IRAN THREATENS ISRAELI HEGEMONY IN THE MIDDLE EAST

The United States’ corporate-owned and thereby government-controlled media does not provide much coverage of the situation in Syria. For the U.S. government, an informed populace is a dangerous populace, so the media tells the people who and what to care about: the Olympics Games, of course, are worthy of countless hours of coverage, as is reporting on the investigation into the possibility that Russia worked with the campaign of Donald Trump to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. Russia has been a popular enemy of the U.S. for decades, so this is merely a new chapter in an old but much-liked story. But U.S-caused sufferings in Syria, or Palestine, or Yemen, or Iraq, or Afghanistan, etc., etc., are not for the U.S. citizenry to concern itself with.

For years, the U.S. supported outside agitators to fight the legitimate government of Basher Al-Assad, thereby causing untold suffering for the innocent people of Syria. A year ago, the U.S. intensified its bombing of Syria to punish Assad for using chemical weapons against his own people, a charge that was not proven then, and has been completely debunked since. Even the U.S. Secretary of Defense, the disgraceful Jim Mattis, admitted in January that there was no evidence linking Assad to the use of chemical weapons.

But a lack of U.S. press coverage should not be confused with inaction in Syria. The fighting continues, with Assad’s forces, assisted by Russia and Iran, taking back more of the country from the foreign-supported ‘rebels’. The situation is complex, and we will attempt to make sense of it.

The major players are Syria, Russia, Iran, Lebanon (specifically Hezbollah) and the apartheid Zionist regime of Israel. The U.S. is still a player, but its influence has been reduced. Anywhere that U.S. political and military influence is reduced in the world can only be a good thing.

There is little that happens in the world that Israel doesn’t consider an ‘existential threat’. This includes everything from a sixteen-year-old girl slapping a heavily armed Israeli soldier/terrorist, to Iran’s support for the government of Syria. So Israel requires a safe buffer zone, either annexing lands of other countries (Israel is expert in land theft), or assuring that nations friendly to it control the areas closest to it. Unfortunately for Israel, the number of its friendly nations is constantly shrinking, so in the context of this discussion, only the U.S. and Saudi Arabia fall into that disreputable category.

With Syria growing stronger, and relying more and more on Iran, Israel is once again raising the specter of an ‘existential threat’. “Israeli officialdom sees great risk with Iran building a seaport, airport, permanent military bases or high-precision missile factories, which would enable precise attacks on key Israeli facilities.”[1]

Does not the Iranian government have a responsibility to protect its own citizens? Iran is surrounded by forty U.S. military bases, yet one doesn’t hear members of the Iranian government screaming about existential threats. It, like every other government in the world, the opinions of Israel and the U.S. notwithstanding, is free to form alliances with other countries, trade with them, and establish military partnerships for mutual defense and protection. That Iran wishes to establish a presence in Syria is only different from the U.S. establishing a military presence in countless countries around the world in that Iran will not exploit the people of the host country in doing so.

As the situation is currently progressing, Iran’s influence will extend from Iran, through Iraq and Syria, to Lebanon. This threatens Israeli hegemony in the Middle East, a condition for which the U.S. has paid dearly in billions upon billions of tax dollars, as well as in destroying its mythical reputation as a beacon of peace, freedom and democracy.

Israel is also very concerned about Lebanon, specifically the powerful Hezbollah. Here the ‘existential threat’ is on its northern border, and any conflict between the two nations will have disastrous consequences for both. Add to the current strength of Hezbollah the power of Iran, and the Israeli government has more than adequate reason to think twice before starting a war with either nation.

Russia remains almost neutral; it has diplomatic relations with both Israel and its archenemy, Iran. Therefore, it is seen by some as being able to serve the function of peace broker, working some inexplicable magic to bring stability to the region, and prevent a wider war which would be disastrous for everyone.

Some recent articles in ‘The Crisis’ include puzzling comments that seem to reflect the U.S. perspective of denying self-determination to the people of Syria.

One article states that Russia should broker an agreement between Israel and Iran that would remain in effect “pending a deal on the country’s (Syria’s) future”.[2]

Who, other than the Syrian people, should be charged with making such a deal? Why would this be the responsibility of any outside entity?

The writer of that article also asks this question: “…will the regime make good on its vow to retake the whole country, including the south west?”.  One must ask: why would it not? Foreign-sponsored rebels have caused havoc and suffering throughout Syria for years, taking possession of various part of the country. Syria, with assistance from Russia and Iran, has taken back most of the country. Why would it not “make good on its vow to retake the whole country” from those who have stolen parts of it, killed and terrorized its people, and deprived them of self-government?

Another statement regarding some fantastic deal to be arranged by Russia is equally puzzling: “The best currently anticipated outcome would be a deal whereby Iran and its partners forego building major military infrastructure, including but not only in Syria’s south west, but retain significant influence in the country through other means”.[3] This indicates that Iran will give up something, but get nothing in return; the article doesn’t suggest what apartheid Israel might surrender in exchange for this deal.

On January 9 of this year, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson made this most amazing statement:  “We support a free and democratic Lebanon, free of the influence of others. And we know that the Lebanese Hezbollah is influenced by Iran. This influence we think is unhelpful for Lebanon’s long-term future”.[4] This is a puzzling statement from a U.S. politician. Between November 29, 2010 and November 28, 2016, pro-Israel lobbies donated at least $14,169,515.00 to U.S. senators. Between November 29, 2014 and November 28, 2016, those same lobbies contributed $5,863,292.00 to U.S. members of the House of Representatives. Tillerson’s hypocrisy is astounding. One might slightly reword his statement to make it accurate: “We support a free and democratic United States, free of the influence of others. And we know that the U.S. government is influenced by Israel. This influence we think is unhelpful for the U.S.’s long-term future”.

Israel, the Middle East’s major troublemaker, continues to deal with its own internal problems, increasing its official racism by deporting African refugees, maintaining its brutal occupation of Palestine, and now awaiting a decision on whether or not its murderous Prime Minister will be indicted for a variety of crimes, as has been recommended by the authorities that have been investigating him. While a new war would distract the racist Israelis from these issues, the downside of such a war would probably be too costly for Israel to bear.

The best case scenario for the Middle East seems to be the one that is currently happening: decreased influence of the U.S; increasing power and influence of Iran; the Syrian government finally overcoming the outside forces that have been terrorizing the country, and Russia supporting both Syria and Iran. It is hoped that the chaos that plagues Israel, all of its own making, will be sufficient to prevent that nation from igniting the tinderbox that is the Middle East, and that with Iran and Russia growing in power and influence, the entire area can achieve a greater level of peace than it has known in decades.

 

[1] https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa/eastern-mediterranean/syria/182-israel-hizbollah-and-iran-preventing-another-war-syria

[2] https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa/eastern-mediterranean/syria/182-israel-hizbollah-and-iran-preventing-another-war-syria

[3] https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa/eastern-mediterranean/syria/182-israel-hizbollah-and-iran-preventing-another-war-syria

[4] https://www.timesofisrael.com/tillerson-hezbollahs-role-in-lebanese-politics-needs-to-be-recognized/

 

Originally published in the American Herald Tribune.

.Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn

Leave a Comment

Filed under Iran, Israel, Militarism, Palestine, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, U.S., Uncategorized

Guns, Violence and the United States

Let us all take a quick look at the news:

  • The White House is in chaos.
  • The investigation into possible Trump campaign collusion with Russia drags on.
  • The U.S. won some Olympic medals.

Is there anything else? Oh yes:

  • Seventeen people were killed in a school shooting, the eighth such shooting in the U.S. this year (and it is only mid-February), making it hardly newsworthy.

One might think that politicians in the U.S. would take note of this last item. This is not a ‘one-of’, but an ongoing pattern in schools across the country. This latest shooting happened in Parkland, Florida, named ‘Florida’s Safest City’ in 2017.

Florida Senator Marco Rubio offered his thoughts and prayers for the victims; very nice, indeed, but he is one of 50 people who could make changes that might have prevented this, and the seven other such shootings that have occurred this year. Yet he has consistently opposed any kind of gun control. Perhaps the fact that he’s accepted over $3,000,000.00 in campaign contributions from the National Rifle Association (NRA) over the course of his career may have something to do with his opposition to sensible gun laws. Following this latest tragedy, he said that it was too early to discuss gun control, “…because people don’t know how this happened.”

This writer is puzzled by Rubio’s pearls of wisdom. ‘How this happened’ seems quite clear; he will explicate it for the good senator: A man with a semi-automatic weapon, designed to shoot many bullets quickly, thus enabling the person operating it to kill many people quickly if he so chooses, walked into a school, activated the fire alarm so students would come running out of their classrooms, and began doing with his gun exactly what it was built do to. As a result, seventeen people are dead, and dozens more are injured. Seventeen families now must bear unimaginable grief. Thousands of students are now at risk of post -traumatic stress disorder (PTSD); whether or not they will return to that school, or if they will need to be relocated is yet to be determined. School administrators now face a situation they should never have had to experience. But Rubio doesn’t know how this happened.

A year and a half earlier, in June of 2016, Florida had another massacre, this one at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando. Fifty people, including the assailant, were killed and 58 wounded by an assassin using the same kind of gun that was used in Parkland. Republican Governor Rick Scott, another darling of the NRA, said at that time that “…the Second Amendment didn’t kill anybody.” He implied that that shooting was somehow related to ISIS and terrorism, although the perpetrator was U.S. born. And in Florida, it’s easier to purchase an AR-15 than it is to buy a pistol. But the governor, like Rubio, sees no point in doing anything more than offering ‘thoughts and prayers.’

Just this year, there have been at least 31 mass shootings, causing 58 deaths and 124 injuries. These have occurred in high-crime areas and well-to-do neighborhoods. No one is exempt, even people living in the ‘safest city’ in the country.

Also this year, 123 people have been killed by the police, another group for whom guns and gun violence are a way of life.

As of this writing, we are 46 days into the new year. That means that there is a mass shooting in the U.S. every day and a half. It means that more than one person per day dies as a result of a mass shooting. It means that the police in the U.S. kill nearly 3 people every day.

This does not occur in any other nation on the planet. Rich or poor, democratic, socialist, or any other form of government, the U.S. leads in gun deaths.

It is simplistic to say that the availability of guns is the cause; that is merely one of many, and reasonable, sensible gun laws would certainly reduce this tragic number of deaths. But there is an acceptance of violence that permeates U.S. society, and is glorified within it.

In the media and through the words and actions of government officials, soldiers, who are trained to kill, are revered. The more they kill, the greater their respect. A soldier named Chris Kyle, the most deadly sniper in U.S. history, was the subject of a movie showing his ‘heroics’ in killing people. It is ironic that, in 2013, he was shot to death by a fellow soldier suffering from PTSD, who used a gun Kyle owned.

This attitude of reverence for killers is nothing new in the U.S. After Lieutenant William Calley was convicted of murdering hundreds of people in My Lai, Vietnam, he was sentenced to life in prison. Surveys in the U.S. indicated that 79% of the U.S. public thought the verdict was too harsh. He wound up serving for less than four years under house arrest.

Parents, when speaking of their grown children in the military, speak proudly of their ‘service’. Veterans, those who do not regret their time in the military, talk about how they helped ‘keep America free’. Police officers appear to have little concern about their countless victims, or the suffering and grief of the loved ones of those victims. That they act as judge, jury and executioner cannot be denied. Darren Wilson, the police officer who shot and killed the unarmed Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri in August of 2014 described his victim as a demon. He testified thusly: “I looked at his face. It was just, like, intense; was very aggravated, aggressive, hostile.” This is a significant amount of information to be gleaned from a look on a person’s face. He further stated: “You could tell he was looking through you. There was nothing he was seeing.” What this means is anyone’s guess, but it was sufficient for Wilson to determine that Brown had sufficiently bad intentions to warrant his immediate death.

The U.S. movie industry differs from that of many European nations in how it rates films. In the U.S., movies with explicit sex scenes receive R and X ratings, but explicit violence tends to garner a PG-13 or R rating. In many other nations, the reverse is true; younger audience are permitted to see movies with some sex, but are prevented, at least according to the ratings systems, from seeing those with excessive violence.

For these nearly constant acts of violence to end, the U.S. must recognize that killing is not beneficial; U.S. wars only increase hatred towards the U.S., glorifying soldiers only begets violence, and granting impunity to the police for their murders only intensifies hostility towards all police officers.

This mindset will not be easy to change, and will be impossible under the current government. Republicans and Democrats alike share the blame, and as long as it is legal for them to be bribed by ‘campaign contributions’, nothing will change.

Originally published by Counterpunch.

.Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn

Leave a Comment

Filed under Guns, Political Musings, U.S. Politics, Violence

Juvenile Delinquency in U.S. Government

Just when, one wonders, did United States political discourse become the juvenile embarrassment that it is? Today, of course, we are in an environment when the president immediately responds to any criticism, usually using personal attack or insults to do so. One current brouhaha is instructive.

On December 11, Democratic New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand called on the illustrious President Trump to resign, due to the many, many allegations of sexual harassment and assault with which he’s been accused. This, of course, didn’t sit well with the president. In his response via ‘Tweet’, he called her a lightweight and a flunky, and said she would do anything for campaign contributions.

Rising to the bait, Gillibrand ‘bravely’ proclaimed that she would not be silenced. She again called for his resignation.

The current darling of whatever passes these days for the liberal establishment, Massachusetts Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren, who Trump, in his mature, statesman-like way refers to as ‘Pocahontas’, felt compelled to support her New York counterpart, weighing in with yet another ‘Tweet’, one more applicable to the playground than the halls of Congress. Said she: “Are you really trying to bully, intimidate and slut-shame @SenGillibrand? Do you know who you’re picking a fight with? Good luck with that.” Fight on the schoolyard! Don’t let any grown-ups catch you!

