theduran--2020-01-06--Iran’s blustery rhetoric is a good sign that it is cornered

Life often imitates Art , and Art often imitates Life .
If this is held to be true , then one can deduce that the recent “ fury ” of Iran ’ s blustery rhetoric is an indication of futility for that nation ’ s leadership .
While it is possible that this is wrong , here are some reasons that in many ways the world community views this latest situation with Iran and the United States as just another day at the office .
News outlets in the US , both liberal and conservative are beating the war drums @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at both Drudge Report and Fox News on the conservative to libertarian ends of the political spectrum , we see this sort of bannering going on : The top-level previews on the Drudge Report aggregate site , from January 6 , at 2:56am EST .
Restarting the draft ?
Over Iran ?
Seriously ?
And we can look at Fox News ’ lead stories taken at the same time ( January 6 at 2:57am EST ) In both of these we see a great deal of chatter , but the whole thing is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news junkie who uses these networks for information .
Let ’ s take a look now at our friends over on the Clinton News Network ( an affectionate nom de jure for CNN ) : As we see , both Fox and CNN take their political jabs as well , trying to indicate that this situation reflects a problem with President Trump ( as has been the case ever since he announced his candidacy ) .
All of this reporting is drama .
As far as reporting real news goes , the story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is far less because while the leaderships of Iran and the United States are verbally posturing to show strength ( with the media acting as accomplices in this for both sides , mostly ) , the drama and attention are stirred up , but at the same time , that is sufficient .
There does not need to be a shooting war .
That is a good thing for both sides , because the United States will not attack Iran unless Iran attacks first .
Since there has been an agreement in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be there , this makes the relationship very dicey .
The killing ( some say murder , and I can not entirely disagree here ) of General Soleimani is certainly a massive provocation .
But while the US forces were being left alone by Iranian military in the region there was no cause for hostility .
The attack on the US Embassy in Baghdad was an attack on sovereign US soil .
This was an increase in hostility from the Iranian side that the American forces have not done , and in fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
However , since the embassy is surrounded by Iraq and Iran is welcome , apparently the lines seemed fuzzy enough to the Iranian side to go ahead and try this .
And for that they lost their top general .
Now , I write this as pragmatically as possible .
I have no beef with the Iranian people or its government , but I can not help notice that their governmet definitely has a gripe with the US .
The most recent direct grievance I have received from sources in Iran suggest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sanctions and departure from the 5+1 deal known as the JCPoA ( Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action ) , put in force by President Obama , which allows Iran to effectively mark time in their nuclear development programs .
The conservative side in American politics strongly believes that Iran intends to produce a viable nuclear weapon , and the JCPoA was a miserable failure at preventing this ; all it did was slow the process slightly and open a lot of financial pathways to Iran .
From the Iranian side the sanctions do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unlike Russia , which has turned US sanctions against it to its own advantage , Iran ’ s government seems more interested in trying to get its way through bluster and rage , rather than negotiations .
It is understandable that with America ’ s foreign policy record being severely dominated by the interests of globalists and the military-industrial complex , Iran has every right to be quite reticent to just go and try negotiations with the nation that has personified “ indian giving ” in so many ways .
We get this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Trump has shown the world that he means business when he says he wants America out of foreign wars .
Granted , his advisers are full of people that think wars are for fun and profit .
But he demonstrated first with Kim Jong-un , later in Syria with the amazing rocket attack that hurt nothing , more recently with the pullout in norther Syria and with the present boiling crisis in his warning : This statement echoes an opinion piece from the Washington Post last May , though President Trump knows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be America ’ s as well .
He wants to make things right with Iran .
After all , the United States has no vested interests in that country ’ s oil , but they do see Iran as an exporter of terrorism .
Iran doesn ’ t do very much to allay that concern when they regularly bluster about how they will destroy Israel and the US and whoever else .
In fact , it would be fair to say that , at least from a Christian perspective , the Iranian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lunatics .
Their behavior is very difficult to relate to the processes of thought and action in the Western world .
It may well be that the Iranian government thinks the same about the Western way of doing things .
But that is what negotiations are for : to get the garbage out in the open and start talking to each other and coming to an understanding .
Another piece of the puzzle is Russia .
Russia has maintained good relations with Iran for decades , and it still does .
However , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kremlin released their “ readout ” of a phone call initiated by President Vladimir Putin to President Trump , thanking the American president for his country ’ s help in thwarting terrorist attacks in Russia .
The terror attacks are from ISIS or related groups , and ostensibly we are dealing with Islamism .
Iran has a problem when it relates its fury against the United States to Islam , because Russia , while having very peaceful interrelations between Muslims and Christians in its own territory , is committed to preserving Christianity everywhere @ @ @ @ @ @ @ serious move against the United States , it creates a real problem for Russia , which has been quietly working together with the US to improve relations , if only painfully slowly .
