Archive | C.I.A

Yemeni forces target the Saudi Zio-Wahhabi rear … the Ministry of Defense, an air base and military sites

Trump-Saudi war on Yemen, cartoon | Dear Kitty. Some blog

Today, Tuesday, the Yemeni Armed Forces announced the implementation of the fourth deterrence operation that targeted the capital of the aggression Riyadh and the Saudi Zio-Wahhabi depth, with a large number of ballistic missiles, wings and drones.

The armed forces spokesman, Brigadier General Yahya Sari, said in a statement: We have implemented – with the grace of God – the largest offensive operation “the fourth deterrent balance” on the capital of the Saudi enemy

The statement clarified that: The fourth deterrence balance operation destroyed the Ministry of Defense and Intelligence, Salman Air Force Base and military sites in Riyadh, Jizan, and Najran.

And that the fourth deterrence balance operation was carried out with a large number of ballistic missiles, the “Quds” wings, “Zulfikar”, and the Air Force marches

The Yemeni Armed Forces spokesman affirmed that the fourth deterrence balance operation came in response to the continuation of the unjust blockade and the brutal aggression against our great Yemeni people.

Brigadier-General Sari warned the Saudi-Zionist-American aggression countries against the consequences of persisting in his prostitution, aggression, criminality and exercising his criminal blockade, stressing our legitimate and steadfast right that necessitates the religious, moral, humanitarian and national duty to defend Yemen and its steadfast people

The Yemeni Armed Forces spokesman confirmed that we will carry out more and more powerful military operations until the siege is lifted, the aggression is stopped, and freedom and independence are achieved.

Statement text:


A statement issued by the Yemeni Armed Forces in the
name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful

In response to the continuing unjust embargo and brutal aggression against our great Yemeni people and our dear country, the Yemeni armed forces, with the grace of God Almighty, carried out the largest offensive operation, the “Fourth Balance of Deterrence,” which targeted the capital of the Saudi enemy with a large number of ballistic missiles, air forces, and wings.
With God’s help and payment, our Quds and Zulfikar missiles and Samad 3 marching planes destroyed military headquarters and centers in the Saudi enemy’s capital, including the Ministry of Defense and Intelligence and Salman Air Force Base and military sites in Jizan and Najran.

The Yemeni Armed Forces warn the enemy against the consequences of persisting in its aggression, aggression, crime and the practice of its criminal blockade, and it affirms its legitimate and inalienable right that necessitates the religious, moral, humanitarian and patriotic duty to defend the dear, steadfast and steadfast people of Yemen.

The Yemeni armed forces, with the assistance of God, assure and seek the assistance of God that they will carry out more and more powerful military operations, until
the siege is lifted, the aggression is stopped, and freedom and independence are achieved.

Long live Yemen, free, dear, independent, and
victory for Yemen and for all the free and honorable nation.

Issued by the Yemeni Armed Forces,
Sanaa 3, Dhu al-Qi’dah 1441 AH
, corresponding to June 23, 2020 CE


Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZI, C.I.A, NATO, Saudi Arabia, Yemen0 Comments

Chinese Diplomat to U.S.: Stop Using Xinjiang as a ‘Pretext to Interfere’

China, US, Xinjiang, camps, Uighurs, Mike Pompeo

This photo taken on June 4, 2019 shows people walking past a screen showing images of Chinese President Xi Jinping in Kashgar, in China’s western Xinjiang region.GREG BAKER/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES/GETTY

BY: DAVID BRENNAN 

Asenior Chinese diplomat has urged Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to end U.S. criticism of China’s mass internment camps for minority Muslim communities, accusing the U.S. of hypocrisy and meddling in Beijing’s domestic affairs.

Yang Jiechi, a Communist Party Politburo member and considered a key architect of Chinese foreign policy, spoke with Pompeo by phone on Wednesday about multiple hot topic issues that have undermined U.S.-Chinese relations in recent months and years.

Among them was China’s oppression of Muslim minority groups in the restive far western province of Xinjiang. China is believed to have sent more than a million people from Uyghur and other minority communities to re-education camps in Xinjiang, forcing them to undergo ideological indoctrination to try and expunge long-held beliefs and traditions.

Critics have described the program as a cultural genocide, and former inmates have described inhumane conditions and rampant human rights abuses in the camps.

Outside, Chinese authorities have turned Xinjiang into a fearsome surveillance state where residents are constantly under scrutiny for any perceived sign of disloyalty to the Chinese Communist Party. Mosques, cemeteries and other cultural sites have been bulldozed to erase local identity and make it easier for authorities to watch locals.READ MORE

China maintains that the camps are needed to fight terrorism and extremism in Xinjiang. Separatist and Islamist militants from the province have launched multiple attacks in China, though Beijing critics say the regime’s reaction is disproportionate.

Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian told reporters Thursday that Yang and Pompeo had discussed Xinjiang and American condemnation of Beijing’s program there.

Yang claimed that the security situation in the province “has been turned around and the rights to life, health and development of all ethnic groups there have been effectively safeguarded,” Zhao said.

This was achieved, Yang said, “thanks to the counter-terrorism and de-radicalization measures taken by the Chinese government in accordance with law.”

On Wednesday. President Donald Trump signed the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act of 2020 into law. The bill condemns Chinese policy in Xinjiang and allows the U.S. to sanction individuals abusing human rights there.

Yang said China “strongly deplores” the legislation and urged the U.S. “to respect China’s counter-terrorism and de-radicalization efforts, stop applying double standards on counter-terrorism issues, and stop using Xinjiang-related issues as a pretext to interfere in China’s internal affairs.”

Trump signed the Uyghur bill on the same day former National Security Advisor John Bolton claimed that the president had expressed support for the Xinjiang camps in conversations with President Xi Jinping.

In an excerpt from his forthcoming book—The Room Where it Happened, releasing on June 23—Trump told Xi through an interpreter “that Xi should go ahead with building the camps, which Trump thought was exactly the right thing to do.”

In the excerpt, published by The Wall Street Journal, Bolton then recalled a conversation with the National Security Council’s top Asia staffer, Matthew Pottinger, who “told me that Trump said something very similar during his November 2017 trip to China.”

The State Department released its own acknowledgement of the call, though did not detail discussions about Xinjiang. In the statement, spokesperson Morgan Ortagus said Yang and Pompeo “stressed important American interests and the need for fully-reciprocal dealings between the two nations across commercial, security, and diplomatic interactions.”

Posted in USA, C.I.A, China0 Comments

How Washington intends to triumph

by Thierry Meyssan

During the quarter of Western lockdown, the map of the Middle East was profoundly transformed. Yemen has been divided into two separate countries, Israel is paralysed by two Prime Ministers who hate each other, Iran openly supports NATO in Iraq and Libya, Turkey occupies northern Syria, Saudi Arabia is close to bankruptcy. All alliances are being called into question and new dividing lines are appearing or rather reappearing.

