Iran Claims Israel Attack Was A False Flag

This report was originally published by Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge

In the aftermath of one of the most severe Israeli attacks on Syria “in decades,” Iranian lawmakers said Thursday that Iran had no role in the attack, and that Shia nation doesn’t operate any bases in Syria.

Mohammad Javad Jamali Nobandegani, a member of the Iranian Parliament’s national security and foreign policy committee, said Israel’s claim that Iran had provoked Israel by firing first was “a lie,” adding that “Israel’s history of carrying out unprovoked attacks in Syria has been well-documented.”

“Iran does not have military base in Syria,” Nobandegani added.

And while Iran maintains that last night’s skirmish between the Israeli Defense Force and Syrian Army forces was a false flag, and that the IDF struck first (continuing its pattern of airstrikes and other military assaults in Syria), the IDF boasted Thursday morning that Tehran “will need a lot of time to recover” from the most extensive Israeli attack in Syria since 1974.

Meanwhile, Israel said Iran paid a “heavy price” for its (nonexistent) aggression following multiple Israeli airstrikes against what Tel Aviv said were targets belonging to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp’s Quds Force.

Unsurprisingly, the alleged Iranian attack resulted in no casualties or damage to Israeli infrastructure, with no rockets hitting Israeli-held territory (the Golan Heights border region is considered Syrian territory occupied by Israel).

“Iran will need a lot of time and resources to rehabilitate its operational, military and intelligence infrastructures we hit tonight,” an IDF spokesman said. The spokesman warned that “any other attempt” to hurt Israel will “pay even more.”

A map of the military targets published by the IDF shows multiple sites near Damascus and also near the Syria-Israel border.

Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman claims “all the Iranian infrastructure” in the Arab republic was hit.

The IDF has struck dozens of Iranian military targets in Syria in response to the Iranian rocket attack against Israel. Quds force is behind attack and has played the initial price. IDF remains ready for various scenarios but does not seek to escalate the situation. pic.twitter.com/4rC8gHK2LG

— Jonathan Conricus (@LTCJonathan) May 10, 2018

During the attack, Israeli jets and mortars struck intelligence sites and arms depots, among other military targets allegedly operated by the Iranian forces. Syria’s SANA state news channel said earlier that a Syrian radar installation was hit in the attack while “tens” of missiles were intercepted.

Though the IDF says it’s not seeking “further escalation,” the IDF says that “the Syrian regime will be held accountable for everything happening in its territory,” and has warned against any retaliatory attack.

“They must understand that if it rains here, it will pour there,” said Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who spoke at the Herzliya security conference near Tel Aviv several hours after the skirmish began.

Lieberman added that Israeli forces remain on high alert, but said he hopes this “chapter” is finished.

Naturally, most Western media like the New York Times – which has repeatedly demonstrated a fervent pro-Israeli bias – opted to take the IDF at its word, a move that drew consternation from independent Syrian journalists.

Maybe don’t let the Israelis dictate headlines pic.twitter.com/XCMywDP1AH

— Rania Khalek (@RaniaKhalek) May 9, 2018

Of course, in the aftermath of recent attacks on Syria over “chemical attacks” which were alleged but never actually proven, why even bother to verify Iran’s claims when it’s easier to just quote Israel.

Trump declares US leaving ‘horrible’ Iran nuclear accord

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump withdrew the U.S. from the landmark nuclear accord with Iran on Tuesday, abruptly restoring harsh sanctions in the most consequential foreign policy action of his presidency. He declared he was making the world safer, but he also deepened his isolation on the world stage and revived doubts about American credibility.

The 2015 agreement, which was negotiated by the Obama administration and included Germany, France and Britain, had lifted most U.S. and international economic sanctions against Iran. In exchange, Iran agreed to restrictions on its nuclear program, making it impossible to produce a bomb and establishing rigorous inspections.

Via AP

Featured Image: President Donald J. Trump boards Marine One at Joint Base Andrews | May 5, 2018 (Official White House Photo by Andrea Hanks)

The post Trump declares US leaving ‘horrible’ Iran nuclear accord appeared first on Intellihub.

Here’s Why Gas Prices Are Skyrocketing Right Now

This report was originally published by M.K. Matthews on The Organic Prepper

Global economy and geopolitics are underpinning the oil price surge and gas prices are going up.

Who recalls the oil embargo of 1973? That was when the Arab-dominated Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) announced they were cutting oil exports to the United States and other countries that provided military aid to Israel during the Yom Kippur War of October 1973.

In six months’ time, gas prices had quadrupled. Prices remained higher even after the embargo ended in March 1974.

But that could never happen again…Or could it?

The current members of OPEC are made up of twelve countries:  Algeria, Angola, Ecuador, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Venezuela.

Let’s look at some of the OPEC members and their current interactions with their friends, frenemies, foes, other random players, and the resultant alliances.

For weeks, tensions have been rising between Iran and Israel, It began in February when, according to Israel, an armed Iranian drone originating from Syria penetrated the Israeli airspace. Israel downed the drone, then attacked the caravan which launched the drone from the T-4 airbase deep in Syrian territory. An Israeli F-16 jet was brought down by a Syrian missile while over Israeli territory. At this point, Israel launched an extensive retaliatory strike on Syrian air defenses and Iranian forces in Syria. This all occurred in one day. It was remarkable because no Israeli plane had been brought down since 1982.

Two months later. seven Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps were killed in an airstrike on a Syrian air base, which Iran blamed as being done by Israel. Mutual threats of retaliation have since been issued by both Iran and Israel.  Ultimately the conflict between the two countries depends on the fate of the nuclear deal. On May 12th Trump is anticipated to issue his decision on the deal.

Meanwhile, Iran is dealing with numerous internal issues. To name a few: a struggling economy, the worst drought in 25 years, increasing civil discontent, public demonstrations, and labor strikes. Last week Iranian President Hassan Rohani banned money exchangers from selling U.S. dollars and Euros. Travelers to nearby countries are limited to purchasing just 500 Euros ($615), while those traveling to more distant countries are limited to purchasing 1,000 Euros. Iranians may not hold more than 10,000 USD or 10,000 Euros.

In Israel, longstanding anti-Netanyahu demonstrations against government corruption have gained in size and sentiment. Saturday’s march in Tel Aviv numbered upwards of 4,000 people. Other more recently organized demonstrations, arranged by the Hadash party and composed of Arab Israelis, protested U.S. strikes on Syrian outside the U.S. Consulate in Haifa this weekend.

Meanwhile in Venezuela. Bloomberg outlines the catastrophic economic crisis:

“Venezuela, which holds the world’s largest oil reserves, has seen a steady decline in production amid lack of money for maintenance and exploration. Venezuela imports about 2 million barrels of heavy naphtha per month, and all of it comes from U.S. Gulf refiners, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.  The U.S. is leaning toward imposing oil-sector sanctions on Venezuela before the country holds April 22 elections that opposition leaders have vowed to boycott, according to a senior State Department official.  The official, who asked not to be identified discussing private talks, stressed that no decision has been made and the U.S. is still weighing the impact such sanctions would have on ordinary Venezuelans as well as on U.S. refiners that import heavy Venezuelan crude.”  (source)

A fire on the Libyan oil pipeline has dramatically reduced their output. Libya suffered a major fire on its major export pipeline that was attributed to terrorist activities this past weekend reducing their oil production from 300,000 barrels per day by at least 80,000 barrels per day. It is unknown how long it will take to make the necessary repairs.

Here’s the conclusion reached by OPEC.

OPEC has been meeting this last week and Reuters reported that a Joint Technical Committee meeting held Thursday found that the glut of global oil supplies has been virtually eliminated, citing two sources familiar with the matter.