Speculatively speaking , it is likely that Russian authorities have already quietly spoken to the Iranian regime , to give them a warning : go this far , but no further .
For that reason , rhetoric , which can be happily reported by everyone who thinks of this kind of thing as a spectator sport , can gin up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and make good ratings .
There is a further factor , as well , which just happened in the last 24 hours : Iraq wants US troops out of the country .
Fox News carried a piece noting that Iraqi lawmakers approved a resolution to expel American troops from its territory , ending an agreement made four years ago to help Iraq fight against the explosive growth of ISIS in its lands .
Only for true war-hawks is this bad news .
Even conservative Fox noted in an interview with retired Col. MacGregor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expel the US , the US ought to simply pack up and leave .
Why not ?
It may seem an “ ungrateful ” move by the country the US “ liberated ” twice , first from Saddam Hussein and second ( and more importantly ) from ISIS ( even though there are serious irregularities that took place under Obama ’ s administration of this so-called help ) .
But Iraq was set up to be a sovereign nation and they have every right to choose their destiny .
It would have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the US troops there and support the Iranian factions operating in country as well .
It is simple : The US departs and Iran and Iraq can play their games any way they like .
Of course , anything can happen .
Even as I write this , I know that the Iranian government is a true wildcard .
Their formidable expression of resentment against the US is unmatched by any other significant power in the world .
They have a powerful military and if they wanted to , they could indeed launch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and many lives would be lost .
It would strongly resemble the long awaited Armageddon , and depending on how things went , it might actually turn out to be that long-predicted battle of all battles .
But this is doubtful .
I take my inspiration from a piece of art .
The book Alas , Babylon , written in the 1950 ’ s by Pat Frank , describes World War III as a nuclear exchange , most of which took place in a single day .
Before The Day , an accidental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a fighter shadowing it decimates a major Soviet military emplacement in Latakia , Syria .
The Soviet Union does not engage in bluster at all .
If the talking and the bluster stops dead , that might be when to worry .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Life often imitates Art, and Art often imitates Life. If this is held to be true, then one can deduce that the recent “fury” of Iran’s blustery rhetoric is an indication of futility for that nation’s leadership. While it is possible that this is wrong, here are some reasons that in many ways the world community views this latest situation with Iran and the United States as just another day at the office.
News outlets in the US, both liberal and conservative are beating the war drums with extraordinary irresponsibility.
Taking a look at both Drudge Report and Fox News on the conservative to libertarian ends of the political spectrum, we see this sort of bannering going on:
The top-level previews on the Drudge Report aggregate site, from January 6, at 2:56am EST.
Restarting the draft? Over Iran? Seriously? And we can look at Fox News’ lead stories taken at the same time (January 6 at 2:57am EST)
In both of these we see a great deal of chatter, but the whole thing is really nothing more than drama for the news junkie who uses these networks for information. Let’s take a look now at our friends over on the Clinton News Network (an affectionate nom de jure for CNN):
As we see, both Fox and CNN take their political jabs as well, trying to indicate that this situation reflects a problem with President Trump (as has been the case ever since he announced his candidacy).
All of this reporting is drama.
As far as reporting real news goes, the story is far more and far less.
It is far less because while the leaderships of Iran and the United States are verbally posturing to show strength (with the media acting as accomplices in this for both sides, mostly), the drama and attention are stirred up, but at the same time, that is sufficient. There does not need to be a shooting war.
That is a good thing for both sides, because the United States will not attack Iran unless Iran attacks first. Since there has been an agreement in place in Iraq for US troops to be there, this makes the relationship very dicey. The killing (some say murder, and I cannot entirely disagree here) of General Soleimani is certainly a massive provocation. But while the US forces were being left alone by Iranian military in the region there was no cause for hostility. The attack on the US Embassy in Baghdad was an attack on sovereign US soil. This was an increase in hostility from the Iranian side that the American forces have not done, and in fact, have been very restrained from doing.
However, since the embassy is surrounded by Iraq and Iran is welcome, apparently the lines seemed fuzzy enough to the Iranian side to go ahead and try this. And for that they lost their top general.
Now, I write this as pragmatically as possible. I have no beef with the Iranian people or its government, but I cannot help notice that their governmet definitely has a gripe with the US. The most recent direct grievance I have received from sources in Iran suggest that the anger is over the severe sanctions and departure from the 5+1 deal known as the JCPoA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), put in force by President Obama, which allows Iran to effectively mark time in their nuclear development programs. The conservative side in American politics strongly believes that Iran intends to produce a viable nuclear weapon, and the JCPoA was a miserable failure at preventing this; all it did was slow the process slightly and open a lot of financial pathways to Iran.