JPEG - 27.4 kb

In 2001, Donald Rumsfeld and Admiral Arthur Cebrowski defined the Pentagon’s objectives in the era of financial capitalism. The staff then drew up this map of the partition of the Greater Middle East. However, in 2017, Donald Trump opposed (1) border changes (2) the creation of states governed by jihadists (3) the presence of US troops in the region. From then on, the Pentagon reflected on how to continue the destruction of state structures without questioning the countries and to the satisfaction of the White House.

For two decades Washington has been trying to “reshape” the “Greater Middle East”, an arbitrarily defined region stretching from Afghanistan to Morocco. However, over the last three years two strategies have clashed: on the one hand the Pentagon, which wants to destroy the state structures of all the countries in the region, whether friends or enemies, and on the other President Trump, who intends to dominate the region commercially without military occupation.

When lockdown was declared to prevent the Covid-19 outbreak, we warned that profound changes were taking place in the region and that it would no longer look like the one we had before. We started from the observation that Washington had given up on destroying the state in Syria, now a Russian reserved area. So the main question was, on the one hand, what the Pentagon’s next target in the region would be. There were two possible answers: Turkey or Saudi Arabia, both of which are allies of the United States. And, secondly, what markets the White House would try to open.

This analysis was shared by all those who interpret the last twenty years as the implementation of the Rumsfeld/Cebrowski strategy for the destruction of state structures in the Greater Middle East. It was, on the contrary, rejected by those who, refusing to take international factors into account, naively interpret events as a succession of civil wars (Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen and perhaps soon Lebanon) with no link with each other.

Yet three months later, Turkey is militarily supported by Iran in Libya, while Saudi Arabia has disappeared from the radar, particularly in Yemen, and the Emirates are becoming the pole of regional stability. The regional shift has started to benefit Ankara and Abu Dhabi and to the detriment of Riyadh. The most radical transformations are the turnaround of Iran on the side of NATO, the easing of US-Turkey relations and the rise of the United Arab Emirates. So we were right, and those who give credit to the narrative of civil wars have become self-intoxicated. Of course, they will not recognize it and will need several months to adapt their erroneous discourse to the realities on the ground.

It goes without saying that each actor will have to adjust his or her position, so our observations are valid only for today. But the region is changing very quickly and those who think too long to react will automatically lose out; a point that is particularly valid for Europeans. Finally, this new situation is very unstable and will be called into question by Washington if President Trump does not succeed himself, or by Moscow if President Putin does not manage to retain power at the end of his presidential term, or by Beijing if President Xi persists in building sections of the Silk Roads in the West.

In the greatest media silence, the United Arab Emirates disassociated itself from Saudi Arabia on the Yemeni battlefield. They supported tribes that excluded Saudi troops from their country. Together with the British, they occupied the island of Socotra, taking control of the Strait of Bab el-Mandeb at the outlet of the Red Sea. They operated a de facto partition of Yemen, taking over the Cold War borders between North Yemen and South Yemen [1].

Iran, in spite of its border dispute with the Emirates and the war that they have just fought through Yemeni intermediaries, has been satisfied with this outcome, which allows the Shiite Houthis to obtain a semblance of peace, but not yet to defeat the famine. Finally accepting that Donald Trump had been elected president of the United States, Tehran renewed contact with Washington three years late. Spectacularly, the government of Hassan Rohani announced military support for the el-Sarraj government in Libya [2]. In practice, this means that it supports the Muslim Brotherhood (as in the 1990s in Bosnia-Herzegovina), Turkey and NATO (as during the regime of Shah Reza Pahlevi). Under these conditions, we no longer see what Iran is doing in Syria where it is supposed to fight against its new allies, the jihadists, Turkey and NATO.

Of course, it must be borne in mind that Iran, like the new Israel, is two-headed. The statements of the Rohani government may not commit the Guide of the Revolution, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Be that as it may, the reversal of this centrepiece puts Lebanese Hezbollah in a bad position. It now appears that it was indeed the United States that deliberately provoked the collapse of the Lebanese pound with the help of the governor of the Central Bank, Riad Salamé. Washington is now trying to impose on Beirut a US law (Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act) forcing it to close the Lebanese-Syrian border. To survive, Lebanon would be forced to form an alliance with the only other power with which it shares a land border: its former colonizer, Israel [3]. Certainly, the arrival in power in Tel Aviv of a two-headed coalition, combining the supporters of the former British colonial project and those of the nationalism of the third generation of Israelis, no longer allows for an invasion of Lebanon. But this coalition is extremely fragile and a return to the past remains possible, if not probable. The only solution for Lebanon is therefore not to apply US law and to turn not to the West, but to Russia and China. This is what Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah dared to say publicly. He considers that Iran – despite its rapprochement with Turkey (present in the North of Lebanon with the Muslim Brotherhood [4]) and with NATO (present behind Israel) – remains culturally the intermediary between China and the West. Throughout antiquity and the Middle Ages, one spoke not the multiple local languages along the Silk Road, but Persian.

Historically, Hezbollah was created on the model of the Bassij of the Iranian Revolution, whose flag it shares. However, until the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon in 2005, its armament came from Damascus and not from Tehran. It will therefore have to choose between its two sponsors, either for ideological reasons or for material reasons. Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah is a supporter of the Syrian secular model, while his deputy, Sheikh Naïm Qassem, is an unconditional supporter of the Iranian theocratic model. But the money is in Tehran, not Damascus.

In any case, the Lebanese may be on the wrong track. They fail to understand why Washington is overwhelming them because they do not consider that the United States and Russia have decided to implement the regional Yalta that they negotiated in 2012 and that Hillary Clinton and François Hollande have blown up. In that case, Beirut may have been included in the Russian zone of influence without their knowledge.

Once again, and consistently for centuries, the interests of the Western powers have certainly been moving in the direction of secularism, but their strategy to dominate the region leads them inexorably to rely on the religious people against the nationalists (with the sole and brief exception of the USA in 1953).

Syria, encircled by US allies, has no choice but to source its supplies from Russia, something its ruling class has been reluctant to do for the past six years. This will only become possible with the resolution of the conflict between President Bashar al-Assad and his distant cousin, the billionaire Rami Makluf, and beyond, with all the Syrian oligarchs. This quarrel owes nothing to the family affair described by the Western media. It must be compared to the takeover of the Russian oligarchs by President Vladimir Putin during the 2000s, which enabled him to erase the errors of the Yeltsin period. Seventeen years of embargoes against Damascus have only delayed this inevitable showdown. It is only once this conflict has been resolved that Damascus will be able to consider recovering its lost territories, the Golan Heights occupied by Israel and Idleb occupied by Turkey [5].