“Industry sources have linked this shift in Saudi Arabia’s stance to its desire to support the valuation of state oil company Aramco ahead of the kingdom’s planned sale of a minority stake in an initial public offering.

The supply cut has helped boost oil prices this year to $73 a barrel, the highest since November 2014. Oil began a slide from above $100 – a price that Saudi Arabia endorsed in 2012 – in mid-2014 when growing supply from rival sources such as U.S. shale began to swamp the market. But the kingdom wants the rally to go further. Two industry sources said a desired crude price of $80 or even $100 was circulated by senior Saudi officials in closed-door briefings in recent weeks.” (source)

Some OPEC nations and their allies have pushed for the extension of the output curbs beyond  2018 and up to the middle of  2019, Iraq’s Oil Minister Jabbar al-Luaibi said last month in Baghdad.  (source)

But things are going well for Russia, China, and Qatar.

Bilateral relations between Russia and Qatar have been blossoming lately. This is very likely related to the blockade imposed by Qatar’s Arab neighbors. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Egypt, who collectively imposed a unilateral blockade on Qatar on June 5, cutting diplomatic ties and closing their land, air, and sea borders over Qatar’s alleged support for terrorism.

In response to the blockade, Qatar, the world’s top producer of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), diversified and expanded their opportunities and opened the door to tens of billions in income by selling LNG to China. They are planning on increasing production by 30% by 2024 to meet the demand of the Asian market. China has stepped up to do more business with tiny Qatar in other areas as well. (source)

Old alliances are dissolving and new ones are being created

Plans are being made. Are we just one more hurricane away from losing more of our domestic oil and gas production? Are global geopolitical tensions where they were in the 1970’s?

No, not yet, but there isn’t a lot of margin for error as the world plays a risky game.

Please feel free to share any information from this article in part or in full, giving credit to the author and including a link to The Organic Prepper and the following bio.

Daisy Luther is the author of The Pantry Primer: A Prepper’s Guide To Whole Food on a Half Price Budget.  Her website, The Organic Prepper, offers information on healthy prepping, including premium nutritional choices, general wellness and non-tech solutions. You can follow Daisy on Facebook and Twitter, and you can email her at daisy@theorganicprepper.ca</e

World War III: Are We Being Manipulated Into a Fight We Can’t Win?

This article was originally published by Daisy Luther at The Organic Prepper

Everyone is talking about World War III right now, and I hate to be the one to say this, but…all I can wonder is whether we’re being manipulated into a fight we can’t win. This is probably going to make some folks mad, but there are some facts, statistics, and unanswered questions that support my premise.

Picture this.

A clean-cut athlete from a wealthy family sees a skinny, underprivileged kid. The athlete wants to blow off some steam and look cool to his prep school friends, so he punches the skinny kid right in the face.

Later, when the athlete is questioned by the school, he says that the skinny kid did something horrible, and thus, deserved the punch in the face.  Because the athlete is rich, well-connected, and the star of the football team, the administration and the cops opt to believe him because it makes it a whole lot more acceptable that he punched the skinny kid.

But when the skinny kid gets home, he talks to his big brother. His brother may not be from an elite background like the athlete, but he is just as big and just as athletic. He has grown up hard, so he is way, way more aggressive. And he has friends. Big, aggressive friends who are willing to fight viciously and who have the skills to back it up.

The big brother contacts the athlete and his prep school friends. He warns them that his skinny little brother has had enough. He is angry that they lied about his brother and that everyone pretended to believe them. He tells them that if they ever pick on his brother again, they’ll be answering to him and his badass friends.

If the athlete has any common sense, he’s going to see that he and his friends are outnumbered, outgunned, and outmatched. No matter how “special” they think they are, how can they possibly win a fight against more numerous opponents that have the same skills and the same weapons, but more – many more – people to wield them?

If you were the athlete, what would you do in this situation? 

If you’ve been following the Syria situation, you probably understand who is represented in the cast of characters above.

I don’t have a background in military strategies. I’m not a politician with special clearance. This may make me seem like the wrong person to assess the looming World War III we’re about to get ourselves into. But humor me while I share some of my research and tell me your thoughts in the comments below.

This goes all the way back to President Obama.

Back in 2016, I wrote an article titled, “Why Is Obama Doing Uncomfortably War-Like Things to Syria and Russia?” In that article, I wrote:

You CANNOT just show up in another country and start calling the shots because you don’t like the way they do things.

I have questions.

• Is this just saber-rattling or does Obama really think he has the right to invade a foreign country, shoot down the aircraft of that country, and also shoot down the aircraft of an invited guest in that country?


• Does he really think he would get away with it?


• Is he deliberately trying to provoke other world leaders?


• Does Obama actually want a war? Because this is how you get a war.


• Is he totally insane?


• Does he really think Vladimir Putin will sit back and say okay, fair enough, Barack, no biggie?


• And getting into a p*ssing contest with Russia? What is he thinking?

Provoking Putin takes things to a whole new level. It puts millions more lives at risk because what is currently a civil war could easily escalate into an international conflict with two superpowers on different sides. (source)

And that was two years ago. What’s going on now is no different, except that China has Russia’s back who has Syria’s back.

Trump is doing the same stuff as Obama.

Remember how we all thought that Hillary Clinton would immediately get us into a war with Russia if she had been elected? Remember how we thought that Trump would actually be able to get along with Vladimir Putin?

I think any of us who thought that Trump might be more anti-interventionist than the presidents who preceded him or the opponent against whom he ran have to admit that we’ve all been duped. Trump is just like every warmongering president before him.

And for those who are still defending him: don’t you realize that your bias is just as bad as the one you blamed the Democrats of having when they supported Obama droning the crap out of the Middle East? Stop it. President Trump isn’t playing “4-D Chess.” He doesn’t have some wise plan to which the rest of us are not privy. He is just like the rest of them. Maybe someone else is pulling the strings, but the end result is the same.

By making these ridiculous statements and trying to find the positive in a situation that has clearly gone straight to heck, perhaps you’re really trying to justify having voted for him. My friends, a lot of people voted for him and they all feel this way, but there comes a time when you have to see that wrong is wrong and call it out.

There was no hard evidence that Assad gassed his people in 2017.

Last time the media said that President Assad gassed his own people, there was no evidence. Just heart-wrenching, horrifying videos of little children foaming at the mouth and writhing in agony. I was sickened by those videos just as much as anyone else who watched them.

But it was never proven that President Assad made the call to do this. I don’t know President Assad, but it sure doesn’t make sense that he’d gas a bunch of little kids to death, does it? I mean, what would he gain from that?

Those who weren’t convinced were called conspiracy theorists and cast into a bucket with a bunch of unsavory Alt-Right types. But even in this critical article, I ask you, where is the proof? Senator Ron Paul produced this video at the time.

As Dr. Paul said in the video, things were getting peaceful and someone didn’t like that.

So, despite this lack of proof, Trump bombed them anyway.

Then it was like deja vu all over again.

Let me provide a list of facts:

April 3: President Trump said that he was pulling American troops out of Syria.

April 8: A gruesome gas attack was allegedly executed on Syrian civilians, complete with gruesome videos of suffering toddlers. Trump decides not to pull the troops just yet.

April 9: Sen. John McCain blames Trump and says Assad was “emboldened” by his call to pull the troops. (But wait – wouldn’t Assad mind his manners until the US got out of his country? Why would he give them an excuse to stay?) In a series of tweets, Trump said:

Many dead, including women and children, in mindless CHEMICAL attack in Syria,” Trump tweeted. “Area of atrocity is in lockdown and encircled by Syrian Army, making it completely inaccessible to outside world. President Putin, Russia and Iran are responsible for backing Animal Assad. Big price to pay. Open area immediately for medical help and verification. Another humanitarian disaster for no reason whatsoever. SICK!”

