Monthly Archives: October 2017

Failed to Divide Syria, U.S. Plans to Decentralize the Country

One can be excused for being confused about the convoluted foreign policy of the United States. Things are bad enough when there is a reasonably sane, Apartheid Israel war-monger in the White House, but with the irrational Donald Trump as president, any semblance of logic and reason is absent.

This is no clearer than with the recent and current situation in Raqqa, Syria. For years, since the U.S. began arming and training terrorist rebels to attempt to overthrow the democratically-elected government of Basher al-Assad, Raqqa was a stronghold for ISIS. In a very bizarre twist of fate, once the U.S. decided that it had lost control of the narrative, and ISIS was not serving its U.S.-created purpose, it decided to attempt to drive ISIS out of Raqqa. In doing so, it was on the same side as Iran, which, allied with Syria, was attempting to help the Syrian people, and to bolster and strengthen the Syrian government.

Now, with ISIS on the run and Raqqa liberated,  Raqqa, according to news reports, is to be a quasi-independent part of Syria, autonomous, but still bearing the name of Syria. This is the decree of the U.S.-backed militia that was part of liberating Raqqa from the U.S.-backed ISIS. If one is not confused yet, please read on.

Recently Kurdistan, which is a province of Iraq, held a referendum in which the people of Kurdistan voted to secede from Iraq. The U.S. had difficulty either supporting or opposing this move, since it ostensibly supports a unified Iraq, but has long had positive relations with Kurdistan.  Apartheid Israel strongly supported this move, since Iran, one of Apartheid Israel’s many and varied ‘existential threats’, is growing in power and influence in the Middle East, and an independent Kurdistan, backed by the U.S. and Apartheid Israel, would block unimpeded Iranian geographic access to region. Add a semi-autonomous Raqqa, and the firewall that Apartheid Israel so desperately wants would be strengthened.

Unfortunately for the apartheid Zionist regime, gaining this firewall may not be quite as easy as a referendum, and the proclamation of a ragtag U.S. militia group. There are a few other major considerations in the mix.

  • The government of Iraq is not willing to see its country partitioned. Discussion of dividing Iraq into its component pieces, thus strengthening Apartheid Israel, was discussed as far back as the U.S. invasion and occupation, but it doesn’t have much popularity outside of the twisted minds of U.S. and Apartheid Israel leadership. Surely, even government officials in those two violent, war-mongering nations would need to get some agreement from Iraq to end the millennia-old nation. That such agreement will not be forthcoming is a foregone conclusion.
  • The same is true in Syria. After years of U.S., United Kingdom and Apartheid Israeli interference in the form of arming, training and financing terrorists, victory for the Syrian government is all but assured. Bashar Al-Assad will not take kindly to efforts by the United States, which killed at least half a million of his country’s citizens, who never did the U.S. any harm, to divide his country. And Syria is allied with Iran which, despite strenuous efforts by the U.S., remains a force to be reckoned with by itself alone, but is even more powerful due to its alliance with Russia. And Russian assistance to Syria can’t be discounted, as Russia worked with the Syrian and Iranian forces to end the U.S.-backed rebellion.

It is disturbing to see what ends the U.S. will go to in order to do the bidding of Apartheid Israel. One would think that the U.S. would be far better served to establish diplomatic ties with Iran, and cease its futile attempts to block its influence. Iran has not invaded another nation since 1798: yes, that is 219 years ago. Just since the end of World War II, the U.S. has invaded and/or otherwise destabilized at least 33 nations.  These include Angola, Argentina, Bosnia, Brazil, Cambodia, Chile, China, Cuba, Democratic Republic of Congo, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Korea, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Libya, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tibet, Turkey, Venezuela and Vietnam. Some of these countries have been invaded by the U.S. more than once in that time.