Iraq was the second country – after the Emirates – to have understood the Iranian change. It immediately reached an agreement with Washington and the new Tehran to appoint the head of its secret service, Mustafa al-Kadhimi, as prime minister, despite the fact that he has been violently accused during the last six months by the former Tehran of having actively participated in the assassination in Baghdad of the Shiite hero Qassem Soleimani [6]. Iraq should therefore no longer fight the resurgence of its jihadist groups (mercenary organizations of the Anglo-Saxons and now supported by Iran), but negotiate with its leaders.

Israel, the only state in the world that is now governed by two prime ministers, will no longer be able to play the role of an extension of the Anglo-Saxon powers, nor will it be able to become a nation like the others. Its entire foreign policy is paralysed at the very moment when Lebanon is weakened and represents for it a prey of choice. For the supporters of the colonial project, united behind Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and now losing momentum, Iran’s change is already visible in Iraq and Libya. There is an urgent need to invent a new iconic enemy in order to maintain itself. On the contrary, for the Israeli nationalists, united behind Second Prime Minister Benny Gantz, it is advisable not to throw stones at anyone and to negotiate cautiously with Hamas (i.e. with the Muslim Brotherhood) [7].

Egypt remains focused on its food problem. It only manages to feed its population with Saudi aid and plans its development with Chinese aid. For the moment it is paralysed by the Saudi retreat and the anti-Chinese US offensive. However, it is continuing to rearm.

Libya, at last, no longer exists as a state. It is divided in two like Yemen. Due to NATO’s victory in 2011 and the absence of US troops on the ground, it is the only place in the region where the Pentagon can pursue the Rumsfeld/Cebrowski strategy without obstacles [8]. The recent military successes of the el-Sarraj (i.e. Muslim Brotherhood) government – supported by Turkey and now also by Iran – should not be an illusion. The government of Marshal Haftar -supported by the Emirates and Egypt- is resisting. The Pentagon intends to prolong the conflict as long as possible to the detriment of the entire population. It supports both sides at the same time as it did during the Iraq-Iran war (1980-88) and will always come to the aid of the loser, whom it will abandon the next day.

The two big losers of the new situation remain: China and Saudi Arabia.

The Chinese influence stops in Iran. It has just been stopped by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in Israel. Beijing will not build the largest desalination plant in the world and its projects at the ports of Haifa and Ashdod are doomed to failure despite the huge investments already made. No one will dare to eliminate the 18,000 Chinese jihadists at the Syrian-Turkish border [9] so that it will always remain unstable, closing the possibility of the northern passage of the Silk Road. There will thus remain only the hypothesis of the Southern passage, through the Egyptian Suez Canal, but this will remain under the control of the Westerners.

No one knows where Saudi Arabia stands. In three years, Prince Mohamed Ben Salmane (MBS) has managed to arouse wild hopes in the West and to alienate all the powers in the region by hanging and dismembering his opponents followed by dissolving their bodies with acid. His country had to retreat in Yemen, where it had recklessly ventured, and give up its great works, notably the construction of the free zone that was to house the world’s billionaires, Neom [10]. Its gigantic oil reserves are no longer objects of speculation and have lost most of their value. The greatest military power of the region is only a colossus with feet of clay about to die in the desert sands where it was born.

In the end, President Donald Trump is achieving his goal: he has defeated the Pentagon’s plan to give a state to a terrorist organization, Daesh, and then managed to get all the states in the region back into the US economic zone except Syria, which has already been lost since 2014. At the same time, however, the Pentagon also triumphed in part: it succeeded in destroying the state structures of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Yemen. Its only failure was in Syria, certainly because of the Russian military intervention, but above all because the Syrians have embodied the concept of the state since the dawn of time.

The annihilation of Afghan state structures, according to the Pentagon’s plan, and the withdrawal of US troops, which will be effective on the day of the US presidential election, according to the will of President Trump, could have marked the alliance between these two forces. However, this is not the case. The Pentagon tried in vain to impose martial law in the United States in the face of the Covid-19 epidemic [11], then it gave covert assistance to the “Antifas” that it had already supervised in Syria [12] to coordinate supposedly “racial” riots. Russia, which has never wavered in its position, is wisely waiting to reap the laurels of its commitment in Syria.

[1] “First NATO-ME War Overturns Regional Order”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Roger Lagassé, Voltaire Network, 24 March 2020.

[2] “Iran openly backs NATO in Lybia”, Voltaire Network, 17 June 2020.

[3] “Hassan Nasrallah says US wants to cause famine in Lebanon”, Voltaire Network, 17 June 2020.

[4] “Turkey and demonstrations in Lebanon”, Voltaire Network, 13 February 2020.

[5] “Turkey’s de facto annexation of Syria”, Voltaire Network, 18 June 2020.

[6] “Washington, Tehran place one of Soleimani’s assassins in power in Iraq”, Voltaire Network, 16 May 2020.

[7] “The Decolonization of Israel has Begun”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Roger Lagassé, Voltaire Network, 26 May 2020.

[8] “Preparing for a new war”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Roger Lagassé, Voltaire Network, 7 January 2020.

[9] “The 18,000 al-Qaeda Uighurs in Syria”, Translation Roger Lagassé, Voltaire Network, 21 August 2018.

[10] “Egypt contributes part of its own territory for Plan Neom”, Translation Anoosha Boralessa, Voltaire Network, 8 March 2018.

[11] “Putchists in the Shadow of the Coronavirus”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Roger Lagassé, 31 March 2020. “The Pentagon against President Trump”, Voltaire Network, 12 June 2020.

[12] “NATO’s Anarchist Brigades”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete Kimberley, Voltaire Network, 12 September 2017.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZI, C.I.A, Iran, Iraq, Middle East, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen0 Comments

US-Assad negotiations

By: Sammi Ibrahem,Sr

On 23 June 2020, Syrian Foreign Affairs Minister Walid Moallem gave a press conference to denounce the burning of vast areas of farmland by the United States and the jihadists and the repercussions of the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act.

Asked about the existence of SECRET negotiations between the Presidential Palace and the White House, he briefly confirmed that they had started irrespective of the above developments.

Posted in USA, C.I.A, Syria0 Comments

Venezuelan working class defies imperialist attacks

 By: Sam Mcgill

Venezuelan security forces with captured former US Green Berets

Like a scene out of Rambo, mercenaries on speedboats led by US special ops veterans raced towards Venezuela’s coast in two waves on 3-4 May. This was ‘Operation Gideon’, its aim: to capture high-ranking government officials, including President Nicolas Maduro, turn them over to the United States and overthrow Venezuela’s Bolivarian revolution. The new coup-government was to be led by Juan Guaido, the opposition leader and self-styled president touted by the US and its allies as the face of ‘regime change’ since he swaggered onto the scene in 2019. Hollywood fantasy quickly evaporated, however, as these charlatans found themselves tied up, detained and defeated by an organised revolutionary Venezuelan people, determined to defend their sovereignty. SAM McGILL reports.

