Saudi succession struggle enters home stretch
By M K Bhadrakumar | Indian Punchline | November 5, 2017
Within hours of a decree by the Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz on Sunday announcing the constitution of a new committee to combat corruption under the chairmanship of the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman [MBS], an unprecedented purge of top establishment figures unfolded, signaling a pre-planned political campaign. The purge involves the sacking and/or detention of dozens of princes, ministers and former ministers. Several senior ministers, including those in charge of the kingdom’s National Guard, economy, and planning have also been dismissed. Notably, billionaire Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal is among those detained. The security forces grounded private jets in Jeddah to stop any high-profile figures from leaving the country.
King Salman’s decree invests the new anti-corruption committee with draconian powers. The decree says that the anti-corruption committee shall be exempted from “laws, regulations, instructions, orders and decisions”, while performing its tasks of identifying “offenses, crimes, persons and entities involved in cases of public corruption.” It empowers MBS to issue “arrest warrants, travel ban, disclosure and freezing of accounts and portfolios, tracking of funds, assets” as well as take “precautionary measures”.
Corruption is synonymous with oligarchies and the House of Saud is no exception. The Saudi way is traditionally to throw money at problems. Make no mistake that Saturday’s purge signifies another step in the no-holds-barred attempt by the 32-year old Crown Prince for consolidating absolute political power and paving the way for his ascension as the next ruler. Evidently, MBS intends to strike fear into the hearts of the elites who could be rival power centres when the time for succession arrives, which could be in a conceivable future as per indications.
An intriguing twist to the tale lies in the recent speech by MBS at a ceremony launching a $500 billion project on the Red Sea where he vowed to “destroy extremism” and return to a “a moderate Islam open to the world and all religions”. MBS was addressing an international audience and the speech was widely interpreted as an attempt to give a new face of Saudi Arabia aimed at the Western world, primarily, by pressing all the buttons that the West may like to hear pushed about entrepreneurship, liberalism, moderate Islam.
However, such a facile explanation is insufficient. For, there is indeed a contradiction insofar as the Saudi royal family has traditionally depended on backing from the ultra-conservative religious establishment to ensure its claim to legitimacy, while under MBS’s watch during recent months, the regime has begun implementing unprecedented economic and social reforms that might potentially undermine the regime’s deeply conservative power base. The noted Saudi editor and opinion maker Jamal Kashoggi told Deutsche Welle in a recent interview his explanation of what MBS is attempting:
“It is hard for Saudi Arabia to disown Wahhabism, seeing as how it created a hard-line Salafi current that has been in power for 30 years… I believe that the prince’s (MBS) social and economic reforms enjoy wide popular support and great momentum… The country needs to be freed from the hard-line Salafi approach that has been prevailing for 30 years with the state’s permission… Today, the carpet has been pulled from underneath this current’s feet, and it does not have the strength to prevent reform… On the other hand, there will always be Saudi hardliners who oppose those reforms… but they are not sufficiently powerful to prevent that march… It is hard to disown Wahhabism… it is the basis on which the Kingdom was built. But it can replace it with a centrist Islam… There are modern Islamic ideas available to the state, and it can use them without having to announce its disowning of Wahhabism.
Doesn’t it look like a Saudi-style “cultural revolution” where ideology and reform become the leitmotif of what is at the core a transition in the calculus of political power? By means of liberalizing rhetoric, MBS is on the one hand engaging the West and appeasing ordinary Saudis (and even sections of conservative clerics), while on the other hand also aiming to consolidate his and his father’s power by removing opposition voices. Arguably, they form two sides of the same coin.
Clearly, there is a foreign-policy angle to all this, which will impact regional security. The Saudi Crown Prince cannot do without American backing. (The former Crown Prince Mohammed bin Naif, rival to MBS who was ousted earlier this year, used to be Washington’s favorite as successor to King Salman.) Now, the exit of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri on Saturday is the latest telling evidence of a growing US-Saudi-Israeli congruence. A relatively stable set-up in Beirut (involving co-habitation between Hariri and Hezbollah), which acquitted itself remarkably well in the war against terrorist groups, has been suddenly thrown into disarray. What follows next in Lebanon dovetails into the US-Israeli-Saudi strategy toward post-ISIS Syria and Iraq where the balance of forces currently works in favor of Iran. Interestingly, Hariri announced his resignation in a speech broadcast from Saudi Arabia following a meeting with MBS. (Read the report in Tehran Times titled Hariri makes surprise resignation under Saudi pressure.)
Saudi gamble risks plunging Lebanon into war
Press TV – November 5, 2017
Saad Hariri’s sudden resignation from Lebanon’s premiership, announced from Saudi Arabia, has raised fears that regional tensions were about to escalate and that the small country would once again pay a heavy price.
Hariri quit his post on Saturday in a televised speech broadcast by Saudi Arabia’s Al-Arabiya television, during which he appeared tense as he carefully read out from a written statement.
He claimed that he feared the same fate as his assassinated father and accused Iran and the Lebanese resistance movement Hezbollah of meddling in Arab countries’ affairs.
Hariri’s departure sent shockwaves through Lebanon as the country is struggling to maintain stability at a time when much of the Middle East is gripped by Takfiri violence rooted in Saudi Arabia.
Lebanon’s Minister of Justice Salim Jreissati said the development was “confusing and suspicious in its timing and location as well as the way it was delivered and the content of the resignation.”
“The optics are terrible — for Hariri to resign from Riyadh, imagine how his audience [in Lebanon] feels watching that,” said Emile Hokayem, a regional analyst at the Institute for Strategic Studies.
“God protect Lebanon from the evil of Saudi Arabia’s reckless adventures,” Sheikh Nabil Kawouk, a member of Hezbollah’s central committee, told Lebanon’s Al Jadeed television.
Last week, Qatar’s former prime minister Hamad bin Jassim revealed how the US coordinated support by Doha, Riyadh and Ankara for terrorists operating against the Syrian government.
Syria has always been a thorn in the side of Israel. The Arab country is part of the “axis of resistance” along with Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Iran, which has brought Daesh to the brink of elimination.
The triangle of Saudi Arabia, Israel and the US is alarmed and the prospect of an eventual triumph of this axis which has now become inevitable has prompted them to take drastic measures.
On Friday, as Syria began celebrating the capture of Dayr al-Zawr, Nusra Front terrorists launched a massive assault on a Druze village neighboring the occupied Golan Heights.