From the Iranian side the sanctions do appear to be very harsh, and unlike Russia, which has turned US sanctions against it to its own advantage, Iran’s government seems more interested in trying to get its way through bluster and rage, rather than negotiations. It is understandable that with America’s foreign policy record being severely dominated by the interests of globalists and the military-industrial complex, Iran has every right to be quite reticent to just go and try negotiations with the nation that has personified “indian giving” in so many ways. We get this.
But at the same time, President Trump has shown the world that he means business when he says he wants America out of foreign wars. Granted, his advisers are full of people that think wars are for fun and profit. But he demonstrated first with Kim Jong-un, later in Syria with the amazing rocket attack that hurt nothing, more recently with the pullout in norther Syria and with the present boiling crisis in his warning:
This statement echoes an opinion piece from the Washington Post last May, though President Trump knows that Iran’s victory in negotiations would be America’s as well. He wants to make things right with Iran. After all, the United States has no vested interests in that country’s oil, but they do see Iran as an exporter of terrorism. Iran doesn’t do very much to allay that concern when they regularly bluster about how they will destroy Israel and the US and whoever else.
In fact, it would be fair to say that, at least from a Christian perspective, the Iranian nation is run by a bunch of lunatics. Their behavior is very difficult to relate to the processes of thought and action in the Western world. It may well be that the Iranian government thinks the same about the Western way of doing things. But that is what negotiations are for: to get the garbage out in the open and start talking to each other and coming to an understanding.
The Russia Factor
Another piece of the puzzle is Russia. Russia has maintained good relations with Iran for decades, and it still does. However, just in the last week, the Kremlin released their “readout” of a phone call initiated by President Vladimir Putin to President Trump, thanking the American president for his country’s help in thwarting terrorist attacks in Russia. The terror attacks are from ISIS or related groups, and ostensibly we are dealing with Islamism. Iran has a problem when it relates its fury against the United States to Islam, because Russia, while having very peaceful interrelations between Muslims and Christians in its own territory, is committed to preserving Christianity everywhere. If Iran tries to make a serious move against the United States, it creates a real problem for Russia, which has been quietly working together with the US to improve relations, if only painfully slowly.
Speculatively speaking, it is likely that Russian authorities have already quietly spoken to the Iranian regime, to give them a warning: go this far, but no further. For that reason, rhetoric, which can be happily reported by everyone who thinks of this kind of thing as a spectator sport, can gin up the fires of passion on all sides and make good ratings. There is a further factor, as well, which just happened in the last 24 hours:
Iraq wants US troops out of the country.
Fox News carried a piece noting that Iraqi lawmakers approved a resolution to expel American troops from its territory, ending an agreement made four years ago to help Iraq fight against the explosive growth of ISIS in its lands.
Only for true war-hawks is this bad news. Even conservative Fox noted in an interview with retired Col. MacGregor, that if the Iraqis vote to expel the US, the US ought to simply pack up and leave. Why not? It may seem an “ungrateful” move by the country the US “liberated” twice, first from Saddam Hussein and second (and more importantly) from ISIS (even though there are serious irregularities that took place under Obama’s administration of this so-called help). But Iraq was set up to be a sovereign nation and they have every right to choose their destiny. It would have been worse for the Iraqis to simultaneously keep the US troops there and support the Iranian factions operating in country as well.
It is simple: The US departs and Iran and Iraq can play their games any way they like.
Of course, anything can happen.
Even as I write this, I know that the Iranian government is a true wildcard. Their formidable expression of resentment against the US is unmatched by any other significant power in the world. They have a powerful military and if they wanted to, they could indeed launch into a war with the United States and many lives would be lost. It would strongly resemble the long awaited Armageddon, and depending on how things went, it might actually turn out to be that long-predicted battle of all battles.
But this is doubtful. I take my inspiration from a piece of art. The book Alas, Babylon, written in the 1950’s by Pat Frank, describes World War III as a nuclear exchange, most of which took place in a single day. Before The Day, an accidental missile strike by an American plane chasing a fighter shadowing it decimates a major Soviet military emplacement in Latakia, Syria. The Soviet Union does not engage in bluster at all.
It goes dead silent.
If the talking and the bluster stops dead, that might be when to worry.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-01-05--Ghislaine Maxwell, protected and living in safe houses (Video)

The Duran ’ s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss reports that Epsteins ’ madam and ‘ best friend ’ , Ghislaine Maxwell ’ s has powerful contacts protecting her in safe houses from the UK to Israel .
Support Free Speech : Subscribe to The Duran on YouTube – Find us on BitChute .
The Duran Audio Podcast : Follow on Soundcloud – Subscribe on iTunes .
Ghislaine Maxwell — the British socialite who ’ s long been accused of serving as Jeffrey Epstein ’ s madam — is hiding in a series of safe houses and is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she has on the world ’ s most powerful people.