The coup that failed

The Bolivarian armed forces intercepted the first wave at the country’s main port of La Guaira, where a shoot-out left eight paramilitaries dead. Then, tipped off by the Venezuelan intelligence agency, fishing communities in the predominantly Afro-Venezuelan Chuao Valley enacted a beach defence plan, capturing the mercenaries and tying them up with fishing rope while waiting for the authorities to arrive. Their actions were replicated in other coastal villages. Since the attack, 52 mercenaries have been detained. Yet another coup attempt was defeated by the strength of the alliance between the Venezuela’s loyal armed forces and the 3.5 million-strong Bolivarian militia volunteers. As community activist Ana Felicien explained: ‘the militias are everywhere, the militias are the people, they are not separate … they defend us through every day actions and also in critical times, defending the border’.

 The plot was coordinated by a US Army special operations veteran, Jordan Goudreau, and his Florida-based private security firm Silvercorp USA. Silvercorp provided security at Donald Trump’s election rallies and for Richard Branson’s farcical ‘Venezuela Aid’ concert in Colombia last year, which attempted to provide cover for USAID intervention across the border. A former Venezuelan major general, Cliver Alcala, trained 300 Venezuelan military, paramilitary and police defectors in camps in the Colombian city of Riohacha – a headland away from Venezuelan waters. Finance and logistics were provided by the Colombian La Guajira drug cartel. The operation had already been compromised after a cache of weapons was seized in Colombia in March. Alcala took that hit, releasing a confession tape before handing himself over to the authorities. Then, on 1 May, the Silvercorp plot was exposed by the Associated Press news agency. Nevertheless a band of 60 mercenaries pressed ahead.

Guaido initially denied any involvement before an incriminating Silvercorp contract for $212m, signed by him and his top aides, was made public. The contract reveals that Goudreau was promised a bonus of $10m and a lucrative contract under Guaido in Venezuela if his plot succeeded. An investors’ group was fronting the $212m bill, to be paid back by Guaido’s government at 55% interest, payable in barrels of oil. Guaido committed $450,000 to the families of any Silvercorp personnel who were arrested, wounded or killed in the course of the operation, and operatives were absolved of responsibility for any destruction or loss of life in the process of carrying out the mission. The contract gives the green light to the use of deadly anti-personnel mines – whose use is banned by 150 countries (not including the United States) – military strikes against infrastructure and other economic targets, and the use of deadly force against civilians.

US and Britain manoeuvre against Venezuela

The US has denied ‘direct’ involvement in this botched invasion. Yet just days before the attack, a string of tweets from US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Special Representative for Venezuela Elliot Abrams and former National Security Adviser John Bolton gloated that: ‘Transition in Venezuela is coming’, ‘Morning is coming to Venezuela again’ and that the proxy US embassy for Venezuela in Colombia would ‘soon be moving to Caracas’. Two former members of the US Army Special Forces – Luke Denman and Aidan Berry – were captured as the plot was foiled. Their families told US news channels that the two men had believed the operation had US backing. Certainly it is the US Treasury Department which bankrolls Guaido’s phoney ‘administration’, using $11.6bn of frozen Venezuelan state assets. In March, the US Justice Department indicted Nicolas Maduro on trumped-up ‘narco-terrorism’ charges, placing a bounty of $15m on his head. In April, Trump issued an executive order activating armed forces reservists for a supposed ‘anti-narcotics’ mission against Venezuela.

The British government is also up to its neck in dirty manoeuvres aimed at destabilising Venezuela’s socialist government. The British left-wing news website The Canary discovered through a series of Freedom of Information requests that a secret ‘reconstruction of Venezuela’ unit exists within the UK Foreign Office (The Canary, 13 May 2020). It is headed by John Saville, Britain’s ambassador to Venezuela from 2014 to 2017, who promoted British recognition of Juan Guaido as ‘interim president’ in January 2019, and urged the Bank of England to hand over to Guaido the £1.2bn of Venezuelan gold reserves frozen since then. The gold is currently subject to a lawsuit filed against the Bank by the Venezuelan government, which wants £930m worth of the reserves sold and the money channelled through the United Nations to fund Covid-19 relief within Venezuela. Saville also directed the the Department for International Development to channel at least £40m of ‘humanitarian assistance’ to Venezuela without revealing who the beneficiaries of the funding would be. The Foreign Office has previously admitted to financing three opposition outfits committed to overthrowing the government, including the rather misleadingly named Radiophonic Institute of Faith and Joy.

This ‘reconstruction unit’ was central to talks between Guaido and British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab and the Minister for the Americas, Christopher Pincher in January 2020 when Venezuela’s wannabe president visited London. The Canary reveals that the Foreign Office ensured positive press coverage of Guaido’s visit, while the Guaido-appointed fake ‘envoy’ to Britain, Vanessa Neumann, emphasised her desire to ‘sustain British business in Venezuela’s reconstruction’. Neumann’s Asymmetrica Ltd firm is co-directed by Alec Bierbauer and Michael Marks, who work closely with the US military and are credited with developing US drone warfare. It is no coincidence that in 2018, President Maduro was the target of a failed drone assassination attempt. The exposé has led to Venezuela’s diplomatic denunciation of British support for coup-mongering in Caracas. As Samuel Moncada, Venezuela’s ambassador to the UN put it, ‘The British government is looking for business advantages once Trump imposes his colonial regime in Venezuela’.

Meanwhile, the mainstream British media continues with propaganda against Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution. The Guardian’s current Latin America correspondent, Tom Phillips, penned his usual hatchet job after the failed coup attempt, taking the side of the captured US Green Beret Luke Denman, whom he described as simply wanting to help ‘Venezuelans take back control of their country’, and calling into question the authenticity of Denman’s video confession. As per usual, Phillips makes reference to Venezuela’s ‘food shortages, violence and political turmoil’ whilst completely failing to mention the devastating impact of US sanctions. Three other Guardian hacks – Julian Borger, Joe Parkin Daniels and Chris McGreal – conclude their piece on Operation Gideon by publishing Guaido’s ludicrous accusation against Maduro of having ‘blood on his hands’ for letting the operation go ahead. Once again The Guardian shows that despite its liberal veneer, it cannot offer a truthful picture of what is underway in Venezuela. Doing so would require it to side with the Bolivarian revolutionary struggle against 20 years of US imperialist sabotage and destabilisation.