According to Syrian state media, the onslaught was carried out with Israeli coordination and assistance but Tel Aviv used the occasion to threaten direct intervention in the war.
Hariri’s resignation over what he called Hezbollah’s “grip” on Lebanon is the latest drastic step which Saudi Arabia and its allies have taken to tip the scales even at the cost of turning Lebanon into another Syria.
With the prime minister out of the political landscape, the architects of the new “plot” could claim that Lebanon was exclusively under Hezbollah’s control. That idea was articulated by Israeli minister of military affairs Avigdor Lieberman on Saturday.
“Lebanon=Hezbollah. Hezbollah=Iran. Lebanon=Iran,” he tweeted.
Hariri was appointed as the Lebanese premier in late 2016, after two years of political deadlock in the country. He formed a national unity government that included almost all of the main political parties in Lebanon, including Hezbollah.
Under the Lebanese constitution, the prime minister should be picked from among the Sunni community, but Saudi Arabia has tried to use the prerogative to maintain its influence in the country.
Riyadh says the government should be purged of Hezbollah, especially at a time when the resistance movement is emerging stronger from the Syria conflict.
Over the past few weeks, Saudi Arabia’s Minister of State for Persian Gulf Affairs Thamer al-Sabhan had unleashed a series of vitriolic attacks against Hezbollah, saying the group “should be punished… and confronted by force.”
The accusations coincided with new sanctions approved by US House of Representatives on the Lebanese resistance movement.
Hossein Sheikholeslam, a senior Iranian politician, told Al Mayadeen TV that Hariri’s’ resignation had been coordinated before between US president Donald Trump and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
He said, “After the defeat of Daesh and the US in the region, Washington and Riyadh are trying to fuel tensions in Lebanon and the region.”
Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, an adviser to the Iranian parliament speaker, agreed. “The decision has been made by the anti-Iran and anti-Hezbollah front following the disillusionment of US and its allies with Daesh,” he said.
In Lebanon, political leaders expressed their apprehension, including the leader of Lebanon’s Druze minority, who has frequently played kingmaker in Lebanese politics.
Walid Jumblatt, the leader of Lebanon’s Progressive Socialist Party (PSP), warned of the political burden and consequences of the resignation.
Hilal Khashan, a professor of political science at the American University of Beirut, said Hariri’s departure was “a dangerous decision whose consequences will be heavier than what Lebanon can bear.”
“Hariri has started a cold war that could escalate into a civil war, bearing in mind that Hezbollah is unmatched in Lebanon on the military level,” he added.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, however, welcomed the decision and said Hariri’s departure should be a “wake-up call” to the international community to what he described as the threat posed by Iran.
Israeli-Saudi Tandem Adjusts to Syria Loss
By Alastair Crooke | Consortium News | November 4, 2017
It seems that matters are coming to a head in the Middle East. For many states, the coming period will likely prove to be the moment in which they determine their futures — as well as that for the region as a whole.
The immediate peg for “crunch time” is Russia’s fast-track proposal of a conference to be held in Sochi, with the near-full kaleidoscope of Syrian opposition invited, which, if all goes as planned, might mean 1,000 delegates arriving in Sochi as soon as Nov. 18.
The Syrian government has agreed to attend. Of course, when one hears of attendance in these numbers, it suggests that this is not intended as a “sleeves rolled-up” working session, but rather as a meeting in which Russian thoughts will be mooted on the constitution, the system of government, and the place of “minorities” – with a chaser that Russia wants fresh elections pretty darned quick: which is to say, in six months’ time. In short, this is to be the “last chance saloon” for opposition figures: come aboard now, or be shut out, in the cold.
This initiative has plenty of push behind it, including President Putin’s personal endorsement, but no guarantee of success. Both Iran and Turkey (the co-guarantors of Astana) privately may have reservations, not knowing precisely what Moscow might unveil. Iran is insistent on Syria retaining a strong centralized government, and Turkey is likely to worry about whether the Kurds might receive too much from Moscow; it will also have reservations about sitting down with the YPD (Syrian Kurds), which it views to be little more than a re-branded PKK, which Turkey regards as a terrorist organization. If Turkey does pull out, it will take an important slice of the opposition with it.
Critical moments in history, however, do have a habit of proving to be less critical than first imagined, but this one effectively marks the beginning of the winding up process of the Syrian war and of the 20-year “New Middle East” project (as devised by the U.S. and Israeli governments). How each state responds, will determine the Middle East landscape for the next years.
Military Mop-up
Late last week, the Syrian army took the rest of Deir Ezzor city, and with its rear now secure, the Syrian army is free to continue the 30 or so kilometers to reach Abu Kamal (al-Bukumal) – the last ISIS urban outpost – and the vital border crossing on the Euphrates with Iraq. It is estimated that there may be 3,500 Da’esh (another name for the Islamic State or ISIS) in Abu Kamal. But Abu Kamal’s “twin” (on the Iraqi side of the border), al-Qaim, was taken by the Iraqi government’s PMU militia forces on Friday. The Iraqi forces are now clearing the city of its estimated 1,500 Da’esh fighters.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad
The Syrian army, backed up by several thousand recently injected Hezbollah forces, is poised to enter Abu Kamal in the coming days from two directions – and from the south, a co-ordinated thrust north up and into Abu Kamal by the Iraqi Hash’d a- Sha’abi (PMU) militia, will form a pincer.
American-supported SDF (Syrian Democratic Forces), however, are also trying to reach Abu Kamal from the east (the U.S., pressured by Israel, would like to seal and close the border crossing). U.S. allied forces can move more quickly, as U.S. officers are seeking to bribe local tribal leaders who formerly had sworn allegiance to ISIS (with Saudi money), to switch sides, or at least to allow the SDF forces to advance unhindered by ISIS (as happened in the environs of Deir Ezzor).
In short, the military outcome in Syria is done (after six years of war), and now comes the political bargaining. How this plays out will determine the relative strengths of the forces that will shape the Middle East in the coming years. The outcome will likely see whether Turkey can be bullied back towards NATO (by threats such as that by General Petr Pavel, head of NATO’s military committee, warning of “consequences” for Turkey’s attempts to buy Russian air defenses), or whether Turkey’s determination to limit Kurdish aspirations will see Turkey position itself alongside Iran and Iraq (who share a common interest).