And now, the U.S. wants to divide up Syria, so Apartheid Israel can be protected from Iran. This simply isn’t going to happen, any more than the independence of Kurdistan will happen, regardless of any referendum.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s ‘decertifying’ Iranian compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) must be seen as part of the plan to protect Apartheid Israel from its many enemies. But why should the U.S. care about Israel’s future? That rogue nation has a dismal human rights record, is in violation of several international laws, and has been censured by the United Nations more often than all other countries combined. Why does the U.S. not only protect and finance the criminal Zionist entity, but also wages wars at its behest?

This is only explained by the corruption of the U.S. government, which allows campaign contributions from any special interest group with a cheque book, and pro-Apartheid Israeli lobbies have very generous donors for those in Congress who will do their bidding. In exchange for millions of dollars in campaign contributions from Apartheid Israel lobbies, Congress members are willing to ignore the human rights aspirations of the oppressed Palestinians, and look the other way at Apartheid Israel violations of international law.

To summarize: Syria is now mainly rid of foreign-backed terrorists, and the U.S. is deciding that that nation will be ‘decentralized’. Iraq, finally beginning to achieve some level of stability following the criminal U.S. invasion of 2003, is also to be divided, both measures supported to please the Zionist regime. Opposition by Syria and Iraq, with support from Iran and Russia, doesn’t seem to enter into the U.S. foreign policy equation.

The U.S. is risking a major war that will cause the deaths of millions of people, and which it cannot win, simply because lobby groups that own the U.S. Congress demand it.

Toward the end of the presidential administration of Richard Nixon (in office from 1969 – 1974), his closest advisors instructed the military not to respond to his orders. More sensible people than the increasingly irrational Nixon recognized that some of his decrees risked the end of civilization. Trump and his puppet-master, the brutal Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, are playing the same game, with stakes just as high. One clings to a faint hope that there are those in the White House inner circle who recognize the folly of current foreign policies in the Middle East, and will instruct the military as Nixon’s inner circle did. It is not much on which to pin the hopes of the continuation of civilization, but it is all we have.

 

Originally published by the American Herald Tribune.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Apartheid, Gaza, Iran, Israel, Militarism, Palestine, Political Musings, U.S., U.S. Politics

Haley, Iran and Hypocrisy

The pronouncements of the United States’ clownish Embarasser to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, never cease to amaze this writer. The nonsense the spews forth from her mouth is only matched by the buffoon who appointed her, U.S. President Donald Trump.

She has weighed in, once again, on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the agreement between Iran, the U.S., and several other countries that limits Iran’s nuclear capabilities. She wants the United Nation to adopt Trump’s approach to Iran and address what she refers to as its “destructive conduct”. She proclaims that Iran “has repeatedly thumbed its nose” at council resolutions that purport to address Iranian’s alleged support for terrorism and regional conflicts. She says that Iran has illegally supplied weapons to Yemen and Hezbollah militants in Syria and Lebanon. “Worse, the regime continues to play this council,” Haley said. “Iran hides behind its assertion of technical compliance with the nuclear deal while it brazenly violates the other limits of its behavior, and we have allowed them to get away with it. This must stop.”

And this pearl of wisdom:  “Iran must be judged in the totality of its aggressive, destabilizing and unlawful behavior. To do otherwise would be foolish.”

We will all take a deep breath and attempt to absorb the lies, distortions and astounding hypocrisy within these statements. Looking at them individually may be the most productive approach.

Limiting Iran’s nuclear capabilities is not enough for Haley.

Perhaps someone should remind her that Iran has signed the international Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Iran’s leaders have repeatedly said that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, and that with or without the JCPOA, Iran will not develop nuclear weapons, because of the NPT. While pointing out this fact to the Embarasser, it might also be mentioned that Israel is not a signatory to the NPT, and is in possession of nuclear weapons. Perhaps she might turn her attention there.

Iran “has repeatedly thumbed its nose” at council resolutions.

Again, we feel compelled to instruct Haley. The U.N. has issued more resolutions critical of Israel for its violations of international law than it has of all other nations combined. Why do we not hear her screaming for sanctions and war against Israel?