Not one of the 50, predominantly western, countries that ‘recognise’ Guaido as the interim president of Venezuela have uttered one word of condemnation of the coup attempt against a sovereign country. Guaido has been at the centre of a string of scandals and failures since he swore himself in as president in 2019. He has never stood as a presidential candidate, and now cannot even claim to be head of the opposition-dominated National Assembly. He has been pictured with Colombian drug traffickers Los Rastrojos after they helped him cross into Colombia, his team have been caught red handed blowing the cash given to them for ‘humanitarian aid’ on prostitutes, hotels and flash cars and now his team is paying itself $5,000 a month from money destined for ‘humanitarian assistance’. Such ‘assistance’ never demands the lifting of sanctions that have cost Venezuela $120bn since 2014 and which UN human rights expert Alfred de Zayas estimates are responsible for up to 100,000 deaths.

Defying the US blockade

On 25 March, the first of five Iranian tankers bringing 1.5 million barrels of gasoline docked at Puerto Cabello, the site of Venezuela’s biggest oil refinery, in defiance of US sanctions on both countries. Oil workers celebrated on the dock, waving Iranian and Venezuelan flags, after the oil tanker Fortune dropped anchor. The US had deployed naval ships to the area, saying it was watching the situation closely and was ‘considering measures’. Iran made it clear that any hostile action would be met with a ‘quick and decisive response’, and it was clear, with Venezuelan navy and air support accompanying the convoy of tankers into its national waters, that for the United States the risk of direct intervention was too great. Iran has also provided key components to get Venezuela’s refineries working productively again. The Iranian fuel is urgently needed as the US has imposed secondary sanctions on Russia’s Rosneft, which had been carrying 60% of Venezuela’s exports, as well as ending sanctions waivers for Chevron and putting pressure against Indian trade. Venezuela’s heavy crude oil needs complex refining, and the nation desperately needs fuel and diluent for oil refineries, industry and power generation. Rolling blackouts and rationing leave whole states without electricity for days at a time whilst oil output has been slashed to around 700,000 barrels per day, down from 2 million in 2018.

Covid-19 – Venezuela’s exemplary response

Despite the apocalyptic prediction of death in Venezuela ‘on an appalling scale’ as a result of Covid-19 from the politically-motivated David Miliband of the International Rescue Committee – and much to the chagrin of Tom Phillips – Venezuela has so far been able to control the impact of the coronavirus. Although its economy, health system and food provision have been ravaged by sanctions and economic sabotage, as of 27 May Venezuela had 1,245 confirmed cases of infection, and just 11 deaths. It may struggle to sustain this as tens of thousands of Venezuelan migrants pour over the borders from Colombia and Brazil, where Covid-19 is wreaking devastation. However the measures it has taken to date offer an object lesson on how to contain the pandemic. These include:

  • Free health care for all.
  • Mass testing – Venezuela has carried out more tests per capita than any other country in Latin America.
  • Being the first country in Latin America to introduce a national quarantine on 17 March, after restricting international air travel five days earlier.
  • Mandatory wearing of medical masks and gloves in public.
  • Deployment of workers in major cities to disinfect public areas.
  • Medical teams, including Cuban doctors, going door-to-door to survey, test and if necessary quarantine those reporting symptoms.

However the economic impacts of lockdown are hitting hard. Wage increases are quickly eroded by inflation; the Bolivar has lost 57% of its value against the dollar since March. Food boxes delivered to six million families are a lifeline but the inability to supplement incomes via the informal sector, scarcity of food and shortages of cooking gas, electricity and water are ramping up the pressure in the barrios. Unsurprisingly there have been isolated instances of looting, whilst the comunas and social movements demand decisive action to confront capitalist speculation and sabotage. The survival of the Bolivarian revolutionary movement continues to depend on the organised working class and poor, fighting to construct socialism against all odds.

Posted in USA, C.I.A, Venezuela0 Comments

Questionable Nazi intelligence sparks dangerous crisis with Iran

IFAMERICANSKNEW.ORG  

Questionable Israeli intelligence sparks dangerous crisis with Iran

IAEA meeting on proposed Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in the Middle East. Vienna, Austria, 21-22 November 2011. (Dean Calma / IAEA)

An IAEA resolution based on questionable Israeli intelligence has sparked a crisis with Iran that could spin out of control, warns Scott Ritter.

By Scott Ritter, reposted from Consortium News

The Iran nuclear deal that the Trump administration pulled out of last year is on the verge of collapse.

The National Security and Foreign Policy Committee of the Iranian Parliament last Tuesday ratified a motion that required the Iranian government to cease its voluntary implementation of its Additional Protocol agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The motion, if turned into law, would represent a death knell to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Program of Action (JCPOA), the groundbreaking agreement between Iran and the United States, Great Britain, France, Russia, China, Germany, and the European Union to end the crisis surrounding Iran’s nuclear program.

There is still time before the matter could be brought up for a vote; indeed, the committee is scheduled to hold a hearing on July 6, and has invited Foreign Minister Mohammad-Javad Zarif and Nuclear Chief Ali-Akbar Salehi to testify.

IAEA Resolution

The current crisis over Iran’s nuclear program was triggered by the IAEA Board of Governors, which on June 19 passed a resolution expressing its “serious concern” over Iran’s refusal to provide “access to the Agency under the Additional Protocol to two locations.” The resolution said that “discussions engaged, for almost a year, to clarify Agency questions related to possible undeclared nuclear material and nuclear related activities in Iran have not led to progress.”

The Board of Governors resolution required that “Iran shall cooperate fully and in a timely manner” with the IAEA in implementing its Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement and Additional Protocol, including “by providing acces.” The resolution reaffirmed that such “cooperation and implementation are essential for the IAEA to reach the Broader Conclusion that all nuclear material in Iran remains in peaceful activities.”

The First Three Years of the Deal

IAEA meeting on proposed Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in the Middle East. Vienna, Austria, 21-22 November 2011. (Dean Calma / IAEA)

The Board of Governor’s June 19 resolution did not occur in a vacuum. For the first three years of the JCPOA’s implementation, Iran was repeatedly certified as being in full compliance with all of its obligations, including granting IAEA inspector’s access to facilities and locations mandated by the additional protocol.

The protocol is an expanded set of requirements for information and access between Iran and the IAEA. It assists IAEA inspectors to confirm that states are using nuclear material for solely peaceful purposes. The protocol is a voluntary agreement and is independently constructed between a state and the IAEA.

Iran negotiated its additional protocol with the IAEA in 2003, which was signed but never ratified. Nevertheless, Iran implemented the protocol on a voluntary basis from 2003 to 2006 before ending its cooperation in the face of allegations that Iran was cheating.