April 11: Russia warns the US against striking Syria. Moscow’s UN envoy Vasily Nebenzia warned Washington that it will “bear responsibility” for any “illegal military adventure” it carries out. (source)

April 12: Sec. of Defense Mattis said there was “still no evidence” to confirm the gas attack but he believed there was one anyhow.

April 13: So, without evidence, the US military bombed Syria in retaliation for the alleged gas attack. They struck 3 different sites.

April 14: Russia was ticked and warned, “Such actions will not be without consequences.”

April 16: Russia presented “proof” that the UK actually carried out the gas attacks. But we didn’t hear much about that, did we?

Just so we’re clear, there was NO EVIDENCE that Assad gassed his own people but we bombed them anyway. In fact, we bombed them right before the investigators arrived to confirm or deny the claims that they had these chemical weapons. That’s not suspicious at all.

Here’s Ben Swann with a full rundown of the gas attack.

The US is drawing us into a massive conflict without any evidence. In fact, it seems like they may be hiding the evidence that would keep us OUT of a war.

And this is what COULD happen next.

Now, I haven’t got a crystal ball, but I have a few thoughts on what kind of Gordian knot the US government is pulling us into.

And that is World War III – a WWIII it would be very difficult for the United States to win.

I’m not being unpatriotic by saying that. We do have a very strong military, advanced technology, and billions of dollars to spend in the military-industrial complex. Heck, a lot of rich people would get a whole lot richer if a war happened.

But here’s the problem: I’m being realistic and reality isn’t always pretty.

China has said that they will be backing Russia, who will be backing Syria.

Let’s look at the numbers:

• US Military: 2,083,100 total military personnel


• Russian Military: 3,586,128 total military personnel


• Chinese Military: 2,693,000 total military personnel

These numbers don’t include people who could be drafted – just the people who are already trained and in the military.

In Global Firepower’s military strength index, which takes into account technology, watercraft, aircraft, and weapons, the United States is in first place. We have the strongest military in the world.

However, 2nd place is held by Russia and 3rd is held by China. If they combined their resources, they’re far and away ahead of the United States. Our allies, France and the UK, are a distant 5th and 6th. Israel is way down the line at #16.

I think you can see where this is going. It’s entirely possible that our government is picking a fight they can’t win. And of course, they won’t be the people sent to the front lines to defend the country, nor will their children. That will be what happens to the rest of us, who had nothing to do with bombing Syria in the first place.

Maybe losing an ill-advised war is the SHTF we need to worry about.

Maybe the real SHTF we need to worry about is getting involved in a World War III that we can’t win. That’s not on most people’s list of TEOTWAWKI possibilities. It’s pretty much unfathomable that we would lose a war – it’s never “officially” happened in our history, although there are some hushed conversations about certain conflicts in which we certainly didn’t win.

There aren’t very many scenarios we think about in which we wouldn’t eventually be the victor, and if we end up in this war, we may still “win” due to advanced technology and strategies. But the losses would be great as far as human life is concerned and things would always be different in the future.

Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail. Hopefully, the fact that more of the public is beginning to see through the machinations of those who will profit from war will slow down the wheels that are already in motion. Hopefully, we can live in peace and let others do so as well. Hopefully, we can stop intervening in other country’s civil disputes and work on cleaning up our own house.

But, historically, that seems unlikely.

The information in these articles will help you to get prepared for World War III, however it ends up happening.

• Part 1: Is World War 3 Coming? 18 Preppers Discuss Effects, Shortages, and How to Get Ready


• Part 2: How to Survive World War 3: Prepping for an Off-Shore Conflict


• Part 3: How World War 3 Will Happen: “The citizen will be the last to know.”


• Part 4: How to Survive World War 3: Prepping for a US Mainland Conflict

Pay close attention to articles by Selco, because he is one person who has lived through a nightmare like this. Stock up on emergency food, figure out what you’ll do about water, learn about nuclear survival (there’s a whole chapter in my newest book) hope for the best, and plan for the worst.

All we can do to try and prevent this nightmare is to be vocal about the fact that we DO NOT want war with Syria. Because Syria has a big brother and that big brother has big friends.

What do you think?

I would be very interested in your take on the Syria-Russia-China mess. Do you think we’re headed toward WWIII? Do you disagree or agree with the analysis here? Don’t go all Dunning-Kruger. Think critically, even if it goes against your deeply held convictions. Please keep it civil while we discuss this in the comments section.

Please feel free to share any information from this article in part or in full, giving credit to the author and including a link to The Organic Prepper and the following bio.

Daisy Luther is the author of The Pantry Primer: A Prepper’s Guide To Whole Food on a Half Price Budget.  Her website, The Organic Prepper, offers information on healthy prepping, including premium nutritional choices, general wellness and non-tech solutions. You can follow Daisy on Facebook and Twitter, and you can email her at daisy@theorganicprepper.ca</e

Syrian Conflict: Australia Could Run Out Of Fuel In 43 Days, Would Be ‘MAD MAX World’

Australia is at risk of running out of fuel in the next few weeks due to the ongoing conflict in Syria. The escalating situation in the war-torn country threatens to cripple the supply chains that keep Australia going.

While the International Energy Agency mandates that countries hold a stock reserve “equivalent to 90 days of net imports,” Australia only has 43 days worth of supply, the Australian reports. And that could be cut down even further if a global crisis threatens supply channels from places like the Middle East.

Low oil reserves and an over-dependence on imports is what’s driving Austrailia’s fuel concerns.  Defense Strategy and Capability at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute senior analyst Dr. Malcolm Davis says Australia’s fuel reserves would last “20 days at best” if supplies were cut off, News.com.au reports. “[Australia is] one of the few countries in the world that does not take our energy security seriously,” said Dr. Davis. “It would be a Mad Max world. Our society and our economy would begin to fall apart very quickly… [because] everything depends on fuel to make an economy run. It is very serious.”

The rather ominous forecast comes in the wake of major US-led strikes on the Syrian government. As tensions escalate and threaten to compromise international trade, this could prove dire for Australia: a nation that outsources its oil refining to such international locations as Singapore. “Instead of investing in refinement facilities here for refining fuel, the government has decided it’s cheaper to do it overseas,” said Dr. Davis. “The price they pay for that in a crisis is that China can interrupt flow to Australia [from Singapore] relatively easy and our economy falls apart.”

According to The Daily Mail UK, liberal Senator and former major general in the Australian Army Jim Molan agrees that “we [Australia] stand[s] in real trouble.” Speaking to 2GB on Monday Morning, Molan criticized the government’s passive approach to issues of fuel supply and energy security, calling it “a single point of failure for Australia.”

“The way that we seem to get around this is that we buy credits overseas which ignores the entire problem,” Nolan said. “Those credits say that if things go wrong we can buy from overseas, but hang on: our supply lines of communication by ship are likely to be either threatened or because of insurers nothing will come to us at all.”

Moreover, a chronic shortage of petrol, diesel, and aviation fuel could render the Australian military immobile, and in these times where rhetoric and tensions over a war are high, that could prove disastrous for the country.

WATCH: Mainstream Media Cuts General’s Mic As He Tells the Truth On Syrian Gas Attack

When a military general began asking why Syrian President Assad would intentionally attack his own people when the "Civil War" in his country is ending, his interview was abruptly cut short.

The post WATCH: Mainstream Media Cuts General’s Mic As He Tells the Truth On Syrian Gas Attack appeared first on The Free Thought Project.