And what council resolutions has Iran “thumbed its nose” at? (This writer will only pause for a moment to comment, as he has in the past, about Haley’s elegant, refined and intellectual vocabulary). Currently, the International Atomic Energy Agency is inspecting Iranian nuclear sites on a regular basis. Israel will not allow any representatives from the U.N. to enter Gaza to investigate charges of war crimes. That seems, to this writer, to be ‘thumbing its nose’ at the U.N.

Iran’s support for terrorism and regional conflicts.

At first, one wonders how Bozo Haley can make such statements with a straight face, but based on her vocabulary and very tenuous grasp of reality, it is likely that her intelligence level is such that she believes her own words. This is probably more frightening that outright lying, and in this, she is also similar to her orange-complected boss. But we will take the time to explore this statement.

The U.S. is currently bombing seven countries in the Middle East. Is this not terrorism? Additionally, for years the U.S. supported ISIS and other organizations that were seeking the overthrow of the Syrian government. Is this not terrorism and support of regional conflicts? The U.S. invaded and overthrew the government of Iraq, destroying the infrastructure, killing hundreds of thousands of people, and displacing millions more. Is this not terrorism?

And what has Iran, a country that hasn’t invaded another nation since 1798, done to deserve the wrath of the current Court Jester to the U.N? It has assisted its ally, Syria, in defeating foreign-supported terrorists within the country. It has helped Iraq as it rebuilds from U.S. terror and destruction, and supports Lebanon, and the oppressed people of Palestine. Due to its support for peace and justice, its influence throughout the Middle East is growing, and this the Embarraser cannot tolerate: she adores Apartheid Israel, and will not countenance any country that represents peace and justice to eclipse its influence in the region.

“Iran hides behind its assertion of technical compliance with the nuclear deal while it brazenly violates the other limits of its behavior.”

How, one might ask, is Iran hiding behind its technical compliance of the nuclear deal? Isn’t complying with an international agreement a good thing (despite Trump’s disdain for such practices)? And what, exactly, does to the term “violates the other limits of its behavior” even mean? Iran is testing defensive weaponry. Its leaders, like that of every other country in the world, have an obligation to protect its citizens from invasion or attack of any kind by outside forces. The U.S. and Israel are threatening Iran with war; Iran is doing exactly what it needs to do to protect itself and its people from this aggression. The only thing Iran threatens in the Middle East is United States and Apartheid Israel hegemony.

“We have allowed them to get away with it.”

By ‘we’, she seems to be referring to the United Nations Security Council. The U.S. is one of the permanent members of the Council (having permanent members at all is its biggest flaw), and with its long record of war crimes and crimes against humanity, is in no position to ‘allow’ or forbid any other country to do, or from doing, anything. And, as previously stated, Clowny objects to Iran violating “the other limits of its behavior” (whatever on earth that even means; the phrase simply doesn’t make sense).

“Iran must be judged in totality of its aggressive, destabilizing and unlawful behavior. To do otherwise would be foolish.” 

Let us substitute ‘The United States’, for ‘Iran’ in that sentence:  “The United States must be judged in totality of its aggressive, destabilizing and unlawful behavior. To do otherwise would be foolish.” We have mentioned, above, some of the U.S.’s ‘aggressive, destabilizing and unlawful behavior’. We will add to it the following, although it could be a very long list; for the sake of time, we will keep it brief:

+ Supplying Israel with the weaponry, some of it illegal under international law, to oppress and kill innocent Palestinians. Is this not aggressive, destabilizing and unlawful behavior?

+ Killing by drone thousands of people in Yemen and other countries. Does this not fall under the categories of aggressive, destabilizing and unlawful behaviors of which Haley is so concerned?

We could also substitute ‘Israel’ for ‘Iran’ in Haley’s statement above, and reach the same conclusions.

