in fact morally irrelevant, openly and brazenly executes persons determined by Mossad to be dangerous, with no concern for the thousands of innocent persons’ lives ruined along the way. In Operation Red Wedding, the Israeli government claimed to have dispatched, in a matter of minutes, thirty senior officials associated with the IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) including military chiefs and top commanders located throughout Iran at the opening of the June 2025 “Twelve-Day War.” The operation was praised by the pro-Israel media as featuring “bespoke” acts of targeted killing made possible by “pattern of life” intelligence.
Drone assassination, successfully marketed by the Obama team as “smart war,” smoothed the way to the uncritical acceptance by many citizens of the reprobate expansion of state killing to include acts historically committed by members of nongovernmental organized crime. Looking back, the rebranding by U.S. officials of political assassination as an act of war, provided only that the implement of death is a missile, was a slick and largely successful way of persuading U.S. citizens to believe that extrajudicial, state-inflicted homicide abroad is an acceptable means to conflict resolution. Even though it bypasses all of the republican procedures forged over millennia, including judicial means, for reconciling the rival claims of adversaries.
In the maelstrom of the twenty-first-century wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, assassination was labeled targeted killing and successfully sold to politicians as “smart war,” a surgically precise way to defeat the enemy without sacrificing combatant troops. Whichever label is used, assassination or targeted killing, acts of summary execution by governments involve the intentional, premeditated elimination of persons suspected to be possibly dangerous, a criterion so vague as to permit the targeting of virtually any able-bodied person who happens to be located in a place where terrorists are thought to reside.
There are three differences between “targeted killing” carried out by drone warriors and assassination. First, the weapon being used is a missile. Second, drone operators wear uniforms, while undercover assassins and hitmen do not. Third, far from being “surgically precise,” drone warfare increases the slaughter of innocent bystanders in their own civil societies, which is facilely dismissed as the “collateral damage” of war. In this way, the advent of lethal drones and their use outside areas of active hostility has served to terrorize entire populations forced to endure the hovering above their heads of machines which may—or may not—emit missiles at any given time on any given day.
Credible death threats to heads of state and evacuation orders issued to millions of people not only terrorize the persons being addressed, but also undermine the security of the citizens of the United States. The populace will bear the brunt of the blowback caused by such reckless behavior on the part of officials who operate with effective impunity and are ignorant of or oblivious to the nation’s republican origins. By launching preemptive missile strikes, the Pentagon does not protect but sabotages the interests and well-being of not only U.S. citizens but also the citizens of the world.
Nonetheless, many U.S. politicians and members of the populace, along with heads of state such as Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Australia Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, et al., having been thoroughly seduced by the “smart war” marketing line, appear to have no problem whatsoever with the tyrannical and arguably deranged death threats of the U.S. president. They have become altogether habituated to the assassination of persons now regarded as a standard operating procedure of war. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen effectively condoned Trump’s behavior by issuing this statement in the aftermath of the June 22, 2025 U.S. missile strikes against Iran: “Iran must never acquire the bomb.”
If terrorism is the arbitrary killing of or threat of death against innocent persons, then there can be no further doubt that the largest state sponsor and perpetrator of terrorism in the twenty-first century is in fact the U.S. government. President Trump inherited from President Obama and his mentor, drone-killing czar John Brennan (appointed by Obama as CIA director in 2013), the capacity to terrorize entire civilian populations and execute individuals at his caprice. No less than every drone strike launched in the vicinity of civilian populations beyond war zones, Trump’s completely unhinged threat to a group of people with nowhere to seek refuge, and no way of knowing whether the U.S. president is issuing a serious warning or simply bluffing, attempting some sort of perverse ploy to bring Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei back to the negotiation table (where he was, before Israel began bombing Iran), was an act of terrorism.
It is not “smart” to terrorize millions of human beings in the name of preventing terrorism. It is a contradiction, pure and simple.
Laurie Calhoun is a Senior Fellow for The Libertarian Institute. She is the author of Questioning the COVID Company Line: Critical Thinking in Hysterical Times,We Kill Because We Can: From Soldiering to Assassination in the Drone Age, War and Delusion: A Critical Examination, Theodicy: A Metaphilosophical Investigation, You Can Leave, Laminated Souls, and Philosophy Unmasked: A Skeptic’s Critique. In 2015, she began traveling around the world while writing. In 2020, she returned to the United States, where she remained until 2023 as a result of the COVID-19 travel restrictions imposed by governments nearly everywhere.
Good Riddance to Bad Rubbish: Why the Five Eyes Alliance Should Be Dismantled
Sputnik – February 28, 2025
UK media have reported that senior Trump advisor Peter Navarro lobbied his boss to cut Canada out of the Five Eyes intel-sharing network. Navarro rejected the report. But given the harm the intel coalition has done to Trump, Americans and relations with allies, removing members or dismantling the organization wouldn’t be a bad idea. Here’s why.
In 2024, journalists Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger revealed that Barack Obama’s CIA chief had worked with Five Eyes partners to circumvent restrictions on domestic spying to illegally tap Trump’s 2016 campaign, targeting Trump himself and over two dozen of his associates.
In 2013, NSA contractor-turned whistleblower Edward Snowden exposed his former employer’s work with the Five Eyes using tools like PRISM and XKeyscore to engage in a global, unfathomably massive warrantless spying program targeting foreigners and Americans alike.
Besides ordinary people, the Snowden leaks revealed Five Eyes spying on non-Anglosphere allied countries’ leaders, including Chancellor Merkel of Germany and President Hollande of France.
The Five Eyes have also been linked to diplomatic crises between Western nations and the developing world, with the 2023-present spat between Canada and India over the extraterritorial killings of Sikh separatists accompanied by allegations of a Five Eyes plot to destabilize India.
In 2013, a scandal erupted in Australian-Indonesian relations after it was revealed that Canberra and its Five Eyes partners sought to tap the phones of Indonesia’s sitting president, his wife and other senior officials.
And the Five Eyes’ shady activity goes back much further than that, with the ECHELON surveillance program, launched in the early 1970s, ostensibly to monitor Eastern Bloc countries and the Soviet Union, actually engaging in the interception of communications worldwide.
In the late 1990s, it was revealed that ECHELON had been used by US corporations to spy on their European competitors.
Similar activity was uncovered by WikiLeaks in 2015, with Japanese officials and companies revealed to have been monitored by the NSA using Five Eyes during negotiations on the TPP trade pact.
The Cost of Freedom: Confronting Military-Industrial Profiteering and Restoring Fiscal Integrity to Preserve Our Republic
By Dennis J. Kucinich | The Kucinich Report | February 14, 2025
Our government is drowning in multi-trillion-dollar financial corruption and debt while a fear-peddling national security state has reached deeply into the personal lives of each and every American, justifying its existence through endless wars cooked up by a deep state which has become the most corrupt marching band and chowder society in American history.
That deep state of permanent governance, entrenched media, think tanks, NGOs, and multi-billion-dollar government contractors, notwithstanding elections, has demanded US taxpayers pay additional TRILLIONS for wars, for subsidizing conflicts in other countries, for secret and not-so-secret arms deals to “rebels” for regime change, subverting governments through the pretext of foreign aid.