But the combative Trump, and the elected officials who take delight in baiting him, are just the current manifestations, showing that things have gotten totally out of hand. Looking back at the pre-2016 election primary season, there were more taunts, with Trump insulting the appearance of his female competitor, and himself being ‘accused’ of having small hands. Things got even more childish when the size of his anatomy was questioned. These were the words of people seeking the highest office in the land, the worst of whom actually found his way there.

We will turn our attention now to Alabama, where a judge who was twice removed from the bench for defying Federal orders was narrowly defeated this week in his bid for senate. The first time he was removed was in 2003, when ordered to remove a statue of the Ten Commandments that he’d had installed in the lobby of the Alabama Judicial Building. He refused to do so. Sadly for him, his defiance, like that of any unruly child, gave way to the authorities in control.

Thirteen years later, after he’d been elected again (what is wrong with the people of Alabama?) the state’s ban on same-sex marriage was deemed unconstitutional. Now, one would think that it’s the responsibility of federal judges to uphold federal law. But Moore didn’t like that new law! He instructed Alabama’s probate judges to continue to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The bad boy hadn’t learned his lesson from a decade earlier, and he was once again sent to his room, and told he couldn’t be a judge anymore.

During the last week of his campaign for U.S. Senate, it seemed that someone must have grounded him, since he was unavailable for interviews, and was not spotted on the campaign trail. This might be a result of a desperate attempt to prevent people from talking about his penchant for dating girls as young as 14, when he was in his thirties. The GOP must be breathing a major sigh of relief today, since the party wasn’t looking forward to the fun and games they would have had, trying to deal with that particular overgrown juvenile delinquent.

Trump responded to the defeat of the candidate he’d endorsed in his own, childish manner, when he ‘Tweeted’ this: “The reason I originally endorsed Luther Strange (and his numbers went up mightily), is that I said Roy Moore will not be able to win the General Election. I was right!” I told you so! Nah! Nah!

Other examples abound in recent history. One recalls former GOP candidate Mitt Romney dismissing 47% of the electorate (not the popular kids, obviously), and bossing around the staff at the restaurant where that infamous quotation was filmed, like some schoolyard bully. Four years earlier, John McCain shocked the Republican establishment when he suspended his campaign activities to deal with a financial crisis, not having the maturity to handle more than one issue at a time.

And what of his loose-cannon running-mate? Sarah Palin’s inability to form a coherent sentence did nothing to raise the esteem in which U.S. officials would like to bask, among the hapless citizenry. When she resigned as governor of Alaska, she said she was making her own way, because “only dead fish go with the flow”.  Her sophistication and eloquence astound!

The media, which, other than a few far-right outlets, has no fondness for Trump, seems to be gloating collectively at Moore’s defeat, calling it a ‘stinging loss’ for the president, and seeing an increasing possibility of the Democrats retaking the senate next year. While one supposes there is some benefit in that, the Democrats are hardly riding in like the Calvary in a bad movie, to rescue the damsel in distress, or in this case, the sinking pseudo-democracy known as the United States. Under the Democrats, there may be some diminution of overt racism, but Blacks will still be disproportionally incarcerated for minor drug crimes, as wealthy white criminal bankers go free. Muslims may be allowed freer entry to the U.S., but any ‘terrorist’ acts by anyone purporting to support Islam will be met with demands that all ‘law-abiding’ Muslims reject terrorism. Israel will still be able to oppress, humiliate and murder innocent, unarmed and defenseless Palestinian men, women and children with complete impunity, as that apartheid nation defies international law and basic human decency.

But what is any of that? We are back on the schoolyard, and the clique that ran the show last year, and was so popular with so many of the kids, isn’t doing so well this year, and so the rival clique is going to try even harder.

The grown-ups have all gone home; a most unfortunate situation for the U.S. and the world.

Originally published by Counterpunch.

 

 

.Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn

Leave a Comment

Filed under Political Musings

United States Enmity towards the Islamic Republic

In a speech on November 2, 2017, Ayatollah Khamenei spoke clearly about the United States, and Iran’s relationship with that brutal, imperial regime. Ayatollah Khamenei’s incisive remarks are worth our attention. We will look at just a portion of his speech in some detail.

Ayatollah Khamenei said this:  “There are some people who say that we should compromise with the US somehow and a little bit because this way, their enmities might decrease. This is not the case.” The U.S. has repeatedly proven that it can be trusted. The most recent example is the U.S. declaring that Iran is in violation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), despite the fact that the rest of the international community agrees that Iran is in full compliance.  Iran, although a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and whose leaders always said the nation’s nuclear program was for peaceful purposes, accommodated the U.S by entering into the JCPOA. In exchange, the U.S. was to release unfair, unjust sanctions. Iran maintained its part of the agreement; the U.S. has violated its part.

“They have not even shown mercy on those who trusted, pinned their hopes on and referred to the US for assistance. Who for example? Dr. Mosaddeq. In order to fight and stand up against the English – this is what he wished to do – he turned to the Americans. He met with and negotiated with them and asked for their help. He trusted them. The coup d’état of the 28th of Mordad was not launched by the English, rather it was launched by the US against Mosaddeq.”

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) overthrew the government of Mohammad Mosaddeg, despite U.S. assurances of assistance to him. He instituted democratic reforms, cutting the power of the brutal, U.S.-supported Shah. Additionally, Iran is an oil-rich nation, and that natural resource was coveted by the United Kingdom and the U.S. When it comes to power and profits, the U.S. has no regard for human life, human rights or self-determination. And any promises it makes are worthless. If Dr. Mosaddeg stood in the way of unfettered access to Iranian oil at whatever price the U.S. wanted to pay, then his government had to be eliminated. In 1953, he was overthrown by the U.S. government.

“They want servants, and docile and subservient agents. Who for example? For example, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. They want such individuals so that they rule over this rich, blessed, wealthy and sensitive country – in terms of its geographical position and various capabilities. They are looking for someone whose hands are tied and who submits to them. This is what the Americans want. If such agents do not act like this, they turn into enemies.”

U.S government officials proclaim their dedication to the democratic aspirations of people around the world. As Ayatollah Khamenei clearly points out, this is a complete falsehood. The long support that the U.S. gave to the brutal reign of the Shah, finally overthrown by a popular people’s movement in Iran, is clear evidence that the U.S. cares nothing about such democratic hopes and dreams. The continuing financing of the brutal apartheid regime of Israel, as it savagely oppresses the Palestinians, is another clear example of U.S. hypocrisy.

“On the issue of Tabas, they (the U.S.) showed enmity and they received a blow on their head. On the issue of destroying our passenger plane, they showed enmity. On the issue of sanctions, they have showed enmity since the first day. Today, they are showing enmity as well. They are acting in the most vicious way in the area of ruining the nuclear negotiations and their results –the agreement known as the Bar-Jaam [the JCPOA]. So, they are enemies.”

The Ayatollah Khamenei lists example after example of U.S. deceit, hypocrisy and barbarism.  There is no depth to which the U.S. will not stoop to enrich itself and its elected officials, despite the cost in human lives, peace and justice. He is right to encourage complete distrust of the U.S.