What happens next? The future of the JCPOA is now in the hands of an incompetent, dysfunctional Congress which, unfortunately, is bought and paid for by Israeli lobbies, the Apartheid Israel Political Affairs Committee (AIPAC) chief among them. It has 60 days to decide whether or not to re-impose sanctions, which would then put the U.S. in violation of the agreement, thus rendering it null and void, although Iran’s spokesmen have said that as long as the other parties maintain the agreement, Iran will continue to do so as well. But U.S. financial sanctions against Iran could impact some of the other countries that are party to the agreement, causing them to withdraw. At that point, Iran would have no reason to continue to comply, at which time Haley, Trump, et. al will proclaim: “There! We told you Iran wouldn’t keep its end of the bargain”, and make ready the war planes.

The Orange President and his Embarrassing Court Jester at the U.N. seem oblivious to facts, current events and history. Iran, unlike Iraq, is not a small, isolated, Third World country.  Iraq, when the U.S. invaded, had a population of about 25 million. Iran today has a population more than three times that amount. Iraq had a small, weak and ineffective army. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran is large, well-trained and powerful. Iraq was mainly isolated in the world. Iran is allied with, among other countries, Russia, which would in all likelihood come to its assistance in the event of a U.S. or Israeli invasion. None of this paints a pretty picture, but Trump and Haley don’t seem to see it quite this way.

Late in the administration of President Richard Nixon, as his behavior became more erratic, on some occasions his top aides told the military not to follow his instructions. This may have prevented World War III. While Trump has hardly surrounded himself with military advisors seeking a peaceful world (are there any that do?), hopefully there is a sufficient number of working brains to recognize the risks of invading Iran as indicated above.

The best case scenario is that there will be no sanctions and no invasion, and that the clown-like Haley will simply continue to sing her ugly songs to an ignoring audience. Iran will continue to grow in power and influence, using those capabilities to help stabilize the region, successfully opposing U.S. efforts to the contrary. But with the delusional Trump in the White House, anything can happen.

Originally published by Counterpunch.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Human Rights, Iran, Israel, Militarism, Palestine, Political Musings, U.S. Politics, Uncategorized

Commentary on ‘We the People’ Television News- PressTV

http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2017/09/25/536405/Donald-Trump-United-Nations-General-Assembly

Leave a Comment

Filed under Human Rights, Iran, Uncategorized

Respect for the Flag: Ignorance or Hypocrisy?

With all that’s currently going on in the world, United States President Donald Trump continues to obsess on football players and the U.S. flag. He is demanding that they show ‘proper’ respect for a piece of cloth that represents a repressive oligarchy. Yet, this is, sadly, nothing new.

In 1807, crew members from the British ship Leopold sought to board the U.S. ship Chesapeake, to seek sailors who had deserted from the British navy. They were refused, so they fired on the Chesapeake, killing four U.S. sailors, and causing severe damage to the ship. This was considered an outrage, and an incident that contributed to the war that started five years later. In 1808, the new captain of the Chesapeake, Stephen Decatur, declared that “… the reputation of the Flag of the United States…” required the Chesapeake to be defined properly by the number of guns it had; there had been some discrepancy previously.

The wounds remained raw; Secretary of the Navy Paul Hamilton, in complaining about U.S. relations with Britain in 1809, outlined several areas, including “…the inhuman and dastardly attack on our Frigate Chesapeake – an outrage which prostrated the flag of our Country….”

Notice the importance of the flag, as early as 1807.

Perhaps we can look at the pledge of allegiance, that statement that is recited by school students from kindergarten through high school all across the country, and dissect it into its component parts.