The government that we have succeeded most in subverting is our own.
There is an undeniable link between fiscal integrity and the preservation of our freedoms as Americans. When government becomes corrupt, it erodes not only our personal liberties and financial security, but also fosters a culture of lawlessness in both the public and private sectors. In order to restore our nation’s values, all three branches of government must demonstrate rigorous oversight, discipline, and integrity. Our nation requires an honest media. We must remain vigilant in holding government officials accountable. Government is too important to our lives to be left up to only those who govern.
The constitutional crisis in the form of massive federal government financial corruption looms like a giant iceberg about to sink the Ship of State. Unless its course is corrected, and soon, our nation will perish in a sea of deficits as private interests swim shark-like to feast on corpus America.
The corruption has been institutionalized in the federal budget. It has been normalized as standard operating procedure. The waste of taxpayers’ money is ubiquitous — trillions for wars, trillions in waste, fraud, and abuse. Trillions have been lost in an accounting jumble. This has been our government’s system of checks and balances: The Administration writes the checks, and Congress doesn’t know what the balance is. Is it possible that change is coming?
Congress, which by the Constitution must pass a budget, places spending bills from all federal departments into an “omnibus bill.” “Omnibus” is Latin for “budget-busting.” Most members do not know what is in the $7.3 Trillion spending bill, and those who do aren’t talking.
Welcome to America’s version of Dante’s Inferno, where in the ninth and lowest concentric circle of Hell, Cocytus, those who betrayed their countries are cast. Here is the final unresting place for those who spun the damnable lies which took us into a $3 trillion war against Iraq, which resulted in an unforgivable hemorrhage of American treasure and blood, that destroyed Iraq, killing one million Iraqi men, women and children.
The Iraq War, which began under the Bush administration, turned into a budget bacchanal of bribery, bilking, blight, and betrayal. Vice President Dick Cheney, who had been CEO of Halliburton, a major defense contractor, stood to indirectly benefit from government contracts awarded to his former company during the war.
Halliburton was awarded lucrative no-bid contracts to rebuild Iraq’s oil infrastructure and provide logistical support to the U.S. military, bringing in billions of dollars. Cheney’s ties to Halliburton raised questions about potential conflicts of interest. Cheney’s former company was found to have overcharged the government and failed to deliver on its contracts in Iraq.
As a member of the House of Representatives (1997-2013), on the floor of the House, I consistently called out corruption, and also within the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Through two Presidential campaigns (2004 and 2008), I worked to end perpetual war, the waste of money and lives which war creates, and to refocus our resources to America’s needs at home.
Over the years, I called for an end to the systemic waste, fraud and abuse plaguing war spending, including the trillions of dollars spent on the Iraq War and other military conflicts. I introduced multiple pieces of legislation, including measures to hold defense contractors accountable, strengthen oversight mechanisms, and enforce stricter regulations to prevent corruption in federal contracts. It is one thing to criticize a system. It is another thing to relentlessly work to change it.
A Few Examples of My Efforts in Congress:
1. 2003-2007: Led efforts in the Oversight and Government Reform Committee to scrutinize defense spending, especially contracts awarded to companies like Halliburton, to ensure taxpayer dollars were not being wasted or siphoned off into private hands. During this period, I made multiple floor speeches highlighting the lack of accountability in the U.S. military’s procurement processes and demanded comprehensive audits.
2. 2007: Introduced H.R. 2042, the “Contractor Accountability Act of 2007,” requiring the Department of Defense to report on waste and fraud in military contracts, particularly those related to the Iraq War. This was a direct response to massive issues with no-bid contracts awarded to companies with ties to high-ranking government officials, such as Halliburton.
3. 2009-2012: Urged Congress to conduct investigations into the billions of dollars spent on “reconstruction” projects in Iraq that failed to materialize or were poorly managed. I consistently pushed for more robust transparency and oversight measures, speaking out against the disastrous consequences of unchecked spending in conflict zones.
4. 2011-2012: As a ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, I called for audits on military contractors and their role in fueling waste and corruption. One of the biggest examples I highlighted was the $61 million overcharge by Halliburton for transporting oil into Iraq.
My Call for Expanded Oversight: USAID and Other Agencies
In addition to the scrutiny of military contracts, I repeatedly called for comprehensive oversight of U.S. foreign aid and development programs. USAID has long been a channel through which billions of taxpayer dollars have been funneled abroad, often with little accountability or transparency. For years, I pushed for the auditing and review of USAID’s operations, specifically targeting the lack of measurable results in the countries it sought to “help.”
One of the most glaring examples came in the early 2000s, when billions in USAID funds were allocated to countries like Afghanistan and Iraq for reconstruction and development. There was little oversight into how those funds were being used, leading to ineffective and sometimes outright fraudulent projects.
I demanded oversight into USAID’s practice of funneling funds to for-profit companies, without competitive bidding and called for legislation enforcing stricter accountability measures.
The Pushback:
My efforts to root out waste, fraud, and corruption in military spending were often met with harsh criticism from both the mainstream media and political opponents, who characterized my calls for accountability as naive, unrealistic and damaging to national security.
The Wall Street Journal, in an editorial, called my opposition to military interventions misguided, suggesting that my views were out of touch with the political mainstream. Politico went as far as to label my approach idealistic and impractical.
On the political front, many of my Republican colleagues dismissed my positions as unpatriotic, arguing that scrutinizing defense spending would weaken the country’s ability to defend itself. But the problem wasn’t just with Republicans.
Democratic leadership, despite campaigning on promises to end wars, repeatedly voted to fund them once in office. Key figures like Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton supported the Iraq War authorization in 2002, and President Obama, despite vows to withdraw, continued the Iraq War and expanded military actions into Syria and Libya.
This hypocrisy—condemning endless wars while funding and escalating wars—allowed the military-industrial complex to thrive, betraying both the promises of peace and the trust of the American people.
The First Trump Administration
Unlike his Democratic predecessors, President Trump did not initiate new military conflicts during his first term. While the U.S. remained engaged in existing wars, particularly in Syria and Afghanistan, Trump made efforts to reduce troop deployments and avoid escalating military action. This stood in stark contrast to the actions of previous Democratic administrations, which, despite campaign promises to end wars, continued or expanded military engagements once in office.
Trump’s stance on reducing foreign military involvement marked a departure from the longstanding cycle of military escalation under Democratic leadership. Yet, even as he moved toward peace and restraint abroad, his first administration’s approach to military spending remained largely influenced by the military-industrial complex—a reality he must confront more directly in his 2025 agenda.
The Trump administration’s fiscal approach was entrenched in the military-industrial complex. Trump advocated for increasing military spending, and in 2019, his administration requested $732 billion for the Department of Defense for FY2020 alone—reflecting a continuation of the military-driven fiscal expansion.
Notably, the Trump administration also continued to rely heavily on private military contractors, which flourished during this period. With little oversight, defense spending and contracts grew, with military companies like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Boeing benefiting enormously.
One of the more controversial policies was the Trump administration’s continued involvement in the war in Afghanistan, where taxpayer dollars were flowing into both military operations and private contractors, despite bipartisan calls for an end to the conflict.