US Intervention in Syria Will Kill Far More Children than Assad’s Alleged Chemical Attack

The U.S. military is in the business of conquest, death, and destruction, not "humanitarian intervention."

The post US Intervention in Syria Will Kill Far More Children than Assad’s Alleged Chemical Attack appeared first on The Free Thought Project.

US Intervention in Syria Will Kill Far More Children than Assad’s Alleged Chemical Attack

The U.S. military is in the business of conquest, death, and destruction, not "humanitarian intervention."

The post US Intervention in Syria Will Kill Far More Children than Assad’s Alleged Chemical Attack appeared first on The Free Thought Project.

How the Media Makes It Seem Like Gaza Deserves Israel’s War Crimes

(FAIR) As Adam Johnson (FAIR.org, 4/9/18) writes, media have engaged in extraordinary mental gymnastics to describe the Israeli military’s deliberate killing of Palestinian protesters in the Great Return March, framing long-distance sniper shootings as “clashes” in order to misleadingly “give the reader the impression of two equal warring sides.” Equally torturous are the linguistic contortions news outlets […]

The Media Lost Its Sh*t Over the Possibility of US Troops Leaving Syria

(FAIR) At a rally in Cleveland last week, President Donald Trump said that the US will get out of Syria “very soon.” It is now clear that the 4,000 US troops currently occupying Syria (Washington Post, 10/31/17) will in fact stay in Syria (Independent, 4/4/18), even though keeping troops in another country in defiance of that country’s government […]

What Does Pompeo’s Rise Mean for the Middle East?

Replacement of Rex Tillerson with Mike Pompeo in the US government doesn’t simply mean a simple replacement of one secretary of state with another; it illustrates, in significant ways, a subtle yet certain change in the US policy with regard to the geopolitics of the Middle East, where the US is not just having to face a crisis of ‘terrorism’, but the emergence of a new coalition of states (Russia, Syria, Turkey and Iran) which does has the capacity to drive the US out of the region. To a considerable extent, we have already seen how this coalition, although it had to—and continues to—negotiate a number of policy and tactical differences, has already done that. But bringing the US back in the Syrian game isn’t the only objective Pompeo might be working on as the new secretary; there is a lot that will happen, including in Syria, Iran and the larger geopolitics of the region.

If the past is any guide to the future, Pompeo is one who had voted against the Iran nuke deal back in 2015, calling it “an unconscionable arrangement that increases the risk to Kansans and all Americans. The Iranian regime is intent on the destruction of our country. Why the President does not understand is unfathomable.”

Now, the US president Trump has promised to walk out of the Iran deal by May if European allies fail to “fix” it. Therefore, while Tillerson believed that the US must not scrap the deal, Pompeo would least hesitate to support the president in withdrawing from the deal and leaving it for the rest to manage it and allowing the United States a major lee-way to keep poking. In fact, just after Trump had won election, Pompeo tweeted that he looked forward to “rolling back” the nuclear deal, which he called “disastrous”, thus forecasting that the very first casualty of his appointment might possibly be the hard-earned Iran deal

Therefore, were the US to withdraw from the deal, it might allow the hardliners in Iran to stage a comeback to power and push for nuclearization—something that might also give the Saudis an excuse to advance their own nuclear programme. It might also excite the Israelis into launching a direct air strike on Iranian nuclear facilities and thus open the gates for a much bigger and a lot more devastating war in the Middle East than we have so far seen.

There is hardly any doubt that one of the cardinal objectives now of the US policy in Syria is to drive the Iranians out of the country as a means to roll back the influence Iran has gained through its success in not only battling out the Islamic State but also in defeating the US war of ‘regime change’ on Syria. Pompeo appears to be the right choice for the US president to deliver yet another of his election campaign promises and thus make America ‘great again.’

But rolling Iran back out of Syria requires, first and foremost, a change of regime in Syria. Pompeo, as can be expected, does want this to happen—and his firmest statement on Syria came in an interview at the Aspen Institute back in January 2017, when he said, “It is difficult to imagine a stable Syria that still has Assad in power.” He added that it is “unlikely” that American interests will be “well served” if the Syrian president remains in power.

That explains why we shall see a surge in the US’ direct and indirect military activity in Syria, where not only is Assad strong and regaining control on the lost territory, but where Turkey, too, has started to cause the US a lot of damage by hitting the US backed militias, demanding, what Pompeo would call, a stronger response than has been the case.

Therefore, what comes after Tillerson’s departure is not only a heightened crisis and danger of direct confrontation, but also new wars as well. And, it isn’t just Pompeo who would help the Trump administration do that. There are others coming as well.

The US president is surrounding himself with people, who are known hawks, and who, the President of the US seems to think, would help him ‘make American great again.’ The next on the list of replacements is possibly the current National Security Adviser, H.R. McMaster. According to the Western media’s own reports, the former UN Ambassador John Bolton, who is an established hawk on foreign policy and still thinks that Iraq war was a good idea, has been visiting the White House as of lately, giving his “job interview.” And, according to the Republicans, “he is an increasingly likely candidate to replace McMaster, whose long-winded lectures Trump has grumbled about.”

Bolton’s known anti-Russia, anti-Iran and anti-Syrian views make him the worst option for this position in the Trump administration. To him, meeting with Russian leadership is nothing short of watching a person lie in your face.

Therefore, possible induction of John Bolton, following the (yet to be ratified) induction of Mike Pompeo in the White House does mean that the US policy is shifting to a confrontation mode vis-à-vis its chief rivals in the Middle East. What the Russians, the Iranians, the Syrians and even the Turks should, therefore, expect is not a simple negotiated way out of the war in Syria; it is just the exact opposite of it that is most likely to happen.

With the US making these changes, it seems that they are not averse to turning the already highly precarious situation to the worst possible scenario.

Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

John Bolton Is America’s Worst Nightmare

(ANTIMEDIA Op-ed) — John Bolton’s inclusion in the Trump administration as Donald Trump’s new national security advisor is nothing short of a nightmare. Bolton, a former U.N. ambassador under George W. Bush, will be replacing General H.R. McMaster as Trump’s national security advisor, who replaced former “disgraced” national security advisor Michael Flynn. When the president struck a Syrian […]

Let’s Call to End War Profiteering in Yemen

Coming March 26, 2018 Saudi Arabia will have been at war with impoverished Yemen for a punitive 3 years.

Three years of an implacable and murderous military campaign that witnessed the death of over 15,000 people – of which mostly unarmed civilians; saw the destruction of civilian infrastructures to the point where Yemen’s health and sanitation systems have all but collapsed; and architected a humanitarian blockade that led to a grand famine and the spread of diseases.

Yemen’s 26 million people are in a race against time for powers greater and richer than their own seek to impose their will, and their design onto a nation whose only ambition has been to stand free, sovereign and independent.

Yemen has become a terrible statistic – one of death, misery, hopelessness and devastation.

Yemen one would argue exists beyond all manners of contention … when an entire nation sits on the verge of famine, plagued by pestilence, it skies darkened by warplanes, politics quickly becomes irrelevant. And yet, politics we have been told has demanded that more violence still be spent on a people whose lives are but hanging by a thin thread.

When the infamous 1 percent discharges lead and chemicals onto the weakest of the weak, one wonders what point exactly that 1 percent is trying to impress on those it labelled as enemies beside absolute devastation. It seems western liberalism has found its match in the towering ambition of Saudi Arabia’s reactionary theocracy.

For western capitals to argue in the one breath human rights, democracy-building and nation-wasting by military desolation is a paradox we have all learn to dissociate from.