” Maxwell , 58 , allegedly procured young women and groomed them to have sex with Epstein and his wealthy pals , but she has remained out of public view after the convicted sex offender ’ s re-arrest last year and his death in jail in August .
She has always denied any wrongdoing .
On the heels of a Reuters report that Maxwell was the main focus of an investigation by the FBI into several “ people who facilitated ” the dead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a source tells Page Six : “ Ghislaine is protected .
She and Jeffrey were assets of sorts for multiple foreign governments .
They would trade information about the powerful people caught in his net — caught at Epstein ’ s house.
” The source added of Ghislaine , who has homes in Manhattan and London , “ She is not in the US , she moves around .
She is sometimes in the UK , but most often in other countries , such as Israel , where her powerful contacts have provided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The source added that Britain ’ s disgraced Prince Andrew had begged Maxwell to come forward and give an interview to protect him after he was accused of having sex with one of Epstein ’ s most vocal accusers , Virginia Roberts Giuffre , which he strongly denies .
But Maxwell refused , forcing the prince to conduct his own disastrous interview .
The source said : “ Andrew pleaded with Ghislaine to publicly defend him .
She carefully considered it , but decided no good would come of it ( if she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t in her best interests.
” Lawyers for Maxwell didn ’ t get back to us .
The source also added , “ If the US government was really interested in bringing in Ghislaine , the IRS would have looked at her tax returns and the income she may have got from Epstein and perhaps some of his powerful associates .
”

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss reports that Epsteins’ madam and ‘best friend’, Ghislaine Maxwell’s has powerful contacts protecting her in safe houses from the UK to Israel.
Support Free Speech:
Subscribe to The Duran on YouTube – Find us on BitChute.
The Duran Audio Podcast:
Follow on Soundcloud – Subscribe on iTunes.
Via Page Six…
Ghislaine Maxwell — the British socialite who’s long been accused of serving as Jeffrey Epstein’s madam — is hiding in a series of safe houses and is being “protected because of the information she has on the world’s most powerful people.”
Maxwell, 58, allegedly procured young women and groomed them to have sex with Epstein and his wealthy pals, but she has remained out of public view after the convicted sex offender’s re-arrest last year and his death in jail in August. She has always denied any wrongdoing.
On the heels of a Reuters report that Maxwell was the main focus of an investigation by the FBI into several “people who facilitated” the dead pedophile’s alleged sexual abuse, a source tells Page Six: “Ghislaine is protected. She and Jeffrey were assets of sorts for multiple foreign governments. They would trade information about the powerful people caught in his net — caught at Epstein’s house.”
The source added of Ghislaine, who has homes in Manhattan and London, “She is not in the US, she moves around. She is sometimes in the UK, but most often in other countries, such as Israel, where her powerful contacts have provided her with safe houses and protection.”
The source added that Britain’s disgraced Prince Andrew had begged Maxwell to come forward and give an interview to protect him after he was accused of having sex with one of Epstein’s most vocal accusers, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, which he strongly denies. But Maxwell refused, forcing the prince to conduct his own disastrous interview. The source said: “Andrew pleaded with Ghislaine to publicly defend him. She carefully considered it, but decided no good would come of it (if she came forward). It isn’t in her best interests.” Lawyers for Maxwell didn’t get back to us.
The source also added, “If the US government was really interested in bringing in Ghislaine, the IRS would have looked at her tax returns and the income she may have got from Epstein and perhaps some of his powerful associates.”
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-01-05--Lies, the Bethlehem Doctrine, and the Illegal Murder of Soleimani

In one of the series of blatant lies the USA has told to justify the assassination of Soleimani , Mike Pompeo said that Soleimani was killed because he was planning “ Imminent attacks ” on US citizens .
It is a careful choice of word .
Pompeo is specifically referring to the Bethlehem Doctrine of Pre-Emptive Self Defence .
Developed by Daniel Bethlehem when Legal Adviser to first Netanyahu ’ s government and then Blair ’ s , the Bethlehem Doctrine is that states have a right of “ pre-emptive self-defence ” against “ imminent ” attack .
That is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law experts and judges , would accept .
Including me .
What very few people , and almost no international lawyers , accept is the key to the Bethlehem Doctrine – that here “ Imminent ” – the word used so carefully by Pompeo – does not need to have its normal meanings of either “ soon ” or “ about to happen ” .
An attack may be deemed “ imminent ” , according to the Bethlehem Doctrine , even if you know no details of it or when it might occur @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a drone or bomb strike – and the doctrine was specifically developed to justify such strikes – because of “ intelligence ” you are engaged in a plot , when that intelligence neither says what the plot is nor when it might occur .
Or even more tenuous , because there is intelligence you have engaged in a plot before , so it is reasonable to kill you in case you do so again .