The second Trump Administration must focus on rooting out the massive, systemic corruption and corporate giveaways that continue to drain our resources and undermine our national security.
Will President Trump now reign in military spending and fight the entrenched interests that have profited from endless war?
The Biden Administration:
The Biden administration’s 2023 budget proposed a military spending request of $813 billion. This included funds for continued involvement in global conflicts, counterterrorism operations, and military contractors.
While the Biden administration has faced criticism for its handling of the war in Afghanistan, it also made efforts to address the domestic impacts of military spending, focusing on rebuilding infrastructure and increasing social safety nets. However, waste, fraud, and abuse continued to plague the system. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), for example, reported more than $100 billion in improper Medicare and Medicaid payments in 2023, echoing concerns about the massive inefficiencies within federal spending.
With Dick Cheney’s endorsement of the 2024 Democratic presidential nominee, the Democrats were officially recognized as the war contractors’ party, with Trump as a threat to business as usual.
Cheney’s endorsement of the Democratic nominee marked a pivotal shift in the political landscape, where the party that once claimed to stand against endless wars had now fully embraced the military-industrial complex.
It’s encouraging to see that in recent years a growing number of Americans and lawmakers are beginning to recognize the dangers of unchecked military spending and corruption. However, the consequences of years of waste, fraud, and abuse will take years to undo. The growing recognition of the necessity of reform must translate into transparency and fiscal discipline.
This Administration must be made aware of glaring examples of waste and corruption which, in the past, became “business as usual:”
$10 Billion in Cash… Vanished
After the U.S. invasion of Iraq, over $10 billion in freshly minted $100 bills, shrink-wrapped into bundles of $75,000 each, were placed on skids and loaded onto a C-130 transport to be flown from the United States directly to the U.S.’ Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Baghdad.
Over $10 BILLION in CASH disappeared in an orgy of corruption, ultimately ending up in the hands of enemies of the United States. That the money derived from proceeds from the sale of Iraq oil compounded the corruption, placing an exclamation point on zero accountability in protecting Iraq’s money or, as you will see, the taxpayers.
A Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan estimated the cost of waste, fraud, and abuse to be upwards of $60 BILLION, deriving from a lack of oversight, no internal controls in keeping track of who received the money, who spent it, and what it was spent for—and if indeed its purpose was accomplished.
A 2007 audit of Iraq Reconstruction couldn’t determine how $1.3 BILLION for Iraq internal security was spent.
Well-connected government contractors cashed in, overcharging the government for tens of millions, notably Halliburton, which overcharged the government $61 million for transporting oil into Iraq.
DynCorp nicked U.S. taxpayers for millions, inflating Iraq contract costs and billing the U.S. for unauthorized projects, like an Olympic-sized swimming pool built in a war zone.
RTX (Raytheon) was caught in a web of no-bid contracts, involving bribery, fraud, lying about labor and material costs, and double-billing. RTX (Raytheon) paid back $950 million in a settlement last October.
Trillions of hard-earned U.S. taxpayer dollars were spent on a war based on lies, notably the biggest one: that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) ready to use against the U.S. Iraq did not.
Years later, the WMDs have been discovered, not in Iraq, but in Washington. Lying is a Weapon of Mass Destruction. Corruption is a Weapon of Mass Destruction. A $37 trillion dollar deficit is a Weapon of Mass Destruction.
This is the war machine of wealth transfer at work. Each conflict escalates the flow of public money into private hands, further enriching defense contractors, military suppliers, and multinational corporations, while the costs of war—lives lost, communities shattered, and nations destabilized—are borne by the public. The more destruction and chaos generated abroad, the more contracting opportunities arise, providing new revenue streams for those who profit off the war economy.
The federal government needs to be cleaned from top to bottom. It must align with the principles expressing the connection between honest government and freedom. Those principles were implicit in Benjamin Franklin’s warning to the Constitutional Convention on September 17, 1787, in which he forecast the insidious danger and reciprocal nature of a corrupt government which corrupts the public and thereby induces despotism:
“… I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government, but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe further that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government.”
As he was leaving Independence Hall, Franklin was asked by Elizabeth Willing Powell, “Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?”
His reply, bids us to be eternally vigilant citizens, if we are to remain free:
“A Republic, if you can keep it.”
Khamenei: Negotiations with US have no effect on solving problems
Press TV – February 7, 2025
Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei says experience has shown that negotiations with the US have no effect on solving Iran’s problems.
His remarks in a meeting with Air Force personnel in Tehran on Friday came hours after the US imposed its first sanctions in the wake of President Donald Trump’s signing of an order to reimpose his “maximum pressure” on Iran.
“Some people pretend that if we sit at the negotiating table, some problem will be solved, but the fact that we must understand correctly is that negotiating with the US has no effect on solving the country’s problems.”
He cited the experience of 2015 when Iran and six other countries, including the US, signed the now-dormant Joint Comprehensive of Plant of Action (JCPOA) after two years of negotiations, only to be discarded by President Trump in 2018.
Ayatollah Khamenei recalled the grueling back and forth, which included a 15-minute stroll by then-US Secretary of State John Kerry and Mohammad Javad Zarif in downtown Geneva and along the Rhone River which landed the former Iranian foreign minister in hot water.
“Our government at the time sat down and negotiated – they continued to come and go, they sat down and stood up and negotiated, they talked, laughed, shook hands, made friends, everyone worked, and a treaty was formed.
“In this treaty, the Iranian side was very generous, giving many concessions to the other side. But the Americans did not implement the same treaty,” the Leader said.
“The same person who is in office now tore up the treaty. He said he would tear it down and he did; they didn’t act upon” the agreement, he said, referring to Trump.
“Therefore, negotiating with such a government is unwise, unintelligent and dishonorable and there should be no negotiation with it.”
Before Trump, even the US administration which had accepted the agreement, did not comply with it, the Leader said, referring to the government of president Barack Obama which had signed it.
“The treaty was meant to lift US sanctions, but they were not lifted. Adding insult into injury, they had the UN to have a constant threat hanging over Iran. This treaty was the product of negotiations that lasted about two years.”
Iran is currently in the midst of celebrations marking the anniversary of the Islamic Revolution which sealed the fate of the US-backed Pahlavi regime in 1979.
Every year on February 8, Iranian Air Force personnel meet the Leader to relive the historic allegiance of Air Force officers with the late founder of the Islamic Republic Imam Khomeini in 1979. The event is viewed as a turning point which led to the victory of the Islamic Revolution three days later.
Ayatollah Khamenei said the Americans are busy working “on paper to change the map of the world”, with Iran also being the subject of their plans.
“Of course, it’s only on paper, it has no reality. They also talk about us, make comments, and threaten us,” the Leader said.
Ayatollah Khamenei said, “If they threaten us, we will threaten them. If they put their threat into practice, we will do the same. If they attack the security of our nation, we will attack their security without hesitation.”
“This is a lesson taken from the Qur’an and the teachings of Islam, and it is our duty to act as such. We hope that God Almighty will make us successful in carrying out our duties,” he added.
