Iran’s ‘Only Crime Is We Decided Not to Fold’

“The age of hegemony is long gone. We now have to live in a world without hegemony – regional hegemony or global hegemony.”

Source

consortiumnews.com

By Pepe Escobar
in Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan
The Asia Times  

November 26, 2019

Pepe Escobar reports on a searing account by Iran’s foreign minister of his country’s relations with the U.S.

Just in time to shine a light on what’s behind the latest sanctions from Washington, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in a speech at the annual Astana Club meeting in Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan, delivered a searing account of Iran-U.S. relations to a select audience of high-ranking diplomats, former presidents and analysts.

Zarif was the main speaker in a panel titled “The New Concept of Nuclear Disarmament.” Keeping to a frantic schedule, he rushed in and out of the round table to squeeze in a private conversation with Kazakh First President Nursultan Nazarbayev.

During the panel, moderator Jonathan Granoff, president of the Global Security Institute, managed to keep a Pentagon analyst’s questioning of Zafir from turning into a shouting match.

Previously, I had extensively discussed with Syed Rasoul Mousavi, minister for West Asia at the Iran Foreign Ministry, myriad details on Iran’s stance everywhere from the Persian Gulf to Afghanistan. I was at the James Bond-ish round table of the Astana Club, as I moderated two other panels, one on multipolar Eurasia and the post-INF environment and another on Central Asia (the subject of further columns).

Zarif’s intervention was extremely forceful. He stressed how Iran “complied with every agreement and it got nothing;” how “our people believe we have not gained from being part of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action; how inflation is out of control; how the value of the rial dropped 70 percent “because of ‘coercive measures’ – not sanctions because they are illegal.”

He spoke without notes, exhibiting absolute mastery of the inextricable swamp that is U.S.-Iran relations. It turned out, in the end, to be a bombshell. Here are highlights.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, at the annual Astana Club meeting in Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan, earlier this month. (Asia Times/Pepe Escobar)

Zarif’s story began back during 1968 negotiations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,  with the stance of the “Non-Aligned Movement to accept its provisions only if at a later date” – which happened to be 2020 – “there would be nuclear disarmament.” Out of 180 non-aligned countries, “90 countries co-sponsored the indefinite extension of the NPT.”

Moving to the state of play now, he mentioned how the United States and France are “relying on nuclear weapons as a means of deterrence, which is disastrous for the entire world.” Iran on the other hand “is a country that believes nuclear weapons should never be owned by any country,” due to “strategic calculations based on our religious beliefs.”

Zarif stressed how “from 2003 to 2012 Iran was under the most severe UN sanctions that have ever be imposed on any country that did not have nuclear weapons. The sanctions that were imposed on Iran from 2009 to 2012 were greater than the sanctions that were imposed on North Korea, which had nuclear weapons.”

Discussing the negotiations for the JCPOA that started in 2012, Zarif noted that Iran had started from the premise that “we should be able to develop as much nuclear energy as we wanted” while the U.S. had started with the premise that Iran should never have any centrifuges.” That was the “zero-enrichment” option.

Zarif, in public, always comes back to the point that “in every zero-sum game everybody loses.” He admits the JCPOA is “a difficult agreement. It’s not a perfect agreement. It has elements I don’t like and it has elements the United States does not like.” In the end, “we reached the semblance of a balance.”

Zarif offered a quite enlightening parallel between the NPT and the JCPOA: “The NPT was based on three pillars: non-proliferation, disarmament and access to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Basically, the disarmament part of NPT is all but dead, non-proliferation is barely surviving and peaceful use of nuclear energy is under serious threat,” he observed.

Meanwhile, “JCPOA was based on two pillars: economic normalization of Iran, which is reflected in Security Council resolution 2231, and – at the same time – Iran observing certain limits on nuclear development.”

Crucially, Zarif stressed there is nothing “sunset” about these limits, as Washington argues: “We will be committed to not producing nuclear weapons forever.”

All About Distrust

Then came Trump’s fateful May 2018 decision: “When President Trump decided to withdraw from the JCPOA, we triggered the dispute resolution mechanism.” Referring to a common narrative that describes him and former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry as obsessed with sacrificing everything to get a deal, Zarif said: “We negotiated this deal based on distrust. That’s why you have a mechanism for disputes.”

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry speaks with Hossein Fereydoun, the brother of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, July 14, 2015. (State Department)

Still, “the commitments of the EU and the commitments of the United States are independent. Unfortunately, the EU believed they could procrastinate. Now we are at a situation where Iran is receiving no benefit, nobody is implementing their part of the bargain, only Russia and China are fulfilling partially their commitments, because the United States even prevents them from fully fulfilling their commitments. France proposed last year to provide $15 billion to Iran for the oil we could sell from August to December. The United States prevented the European Union even from addressing this.”

The bottom line, then, is that “other members of the JCPOA are in fact not implementing their commitments.” The solution “is very easy. Go back to the non-zero sum. Go back to implementing your commitments. Iran agreed that it would negotiate from Day One.”

Zarif made the prediction that “if the Europeans still believe that they can take us to the Security Council and snap back resolutions they’re dead wrong. Because that is a remedy if there was a violation of the JCPOA. There was no violation of the JCPOA. We took these actions in response to European and American non-compliance. This is one of the few diplomatic achievements of the last many decades. We simply need to make sure that the two pillars exist: that there is a semblance of balance.”

This led him to a possible ray of light among so much doom and gloom: “If what was promised to Iran in terms of economic normalization is delivered, even partially, we are prepared to show good faith and come back to the implementation of the JCPOA. If it’s not, then unfortunately we will continue this path, which is a path of zero-sum, a path leading to a loss for everybody, but a path that we have no other choice but to follow.”
Time for HOPE

Zarif identifies three major problems in our current geopolitical madness: a “zero-sum mentality on international relations that doesn’t work anymore;” winning by excluding others (“We need to establish dialogue, we need to establish cooperation”); and “the belief that the more arms we purchase, the more security we can bring to our people.”

He was adamant that there’s a possibility of implementing “a new paradigm of cooperation in our region,” referring to Nazarbayev’s efforts: a real Eurasian model of security. But that, Zarif explained, “requires a neighborhood policy. We need to look at our neighbors as our friends, as our partners, as people without whom we cannot have security. We cannot have security in Iran if Afghanistan is in turmoil. We cannot have security in Iran if Iraq is in turmoil. We cannot have security in Iran if Syria is in turmoil. You cannot have security in Kazakhstan if the Persian Gulf region is in turmoil.”

He noted that, based on just such thinking, “President Rouhani this year, in the UN General Assembly, offered a new approach to security in the Persian Gulf region, called HOPE, which is the acronym for Hormuz Peace Initiative – or Hormuz Peace Endeavor so we can have the HOPE abbreviation.”

HOPE, explained Zarif, “is based on international law, respect of territorial integrity; based on accepting a series of principles and a series of confidence building measures; and we can build on it as you [addressing Nazarbayev] built on it in Eurasia and Central Asia. We are proud to be a part of the Eurasia Economic Union, we are neighbors in the Caspian, we have concluded last year, with your leadership, the legal convention of the Caspian Sea, these are important development that happened on the northern part of Iran. We need to repeat them in the southern part of Iran, with the same mentality that we can’t exclude our neighbors. We are either doomed or privileged to live together for the rest of our lives. We are bound by geography. We are bound by tradition, culture, religion and history.” To succeed, “we need to change our mindset.”
Age of Hegemony Gone

Tea Party Rally against the Iran Nuclear Agreement with Donald Trump as main speaker, Sept. 9, 2015. (YouTube)

It all comes down to the main reason U.S. foreign policy just can’t get enough of Iran demonization. Zarif has no doubts: “There is still an arms embargo against Iran on the way. But we are capable of shooting down a U.S. drone spying in our territory. We are trying simply to be independent. We never said we will annihilate Israel. Somebody said Israel will be annihilated. We never said we will do it.”

It was, Zarif said, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who took ownership of that threat, saying,

“I was the only one against the JCPOA.” Netanyahu “managed to destroy the JCPOA. What is the problem? The problem is we decided not to fold. That is our only crime. We had a revolution against a government that was supported by the United States, imposed on our country by the United States, [that] tortured our people with the help of the United States, and never received a single human rights condemnation, and now people are worried why they say ‘Death to America?’ We say death to these policies, because they have brought nothing but this farce. What did they bring to us? If somebody came to the United States, removed your president, imposed a dictator who killed your people, wouldn’t you say death to that country?”

Zarif inevitably had to evoke Mike Pompeo: “Today the secretary of state of the United States says publicly: ‘If Iran wants to eat, it has to obey the United States.’ This is a war crime. Starvation is a crime against humanity. It’s a newspeak headline. If Iran wants its people to eat, it has to follow what he said. He says, ‘Death to the entire Iranian people.’”

By then the atmosphere across the huge round table was electric. One could hear a pin drop – or, rather, the mini sonic booms coming from high up in the shallow dome via the system devised by star architect Norman Foster, heating the high-performance glass to melt the snow.

Zarif went all in: “What did we do the United States? What did we do to Israel? Did we make their people starve? Who is making our people starve? Just tell me. Who is violating the nuclear agreement? Because they did not like Obama? Is that a reason to destroy the world, just because you don’t like a president?”

Iran’s only crime, he said, “is that we decided to be our own boss. And that crime – we are proud of it. And we will continue to be. Because we have seven millennia of civilization. We had an empire that ruled the world, and the life of that empire was probably seven times the entire life of the United States. So – with all due respect to the United States empire; I owe my education to the United States – we don’t believe that the United States is an empire that will last. The age of empires is long gone. The age of hegemony is long gone. We now have to live in a world without hegemony – regional hegemony or global hegemony.”

Pepe Escobar, a veteran Brazilian journalist, is the correspondent-at-large for Hong Kong-based Asia Times. His latest book is “2030.” Follow him on Facebook.

This article is from The Asia Times.

Aliens ‘Turned Off Nuclear Weapons’ to Show Us How ‘Useless’ They Are, Claims UFO Expert

Source

sputniknews.com

by Svetlana Ekimenko

Nov 18, 2019

© Photo : TECH

As far back as in 2008, a group of former Air Force officers shared their incredible accounts of UFOs allegedly demonstrating a distinct interest in nuclear weapons sites; since then, lobbyists have urged heightened efforts to force the US government to declassify all it knows about extraterrestrials.

Aliens have been turning our nuclear weapons on and off to demonstrate how “useless” they are against them, claims an activist seeking to end the “government ET truth embargo”, reports Daily Star Online.

Stephen Bassett is the founder of Paradigm Research Group (PRG), which has been engaged in a tireless effort to shed light on the “truth” about extraterrestrials and UFOs.

Bassett claims that several witnesses have observed Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, as he calls them, in line with the US Navy’s official definition, manipulating our own nuclear weapons with ease and even “turning them off”.

However, the expert is quick to downplay any fears that this constitutes a threat to humanity, saying this actually shows us that ETs and Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) support nuclear disarmament.

“They turned off our nuclear weapons repeatedly; does that mean they are bad? The witnesses to the events, and there are many, generally believe that it is not an ominous thing but rather a message.”

Bassett continues:

“It wasn’t a threat but a message that these things are useless. [As if they’re saying] “they certainly are useless against us, all you are going to do is kill yourselves and we can’t turn them off at will, why don’t you just get rid of them?” That’s how the witnesses, by and large the majority, have interpreted this.””

This is by far not the first time it has been claimed that aliens have been shutting down nukes and showing an interest in military bases.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

An excerpt from the military’s UFO sighting project Blue Book dated from the 1960s

Former US Air Force lieutenant Bob Jacobs was one of a group of former Air Force officers, that also included Robert Salas, who appeared back in 2008 on CNN’s Larry King Live to make the claim that UFOs activated missile systems at five Air Force Bases in five different states, but the United States government had reportedly covered up the information.

Bob Salas, a former US Air Force captain, and Bob Jamison, a former US Air Force officer, made the sensational claim that during a missile test, an object “shot a beam of light at the warhead” in what has been called the 1967 Malmstrom AFB UFO incident, when missiles in the middle of Montana were reportedly rendered temporarily inoperable.

© PHOTO: YOUTUBE/ AGENCIA 6 NOTICIAS

NASA Probes Purported UFO Flyover in Spain’s Alicante

“The Air Force investigated this secretly, I believe through 1972. I think this thing was not of this Earth. I’m convinced it was not built here, because it was able to send signals to each of our missiles separately. The guidance and control equipment was upset in each one,” said Salas.

He was asked, he says, by commanders to sign a non-disclosure document in which he pledged to never talk about the incident.

Bob Jacobs, former US Air Force photographic instrumentation officer, claimed a UFO showed up on film that he shot in 1954 at Vandenberg Air Force Base and that was later confiscated by CIA agents.

Stephen Bassett previously told Daily Star Online that NASA is forced by the US government to shut down the ISS live feed when aliens put in an appearance.

© NASA . HANDOUT

ISS astronauts adjust truss above New Zealand

Bassett, who has long campaigned for the government to end its alleged embargo on the truth about extraterrestrial life, recently claimed that NASA essentially has its “hands tied” when it comes to concealing UFO appearances.

The executive director of Paradigm Research Group, founded in 1996, Bassett has been working to end what he claims is a government-imposed embargo on the truth behind the so-called “UFO” phenomenon.

 

Trump’s Arms Race Threat a Sign of US Weakness

Source

http://www.strategic-culture.org

Finian CUNNINGHAM

Former editor and writer for major news media organizations. He has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages

November 13, 2019

US President Donald Trump has previously threatened to unleash a nuclear arms race against Russia and China – and “win it”. Despite the bravado, the gambit is paradoxically a sign of strategic weakness by the US in terms of not being able to match Russia’s new hypersonic weapons, and secondly, not being able to contain China’s rise to power.