Turkey’s role in Idlib, in overseeing the de-escalation zone there, remains opaque. Effectively, its forces are positioned more to control the Afrin Kurdish “canton” (rather than monitor the Idlib de-escalation zone). It is possible that President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is hoping to use Turkish troops to carve out a buffer zone along the Turkish-Syrian border – in contravention to the Astana understandings. If so, this will place him at odds with both Moscow and Damascus (but will not necessarily imply a return to the NATO camp, either).
Syria’s Future
The bargaining at Sochi will also make clearer whether Syria will be a strong centralized state (as Iran prefers), or a looser federal state as America (and perhaps Russia) would prefer. Sochi will be something of a litmus for the extent to which American influence can shape outcomes in today’s Middle East. At present, it looks as if there is co-ordination between Moscow and Washington for a speedy political settlement in Syria, a U.S. declaration of victory over ISIS, Syrian elections, and an American exit from the Syrian theatre.
The outcome of the conference will also perhaps clarify whether the Syrian Kurds finally will remain with the U.S. CentCom project for retaining a permanent U.S. presence in northeast Syria (as Israel wants), or whether the Syrian Kurds will cut a deal with Damascus (after witnessing the crushing of the Barzani Kurdish independence project by neighboring powers).
If the latter occurs, the argument for retaining a longer-term U.S. presence in northeast Syria would lose force. The Saudis will have either to accept defeat in Syria, or act the party-pooper (by trying to re-ignite the remaining proxy forces in Idlib) – but, for that, the kingdom would need Turkey’s compliance, and that may not be forthcoming.
Iraq too, irked by U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s comments suggesting that the PMU are Iranian – and must “go home” – has already shown signs of re-orientating towards Russia. (It has recently signed an expansive energy and economic protocol with Russia – after having reclaimed control of its borders and of Iraq’s energy resources – and is procuring Russian arms). Evidence of Iraq’s close connections with Syria, Turkey and Iran was very manifest in the quick execution of the put-down to the Kurdish independence gambit.
But the state facing the biggest dilemma in respect to the Syrian outcome is Israel. Alex Fishman, the doyen of Israeli defense columnists, has written that Israel simply has failed to adjust to strategic change, and is locked in a narrow “cold war” mentality:
“The Syrians fire rockets at open areas: Israel destroys Syrian cannons in response; the Iranians threaten to deploy Shiite forces in Syria: Israel announces ‘red lines’ and threatens a military conflict; Fatah and Hamas hold futile talks on a unity government: the prime minister declares Israel is suspending talks with the Palestinans – and everyone here applauds the security and political echelons: – ‘there, we showed them the meaning of deterrence’, [the Israeli leadership repeats].
“But what we are seeing here is a provincial defense policy, a false representation of a leadership that barely sees beyond the tip of its nose, and is busy putting out fires day and night.
“It’s a leadership that sees national security through a narrow regional viewpoint. It’s as if everything beyond Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran doesn’t exist. It’s as if the world around us hasn’t changed in the past decades, and we are stuck in the era of aggressive solutions in the form of reward and punishment as the main political-security activity. The current political-security echelon isn’t solving problems, isn’t dealing with problems, but simply postponing them, passing them on to the next generation”
Missing the Strategic Picture
What Fishman is pointing to is profound: Israel has gained some tactical victories in the neighborhood (i.e. over the Palestinians generally, and in weakening Hamas), but it has lost sight of the wider strategic picture. In effect, Israel has lost its ability to dominate the region. It had wanted a weakened and fragmented Syria; it had wanted a Hezbollah mired in the Syrian mud, and an Iran circumscribed by Sunni sectarian antipathy towards the Shi’a generally. It is unlikely to get any of these.
Rather, Israel finds itself being deterred (rather than doing the deterring) by the knowledge that it cannot now overturn its strategic weakness (i.e. risk a three-front war) – unless, and only if, America will fully enter into any conflict, in support of Israel. And this is what worries the security and intelligence echelon: Would America now contemplate a decisive intervention on behalf of Israel – unless the latter’s very survival was at risk?
In 2006, Israeli officials recall, the U.S. did not enter Israel’s war against Hizbullah in Lebanon, and after 33 days, it was Israel that sought a ceasefire.
Fishman is right too that attacking Syrian factories and radar positions “out of old habit” solves nothing. It may be sold to the Israeli public as “deterrence,” but rather it is playing with fire. Syria has started to fire back with aged surface-to-air missiles (S200s) at Israeli aircraft. These missiles may not have hit an Israeli jet yet, and maybe were not even intended so to do. The Syrian message however, is clear: these missiles may be old, but they have a longer range than the newer S300: Potentially, their range is sufficient to reach Ben Gurion Airport outside Tel Aviv.
Are the Israelis sure that Syria and Hezbollah don’t have more modern missiles? Are they certain that Iran or Russia will not provide them such? The Russian defense minister was very angry on his visit to Tel Aviv to have been faced with an Israeli retaliatory air attack on a Syrian radar and missile position – as a welcome gift on landing in Israel. To his protests, his Israeli counterpart, Defense Minister Lieberman condescendingly said that Israel needed nobody’s advice in respect to Israel’s security. General Sergey Shoygu reportedly was not amused.
Can Israel come to terms with its new strategic situation? It seems not. Ibrahim Karagul, a Turkish political commentator and an authoritative voice of President Erdogan, writing in Yeni Safak, notes that
“the foundations of a new disintegration [and] division are being laid in our region. Saudi Arabia’s ‘We are switching to moderate Islam’ announcement contains a dangerous game. The U.S.-Israel axis is forming a new regional front line.”
Karagul continues:
“We have been watching the strange developments in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Egypt, Israel and the U.S. for some time now. There is a new situation in the region, which we know is [principally aimed] against Iran; but has recently taken an open anti-Turkey state, aimed at limiting Turkey’s influence in the region … You will see, the ‘moderate Islam’ announcement will be immediately followed by a sudden and unexpected strengthening of Arab nationalism. This wave will not differentiate between Shiite or Sunni Arabs, but it will isolate the Muslim Arab world from the entire Muslim world.
“This separation will be felt most by the Shiite Arabs in Iraq. With this new block, Iraq and Iran are going to stage a new power showdown [i.e. will react forcefully to counter it]. Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi’s future in power is also most likely going to [become contingent on the outcome to] this showdown.”