But guilt cannot be rationalised by arguing sociopolitical cognitive dissonance – not if we consider the implications of our disinterest. When hunger becomes a reasonable assymmetrical weapon of war, and political self-determination the privilege of an elite, we might as well consider hanging Democracy and Civil Liberties on the public square and be done with it.

What value can we put on Freedom if we are not committed to it on principle?

If controversy indeed exists, it has more to do with survival than political preferences, or even ideological inclinations. Political debates have become a luxury Yemenis have lost all taste for … it is death after all which has breached the sanctity of their homes.

Death still, that threatens to steal the very future a people once imagined to be its own to formulate.

Yemen’s war, if once a complicated affair of overlapping and contradictory ambitions, has been reduced to a very simple reality indeed. Millions stand to die … No! millions will die unless war is brought to an end.

The only question left to ask really is: how long before we intervene in favour of peace? If yesterday should have been our first choice, several tomorrows away will do little by way of assuaging our collective guilt.

World Health Organization established that of the 1 million people affected by cholera 600,000 are children.

When it comes to Yemen numbers and statistics are euphemisms hiding an unpalatable reality.

And so it goes: over 2 million children are suffering from severe acute malnutrition and will not live to see their next birthday, 100,000s have been made homeless, over 15,000 have been killed, 10,000s have been injured with no hope of adequate medical care and millions of civilians are awaiting death by starvation, diseases or war.

Add to the above a widespread propensity to redact mathematics to better manage public opinion, readers will … I hope, grasp that Yemen’s plight is one of despair beyond despair itself.

“The situation in Yemen – today, right now, to the population of the country – looks like the apocalypse,” Mark Lowcock, the head of the UN office for the coordination of humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), told media in early 2018.

To put it bluntly we all have been lied to. Yemen’s war is not a military exercise aiming to restore constitutional legitimacy; civilian casualties are not involuntary victims of war – they are the targets.

Saudi Arabia we ought to learn is not at war with Yemen but rather its people. Saudi Arabia in all its theocratic might intends to make Yemenis bow to its will just as if they were its subjects.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia you see is not like any other … the kingdom is a breathing institutional anachronism which firmly belongs to the past. Unless of course we regard feudal tribalism and theocratic absolutism as desirable traits in a system of governance. Don’t answer that …

Saudi Arabia is in the business of allegiance and obedience under threat of death, not so much Freedom.

Peace we have been told is a complicated affair … Let’s not reinvent the wheel shall we and let’s begin where it mostly hurts – rather literally in fact.

Let’s start with the proverbial elephant in the room and call for our glorious and liberal western democracies to call back their hounds and stop all weapon sales to Saudi Arabia.

If the kingdom had less lead to dispense maybe Yemen would have enough of a breath left in its beaten and starved body to formulate a peace plan.

Peace is really not THAT complicated! But it will certainly cost war profiteers millions of dollars in lost revenues.

For weapons to be laid down and guns to be silenced, weapon sales need to be halted.

If indeed it would be folly to consider arming criminals in our streets for it would put the innocent in harm’s way, then it stands to reason to refrain from arming those who have no qualms targeting women and children to score military points.

Most western nations, might it be Canada, the United Nations, France or even Germany prohibit the sale of arms to countries with a persistent record of serious human rights violations or war crimes.

And yet those same governments have sanctioned the sale of weapons of war to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia – a country which holds an abysmal human rights track record, and proved feral in its military ways.

The onus is now on those governments to abide by their respective rule of law and hold those principles they say to represent and carry.

If the old adage still holds that:He who kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed the whole of humanity … what should we say of silence?

Catherine Shakdam is the Director of Programs of the Shafaqna Institute for Middle Eastern Studies and a political analyst specializing in radical movements, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

America’s Worst Nightmare

(ANTIMEDIA Op-ed) — John Bolton’s inclusion in the Trump administration as Donald Trump’s new national security advisor is nothing short of a nightmare. Bolton, a former U.N. ambassador under George W. Bush, will be replacing General H.R. McMaster as Trump’s national security advisor, who replaced former “disgraced” national security advisor Michael Flynn. When the president struck a Syrian […]

‘Blood of Thousands on Their Hands’: Congress Votes to Continue US-Backed Yemen War

(CD) — While 44 U.S. Senators on Tuesday were applauded by peace groups for voting in favor of a resolution that would have allowed Congress to begin reclaiming its war-making authority and ended the U.S. military’s backing of Saudi Arabia’s assault on Yemen, it was ultimately not enough to overcome entrenched opposition from the 45 Republicans and […]

Is it Possible to Bring an End to the War in Yemen?

During last month’s Valdai forum – one of the most prestigious in Russia, involving respected experts from around the world – there was a discussion of how the Yemen crisis could be resolved. Sergey Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, took part in the forum, clearly defining Russia’s position against a military solution to the conflict in Yemen, which is simply impossible. The attempts by the Arab coalition to force the Houthis, who triggered the collapse of the political balance that had existed in Yemen since 2014, to comply with Security Council Resolution 2216 and restore the status quo ante bellum have, so far, come to nothing.

Yes, the victims in Yemen have been much fewer than in Syria, but the country has been laid waste and three quarters of its citizens are suffering from hunger, children do not go to school, hospitals have been bombed, and the whole country is ravaged by epidemics of cholera and other diseases. Yes, the international community is making efforts to deliver humanitarian aid to the country by all possible routes, but this is clearly insufficient and is the equivalent of drip feeding a dying patient: it prevents him from dying but cannot do anything to heal him.

On March 3, after the end of the discussions in the Valdai forum, the Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov, reflecting on the current situation in an interview with the Ethiopian newspaper “Reporter”, pointed out that it is important to accept that it is unlikely that national reconciliation can be achieved in Yemen quickly. “The opposing sides now have too many grievances against each other, in many cases with some justification. That situation explains the unwillingness of the factions in Yemen to return to a constructive discussion of how to overcome their antagonism, which today is the main obstacle to solving the crisis in the country. Nevertheless that should not be a reason to wash our hands of what is happening there,” he said.

Sergei Lavrov emphasized that the international community, and in particular the UN, must continue to press the parties in Yemen to renounce violence and sit down around a negotiating table together. Accordingly, since the beginning of the critical phase of the crisis in Yemen on March 26, 2015, when the anti-Houthi coalition led by Saudi Arabia started bombing Yemen, Russian diplomats have been focusing on exactly that, and have been actively helping the UN special envoy, Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmad to bring about a ceasefire. However, all his efforts and initiatives have been dashed because of the parties lack sufficient political will. When, at last, Ali Abdullah Saleh, the country’s ex-president and one of the main figures in Yemeni politics, decided to break with the Houthis and engage in negotiations, he was killed shortly afterwards (on December 4, 2017) by elements opposed to a political solution, and the peace process reached a dead end again.

In view of the circumstances, in January 2018 Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmad decided to announce that he did not wish to continue his contract, and in February he resigned as the special envoy of the UN Secretary-General António Guterres.

It is already clear that the new special envoy is inheriting a difficult task and will not be able to manage without the support of the major world powers. It is no coincidence that the well-known New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, discussing the upcoming visit of the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman to the USA in that paper on March 7, called on President Trump to appoint an assistant secretary of state for Middle Eastern affairs and an ambassador to El-Riyadh, who would be able, among other things, to help the young de-facto ruler of the USA’s main regional ally get out of the Yemeni quagmire, as soon as possible.

Needless to say, that is good advice. It is true that it should not be forgotten that, in many ways, it was the Americans who drew Saudi Arabia into that conflict by passing on what was clearly exaggerated on Iran’s involvement in Yemen, and by supplying El-Riyadh with huge amounts of arms and pandering to its military instincts. What is more, American specialists have been servicing the military hardware sold to Saudi Arabia to ensure it is ready for use, and now Thomas Friedman talks about the importance of regulating the Yemeni conflict, which is stuck in a stalemate.