Currently, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, makes outrageous accusations against Iran that are blatantly false. She accuses Iran of sponsoring terrorism, for assisting its ally, Syria, in fighting U.S.-supported terrorists. She bemoans Iranian involvement in Iraq, ignoring the fact that the U.S. overthrew the Iraqi government, bombed its cities, killed close to a million of its people (some estimates put that number far higher), and drove millions more into refugee camps. She also ignores the fact that the U.S. is currently bombing seven counties; Iran has not invaded another nation since 1798.

The disreputable Haley represented the country on the United Nations Security Council that vetoed a resolution condemning U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of apartheid Israel, a resolution all other Council members supported. This further shows U.S. disdain for international law and international justice.

When the United States insisted on a meeting of the Security Council to discuss some internal disturbances in Iran last week, the other members criticized not Iran, but the United States, accusing it of misusing the Council for political purposes. U.S. government officials decry the deaths that resulted from those disturbances, yet remain silent on the hundreds of unarmed, mostly African-American, people killed every year by members of the U.S. police force, almost always with complete impunity.

It is now reported that the U.S. president, the racist, incompetent, war-mongering Donald Trump, will not void the JCPOA, but will issue new sanctions against Iran, unrelated to that agreement. Haley has accused Iran of living up to the letter of the law, but not the ‘spirit’ of the law. Is this not exactly what the U.S. is doing, by issuing more sanctions while leaving the JCPOA in place?

The U.S. will not be satisfied until Iran either establishes a puppet government, with the U.S. pulling the strings, or is reduced to rubble and chaos, as was done to Iraq.

It is hoped that more sensible people that Trump and Haley will be able to control their murderous and self-destructive urges. Iran is a heavily-populated, powerful nation, with important allies and a military force second to none. Any aggression towards it will not result in an easy victory for the U.S.; even the U.S. invasion of Iraq, a much smaller country with no effective military force, embroiled the U.S. in a destructive war that lasted for years.

When this writer visited Iran last summer, spending time in the beautiful cities of Tehran and Mashhad, he was impressed with all he saw.  He is in complete agreement with the statements of Ayatollah Khamenei regarding the dishonesty, hypocrisy and lack of trustworthiness constantly demonstrated by the U.S. regime.

Originally published by Khamenei.ir.

.Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn

Leave a Comment

Filed under Human Rights, Iran, Israel, Militarism

US Encircles Iran with 45 Bases, But Is Concerned With Iran’s Activities in Syria

With the imminent defeat of United States-supported terrorist groups in Syria by the Syrian government, with assistance from Russia and the Islamic Republic of Iran, one might reasonably think that the U.S. would finally just go home. After all, U.S. President Donald Trump wants, or so he says, to stop ‘nation building’, and ‘put America first’. When a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee asked what role U.S. soldiers/terrorists would have in Syria, once ISIS was no longer a viable presence in that country, the answer was not what the questioner expected. The State Department’s David Satterfield, acting assistant secretary for Near Eastern affairs, responded thusly: “We are deeply concerned with the activities of Iran, with the ability of Iran to enhance those activities through a greater ability to move materiel into Syria. And I would rather leave the discussion at that point.”

This response further obfuscates the already complicated, years-long U.S. interference in Syria. The Syrian government has been fighting a variety of foreign-supported terrorist groups for several years; ISIS has been chief among them. While the U.S. has ostensibly ‘helped’ defeat ISIS is Syria, it has long been proven that ISIS fighters receive training and funding from the U.S., Britain, and other countries. The U.S. is more than willing to support both sides of a conflict, since it is the world’s largest arms dealer; where there is money to be made, the U.S. is there, regardless of how totally immoral the deal might be. So it both supported and, to a lesser degree, fought, ISIS.

But with the genuine assistance of Iran and Russia, most of Syria has returned to Syrian control. It is no surprise that the government of Syria would draw closer to the government of Iran, since Iran was instrumental in defeating foreign terrorists on Syrian soil. This is not something that the U.S. can countenance, since it threatens Israeli hegemony in the Middle East. At Israel’s urging, the U.S. has destabilized several Middle Eastern countries. One is shortsighted indeed (as most member of the U.S. Congress seem to be), if one does not recall Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressing Congress in 2002, and promising that “enormous benefits” would accrue if Iraq’s Saddam Hussein were overthrown. For the U.S., those benefits included the deaths of five thousand U.S. soldiers, and a cost of at least $2.4 trillion. The ‘enormous benefits’ promised by Netanyahu were all for Israel, not for the U.S.

And now the U.S. is “deeply concerned’ about Iranian activities in Syria. No doubt the government of Iran is ‘deeply concerned’ about U.S. activities in Syria, as it should be. The U.S. has no reason related to its national security to have any presence in Syria whatsoever. Yet Israel feels threatened by Iran’s increasing stature and influence throughout the Middle East, and wants the U.S. to stop it. It has been said that Israel is willing to sacrifice as many U.S. soldiers as necessary, and spend as much money from U.S. tax revenues as required, to maintain Israeli hegemony in the Middle East. And U.S. member of Congress, bought and paid for by pro-Israel lobbies, seem more than willing to do Israel’s brutal bidding.

The State Department official mentioned above said that the U.S. is concerned about “the ability of Iran to…move materiel into Syria.” Let’s not forget that the U.S. has over 1,000 military bases around the world, with at least 45 of them surrounding Iran. One expects that Iran is concerned about the ability of the U.S. to move materiel into Syria, and rightly so. Forty-five military basis threaten Iran, while the Islamic Republic threatens no one, but does maintain its international commitments, including assisting its ally, Syria, in defeating foreign terrorists slaughtering innocent people on Syrian soil. Another example of keeping its commitments is its adherence to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that the U.S. continually threatens to violate.

Surprisingly, members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee weren’t impressed with Satterfield’s response, with several committee members pointing out that Congress had not authorized such a role for the U.S. military in Syria. Yet such things as the rule of law are unimportant when Israel demands U.S. action, or at any time when U.S. profits or power are at risk of being compromised anywhere on the planet. And while the U.S. gets nothing from Israel in terms of its ‘national security’, or any cooperation when the U.S. requests the most minor concessions from Israel to the Palestinians, such as ceasing internationally-condemned settlement activity as a precondition to worthless, meaningless and totally unnecessary negotiations, Congress members benefit greatly from campaign contributions from pro-Israeli lobbies. So regardless of whether or not Congress authorizes such a role for Congress, which it will probably do eventually anyway in order to provide legal cover for its illegal activities, U.S. soldiers/terrorists will probably remain in Syria until Syria is able to eject them.

It does appear that, any time the U.S. interferes in the Middle East, either by sanctions, support for rebel groups, or invasions, the source for the action can always be traced back to Israel. That rogue, apartheid nation receives billions of dollars from the U.S. annually, which it uses to brutally oppress the Palestinian people, while it then demands that the U.S. waste additional taxpayer money on invading and/or destabilizing Israel’s many perceived enemies. And the lives of U.S. citizens who, for whatever reason, decide to put on a uniform, are unimportant to either Israel or the United States.