It is a high-stakes, not to say reckless, venture by Trump. In trying to assert US control over Russia and China, he seems prepared to risk eroding global security and dialing down the threshold for a nuclear war.

A giveaway in the logic was Trump’s dubious claim last week that his administration was talking with both Russia and China on forming a new arms-control agreement. It seemed like a turnaround from his previous belligerent rhetoric about winning an arms race.

On November 05, Trump told reporters at the White House: “We are looking at arms control right now. We are dealing with China. We are dealing with Russia. I think they would both like to do it especially as we are talking about nuclear weapons. But we are looking at a major arms control-kind of an agreement right now with Russia and China and maybe somebody else.”

The purported talks that Trump refers to seem a figment of his imagination.

Just last week, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov deplored the lack of reciprocation from the Trump administration on repeated efforts by Moscow to negotiate over “strategic stability” and arms control.

Meanwhile China, as reported by the Wall Street Journal, following Trump’s comments, said it was not interested in engaging in arms-control talks with the US until Washington agrees to first reduce its much greater nuclear arsenal.

The significance of Trump’s remarks regarding his phantom talks with Moscow and Beijing is the linkage he makes between all three engaging in arms control.

This US objective of linking China with Russia for arms controls would explain why the Trump administration is balking at renewing the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) with Russia. That treaty is set to expire in February 2021.

As Lavrov said at a non-proliferation conference in Moscow on November 8: “Signals out of the US do not inspire any optimism about the future of the treaty.”

Russia has urged the US to maintain the New START treaty, which Moscow calls the “gold standard” in limiting long-range nuclear weapons. It was signed in 2010 by President Barack Obama and then-President Dmitry Medvedev. The accord aims to limit the number of strategic warheads to 1,550 each for the US and Russia. The treaty requires a formal renewal in under two years, or else it collapses. Trump has continually hinted his administration is not going to uphold it, which he has previously disparaged as a “one-sided” treaty.

In an interview with the Financial Times earlier this year, President Vladimir Putin warned that if the US jettisons the treaty then a global arms race is a real danger.

American experts have also made similar admonishments to the Trump administration. Ernest Moniz, the Energy Secretary during the Obama administration, gave a grim assessment if New START is allowed to lapse.

“It’s going to raise hell for the global non-proliferation regime,” said Moniz, as quoted by the Wall Street Journal.

The Trump administration appears to using a version of Nixon’s “mad man theory” whereby opponents are intimidated by reckless ambiguity.

By reneging on New START, Trump is seeking to gain leverage on two important issues.

First, he is gambling that Russia will be put under duress with the threat of a crippling arms race and will therefore be coerced into persuading China to join a new trilateral arms control deal with Washington and Moscow.

In a media interview last week (at 7-min section), Russia’s top diplomat Sergei Lavrov condemned the lack of engagement by the US on arms controls. He said: “Sadly, we haven’t seen any comprehensive answers [from the US].” Notably, he added: “The only thing they say that they want is to involve China in this [arms controls].”

China is not a signatory to the New START treaty. Its nuclear arsenal is reckoned to comprise around 300 warheads which is far smaller than either the US or Russia’s arsenal, estimated to be around 6,500 each, according the Arms Control Association based in Washington DC.

What China has developed, however, is a formidable range of short and medium-range cruise missiles. Those missiles can’t reach North America but they do present a severe challenge to American warships patrolling Asia-Pacific.

It was to counter this perceived Chinese threat that lay behind the Trump administration’s reason to cancel the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty with Russia earlier this year. American claims that the move was prompted because Russia had breached the treaty are disingenuous. The real motive for Washington was to free its hands from the INF so that it could confront China with short and medium-range missiles banned by the INF.

Thus, the Trump administration is whipping up global insecurity by posturing to ditch the New START in the calculation that Russia will do its bidding with regard to corralling China into a supposedly new “grand bargain”.

Russia has adamantly said it will not act as Washington’s lever on China. If the US were serious about forming a comprehensive global arms-control mechanism, then it would not be threatening to rip up the New START. As Moscow also points out, why aren’t Britain and France also being involved in Trump’s so-called “grand bargain”?

As the Arms Control Association puts it: “Extending New START would provide a necessary foundation and additional time for any follow-on deal with Russia that addresses other issues of mutual concern, including non-strategic nuclear weapons, intermediate-range weapons, and understandings on the location and capabilities of missile-defense systems and advanced conventional-strike weapons that each country is developing.”

In other words, it does not make sense to scrap the New START. There is obviously an ulterior motive for the Trump administration.

The other major objective for the US is to curb Russia’s new suite of non-nuclear hypersonic weapons. In this field, Russia is way ahead of the Americans. While the Pentagon has been squandering trillions of dollars on criminal wars and regime-change operations over the past two decades, Russia has developed a whole new class of weapons that can evade any missile-defense system. Washington realizes it has been outmaneuvered strategically.

Hence, Trump’s contradictory call for a new arms-control treaty is in fact motivated by seeking to control China and Russia’s new hypersonic weapons. And in order to force his demands, Trump is using the threat of a global arms race by abandoning New START. But, ironically, what that desperate calculus shows is Washington’s strategic weakness with regard to Russia and China.

The Oligarchy’s Plans for Our Future Keep Getting Dumber

Source

consortiumnews.com

By Caitlin Johnstone
CaitlinJohnstone.com

August 21, 2019

Caitlin Johnstone discards the high-flown dogma around space colonization and challenges readers to accept themselves and life on planet Earth.  

It’s rare to get a billionaire to share their grand plans for the future, which is weird because billionaires pretty much rule the world. Whenever they do, though, it’s always something incredibly sociopathic, like replacing all jobs with billionaire-owned automation/AI and giving people a Universal Basic Income set by the billionaire-owned government. Or loading all the humans onto rocket ships and sending them to live on Amazon Space Dildos.

Billionaire Elon Musk, who hates unions and wants to implant AI into human brains, has been continuing this trend of idiotic plutocratic futurology with a new campaign to detonate nuclear weapons on the planet Mars. This is not because Musk hates Mars, but because he wants to colonize it; the idea is to vaporize the red planet’s polar ice caps and throw carbon dioxide into the air to ultimately make the planet more habitable.

Scientists are voicing skepticism that such a plan could even work, before even opening up the “Just because you can doesn’t mean that you should” debate. Sending nuclear weapons into space for any reason whatsoever should receive an outright rejection from all of humanity, since getting nukes into earth’s orbit has been the wet dream of war machine engineers for decades and pretending they went to Mars would serve as an ideal cover story to circumvent international space treaties until it’s too late to prevent it.

Musk claims he wants to colonize Mars because a new dark age ensuing from a third world war appears “likely,” and he wants to ensure that there will be humans living off of the planet to re-populate it after we wipe ourselves out here. Rather than pouring wealth, brainpower and resources into pushing for a change in the status quo which has set the world’s nuclear-armed powers on a collision course for a world military confrontation that will destroy our biosphere, this billionaire has decided it’s better to nuke Mars so that a back bench of reserve humans can live on a desert space rock.

This is the class of people who are calling the shots in our world. These are the minds who are choosing our fate for us. I wouldn’t trust them to run a gas station.

And Elon Musk is one of the saner billionaires.

Elon Musk

✔@elonmusk

Nuke Mars!

260K

9:23 PM – Aug 15, 2019

Twitter Ads info and privacy

43.6K people are talking about this

I’m going to take a lot of flak for saying this, but I honestly believe that the impulse to colonize space is one of the more pernicious cultural mind viruses in our society. I mean, think about it: we’ve got a planet right here for which we are perfectly adapted, and we’re burning it to the ground while looking up at a red dot in the sky going “You know I bet if I nuked that bitch I could build a hermetically sealed house on it someday.” How much more insane could you possibly get?

I’m pushing against a cultural dogma that’s been mainstream doctrine for generations, but I really find all this blather about adventure and the indomitable human spirit of exploration quite tedious and idiotic when it comes to space colonization. We’ve got creatures swimming in our own oceans with brains many times larger than our own, and we’re killing them all off before we’ve even developed any kind of real theory about what they’re doing with all that extra gray matter. There are parts of the moon that are better explored than vast expanses of our own seas. We don’t even know what consciousness is, and science is largely uninterested in answering this question. I don’t believe the spirit of exploration and adventure is what’s driving our longing to break for the stars. I think it’s nothing but garden variety escapism.

We’ve all got that one friend or family member who’s completely miserable and is always quitting jobs and relationships and moving house and changing their diet in a desperate attempt to find happiness. They rearrange their lifestyle for the umpteenth time and they’re barely settled in before their gaze lands on some other aspect of their life and they think, “That’s the source of my unhappiness right there. If I can only escape from that, I’ll be happy.”

Such people are exasperating to be around, because you can see what they’re doing and you just want to sit them down and go “The problem is in you, babe. Moving won’t help; your inner demons will follow you every time. You’ve got to stay put and deal with your issues.”

Looking for Escape Routes

Our species reminds me of that type of personality right now. So many of us are looking forward to some escape route coming from outside of us to rescue us from ourselves; some are looking forward to the second coming of Jesus, some are looking forward to the aliens coming in to save the day, some are looking forward to the Democrats or the Republicans finally capturing the whole entire government and setting things right with the world, and some are looking forward to billionaires setting up a space colonization program so we can get off this accursed blue orb before we destroy it. But there is no deus ex machina here. No one’s going to save us from ourselves. Even if we do succeed in running away from home, we’ll inevitably bring the same inner demons with us that got us into this mess in the first place.

We’ve got to turn inward and evolve beyond our self-destructive impulses. The only way out is through. The mind virus of celestial escapism stops us from doing this, because it offers us yet another false promise of deus ex machina. It lets us run away from doing the hard but necessary real inner work, just like doing drugs or binging on Netflix or any other kind of escapism.

Caitlin Johnstone @caitoz

Bezos Reveals His Ugly Vision For The World He’s Trying To Rule

“Bezos then went on to discuss his plan to ship humans off of the best planet in the solar system and send them to live in floating cylinders in space.”https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/bezos-reveals-his-ugly-vision-for-the-world-hes-trying-to-rule-5bb9d117b819 …

Bezos Reveals His Ugly Vision For The World He’s Trying To Rule

“Guess what the best planet is in this solar system?” asked Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos at a recent media event on his Blue Origin space program.

medium.com

547

7:28 PM – May 11, 2019

Twitter Ads info and privacy

480 people are talking about this

Can you try a little thought experiment for me? Imagine, just for a moment, if we took space colonization off the table. Completely. Forever. We just decided that it’s never going to happen and we all moved to accept that. Really imagine it. Really put yourself there for a minute.

What does that change in you? What does that change about your attitude toward our future? If we’re honest with ourselves, I think it would change quite a bit. For me, when I take space conquest off the table, it takes me in a direction that just so happens to look extremely healthy. It makes me say, “Oh, okay, so we’ll obviously have to get rid of the status quo of endless war and ecocide, since those will ruin this place, and that will mean radically changing our relationship with each other and with our ecosystem. It will mean getting women around the world full reproductive sovereignty and education since that’s proven to reverse population growth. It will mean ceasing to think like a cancer, believing that endless growth is a virtue. It will mean ceasing to believe that the existence of trillions of humans is the best our species can hope for, when we have yet to even scratch the surface of our own potential on a large scale. And I suppose it will mean getting together and figuring out how to detect and neutralize the threat of apocalyptic meteor strikes, too.”

Imagine

Imagine that. Imagine if instead of trying to figure out how to fill the sky with trillions of mediocre humans we turned inward, healed our inner demons, and realized our full potential. Such a world would be a paradise. I know from my own experience that humans are capable of so very, very much more than what we have attained so far; we really haven’t scratched the surface at all. If we’re going to explore, the direction of that exploration ought to be inward.

I really think the mainstream idea that we can always make a mad dash for the black emptiness in the sky if things go to shit here keeps us from truly confronting our urgent need to preserve the ecosystemic context in which we evolved, and which there’s no evidence that we can live without.

I mean, we don’t even know that space colonization is possible. As of yet we have no evidence at all that humans are sufficiently separate and separable from Earth’s biosphere for survival apart from our ecosystem to be a real thing. Humans aren’t really separate “things;” they’re a symbiotic collaboration of organisms with ecosystems of their own, all of which as far as we know are entirely dependent on the greater ecosystem from which we blossomed. So far all our attempts at creating independent biospheres have failed miserably, and the closest we’ve come to living in space has consisted of nothing but glorified scuba excursions: visits to space stations fully dependent on a lifeline of terrestrial supplies. That’s the difference between flying and jumping. It might be as delusional as our brains thinking they can hop out of our skulls and live independently of our bodies, or some river eddies saying they’re moving to dry land.

Rappler

✔@rapplerdotcom

Elon Musk’s Neuralink is developing a brain implant to connect people’s minds directly to a computer. These mind-reading systems could affect our privacy, security, identity, equality, and personal safety. https://www.rappler.com/technology/features/237931-privacy-concerns-elon-musk-neuralink-brain-implant?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1566024168 …

Silicon Valley wants to read your mind – here’s why you should be worried

Elon Musk’s Neuralink is developing a brain implant to connect people’s minds directly to a computer. These mind-reading systems could affect our privacy, security, identity, equality, and personal…

rappler.com

20

11:42 PM – Aug 16, 2019

Twitter Ads info and privacy

See Rappler’s other Tweets

And even if it is possible, why would you want it? Do people not know what space is? Are they aware that it’s nothing but boring desert wasteland that’s really, really, hard to get to and survive on? Have you ever been trapped for a long time surrounded by nothing but man-made things, like on an airplane or a cruise ship? Picture that, but way worse and for much longer. It would be a sterile, artificial existence; even if you managed to bring in plants and animals it would be ordered in a man-made way that is no more natural than the saplings grown on traffic islands. At best it would be like being in a mall your entire life. You’d be cut off from the primordial thrum of your home world. There’d be no real life there. No real soul.