Iran and the IAEA then entered a decade-long confrontation, which was only resolved with the implementation of the JCPOA nuclear deal, which was unanimously endorsed by the UN Security Council in resolution 2231 on July 20, 2015. That made the JCPOA binding under both international and U.S. constitutional law.

The nuclear deal established a road map, framed by mutually binding commitments, that took Iran from zero tolerance over nuclear enrichment, to a time when Iran would be able to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes without restriction, as long as the IAEA confirmed that Iran’s entire nuclear program had no military intentions. According to the deal, Iran would be subjected to stringent safeguards inspections that included the additional protocol.

Iran Reacts to Trump’s Move

Zarif (r.) negotiating nuclear deal with then US Secretary of State John Kerry in July, 2015.

When the Trump administration, acting on President Trump’s [or, perhaps more likely, Sheldon and Miriam Adelson’s] belief that the JCPOA was a “bad agreement,” withdrew from the JCPOA and began re-imposing U.S. economic sanctions, which had been lifted under the terms of the deal, Iran indicated that it would reconsider its participation.

For the time being, Iran continued to abide by its obligations under the deal, accepting European Union and the other JCPOA nations’ guarantees that regardless of what the U.S. did vis-à-vis sanctions, the other nations would not follow suit, and thereby fulfill their commitments to Iran under the terms of the JCPOA.

A year after the U.S. withdrawal from the deal, however, Europe collectively reneged on that commitment, succumbing to the threat of U.S. secondary sanctions, which threatened any European business that engaged in commerce with Iran.

In response, Iran invoked Articles 26 and 36 of the JCPOA. Article 26 holds that if new nuclear-related sanctions are imposed on Iran by any party to the deal it will constitute “grounds (for its authorities) to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part.”

Article 36 states that if actions by parties to the JCPOA “constitute significant non-performance, then (Iran) could treat the unresolved issue as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part and/or notify the UN Security Council that it believes the issue constitutes significant non-performance.”

Iran stressed at the time that its retaliatory measures would be reversible as soon as Europe ignored the threat of secondary U.S. sanctions and fulfilled its obligations regarding sanctions-free trade with Iran.

Initially, Iran increased its enriched uranium stockpile to beyond the 300 kilograms limit set by the JCPOA. When the Europeans continued to balk, Iran began enriching uranium to purity rates beyond the JCPOA limit of 3.76 percent.

Next, when Europe failed to meet a 60-day deadline to fulfill its commitments, Iran began to operate advanced centrifuges capable of boosting its enriched uranium stockpile, as well as activating advanced centrifuges for research and development purposes.

Lastly, in November 2019, Iran began injecting uranium gas into centrifuges at its Fordow plant, something which, while prohibited under the JCPOA, was conducted under IAEA inspection.

Interestingly, the IAEA Board of Governor’s June 19 resolution did not address these actions in any depth. Instead, the focus of attention was on the issue of Iran’s implementation of the additional protocol.

As noted, Iran had entered into voluntary compliance with the IAEA of an additional protocol agreed in 2003, but withdrew in 2006 in the face of allegations derived from intelligence provided to the IAEA by Israel of Iranian cheating [see: article published today in Consortium News, “Israel Leverages Dubious ‘Nuclear Archives’ to Re-Enlist IAEA in Campaign Against Iran.“]

Under the JCPOA, Iran agreed to implement its additional protocol on a “provisional” basis for up to eight years before it became legally binding.

Iran insisted on these terms in order to prevent the kind of scenario that is, in fact, playing out today, where the United States has re-imposed sweeping economic sanctions against Iran, and is seeking to trigger so-called “snap-back” sanctions that would return Iran to the regimen of measures previously imposed by the Security Council, but terminated upon the council’s endorsement of the nuclear deal.

Israeli Allegations

Iran nuclear sites. (Wikimedia Commons)

The Board of Governor’s resolution mentions two sites that are alleged to be engaged in ongoing, undeclared nuclear activity. Normally, these sites would be ideal candidates for the kind of inspections envisioned under the protocol, and indeed Iran has a history of providing similar access to other sites.

What separates these sites from the others is that Iran claims the allegations about them are a product of Israeli intelligence, and as such are deemed to be fabrications designed to provoke Iran. “No country,” Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran’s ambassador told the Board of Governors before its vote on the June 19 resolution, “opens its territory to the inspections only based on continuous allegations provided by its own enemy, even if it is evident that the result of which will prove those allegations to be false.”

Iran’s position on the two sites does not appear to be out of fear over what would be discovered—indeed Iranian President Hassan Rouhani told the United Nations in September 2019 that, “If the U.S. Congress ratifies the JCPOA and lifts all sanctions permanently, Iran is ready to pursue the immediate ratification of the Additional Protocol in the Iranian parliament as a permanent law.”

‘Nothing to Hide’

Rather, it is a matter of principle for Iran. Indeed, Foreign Minister Zarif noted in a tweet that “an agreeable solution is possible” for the IAEA’s request for access to the two nuclear sites in the country—but not if Iran was subjected to pressure in the form of a Board of Governor’s resolution predicated on Israeli intelligence.

“We’ve nothing to hide,” Zarif tweeted. “More inspections in Iran over last 5 yrs than in IAEA history. An agreeable solution is possible, but Res will ruin it.”

Zarif’s warning was of no avail. Shortly after the Board of Governors passed its resolution, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued a statement declaring that:

“Iran’s denial of access to IAEA inspectors and refusal to cooperate with the IAEA’s investigation is deeply troubling and raises serious questions about what Iran is trying to hide. Over the past months, Iran has not only continued its nuclear escalation and extortion, but it has also stonewalled the IAEA. These actions are unacceptable and underscore the continued threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program to international peace and security.”

The battle lines have been drawn. By caving into pressure from the United States to force a resolution by the Board of Governors, the European nations who are party to the JCPOA have done great harm to that agreement.

Having forced a showdown with Iran over the issue of access to sites based upon intelligence of questionable provenance, the IAEA has once again opted to take the world to the brink of a crisis with Iran which could ultimately see that nation withdraw not only from the JCPOA, but also the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Not only would such an outcome undermine the issue of global nuclear nonproliferation, but also more than likely put Iran on a path toward the kind of decisive military confrontation that would spell ruin for the Middle East and, by extension, the entire world.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZI, C.I.A, Iran0 Comments

Iran smashes US blockade on Venezuela with fuel delivery

The axis of resistance is building its network of practical solidarity in the teeth of imperialist opposition.

Proletarian writers

The revolutionary spirit of both the Iranian and Venezuelan peoples stands as a beacon of hope for the oppressed masses of the whole world, and earns the unbounded respect and support of all anti-imperialists.