“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

  • ‘I pledge allegiance to the Flag.’ Really? One pledges allegiance to a flag? Although this writer recited it for 12 years, he had no real idea of what he was saying. But today, looking at even just the first six words, it is difficult to describe how ridiculous it sounds. The bald eagle is another symbol of the United States. Should we, perhaps, pledge allegiance to it? “I pledge allegiance to the bald eagle….”
  • ‘And to the republic for which it stands.’ Well, one supposes that one can feel a sense of allegiance to a country; although this writer can understand it, he does not experience it.
  • ‘One Nation under God’. Says who? This would seem to mean that atheists are exempt from making this pledge (lucky them!). Right-wing religious leaders are forever proclaiming that God is about the strike down the mighty U.S. because of such things as marriage equality, or health care for everyone. If Deity was in the business of smacking around countries when they displeased him (and this writer, an actively religious Christian, cannot see how either of those two things would), wouldn’t the U.S have felt that wrath during the time of slavery?
  • ‘Indivisible’. Discounting, of course, the Civil War, the nation has been indivisible from a geographic point of view. But there do seem to be a number of significant divisions: left and right; white and people of color; police and people of color; police and poor people; rich and poor; Muslims and conservatives; liberals (a vanishing breed, indeed) and conservatives; rural residents and their urban counterparts; East Coast and Midwest; elected officials and their constituents, etc.
  • ‘With liberty and justice for all’. How one can utter these six words in the context of the United States completely eludes this writer. Banks are ‘too big to fail’ and their corrupt executives ‘too big to jail’. Unarmed black men, women and children are routinely gunned down by white police officers, with almost complete impunity. Wealthy people accused of crimes hire the lawyers necessary to represent them, and help with plea bargaining, while impoverished people serve years-long jail terms for minor drug offenses. This list could go on.

The NFL protests began during the playing of the national anthem. Perhaps a look at those words, too, might be informative.

O say can you see, by the dawn’s early light,

What so proudly we hail’d at the twilight’s last gleaming,

Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight

O’er the ramparts we watch’d were so gallantly streaming?

And the rocket’s red glare, the bomb bursting in air,

Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there,

O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave

O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

The convoluted language here makes this almost as difficult to make any sense of, as the musical arrangement makes it to sing. For the convenience of the reader, this writer will re-write it into contemporary English.

“It’s early morning, can you see that thing we praised last night? You know, the flag that we watched in awe. As it got dark, the bombs that were killing people were lighting up the air so while we couldn’t see the people writhing in pain on the ground in mortal agony, we could sure see that flag! Yes, it still waves over our wonderful country!”

Alright, so perhaps there was a bit of editorializing here; the song doesn’t say anything specifically about people dying, but it’s a reasonable inference when bombs are dropping and rockets firing.

So, according to the illustrious U.S. president, when that song is being sung, and that flag is flapping in the breeze, everyone must stand in reverent, worshipful awe.

It has been decades since this writer attended any event where the U.S. national anthem was played. He expects to successfully avoid such circumstances for the rest of his life, a goal made easier by the fact that he hasn’t lived in the U.S. in years. But he must ask: don’t people have any idea what they are saying? Admittedly, this writer didn’t pay any attention during his elementary and high school years, but once that point is passed, shouldn’t people know what they are pledging allegiance to? Perhaps the habit of simply standing, putting hand on heart and then mouthing the vapid and vacuous words is too deeply ingrained; it’s as natural as breathing, and no one questions it.

But it’s high time people did. We can thank Colin Kaepernick for raising this consciousness, even a little bit. He, obviously, thought about the words, and decided not to ‘respect the flag’ (a ludicrous concept, at best) in a very public manner. His actions were sufficient to bring down the wrath of the president of the United States: good move, Mr. Kaepernick!

What will happen now? FOX Sports announced it will no longer broadcast the pre-game anthem, thus preventing the delicate sensibilities of its audience members from being offended by someone sitting or kneeling during it. Trump will, in all probability, continue to rail at the ‘sons of b——-‘ that want to protest racial discrimination in the U.S. And people of color will continue to be marginalized to an even greater degree during the Trump years than they have since prior to the passage of Civil Rights legislation in the 1960s.