An American ‘Buy-in’
To give this project American “buy-in,” Israel and Saudi Arabia are focusing it on Lebanese Hezbollah, which the U.S. has declared to be a terrorist entity though the movement was part of Lebanon’s government, which was headed by Prime Minister Saad Hariri until he ominously resigned today in an announcement made in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. (Hariri is a dual Saudi-Lebanese national.)
Saudi State Minister for Gulf Affairs Thamer al-Sabhan (in Beirut last week) called for “toppling Hezbollah” and promised “astonishing” developments in “the coming days. Those who believe that my tweets are a personal stance, are delusional … the coming developments will definitely be astonishing.”
Al-Sabhan added that the kingdom’s escalation against Hezbollah could take several forms that would “definitely affect Lebanon. Politically, it might target the government’s relations with the world. At the economic and financial levels, it could target commercial exchange and funds, and militarily it might involve the possibility of a strike on Hizbullah by the U.S.-led coalition, which labels Hizbullah a terrorist organization.” (Comment: this latter point probably was made more in hope, than in expectation. Europe and the U.S. set considerable store on maintaining Lebanon as stable).
Karagul reflects further on this U.S.-Gulf-Israeli initiative:
“The moderate Islam project was tried the most in Turkey. We always said this is ‘American Islam’ and opposed it. The February 28 military intervention is the product of such a project. It was implemented by the U.S./Israel extreme right-wing and their partners on the inside. The Fetullah Terrorist Organization (FETO) is the product of such a project, and the Dec. 17/25 and July 15 attacks were made for this very reason. They were all aimed at trapping Turkey within the U.S./Israel axis.
“But Turkey’s local and national resistance has overcome them all. Now they are burdening Saudi Arabia with the same mission. That is how they are making it appear. I do not think that it is possible for Saudi Arabia to undertake such a mission. This is impossible both in terms of the regime’s character and its social structure. This is impossible because of the ‘Israel/U.S. sauce’.
“The discourse of making the switch to moderate Islam will cause serious confusion in the Saudi administration and grave social reactions. The actual conflict is going to take place within Saudi Arabia. Also, the Riyadh administration has no chance of exporting something to the region or setting an example.
“Especially once it is further revealed that the project is security-based, that a new front line has been formed, that it is all planned by the U.S.-Israel, it will result in a fiasco. This project is suicide for Saudi Arabia, it is a destruction plan; it is a plan that will destroy it unless it comes to its senses.”
Karagul makes the point well: the attempt to make Islam in the Christian “Westphalian” image has a disastrous history. The metaphysics of Islam are not those of Christianity. And Saudi Arabia cannot be made “moderate” by Mohammad bin Salman just ordering it. It would entail a veritable cultural revolution to shift the basis of the kingdom, away from the rigors of Wahhabism to some secularized Islam.
More War?
Where is this taking the Middle East: to conflict? Maybe. But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not noted for his audacity: he his noted more for rhetoric which often has proved empty; and Israeli security officials are being cautious, but both sides are preparing against the possibility of what Karagul calls a “great power showdown.” It looks, though – from this and other Turkish statements – as if Turkey will be with Iran and Iraq, and standing against America and Saudi Arabia.
And President Trump? He is wholly (and understandably) preoccupied with the low-intensity war being waged against him at home. He probably tells Netanyahu whatever it is that might advance his domestic battles (in Congress, where Netanyahu has influence). If Bibi wants a fiery speech at the U.N. berating Iran, then, why not? Trump can then call on the trifecta of White House generals to “fix it” (just as he did with JCPOA, passing it to Congress “to fix”), knowing that the generals do not want a war with Iran.
The danger is a “black swan.” What happens if Israel goes on attacking the Syrian army and industrial premises in Syria (which is happening almost daily) – and Syria does shoot down an Israeli jet?
Alastair Crooke is a former British diplomat who was a senior figure in British intelligence and in European Union diplomacy. He is the founder and director of the Conflicts Forum.
Israel threatens to launch incursion into Syria
Press TV – November 4, 2017
The Israeli military has threatened to launch an incursion into Syria “to protect” the people of a village populated by the Arab country’s Druze minority, who are themselves supportive of the Syrian government.
“In recent hours, we witness the intensifying of the fighting at the area of the Druze village of Hader in the Syrian part of the Golan Heights,” Ronen Manelis, an Israeli military spokesperson, said in a statement on Friday, which was carried by The Jerusalem Post.
The military “is prepared and ready to assist the residents of the village and prevent damage to or the capture of the village Hader out of commitment to the Druze population,” he further claimed.
Since a war in 1967, Israel has occupied two-thirds of Syria’s Golan Heights.
The Hader Village, however, is situated in the part of the territory that is under Damascus’ control, and its population is aligned with the Syrian government, casting doubts about Israel’s real motives in possibly launching an incursion into Syrian territory.
The official Syrian Arab News Agency earlier reported that at least six people had been killed and 21 others wounded in a car bomb attack targeting the village by the Jabhat Fateh al-Sham Takfiri terrorist group, which was formerly known as al-Nusra Front.
Israel has been widely reported to be providing medical treatment to al-Nusra in Golan.
Tel Aviv has also several times targeted territory inside Syria, often claiming that it strikes convoys heading for the fighters of the Lebanese resistance movement of Hezbollah.
The Hezbollah fighters have been helping the Syrian military fight Fateh al-Sham and Daesh.
Takfiri groups such as Daesh and al-Nusra have never attacked Israel despite operating close to Syria’s borders with Israel over the past three years.
In April, Israel’s former minister of military affairs, Moshe Ya’alon, admitted to a tacit alliance with Daesh, saying the Takfiri group had “immediately apologized” to Tel Aviv after firing “once” into Israel.
The explosive revelation by the former minister of military affairs came during an interview reported Saturday on Israeli Channel 10’s website.
In September 2016, Israeli lawmaker Akram Hasson criticized Israel for supporting Takfiri terrorists in Syria, saying that the Fateh al-Sham terrorist group was operating in Syria with “unprecedented logistical and medical” support from Tel Aviv.
He said Israel’s escalation of attacks on the Syrian army positions in the Golan Heights had been aimed at paving the way for the terrorist group to gain more ground.