Imagine never feeling the starry spatter of a shower of rain on your face. Imagine never ever again hearing the roar of wind on a wintry night or experiencing the thunder of the ocean on a big surf day. Imagine never again being blown away by the brightness of a rainbow or the thrilling crack of lightning or the astonishing beauty of a sunset or the first rays of springtime sunshine fondly warming the back of your neck. Imagine never again coming across a friendly squirrel or a shy possum or a little feast of wild blackberries. Imagine never again lying in the dappled light filtered through a magnificent tree. I don’t know about you but I would just miss the breeze playing in my hair too terribly to ever leave. I love it here and it loves me like a mother loves her child. This is not just my home, I grew from the earth as surely as a mushroom or a seahorse. I am a part of the earth and the earth is a part of me. We belong together.

It’s easy to feel helpless. The wise ones do not have any money and therefore any power. We are being run by a handful of coddled man-children and it seems like they might have the last word. But I have been thinking about Rupert Sheldrake’s ideas on morphic resonance a lot lately and I’m increasingly convinced that even just one of us bringing consciousness to an aspect of our collective darkness is enough to wordlessly and instantly inform the herd. So, do me a favor if you are willing. Go and run one more experiment for me. Go outside now and place your hand on the ground and say to the Earth these words — “I’m sorry, please forgive me, thank you, I love you.” Say it as many times as you feel like. Say it, and mean it.

And then let’s see what happens next.

Caitlin Johnstone is a rogue journalist, poet, and utopia prepper who publishes regularly at Medium. Follow her work on Facebook, Twitter, or her website. She has a podcast and a new book “Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers.” 

This article was re-published with permission.

China prepares its ‘nuclear option’ in trade war

“If there is any further pushback from the US on any of these Chinese projects in Iran, then Beijing will invoke in full force the ‘nuclear option’ of selling all or a significant part of its US$1.4 trillion holding of US Treasury Bills, with a major chunk of the paper due to be sold in September on this basis. This massive holding of these bonds – through which the US finances its economy and is an important factor both in the value of the dollar and therefore in the health of US international companies especially – has been used as a bargaining chip before by China, especially when it feels threatened.”

Source

http://www.rt.com

17 Aug, 2019

FILE PHOTO: The mushroom cloud of the first test of a hydrogen bomb, “Ivy Mike” © Reuters

As the trade war continues to escalate, China is becoming increasingly active in Iran and is considering retaliating with what has long been described as the country’s ‘nuclear option’.

For the first of these projects – Phase 11 of the supergiant South Pars non-associated gas field (SP11) – last week saw a statement from the chief executive officer of the Pars Oil and Gas Company (POGC) that talks had resumed with Chinese developers to advance the project. Originally the subject of an extensive contract signed by France’s Total before it pulled out due to re-imposed US sanctions on Iran, talks had been well-advanced with the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) to take up the slack on development. As per the original contract, CNPC had been assigned Total’s 50.1 percent stake in the field when the French firm withdrew, giving it a total of 80.1 percent in the site, with Iran’s own Petropars Company holding the remainder. At the same time, Iran was desperate to increase the pace of development of the fields in its oil-rich West Karoun area, including North Azadegan, South Azadegan, North Yaran, South Yaran, and Yadavaran, in order to optimise oil flows ahead of further clampdowns on exports by the US.

Read more

China’s other nuclear option in trade war with US – Rare earth materials

China, though, which at that time was engaged in just the opening shots of the trade war with the US was loathe to completely disregard all US sensibilities when it came to Iran but equally saw itself as a longstanding partner of the Islamic Republic, not to mention always being cognisant of its need to ensure diversity of energy supply. At that point, China agreed a trade-off with the US that in exchange for it halting active development of SP11 it would be allowed to continue its activities in North Azadegan and would be able to go ahead with its development of Yadavaran – the second of China’s major Iran projects. China told the US that its continued involvement in North Azadegan could easily be justified to anyone else who might be interested – such as the mainstream media – on the basis that it had already spent billions of dollars developing the second phase of the 460 square kilometre field. Similarly, China said at the time, its ongoing activities on Yadavaran could be justified by dint of the fact that the original contract had been signed in good faith in 2007, way before the US withdrawal from the nuclear deal in May 2018 and thus, legally speaking, it had every right to go ahead.

The third of China’s major as yet unfinished projects in Iran was the build-out of the Jask oil export terminal, which – crucially, particularly in the current security situation – does not lie within the Strait of Hormuz or even in the Persian Gulf, but rather in the Gulf Of Oman. Even before the new US sanctions, the Kharg export terminal was not ideal for use by tankers as the narrowness of the Strait of Hormuz means that they have to go very slowly through it. With the new sanctions in place and tit-for-tat tanker seizures regularly occurring, China would have little choice but to put at least a couple of its own warships into the Gulf to safeguard their passage or stop buying Iranian oil entirely, neither of which Beijing particularly wants to do.

ALSO ON RT.COMChina continues importing Iranian oil in defiance of US sanctions

So, according to the plans, a US$2 billion or so 1,000 kilometre oil pipeline will connect Guriyeh in the Shoaybiyeh-ye Gharbi Rural District, in Khuzestan Province (south-west Iran), to Jask County, in Hormozgan Province (south Iran), with any financing required over and above that provided for Iran to be made readily available  from China. Also to be constructed in Jask is an initial 20 storage tanks each capable of storing 500,000 barrels of oil, and related shipping facilities, at a cost of around US$200 million. Overall, the intention is for Jask to have the capacity to store up to 30 million barrels and export one million barrels per day of crude oil. There are adjunct plans to build a large petrochemicals and refining complex in Jask as well, with the prime market for produced petchems – including gasoline, gas oil, jet fuel, sulphur, butadiene, ethylene and propylene, and mono-ethylene glycol – again being China. According to a recent comment by the director of projects at Iran’s National Petrochemical Company, Ali Mohammad Bossaqzadeh, the project would be built and run by Bakhtar Petrochemicals Holding, although ‘other foreign companies’ may take part. In fact, according to the Iran source, China has also offered to send as many engineers and other professionals required in such a project to Iran for as long as necessary.

ALSO ON RT.COMWhat are rare earth metals & why they are China’s ‘nuclear option’ in trade war with US

Having said that, and aware of the leverage that it had with Iran as one of the very few countries still willing to engage in developing its fields in the midst of increasingly vigorously-imposed sanctions, China has sought deal sweeteners from Iran, and has been given them. In order for it to reactivate its development of SP11, China will get a 17.25 percent discount for nine years on the value of all gas it recovers. “This is the value of the gas as applied to CNPC’s cost-return formula against the open market valuation, and currently the net present value of the site is US$116 billion,” the Iran source told OilPrice.com. For its part, China has agreed to increase the production from its oil fields in the West Karoun area – including North Azadegan and Yadavaran – by an additional 500,000 bpd by the end of 2020. This dovetails with Iran’s plan to increase the recovery rate from these West Karoun fields that it shares with Iraq from the current 5 percent (compared to Saudi Arabia’s 50 percent). “For every one percent increase, the recoverable reserves figure would increase by 670 million barrels, or around US$34 billion in revenues with oil even at US$50 a barrel,” the Iran source said.

Read more

China’s nuclear option of dumping US bonds would cause absolute chaos in global markets – expert

If there is any further pushback from the US on any of these Chinese projects in Iran, then Beijing will invoke in full force the ‘nuclear option’ of selling all or a significant part of its US$1.4 trillion holding of US Treasury Bills, with a major chunk of the paper due to be sold in September on this basis. This massive holding of these bonds – through which the US finances its economy and is an important factor both in the value of the dollar and therefore in the health of US international companies especially – has been used as a bargaining chip before by China, especially when it feels threatened. Back in 2007, just before the great financial crisis, a number of senior Chinese figures at various state-run think tanks – through which China often signals its big geopolitical threats – stated that the large-scale selling of this massive Treasury Bill holding would trigger a dollar crash, a huge spike in bond yields, the collapse of the housing market and stock market chaos.

Such a tactic would neatly fit into China’s overall strategy to have the renminbi challenge the US dollar’s status as the key global reserve currency and the prime currency for global energy transactions. “The long-planned sequencing for this was inclusion in the SDR {Special Drawing Rights] mix, which happened in 2016, increasing use as a trading currency, which followed that, use as the key currency of an international energy trading exchange, which has occurred with the creation of the renminbi-denominated Shanghai International Energy Exchange in last year, and the calls from big oil producers and other major trading nations to use the renminbi, which has been happening over the past few years,” the head of a New York-based commodities hedge fund told OilPrice.com. Only recently, Leonid Mikhelson, chief executive officer of Russian oil major, Novatek, said that future sales to China denominated in renminbi is under consideration and that US sanctions accelerate the process of Russia trying to switch away from US dollar-centric oil and gas trading and the damage from potential sanctions that go with it. “This has been discussed for a while with Russia’s largest trading partners such as India and China, and even Arab countries are starting to think about it… If they do create difficulties for our Russian banks then all we have to do is replace dollars,” he said. “The trade war between the US and China will only accelerate the process,” he added.

The trade war with the US, though, may be the very reason why this policy is not being pushed right now by China, Rory Green, Asia economist for TS Lombard told OilPrice.com last week. “With the renminbi weakening, and set to reach 7.50 to the [US] dollar level if the US imposes 25 percent tariffs on all Chinese exports, it is more difficult for China to persuade the big oil producers like Russia, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, to make the switch away from the dollar,” he said. “For China as well, the timing is not quite right, as its use of Eurodollar financing is currently significant, it has a lot of dollar-denominated bonds rolling over shortly, and its balance of payments needs a relatively healthy US demand profile, but China wants to get away from the dollar system and that is the overall direction of travel,” he concluded.

This article was originally published on Oilprice.com

America Dumps INF Treaty. Time for Russian Missiles in Latin America?

“A more likely scenario, however, is that Putin, in the event Trump ‘goes nuclear’ in Eastern Europe, will deploy round-the-clock stealth submarines armed with ballistic missiles near the American shoreline as an insurance policy.”

Source

http://www.strategic-culture.org

Robert Bridge

August 9, 2019

Washington’s withdrawal from the INF Treaty is just the latest move against Russia that will serve to intensify an arms race on the European continent that is already underway. It may also force Russia to take things to the next level.

Aside from the unprecedented stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction on an epic scale, a whirlwind of regional developments are now underway that foreshadow extremely unsettling consequences. First and foremost is this month’s formal announcement by the Trump administration that it would be pulling out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty), signed into force by Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan back in 1987.

With the INF consigned to the dustbin of history, the US and Russia are free to design and produce ballistic and cruise missiles within a 500-5,500 kilometer range (310-3,420 miles). Would any NATO country be so foolish as to host these American-made weapons on their territory, thereby opening itself up to a devastating first-strike attack in some worst-case scenario? Poland is one possible candidate. After all, Polish President Andrzej Duda last year offered the United States $2 billion in financing for the construction of a permanent American base on Poland’s eastern border. While the two NATO countries are still considering the idea, it is clear that the eradication of the INF Treaty promises to ratchet up tensions between Russia and its neighbors.

Washington’s pullout from the INF did not occur in a vacuum, of course. It followed in the tank tracks of George W. Bush’s disastrous decision to withdraw from the ABM Treaty, one of many opportunistic moves committed by the United States in the aftermath of 9/11. With the ABM out of the way, the United States was able to establish a missile defense shield in Romania, just miles from the Russian border. Washington’s overtures to Moscow that it would welcome Russian participation in the project were eventually revealed as a deceitful stalling tactic. Russian President Vladimir Putin was not fooled, however, and wasted no time researching and developing of a lethal array of new weapon systems, including a nuclear-powered cruise missile with unlimited range.

RT

✔@RT_com

‘Listen to us now’: #Putin unveils new Russian nuclear arsenal https://on.rt.com/908e 

64

09:09 – 1 мар. 2018 г.

Информация о рекламе в Твиттере и конфиденциальность

157 человек(а) говорят об этом

At this point in the updated ‘Great Game’ there is a temptation to say that the US and Russia have entered yet another ‘MAD’ moment, that is, ‘mutually assured destruction’ should one side or the other attempt fate with a first-strike attack. Check mate, as it were. After all, Russia has got its “unstoppable” nuclear-powered cruise missile and other fearsome hardware, while the US has its missile defense shield, as well as numerous NATO set pieces, bolted down in Europe. Everything is wonderful in the neighborhood, right? Well, not exactly.

Comparing the present standoff between the US and Russia to the Cold War realities is erroneous and dangerous for a number of reasons. First, the opportunity for some sort of mishap resulting in all-out war has never been greater. The reason is not simply due to the dizzying amount of firepower involved, but rather due to the proximity of the firepower to the Russian border.  During the Cold War standoff, Moscow, the nerve center of the Soviet empire, was well guarded by the buffer of Warsaw Pact republics. Today, that buffer has practically vanished, and NATO is not only encamped deep inside of Eastern Europe, but – in the case of the Baltic States of Estonia and Latvia – smack up against the Russian border. Although the entire concept of time, distance and space has been made somewhat redundant by the exceptional speed of modern missiles and aircraft, this has not reduced the possibility of NATO and Russia accidentally stumbling into a very bad situation.