Compatible Left Joins Imperialism in Celebrating Defeat of Syria
By Stansfield Smith | Covert Action Magazine | January 8, 2025
It may be no surprise that the “mainstream” corporate news media have turned into advertising agencies for U.S. government policy. But it still surprises that what the CIA called a compatible left—those on the left it deemed compatible with maintaining imperialist rule—celebrates another successful U.S. “regime change,” this time, in Syria.
Portside, which assembles daily news articles that it advertises as “being of interest to people on the left,” ran an article, “Liberation in Syria Is a Victory Worth Embracing” by Layla Maghribi, which criticized “some self-styled Western ‘anti-imperialists’” for their lack of enthusiasm for the “victory.” While it does note that Israel bombed Syria 220 times up to mid-November this past year, one finds no mention of the long U.S. blockade imposed on Syrians.
CounterPunch has been a compatible left website outspoken in its hostility toward those exposing U.S. coup operations in Syria.
On December 10, CounterPunch published “Understanding the Rebellion in Syria” an interview with Swiss-Syrian socialist Joseph Daher. The introduction made the outlandish assertion that “some on the Left have claimed without foundation that their rebellion was orchestrated by the U.S. and Israel.” Daher himself in turn said that “the U.S. nor Israel had a hand in these events. In fact, the opposite is the case.”
Daher goes on to write off as “campists” and “tankies” those of us who recognize the obvious, “that this military offensive is led by ‘Al-Qaeda and other terrorists’ and that it is a Western-imperialist plot against the Syrian regime intended to weaken the so-called ‘Axis of Resistance’ led by Iran and Hezbollah… [T]he campists claim that the fall of Assad weakens it and therefore undermines the struggle for the liberation of Palestine.”
On December 11, CounterPunch turned to academic Stephen Zunes for an “exclusive interview,” presenting him as a “foreign policy expert” for the left.
Zunes, however, is on the advisory board of International Center for Nonviolent Conflict (ICNC); a group whose founder and primary funder was Peter Ackerman, a member of the Executive Committee of the Atlantic Council and chair of Freedom House. Also, back in 2011, Zunes praised the U.S.-NATO destruction of Qaddafi’s Libya in Truthout.
In the interview, Zunes impugned Assad for his “savage repression” and “endemic corruption” and blamed him for Syria’s growing poverty without mentioning the draconian U.S. sanctions policy or ravaging effects of a war that had been triggered by outsiders.
Zunes went on to characterize the anti-Assad rebels as a “popular resistance movement,” obscuring its domination by jihadist elements, and said that the rebellion “would have happened regardless of U.S. policy,” which obscures the crucial nature of U.S. support.
Zunes showed his true colors subsequently when he defended President Barack Obama, who inaugurated the largest covert operations in Syria since the 1980s Afghan mujahadin and illegally bombed Syria based on fraudulent pretexts, a phony charge of chemical weapons attacks.[1]
According to Zunes, “Many of these Western ‘anti-imperialists’ are themselves stuck in an imperialist mindset which denies agency to people of color in the Global South (or Slavs in Eastern Europe) who are struggling for their freedom against tyranny.”
However, the struggle against tyranny in this case was financed heavily by outside powers, including the U.S., and was led not by “freedom fighters” but jihadist terrorists who came from 84 different countries.
CounterPunch has long supported the fake “Syrian revolution.” They refuse to publish anti-imperialist writers such as Ben Norton, who reported, “a bombshell declassified 2012 memo from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) reveals that, from the start, ‘The Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria.’ AQI is a reference to Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which later evolved into ISIS.”
Even the New York Times disclosed—seven years ago—that the CIA had already spent more than $1 billion to overthrow Assad, “one of the costliest covert action programs in the history of the C.I.A.”
Why do these “left” websites like CounterPunch cover up major CIA regime-change operations?
Truthout on December 11 ran its own pro-U.S. regime-change article, “As Assad Regime Falls, Syrians Celebrate — and Brace for an Uncertain Future” by Shireen Akram-Boshar, a socialist writer and Middle East/North Africa solidarity activist. The article repeats the same apologetics for U.S. imperial rule: “Contrary to common misconceptions, the U.S. and Israel did not aspire to remove Assad after 2013.”
Similarly, Democracy Now ignored the U.S. involvement in the operations against Assad and triumph of al-Qaeda and interviewed an AP reporter, Sarah El Deeb, who pointed to cheering crowds and expressed enthusiasm about the new Syria with Assad’s removal from power.
El Deeb further echoed the mainstream media in pointing out human rights abuses allegedly committed by Assad, while ignoring the record of ethnic cleansing, suicide bombings and massacres carried out by the rebel forces backed by the U.S. which have now succeeded in deposing Assad.
John Feffer of the Institute for Policy Studies published a more sensible article, but one that still covered up the U.S. economic blockade’s destruction of Syria as well as its long regime-change operation. Feffer also repeats the U.S. line that the Syrian government used chemical weapons attacks, even though Seymour Hersh, MIT scientist Theodore Postol and The Grayzone showed that the U.S. concocted this story.
None of the compatible left websites mentioned the words of Biden and Netanyahu, who with legitimate reason took credit for the fall of Assad.
Netanyahu recognized the Assad government as “a central link in Iran’s axis of evil.” The Axis of Resistance to the Israeli-U.S. anti-Palestinian genocidal bloc includes Hamas, Iran, Hezbollah, Assad’s Syria, and Yemen. The Israeli butcher proudly acknowledged the overthrow “is a direct result of the blows we have inflicted on Iran and Hezbollah, the main supporters of the Assad regime.”
Biden spoke likewise: “Neither Russia nor Iran nor Hezbollah could defend this abhorrent regime in Syria. This is a direct result of the blows that Ukraine and Israel have delivered upon their own self-defense with unflagging support of the United States.” Indeed, Israel inflicted heavy damage on Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Russia remains tied up combating the U.S.-instigated war in Ukraine.
Some of the compatible left—LA Progressive and Common Dreams, both orbiting the Democratic Party—ran honest articles on the U.S. role.
On December 11-12, Common Dreams posted “The West Celebrates Assad’s Fall, But What Comes Next May Be Even Worse,” and Jeffrey Sachs’ excellent “How the US and Israel Destroyed Syria and Called it Peace.”
The former noted the so-called “liberation” was “cheered by U.S. President Joe Biden and other major Western leaders, like French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz.” It asked the obvious question: “[W]hy is the West cheering for al Qaeda and its allies?” Indeed, and why are these compatible lefties following suit?
It continues: “Since the fall of Assad, Israel has already carried out hundreds of airstrikes across Syria, targeting airports, naval bases, and military infrastructure. And the U.S. Central Command announced that it has struck more than 75 targets, including ISIS leaders, operatives, and camps…
The Obama administration provided support to the anti-Assad forces, primarily to the Free Syrian Army forces and its affiliates, but the CIA began to support other groups as early as 2013 even though they had jihadi orientations. CIA’s covert operation against the Syrian regime, known as Timber Sycamore, was a joint effort with Saudi Arabia that had long ties with radical Islamist groups…
Syria was under imperialist attack for the past 13 years. The U.S. (along with Turkey) backed and funded mercenaries and terrorist forces against Assad’s regime, imposed economic isolation of the country through sanctions, and denied plans that would have contributed to reconstruction even though aid was desperately needed for civilians.”