In a stunning display of solidarity and courage, Iran has successfully dispatched five Iranian-flagged tankers loaded with petrol to Venezuela, asserting the legal right of the two countries to trade with whomever they wish and breaking the criminal blockade imposed by US imperialism.

From the moment the tankers set out in mid-May, Iran made no secret of their intended destination, openly challenging the supposed right of the US to dictate who should trade with whom, and facing down the piratical threats and bluster with which the imperialists seek to bully and intimidate sovereign nations into compliance with their demands.

Iran and Venezuela have a formidable record of mutual support in the face of imperialist aggression. Back in 2009, the situation was reversed, when Hugo Chávez supplied petrol to Iran, a brave act of solidarity in revenge for which then-president Obama levied sanctions against Venezuela’s state-owned oil company PDVSA.

Ten years on and Iran is returning the favour. Venezuela’s problem now is that whilst the country has plenty of oil, US sanctions have starved the country of the wherewithal to refine it for use as fuel. Those sanctions obstruct Caracas from getting hold of spare parts with which to repair the refineries or the chemical additives necessary for turning crude oil into fuel.

It is estimated that the five tanker loads, now all safely docked at Venezuelan ports, have brought enough fuel to supply the country with fuel for some 50 days, and Iran has made it clear that if Venezuela requests more it is happy to supply it.

Back in April, the US indulged in provocative naval manoeuvres in the Caribbean, supposedly in furtherance of an anti-drug operation, but in reality to heighten the threat level against the legitimate government of Nicolás Maduro – a government that the US has failed to oust in successive coup attempts.

Caracas noted that this was reminiscent of the naval build-up that preceded the invasion of Panama in 1989, and was a clear threat to the sovereignty and independence of Venezuela. Indeed, President Trump had already specifically threatened Venezuela with a naval blockade.

So it surprised nobody when Iran’s friendly trade initiative in May was greeted by the US with warlike (if incoherent) words, with Trump exclaiming: “We’ve got it [Venezuela] surrounded, it’s surrounded at a level that nobody even knows but they know. We are watching to see what happens.” (Trump claims to have Venezuela ‘surrounded’ as Iranian tankers approach by Lucas Koerner, Orinoco Tribune, 23 May 2020)

Given the prevailing warlike tone issuing from the White House, both trade partners took security precautions against possible acts of US piracy.

Iran’s minister of defence, Amir Hatami, warned the US that his country would respond firmly to attempts to prevent Persian oil tankers from sailing to Venezuela, declaring: “Iran will not tolerate obstacles [to its oil ships]. Both the United States and other countries know that we will not hesitate. If the obstacles continue or increase, Iran’s response will be forceful.” (Iran promises the US a forceful response if it prevents oil tankers from entering Venezuela to alleviate gasoline shortages, Orinoco Tribune, 21 May 2020)

Meanwhile, Venezuela’s army and air force were getting well prepared for all eventualities. In the course of military drills on the island of La Orchila, missiles were tested in readiness for any US attack on the tankers.

Further, Venezuela’s defence minister, Vladimir Padrino López, explained that all the tankers, when they hit Venezuelan waters, would be “escorted by ships and planes of the Bolivarian national armed forces (FANB), to welcome them and say to the Iranian people: Thank you for so much solidarity and cooperation!” (Venezuelan army to escort Iranian tankers bringing gasoline to Venezuelans blockaded by US sanctions, Orinoco Tribune, 20 May 2020)

The revolutionary spirit of both the Iranian and Venezuelan peoples stands as a beacon of hope for the oppressed masses of the whole world, and earns the unbounded respect and support of all anti-imperialists.

Posted in USA, C.I.A, Iran, Venezuela0 Comments

The Military Must be De-Funded Along with the Police

by DAN KOVALIK

Photograph Source: DVIDSHUB – CC BY 2.0

As Vijay Prashad explains in his book, Red Star Over The Third World, domestic fascism in the West has reflected the West’s pre-existing colonial practices abroad. Citing Martinique communist Aimé Césaire, Prashad explains: “What had come to define fascism inside Europe through the experience of the Nazis – the jackboots and the gas chambers – were familiar already in the colonies. . . . [F]ascism was a political form of bourgeois rule in times when democracy threatened capitalism; colonialism, on the other hand, was naked power justified by racism to seize resources from people who were not willing to hand them over. Their form was different but their manners were identical.”

As Prashad and Césaire teach us, the fascist tactics used by our Western governments in the Global South will inevitably be brought home to be used against us. In the case of the US, these tactics have surely been introduced here, and we are now seeing this clearly as our police, sometimes backed by the military itself, are battling protestors in the streets in the same manner that a military force does as a foreign occupying power. Indeed, as a number of commentators have pointed out, the very tactic which killed George Floyd – the knee on the neck – was imported by the Israeli Defense Forces (themselves bankrolled by the US) who use this tactic against the Palestinian people in the Occupied Territories and who are now training US police units, including the Minneapolis police force, to use it as well.

Moreover, the police are using not only the cruel military tactics used to oppress people abroad, they are also using the military’s very equipment to do so.

Democratic President Bill Clinton opened the door wide for this police militarization in the 1990s with the National Defense Authorization Act which created a program, the 1033 program, through which police departments are given surplus military equipment. As recently explained by Michael Shank in an article in The New York Review of Books, entitled “How Police Became Paramilitaries,” pursuant to this program, “local law enforcement began to adopt the type of military equipment more frequently used in a war zone: everything from armored personnel carriers and tanks, with 360-degree rotating machine gun turrets, to grenade launchers, drones, assault weapons, and more. Today, billions of dollars’ worth of military equipment—most used, some new—has been transferred to civilian police departments.”

And, once the police receive this equipment, they must use it. As Shank explains, the 1033 program “requires that law enforcement agencies make use of such equipment within a year of acquisition, effectively mandating that police put it into practice in the public space.”  In other words, the police are actually required to turn the military’s high-tech guns against their own people.

The militarization of the police, moreover, can be seen as a by-product of the US’s over-reliance on the use of military force and war to solve all of its problems, to the near exclusion of all other alternatives. Indeed, the US has given up on trying to lead the world through economic and technological prowess, or through moral suasion. Instead, our leaders have decided that brute military force alone will allow the US to dominate the planet, and our nation’s coffers are being looted to the tune of over $1 trillion a year to do so. The result is the starving of our educational system, our social safety net and our nation’s vital infrastructure. This, of course, then leads to mass deprivation and despair which then leads to mass unrest. And, just as it deals with the rest of the world, our rulers have decided to deal with the unrest at home, not by solving the social ills plaguing this nation, or by fixing a few bridges or dams, but by beating us down with military-style violence.