It must be admitted that Rex Tillerson’s dismissal on 13 March, and the appointment of his replacement, the CIA director and American political hawk Mike Pompeo, will do very little to help bring about the changes Thomas Friedman is calling for. Mike Pompeo has clearly been appointed to demolish, and not build, and his priorities are more likely to be to dismantle the Iranian nuclear deal and to prevent Russia from winning a final victory in Syria than to bring about an end to the war in Yemen. As is well known, the CIA has, throughout its history, focused not on collecting information but on bloody provocations and bringing about military coups, which are absolutely not the skills required to regulate the crisis in Yemen.

It is therefore highly likely that the new special envoy of the UN Secretary-General will lack the necessary support from the USA and will have to rely on his own resources, with assistance from Moscow. He will be dogged by the lack of new ideas and the dead-end situation that had emerged at the end of Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmad’s tenure.

So, what steps will he be able to take? It seems that he will have to make do with whatever ideas and proposals the Yemenis themselves offer him, especially those whose “souls suffer for their country”, to use the Russian expression. One such person is the former president of Yemen, Ali Nasir Muhammad, who presented his program for a way out of the crisis in the Valdai forum. The author has been able to obtain a full version of that plan, which, it is thought, António Guterres’ new special envoy may find useful as he begins his work. Here is a summary of the plan, which follows the text closely:

1. To end the fighting and create a suitable political climate for the renewal of the political process, by applying pressure on the regional parties to the conflict. A suitable model might be the peace agreement that brought an end to the 1960s civil war between Yemeni royalists and republicans, which was brokered by the Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser and King Faisal of Saudi Arabia. The actual parties to the Yemeni conflict played no role in negotiating that agreement, and, as today, they did not want the war to stop.

2. After the ceasefire the first steps in the restoration of trust between the opposing sides will be made, and to achieve this, the following actions need to be taken:

A) the creation of a five-member Presidential Council to govern during the transition period;

B) the formation of a government of national accord containing representatives of all political forces.

3. The formation of local, regional and international military councils to collect heavy and medium-sized weaponry from the various armed groups; the collected arms will then be kept by the national Ministry of Defence.

4. The start of talks between all the political and social groups in Yemeni society, in order to reach a consensus on the form of a future federal state, which will be made up of two regions.

5. The creation of a constitution committee which will start considering proposed drafts of a constitution.

6. The formation of a general election commission, which will make arrangements for general parliamentary elections and ensure that they are transparent, in compliance with the rules observed by democratic states.

7. An address, in coordination with regional and world powers, with a request for funding of a development plan which would enable the renewal of the country’s economy.

8. The UN Security Council should approve this road map and require it to be implemented.

If these proposals are analysed it will be seen that some of them duplicate the measures that Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmad attempted to put into effect, while others draw on lessons learned from the ceasefire that ended Yemen’s civil war in the 1960s.

What conditions are required for this plan, which clearly needs to be drawn up in more depth and detail, to work? First of all, at a minimum, the USA must not try and obstruct it. Secondly, El-Riyadh would have made a political decision to cease the conflict without achieving a military victory over the Houthis, and agree to their taking part in the political life of their country. Thirdly, the political platform of national reconciliation, developed after the launch of the Gulf Cooperation Council states’ initiative to bring about peace in Yemen, and begin a national dialogue, must at least be taken into account. Any proposals for federalization included in the results of this dialogue may turn out to be productive and could prevent the break-up of the country.

Russia is able to provide positive political support for the implementation of this plan and can exert the necessary influence on Iran to ensure that the latter, motivated by the anti-Saudi feelings that are so powerful in that country, does not sabotage the plan.

Obviously, that would be a challenging path, strewn with thorns rather than roses. But the tortured country of Yemen has simply has no option other than to seek a political solution. And the sooner the parties to the conflict, including the Houthis, understand that for themselves, the greater the chances of peace for the the proud and ancient nation of Yemen.

Maksim Egorov, a political observer for the Middle East, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

The Latent Objectives of Saudi Crown Prince’s Maiden Foreign Tour

Whereas the Saudi crown prince, Muhammad Bin Salman (MBS), ‘the modernizer’, has ostensibly set on his maiden foreign tour to attract investment and transfer of technology from foreign investors to make his vision 2030 a national and commercial success, it is just more than a coincidence that the route of his tour coincides with the countries that have been directly and indirectly aiding the House of Saud in its tussle and indirect war with Iran, and some of which are also a party to the Iran-nuke deal. Talk about Egypt, a country that was one of the countries to commit its military to the Saudi led coalition that invaded Yemen, or the United Kingdom that has been selling weapons worth billions to the House of Saud, which the later has been using against the Houthis, an indigenous ethnic group in Yemen that the Kingdom claims is receiving support from Iran. Let’s not also forget the United States, which has been the Kingdom’s main ally and is even willing to scrap the Iran-nuke deal. Therefore, in his visits, MBS’ one of the main point of concerns to discuss with his allies is to find ways to lure them deeper into the regional conflict against Iran, whose supreme leader, MBS thinks, is a new Hitler, convince them of scrapping the Iran deal and thus build up international momentum for rolling back Iran’s influence that comes at the expense of Saudi influence, which is witnessing not just the rise of Iran but also Turkey, which the MBS recently included in his regional ‘axis of evil’ and unwittingly locked Iran and Turkey, at least in his calculations, into an alliance, adding to his difficulties.

This is evident from the way how quickly Saudia’s influence has vanished due to its inability to force Qatar, a tiny Arab state, or Lebanon into submission and give up their so-called ‘pro-Iran’ policies. Interestingly enough, Saudia’s pressure on the two countries has only contributed to what it was supposed to halt: Iran’s growing influence. Today, both of these countries, one facing a blockade and the other threat of another war, are convincingly looking to Iran for diplomatic support; hence, the urgent need for MBS to change the scenario by wooing the West.

The UK has already expressed its willingness to increase its presence in the Persian Gulf region, evident from Theresa May’s visit in late 2017. While Mays’s visit was then thought to be the occasion when she would raise the “humanitarian” crisis engulfing Yemen, nothing significant of this sort happened—or, should have been expected to happen. MBS’ on-going visit has proved—yet again—that the UK remains a key ally of the Kingdom—and is going to keep profiting from Saudi’s war on Yemen; hence, the new arms deals.

Keeping the so-called ‘bad conduct’ of Yemen war therefore aside, the UK is going to sell about 48 Typhoon fighter jets to the Kingdom, worth billions of pounds, calling the deal a “positive step” towards modernizing the Saudi armed forces (so that it could continue to bomb the Yemenis into submission). The new deal is in addition to the arms and weapon systems, worth 4.6 billion pounds, the UK has sold to Saudia since the beginning of the war in Yemen in 2015.

The deal also comes at a time when MBS has heavily embellished his maiden tour with diplomatic warnings of ‘going nuclear’ if they are not provided enough support against Iran and if Iran decides to go nuclear. While MBS has no explanation—other than Saudia’s own distrust of Iran and the nuke-deal reached after years of negotiations—as to why Iran would develop nuclear weapons, his statements do show how his tour is focused on Iran and how he wants to ‘warn the world’ of the consequences of future nuclearization of the Persian Gulf.

While widely propagated as Saudia’s strategy of self-preservation and counter hegeomony, within this so-called strategy is also hidden the fact that Saudia Arabia is facing a highly precarious, rather than historic, situation after the Syria debacle and how the war it had imposed has turned absolutely upside down, leaving the kingdom’s future depending, more than ever, on how it conducts the Yemen war and if it can succeed in forcing the Houthis into submission.