I am not inventing the Bethlehem Doctrine .
It has been the formal legal justification for drone strikes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US and UK governments for a decade .
Here it is in academic paper form , published by Bethlehem after he left government service ( the form in which it is adopted by the US , UK and Israeli Governments is classified information ) .
So when Pompeo says attacks by Soleimani were “ imminent ” he is not using the word in the normal sense in the English language .
It is no use asking him what , where or when these “ imminent ” attacks were planned to be .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you can kill people on the basis of a feeling that they may have been about to do something .
The idea that killing an individual who you have received information is going to attack you , but you do not know when , where or how , can be justified as self-defence , has not gained widespread acceptance – or indeed virtually any acceptance – in legal circles outside the ranks of the most extreme devoted neo-conservatives and zionists .
Daniel Bethlehem became the FCO ’ s Chief Legal Adviser , brought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every single one of the FCO ’ s existing Legal Advisers believed the Iraq War to be illegal .
In 2004 , when the House of Commons was considering the legality of the war on Iraq , Bethlehem produced a remarkable paper for consideration which said that it was legal because the courts and existing law were wrong , a defence which has seldom succeeded in court .
The key was that the concept of “ imminent ” was to change : In the absence of a respectable international lawyer willing to argue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Bethlehem as Chief Legal Adviser , the man who advised Netanyahu on Israel ’ s security wall and who was willing to say that attacking Iraq was legal on the basis of Saddam ’ s “ imminent threat ” to the UK , which proved to be non-existent .
It says everything about Bethlehem ’ s eagerness for killing that the formulation of the Bethlehem Doctrine on extrajudicial execution by drone came after the Iraq War , and he still gave not one second ’ s thought to the fact that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can be wrong .
Assassinating people on the basis of faulty intelligence is not addressed by Bethlehem in setting out his doctrine .
The bloodlust is strong in this one .
There are literally scores of academic articles , in every respected journal of international law , taking down the Bethlehem Doctrine for its obvious absurdities and revolting special pleading .
My favourite is this one by Bethlehem ’ s predecessor as the FCO Chief Legal Adviser , Sir Michael Wood and his ex-Deputy Elizabeth Wilmshurst .
I addressed the Bethlehem Doctrine as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reflecting on Chomsky ‘ s essay “ On the Responsibility of Intellectuals ” In the UK recently , the Attorney General gave a speech in defence of the UK ’ s drone policy , the assassination of people – including British nationals – abroad .
This execution without a hearing is based on several criteria , he reassured us .
His speech was repeated slavishly in the British media .
In fact , the Guardian newspaper simply republished the government press release absolutely verbatim , and stuck a reporter ’ s byline at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interest in a critical appraisal of the process by which the British government regularly executes without trial .
Yet in fact it is extremely interesting .
The genesis of the policy lay in the appointment of Daniel Bethlehem as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office ’ s Chief Legal Adviser .
Jack Straw made the appointment , and for the first time ever it was external , and not from the Foreign Office ’ s own large team of world-renowned international lawyers .
The reason for that is not in dispute .
Every single @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advisers had advised that the invasion of Iraq was illegal , and Straw wished to find a new head of the department more in tune with the neo-conservative world view .
Straw went to extremes .
He appointed Daniel Bethlehem , the legal ‘ expert ’ who provided the legal advice to Benjamin Netanyahu on the ‘ legality ’ of building the great wall hemming in the Palestinians away from their land and water resources .
Bethlehem was an enthusiastic proponent of the invasion of Iraq .
He was also the most enthusiastic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Bethlehem provided an opinion on the legality of drone strikes which is , to say the least , controversial .
To give one example , Bethlehem accepts that established principles of international law dictate that lethal force may be used only to prevent an attack which is ‘ imminent ’ .
Bethlehem argues that for an attack to be ‘ imminent ’ does not require it to be ‘ soon ’ .
Indeed you can kill to avert an ‘ imminent attack ’ even if you have no information on when and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instead rely on your target ’ s ‘ pattern of behaviour ’ ; that is , if he has attacked before , it is reasonable to assume he will attack again and that such an attack is ‘ imminent ’ .
There is a much deeper problem : that the evidence against the target is often extremely dubious .
Yet even allowing the evidence to be perfect , it is beyond me that the state can kill in such circumstances without it being considered a death penalty imposed without trial for past crimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imminent ’ one .
You would think that background would make an interesting story .
Yet the entire ‘ serious ’ British media published the government line , without a single journalist , not one , writing about the fact that Bethlehem ’ s proposed definition of ‘ imminent ’ has been widely rejected by the international law community .
The public knows none of this .
They just ‘ know ’ that drone strikes are keeping us safe from deadly attack by terrorists , because the government says so , and nobody @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Remember , this is not just academic argument , the Bethlehem Doctrine is the formal policy position on assassination of Israel , the US and UK governments .