One would be naïve indeed if one thought that members of the U.S. government seek a peaceful world. That nation has been at war for over 220 of its 242-year existence, and it is certainly not going to change its operations when the government is dominated by two capitalist, war-mongering parties.

Yet the U.S. threatens Iran at its peril; Iran is not a small, Third-World nation with a small and ineffective military force.  On the contrary, it is a large, prosperous (despite unjust U.S. sanctions) nation with an experienced and powerful military force. It has powerful allies that, themselves, the U.S. must use caution in threatening.

U.S. President Donald Trump is seen by many as the most inexperienced, incompetent and ignorant man ever to inhabit the White House. Most of his closest advisors come close to him in terms of their complete lack of ability to govern. He has surrounded himself with career military men who see the solution to every problem as an invasion. Yet the greatest hope, limited as it is, lies with them, and their knowledge of Iranian capabilities. Their record indicates that they prefer easy targets (Iraq, Yemen), so hopefully they will prevent any direct confrontation with Iran. Avoiding such a confrontation will be in the best interest of not only the entire Middle East, but of the U.S. as well. Should the United States government officials lose sight of that fact, the consequences for the U.S. will be dire indeed.

Originally published by the American Herald Tribune.

 

 

 

 

 

.Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn

Leave a Comment

Filed under Militarism, Military, Palestine

Palestine and Israeli Recognition

Palestine’s weak, spineless, traitorous leader, Mahmoud Abbas, has secured a vote to rescind Palestinian recognition of Israel. It was only a year ago that he declared an end to ‘security cooperation’ (read: Palestinian complicity in Israel’s oppression of the West Bank), and then proceeded with business as usual. The decision on Israeli recognition will probably be the same.

Some members of the international community, which once in a great while notices the abject suffering of the Palestinians (not that it cares to do much about it), and recognizes that Israel is in violation of numerous international laws, provided some tepid reaction, ranging from ‘unhelpful’ (France) to ‘completely understandable’ (Russia).

There are a variety of questions this latest, non-binding ‘decision’ raises, and we will look at a few of them.

  • Why did Palestine ever recognize its brutal occupier without demanding the same concession from Israel? Doing so gives some legitimacy to the occupation, and of all the countries that shouldn’t in any way imply that, Palestine is at the top of the list. Of course, since the U.S. has for decades called the shots, supported Israel and oppressed Palestine, it’s likely that Palestine had little choice in the matter.
  • Why wouldn’t a country be able to withdraw its recognition of another country? Circumstances change, and while it may not be something that can be done easily or quickly, when one nation is in serious violation of international law, over a period of decades, has an apartheid system of government and refuses to be a part of any international monitoring of its nuclear capability, other nations would seem to have good reason to withdraw their official recognition.
  • Why is Mahmoud Abbas still in the picture? Palestine is years past the time for scheduled elections, which would surely put the aged, traitorous, incompetent Israeli puppet out to pasture. The U.S., of course, while it hypocritically proclaims its support for the self-determination of people everywhere, works to prevent such an election, since Hamas would, in all likelihood, win in a landslide. And if not Hamas, some other party that won’t toe the U.S.-Israel line. The victorious party would be one that, for the first time in years, has the needs and desires of the Palestinians at heart, rather than one that would kowtow to the demands of Palestine’s brutal occupier and its cruel enabler.

Preventing foreign elections, if their outcome cannot be pre-determined to be in the U.S.’s favor, is not something with which the U.S. government has no experience. Once very specific case in point will suffice to demonstrate this fact.

In 1954, as the French were attempting, quite unsuccessfully, to hang on to Vietnam as a colony, the Geneva Accords agreement was signed that divided Vietnam into a Communist north, and a non-Communist south. The Accords provided for elections to be held in 1956, which would have been a referendum on reunification. These elections were boycotted by the south, at the urging of the U.S. In the memoirs of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, he wrote that if the elections had been held in 1956, “Ho Chi Minh (the Communist leader of the North), would have gotten 80 percent of the vote.” Allowing people to determine their own leadership is only permitted if the U.S. likes that leadership.

The U.S.’s stated support for the will of the people has always been a myth. In 1916, President Woodrow Wilson said that “Every people has a right to choose the sovereignty under which they shall live.” Wilson’s Secretary of State, Robert Lansing, was deeply troubled by such statements. “In his private notes he wrote that it (the concept of self-determination) was loaded with dynamite, might breed disorder, discontent and rebellion. His neat, logical mind saw it leading the President into strange contradictions. ‘Will not the Mohammedans of Syria and Palestine and possibly of Morocco and Tripoli rely on it? How can it be harmonized with Zionism, to which the President is practically committed?’”

Palestinians in the West Bank, unarmed and unprotected, know that when Palestinian law enforcement officers are not on the scene, they can expect IDF terrorists to invade their homes, business, mosques and schools, arresting and terrorizing anyone they encounter, and killing innocent, defenseless men, women and children. This is known, in the peculiar parlance of Israel and Abbas, as ‘security cooperation’. Palestinians can’t throw stones, but Israelis can shoot to kill.

This is the policy that, a year ago, Abbas said he would no longer respect. Much like U.S. politicians, his words are meaningless; Palestinians in the West Bank continue to be harassed, killed, demoralized, held without charge for months or years at a time, regardless of age, all with the willing assistance of their so-called leader. Any election in Palestine would bring an end to this ‘security cooperation’.

The moves that Abbas says he’ll make, but doesn’t, could be game-changers for the Palestinians. If Fatah’s law enforcement personnel spent their time opposing Israel, rather than working with it, the civil disobedience would quickly reach a boiling point that the international community would have to address. If he withdraws recognition of Israel, even the very threat of doing so may motivate other nations to agree to recognize Palestine, if it maintains recognition of the apartheid state.

But these are moves that would benefit the Palestinian people, and Abbas has proved repeatedly, over a period of several years, that that is the least of his concerns.

What comes next? With the U.S. tightening the screws on the coffin of Palestine, and Israel busy digging the grave, one looks in vain for significant help from the leaders of the international community. The greatest hope lies with the rank-and-file members of that community, the people who are ever expanding the boycott, divestment and sanctioning (BDS movement) of Israel. The U.S. and other countries futilely attempt to outlaw such actions (in the U.S. completely disregarding the Constitution), while Israel spends millions of dollars to counteract the economic and reputational consequences of BDS.

Unfortunately, in the near-term, this changes nothing for the Palestinians; in Gaza, they are still locked in the world’s largest open-air prison, and in the West Bank, they continue to suffer from the brutal actions of IDF terrorists and settler terrorists. People of conscience and humanity the world over must increase their efforts; the very existence of the nation of Palestine depends on it.

Originally published by Counterpunch.

.Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn

Leave a Comment

Filed under BDS, Gaza, Human Rights, Israel, Militarism, Palestine

The U.S. Military and the Rest of the World

The United States, the world’s foremost sponsor of domestic and international terrorism, is embarking on a new initiative to increase its ability to kill. Called the ‘National Defense Strategy’, it was announced by Elbridge A. Colby, the U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy and Force Development, and builds on the so-called National Security Strategy that was announced by President Donald Trump in December.