Oh yes! The ‘land of the free and the home of the brave’! Indeed.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Human Rights, Militarism, Military, Political Musings, U.S., Uncategorized

Trump, Afghanistan and History

United States President Donald Trump has issued his new strategy for Afghanistan, the longest war in U.S. history. Some of his speech sounds like recycled excerpts from presidents talking about Iraq or Vietnam. In all likelihood, the U.S. will be as ‘successful’ in Afghanistan as it was in those two countries.

Mr. Trump said that three things struck him as he studied the situation in Afghanistan. “First, our nation must seek an honorable and enduring outcome worthy of the tremendous sacrifices that have been made; second, the consequences of a rapid exit are both predictable and unacceptable … third, and finally, I concluded that the security threats we face in Afghanistan and the broader region are immense.”

We will dissect this statement, for both its historical and illogical content.

  • “First, our nation must seek an honorable and enduring outcome worthy of the tremendous sacrifices that have been made.”

In 1968, Republican presidential candidate Richard Nixon promised this:  “I pledge to you that we shall have an honorable end to the war in Vietnam.” Seven long and deadly years later, international photographers captured the chaos and mayhem as Americans and their Vietnamese collaborators fled by helicopter, ship and any other means possible from the country, as the Communist forces declared victory after decades of war.  With over 55,000 U.S. soldiers, and at least 2,000,000 Vietnamese citizens (by conservative estimates), dead, the nation in ruins, effects from Agent Orange, the defoliant dropped on the country by the U.S. by the ton to remain for generations, there was nothing ‘honorable’ about the war except the eventual victory of the Vietnamese people over the mighty U.S.

In 2005, Melvin Laird, Defense Secretary under Mr. Nixon said this about Iraq: “Just because we get our force level down in Iraq doesn’t mean we can walk away or the losses we suffered will be in vain.” And Mr. Trump wants an “outcome worthy of the tremendous sacrifices that have been made.” Déjà vu all over again!

 

  • “Second, the consequences of a rapid exit are both predictable and unacceptable.” Without planning, they are certainly predictable; the U.S. exited Vietnam in a big rush. And they are probably unacceptable to a president with an ego that dwarfs even that of the highly insecure Democrat Lyndon Johnson, whose deadly six years in office were focused mainly on Vietnam, and whose policies there caused him not to seek the full term for which he was eligible, after his first elected term concluded.

One would think, however, that a plan could be developed to remove 8,500 U.S. soldiers from Afghanistan. The government – mainly the Taliban – would be more than happy to see them go, so if the U.S. were to make a proposal for their departure, there is no sensible reason to believe it would be rejected. The chaos that characterized the end of the Vietnam War could be avoided.

  • “Finally, I concluded that the security threats we face in Afghanistan and the broader region are immense.” This writer admits to being puzzled. Continued involvement in Afghanistan only fuels greater hatred of the U.S.; not because of its cherished and more or less mythical freedoms, but because it keeps killing people indiscriminately. This increases security risks. Perhaps, and here’s a novel idea, the U.S. could peacefully depart from Afghanistan, and begin trading with that country. There seems to be a great deal of trade in the opium ‘industry’ going on now; certainly, some more respectable products could be exchanged between the two countries.

These were not the only pearls of wisdom that fell from the great orange lips. Mr. Trump also said this: “America will work with the Afghan government as long as we see determination and progress”.  Again, we can look back to the Vietnam War for another parallel. President Nixon instituted a program he called ‘Vietnamization’, the goal of which was to “expand, equip, and train South Vietnam’s forces and assign to them an ever-increasing combat role, at the same time steadily reducing the number of U.S. combat troops”. This was not feasible in Vietnam in the 1970s, and is not feasible in Afghanistan today. As Kevin Boylan wrote in the New York Times on August 22, 2017:  “In South Vietnam itself, however, popular support for the war was always halfhearted, and a large segment (and in some regions, a majority) of the population favored the Communists”. The Vietnamese people were not about to fight against their own best interests, regardless of what the U.S. thought or wanted.