He said that Fateh al-Sham was bombing the Syrian Druze village of Khadr, with the support of the Israeli minister of military affairs, Avigdor Lieberman. Citing eyewitnesses, Hasson said the Takfiris were using advanced technological equipment, adding that Israel’s strategic support had been broadened over the past few months.
My World, My Rules? US Creates Another Base in Syria, SDF Reveals
Sputnik – November 4, 2107
The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) welcome the US’s ever-increasing presence in Syria, although all this technically constitutes an invasion and has never been condoned by the country’s government in Damascus.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, the SDF’s senior official said that the US had created a military base in the Syrian city of Raqqa, which was recently liberated from Daesh terrorists.
“The United States is building military bases in the areas freed by our forces from terrorists. We consider it to be the right strategy. Recently, America created a military base at the entrance to the territory of Raqqa, in the Jezra neighborhood,” the official said.
He explained that the neighborhood was chosen by the Americans because it was slightly damaged during a military operation in Raqqa and can now be seen as the city’s safest area. In addition, there are no mine traps or explosives in Jezra, according to him.
“The base and the adjacent territory are reliably protected by American soldiers. No one, except these soldiers and SDF fighters, has access to the base,” the official concluded.
In an interview with Sputnik on Friday, Muhammed Kheir al-Akkam, professor of international relations at the University of Damascus, specifically pointed to the US’s “fully coordinated move to replace Daesh with the SDF” in Syria.
Al-Akkam accused the US of paying lip-service to fighting terrorism and financing both Daesh and the SDF. He emphasized that “the US does not want the end of the Syrian war until their goals [there] are achieved.”
In another development on Friday, the Russian Reconciliation Center for Syria said that the US had established a military base near the town of At Tanf on the Syria-Iraq border without the Syrian government’s permission and banned anyone from coming within 55 kilometers. According to the Center, the base’s proximity to the Rukban refugee camp precludes humanitarian access and may be considered a war crime.
On October 20, Washington declared the liberation of Raqqa, Daesh’s self-proclaimed capital, from terrorists. US President Donald Trump called the operation to free the city a “critical breakthrough”, claiming that a “transition into a new phase” would follow it.
READ MORE: Russian MoD: West Wants to Cover Tracks of ‘Barbaric’ Bombings in Raqqa
US Actions in Syria’s At Tanf Violate Humanitarian Law – Reconciliation Center
Sputnik – 03.11.2017
The humanitarian situation in At Tanf, Syria on the nation’s border with Iraq remains extremely difficult, as refugees in the neighboring Rukban camp cannot get access to humanitarian and medical aid.
The US established a military base in Syria without the government’s permission and banned anyone from coming within 55 kilometers; its proximity to the Rukban refugee camp may be considered a war crime, the Russian Reconciliation Center for Syria said Friday.
The center reports that, according to witnesses, the US has recently deployed another camp near Rukban where militants gather in order to join its latest attempt to create a so-called moderate opposition, the “National Syrian Army.” The cost of recruitment in each faction is defined by the US after bargaining with field commanders, which is why income differences can be considerable among militants from different groups. On October 29, in clashes between two militant groups, thirteen refugees were killed and over twenty were injured.
The military base was established by the US in April 2017 near the town of At Tanf on the Syria-Iraq border has also become a problem for Syrian forces fighting the terrorist group Daesh (ISIS). The United States justified the setting up of a military base there in terms of the need to carry out operations against Daesh; however, since the establishment of the base, there have been no reports of American anti-terrorist operations, according to the Russian Defense Ministry.
The spokesman of the Russian Defense Ministry has warned that refugees living in the Rukban camp are being used as a “human shield” for the US military base near At Tanf. The base has twice been used to strike Syrian government-aligned forces fighting Islamic militants.
The Russian Defense Ministry has also accused the United States and illegal armed groups of preventing the Syrian government from setting up a safe corridor for deliveries of humanitarian supplies for refugees in the Rukban camp in Homs province. However, Operation Inherent Resolve spokesman Col. Ryan Dillon refuted the accusation as “false” and “baseless,” assuring that the coalition’s partner force allowed deliveries to pass.
First Deputy Chairman of the Russian upper house’s Committee on Defense and Security Frants Klintsevich told Sputnik on Friday that Russia would introduce the issue of a humanitarian situation in Syria’s At Tanf for the consideration of the UN Security Council adding that “future US plans to dismember Syria” were the reason behind the suffering of the refugees.
Russia, US craft rival UN resolutions on extending chemical probe in Syria
Press TV – November 3, 2017
Russia and the United States have drawn up rival UN Security Council resolutions on extending the mission of a body of international experts probing chemical attacks in Syria.
The Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM) was formed by a Security Council resolution in 2015, and is run jointly by the UN and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the world body’s chemical weapons watchdog.
Russia, however, has been exceedingly critical of JIM’s reports, finding faults with its evidence gathering techniques.
On October 14, Russia vetoed a US-sponsored Security Council resolution that would have renewed the experts’ mandate for a year. It said it would wait for an official report on an alleged sarin gas attack last year in northwestern Syria by the mission to decide whether it would back extending its mandate.
The report came out two days after the veto, blaming Syria for the incident which took place in April 2016 in the town of Khan Shaykhun and killed over 90 people.
Both Russia and Syria have rejected the report.
Reacting to the report on Thursday, Russian Foreign Ministry said the JIM experts had produced it without even turning up on site despite being offered guarantees of safety.
Mikhail Ulyanov, the head of the ministry’s arms control and non-proliferation department, said, “Imagine a criminal investigation in which police refuse to visit the site of the crime. No court will ever accept it.” “But they consider it possible to do such thing at the UN Security Council,” he noted.
According to a draft resolution obtained by news agencies, both the American and Russian versions demand the JIM mission’s extension, but under totally different conditions.
According to AFP, Russia wants the UN Security Council to shelve the latest JIM report and launch a new investigation into the Khan Shaykhun incident.
The Russian draft also urged a six-month extension of the UN-led panel’s mission, while the version put forward by the US calls for a two-year extension of the mandate, the report added.
The Associated Press also reported that the Russian draft resolution on the future of JIM’s mandate urges the mission to send investigators to Khan Shaykhun, where the attack reportedly happened, and the Shayrat airfield in Syria’s central Homs Province, which the US attacked later in April with missiles under the pretext of punishing Syria.