So that is lie one .
When Pompeo says Soleimani was planning “ imminent ” attacks , he is using the Bethlehem definition under which “ imminent ” is a “ concept ” which means neither “ soon ” nor “ definitely going to happen ” .
To twist a word that far from its normal English usage is to lie .
To do so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That is why , if I finish up in the bottom-most pit of hell , the worst thing about the experience will be the company of Daniel Bethlehem .
Let us now move on to the next lie , which is being widely repeated , this time originated by Donald Trump , that Soleimani was responsible for the “ deaths of hundreds , if not thousands , of Americans ” .
This lie has been parroted by everybody , Republicans and Democrats alike .
Really ?
Who were they ?
When and where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to kill somebody because they might be going to attack someone , sometime , but you don ’ t know who or when , there is a reasonable expectation that if you are claiming people have already been killed you should be able to say who and when .
The truth of the matter is that if you take every American killed including and since 9/11 , in the resultant Middle East related wars , conflicts and terrorist acts , well over 90 % of them have been killed by Sunni Muslims financed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its gulf satellites , and less than 10 % of those Americans have been killed by Shia Muslims tied to Iran .
This is a horribly inconvenient fact for US administrations which , regardless of party , are beholden to Saudi Arabia and its money .
It is , the USA affirms , the Sunnis who are the allies and the Shias who are the enemy .
Yet every journalist or aid worker hostage who has been horribly beheaded or otherwise executed has been murdered by a Sunni , every jihadist terrorist attack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , has been exclusively Sunni , the Benghazi attack was by Sunnis , Isil are Sunni , Al Nusra are Sunni , the Taliban are Sunni and the vast majority of US troops killed in the region are killed by Sunnis .
Precisely which are these hundreds of deaths for which the Shia forces of Soleimani were responsible ?
Is there a list ?
It is of course a simple lie .
Its tenuous connection with truth relates to the Pentagon ’ s estimate – suspiciously upped repeatedly since Iran became the designated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Iraq itself , 83 % of US troop deaths were at the hands of Sunni resistance and 17 % of of US troop deaths were at the hands of Shia resistance , that is 603 troops .
All the latter are now lain at the door of Soleimani , remarkably .
Those were US troops killed in combat during an invasion .
The Iraqi Shia militias – whether Iran backed or not – had every legal right to fight the US invasion .
The idea that the killing of invading American troops @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Plainly the US propaganda that Soleimani was “ responsible for hundreds of American deaths ” is intended , as part of the justification for his murder , to give the impression he was involved in terrorism , not legitimate combat against invading forces .
The idea that the US has the right to execute those who fight it when it invades is an absolutely stinking abnegation of the laws of war .
As I understand it , there is very little evidence that Soleimani had active operational command of Shia militias during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to credit him personally with every American soldier killed is plainly a nonsense .
But even if Soleimani had personally supervised every combat success , these were legitimate acts of war .
You can not simply assassinate opposing generals who fought you , years after you invade .
The final , and perhaps silliest lie , is Vice President Mike Pence ’ s attempt to link Soleimani to 9/11 .
There is absolutely no link between Soleimani and 9/11 , and the most strenuous efforts by the Bush regime to find evidence that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 9/11 ( and thus take the heat off their pals the al-Saud who were actually responsible ) failed .
Yes , it is true that some of the hijackers at one point transited Iran to Afghanistan .
But there is zero evidence , as the 9/11 report specifically stated , that the Iranians knew what they were planning , or that Soleimani personally was involved .
This is total bullshit .
9/11 was Sunni and Saudi led , nothing to do with Iran .
Soleimani actually was involved in intelligence and logistical cooperation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 9/11 ( the Taliban were his enemies too , the shia Tajiks being a key part of the US aligned Northern Alliance ) .
He was in Iraq to fight ISIL .
The final aggravating factor in the Soleimani murder is that he was an accredited combatant general of a foreign state which the world – including the USA – recognises .
The Bethlehem Doctrine specifically applies to “ non-state actors ” .
Unlike all of the foregoing , this next is speculation , but I suspect that the legal argument in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actor when in Iraq , where the Shia militias have a semi-official status .
But that does not wash. Soleimani is a high official in Iran who was present in Iraq as a guest of the Iraqi government , to which the US government is allied .
This greatly exacerbates the illegality of his assassination still further .
The political world in the UK is so cowed by the power of the neo-conservative Establishment and media , that the assassination of Soleimani is not being called out for the act of blatant illegality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ act of state terrorism by the USA , pure and simple .
Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative , the 77th Brigade , Bellingcat , the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations , this blog has no source of state , corporate or institutional finance whatsoever .
It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article , but welcome the alternative voice , insider information and debate .