Now with the INF Treaty out of the way there is the possibility that Washington will place intermediate-range missiles in Russia’s backyard. Such a move would flush with Washington’s revised nuclear doctrine, which not only aims for increasing its nuclear arsenal, but – in pure Dr. Strangelove fashion – lowering the threshold for which nuclear weapons may be used. To think that Russia will watch passively on the sidelines as the US disrupts the regional strategic balance in its favor would be wishful thinking.

Even as the corpse of the INF treaty was still warm, Mark T. Esper, the new US secretary of defense said he favored the deployment of new American ground-based missiles to Asia, without specifying a precise location.

“It’s fair to say, though, that we would like to deploy a capability sooner rather than later,” Esper said while en route to Australia for foreign policy meetings. “I would prefer months. I just don’t have the latest state of play on timelines.”

Meanwhile, the Pentagon is reportedly moving ahead with the development of missile systems, including a cruise missile with an expected 1,000 km range and an intermediate-range ballistic missile with a 3,000 to 4,000 km range. With the ‘shield’ of a US missile defense system already established in Eastern Europe, Russia will not sit by idly and wait for NATO’s other hand to pick up a sword.

What options are open to Russia at this point? Aside from its Russia-based defenses already mentioned, Moscow will feel very compelled to move its strike abilities closer to the United States in order to match NATO’s newfound capacity just over the Russian border.

Putin has emphasized that Russia will not deploy ballistic missiles unless the US does so first. If he were required to respond, would Russia consider a permanent missile base somewhere in Latin America, just miles from US shores, mirroring the same situation that Russia faces in Eastern Europe? Imagine a situation where ‘Trump’s Mexican Wall’ became in reality a host of Russian launch pads. Although ti would solve America’s migrant problem, it probably won’t do much to help Americans sleep better at night. Impossible to imagine, of course, yet that is the exact dire scenario Russia faces on its own border with the Baltic States.

A more likely scenario, however, is that Putin, in the event Trump ‘goes nuclear’ in Eastern Europe, will deploy round-the-clock stealth submarines armed with ballistic missiles near the American shoreline as an insurance policy. It is a dreadful new reality to consider, yet as the United States continues with its reckless treaty-trashing posture it is a reality the world will be forced to live with.

Rattling the Nuclear Cage: India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran and the US

Rattling the Nuclear Cage: India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran and the US

“The “only nuclear criminal in the world”, according to the “supreme leader’s” successor, Ali Khamanei, “is falsely claiming to fight the proliferation of nuclear weapons”.”

 

“And both India and Pakistan are nuclear powers. Indeed, there was nothing more pathetic, after Pakistan’s first nuclear tests in 1998, than to travel around this other “Islamic republic” and, amid the abject poverty of its villages, gaze at the awful commemorative papier-mache recreations of the granite mountains in which the explosions took place. There is, I suppose, no point in adding that there are more armed extremist Islamists on Islamabad’s payroll in both Pakistan and Afghanistan – coddled by the Inter-Services Intelligence agency – than there are in the whole of Iran.”

 

http://www.counterpunch.org

by ROBERT FISK

AUGUST 12, 2019

Photograph Source: Leslie Groves, Manhattan Project director, with a map of Japan – Public Domain

 

We like our anniversaries in blocks of 50 or 100 – at a push we’ll tolerate a 25. The 100th anniversary of the Somme (2016), the 75th anniversary of the Battle of Britain (2015). Next year, we’ll remember the end of the Second World War, the first – and so far the only – nuclear war in history.

This week marks only the 74th anniversary of the US atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It doesn’t fit in to our journalistic scorecards and “timelines”. Over the past few days, I’ve had to look hard to find a headline about the two Japanese cities.

But, especially in the Middle East and what we like to call southeast Asia, we should be remembering these gruesome anniversaries every month. Hiroshima was atomic-bombed 74 years ago on Tuesday, Nagasaki 74 years ago on Friday. Given the extent of the casualty figures, you’d think they’d be unforgettable. But we don’t quite know (nor ever will) what they were.

The bombing of the two cities, we are told, left between 129,000 and 226,000 dead. The first US statistics suggested only 66,000 dead in Hiroshima, 39,000 in Nagasaki. But in later years, the Hiroshima authorities estimated their dead alone at 202,118 – taking account of those who later died of radiation sickness, rather than just the incinerated corpses and human shadows left in the immediate aftermath of the explosion.

In the Middle East, where Aleppo and Mosul and Raqqa count the dead from conventional bombs – American, Russian, Syrian – in the tens of thousands, you might think the 1945 statistics would leave the folk who live there pretty cold. But the book of crises unfolding in the region – by the chapter, almost every month – is of critical importance to every soul who lives between the Mediterranean and India.

For India itself is a nuclear power. So is Pakistan. And so, of course, is Israel. None of them have signed the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty (NPT). All are threatening war, over Kashmir, or over Iran, the only nation under threat which has not (yet) got nuclear weapons.

Ayatollah Khomeini originally seized on America’s refusal to express its remorse at the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings: “They’ve killed hundreds of thousands of people … many years have passed and they can’t even bring themselves to apologise,” he said, and the current Iranian leadership has continued Khomeini’s theme. The “only nuclear criminal in the world”, according to the “supreme leader’s” successor, Ali Khamanei, “is falsely claiming to fight the proliferation of nuclear weapons”.

Iran, it should be added, did sign the NPT, but was later found in non-compliance of the safeguard agreement. And Iran, of course, is the non-nuclear power now being constantly threatened with war by two nuclear powers – America and Israel – the first of which, under Donald Trump, tore up his country’s commitment to the only international agreement that ever existed to limit Iran’s nuclear programme.

As the US applies new sanctions to Iran – miserably supported by the ever-compliant banks and big businesses of Europe – Iran marginally breaks its side of the nuclear control agreement. And thus becomes the recipient of even more ferocious threats from Washington and Israel.

The word “nuclear” is not just a harmless adjective. Look at the old photographs of the blisters on the dying Japanese of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Iran itself suffered the horrors of gas warfare when Iraq – supported at the time by the US – used chemicals on Iranian soldiers and civilians. I saw their gas-gangrene wounds with my own eyes in the late 1980s and they reminded me of the Hiroshima snapshots. The Iranians really do know the effects of “weapons of mass destruction”.

Yet they, we are supposed to believe, are the nuclear “threat” in the Middle East. The Islamic republic is no saints’ paradise. Its corruption (within the government), its cruelty towards its own dissenters, its hangman’s noose justice against its own people and its prim disgust at even the most innocent demand for freedom scarcely qualify the immensely wealthy Revolutionary Guards Corps – “heroes” of a new “tanker war” and masters of Houthi drone technology – to give lectures on morality. And if we thought that the Iranians held in reserve – let us say – 200 nuclear warheads, we should be trembling in our boots. But they don’t. It’s Israel that conceals – but will not say so – perhaps 200 nuclear warheads.

Not only do we not complain about this. We regard any suggestion of their existence as akin to interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. Israel has never confirmed that their nuclear weapons exist: therefore we must not say that they do. Enquire about their exact number and you are treated by Israel’s supporters with deep suspicion. It’s a private matter, we are led to understand. Anyway, the Israelis can be trusted with such vile weapons. Can’t they?

Which brings us to Saudi Arabia. Every nation in the Middle East which seeks nuclear power – and the list includes Egypt, by the way – insists, like Iran, that the technology is needed to build power plants.

Yet when Reuters – whose investigations of human rights and secret criminal activities in the region are first-class in both courage and detail – reports on the accurate leaks that US energy secretary Rick Perry approved six secret authorisations to give nuclear assistance to Saudi Arabia, few outside congress issued a murmur of concern. Not even Israel – which always rages when America’s arms manufacturers hoover up billions of dollars from Arab arms buyers, especially from Saudi Arabia.

South Koreans – those endangered people always under nuclear threat from the Rocket Man turned good guy further north – are also bidding for the Saudi nuclear deal. So are the Russians. So how come, now that the Saudi regime has talked of “cutting off the head of the snake” in Iran, we don’t regard Riyadh as a potential nuclear threat?

How soon will it be before we wonder if the Saudis aren’t going a bit too far down the nuclear path and we suggest a nuclear control agreement along the lines of Obama’s Iran deal? After all, Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman – and let’s not bring up the little matter of the Saudi evisceration and chopping up of poor Jamal Khashoggi at this point – told CBS last year that his kingdom would develop nuclear weapons if Iran did.

And as we digest all this – although we really are not talking about it at all, are we? – India decides to tear up its own legal arrangements in Jammu and Kashmir. As the only Muslim-majority state in India, it is now to be split into two union territories, diminishing Muslim power and allowing non-Muslim Indians from other regions to move into this dangerous remnant of the old Raj. The Hindu-led government used a presidential order to revoke the special constitutional status of Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan, which holds the other bit of Kashmir – both claim the whole area as their own – is understandably infuriated by this change in the status quo.

And both India and Pakistan are nuclear powers. Indeed, there was nothing more pathetic, after Pakistan’s first nuclear tests in 1998, than to travel around this other “Islamic republic” and, amid the abject poverty of its villages, gaze at the awful commemorative papier-mache recreations of the granite mountains in which the explosions took place. There is, I suppose, no point in adding that there are more armed extremist Islamists on Islamabad’s payroll in both Pakistan and Afghanistan – coddled by the Inter-Services Intelligence agency – than there are in the whole of Iran.

So this is a very good week, as we typically ignore the commemoration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for us to remember the nuclear threat in the Middle East. At least one nation in every potential conflict in the region is a nuclear power or a prospective one. India against Pakistan and vice versa, the US with Iran, the Israelis with Iran – or just about any other Levantine power – and the Saudis versus Iran, and Iran against almost anyone else except Syria.

Oh yes, and Donald Trump has just pulled out of the Cold War Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia – blaming Russia for violating the ban on missiles ranging up to 3,400 miles. All Russia’s fault, says Mike Pompeo. The treaty is now “dead”, the Russian foreign ministry confirms. So it’s time, perhaps, to rewatch those old documentaries of the the B-29 Superfortress Enola Gay and the bomb codenamed “Little Boy” and the brilliant mushroom cloud and all those scorched corpses at Hiroshima.

More articles by:ROBERT FISK

Robert Fisk writes for the Independent, where this column originally appeared. 

‘If you go home, take your nukes with you!’ Top German MP taunts US threat of troop withdrawal

Source

http://www.rt.com

10 Aug, 2019

People take pictures of a 3D street painting titled „the nuclear abyss“ in front of the Reichstag building, seat of the German lower house of parliament Bundestag, on September 30, 2016 © AFP/TOBIAS SCHWARZ

The US must take its nukes off German soil if it is serious about relocating troops to Poland, a top opposition MP said in a tongue-in-cheek response to a veiled ultimatum from the American envoy.

German lawmakers have reacted to threats made by the US envoy to Berlin, Richard Grenell, saying that Berlin may use the ultimatum as an opportunity to push for the withdrawal of all American assets from Germany.

“The US ambassador is right: US taxpayers should not have to pay for US troops in Germany,”Bartsch said, according to the Hannoversche Allgemeine Zeitung. He also suggested that any potential troop withdrawal should be total and complete. “If the Americans pull out their soldiers, they also have to pull out their nuclear weapons,” he insisted.

And of course, these must be brought back home and not to Poland because it would provoke a further escalation in our ties with Russia, which doesn’t serve European and German interests.

The spat began earlier this week when Grenell demanded that Germany increase its defense spending, arguing that it was “really insulting to expect the US taxpayer to keep paying for over 50,000 Americans” stationed in the European country.

The complaint was followed by a suggestion from the US envoy in Warsaw, who advocated for US troops to relocate to Poland – an ally which, unlike Germany, “spends two percent of its GDP on NATO.”

ALSO ON RT.COMUS needles Berlin with threat to relocate German-based troops to ‘welcoming’ Poland

Other lawmakers were also unappreciative of Grenell’s ultimatum. Thomas Hitschler, a member of the Social Democratic Party (SPD), described the ambassador’s remarks as “highly problematic” and “indecent.” He added that Grenell’s criticisms of Germany’s financial contribution towards NATO do not correspond with reality.

Hitschler described how Pentagon officials had praised Berlin’s defense commitments during a recent visit he’d made to Washington.

The secretary-general of the SPD, Lars Klingbeil, went one step further, accusing Grenell of trying to bully Berlin. “We will not be blackmailed by the Americans,” he told the Augsburger Allgemeine.

READ MORE: US envoy fumes at Germany’s reluctance to take part in Hormuz naval mission

Germany has been at odds with its longtime strategic ally for quite some time, having been reluctant to involve itself in Washington’s most recent military adventures. Berlin has refused to join US- and UK-led naval patrols in the Persian Gulf, after Iran seized a British-flagged tanker in retaliation for its own oil carrier being captured by the UK near Gibraltar.

INF treaty: US withdraws from arms control agreement with Russia

Critics say move could ‘exacerbate the mistrust’ between the two rivals and provoke a new arms race.

Source

http://www.aljazeera.com

by Martin de Bourmont

Aug 2, 2019

Friday’s withdrawal means only one soon-to-expire arms control treaty between the US and Russia remains [Kevin Lamarque/Reuters]

Washington DC – The United States on Friday will formally withdraw from a landmark arms control treaty with Russia, claiming it undermines its national security interests.

The move means that only one, soon-to-expire, arms control treaty between the US and Russia remains, leaving critics of the Trump administration and proliferation experts worried about the potential for a new arms race.

In February, Washington had announced that in six months it would suspend its participation in the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty unless Moscow destroyed missiles which the US and its NATO allies alleged that they violate the agreement.

“We can no longer be restricted by the treaty while Russia shamelessly violates it,” US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on February 1.