Jeffrey Sachs (also here and here) pointed out that U.S. destruction of Syria was planned since 1996. General Wesley Clark revealed in an interview clip, probably seen by leftists of all stripes, that, back in 2001, after Afghanistan, the U.S. intended to wage war and overthrow seven more states in the Middle East: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. The only one not yet destroyed is Iran.
The Long U.S. War Against Syria
Relying on deadly sanctions, an invisible form of carpet bombing, the U.S. starved the Syrian people and hollowed out the Syrian economy until it collapsed.
Before 2011, Syria, just like Qaddafi’s Libya, was a thriving nation, self-sufficient in energy and food, with free health care, free education and no national debt. Then the U.S. and its NATO and Gulf allies orchestrated a dirty war, funding and arming sectarian terrorists to fragment Syria. These groups were deceitfully presented by many on the compatible left as part of a liberation movement.
Even David Sorenson, a professor at the U.S. Air War College recognized, “By 2015, aid to anti-Assad forces became the most expensive U.S. covert action program in history, topping 1 billion USD.” Since 2014, U.S. and Turkish military and proxy forces have occupied about one-third of Syrian territory and appropriated all its oil, gas, and wheat harvests.
Alena Douhan, UN Special Rapporteur on the effect of the U.S. economic blockade against Syria, reported, “The imposed sanctions have shattered the State’s capability to respond to the needs of the population, particularly the most vulnerable, and 90% of the people now live below the poverty line.” They have “limited access to food, water, electricity, shelter, cooking and heating fuel, transportation and healthcare.” The World Food Programme states that almost 13 million Syrians, half the population, lack sufficient food.
How many died from these measures we do not know, but the similar draconian U.S. blockade on Venezuela killed 40,000 in a year and a half.
Douhan continues, “With more than half of the vital infrastructure either completely destroyed or severely damaged, the imposition of unilateral sanctions on key economic sectors, including oil, gas, electricity, trade, construction and engineering have quashed national income, and undermine efforts towards economic recovery and reconstruction.”
We should wonder who CounterPunch is serving when it publishes the claim that “Neither the U.S. nor Israel had a hand in these events.”
The “campists” or “tankies” CounterPunch refers to run the gamut—from Scott Ritter, Ron Paul, Vijay Prashad, Ben Norton, Glenn Greenwald, Colonel Douglas MacGregor, Aaron Maté and JD Vance to Sara Flounders.
They share opposition to the endless neo-con wars advocated by Obama, Hillary, Biden and Cheney.
We find, once again, sectors of the compatible left functioning as a conveyor belt for U.S. regime-change propaganda broadcast into the progressive and anti-war movements, telling us to celebrate another successful U.S. imperial operation.
Meanwhile, the struggle of the Middle East to free itself from U.S.-Israeli domination has suffered a major defeat, on top of that inflicted on Hezbollah and Gaza. The Palestinians’ situation has worsened, Iran is next on the U.S. hit list, and Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua are not far behind. Our active solidarity is needed now more than ever.
- Zunes said that “President Obama had been subjected to unfair criticism both for providing some support for the resistance as well as for not doing enough.”
Trump posts video slamming Netanyahu, US wars for Israel
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | January 8, 2025
President-elect Donald Trump shared a video featuring Columbia professor Jeffery Sachs sharply criticizing US Middle East policy and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanahu’s role in leading the US into wars.
In the video, Sachs says Netanyahu is “a deep, dark son of a bitch” who led the US into multiple follies in the Middle East and now wants America to fight a war with Iran on Israel’s behalf. “Netanyahu had, from 1995 onward, the theory that the only way we’re going to get rid of Hamas and Hezbollah is by toppling the governments that support them. That’s Iraq, Iran and Syria. The guy is nothing if not obsessive.” The professor continued, “He’s gotten us into endless wars and because of the power of all of this in U.S. politics, he’s gotten his way.”
In 2002, Netanyahu gave an address to Congress to help sell Americans on going to war in Iraq. “If you take out Saddam, Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region,” the Israeli Prime Minister said. “And I think that people sitting right next door in Iran, young people, and many others, will say the time of such regimes, of such despots is gone.”
The Iraq War would result in hundreds of thousands of murdered Iraqi civilians, thousands of dead Americans, trillions of dollars spent, and a government in Baghdad more aligned with Tehran. Additionally, the power vacuum created by the fall of Saddam’s government led to the rise of al-Qaeda in Iraq and the Islamic State.
As of 2019, a majority of Americans believed the war in Iraq was not worth fighting and a mistake.
After the US disposed of Saddam, the Iraqi people elected a Shi’ite-led government that favored strong ties with Tehran. Washington and its Middle East allies then became concerned that there now existed a “Shi’ite Crescent” in the region stretching from Iran to Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.
Professor Sachs explains that President Barack Obama then ordered the CIA to launch an operation that supported Sunni militant groups in Syria attempting to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad. At the time, the Defense Intelligence Agency warned that the CIA’s support for Sunni groups could result in the creation of an Islamic Caliphate.
Sach’s criticisms of US foreign policy and Israel’s influence in Washington’s politics have resulted in attacks from high-ranking Israeli officials. Diaspora Affairs Minister Amichai Chikli said Sachs was in a group of “fringe Holocaust deniers, conspiracy theorists, and blood libel enthusiasts who oppose the State of Israel.”
In the video, a two-minute compilation of a longer interview posted by Wall Steet Apes, Sachs slams the US media for failing to cover the CIA’s support for the opposition to Assad, noting the New York Times only mentioned the operation, dubbed Timber Sycamore, three times.
Trump has labeled himself as the “best friend” of Israel and has promised to increase support for the Jewish State after he returns to the White House.
US judge awards pro-regime change journo Shane Bauer $113 million seized from Iran
By Alexander Rubinstein and Max Blumenthal · The Grayzone · January 1, 2025
UPDATE: U.S. District Senior Judge Richard J. Leon has awarded pro-regime change journalist Shane Bauer a whopping $113 million in money seized from Iran by the US sanctions regime.
Together with his ex-wife, Sarah Shourd, and their friend, Joshua Fattal, Bauer sued the Iranian government for millions in damages they claim to have incurred during their two year-long imprisonment in Tehran. The three Americans were arrested by Iranian soldiers near the border of the Kurdistan region of Iraq in 2009. At the time, Bauer was studying in Damascus, Syria on a US Department of Defense-sponsored fellowship. Judge Leon ruled that “Iran is liable for false imprisonment,” and “for intentional infliction of severe emotional distress as to all plaintiffs.”
Leon has awarded Bauer, Fattal, Shourd and their families more than $500 million in seized Iranian state funds which could have been used to purchase medicine, sanitation equipment and food for citizens of the heavily sanctioned nation. As The Grayzone reported below, “Bauer and his ex-wife, Shourd, posed as staunch opponents of US sanctions against Iran and other nations. In 2016, for example, Bauer characterized Hillary Clinton’s call for Iran sanctions as ‘totally irresponsible.’ Shourd, for her part, condemned sanctions against Iran for ‘hitting the poorest of Iranians the hardest.’”