“The National Defense Strategy seeks to implement the pillars of the National Security Strategy: peace through strength, the affirmation of America’s international role, the U.S. alliance and partnership structure and the necessity to build military advantage to maintain key regional balances of power,” said Colby.

An examination of these four components is instructive.

  • “Peace through strength.” Nowhere in Colby’s pronouncements, or those of Trump, for that matter, are the concepts of justice, human rights, or international law mentioned. That may be because those ideals are of no concern to the mighty U.S. As long as the U.S. is able to use its ‘strength’ to bomb into submission any country that displeases it, there will be peace. Oppression, death, carnage and human suffering are all simply the prices that must be paid for the U.S.’s skewed definition of peace.
  • “The affirmation of America’s international role.” And just what is that role? It seems to be that of a corrupt international police force (perhaps mimicking the U.S. domestic police force), making up the rules as it goes along, acting as judge, jury and executioner. The U.S. has given itself the responsibility of overthrowing democratically elected governments and sponsoring and training terrorists, resulting in the deaths, torture and disappearance of millions of people across the globe.
  • “The U.S. alliance and partnership structure.” The U.S. displays its vaunted alliances from time to time, but anything more than a cursory look at them shows them for the lies that they are. For example, during the criminal U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, U.S. spokespeople talked about the ‘Coalition of the Willing’, proclaiming with great fanfare how it had assembled several countries to send forces to Iraq to overthrow the government there. In reality, over 90% of the soldiers sent on that fool’s errand were from the U.S.
  • “The necessity to build military advantage to maintain key regional balances of power.” There is no balance of power today; the U.S., which spends as much on its military as the next eight countries combined, bombs, destabilizes and sanctions any nations it chooses to, with nearly complete impunity. It is to destroy a regional balance of power that the U.S. threatens Iran; the U.S. seeks to maintain the hegemony of the apartheid regime of Israel in the Middle East, and so Iran’s growing power and influence must be stopped. If the U.S. were truly interested in peace, in the Middle East or anywhere else, it would cease supporting Israel and establish diplomatic relations with Iran.

Additionally, the U.S. has close to 1,000 military bases around the world, at least 40 of which are in close proximity of Iran. Its military advantage is already overwhelming, and threatens the entire world.

Colby also said that the U.S. must counter the threat posed by terrorism, singling out, of course, North Korea and Iran. So the nation that has killed over 20 million people since World War II; that has invaded at least 30 nations since then, some of them multiple times, and that is currently bombing seven countries needs to increase its arsenal to counter terrorism.  It seems obvious that worldwide terrorism would decrease dramatically if the U.S. were to reduce its military expenditures.

And what of North Korea and Iran? During the Korean War, waged by the U.S. from 1950 – 1953, the U.S. caused unspeakable suffering in the North. “Over a period of three years or so, we killed off — what — 20 percent of the population,” said Air Force Gen. Curtis LeMay. The U.S. bombed cities, towns and villages throughout the North, with no concern for the civilian population. North Korean hostility towards the United States can only be seen as valid.

U.S. aggression towards Iran has even less justification than its aggression towards North Korea. Iran has not invaded another nation since 1798. Yet the U.S., to please Israel, accuses Iran of terrorist activities.

In George Orwell’s landmark novel 1984, the reader is introduced to the concept of ‘Newspeak’. This is the twisting of language to enable governments to act in ways that are contrary to the will and good of the people.  U.S. government officials have become champions of ‘Newspeak’; they talk of fighting terrorism, when the U.S. is the chief international source of terrorism. They speak of building alliances and partnerships, when those associations are often tenuous at best, or bought through foreign aid, or made only by coercion. They speak of the threat to U.S. ‘national security’, when it is the U.S. that threatens the security of nations around the world.

The U.S. spends over 50% of its discretional budget on the military. Other nations spend a fraction of this amount, and yet they are not constantly being invaded or bombed. One must ask why the U.S. needs to spend so much to protect itself, when other nations need to spend very little on their military forces.

Nearly 13% of the U.S. population lives below the officially-established poverty line, which is ridiculously low. Over 20% of U.S. children live in poverty. In terms of public education, the U.S. ranks in the middle of industrialized nations, putting its students at risk of not being able to compete in an increasingly global market. The so-called ‘safety net’, resources for the poor, is continually shrinking so the military can be fed. University students graduate with huge debt, due to high-interest government loans, while other countries charge a fraction of the amount that U.S. schools charge for tuition, or offer university education free of charge. These problems could all be rectified by redirecting even a portion of the U.S. military budget to address these other issues.

And now the already bloated U.S. military spending budget will be increased. U.S. officials refer to it as the ‘defense’ budget, but the U.S. military has little or nothing to do with defense; it is all offensive, as the millions of worldwide victims can attest. Yet members of Congress, beholden to the ‘defense’ industry lobbyists who so generally support their election and re-election campaigns, will tell their constituents that the U.S. must have this budget to defend them from all the evil that exists in the world. They ignore the fact that much of that evil originates in the United States, and that the military budget only increases it.

International surveys indicate that it is the United States that is seen as the greatest threat to world peace.  A study in 2017 indicated that, globally, 24% of respondents viewed the U.S. in that way.  The next most feared country was Pakistan, with 8%. The U.S. self-perpetuates this fear, and does it intentionally, to keep the international community doing its bidding.

But it cannot control the world forever; China, Russia, India and Iran are growing in military and economic power. The U.S.’s closest ally, Israel, is experiencing international condemnation due to its horrific, ongoing, brutal oppression of the Palestinians. Under Trump’s disjointed leadership, U.S. allies are distancing themselves, and forming closer alliances with different partners.

A world power in decline is always dangerous; as other nations grow in power and influence, and that of the U.S. wanes, the entire world is at some risk. It is hoped that these other nations, which have far more interest in peace than does the U.S., will be able to eclipse the U.S., and exert their influence internationally. Only then will the world’s perpetual state of war have a chance of ending.

 

Originally published by The American Herald Tribune.

 

.Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn

Leave a Comment

Filed under Human Rights, Israel, Militarism, Military, Palestine, Political Musings

Democrats and Republicans: United on Glorifying Authoritarian Systems 

With President Donald Trump fighting against the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), his Republican minions have managed to navigate a somewhat tortuous road. They have to somehow criticize one of the many authoritarian organizations that they generally revere. Ultimately, this has proved not too difficult for them; they simply attack the leadership, while praising the rank-and-file.

Democrats, on the other hand, are able to avoid this conundrum altogether, by maintaining their obvious adoration for the corrupt, invasive bureau.

As the Russia-Trump Campaign probe drags on, providing headlines that few people are genuinely interested in, the worship of authority continues unabated. The U.S. military, the largest and most powerful terrorist organization in the world, one that is responsible for the murders of at least 20,000,000 people over the last fifty years, continues to receive increasing amounts of U.S. taxpayers’ money, to the determent not only of the millions of people victimized by the U.S. military, but also of those very taxpayers. Money that goes to weaponry has to come from somewhere, and in the eyes of those who run the U.S. government, both Republican and Democrat, such frivolities as food for the poor, roads, public education and higher education are expendable, as long as the war machine gets all that its lobbyists want.