US President Donald Trump later alluded to the possibility of a new treaty, saying, “I hope we’re able to get everybody in a big, beautiful room and do a new treaty that would be much better,” though the specific nature of such a treaty remains unclear.

For its part, Russia denied the US allegations and accused Washington of flouting the treaty itself, before giving notice that it would also pull out of the bilateral agreement.

What is the INF treaty?

Signed in 1987 by US and Soviet Union leaders Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, the INF treaty was meant to eliminate the presence of land-based nuclear missiles and medium-range arsenals between 500km to 5,500km from Europe.

The treaty’s expiration now enables the US to resume development of its own medium-range, land-based arsenal.

Currently, the US military plans to test a land-based cruise missile and a ballistic missile previously banned under the INF treaty between August and November of this year.

US officials say that the treaty’s collapse ultimately resulted from consistent Russian failures to adhere to its terms.

More specifically, the US and NATO wanted Russia to destroy its 9M729/SSC-8 nuclear-capable cruise missile system.

Russia, on the other hand, insists that it complied with the treaty and that the US withdrawal is part of a larger ploy to weaken norms surrounding the use of nuclear weapons.

Years in the making

Between 2004 and 2005, Russia suggested to the US that since China, North Korea, India, Pakistan, and Iran all possessed medium- and intermediate-range missiles, it might have good reason to leave the treaty.

Without actually exiting, Russia then began the covert development of a cruise missile forbidden by the INF treaty, according to US officials.

Speaking to the Hill, Frank Rose, a former assistant secretary of state for arms control, verification and compliance during the previous US administration, said he saw the INF’s demise as “the latest installment in a larger story – and that’s the collapse of the US-Russia bilateral strategic stability framework”.

“These arms control treaties have not kept up to the changes to the security environment,” Rose, now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, added.

Jeffrey Lewis, a US expert in nuclear nonproliferation and geopolitics, contends the reason for the INF’s collapse is much simpler.

“There are lots of reasons to pull out, but I think in Trump’s case it’s just wanting to look tough. It’s not more complicated than that. It’s wanting to be transgressive,” said Lewis, an adjunct professor at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies.

Lewis added that because the INF treaty never seriously prevented the US from maintaining its capacity to defend itself with missiles, he could not accept the government’s contention that scrapping the agreement would improve national security.

“The INF treaty limits intermediate-range missiles that are land-based,” Lewis said.

“It doesn’t limit sea-based or air-based intermediate-range missiles. If there had been some kind of tremendous shortage of these missiles then you know we could’ve seen an expansion of sea-based or air-based missiles, but that’s never happened.”

NATO’s and Russia’s stance

NATO sides with the US on its withdrawal decision, placing the blame squarely on Russia.

In a statement released last February, NATO said that unless Russia honoured its obligations through “the verifiable destruction of all of its 9M729 systems, thereby returning to full and verifiable compliance before the US withdrawal takes effect … Russia will bear sole responsibility for the end of the Treaty.”

On Wednesday, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg reiterated a call to Russia to comply with the treaty in order to save it, while conceding that the agreement’s termination seemed “imminent”.

He also told reporters that NATO “will do what is necessary to have credible deterrence and defence”, though defence ministers in the 29-member military alliance also maintain that “NATO has no intention to deploy new land-based nuclear missiles in Europe.”

Addressing the Conference on Disarmament on Tuesday, Russia’s deputy permanent representative in Geneva, Andrey Belousov, said the US would soon exit the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CNTBT), which bans the testing of nuclear weapons.

“It would appear that through propaganda around false claims about Russia’s compliance there are attempts to prepare international opinion for a US exit from the CTBT and then to blame Russia again for everything,” Belousov said.

US Ambassador Robert Wood furiously denied the charge, calling it “crafty, Soviet-like propaganda”.

New arms race?

The expiration of the August 2 deadline means that the US will now have just one arms control agreement with Russia left.

But the New Start Treaty, which limits the number of deployed nuclear warheads Russia and the US can have to 1,550, is also under threat of dissolution, with US National Security Adviser John Bolton declaring in June that Washington was unlikely to extend it past its 2021 expiration deadline.

“The withdrawal [from the INF Treaty] without a follow-on is the invitation for an arms race,” said Senator Bob Menendez, the ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

“Russia will clearly spend money on updating and amplifying its weapons systems.”

While arms control experts are not in complete agreement that Friday’s move will spur a new arms race, they agree with Menendez that allowing for the development of new nuclear weapons is a frightening prospect.

Michael Krepon, the co-founder of the Stimson Center think-tank, said that while he thinks an arms race between the two countries is unlikely due to the US’s ability to vastly spend more than Russia, Washington’s withdrawal from the treaty is “part of the of a much larger and unsettling story of the cutting of the safety net”.

David Wright, a co-director and senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists described the INF treaty as a major diplomatic success that went a long way to making the world safer.

“The fact that the US and the Soviet Union at that point were able to come to an agreement was a tremendous breakthrough. It gave people a lot of hope that even things that seemed like they were sort of insoluble problems between two superpowers locked in the Cold War, there was a way out of that by negotiating,” Wright said.

“If the US pulls out, it’s likely to increase the number of missiles around the world and it’s likely to exacerbate the mistrust between the two countries and the level of spending they put in that’s intended to counter or match what the other side is doing.”

Europeans will be ‘sanctioned to ground’ for Iran ties: Graham

Source

http://www.presstv.com

Tue Jul 16, 2019

US Senator Lindsey Graham leaves after meeting with Speaker of the House Representative Nancy Pelosi on June 27, 2019 at the US Capitol in Washington, DC. (Photo by AFP)

The United States should sanction “to the ground” European countries that continue to trade with Iran under the 2015 nuclear deal and refuse to join America’s pressure campaign against the Islamic Republic, says top Republican Senator Lindsey Graham.

Speaking to Fox News, Graham said the European signatories of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – the UK, France and Germany – were too “weak” too abide by America’s unilateral sanctions against Tehran.

“I will tell the Europeans, ‘If you want to side with the Iranians, be my guest, but you won’t use an American bank or do business with the American economy,'” Graham said.

The remarks came days after Tehran announced it was beginning to cut back on its commitments under the nuclear deal in response to the Europe’s inability to protect bilateral trade from US sanctions.

Iranian officials have officially announced that the country is now enriching uranium beyond the 3.67 percent limit set forth in the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement and that its enriched uranium stockpile has surpassed the 300 kilograms cap.

The European signatories of the deal pledged after Washington’s decision to abandon the deal in May 2018 that they would introduce a special payment channel to protect trade and ultimately salvage the agreement.

They have recently confirmed that the mechanism, called INSTEX, will soon become operational.

‘US should pressure Europe to support new deal’

Graham said during the interview that he supported Trump’s call for renegotiating a new deal instead of the JCPOA, adding he would use sanctions and economic pressure to force Europeans to join Washington.

“Are you prepared to sanction whatever company or country within Europe does?” Fox News Host Maria Bartiromo asked Graham.

“To the ground,” replied the senator, who is a close ally of the president.

He said a better deal would fully curb Iran’s right to enriching uranium while the JCPOA allows for 3.67 percent enrichment.

Upon announcing his departure from the landmark agreement, Trump said he would launch a pressure campaign against Iran that will make use of sanctions and other hostile measures to force the Islamic into renegotiating a new deal that would address its ballistic missile program and curb its regional influence.

Since then, the US has imposed sanctions against Iranian oil exports while also sending troops and military equipment to the Persian Gulf region to confront what it refers to as “threats” coming from Iran.

The Trump administration’s most recent round of sanctions targeted Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatalloh Seyyed Ali Khamenei.

The US Treasury Department was expected to announce sanctions against Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif as well but has shelved those plans for now. The State Department has announced that it would grant Zarif a limited visa ahead of his visit this week to the United Nations in New York City.

European countries have so far rejected the Trump administration’s calls to quit the JCPOA. Iran has also made it clear that it would never accept any alternatives to the current deal.

Trump ruined Iran nuclear deal ‘to spite Obama’ – former UK envoy in new leak

Source

http://www.rt.com

14 Jul, 2019

The reactor at the nuclear power plant in Bushehr, 1200 kilometers (746 miles) south of Tehran © Reuters / Caren Firouz

Trump completely lacked an exit strategy when he pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal and made the decision out of pure animosity towards his predecessor, the ex-UK ambassador to the US said, according to a new embarrassing leak.

Desperate to save the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), then-UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson flew to the US in May 2018 to persuade President Donald Trump to abide by the accord. Despite intense negotiations at the White House with Trump’s closest aides that lasted for 26 hours, Johnson returned empty-handed, simply because Trump wanted to spite Barack Obama for negotiating the agreement, the UK’s former ambassador to the US, Sir Kim Darroch, told 10 Downing Street, according to a leaked diplomatic cable published by the Mail on Sunday.

The Administration is set upon an act of diplomatic vandalism, seemingly for ideological and personality reasons – it was Obama’s deal.

The cable sent out on May 8 last year also claimed that the White House had lacked any strategy on how to handle the withdrawal and suggested that there were strong disagreements among Trump’s closest advisers.

They can’t articulate any ‘day-after’ strategy; and contacts with State Department this morning suggest no sort of plan for reaching out to partners and allies, whether in Europe or the region.

In another cable sent out the same day, Sir Darroch blamed Trump for following the line of National Security Advisor John Bolton, who promulgated withdrawal from the deal and the re-imposition of sanctions.

ALSO ON RT.COMBritish ambassador to the US Darroch quits over leaked Trump secret memos row

The British tabloid went on to release the second batch of Sir Darroch’s wires despite the warning by the Metropolitan Police not to publish the government leaks. The initial publication of cables last week caused a diplomatic scandal between Washington and the UK. It resulted in Sir Darroch’s resignation on Wednesday, after Trump unleashed a salvo of attacks against the diplomat, who described his administration as “dysfunctional” and “inept.” The Metropolitan Police’s Counter Terrorism Command is now investigating the source of the leak.

 

Russia to Continue Trade With Iran Regardless of US Sanctions Against Tehran – Envoy to EU

© Sputnik / Vitaliy Ankov

Source

sputniknews.com

July 9, 2019

 

BRUSSELS (Sputnik) – Russia will ignore US sanctions against Iran and continue to trade with the Middle Eastern nation without creating any special mechanisms, Russian Permanent Representative to the European Union Vladimir Chizhov told Sputnik.

“Our colleagues here [in Brussels] sometimes ask why Russia and China do not create their own INSTEX [Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges]. To that we answer with the question: why do we need it? We have Finland already traded and will trade without paying any attention to US sanctions,” Chizhov said.

The day before, the Finnish government said that it was considering joining a trading system that core EU members set up to bypass US sanctions on Iran.

Last year, the United States reimposed sanctions on Iran’s financial and energy sectors that were initially waived under a 2015 nuclear deal.

In January, France, Germany and the United Kingdom set up INSTEX in order to ease non-dollar trade with Tehran in the wake of these sanctions. Following a meeting of the Joint Commission of the Iranian nuclear deal in June, the mechanism became operational and available to all EU member states.

World should confront United States’ use of dollar as weapon: Araqchi

Source

http://www.presstv.com

Thu Jun 27, 2019

Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi addresses a conference dubbed the International Seminar on Unilateral Coercive Measures and Their Impacts in Vienna on June 27, 2019. (Photo by IRNA)

A deputy Iranian foreign minister urges the international community to stand up to the United States’ use of dollar as a weapon.

“The international community should confront this wrongful habit of the US to use the power of dollar as a weapon against independent countries,” Abbas Araqchi said.

The official was addressing a conference dubbed the International Seminar on Unilateral Coercive Measures and Their Impacts convened jointly by Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela in Vienna on Thursday. The event was attended by foreign diplomats, representatives of international organizations, media representatives, experts, and researchers.

“The US’s destructive behavior and its economic terrorism against the Islamic Republic have to stop,” he added.

The US has engaged in a campaign of “maximum pressure” against Iran under President Donald Trump. The campaign has seen Washington returning its sanctions against Tehran and enlisting the assistance of its Western and regional allies in enforcing economic pressure on the country.

Araqchi also referred to the US’s last year departure from a nuclear accord between Iran and six world powers, which has been endorsed in the form of a United Nations Security Council resolution.

“By flouting the Security Council resolution and implementing illegal and unilateral sanctions, the US has placed the only product of diplomacy in our region on the brink of destruction,” he stated.

The remarks were echoed by Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, who said despite the US claims that it is imposing sanctions on Iran as an alternative to war, those sanctions actually amount to a full-fledged economic war against the Islamic Republic.

Javad Zarif

✔@JZarif

Misconceptions endanger peace @realDonaldTrump:

– Sanctions aren’t alternative to war; they ARE war

– “Obliteration”=genocide=war crime

– “Short war” with Iran is an illusion

– Whoever begins war will not be the one ending it

– Negotiations and threats are mutually exclusive

4,364

6:12 AM – Jun 27, 2019

Twitter Ads info and privacy

2,209 people are talking about this

“Sanctions aren’t alternative to war; they ARE war,” Zarif tweeted on Thursday.

PressTV-‘Short war’ with Iran an illusion: Zarif

Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif says the US mistakenly thinks a potential war with Iran will be short one.

 

Cost of potential US war with Iran? $250 oil and another Afghanistan

Source

http://www.rt.com

Mikhail Khodarenok

Military commentator for RT.com. He is a retired colonel. He served as an officer at the main operational directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces.

25 Jun, 2019

© Getty Images / Frank Rossoto Stocktrek

Iran’s downing of a US military surveillance drone last week predictably led to another flare-up in tense relations between Tehran and Washington. What could be the implications of a potential conflict between the two nations?