Bauer is currently reporting from Damascus, where the former Al Qaeda affiliate Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) has toppled the Syrian government and assumed power – a development he appeared to support. He and his fellow plaintiffs have not commented on the judgment they received against Iran.
Judge Leon’s full decision can be viewed here.
Below, in their initial August 30, 2022 report on Bauer’s lawsuit against Iran, Alexander Rubinstein and Max Blumenthal detail his history of agitation for Western-sponsored regime change operations across the globe, and his record of sordid attacks on The Grayzone, including his promotion of a failed frivolous lawsuit that aimed to destroy this publication.
Over a decade since he rose to prominence as a protagonist in an international drama of espionage and imprisonment, American journalist Shane Bauer and his family filed suit against Iran’s government in a Washington DC-based US District Court, seeking compensation for $10 million in damages resulting from his two year detention in Tehran.
Bauer’s ex-wife Sarah Shourd and their friend, Joshua Fattal, filed simultaneous lawsuits, seeking $10,000 and $10 million respectively.
The trio’s cases were filed in a Washington DC federal court with Judge Richard J. Leon – the same justice who ordered the Iranian government to pay the Washington Post’s Jason Rezaian $180 million in damages for his 18-month detention in the country.
In 2011, an Iranian court sentenced Bauer and Fattal to a total of eight years in prison each after they were convicted of illegally crossing the country’s border and spying for the United States. The two each served a total of two years, while Shourd was granted a compassionate release from Iranian prison after 13 months of detention.
Before his imprisonment, Bauer trekked throughout Africa and the Middle East while working as an English teacher and roaming reporter, racking up an impressive collection of passport stamps. Following his 2011 release, he established himself as a journalist specializing in undercover investigations, working a stint as a senior reporter for Mother Jones magazine in between various freelance gigs.
Bauer simultaneously emerged as a prolific apologist for US-backed regime change operations from Syria to Nicaragua, while justifying the US assassination of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani. A relentless antagonist of anti-interventionist public figures, he has pushed for big tech platforms to censor media personalities that challenged Washington’s regime change agenda.
Bauer has even promoted a failed legal action against The Grayzone by a fellow journalist who had received a large sum of assets seized by the US government from Iran.
In 2018, Bauer’s book of undercover reporting, “American Prison,” which saw him take a job as a prison guard to gain inside access to a private prison, wound up on former President Barack Obama’s “Favorite Books of 2018.”
By the following year, as Bauer’s journalistic output declined, his attacks on anti-war media figures only escalated. Today, many of his most malicious tweets have been scrubbed, he is no longer employed by Mother Jones, and he says he is “working on a book about Americans in the Syrian war.” If Bauer scores a lucrative payout in US federal court, however, he may never need to worry about a freelance fee again.
And if successful, he and his former cellmates will ultimately be paid out with Iranian government assets seized by the United States through its international sanctions regime. In other words, the trio plans to benefit from looted public funds which Tehran could have otherwise used to purchase medicine, food, or fund social programs for its people.
Studies have found that the “Iranian economy and households are affected enormously” by sanctions targeting the country’s oil exports. In one particularly egregious instance of theft, the US government seized an Iranian oil tanker in 2021 and hauled it to Texas, where it sold the stolen crude for $110 million.
Before launching their lawsuits, Bauer and his ex-wife, Shourd, posed as staunch opponents of US sanctions against Iran and other nations. In 2016, for example, Bauer characterized Hillary Clinton’s call for Iran sanctions as “totally irresponsible.” Shourd, for her part, condemned sanctions against Iran for “hitting the poorest of Iranians the hardest.”
Bauer’s sudden bid for millions of dollars seized from the Iranian people by the US government raises new questions about a character whose journalistic career was shrouded in suspicion.
Long before his arrest in Iran, Bauer’s moves throughout Africa and the Middle East tracked closely with US foreign policy initiatives, and were sponsored by a US Department of Defense fellowship for several years.
To top it off, the lawyer Bauer enlisted to secure millions from Iran’s government counts one of Washington’s most infamous spies among her previous clients.
“the lack of coordination on the part of these hikers… indicates an intent to agitate”
The background to Bauer’s lawsuit originates in a July 2009 expedition he, his then-girlfriend Sarah Shourd, and their friend Joshua Fattal took to the Iranian border, where they were subsequently arrested.
The three Bay Area natives and self-described social justice activists insisted that their incursion into Iran was the result of an honest mistake. They claimed to have crossed the border unknowingly during a hiking trip near the Ahmad Awa waterfall in Iraq’s Sulaymaniyah Province, a region which fell under control of US-backed Kurdish militias following the US invasion of 2003.
According to Bauer’s legal complaint, when Iranian border guards arrested him and his companions, “Shane and Mr. Fattal instead became limp, as they would often do when protesting.”
While in Iranian custody, Bauer’s captors discovered photographs on Shourd’s camera showing they had visited Tel Aviv, Israel. The two said they traveled to Israel to visit an American friend, Tristan Anderson, who had been badly wounded and hospitalized by an Israeli teargas canister during a protest against Israel’s apartheid wall.
During Bauer’s trial, an Iranian judge listed each of the entry stamps on his second passport. They included Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Lebanon, Sudan and Israel.
Iran’s government was not the only party that rejected the trio’s excuses for their presence on the border. An Iraqi police officer claimed to the Iranian TV station Al-Alam the hikers were “working with the CIA.”
Meanwhile, a classified 2010 US military report stated that “the lack of coordination on the part of these hikers, particularly after being forewarned [of their proximity to the Iranian border], indicates an intent to agitate and create publicity regarding international policies on Iran.”
While Shourd denounced the US military assessment as “ridiculous,” her and her friends’ visit to the Iranian border came at a precarious time for the country’s government.
Indeed, their arrest occurred just weeks after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a firebrand personality considered hostile to the West, secured reelection by a nearly 30 percent margin. The result sparked massive demonstrations in Tehran and gave way to the so-called “Green Movement,” a sustained protest campaign against Ahmadinejad’s mandate that eventually aided the 2014 electoral victory of Iran’s reformist bloc.
Throughout the summer of 2009, Western media granted the “Green Movement” wall to wall coverage, crediting it with drawing the largest protest crowds since Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution. In her memoir of captivity, Shourd recounted that during a trip to Sweden, “Stockholm’s sizable expatriate Iranian community protested in solidarity with the uprising in their home country.”
“My brother, Alex, and I documented the anti-Iran rally in Sweden,” she recalled.
Shourd later wrote that while imprisoned in Iran, the Green Movement “made me want to participate in undermining the regime that was causing me and my family so much pain.”
When the story of “Three American Hikers Held Hostage in Iran” emerged in July 2009, their tale was presented as further proof of the embattled government in Tehran’s anti-American sentiment and lack of regard for human rights. Shourd later expressed gratitude to the Iranian government “for using us to further deepen your own crisis of legitimacy around the world and with your own people.”
Their detention also corresponded with the launch of President Barack Obama’s economic assault on Tehran, a strategy which saw Washington levy hefty financial sanctions against Iran’s government in a bid to force it to negotiate limits on its domestic nuclear program.