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received @

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Via Craig Murray…
In one of the series of blatant lies the USA has told to justify the assassination of Soleimani, Mike Pompeo said that Soleimani was killed because he was planning “Imminent attacks” on US citizens. It is a careful choice of word. Pompeo is specifically referring to the Bethlehem Doctrine of Pre-Emptive Self Defence.
Developed by Daniel Bethlehem when Legal Adviser to first Netanyahu’s government and then Blair’s, the Bethlehem Doctrine is that states have a right of “pre-emptive self-defence” against “imminent” attack. That is something most people, and most international law experts and judges, would accept. Including me.
What very few people, and almost no international lawyers, accept is the key to the Bethlehem Doctrine – that here “Imminent” – the word used so carefully by Pompeo – does not need to have its normal meanings of either “soon” or “about to happen”. An attack may be deemed “imminent”, according to the Bethlehem Doctrine, even if you know no details of it or when it might occur. So you may be assassinated by a drone or bomb strike – and the doctrine was specifically developed to justify such strikes – because of “intelligence” you are engaged in a plot, when that intelligence neither says what the plot is nor when it might occur. Or even more tenuous, because there is intelligence you have engaged in a plot before, so it is reasonable to kill you in case you do so again.
I am not inventing the Bethlehem Doctrine. It has been the formal legal justification for drone strikes and targeted assassinations by the Israeli, US and UK governments for a decade. Here it is in academic paper form, published by Bethlehem after he left government service (the form in which it is adopted by the US, UK and Israeli Governments is classified information).
So when Pompeo says attacks by Soleimani were “imminent” he is not using the word in the normal sense in the English language. It is no use asking him what, where or when these “imminent” attacks were planned to be. He is referencing the Bethlehem Doctrine under which you can kill people on the basis of a feeling that they may have been about to do something.
The idea that killing an individual who you have received information is going to attack you, but you do not know when, where or how, can be justified as self-defence, has not gained widespread acceptance – or indeed virtually any acceptance – in legal circles outside the ranks of the most extreme devoted neo-conservatives and zionists. Daniel Bethlehem became the FCO’s Chief Legal Adviser, brought in by Jack Straw, precisely because every single one of the FCO’s existing Legal Advisers believed the Iraq War to be illegal. In 2004, when the House of Commons was considering the legality of the war on Iraq, Bethlehem produced a remarkable paper for consideration which said that it was legal because the courts and existing law were wrong, a defence which has seldom succeeded in court.
(b)
following this line, I am also of the view that the wider principles of the law on self-defence also require closer scrutiny. I am not persuaded that the approach of doctrinal purity reflected in the Judgments of the International Court of Justice in this area provide a helpful edifice on which a coherent legal regime, able to address the exigencies of contemporary international life and discourage resort to unilateral action, is easily crafted;
The key was that the concept of “imminent” was to change:
The concept of what constitutes an “imminent” armed attack will develop to meet new circumstances and new threats
In the absence of a respectable international lawyer willing to argue this kind of tosh, Blair brought in Bethlehem as Chief Legal Adviser, the man who advised Netanyahu on Israel’s security wall and who was willing to say that attacking Iraq was legal on the basis of Saddam’s “imminent threat” to the UK, which proved to be non-existent. It says everything about Bethlehem’s eagerness for killing that the formulation of the Bethlehem Doctrine on extrajudicial execution by drone came after the Iraq War, and he still gave not one second’s thought to the fact that the intelligence on the “imminent threat” can be wrong. Assassinating people on the basis of faulty intelligence is not addressed by Bethlehem in setting out his doctrine. The bloodlust is strong in this one.
There are literally scores of academic articles, in every respected journal of international law, taking down the Bethlehem Doctrine for its obvious absurdities and revolting special pleading. My favourite is this one by Bethlehem’s predecessor as the FCO Chief Legal Adviser, Sir Michael Wood and his ex-Deputy Elizabeth Wilmshurst.
I addressed the Bethlehem Doctrine as part of my contribution to a book reflecting on Chomsky‘s essay “On the Responsibility of Intellectuals”
In the UK recently, the Attorney
General gave a speech in defence of the UK’s drone policy, the assassination
of people – including British nationals – abroad. This execution
without a hearing is based on several criteria, he reassured us. His
speech was repeated slavishly in the British media. In fact, the Guardian
newspaper simply republished the government press release absolutely
verbatim, and stuck a reporter’s byline at the top.
The media have no interest in a critical appraisal of the process
by which the British government regularly executes without trial. Yet
in fact it is extremely interesting. The genesis of the policy lay in the
appointment of Daniel Bethlehem as the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office’s Chief Legal Adviser. Jack Straw made the appointment, and for
the first time ever it was external, and not from the Foreign Office’s own
large team of world-renowned international lawyers. The reason for that
is not in dispute. Every single one of the FCO’s legal advisers had advised
that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, and Straw wished to find a new head
of the department more in tune with the neo-conservative world view.