Right after the Global Hawk UAV was shot down, the New York Times reported that US President Donald Trump approved military strikes against Iran, but then changed his mind.

Let’s start by saying that the decision to launch a military operation against Iran (which is what this is really about), including the specific time and place, would have to be taken by a very small group of top US political and military officials. At such meetings, no leaks could possibly occur by definition.

Now, let’s take a look at some of the details. The difference between a ‘strike’ and an ‘operation’ is quite significant, at the very least in terms of duration, and forces and equipment involved. It would be nice to know if the NYT actually meant a single airstrike or an entire air operation.

ALSO ON RT.COMUS lapdog Jeremy Hunt prepping British public for war with Iran, just in case Trump asks

Amusingly enough, the publication reported that the strikes were scheduled for early morning to minimize the potential death toll among the Iranian military and civilians. It’s worth pointing out that the US has never cared about the number of victims either among the military personnel or the civilian population of its adversaries.

Moreover, the purpose of any military conflict is to do as much damage to your enemy as possible in terms of personnel, military hardware and other equipment. This is how the goals of any armed conflict are achieved. Of course, it would be best if civilian losses are kept to a minimum, but for the US it’s more of a secondary rather than a primary objective.

The US Navy and Air Force traditionally strike before dawn with one purpose alone – to avoid the antiaircraft artillery (both small and medium-caliber), as well as a number of air defense systems with optical tracking, firing at them. Besides, a strike in the dark hours of the day affects the morale of the enemy personnel.

Here we need to understand that Iran would instantly retaliate, and Tehran has no small capabilities for that. In other words, it would be a full-scale war. For the US, it wouldn’t end with one surgical airstrike without consequences, like in Syria. And the US seems to have a very vague idea on what a military victory over Iran would look like.

ALSO ON RT.COMUS will not ‘stumble into’ war with Iran by mistake. If it happens, it will be by design

There is no doubt that a prolonged air campaign by the US will greatly undermine Iran’s military and economic potential and reduce the country to the likes of Afghanistan, completely destroying its hydrocarbon production and exports industries.

To say how long such a campaign could last would be too much of a wild guess, but we have the examples of Operation Desert Storm in 1991 when airstrikes lasted for 38 days, and Yugoslavia in 1991 when the bombing continued for 78 days. So, theoretically, the US could bomb Iran for, say, 100 days, wrecking the country’s economy and infrastructure step by step.

However, the price the US would have to pay for starting such a military conflict may turn out to be too high.

For instance, Iran can respond to US aggression by launching intermediate and shorter-range ballistic missiles to target oil and gas fields and terminals in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and the UAE.

Should such a war really happen, the stakes would be very high, so there is every reason to assume that Iran’s missiles would not only be equipped with conventional high explosive fragmentation warheads but would also carry toxic agents and dirty bombs.

Firstly, it should be pointed out that even though the capabilities of US intelligence agencies are almost limitless, quite a few Iranian missile launching sites remain undiscovered. Secondly, US air defense systems in the Persian Gulf, no matter how effective, would not shoot down every last Iranian missile. And even a handful of Tehran’s missiles reaching critical infrastructure in the Persian Gulf region would be enough to cause devastation.

On top of that, there are more questions than answers regarding the reliability of the anti-missile and air defense systems that the Persian Gulf monarchies deployed to defend their hydrocarbon terminals and other oil and gas infrastructure.

ALSO ON RT.COM$300 oil? US war with Iran spells catastrophe for global economy, expert tells RT

If such a scenario came true, that would bring inconceivable chaos to the global economy and would immediately drive up oil prices to $200-250 per barrel – and that’s the lowest estimate. It is these implications that are most likely keeping the US from attacking Iran.

To solve the problem of Iran once and for all, the US would need to mount a large-scale ground operation, with the US Army invading the country. America would have to wipe out both regular Iranian forces and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, unseat the current leadership of Iran, and have a military presence in every major city for the next 10 to 15 years, keeping tight control over the entire country at the same time.

For the record, the US failed to do that even in Afghanistan, which is several times smaller than Iran in terms of both territory and population. And almost 18 years of fighting later, the US has achieved next to nothing.

 

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

NEO: More Than a Threat, America’s Criminal Ways

Source

http://www.veteranstoday.com

By  Gordon Duff, Senior Editor

June 19, 2019

It is one thing watching the news, such as it is, a mix of conspiracy theories, flummery and distraction but quite something else watching the United States under its current regime wage war and politics.

We haven’t seen this kind of theatre since Goebbels, Himmler and Von Ribbentrop.

How does one describe Secretary of State Pompeo’s trip to Iraq in early May 2019? Do remember that the United States already murdered two million Iraqi civilians, that was done openly and many of those who planned that fake war backed by fake intelligence now advise Trump, names like “John Bolton” for instance.

The blubbering monstrosity Pompeo, reeling from a failed coup attempt in Venezuela, lands in Baghdad to threaten the Iraqis with 4 nuclear-armed B 52s and an American aircraft carrier “racing to the scene.”

Why? The answer is simple, and Trump openly admits it, the Israelis told them to do it. Ouch!

How about Israel? Problems there? Didn’t several hundred rockets just land somewhere inside Israel?

Didn’t their US financed “Iron Dome” missile defense system utterly fail?

More than that, something else far more serious was exposed. Not one social media post, not one photo, no interviews, not even a phone call to relatives in the United States was made from Israel regarding these attacks.

To be clear, the attacks were in retaliation for the killing of Palestinian protesters by not just IDF forces but armed Israeli civilians.

As an aside, the real threat isn’t from inside Israel, a proven total surveillance state capable of unprecedented tyranny, but that Israel’s model is being sold to nations around the world, particularly the United States, where Facebook and Google, two companies controlled by Israeli passport holders, are leading the way to a draconian society with few nations holding the line.

That those nations are either bombed or sanctioned or both by the United States is telling.

Tyranny as Patriotism

The assumptions aren’t just wrong, they are ignorance in its purest form. Hiding behind patriotic songs, pompous rhetoric and always “hugging the flag,” America is a nation run by gangsters. Was it always that way? To an extent, that answer would be yes, but even the criminal elites, the slave traders, opium shippers, land speculators and robber barons of American history would never have imagined what today has brought.

The world is terrified of America. It is one thing for a nuclear superpower to bully the world on behalf of the wealthy elites that own America’s government. When those elites run every government, not just the US, but Europe as well, Africa and Latin America, much of Asia too, and stage fake wars, quite probably fake terror attacks, mass murders, and many suspect so-called “natural disasters,” we are in uncharted waters here.

The elites at the G-20 summit

Every advancement in science and technology is placed into the waiting hands of, well who? We can thank the controlled media, another equally theatrical organization dominated by fake opposing sides tasked with polarizing the public on issues like abortion rights, vaccinations, racial hatred and class envy, with making a Frankensteinian world possible.

The Threat of Science and Technology

Many are aware that, during World War II, science was pushed to new depths. In America it was the Manhattan Project, creating a capability of incinerating entire cities and making much of the earth’s surface uninhabitable.

Biowarefare game – Plague Inc

In Japan, among their efforts was a biological weapons program under “Unit 731.” Headquartered in China, the Japanese developed weaponized forms of the most virulent diseases known to man, tested them on the Chinese along with American prisoners of war, and unleashed them on the world with limited success. Japan even tried spreading the Black Plague to the United States by attaching infected rats to balloons.

Japan also had a nuclear program and built several very large submarines capable of delivering aircraft off the US coast in order to do to America exactly what it did to Japan. There are records, still classified, that show both Japan and Germany exploding nuclear devices during the closing days of World War II.

A national historic park has been designated and a narrative omitting inconvenient anecdotes about the U234 has been constructed around the Manhattan Project. Statue of Robert Oppenheimer (L) and Lt. General Leslie Richard Groves II

Anecdotally, uranium oxide from Germany, destined for Japan by submarine in April 1945, to be used against the United States, was diverted to the Manhattan project with the vessel carrying it, the U234, docked at Portsmouth, New Hampshire. There are many such untold stories from World War II, and here is why some of them matter so much.

Let’s look at Unit 731. What happened to the scientists, the war criminals, who unleashed the plague on China’s cities? They came to the US under “Operation Paperclip,” under the auspices of CIA founder Allen Dulles and his assistant, a young Naval officer, Richard Millhouse Nixon. This was the origin of the American biological warfare program that now runs allegedly “peaceful” labs around the world in places like Tbilisi, Georgia.

These facilities are part of the reason so many fear the US. Information on the real research is more than rumors. We know the US has been collecting DNA samples from specific “target” populations, particularly in the Russian Federation, collected and collated by the same organizations that are capable of creating “designer disease.”

In fact, this capability comes up in publications, demonstrating the frightening capability of tying genetically modified diseases to racial and/or ethnic markers in human DNA.

An Ethnically Cleansed Planet

Real or not, there are wide perceptions at government level, across Africa for certain but elsewhere as well, that “weaponized medical science” is misusing research into vaccines and studies of genetics to create a world as envisioned by eugenicists in the late 19th and early 20th century.

A movement funded by the wealthiest American families, America began sterilizing its “unfit,” based on race, religion or even social gossip. From Indy Week:

“In Britain, eugenic thought was more of an abstract concept of a utopian society that would prove difficult to put into practice. However, eugenic ideology found fertile ground across the Atlantic in the United States. With the rising influx of immigrants after 1890, increased urbanization and related social ills, people needed a promise of stability and a better future.

“Eugenics seemed to have the answers. During its heyday, it enjoyed broad support across a variety of social and political spectrums: from social reformers and humanitarians to staunch racists, from strict conservatives to progressives, and from academic and medical communities to religious circles.

“And it had the financial backing of some of the wealthiest capitalists in the country, including the Kellogg, Carnegie, and Harriman family fortunes.”

Scientists are now contemplating the fabrication of a human genome, meaning they would use chemicals to manufacture all the DNA contained in human chromosomes.

Sixty trays can contain the entire human genome as 23,040 different fragments of cloned DNA. (Photo credit James King-Holmes/Science Source)

A national Eugenics Record Office was established in 1910 to collect pedigrees of families suspected of carrying defective genes, and several organizations were formed to promote the study and practice of eugenics. These organizations would sponsor “Better Babies” and “Fitter Families” contests at state fairs across the country. Eugenics exhibits proclaimed “Some people are born to be a burden on the rest, ” with a flashing light going off every 16 seconds to signal the birth of another possibly defective human.

Eugenic sermon contests were held across the nation, and biblical passages were quickly reinterpreted to show how eugenics was perfectly compatible with Christian thought. Indeed, advocates claimed, Jesus himself was a eugenicist, according to Christine Rosen’s book, Preaching Eugenics. Scary stories about degenerate family lines sometimes completely fabricated were widely disseminated.

Finalists of a eugenics contest at a state fair, circa 1913. Judging was based on features, scientific examination, and making sure the child had no blemishes or defects

Although eugenics may have started out as a serious science, and elements of it would later shift to the valuable studies of genetics and heredity, the ideology was hijacked by people who knew little about the science and needed a reason to justify their own prejudices.

The national Eugenics Record Office would spend years amassing volumes of data on individuals and families, combining “equal portions of gossip, race prejudice, sloppy methods and leaps of logic, all caulked together by elements of actual genetic knowledge to create the glitter of a genuine science,” Edwin Black writes in War Against the Weak.

The goal of the eugenics movement in the United States was to get rid of the “bottom tenth” of society. This, eugenicists hoped to accomplish through restrictive immigration laws, miscegenation laws and forced sterilizations of the unfit. The “fit” of society were imagined as healthy, white, middle-class or higher, educated, English-speaking Protestants bearing a remarkable resemblance to the eugenicists who defined the word “fit.’”

Still the Same Game?

Were one to delve into a darker view of geopolitics than is normally publicly espoused, one where governments, perhaps themselves controlled by what is now termed the Deep State, act in a broadly criminal manner, a pattern emerges. Not all patterns are viable, some if not most are agenda driven and data is always subjective, with fakery and propaganda working its way into the accepted narrative.

ONE MIGHT EVEN GO FURTHER, THAT THE “ACCEPTED NARRATIVE” IS, IN ITSELF, ONLY FAKERY AND PROPAGANDA. IN FACT, STRINGENTLY FOCUSED ANALYTICAL MODELS REVEAL EXACTLY THIS TRUTH.

What is clear is that policies are being enacted that favor lower birth rates in developing nations due to poverty, disease and war.

Moreover, there is a wealth of evidence that scientific research and technological development doesn’t stop at social engineering or even “thought control.” Modeling reveals a broad agenda of capabilities that mirrors the values of those oligarchical elites that so long ago decided a “custom bred” humanity of mindless drones controlled by elites is the only desirable future for mankind.

Don’t have an Ivy League degree, come from money, and love sports and booze? Good luck getting one of the best-paying jobs.

Thus, when the CIA or USAID builds mysterious laboratories in the dark recesses of the world, Romania, Tbilisi, Georgia, Southern Libya yet no research is published and the only “output” is occasional outbreaks of genetically engineered experimental diseases, fears and suspicions become reality.

One must remember, and this is fact, not conjecture, that the origin of Hitler’s Germany traces to Americans. Hitler’s race laws originated in America and Hitler was long a student of America’s “Black Stork” laws that mandated killing unfit children. From the Guardian:

“VARIOUS METHODS OF EUGENIC EUTHANASIA – INCLUDING GASSING THE UNWANTED IN LETHAL CHAMBERS – WERE A PART OF EVERYDAY AMERICAN PARLANCE AND ETHICAL DEBATE SOME TWO DECADES BEFORE NEVADA APPROVED THE FIRST SUCH CHAMBER FOR CRIMINAL EXECUTIONS IN 1921.