The accusations against the Damascus government come while Syria has turned over its entire chemical stockpile under a deal negotiated by Russia and the United States back in 2013. The OPCW supervised that removal process.
US Gambit: How Daesh Could Be Replaced for Continuation of Syrian War
Sputnik – November 3, 2017
With Syria making big strides toward victory and terrorists controlling ever-diminishing areas in the country, Muhammed Kheir al-Akkam, professor of international relations at the University of Damascus, told Sputnik how the US may meddle in the Kurdish issue.
“The US does not want the end of the Syrian war until their goals are achieved. Their main tool for the war in Syria, called Daesh, is living out their last days. So now they are switching to the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) which have to do what Daesh failed to fulfil,” Syrian political analyst Muhammed Kheir al-Akkam said.
According to him, “the US wants to extend the war in Syria as long as possible to implement its plans in the region.”
“Russia is trying to put an end to this war and along with the Syrians is seeking a peaceful solution. The Americans do not do it, paying lip-service top fighting terrorism; in fact, they are financing both Daesh and the SDF,” al-Akkam added. He pointed out that “what we see in Raqqa is a fully coordinated move by the US to replace Daesh with the SDF.”
“We might ask why the US is not fighting the al-Nusra Front and other similar organizations? The answer is simple: because the US supports them,” he said.
He recalled that the SDF carries out ethnic cleansing in Raqqa and discriminates against some Syrian peoples in the occupied territories, which is why the SDF cannot be called “democratic” or “Syrian”.
“The Syrian Kurds need to remember that the Americans will betray them as soon as their interests diverge, something that occurred to Masoud Barzani after Iraqi Kurds failed to secede from Baghdad,” al-Akkam said.
According to him, “the Syrian Kurds also should bear in mind that their strength depends on Syria’s unity.”
Al-Akkam added that the seventh round of the Syrian peace talks in Astana in many respects continued the course of the talks’ sixth round. At the same time, it is worth noting that there has been a new turn, according to him.
During the Astana talks, the sides managed to resolve many issues related to the military situation in Syria, something that he said the parties failed to do in Geneva. In Astana, the sides, in particular, agreed on exchanging prisoners and the holding of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi, where Syria’s integrity will be high on the agenda.
“As for the Syrian opposition groups that will not attend the Sochi congress, they are dealing with the interests of those who finance their activities rather than those of the Syrian people,” al-Akkam concluded.
Opposition rejects Russian initiative to hold congress on Syria crisis
Press TV – November 1, 2017
The Syrian opposition has rejected an initiative put forward by Russia during the latest negotiations in the Kazakh capital, Astana, to hold a congress, which would bring together Syria’s warring sides in Sochi later this month.
Members of Syrian opposition High Negotiations Committee and the Turkey-based Syrian National Coalition (SNC) told Reuters on Wednesday that they do not approve of the plan, saying they would issue a joint statement later to express their opposition to the plan.
SNC spokesman Ahmad Ramadan said the plan seeks to circumvent the UN efforts to mediate Syrian peace talks in Geneva, adding, “The Coalition will not participate in any negotiations with the regime outside Geneva or without UN sponsorship.”
The Astana peace process has been underway since January with the mediation of Iran and Russia, the Syrian government’s allies, and Turkey, which supports armed opposition groups.
The latest round of the talks came to an end on Tuesday, with the three guarantor states agreeing on the Russia-proposed congress.
A joint statement published on the Russian Foreign Ministry’s website at the end of the Astana talks listed 33 Syrian organizations invited to a “Congress of Syrian National Dialogue,” which is to be held in the Russian city of Sochi on November 18.
Russia says the key task of the event is to pave the way for constitutional reforms.
Turkey against Kurdish presence
Despite Turkey’s approval of the Syrian congress plan, a spokesman for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said on Wednesday that the country opposes the invitation of the representatives of the Syrian Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) to the talks.
Ibrahim Kalin’s remarks came a day after a senior Kurdish official said that Russia had invited the Kurdish-led authorities in northern Syria to a proposed congress of Syria’s rival parties in November.
Kalin noted that Turkish and Russian officials had discussed the issue, and that he had held meetings of his own to “solve the problem on the spot.”
More checkpoints for Idlib
The latest round of Astana talks focused on humanitarian issues in Syria as well as the situation in Idlib Province.
Elaborating on the agreements in the seventh round, Iran’s top negotiator at Astana talks Hossein Jaberi Ansari said on Tuesday that each of the three guarantor states had agreed to set up 12 checkpoints in Idlib, where a de-escalation zone has been formed.
Jaberi Ansari noted that the three guarantor states agreed on continuation of the fight against Daesh and al-Nusra Takfiri terrorists and their affiliates, settlement of the Syrian conflict through political channels and delivery of humanitarian aid to all the areas across Syria.
Neocons Hijack Trump’s Syria Policy
By Ron Paul | October 30, 2017
Does anyone in the Trump Administration have a clue about our Syria policy? In March, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson appeared to be finally pulling back from President Obama’s disastrous “Assad must go” position that has done nothing but prolong the misery in Syria. At the time, Tillerson said, the “longer-term status of President Assad will be decided by the Syrian people.”
Those of us who believe in national sovereignty would say that is pointing out the obvious. Nevertheless it was a good sign that US involvement in Syria – illegal as it is – would no longer seek regime change but would stick to fighting ISIS.
Then out of the blue this past week, Tillerson did another 180 degree policy turn, telling a UN audience in Geneva that, “[t]he reign of the Assad family is coming to an end. The only issue is how that should that be brought about.”
The obvious question is why is it any of our business who runs Syria, but perhaps that’s too obvious. Washington’s interventionists have long believed that they have the unilateral right to determine who is allowed to head up foreign countries. Their track record in placing “our guy” in power overseas is abysmal, but that doesn’t seem to stop them. We were promised that getting rid of people like Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi would light the fire of freedom and democracy in the Middle East. Instead it has produced nothing but death and misery – and spectacular profits for the weapons manufacturers who fund neocon think tanks.
In Syria, Assad has been seen as a protector of Christians and other minorities against the onslaught of in many cases US-backed jihadists seeking his overthrow. While the Syrian system is obviously not a Switzerland-like democracy, unlike our great “ally” Saudi Arabia they do at least have elections contested by different political parties, and religious and other minorities are fully integrated into society.