The same is true in Afghanistan. How many Afghani soldiers, who have experienced 16 years of U.S. violence, are going to want to fight on the U.S. side? It is the rare Afghani who has not experienced the loss of a loved one to U.S. bombs. The ‘determination and progress’ Mr. Trump wants to see is unlikely to materialize.

Christopher Kolenda, the senior adviser on Afghanistan and Pakistan to the oddly-named Department of Defense (it was originally called the War Department, a much more realistic and honest title) from 2009 to 2014, has said that the Afghanistan government’s inability to retake any territory controlled by the Taliban is “unlikely to change appreciably as long as both sides have international support.”

The U.S. government, which only recently decided to stop assisting terrorist groups in Syria, has, with Mr. Trump’s speech, decided to continue fighting an unwinnable war. The outcome is predicable: more deaths of U.S. soldiers; many more deaths of Afghanistan civilians – men, women and children; more hatred engendered against the U.S.; an eventual realization under some president that, much as the so-called ‘defense’ industry in the U.S. loves the war, because it is a lucrative market for its products, it is pointless for any other reason; the decision to leave Afghanistan, followed quickly by panicked departure of all U.S. personnel, with their Afghani collaborators mostly left behind to suffer the consequences of their treasonous acts.

Mr. Trump didn’t favor his audience with specifics of his plan, but reports now say that he will increase the number of soldiers in Afghanistan by 40,000.  When President George Bush decided in 2007 to send an additional 21,500 soldiers to Iraq, he avoided the term ‘escalation’, which had gotten quite a negative connotation during the Vietnam War. This, he said, was merely an ‘augmentation’.  Sometimes, he referred to it as a ‘surge’; Pentagon planners, ever creative if nothing else, called it a ‘plus-up’. Thus far, no clever turns-of-phrase have been adopted for Mr. Trump’s as yet not detailed plan; it will be interesting to see what it turns out to be.

Regardless of phraseology, it is business as usual in the U.S., as the nation continues its long tradition of mass murder against nearly defenseless people.

 

Originally published by Counterpunch.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Human Rights, Militarism, Military

Trump and the United Nations

United States President Donald Trump brought his own peculiar bellicosity to the United Nations this week, threatening North Korea and Iran, and ignoring the human rights abuses of Saudi Arabia and Israel. He proclaimed that each nation should have the right to pursue its own goals, and that the U.S. had no interest in forcing its brand of democracy (such as it is) on any other nation. Then he criticized the socialist governments of Cuba and Venezuela, and harshly condemned both North Korea and Iran.

It is interesting that he seems to lump North Korea and Iran together. The former is a repressive, totalitarian regime with nuclear weapons, and the latter, with a democratically-elected president, has actually signed an international agreement saying its nuclear program is entirely peaceful. The U.S. is a signatory to that agreement, which Trump calls “the worst deal ever”.

This appears to be quite a contraction in the confused rhetoric of the U.S. president. He proclaims that Iran must never have nuclear weapons, and then wants to nullify the agreement that prevents that nation from creating them. What, one wonders, could be his motivation?

While it is next to impossible to determine at any given moment just what is happening in that pumpkin-like head, we will attempt to make some sense of this apparent contradiction.

At present, there are only a handful of countries in the Middle East that wield any great power: Saudi Arabia, Israel and Iran.

The U.S. has full diplomatic relations with the barbaric, repressive Saudi regime. And it must always be remembered that oil trumps everything else: human rights, international law, even common decency take a back seat to sacred oil. The bottom line here is money.