Hitler proudly told his comrades how closely he followed American eugenic legislation.

‘Now that we know the laws of heredity,’ he told a fellow Nazi, ‘it is possible to a large extent to prevent unhealthy and severely handicapped beings from coming into the world. I have studied with interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would, in all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.’”

Conclusion

Looking at who overtly rules America today, giving no credence to claims of a Deep State or secret societies, we are still faced with overwhelming proof that the “American democracy” is controlled by oligarchical hereditary elites that favor ethnic cleansing and elimination of those they deem unfit.

Though the seats of government may be held by those with different names, the money behind them, the think tanks, the fake institutes, are all under control by these forces.

The policies? Open ethnic cleansing for sure, overtly through sanctions and war, less openly through supporting clearly fascistic regimes around the world, a policy America adopted long ago.

When the reins of control in Washington fall into the hands of right-wing extremists, these policies which are always present go a step further, as is now being seen under the Trump regime.

As Trump will be attending the 75th anniversary of the D Day landings in France, a real examination of that war and Hitler’s truncated rule of Europe, would reveal how not only did Hitler follow policies learned from America but how he was funded by Americans as well, from his earliest career to continued full partnership in war industries right up until the end of the war.

It would not be inaccurate to call Hitler a failed American experiment, one like so many others, Diem in Vietnam, the repressive regimes in South Korea, Chaing in China and ten dozen “tin pot” dictators placed in power by the CIA, with that list growing each day.

The goal? Technology and science wielded to create a world envisioned long ago, one with few people, endless power for the debauched few where the self-anointed “high born” could look down from their lofty heights on humanity as though it were a giant ant farm.

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.”

US Mideast Menace Goes Nuclear

“The Middle East is war-torn and conflict-ridden as a direct result of meddling US imperialism over seven decades since the end of World War Two. Under Trump, the usual American recklessness is going nuclear.”

Source

http://www.strategic-culture.org

Finian Cunningham

Former editor and writer for major news media organizations. He has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages

June 17, 2019

US media reports have claimed that China is helping to expand Saudi Arabia’s ballistic missile arsenal. The implication from the US media is that Beijing is recklessly stoking tensions in the Middle East between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

China has denied it is involved in supplying the Saudis with ballistic technology. However, various US “experts” are cited by American media claiming that satellite images indicate that alleged ballistic missile sites in Saudi Arabia appear to be sourced from China.

Given the bombed-out credibility of US media, as demonstrated by a myriad of subjects, from alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to hysterical, baseless claims about “Russian meddling” in elections, the watchword here is very much “skepticism” towards American media reports.

What seems immediately incongruous about the purported Chinese ballistic missiles to Saudi Arabia is the fact that Beijing has otherwise shown itself to be a stalwart ally of Iran in recent years. China is a major importer of Iranian oil as well as investor in exploring Iran’s vast natural gas reserves. Looking to the future, China and Iran view each other as strategic partners for mutual development. Iran has embraced the Chinese “Belt and Road Initiative” linking Eurasian economies, and will be a pivotal player in paving the new silk trade routes between Asia and Europe.

After the Trump administration unilaterally trashed the 2015 international nuclear accord with Iran, China has, along with Russia, been a staunch advocate for upholding the treaty. China continues to buy Iranian exports of crude oil despite Washington’s threats of punitive sanctions.

In this geopolitical context, it therefore seems doubtful, if not implausible, that China would put its strategic relationship with Iran at risk by allegedly supplying ballistic missiles to Iran’s archenemy Saudi Arabia. Beijing would be well aware that Tehran would view such a development as a form of treachery, thus jeopardizing the strategic partnership between Iran and China.

It is true that Saudi Arabia is also a major oil exporter to China’s voracious consumer market. All’s fair in business, we may suppose. But for Beijing to start supplying ballistic missiles to the Saudis, especially at such a precarious time for Iran, seems like a conceptual bridge too far.

The other thing is that the Iranians have not publicly expressed any misgivings about the reports alleging China’s support for Saudi missile development. That suggests the reports are baseless, just as the Chinese government has been insisting.

So, what is going on here?

It seems significant that Washington is in the midst of a trade-war showdown with China. The trade war is only part of a bigger geo-strategic confrontation between the waning American empire and re-emerging powers such as China and Russia.

Trump is demanding China make major concessions to benefit the US economy.

It is thus in Washington’s interest to try every dirty trick as a way to undermine China, just as it has done with Russia over any number of slanderous claims.

China being blamed for stoking Middle East tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran would fit the bill for a campaign of media slander.

The irony of this, of course, is that it’s Washington that is the party which is actually inflaming tensions in the region.

The Trump administration is provoking Iran with military threats, baseless accusations about “sponsoring terrorism” and strangling the nation with illegal sanctions, otherwise known as “economic terrorism”.

Not only that, but the Trump administration is piling billions of dollars of weapons into Saudi Arabia in defiance of the US Congress imposing restrictions due to the horror of the Saudi air war in Yemen and atrocious human rights conditions within the kingdom.

Furthermore – and this is astounding in its recklessness – the Trump administration appears to be helping Saudi Arabia develop nuclear weapons. There are credible reports that President Trump is permitting US nuclear power companies to share sensitive technology with the Saudis that could be used in the future to build weapons of mass destruction. Such a move is in violation of the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) forbidding nuclear-armed powers from propagating this weaponry.

(Bear in the mind too that this is the same US administration which has discarded the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces treaty with Russia and is set to do likewise with the New START treaty governing intercontinental weapons.)

This is the real scandal about Middle East tensions. The Trump administration is willfully and illegally changing the strategic balance in the region by seemingly paving the way for Saudi Arabia to obtain nuclear weapons. If that transpires, then Iran may have to, by necessity, forego its non-nuclear doctrine and eventually build the bomb as a matter of survival given the existential threat posed by the Wahhabi Saudi regime and its irrational hostility towards Shia Iran.

The recent alignment between Saudi rulers and US historically nuclear-armed Israel – cemented by the Trump White House – is further cause for apprehension in Tehran.

The Trump administration is criminally fueling an arms race and even more conflicts in the Middle East; possibly a cataclysmic war. But, in truth, this has always been the pernicious role of the US in this blighted region. The Middle East is war-torn and conflict-ridden as a direct result of meddling US imperialism over seven decades since the end of World War Two. Under Trump, the usual American recklessness is going nuclear.

The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.

Risk of nuclear war is highest since WW2, perhaps it is time to start paying attention

Source

http://www.rt.com/op-ed

Darius Shahtahmasebi

Darius Shahtahmasebi is a New Zealand-based legal and political analyst, currently specializing in immigration, refugee and humanitarian law.

23 May, 2019

An original MK III Fat Man Bomb Casing similar to that of the bomb dropped on Nagasaki at Ground Zero at the Trinity Site, location of the first ever test of an atomic bomb. © Global Look Press /ZUMAPRESS.com/Louie Palu

Debates over pressing issues such as climate change, healthcare and global poverty will ultimately be rendered pointless if crazed neocons decide to make the world uninhabitable by launching a nuclear war.

According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the Doomsday Clock is still 2 minutes to midnight – a new abnormal. Having become disillusioned with this particular noteworthy development being buried under the media’s radar for far too long, director of the UN Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) Renata Dwan has spoken out against the threat of nuclear war, calling it an “urgent” issue that the world should take more seriously.

To be fair, we live in a world where the people will only take an issue seriously if they are told to take it seriously – by the media. The risk of nuclear warfare is no exception, despite its catastrophic consequences. If you want people to understand the urgent threat nuclear arms pose to the world, the media would do well to start talking about it more.

According to Dwan, all states with nuclear weapons are in the process of modernizing their nuclear weapons, which in turn is changing the arms control landscape. She also believes this is partially due to growing competition between China and the United States.

“I think that it’s genuinely a call to recognize – and this has been somewhat missing in the media coverage of the issues – that the risks of nuclear war are particularly high now, and the risks of the use of nuclear weapons, for some of the factors I pointed out, are higher now than at any time since World War Two,” Dwan said.

ALSO ON RT.COMUN disarmament chief says risks of nuclear-weapons use higher than ever since WWII

What would a nuclear war look like?

Albert Einstein once famously said: “I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”

To launch a nuclear war is to launch the unthinkable. Unfortunately, unthinking is all too common in the age of Donald Trump, so we have to be even more vigilant about this issue than we ordinarily would (that isn’t to say we shouldn’t have been vigilant under Clinton, Bush and Obama, all of whomlaunched disastrous wars of aggression without a legal basis).

If Washington launched a nuclear war against Russia and China, the bombing alone is estimated to kill at least 335 million people within the first seventy-two hours (this estimate was calculated as far back as 1962, meaning the number is surely higher today). As former Pentagon consultant and whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg once explained, these deaths are merely the beginning:

“Well, then I asked, ‘All right, how many altogether’ And a few days later, 100 million in East Europe, the captive nations, another 100 million in West Europe, our allies, from our own strikes, by fallout, depending on which way the wind blew, and, however the wind blew, a third 100 million in adjoining countries, neutral countries, like Austria and Finland, or Afghanistan then, Japan, northern India and so forth — a total of 600 million people. That was a time, by the way, when the population of the world was 3 billion. And that was an underestimate of their casualties — a hundred Holocausts.”

Read more

US Aegis Ashore in Romania may soon be able to fire Tomahawk missiles – military analyst

These numbers also don’t take into account the number of people who would die gradually and overtime from the aftermath, which would likely surpass the amount killed in the attack itself. If entire cities are destroyed, who will treat the wounded, feed the remaining people, provide shelter, and the like?

If right-wingers think the refugee crisis is bad now, they should be doing their utmost to prevent such a catastrophe from ever occurring. Yet, despite these damning figures, a survey conducted in 2017 suggested that the majority of Americans would approve of a nuclear strike against an adversarial state such as Iran, killing 2 million civilians in the process so as long as it saved American lives in the long run.

As it transpires, nuclear weapons have lost the taboo that existed after the horrors of the US attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As Brian Toon, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Colorado bluntly admitted, people today are just not confronting themselves with the facts.

“They think nuclear weapons are just big bombs that blow up lots of people,” the professor said, “without considering the way a nuclear conflict – even a ‘small’ one involving some 10 percent of the US arsenal — might poison millions of men, women and children and change the climate enough to starve hundreds of millions.”

ALSO ON RT.COMUS president tweets World War 3 – George Galloway

The United States has been using nuclear weapons for decades

Former Secretary of State under Donald Trump Rex Tillerson once allegedly called Trump a “f***ing moron” when the President had asked three times in a meeting “if we have nuclear weapons, why don’t we use them?”

When this proposition was put to Daniel Ellsberg in an interview with Democracy Now! Ellsberg stated that it is not a question of whether or not Trump might use nuclear weapons – he already is.

“It’s not a question of whether the president might use them,” Ellsberg stated. “He’s using them the way you use a gun when you point it at somebody in a confrontation, whether or not you pull the trigger…as in NATO. I think the — one of our commanders just said, ‘Oh, we use the weapons every day, every hour of the day,’ which is true. We use them on the hip.”

This is not an issue of the recklessness of Donald Trump versus the unknown depths of an unhinged leader of a so-called rogue state like North Korea. We must bear in mind that in all actuality, the US has been using its nuclear weapons supply to achieve its own ends for decades.

Read more

Iran announces four-fold increase in uranium enrichment

In the case of Iraq and Libya, most of Washington’s adversaries have concluded that these countries were not attacked because they had weapons of mass destruction or posed any significant threat to the world – but in fact, because they didn’t.

According to North Korea’s Foreign Ministry, “[T]he Libyan crisis is teaching the international community a grave lesson,” which was that Libya’s decision to abandon its weapons programs in 2003, applauded by George W Bush, had been “an invasion tactic to disarm the country.”

The same can equally be said about Trump’s recent threats towards Iran, in which he took to his infamous Twitter account to threaten that “if Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran.” This isn’t a bully at school threatening a weaker child with violence – we all know what he is referring to. Seeing as Iran doesn’t actually have nuclear weapons, any surviving historians will remember who led the world towards a nuclear holocaust.

The current president certainly wears his nuclear weapons supply on his hip, and with crazed advisors like Bolton pushing up voluptuously against his other hip, perhaps the warnings of Renata Dwan and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists should be heeded. As former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev said just two years ago:

“In the modern world, wars must be outlawed, because none of the global problems we are facing can be resolved by war — not poverty, nor the environment, migration, population growth, or shortages of resources.”

In the meantime, the best defense we have is the hope that defiant officers will uphold their promise to disobey a presidential order to deliver a nuclear strike.

Cold War ‘nuclear coffin’ leaking radioactive waste from US tests into Pacific Ocean– UN chief

Source

http://www.rt.com
16 May, 2019

Cold War ‘nuclear coffin’ leaking radioactive waste from US tests into Pacific Ocean – UN chief
© Giff Johnson / US Defense Nuclear Agency / AFP

 

A massive concrete dome built during the Cold War to contain waste from US Nuclear testing has degraded and began leaking nuclear waste into the Pacific Ocean, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres has confirmed.
While the imposing structure at Enewetak Atoll in the Marshall Islands may look like something from a James Bond movie, Guterres described it as a “kind of coffin:” a stern reminder of the aftermath of American atomic weapons testing.

The soil irradiated by the tests and ash from the fallout were dumped into a crater which was then capped with 18 inches of concrete, measures that have proved ineffective at containing the waste in the long run. The bottom of the crater was reportedly never lined at all.