Why has the Trump Administration shifted back to “Assad must go”? One reason may be that, one-by-one, the neocons who opposed Trump most vociferously during the campaign have found themselves and their friends in positions of power in his Administration. The neocons are great at winning while losing.
The real story behind Washington’s ongoing determination to overthrow the Syrian government is even more disturbing. In a bombshell interview last week, a former Qatari Prime Minister confessed that his country, along with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United States, began shipping weapons to jihadists from the very moment Syrian unrest began in 2011. The well-connected Qatari former minister was trying to point out that his country was not alone in backing al-Qaeda and even ISIS in Syria. In the course of defending his country against terrorism charges leveled by Saudi Arabia he has spilled the beans about US involvement with the very groups claimed to be our arch-enemies. As they did in Afghanistan in the 1980s, the CIA supported radical Islamic terrorism in Syria.
Haven’t we done enough damage in Syria? Do we really need to go back to 2011 and destroy the country all over again? The neocons never admit a mistake and never change course, but I do not believe that the majority of Americans support their hijacking of President Trump’s Syria policy. It is long past time for the US to leave Syria alone. No bases, no special forces, no CIA assassination teams, no manipulating their electoral system. We need to just come home.
OPCW-UN Syria Sarin Attack Probe Based on ‘Staged Proof’
Sputnik – October 30, 2017
The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and the United Nations used fabricated evidence in their Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM) probe into April’s chemical attack in the Syrian town of Khan Sheikhoun, threatening the reputation of international organizations, Professor Emeritus of Science, Technology, and National Security Policy at Massachusetts Institute of Technology Theodore A. Postol told Sputnik.
Last week, the JIM presented to the UN Security Council (UNSC) a confidential report on the attack, carried out in the Syrian opposition-held province of Idlib, reportedly killing over 80 people. Some Western media outlets, which had access to the report, quoted the document as saying that the government of Syria’s President Bashar Assad was held responsible for the chemical attack on April 4. The panel also reportedly blamed the Islamic State terror group (banned in Russia) for using sulfur mustard in an attack on Syria’s Um Housh on September 16, 2016.
The report “relies on findings” of the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) in Syria that was published this June following the investigation into the incident. The mission revealed that the victims had been exposed to sarin, a toxic substance, or a sarin-like substance. The FFM did not send its staff directly to the site, but completed the probe by conducting interviews, and collecting evidence and samples, such as video footage of the incident and hair from a dead goat found at the scene. The FFM also specified that it was unable to “implement a complete chain of custody, by the team, for samples from source.”
Postol shared with Sputnik the results of his own research proving that the UN-OPCW probe into the Khan Sheikhoun incident was flawed and biased.
Postol’s Research
In his analysis, the expert referred to the well-publicized video footage taken by Orient News in Khan Sheikhoun very shortly after the alleged April 4 nerve agent attack. The video showed a dead goat that allegedly suffocated in the attack next to the targeted area. Postol underlined that this evidence could not be used because the animal’s corpse could have been planted.
“As an inspection of the four images and the labels on the images clearly and unambiguously show, the dead goat in the image was dragged to the location where the journalists claim it died,” Postol said.
According to the expert, the corpse’s location could be easily established by other images taken in the Orient News video and other videos. The goat was located roughly 100 meters (328 feet) southeast of a crater that was considered the source of the sarin release.
“Perhaps most incredible in the OPCW report is an appendix that reports evidence of sarin use from analysis of a hair from the dead goat. Nowhere in the OPCW report is there any indication that the goat may have died elsewhere, possibly from sarin poisoning in a room or barn, and was then dragged to the location as an exhibit,” Postol pointed out.
The FFM found that the alleged nerve agent was most likely triggered at the site where there was a crater in the road. The OPCW concluded that such a release could only be determined as the use of sarin as a chemical weapon. According to the UN commission, two parts of a bomb were found at the site, including a larger part for chemical payload and a filler cap for chemical weapon itself, adding that it was “unable to determine the exact type of chemical bomb used,” however it suggested the explosive was a Soviet-era chemical bomb.
“There are many images of this crater that indicate subsequent tampering with the pipe that is vertically standing near the edge of the crater. In later photographs that can be seen that the pipe was pulled out from its vertical position in place flat at the center of the crater. This was then followed by claims that the pipe was a vessel containing sarin that was released at the site. Our calculations speculated that the crater was formed by a standard 122 mm artillery rocket explosive warhead of the kind that is ubiquitously available for purchase around the world,” Postol pointed out.
Postol’s research included forensic computational analysis performed by two of his colleagues — Professor Goong Chen and Dr. Chung Gu, at Texas A&M University — which “unambiguously explains how this crater was actually created.”
“The spent rocket motor casing of the rocket is embedded at the forward edge of the crater (not at the center as some people have asserted) and it is slightly bent forward by the sudden torque that occurs when the warhead impacts the asphalt surface. If we assume that the rocket casing was fabricated into a pipe and welded, our calculations show exactly the kind of split along the axis of symmetry of the pipe. This suggests that the rocket motor was manufactured locally and probably filled with a propellant that was locally produced. One such propellant that is commonly used in the manufacturing of improvised rocket motors is potassium nitrate and sugar,” the expert explained.
Postol suggested that the rocket motor had been manufactured locally, and the warhead, igniter and nozzle had been attached to each end of the improvised rocket.
The expert then went into detail about the blast site, and the positions the rocket was found in.
“The arrival azimuth is easily identified because the rocket is embedded at the forward edge of the crater and the bent spent rocket casing also points forward along the direction of arrival. The cracking of the asphalt surface surrounding the crater is due to hot gases propagating through the underlying ground and pushing the asphalt vertically,” the expert explained.
It was because of the above-mentioned observations Postol was able to determine the type of explosive device used and why it was not possible to definitely conclude that this warhead carried the alleged sarin toxin.
“It is therefore unambiguous that the crater was created by a standard 122 mm explosive warhead of the type that can be purchased anywhere in the world. There is absolutely no evidence of any sarin containing vessel. The split pipe that has been inaccurately identified as evidence of the container filled with sarin is simply the casing of the rocket motor that propelled the purchased warhead to the location of the explosion,” the expert noted.