Next is Israel, with whom the U.S. also has full diplomatic relations. But it is not oil that motivates this alliance, but powerful pro-Israel lobbies in the U.S. Israel’s barbaric occupation of Palestine, and its unspeakable treatment not only of Palestinians, but of any non-Israelis within its own dubious borders, is condemned worldwide. Even the U.S. pays lip service to condemning it. But once again, the bottom line is money, and almost all U.S. government officials benefit from the largesse of pro-Israeli lobbies. In return, they jump through whatever bloody hoops Israel chooses to hold. Regard for human rights? Bah! International law? Israel makes its own laws! Common decency? Upheld stringently, as long as it applies to Israelis; all others need not apply.

Israel and Saudi Arabia have been growing ever more cozy with each other, and that is fine with the U.S. As long as Israel has no objection, Saudi Arabia can continue doing whatever its leaders want it to do.

Now we get to Iran. This nation chooses not to share its natural resources with the U.S., and has no diplomatic ties to Israel; it fully condemns that regime’s cruel and illegal activities in Palestine. And thus we have the crux of the U.S.’s problems with Iran.

Increasingly, Israeli politicians see themselves as major forces of influence in the world, even as the reality of the occupation of Palestine is more fully recognized and condemned. Iran must not threaten Israel’s hegemony in the Middle East; no, any nation that has a human rights record superior to Israel’s (and it would be hard to find a worse one), cannot gain the upper hand. Such an event may only increase Israel’s growing international isolation, and provide support to those uppity Palestinians, who have spent decades demanding the most basic human rights, of which Israel denies them.

How fair, one might ask, is the U.S. assessment of the Middle East situation? It must be remembered that everything that U.S. government officials see in the Middle East is viewed through an Israeli lens. And U.S. reaction to anything Israel does is based on that skewed view.

One telling example occurred in 1988.

President Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of State, George Shultz, had created a three-part plan to resolve the Palestine-Israel ‘conflict’. This included: 1) the convening of an international conference; 2) a six-month negotiating period that would bring about an interim phase for Palestinian self-determination for the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and 3) a date of December, 1988 for the start of talks between Israel and Palestine for the final resolution of the conflict.

The response from Israel was not unexpected. Then Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir immediately rejected this plan, saying, incredibly, that it did nothing to forward the cause of peace. The U.S. response was puzzling; the U.S. reinforced economic and security agreements with Israel, and accelerated the delivery to Israel of seventy-five F-16 fighter jets. An Israel journalist expressed the message this sent to Israel:  “One may say no to America and still get a bonus.”[1] Things have only gotten worse since then.

So as the Great Pumpkin plied his bizarre trade at the U.N., he succeeded in pleasing his racist, ignorant U.S. base, which for generations feared Communism and now fears Islam (Iran, it must be remembered, has a majority Islamic population). He also satisfied Israel, with that nation’s leader, Prime Murderer Benjamin Netanyahu, in his own speech later, lauding the U.S. president, as he condemned the U.N.

What can we take from all this? What conclusions can be drawn from Trump’s words that not only threatened North Korea and Iran, but also criticized the United Nations?

If anyone anywhere on the planet feels reassured by these words, they should not be allowed to handle sharp objects unsupervised. With Trumps words, the threat of nuclear war increased; experts agree that even a ‘limited’ nuclear war, if such a thing is even possible, would result in a global catastrophe, with up to a billion people dying from the war itself, and the years-long nuclear winter that would follow. Even short of a nuclear war, Trump’s words troubled many of the U.S.’s longest allies, which could have severe economic impacts on the U.S. And oppressed people around the world, striving for the basic human rights and dignity that so many people take for granted, could only be discouraged by the absence of any allusion to human rights in Trump’s address.

This is the leader of the free world. This is the man with the nuclear codes. This is the future of the U.S., which, with a deeply sordid past, cannot look to any change in the foreseeable future. It must be hoped that, at least, there is a future.

 

 

[1] Suleiman, Michael W. U.S. Policy on Palestine from Wilson to Clinton. Association of Arab-American Graduates, 1995.Page 185.

 

Originally published by Counterpunch.

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Apartheid, Human Rights, Iran, Israel, Militarism, Military, Palestine