Guterres confirmed the disturbing information while speaking to students in Fiji as a part of a tour of the South Pacific focusing on climate change and environmental issues. The leakage, according to Guterres, has already begun to have its effect.

Our oceans are in serious trouble, from coral bleaching to biodiversity loss. Healthy oceans save lives and livelihoods. We need urgent #ClimateAction to protect our oceans – and our future. pic.twitter.com/vakISTezL8

— António Guterres (@antonioguterres) May 15, 2019
The consequences have been quite dramatic, in relation to health, in relation to the poisoning of waters in some areas.

Aside from being used to store the dangerous atomic waste, Guterres discussed how the Pacific had been victimized while under US administration. The islands and atolls far off the southeast coast of Japan such as Enewetak were the sites of 67 American nuclear weapons tests that took place between 1946-58.

One such test was the 1954 ‘Bravo’ hydrogen bomb, which remains the most powerful US-tested atomic weapon. Its explosion was 1,000 times bigger than the atomic bombs used on Japan.

While Guterres had no specific recommendations for how to minimize the impact, he warned that action needs to be taken soon. A powerful storm in the region could end up damaging the cover further, which would have devastating results for the environment.

On The Brink Of An Apocalyptic War With Iran, And Most Americans Don’t Seem To Care

Source: On The Brink Of An Apocalyptic War With Iran, And Most Americans Don’t Seem To Care – End Of The American Dream

endoftheamericandream.com

by Michael Snyder

May 7, 2019

This is the closest that the U.S. has been to a war with Iran in decades, and yet most Americans are either clueless or they don’t seem to believe that it could actually happen.  And I certainly don’t think that President Trump wants a war, but he is surrounded by war hawks that have been pushing an extremely aggressive “get tough” policy with Iran.  The Trump administration just canceled the waivers that were allowing other nations to continue purchasing Iranian oil, and the goal of that move is to reduce Iranian exports to zero.  But oil exports are 40 percent of the Iranian economy, and the Iranians understand that this move could absolutely cripple their economy.  The Iranians have threatened to close the straight of Hormuz in retaliation, and that would almost certainly provoke a U.S. military response.  In addition, it is being reported that on Wednesday the Iranians will announce that they are taking steps to restart their nuclear program…

On Wednesday, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani is expected to announce small steps to resume his country’s nuclear program. According to the New York Times, that will include conducting research on centrifuges that can make nuclear fuel, and curbing nuclear inspections from observers.

Of course the truth is that the Iranians never fully abandoned their nuclear program in the first place, but that is supposed to be a big secret.

In any event, tensions between the U.S. and Iran have now reached frightening levels.

On Sunday, White House National Security Adviser John Bolton announced that the USS Abraham Lincoln and four B-52 bombers are being sent to the Middle East as a message to Iran…

Four B-52 Stratofortress bombers are being sent to the Mideast to support the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln in moves aimed at countering threats from Iran, U.S. Central Command said Tuesday.

The B-52s, from Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana, are deploying to Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, a hub for U.S. air operations in the region, CBS News reported.

Apparently there was some intelligence which indicated that Iran was planning a possible attack on U.S. forces in the region, and Bolton said that these deployments would make it very clear that any assault would be “met with unrelenting force”…

The deployments would “send a clear and unmistakable message to the Iranian regime that any attack on United States’ interests, or on those of our allies, will be met with unrelenting force,” he said in a statement. “The United States is not seeking war with the Iranian regime, but we are fully prepared to respond to any attack, whether by proxy, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or regular Iranian forces.”

In response, the Iranians accused the U.S. of engaging in a form of “psychological warfare”.

In addition to everything else, CNN is reporting that it appears that the Iranians have been “moving short-range ballistic missiles aboard boats in the Persian Gulf”, and this has deeply alarmed U.S. officials…

Intelligence showing that Iran is likely moving short-range ballistic missiles aboard boats in the Persian Gulf was one of the critical reasons the US decided to move an aircraft carrier strike group and B-52 bombers into the region, according to several US officials with direct knowledge of the situation.

The concerns over the movement of the missiles was one of multiple threads of intelligence from various sources that led the US to believe Iran had a capability and intention to launch strikes against US targets.

If both sides rattle their sabers for a while but nothing ever comes of it, we will be fine.

But if someone goes a little bit too far and the missiles start flying, we could be soon engaged in a conflict that could literally spark World War 3.

While they are certainly no match for the U.S., the truth is that the Iranian military is quite strong, and they possess weapons of immense destructive power.  And in the event of a military conflict with the U.S., the Iranians have already said that they will hit Israel too.

And if Israel gets hit, they will certainly strike back at Iran extremely hard.

The Iranians absolutely hate both the United States and Israel, and recent moves by the Trump administration have pushed the Iranians into a corner.  The following comes from Pat Buchanan…

Did President Donald Trump approve of this? For he appears to be going along. He has pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal and re-imposed sanctions. Last week, he canceled waivers he had given eight nations to let them continue buying Iranian oil.

Purpose: Reduce Iran’s oil exports, 40% of GDP, to zero, to deepen an economic crisis that is already expected to cut Iran’s GDP this year by 6%.

Trump has also designated Iran a terrorist state and the Republican Guard a terrorist organization, the first time we have done that with the armed forces of a foreign nation. We don’t even do that with North Korea.

A cornered animal is extremely dangerous, and at this point the Iranians may feel as if the only option they have left is to lash out.

As a first step, they could potentially close the Strait of Hormuz, and that would instantly create a global oil crisis.  Here is more from Buchanan…

Iran has also warned that if we choke off its oil exports that exit the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz, the Strait could be closed to other nations. As 30% of the world’s oil shipments transit the Strait, closing it could cause a global crash.

In 1973, when President Nixon rescued Israel in the Yom Kippur War, the OPEC Arabs imposed an oil embargo. Gas prices spiked so high Nixon considered taking a train to Florida for Christmas vacation.

Of course a potential war with Iran is not even on the radar for most Americans these days.  Most of us are preoccupied with other things, but if the missiles start flying this will instantly become the top news story on the entire planet.

Wars never start in a vacuum.  In every major war throughout history, there has always been a series of steps that has ultimately resulted in the outbreak of war.

Without a doubt, the U.S. and Iran are moving toward war.  That doesn’t mean that one will happen, and we better hope that it doesn’t, because it would have all sorts of apocalyptic consequences.

So let us hope that cooler heads prevail.

Unfortunately, there doesn’t appear to be any “cooler heads” among Iranian leadership, and Trump has surrounded himself with war hawks like John Bolton and Mike Pompeo.

In the end, Trump himself will make the final call on any conflict with Iran, and let us hope that he makes the right one.

About the author: Michael Snyder is a nationally-syndicated writer, media personality and political activist. He is the author of four books including Get Prepared Now, The Beginning Of The End and Living A Life That Really Matters. His articles are originally published on The Economic Collapse Blog, End Of The American Dream and The Most Important News. From there, his articles are republished on dozens of other prominent websites. If you would like to republish his articles, please feel free to do so. The more people that see this information the better, and we need to wake more people up while there is still time.

PEPE ESCOBAR: The Eagle, the Bear and the Dragon

Source: PEPE ESCOBAR: The Eagle, the Bear and the Dragon – Consortiumnews

consortiumnews.com

By Pepe Escobar
Special to Consortium News

May 6, 2019

The eagle has conveniently forgotten that the original, Ancient Silk Road linked the dragon with the Roman empire for centuries – with no interlopers outside of Eurasia, muses Pepe Escobar.

 

Once upon a time, deep into the night in selected campfires across the deserts of Southwest Asia, I used to tell a fable about the eagle, the bear and the dragon – much to the amusement of my Arab and Persian interlocutors.

It was about how, in the young 21^stcentury, the eagle, the bear and the dragon had taken their (furry) gloves off and engaged in what turned out to be Cold War 2.0.

As we approach the end of the second decade of this already incandescent century, perhaps it’s fruitful to upgrade the fable. With all due respect to Jean de la Fontaine, excuse me while I kiss the (desert) sky again.

Long gone are the days when a frustrated bear repeatedly offered to cooperate with the eagle and its minions on a burning question: nuclear missiles.

The bear repeatedly argued that the deployment of interceptor missiles and radars in that land of the blind leading the blind – Europe – was a threat. The eagle repeatedly argued that this is to protect us from those rogue Persians.

Now the eagle – claiming the dragon is getting an easy ride – has torn down every treaty in sight and is bent on deploying nuclear missiles in selected eastern parts of the land of the blind leading the blind, essentially targeting the bear.

Dragon bridge, Ljubljana. (Ali Eminov/Creative Commons)

All That Glitters is Silk

Roughly two decades after what top bear Putin defined as “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20^thcentury”, he proposed a form of USSR light; a political/economic body called the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU).

The idea was to have the EAEU interact with the EU – the top institution of the motley crew congregated as the blind leading the blind.

The eagle not only rejected the possible integration; it came up with a modified color revolution scenario to unplug Ukraine from the EAEU.

Even earlier than that, the eagle had wanted to set up a New Silk Road under its total control. The eagle had conveniently forgotten that the original, Ancient Silk Road linked the dragon with the Roman empire for centuries – with no interlopers outside of Eurasia.

So one can imagine the eagle’s stupor when the dragon irrupted on the global stage with its own super-charged New Silk Roads – upgrading the bear original idea of a free trade area “from Lisbon to Vladivostok” to a multi-connectivity corridor, terrestrial and maritime, from eastern China to western Europe and everything in between, spanning the whole of Eurasia.

Facing this new paradigm the blind, well, remained blind for as long as anyone could remember; they simply could not get their act together.

The eagle, meanwhile, was incrementally raising the stakes. It launched what amounted for all practical purposes to a progressively weaponized encirclement of the dragon.

The eagle made a series of moves that amount to inciting nations bordering the South China Sea to antagonize the dragon, while repositioning an array of toys – nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers, fighter jets – closer and closer to the dragon’s territory.

All the time, what the dragon saw – and continues to see – is a battered eagle trying to muscle its way out of an irreversible decline by trying to intimidate, isolate and sabotage the dragon’s irreversible ascent back to where it has been for 18 of the past 20 centuries; enthroned as the king of the jungle.

A key vector is that Eurasia-wide players know that under the new laws of the jungle the dragon simply can’t – and won’t – be reduced to the status of a supporting actor. And Eurasia-wide players are too smart to embark on a Cold War 2.0 that will undermine Eurasia itself.

The eagle’s reaction to the dragon’s New Silk strategy took some time to swing from inaction to outright demonization – complementing the joint description of both the dragon and the bear as existential threats.

And yet, for all the spinning crossfire, Eurasia-wide players are not exactly impressed anymore with an eagle empire armed to its teeth. Especially after the eagle’s crest was severely damaged by failure upon hunting failure in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. Eagle aircraft carriers patrolling the eastern part of Mare Nostrum are not exactly scaring the bear, the Persians and the Syrians.

James Audubon and His Journal, published in 1899 in the Public Domain. (Wikimedia Commons)

A “reset” between the eagle and the bear was always a myth. It took some time – and much financial distress – for the bear to realize there won’t be any reset, while the dragon only saw a reset towards open confrontation.

After establishing itself, slowly but surely, as the most advanced military power on the planet, with hypersonic know-how, the bear came to a startling conclusion: we don’t care anymore about what the eagle says – or does.

Under the Raging Volcano

Meanwhile, the dragon kept expanding, inexorably, across all Asian latitudes as well as Africa, Latin America and even across the unemployment-infested pastures of the austerity-hit blind leading the blind.

The dragon is firmly assured that, if cornered to the point of resorting to a nuclear option, it holds the power to make the eagle’s staggering deficit explode, degrade its credit rating to junk, and wreak havoc in the global financial system.

No wonder the eagle, under an all-enveloping paranoid cloud of cognitive dissonance, feeding state propaganda 24/7 to its subjects and minions, keeps spewing out lava like a raging volcano – dispensing sanctions to a great deal of the planet, entertaining regime change wet dreams, launching a total energy embargo against the Persians, resurrecting the “war on terra”, and aiming to punish like a Bat Out Of Intel Hell any journalist, publisher or whistleblower revealing its inner machinations.

It hurts, so bad, to admit that the political/economic center of a new multipolar world will be Asia – actually Eurasia.

As the eagle got more and more threatening, the bear and the dragon got closer and closer in their strategic partnership. Now both bear and dragon have too many strategic links across the planet to be intimidated by the eagle’s massive Empire of Bases or those periodic coalitions of the (somewhat reluctant) willing.

Friedrich Johann Justin Bertuch, the mythical creature dragon, 1806. (Wikimedia Commons)

To match comprehensive, in-progress Eurasia integration, of which the New Silk Roads are the graphic symbol, the eagle’s fury, unleashed, has nothing to offer – except rehashing a war against Islam coupled with the weaponized cornering of both bear and dragon.

Then there’s Persia – those master chess players. The eagle has been gunning for the Persians ever since they got rid of the eagle’s proconsul, the Shah, in 1979 – and this after the eagle and perfidious Albion had already smashed democracy to place the Shah, who made Saddam look like Gandhi, in power in 1953.

The eagle wants all that oil and natural gas back – not to mention a new Shah as the new gendarme of the Persian Gulf. The difference is now the bear and the dragon are saying No Way. What is the eagle to do? Set up the false flag to end all false flags?

This is where we stand now. And once again, we reach the end – though not the endgame. There’s still no moral to this revamped fable. We continue to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. Our only, slim hope is that a bunch of Hollow Men obsessed by the Second Coming won’t turn Cold War 2.0 into Armageddon.

Pepe Escobar, a veteran Brazilian journalist, is the correspondent-at-large for Hong Kong-based Asia Times. His latest book is “2030.” Follow him on Facebook.