Therefore, by threatening the world with possible nuclearization, MBS seems to be putting his cards on the table to force the world to ‘wake up’ to the real or imagined or even propagated dangers that Iran is posing and that must be countered; hence, his emphasis on coalition building and on modernization of Saudia’s military structure, armament and command and staff training with crucial help of allies in the West.

MBS’ fresh drive, a drive that largely depends upon his personal relations with Donald Trump and his son-in-law Jared Kushner, towards building coalition and changing the political discourse on the Iran-nuke deal notwithstanding, it remains unlikely that MBS will succeed in changing the direction of the wind. His efforts are more likely to face the same fate as his predecessors, for the Western countries, especially the EU, remain more interested in a rather manageable and controlled tension and crisis, which yields not only political influence but also huge profit, than an outright war against Iran that would ultimately come to engulf more than the two adversaries: Saudia and Iran.

Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Teetering on the Edge of Nuclear War

This isn’t the first time. As this is written, the US, according to the Russian Ministry of Defense, is bringing carrier battle groups into both the Red Sea and Mediterranean to attack both Syrian and Russian Forces inside Syria.

According to a March 16, 2018 article in Israel’s Haaretz newspaper, Israel is preparing for Russia as well and expecting mass casualties.

Russia has warned the US and Israel that it will retaliate on any platform that launches attacks on Syrian Arab Army or Damascus government defense centers which are all shared with Russian personnel. This simply means that American ships are subject to obliteration and Russia is more than capable of doing so. Why have we come to this point.

From Israel’s Haaretz, dated March 16, 2018:

“The army conducted an exercise this week which simulated a multi-front war in which Russia intervened to prevent Israel from attacking Syria.

‘Throughout the exercise, we examined various implications of the Russian presence’ in Syria, a senior Israel Defense Forces officer said. “We practiced everything that could be coordinated with the Russians and also what couldn’t be, how we would operate without harming their interests in the region, and on the flip side, scenarios in which the Russians made trouble’ for instance, by sending a message that Israel was undermining their regional interests”.

To understand, we can go to news stories from March16, 2018 and statements made by the Russian government. From Sputnik News:

“Jabhat al-Nusra militants along with the White Helmets are preparing a staged chemical attack in the Alghabit and Kalbb Lusa communities situated 25 km (15 miles) to the North-West of Idlib. There are 20 chlorine containers in their possession,” said the Russian General Staff.

The American and British press refused to carry this statement or any of the others though the general public has every right to know their lives are being played with. Many of us who work in journalism or the intelligence and security sectors say it is “about time” that someone called out the White Helmets and their role in killing civilians on behalf of Western intelligence agencies.

Then these statements came from Russia Today, same date:

“Russia’s Defense Ministry says “US instructors” are training militants to stage false flag chemical attacks in south Syria. The incidents are said to be a pretext for airstrikes on Syrian government troops and infrastructure.

‘We have reliable information at our disposal that US instructors have trained a number of militant groups in the vicinity of the town of At-Tanf, to stage provocations involving chemical warfare agents in southern Syria,’ Russian General Staff spokesman General Sergey Rudskoy said at a news briefing on Saturday.

‘Early in March, the saboteur groups were deployed to the southern de-escalation zone to the city of Deraa, where the units of the so-called Free Syrian Army are stationed’

‘They are preparing a series of chemical munitions explosions. This fact will be used to blame the government forces. The components to produce chemical munitions have been already delivered to the southern de-escalation zone under the guise of humanitarian convoys of a number of NGOs.’”

Russia has warned that the US media is part of this ploy, fully complicit and that media assets working with the CIA but mostly under control of the Israel lobby, which seems to be the driving force behind Trump’s foreign policy.

Further complicating the situation and showing the depth of what is clearly a plan to provoke war is the situation with Britain over the alleged killing, and there is no evidence presented of any kind, of a former Russia agent, that British Prime Minister Theresa May blames on Russia.

Veterans Today editor, Gene Khrushchev, a former Colonel in the Soviet and Russian military and Russian diplomat had the following to say on this in a May 16 article in Veterans Today, in particular tying Ukraine and a desire to fight Russia over Crimea to the situation in Syria:

“The revelation of UK-OUN unsavory liaison was helpfully revealed by British prime-minister during her harangue, when she connected the dots between perpetrators’ joint motives with oh-so-sincere concern about Crimea reunification, which had been, mind you, a deep cover deal in the works before 2014 to sell out the true-blue Russian peninsula – with 90% plus of deep-rooted Russian population – for NATO entrance ticket. Read my lips –no more and will never be at stake again, fat chance, the hell or high water!

If I may to paraphrase Theresa May, I’d say it’s “highly likely” that Mother of all poisonous provocations against Moscow, English style, has been upstaged this time by London in cahoots with Lvov extremists in Kiev:

• Age-old tradition of Perfidious Albion anti-Russian paranoia.

• Decades of clandestine partnership in crime, sealed by Waffen-SS genocide legacy and Cold War subversive collaboration against the USSR.”

It is not unreasonable to see the Mueller investigation of alleged Russian interference in the US elections as part and parcel of a broader smear campaign against Russia and that, rather than being an attack on Trump, is actually an oblique attack on Russia by forces willing to push the US and Russia to war on behalf of a yet unnamed “third force.”

Will the East Ghouta offense in Syria lead to war? A major US built chemical weapons facility has already been discovered and filmed but those films are censored in the West and censored from the internet by Google Corporation and Facebook.

Similarly, evidence that the White Helmets and news agencies like Reuters, Fox and CNN fabricate reports of chemical attacks as well are censored.

Now Russia is offering evidence that US backed NGO’s using the pretext of “aid convoys” is smuggling chemical weapons to terrorists. Such evidence has existed since 2012 and has been offered to investigative agencies under UN control repeatedly to no avail.

It is known, however, that former US Secretary of State Kerry personally viewed evidence of US complicity in gas attacks on Syria and stopped a Pentagon attack, this was 2013.

This postulates that within the US there is a divergence of command, where rogue operators, allegedly under Israeli or “other” command, are able to stage provocations, even influence policy, outside of normal procedures.

Veterans Today editor, Colonel James Hanke, former Military/Diplomatic liaison to Israel and former chief intelligence officer of the US nuclear command in Europe, has stated repeatedly that that US Army is largely infiltrated with “rogue operators” and that several top commanders have been “off the reservation” for years. Hanke has cited that the Pentagon has seized policy initiative from both the State Department and Presidency on several occasions.

This leaves us with some broader questions:

• Is Israel provoking a war between the US and Russia?


• Is the Kiev cabal working with them?


• What is their agenda?


• What roles to Saudi Arabia, India and other nations, such as Britain, nations with compromised governmental operations, play in this threat scenario?

Beyond this, does the public have the right to know what is really going on and that the term “fake news” in itself is a deception. We have been well beyond “fake” for some time and too many, it seems, even those capable of starting wars that can kill us all, no longer know what is real and what is not.

Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran of the Vietnam War that has worked on veterans and POW issues for decades and consulted with governments challenged by security issues. He’s a senior editor and chairman of the board of  Veterans Today, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

Syrian Refugees are Going Home, the West Ready to Attack

“How many years have you been living in Beirut?” I asked my barber, Eyad, after he told me, beaming, that in three months from now, he will be returning home, to Damascus.

Even one year ago, such conversations would not be easy to commence. But now, everything has been changing, rapidly and, one wants to believe, irreversibly.

Although nothing is truly irreversible, the better things are on the ground in Syria, the more threatening the West is becoming, particularly the United States. Now it is, once again, intimidating Damascus, ready to attack the Syrian army, something that could easily drag Russia and others into a lethal confrontation. The war! The West is clearly obsessed with perpetual war in Syria, while most of the Syrian people are passionate about bringing back an everlasting peace.