And then, of course, we have the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Talk about a rogue organization! This is the arm of the U.S. government that is responsible for overthrowing democratically-elected governments, funding and training foreign terrorists, and torturing U.S. citizens and others at various sites around the world.

Let us not forget the ‘boys in blue’, the U.S.’s domestic terrorist organization, the police force. One might think that ‘officers of the law’ might be expected to adhere to the laws they are purportedly hired to enforce. But this is not the case; after all, they are the police! Let them shoot innocent, unarmed people, usually but not always people of color, with nearly complete impunity. But when five police officers were killed in Dallas, Texas in July of 2016, one newscaster said the crime had cast a pall over the entire nation. Was not a pall cast over the entire nation when Michael Brown, unarmed, was shot and killed by white police officer Darren Wilson, who then left his body to lie in the street for hours? Was not a second pall thrown over the U.S. when, in November, a grand jury decided not to indict Wilson?

And what about when Eric Garner was killed for selling cigarettes? Or when Philando Castile was executed on the spot for the dastardly crime of driving with a burned-out tail light? Or the murders of Alton Sterling, Oscar Grant (unarmed, handcuffed and lying face-down when he was shot by police officer Johannes Mehserle, who spent nearly seven whole months in prison for that murder), and the hundreds of others who have been killed by members of that unholy brotherhood, the U.S. police force? Why did not each of these brutal, senseless murders cast a pall over the entire nation?

In the U.S., murder is a horrendous crime unless committed by someone wearing a uniform of the U.S. government. Whether the murder is perpetrated by U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan or Iraq, or by soldiers in the U.S. controlling the drones that cause such unspeakable carnage in Yemen and other countries, the victims are unimportant. Unarmed men, pregnant women, children, including infants – the murders of all of them are excused when done by a man or woman wearing a uniform.

Domestically it is the same; a murder perpetrated by someone in the uniform of the U.S. police force is not a murder at all; it is an example of ‘justified use of force’. Yet if a person not a part of the repressive, out-of-control U.S. police force shoots and kills an unarmed man or woman, he or she is arrested and charged with murder. The loved ones of his or her victim are allowed to make impact statements before sentencing, and, as long as the perpetrator is not wealthy, he or she can expect to spend a significant amount of their remaining life in one of the U.S.’s for-profit prisons.

Has either party condemned any of these killings, whether done domestically or internationally? Have any of the U.S.’s so-called ‘representatives’ in the House or the Senate demanded that police procedures be analyzed or that military expenditures be more carefully scrutinized? Has any Republican or Democrat forcefully denounced U.S. military adventurism around the planet? Hardly!

Yet when five members of the police force were murdered in Dallas, then President Barack Obama, and candidates Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton all weighed on the event. The governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, issued a statement. But whenever confronted with the horror and tragedy of innocent people being killed in the U.S.’s multiple war zones, these luminaries mumble something about ‘collateral damage’, and may add, as an afterthought, that it is ‘unfortunate’.

That U.S. citizens live under a heavily-militarized police state cannot be disputed. That people of color are far more likely to be casualties of this police state is also true. Internationally, although no one is safe from the long and brutal arm of the terrorist U.S. military, today it is Arabs who suffer most from it.  U.S. soldiers kill innocent people both on the battlefield, and from the comfort of offices thousands of miles away from their victims. The CIA arms and trains terrorist groups that cause unspeakable suffering in Syria and other nations. FBI surveillance of U.S. citizens has been ongoing for decades.

For eight years, Obama made some attempts to close the Cuban-based U.S. torture center at Guantanamo Bay; he was unsuccessful, mainly because Congress saw no reason for the U.S. not to continue torturing people. He made no effort, however, to end the war in Afghanistan, now in its seventeenth year. He increased the use of murder by drone, and did nothing to reign in the U.S. police.

And now a man who doesn’t even pay lip service to wanting to stop the U.S.’s crimes, and who blatantly seeks to increase them, is president of the U.S. His possible pre-election crimes are being investigated, yet his racism, sexism and Islamaphobia not only go unchecked, but also seem to have become fashionable. That, combined with the reverence for brutal authoritarian forces, domestic and foreign, is a recipe for more death and suffering around the world. Yet if people look for a change in governance from the Republicans to the Democrats to alleviate this suffering at all, they look in vain.

Originally published on Counterpunch.

.Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn

Leave a Comment

Filed under Militarism, Military, U.S. Politics

CNN as Propaganda

With a variety of news sites, real and artificial, at his disposal, this writer always takes a few minutes out of his day to glance at CNN. He rushes to assure the reader that this is not to obtain news; CNN is in the entertainment and propaganda business. It is not a genuine news reporting outlet.

But, knowing that CNN is a popular program that many people mistake for news, this writer wants to know what these multitudinous lemmings are being fed, and what they are told to think, and to care about.

Last week, he was once again astounded by ‘news’ as presented by CNN. The article was one expressing shock and dismay about a recent ‘tweet’ by the incompetent egomaniac currently ensconced in the White House. United States President Donald Trump taunted the North Korean government, basically saying ‘my nuclear arsenal is bigger than yours’, sounding more like a schoolyard bully than a world leader.

CNN’s analysts, needless to say, were outraged, as any thinking person should be. But there were other comments slyly inserted that are the focus of this writer’s concern. We will look at them in some detail.

  • “The tweet was remarkable not just for its content but for the fact it was generated by a President, the holder of the office that for decades has been the effective guarantor of a US-enforced 70-year era of global peace.”

On what planet, one must ask, has this 70-year era of global peace existed? Certain not earth, since that alleged guarantor of peace has been at war for at least 223 years of its 242 year existence. Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that the U.S. has been the effective guarantor of a 70-year era of global warfare?

Do these CNN so-called analysts spend all their time in some ivory tower, unaware that the U.S., in the last 70 years, has bombed at least 33 countries? How on earth do they define ‘peace’?

  • The tweet “…illustrates how he (Trump) has turned the United States from being a bulwark of stability and sobriety in the international system into an agent of disruption and unpredictability in his own volatile image.”

According to the learned analysts at CNN, the U.S. has been a ‘bulwark of stability and sobriety.’ Careening off from one disastrous military misadventure to another; destabilizing democratically-elected governments either because they lean too far to the left, of they challenge Apartheid Israel’s hegemony in the Middle East, appears, to CNN analysts, as stable and sober behavior. Ignoring the millions of people who march to prevent ill-advised wars, such as was done prior to the invasion of Iraq, represents, according to CNN analysts, ‘stability and sobriety’. Acting as a dishonest broker between Israel and Palestine, all the while favoring Israeli interests and disdaining international law and the human rights aspirations of the occupied Palestinians, somehow qualifies the U.S. to be referred to as a ‘bulwark of stability and sobriety’.

These two quotations were the most astounding in the article, but there were others worthy of note. We will review just one.