UN Reputation Threatened
“The information I am providing contains compelling and unambiguous evidence that the UN OPCW investigation of this matter was deeply flawed and biased. The fact that the UN OPCW did not have investigators under their direct control at the scene of the alleged nerve agent attack at Khan Sheikhoun on April 4, 2017 is no excuse for them making claims that are demonstrably false,” Postol said.
Postol pointed to the fact that in their analyses, both the UN commission and the OPCW used publicly available information obtained from videos that “clearly showed attempts by local organizations to manipulate information.”
“The fact that the OPCW has made no effort to verify the accuracy of this information indicates either extreme incompetence, or much more likely, extreme bias on the part of OPCW leadership. Of even greater concern is that the UN leadership is not exercising its fiduciary responsibilities to member countries by assuring that the OPCW is free of bias and incompetence,” the expert continued.
By failing to properly investigate incidents like the supposed Khan Sheikhoun chemical weapons attack, the United Nations and the OPCW are most likely enabling various groups with military and political agendas to use nerve agents and then point a finger at their enemies, Postol suggested.
“Continuing failure to properly review the veracity of the OPCW claims will ultimately have serious negative consequences for the reputation of the UN. This will, in turn, have serious negative consequences for the role of the UN as a credible source of analysis with regard to other dismaying and potentially escalatory events that will certainly occur in the future,” the expert emphasized.
Postol noted Russia’s “well-justified” criticisms of the handling of the JIM by the UN leadership.
The expert called on Russia to introduce a proposal within the UNSC for his investigation results to be reviewed by the organization’s authorities.
“Our interest is to help the UN reach a technically sound conclusion about the evidence that is available that indicates that the crater at Khan Sheikhoun has been misidentified as the source of a sarin release,” Postol explained.
Postol believes the data on flaws in the UN-sponsored report on the alleged use of sarin in Khan Sheikhoun provides strong ground for the Russian UN delegation to seek a review of the JIM report, because the misidentified source of the sarin attack, as outlined by Postol, casts doubts on whether the JIM report can accurately claim Assad as the responsible party.
Fabricated Casus Belli
After the incident in Khan Sheikhoun, the United States launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at the Syrian military airfield in Ash Sha’irat in the province of Homs from which the chemical attack was allegedly carried out.
“My concern was that the United States attack against Syria would encourage these rebel groups to engage in false attacks, attack people with sarin and then blame it on the Assad government. So that’s what got me involved at looking at this,” Postol explained.
Postol reiterated the lack of reliable evidence in the UN and OPCW materials, as all the information that the investigators used had been fabricated, misidentified and misinterpreted.
Also, the expert pointed out the lack of methodology, noting that the investigators’ findings were “filled with errors.”
“They made no attempt at all to determine the veracity of the evidence, that their claims can reach that conclusion. There was a very substantial indication that I put in the report for you that indicated that the site where the alleged sarin release occurred could not have been [the place where] there was a sarin release … but those things were clearly staged, clearly fraudulent,” Postol continued.
Postol also said that he had released a series of papers on the issue, which were ignored by the Western press. The expert explained this by the fact that public opinion in the United States is split into two camps: the liberals and the conservatives. In order to be a “liberal,” one has to adopt certain ideas, like that Assad is a monster, Postol explained. With Washington putting pressure on everyone whose vision of things is different, the liberal US media refuse to publish materials which provide an alternative perspective, such as Postol’s analysis of the events in Khan Sheikhoun, the expert elaborated.
The UN chief’s spokesman said on Thursday that he had trust in the professionalism and objectivity of the OPCW-UN joint mechanism.
Meanwhile, on Friday, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov told Sputnik the methodology of the OPCW-UN report on chemical weapon use in Syria was flawed, being based on biased evidence. He continued by saying that after an in-depth analysis of the JIM report and presentation of conclusions, Russia would put forward specific measures and steps aimed at “improving dramatically this unacceptable position and put the investigation of crimes with chemical weapons use on a solid, reliable … basis.”
Damascus reportedly denied the JIM allegations. Moscow, in turn, said that the Russian Foreign Minister would present its own analysis of the UN-OPCW report since “opinions and assessments by Russian specialists that were transferred to the mechanism at its own request turned out to be completely ignored” in JIM’s investigation.
The JIM revealed its report two days after Russia blocked a UNSC resolution extending its mandate in Syria, set to expire on November 16, for another year. The Russian Foreign Ministry has said that the decision on the prolongation of the UN-OPCW investigators’ mandate must not be made by the UNSC until the examination of the probe results.
Featured Video
Weaponized Journalism: 2021 Sayer Ji Interview with NPR
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
How Rothschild Banking Clan Uses Its Vast Wealth to Influence World Events and Control Governments
By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 15.09.2024
How powerful is the Rothschild banking family? How did they amass their fortune? Just how rich are they? Do they secretly control the world? Sputnik explores. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Weaponized Journalism: 2021 Sayer Ji Interview with NPR
- Beyond Netanyahu: what Israel’s election means for Palestinians
- Lithuania plans universal conscription
- Lies, Damn Lies, and Ukraine News
- Financial Times rejects Nordic demands to correct Putin call story – media
- The Case for Less Unity in Europe
- Ukraine expands minority rights under EU pressure – but Russians remain excluded
- Albania takes anti-riot crackdown cue from France
- The interest of the House of Rothschild in Ukraine
- Pentagon fires top military planner
- If Americans Knew
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- No Tricks Zone
- Germany’s Green Energy Transition Becoming Increasingly Expensive…Another 6 Trillion Euros!
- Sudden Stratospheric Warming, Powerful El Niño Combination May Lead To Extreme Europe Cold, Energy Crisis!
- Two New Studies Find Thwaites Glacier Melt Cannot Be Driven By Human Activity Or A Warming Ocean
- E-Cars Reduce CO2 Emissions By Only 41% Compared To Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles
- Predictions Made By Renowned Climate Professor Over Past Decades Have Been Proven To Be Poor
- New Study Suggests Large Regions Of The Pacific Ocean Have Been Cooling For The Last 80 Years
- Germany’s Green Energy Debacle: High Energy Costs Force Kahla Porzellan to Close After 182 Years!
- New Study: 50 Years Of The Most Aggressive ‘Net Zero’ Policies Can Only Affect The Global Climate By 0.03°C
- US September “Heat” Was No Record…Many Records Set Decades Ago
- Latest European Green Energy Debacle; Portugal’s Largest Flagship Solar Park Insolvent!