“6 years,” replied my barber, preparing his razor. I detected sadness and indignation in his voice, “6 years too many!”

“After you go back, then what? Are you going to open your own salon in Damascus?” I was curious. He is the best barber I have ever had, a real master of his trade, quick and confident, precise.

“No,” he smiled. “I never told you, but I’m a mechanical engineer… About being a barber; I learned the trade from my grandfather. In the Arab world now, millions are doing something that is not their main profession… But I want to return home and help to rebuild my country.”

I knew nothing about Eyad’s political affiliations. I used to consider it impolite to ask. Now I sensed that I could, but I didn’t. He was going back, returning home, eager to help his country, and that was all that mattered.

“Come visit me in Damascus,” he smiled, as we were parting. “Syria is a small country, but it is enormous!”

*

On February 24 2017, The New York Times, unleashed its usual vitriolic sarcasm towards the country which hosts enormous number of Syrian refugees – Lebanon:

“About 1.5 million Syrians have sought refuge in Lebanon, making up about a quarter of the population, according to officials and relief groups, and there is a widely held belief in Lebanon that refugees are a burden on the country’s economy and social structure.

Mr. Tahan, a gregarious man who sought to portray himself as the refugees’ benefactor, dismissed the idea that they are harming the country’s economy and straining social services. He said the government pushed that view to get more money from the United Nations.

Refugees, he said, benefit the Lebanese, from the generator operators providing them with electricity, to the owners of shops where they spend their United Nations food vouchers, to landowners who benefit from their cheap labor. It is an argument often heard from international organizations, which say the burden of hosting the refugees is largely offset by the economic stimulus they provide, not to mention $1.9 billion in international aid in 2016 alone, the United Nations says.

Mr. Tahan said he expected the Syrians to stay for years, based on his experience in Lebanon’s civil war.”

One would hardly encounter such a tone when the New York Times is describing the ‘refugee crises’ in the European Union. There, several super-rich and much more populous countries than Lebanon keep pretending that they simply cannot absorb approximately the same amount of people as has been sheltered by the tiny Middle Eastern nation.

In 2015, which is considered the ‘height of the refugee crises’, much less than 1.5 million people entered the European Union, seeking asylum there. Some of those 1.5 million were actually ‘refugees’ from Ukraine, Kosovo and Albania.

I covered the refugee crises from Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, but also the so-called ‘crises’ in Greece (Kos) and France (Calais). The West, which by then had already destabilized half of the world and almost the entire Middle East, was demonstrating extreme selfishness, brutal indifference, racism and a stubborn refusal to repent and to comprehend.

Whoever Mr. Tahan of the New York Times is, and whatever his agenda, he was wrong. As this report goes to print, the number of Syrian refugees living in Lebanon is dropping continually, as the Government in Damascus, supported by Russia, Iran, China, Cuba and Hezbollah has been winning the war against the terrorist groups, armed and supported by the West and its allies.

It is actually the West – its NGO’s and even their government agencies – that are “warning” the Syrians not to return home, claiming that “the situation in their country is still extremely dangerous.”

But such warnings can hardly deter the flow of refugees, back to Syria. As CBS News reported on February 2, 2018:

“… The 36-year-old is back home in Aleppo. He returned last summer – depressed, homesick and dreading another winter, he couldn’t bear life in the German city of Suhl.

Germany, he said, “was boring, boring, boring.”

The number of Syrian immigrants on the Lebanese territory has already dropped below 1 million, the first time since 2014, according to UNHCR.

People are returning home. They are going home by the thousands, every week.

They are moving back from Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, and even from that once imaginary paradise – the European countries such as Germany – which somehow failed to materialize, and even to impress many people from a country with one of the oldest and greatest histories and culture on Earth.

*

Mohammad Kanaan, an industrial maintenance student at ULF in Lebanon, explains:

“When I was in Syria, I had been studying mechanical design and development for three years… Due to the crises and war I was forced to leave. Afterwards I was forced to stop my education for three more years. Then, thanks to UNESCO initiative, I was accepted to study here in Lebanon… Following the war on Syria, I became more motivated to continue in my field of study. Specifically, since the infrastructure needs restoration and factories will soon be operational. The country needs many people armed with knowledge…”

The West did not expect such determination from the Syrian refugees. It was used to those migrants who have been coming from countless ruined and destabilized countries; people who were able to do just about anything and to say anything, as long as they were allowed to stay in the West.

The West tried to turn Syrians into precisely these kinds of immigrants, but it failed. In December 2014, I reported from Iraq’s autonomous Kurdish region:

“Not far from the oilfields, there is a massive refugee camp; this one is for the Syrian exiles.

After negotiating entry, I manage to ask the director of the camp – Mr. Khawur Aref – how many refugees are sheltered here? “14,000,” he replies. “And after it reaches 15,000, this place will become unmanageable.”

I am discouraged from interviewing people, but I manage to speak to several refugees anyway, including Mr. Ali and his family, who came from the Syrian city of Sham.

I want to know whether all new arrivals get interrogated? The answer is – “Yes”. Are they asked questions, about whether they are for or against the President Bashar al-Assad? “Yes, they are: everybody is asked these questions and more…” And if a person – a truly desperate, needy and hungry person – answers that he supports the government of Bashar al-Assad, and came here because his country was being destroyed by the West, then what would happen?” I am told: “He and his family would never be allowed to stay in the Iraqi Kurdistan.”

*

I met Syrian refugees all over the Middle East, as well as in various European countries. Almost all of them felt nostalgic, even desperate, about being away from their beloved land. Most of them wanted to return. Some of them couldn’t wait for the first opportunity.

I knew Syrians who had visas in their pockets, even to such places like Canada, and they decided, at the last moment, not to leave their Motherland.

Syria is truly a unique country.

The West did not expect; it was not used to such determination from the people whose lives it destroyed.

“We are now going West, we have to go,” I was told by a Syrian lady with two children clinging to her, who was waiting in front of the Municipal Building on the Greek island of Kos. “We do it for our children. But mark my words; most of us will soon be going back.”

They are going back now. And the West does not like it; it hates it.

It likes to whine about how it is being used by ‘those impoverished hordes’, but it cannot really live without the immigrants, particularly from such educated countries like Syria.

*

Not only did the Syrian people fight bravely, defeating the brutal invasion of the Western-manufactured, trained, and financed, backed terrorists. But now the refugees are turning back on false and often humiliating comfort of the exile in Europe, Canada and elsewhere.

Such attitude ‘has to be punished’. For such courage, the Syrian cities and victorious Syrian army may be soon bombed and attacked, directly by the US and possibly also by the European forces.

In Beirut, as I was finishing this essay, I was visited, briefly, by two of my friends, Syrian educators, one from Aleppo, and the other, from Damascus.

“It is getting tough again,” I said.

“Yes,” they agreed. “In my neighborhood, in Damascus, two children were killed by the bullets fired by the terrorists, just before I left for this trip.”

“The US is saying it may attack the country, directly”, I uttered.

“They are always threatening,” I am told. “We are not afraid. Our people are determined, ready to defend our nation.”

Despite the new dangers, emboldened, the Syrian people are flowing back to their country. The Empire may try to punish them for their courage, patriotism and determination. But they are not scared and they are not alone. The Russians and other allies are ‘on the ground’ and ready to help defending Syria. The entire Middle East is watching.

Andre Vltchek is philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He’s a creator of Vltchek’s World in Word and Images, a writer of revolutionary novel Aurora and several other books. He writes especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”