Bauer’s lawyer represented top US spy jailed in Cuba
Bauer’s lawsuit accused the Iranian government of a slew of crimes against both himself and his family. Notably, it claims Bauer was subjected to torture, assault, and battery while in Iranian custody.
Bauer’s 2014 memoir, “A Sliver of Light,” which he co-authored with Shroud and Fattal, offers a strikingly different narrative, however. In the book, Bauer recalled taunting a prison guard to assault him and acknowledged that Iranian authorities were reluctant to do so.
“If he can’t frighten me, all he can do is hit me, and if he does that, he will be hurting himself,” Bauer explained.
“We are hostages, and hostages are currency, and currency is not to be damaged. Making him beat me is my only way to fight back,” he continued, after saying he repeatedly screamed at the guard: “Hit me!”
While Bauer’s lawsuit appeared to contradict the account offered in his memoir, it is far from an amateurish legal complaint. He and his family are represented by Emily P. Grim, a partner at the elite Gilbert, LLP law firm, which is located just blocks from the US Capitol.
Grim’s biography on Gilbert’s website boasts: “Her clients include Alan Gross, an American jailed in Cuba from 2009 to 2014 for his work on a U.S. Government project to increase Internet access in Cuba’s Jewish community, and Amir Hekmati, a former U.S. Marine imprisoned in Iran from 2011 to 2016 on false charges of espionage.”
Before he became Grim’s most famous client, Alan Gross was arrested by Cuban security officers in 2009. At the time, Gross was working for the United States Agency for International Development, or USAID, a soft power arm of American foreign policy that has overseen countless destabilization plots around the globe. The USAID program that sponsored Gross’ work in Cuba was funded through the 1996 Helms-Burton Act, a US law that explicitly called for regime change in Cuba.
When Cuban authorities apprehended Gross during his fifth trip to the country, they discovered his phone was linked to a SIM card that was distributed exclusively by the Pentagon and the CIA. The USAID employee had previously smuggled large amounts of illicit technology into Cuba, apparently as part of an effort to establish a network of covert internet access points throughout the country.
Amir Hekmati is the second-most notable client of Bauer’s lawyer, Emily Grim. A former marine, Hekmati helped develop a translation system financed by the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Project Agency, or DARPA. Iran jailed Hekmati and sentenced him to death after convicting him on espionage charges. Following the diplomatic breakthrough of the Iran-US nuclear deal, he was released in 2016 as part of a prisoner swap.
Though Hekmati was initially rewarded a $20 million payout of seized Iranian assets, the Department of Justice eventually cut him off when the FBI became suspicious that the American had traveled to Iran to sell classified information about US operations in Afghanistan to the government, and not to visit his grandmother as he claimed.
Despite angry protestations, Grim’s firm has been unsuccessful in persuading the courts to complete her client’s payout.
Gilbert LLP has not responded to multiple emailed requests from The Grayzone regarding Bauer’s lawsuit. Bauer and Shourd have also ignored requests for comment delivered by Twitter and email.
Bauer sponsored by Pentagon grant that mandates “contributing to the national security of the United States”
Shane Bauer has lashed out at anyone who has accused him of having worked with the US government. However, his memoir raised more questions about his relationship with Washington than it has answered.
In one particularly revealing section, Bauer recalled an interrogation he experienced at the hands of an English-speaking Iranian he nicknamed “Weasel.”
“In our other sessions, you listed twenty-four countries that you have been to. Who funded those trips?” Weasel asked Bauer, who was 29 at the time.
“I know what he is getting at,” Bauer recalled, “and it is a legitimate question. If I can’t account for my funds, how can I prove that I am not being funded by the CIA? The problem is, I don’t think my honest answer is that believable.”
Bauer ultimately told Weasel that he saved money while “working as a welder” until he was 19 before traveling “through Europe and the Middle East.”
“Does this asshole believe a word I’m saying?” Bauer recalled wondering.
The line of questioning proceeded with Weasel asking whether the US government paid for any of Bauer’s trips.
“Shit! He knows about the grant…” wrote Bauer. ‘No,’ I say.”
Bauer was referring to the Boren Award, a Department of Defense sponsored grant that covered his Arabic studies in Yemen and Syria. When “Weasel” asked who funded the program, Bauer once again admitted to lying, telling him it was the State Department.
From Bauer’s co-authored account of captivity in Iran, “Sliver of Light”
Boren fellowship recipients are required to pay back their award through governmental service by “contributing to the national security of the United States in the Department of Defense, any element of the intelligence community, the Department of Homeland Security, or the Department of State.”
From the Boren Awards website
In less common instances, Boren recipients are allowed to fulfill their obligations to the US government in other departments. However, the overwhelming majority of grantees do so with the aforementioned agencies. Bauer never specified whether or not he fulfilled his obligation to the fellowship – or how he did it. He did claim, however, that the professor who encouraged him to apply for the grant stated none of their students actually went into government.
Yet when journalist David Ravicher inquired with a Boren representative about the program, he was informed “that 98 percent of its recipients fulfill this requirement and the rest receive deferments. Otherwise, the Treasury Department hunts them down.”
Before stepping into Iran, Bauer winds strange trail through the region
Shane Bauer entered journalism while enrolled at the University of California-Berkeley’s Peace and Conflict Studies program, which he graduated in 2007. It was at UC-Berkley where he met Shourd.
Bauer’s first dabbled in undercover journalism while in Yemen in 2005. At the time, the Houthi movement had just launched its insurgency against the Yemeni government. The civil conflict eventually triggered a brutal and ongoing military intervention by the US, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE to crush the Houthi advance.
According to the UC-Berkeley Alumni Association’s newsletter, Bauer was employed in Yemen by “a pro-government, English-language paper.” While the Alumni Association did not say which paper that was, Bauer earned a byline in 2005 from the Yemen Observer, a paper founded by the longtime press secretary to then-President Ali Abdullah Saleh.
Bauer eventually “decided to sneak into a city occupied by Houthi rebels which no Western journalist had visited,” the newsletter wrote. While disguised in local garb, Bauer and a British pal were detained by local authorities in the city of Saada and released a day later.
Bauer also spent two summers in the Darfur region of Sudan while enrolled at UC-Berkeley. At the time, between 2006-07, Darfur-based rebel groups from the Sudanese Liberation Army, or SLA, were facing international pressure to enact a peace deal with Sudanese President Omar Bashir, who was labeled a state sponsor of terror by the US.
In 2007, Bauer managed to score an interview with the vice intelligence director for SLA General Secretary Minni Minnawi, who had signed the deal. According to the Institute for International and Strategic Relations, a French think tank, Minnawi had been backed by the CIA as the only rebel faction leader to ink the agreement with Khartoum. He was later flown to Washington to meet with President George W. Bush. Today, he serves as the governor of Darfur while his forces fight in Libya under the command of Khalifa Haftar, another former CIA asset.
SLA General Secretary Minni Arko Minnawi and President George W. Bush
In his memoir of captivity in Iran, Bauer wrote that his interrogator demanded to know how he entered Sudan in 2007. The inquiry caused Bauer to worry that Iran may have been aware of his “history of government funding and my history of illegally crossing borders,” he recalled. Bauer told his interrogator that he “entered [Sudan] as a guest of the Sudanese Liberation Army.”