Military force, indeed, has become the only instrument in our government’s toolbox, as quite starkly illustrated recently by the White House’s decision to give our valuable medical workers military flyovers costing $60,000 an hour instead of providing these workers with the protective equipment they have been desperately demanding. As with all things, our government has money and resources for instruments of violence, but none for human needs. This is literally killing us, just as surely as it is killing hundreds of thousands of people – nearly all people of color, not coincidentally – in foreign lands. The fight against police brutality and racism must therefore be linked to the fight to de-fund our military and to the broader fight to de-militarize our very society and culture.

Posted in USA, C.I.A0 Comments

Why U.S. Is a Major Human Rights violator

By: Sammi Ibrahem,Sr

Policing the Police: A Civil Rights Story


The U.S. State Department annually publishes an extremely biased report on human rights around the world. Conveniently, the report omits one of the most systemic violators of human rights on the planet. Under Donald Trump, the United States has graduated from systemic human rights violator to human rights pariah, as witnessed by recent murders and assaults by police of innocent people on the streets of America. Although the United States has historically been more than willing to criticize the human rights policies of other countries, including in the venue of the United Nations, it has bristled at attempts to have brought forth in the
international body its own human rights outrages.

The latest attempt to point to the abject failure of America’s abiding by the
precepts of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights,………..’
‘..The plea to the UN was led by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the U.S. Human Rights Network and included as signatories hundreds of groups representing Black, Brown, and Indigenous Peoples in the United States and around the world.

The letter to the Human Rights Council states: “We are deeply concerned about the escalation in violent police responses to largely peaceful protests in the United States, which included the use of rubber bullets, tear gas, pepper spray, and in some cases live ammunition, in violation of international standards on the use of force and management of assemblies including recent UN Guidance on Less Lethal Weapons. Additionally, we are greatly concerned that rather than using his position to serve as a force for calm and unity, President Trump has chosen to weaponize the tensions through his rhetoric, evidenced by his promise to seize authority from Governors who fail to take the most extreme tactics against protestors and to deploy federal armed forces against protestors (an action which would be of questionable legality)…….’

Posted in USA, C.I.A, Human Rights0 Comments

It’s Trump vs. Bolton, and I’m Rooting for a Meteor

Introducing Cartoon John Bolton | Our Cartoon President | SHOWTIME ...

By: William Rivers Pitt

June 18, 2020 “Information Clearing House” – I thought it was over in September 2019, when Donald Trump and his third national security adviser, the execrable John Bolton, got into a “You’re Fired/I Quit!” fight on the front page of all the papers. “Maybe he’s really gone now,” I thought wistfully of Bolton, the war-humping neoconservative ghoul who has haunted U.S. foreign policy in one form or another since the Reagan administration, lo these 40 long years.

No such luck. Now he has a book poised for release that is allegedly filled with all the scurrilous details on the Ukraine debacle that he should have shared under oath before Rep. Adam Schiff’s impeachment hearings. He didn’t, Trump was acquitted, and now the president has filed suit to upend Bolton’s publication party.

Of course, Trump is proceeding in perfect Trumpian style. Block the book’s release outright? Nah, go for the loot instead. “The lawsuit filed on Tuesday gestured at blocking publication, but it seemed more squarely focused on seizing Mr. Bolton’s profits,” reports The New York Times. “Filed against Mr. Bolton — not Simon & Schuster — it asked for the court to take control of the money he made from the book.”

As I said: Perfect.

Trump brought Bolton on in the first place for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was to show Fox News that he was a foreign policy tough guy. Bolton has made a career out of promoting the killing of people in wars and other profitable enterprises — though he did avoid his own opportunity to see war first-hand in Vietnam (a conflict he of course supported) because he “had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy.”Are You Tired Of The Lies And Non-Stop Propaganda?Get Your FREE Daily NewsletterNo Advertising – No Government Grants – This Is Independent Media

The friction began almost immediately, though for a time it seemed Bolton would get the war with Iran he has yearned for since before the Iran-Contra scandal, another lethal endeavor with his fingerprints on it. Soon enough, however, it became clear to Bolton that Trump was unwilling to turn Tehran and Pyongyang into smoldering craters. The falling out between them was as inevitable as the tide, and Bolton took his notoriously copious notes and retreated into (alas) temporary obscurity.

Bolton, like male pattern baldness, is incredibly difficult to be rid of. He didn’t have an active hand in the foreign policy of the Obama administration, but he was there all the same. His Project for a New American Century (PNAC) agenda, fully adopted by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, turned the smoldering kindling of the Middle East into a pillar of fire that rained soot on Obama from the day he took office to the day he left. Bolton wasn’t there, but yeah, he was there, and the dead piled up like cordwood.

Before Obama, there was Bush and WMD in Iraq, and Bolton’s tireless efforts to manipulate and obfuscate the weapons data so he could get the region-wide war he and his PNAC buddies had always wanted. It was in this context that perhaps the most notorious Bolton story, until recently unreported in English, unfolded.

In his charge toward war in Iraq, Bolton sought to clear the field of those who could credibly dispute his baseless WMD claims. One such was José Bustani, a Brazilian diplomat who was head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), a 145-nation body dedicated to thwarting the acquisition and spread of such deadly weapons. Bustani was widely respected, and had just been unanimously re-elected to his post when Bolton came calling.

Bustani was not buying what the Bush administration was peddling on Iraq, so Bolton arrived at OPCW headquarters in the Hague in March 2002 with a pointed message. According to a detailed report by The Intercept, Bolton told Bustani, “Cheney wants you out. We can’t accept your management style. You have 24 hours to leave the organization, and if you don’t comply with this decision by Washington, we have ways to retaliate against you. We know where your kids live. You have two sons in New York.”

So, yeah, let’s all line up to buy a book written by that guy. Few thought anyone would come along to give the rampant bloodlust of Henry Kissinger a run for its money, but here we are. In the U.S., war criminals write books, go on television and never see the inside of a courtroom. Bolton continues the vicious tradition.

In April of 2005, former State Department intelligence chief Carl Ford told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Bolton was “a quintessential kiss-up, kick-down kind of guy. He’s got a bigger kick, and it gets bigger and stronger the further down the bureaucracy he’s kicking. And he stands out. I don’t have any other example to give you of someone who acts this way.”

That about sums it up. Now, Bolton wants to kick Trump while he’s down, and Trump is kicking back by trying to grab Bolton’s money. Two of the worst people ever to foul the skin of the Earth are at each other’s throats, and all I want for Christmas is a meteor to make it stop.

There is a line credited to Sun Tzu that reads, “If you wait by the river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by.”

I’m still waiting.

Posted in USA, C.I.A, Politics0 Comments

Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING

July 2020
M T W T F S S
« Jun    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031