  • “Trump’s fraught day is also likely to raise new questions about his temperament and capacity to fulfill the profound responsibilities of his position….” You think? Are there really any new questions that can be raised about his temperament? Chief of Staff John Kelly stated that he had never been spoken to, in thirty-five years of government employment (he called it service, but he’s a career military man, so ‘service’ is a misnomer), as Trump speaks to him. Trump remains obsessed about crowd sizes, and still talks about the margin of his election victory, claiming still that he lost the popular vote by 3 million votes due to voter fraud, evidence of which exists nowhere.

As far as his ‘capacity to fulfill the profound responsibilities of his position’, he proved more than once during the campaign, and countless times since then, that few people with less ability have ever been nominated by a major party. He appeals to the basest instincts of the most ignorant members of the population, and was only elected because the Democrats fixed the nomination process for one of the most polarizing candidates in recent history.

So, dear reader, these are the lessons to be learned by that august site, CNN: The world has been at peace since World War II; please don’t talk to veterans, war widows, orphans or parents who lost loved ones during the less-than-peaceful periods of the Korean War, Vietnam War, or during conflicts in Haiti, Grenada, Yemen, Syria, Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador, Iraq, Panama, Afghanistan, Libya, or any of the dozens of other times the U.S. has attacked another nation. And despite all that, and violence in the streets, political assassinations, torture of political prisoners and support for the most brutal and repressive of regimes (see: Israel; Saudi Arabia), the U.S. is a ‘bulwark of stability and sobriety.’

CNN and Trump are not fans of each other, but CNN certainly serves as an effective cheerleader for the violent, oppressive and corrupt U.S. government. But ‘news’ reporting (read: government propaganda) transcends any one president. The powers behind the throne, the people who grow ever richer due to arms sales, who wish to order the world to their twisted way of thinking, firmly maintaining their positions of the 1% as separate, distinct and far removed from the 99%, care little about who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue at any given time. The names change, but the policies, with cosmetic differences, remain the same.

That Trump may be more dangerous than his predecessors is an open question; the CNN article sited herein mentions that other presidents have considered using nuclear weapons, which only shows their lack of knowledge and morality. Such weapons should not exist, let alone be even considered for use. The global disaster of even a ‘limited’ nuclear war (if such a thing is even possible), should motivate every world leader to destroy their nuclear arsenal.

But no, that is not to be the case, when madmen such as North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, Donald Trump and Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu all have such weapons. If one of them decides to push the button, civilization as we know it will end, with the very real possibility that all life on earth will be extinguished. Propaganda pieces from CNN do not help to avoid this potential disaster.

 

 

.Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn

Leave a Comment

Filed under Media, Political Musings

Are the Iranians Actually ‘Acting’ against Their Government?

In the last few days, the corporate-owned news has been filled with information about unrest in Iran. United States President Donald Trump is gleeful, pointing out that the U.S. government has named Iran a ‘state sponsor of terrorism’, and criticizing his predecessor, Barack Obama, for releasing to Iran money that was being withheld, prior to the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015.

Trump made several bizarre statements in reference to the unrest in Iran. We will look at a two of them, to determine if his hypocrisy knows any boundaries at all.

  • “The people of Iran are finally acting against the brutal and corrupt Iranian regime.” In the U.S., many mainly white police officers receive training by the most brutal military organization in the world, that of Israel. Those police officers routinely shoot and kill unarmed men, women and children, usually people of color, with nearly complete impunity. Is this not government-sponsored brutality?

Recently, the U.S. passed historic tax reform. At a meeting with his wealthy friends shortly after signing that bill into law, Trump told them, “I just made you all a lot richer”.  Members of Congress routinely pass laws that further enrich the wealthiest citizens, while doing nothing for the middle class and the poor. Is this not government corruption?

Congress members accept huge campaign contributions from lobbyists, including those representing foreign governments, which causes the elected U.S. officials to overlook unspeakable human rights violations perpetrated by those countries. Israel is a case in point. More corruption.

At present, the U.S. is bombing seven countries. More brutality.

And are the people of Iran actually ‘acting’ against the Iranian government? Or is the U.S., as it has done so often in the past, fomenting insurrection for its own purposes? It would greatly surprise this writer if it were found that the U.S. is not behind the current unrest in Iran. It has worked repeatedly over the decades to destabilize governments that displease it; Syria was the nation most recently so victimized, but with assistance from Russia and Iran, it was able to defeat U.S.-sponsored terrorists.

Does not all this not make the U.S. a ‘state sponsor of terrorism’?

So before Trump criticizes Iran or any other nation for corruption and brutality, he should look at the horrendous crimes his own country is committing.

  • “All the money that President Obama so foolishly gave to them went into terrorism and into their ‘pockets’.” Obama didn’t ‘give’ Iran any money; it released to Iran money belonging to Iran that the U.S. had ordered ‘frozen’ in various international accounts. Some of that money was released as part of the JCPOA.

The ‘terrorism’ that Trump refers to is unclear, but he probably means Iranian support for the government of Syria, which spent years fighting U.S.-supported terrorists. Iran has diplomatic relations with Syria, and it is appropriate that it assisted that nation in preserving its government.

Regarding money going into anyone’s pockets, again, what Trump is referring to is anyone’s guess. Perhaps he objects to it going to the people to whom it rightly belongs.

It is no secret that President Obama had a highly conflicted relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, or that Trump all but worships the ground on which the savage Netanyahu walks. Israel fears Iran’s increasing power and influence in the Middle East, and that is enough to alarm U.S. government officials who rely on pro-Israeli lobbies to fund their campaigns. The U.S. was successful in destroying and/or destabilizing Iraq, Libya, and Yemen, less so in Lebanon due to the continued strength of Hezbollah there, and failed in Syria. The fact that millions of innocent people died, and millions more continue to suffer because of U.S. interference to please Israel is of no concern to U.S. government officials.

If the United States government wants to target a ‘brutal and corrupt regime’, it might start with Israel. That rogue, apartheid nation has been censured by the United Nations more often than all other nations combined. It illegally occupies Palestine, kills unarmed Palestinian men, women and children with complete impunity (a lesson, as mentioned above, that it teaches to U.S. polices forces), and yet it receives $4 billion annually from the U.S., as cities in the U.S. declare bankruptcy, and the infrastructure falls apart. U.S. tax dollars at work, but not for U.S. citizens.

It is highly possible that the U.S. has, with its interference in Iran, opened a situation beyond its ability to control. Iran is a powerful nation, with strong international alliances, a large population, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is not to be trifled with. Yet it seems that that is exactly what the U.S. government is doing.

U.S. support for rebels in Iran will not topple the government. It was almost 40 years ago that the people of Iran defeated a brutal, U.S.-supported dictator, and the U.S. has done nothing to gain the trust of the Iranian people since then. Hopefully, more sensible people in Washington, D.C. will prevent Trump from making the colossal mistake of invading Iran. If not, the U.S. will suffer far more than any nation in the Middle East.

Originally published in American Herald Tribune.

.Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn

Leave a Comment

Filed under Human Rights, Iran, Political Musings, U.S. Politics