Not long after his jaunt into Darfur, Bauer arrived in Damascus, Syria with his then-girlfriend, Shourd, for several months. At the time, Washington was cultivating opposition to the government of President Bashar al-Assad through civil society networks around the country.
Bauer and Shourd said they studied Arabic at Damascus University, taught English to Iraqi refugees, and used the country as a base for reporting around the region. (On her personal webpage, Shourd says, “In 2007, I moved to Damascus, Syria…” In an interview with the Pulitzer Center, however, she states, “In 2008, I moved to Damascus, Syria…”)
A confidential November 2008 cable by Maura Connelly, then the Charges D’Affaires for the US Embassy in Damascus, identified English teachers and visiting Fulbright scholars in Syria as important cogs in US “public diplomacy” efforts against the government of President Bashar al-Assad.
The US embassy’s “English Language Fellow (ELF) for 2008-2009 remains in country and is using her numerous contacts among Syrian English teachers to conduct training in Damascus and country-wide,” Connelly noted.
Bauer and Shourd’s teacher in Damascus, Majid Rafizadeh, happened to have been on a Fulbright scholarship at the time. A Syrian-Iranian academic, Rafidzadeh has since emerged as a fervent supporter of Iranian regime change who has supplied testimony to Congress advancing the interventionist goals of hardline neoconservatives.
Bauer later reflected “how, back in 2009, my Syrian friends would fantasize about being rid of the dictator and his secret police, but no one could have imagined that the Arab Spring would come two years later.”
Bauer escalates online attacks, enters Syria under US occupation
Years after the so-called Arab Spring swept through the region like a hurricane, leaving unimaginable ruin in its wake, Bauer was still pumping out online attacks against prominent critics of US meddling.
By 2019, his attacks on opponents of the US-backed dirty war on Syria had grown so unhinged, his detractors began to taunt him with the refrain: “Take a hike.”
Bauer also took aim at former US Rep. Tulsi Gabbard for daring to criticize the US military occupation of northeastern Syria, insisting it was a noble anti-terrorist mission. In fact, Dana Stroul, a senior Biden Department of Defense official, has openly stated that the US military “owns” the “resource rich” region of Syria in order to exploit its wealth and starve Damascus into capitulating to the West’s agenda.
At the time, Bauer had recently returned from a visit to the US-occupied northeastern region of Syria for a series of field reports lamenting Washington’s refusal to remove Assad by force. Published in the May/June 2019 issue of Mother Jones, the series opened with a quote by a Kurdish border guard practically begging the US to plunder Syria’s natural wealth: “We have oil, so much oil. Let them stay and take the oil.”
Careful readers may be wondering whether Bauer entered the country legally or not. In fact, Syria’s government denied Bauer’s visa, prompting him to “sneak in” through the border controlled by the US military and its Kurdish allies.
Since Bauer’s reports from US-occupied Syria in 2019, he has produced only one article: a profile of a rogue local US police force for The New Yorker. That was nearly two years ago.
With no known sources of income apart from his two published books and the one apparently on the way, Bauer turned to the US government and the funds it seized from the Iranian people for a massive payday.
View the initial legal complaint, Shane Bauer v. the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, here.
Featured Video
Prof. Marandi on Iran & Venezuela: What’s Next?
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Panama: A Grieving People Recalls 30 Years of the US Invasion
teleSUR | December 20, 2019
For the first time over the last 30 years, Panamanian authorities agreed to declare “National Day of Mourning” on December 20, which is the date on which the United States invaded Panama in 1989.
“The government acknowledges declaring December 20 as a day of national mourning to honor Panamanians and all the innocents who lost their lives and defended our territory’s integrity,” President Laurentino Cortizo tweeted on Wednesday.
On Dec. 20, 1989, President George H.W. Bush ordered “Operation Just Cause” and deployed some 26,000 soldiers to overthrow General Manuel Antonio Noriega.
Until then, he had been one of the most faithful collaborators of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
Noriega fueled the Bush administration’s hostility when he requested the closure of “The School of the Americas,” where the U.S. had trained thousands of Latin American military since 1946. Upon losing Washington’s support, however, the U.S. Department of Justice accused him of drug trafficking. … continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
aletho on The US Has Invaded Venezuela t… John Edward Kendrick on The US Has Invaded Venezuela t… papasha408 on The US Has Invaded Venezuela t… loongtip on Palestine advocates praise NYC… Bill Francis on Did Netanyahu just ask Trump f… Rod on How Intelligence, Politics, an… papasha408 on Trump Says Hamas Will Be Given… papasha408 on Is Israel About to Return to G… Bill Francis on NSW Premier Admits New “Securi… Richard Ong on Israeli forces arrest writer a… Bill Francis on How reporting facts can now la… loongtip on Europe’s Panic Economy: Frozen…
Aletho News- Pakistan, the Gulf, and the high cost of Zionist alignment
- Recession-Hit Europe to Harm Own People by Giving Ukraine €800 Billion – Orban
- Britain’s Secret Role In Yugoslavia’s Destruction
- Behind the DOJ’s politicized indictment of Maduro: a CIA-created ‘network’ and coerced star witness
- Real Counter to US Nabbing Maduro: Quit Buying American Arms
- Prof. Marandi on Iran & Venezuela: What’s Next?
- Iran’s collapsing currency exposes the profiteers behind the crisis
- Israeli Intrigue in Venezuela?
- Department of War Claims No US Troops in Venezuela
- Beijing Urges US Not to Use ‘China Threat’ Narrative to Control Greenland
- If Americans Knew
- Israel’s role in Trump’s attacks on Venezuela
- Shrinking Gaza: Israel moves Yellow Line again – Not a ceasefire Day 88
- This is how Israeli settlers, backed by the military, erased a Palestinian village from existence last week
- Israel is waging a reproductive genocide against Palestinian mothers in Gaza
- With Their Breadwinners Killed, Gaza’s Children Turn to Begging to Survive
- Don’t forget: Israel is ruining the lives of West Bankers too – Not a ceasefire Day 87
- Shadowy Israel-linked org is poaching Gaza’s best doctors – Not a ceasefire Day 86
- Israel And Its Supporters Deliberately Foment Hate And Division In Our Society
- ADL’s J7: Biweekly Jewish Nationalism Think Tank
- Israel gives war profiteers sole control of life-saving Gaza aid: Report
- No Tricks Zone
- Berlin’s Terror-Blackout Enters 4th Day As Tens Of Thousands Suffer In Cold Without Heat!
- Expect Soon Another PIK Paper Claiming Warming Leads To Cold Snaps Over Europe
- New Study: Human CO2 Emissions Responsible For 1.57% Of Global Temperature Change Since 1750
- Welcome To 2026: Europe Laying Groundwork For Climate Science Censorship!
- New Study Finds A Higher Rate Of Global Warming From 1899-1940 Than From 1983-2024
- Meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue Warns “Germany Won’t Make It” If Winter Turns Severe
- Merry Christmas Everybody!
- 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
Aletho News 