Straw went to extremes. He appointed Daniel Bethlehem, the legal
‘expert’ who provided the legal advice to Benjamin Netanyahu on the
‘legality’ of building the great wall hemming in the Palestinians away
from their land and water resources. Bethlehem was an enthusiastic
proponent of the invasion of Iraq. He was also the most enthusiastic
proponent in the world of drone strikes.
Bethlehem provided an opinion on the legality of drone strikes
which is, to say the least, controversial. To give one example, Bethlehem
accepts that established principles of international law dictate that
lethal force may be used only to prevent an attack which is ‘imminent’.
Bethlehem argues that for an attack to be ‘imminent’ does not require it
to be ‘soon’. Indeed you can kill to avert an ‘imminent attack’ even if you
have no information on when and where it will be. You can instead rely
on your target’s ‘pattern of behaviour’; that is, if he has attacked before,
it is reasonable to assume he will attack again and that such an attack is
‘imminent’.
There is a much deeper problem: that the evidence against the
target is often extremely dubious. Yet even allowing the evidence to
be perfect, it is beyond me that the state can kill in such circumstances
without it being considered a death penalty imposed without trial for
past crimes, rather than to frustrate another ‘imminent’ one.
You would think that background would make an interesting
story. Yet the entire ‘serious’ British media published the government
line, without a single journalist, not one, writing about the fact that
Bethlehem’s proposed definition of ‘imminent’ has been widely rejected
by the international law community. The public knows none of this. They
just ‘know’ that drone strikes are keeping us safe from deadly attack by
terrorists, because the government says so, and nobody has attempted to
give them other information
Remember, this is not just academic argument, the Bethlehem Doctrine is the formal policy position on assassination of Israel, the US and UK governments. So that is lie one. When Pompeo says Soleimani was planning “imminent” attacks, he is using the Bethlehem definition under which “imminent” is a “concept” which means neither “soon” nor “definitely going to happen”. To twist a word that far from its normal English usage is to lie. To do so to justify killing people is obscene. That is why, if I finish up in the bottom-most pit of hell, the worst thing about the experience will be the company of Daniel Bethlehem.
Let us now move on to the next lie, which is being widely repeated, this time originated by Donald Trump, that Soleimani was responsible for the “deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans”. This lie has been parroted by everybody, Republicans and Democrats alike.
Really? Who were they? When and where? While the Bethlehem Doctrine allows you to kill somebody because they might be going to attack someone, sometime, but you don’t know who or when, there is a reasonable expectation that if you are claiming people have already been killed you should be able to say who and when.
The truth of the matter is that if you take every American killed including and since 9/11, in the resultant Middle East related wars, conflicts and terrorist acts, well over 90% of them have been killed by Sunni Muslims financed and supported out of Saudi Arabia and its gulf satellites, and less than 10% of those Americans have been killed by Shia Muslims tied to Iran.
This is a horribly inconvenient fact for US administrations which, regardless of party, are beholden to Saudi Arabia and its money. It is, the USA affirms, the Sunnis who are the allies and the Shias who are the enemy. Yet every journalist or aid worker hostage who has been horribly beheaded or otherwise executed has been murdered by a Sunni, every jihadist terrorist attack in the USA itself, including 9/11, has been exclusively Sunni, the Benghazi attack was by Sunnis, Isil are Sunni, Al Nusra are Sunni, the Taliban are Sunni and the vast majority of US troops killed in the region are killed by Sunnis.
Precisely which are these hundreds of deaths for which the Shia forces of Soleimani were responsible? Is there a list? It is of course a simple lie. Its tenuous connection with truth relates to the Pentagon’s estimate – suspiciously upped repeatedly since Iran became the designated enemy – that back during the invasion of Iraq itself, 83% of US troop deaths were at the hands of Sunni resistance and 17% of of US troop deaths were at the hands of Shia resistance, that is 603 troops. All the latter are now lain at the door of Soleimani, remarkably.
Those were US troops killed in combat during an invasion. The Iraqi Shia militias – whether Iran backed or not – had every legal right to fight the US invasion. The idea that the killing of invading American troops was somehow illegal or illegitimate is risible. Plainly the US propaganda that Soleimani was “responsible for hundreds of American deaths” is intended, as part of the justification for his murder, to give the impression he was involved in terrorism, not legitimate combat against invading forces. The idea that the US has the right to execute those who fight it when it invades is an absolutely stinking abnegation of the laws of war.
As I understand it, there is very little evidence that Soleimani had active operational command of Shia militias during the invasion, and in any case to credit him personally with every American soldier killed is plainly a nonsense. But even if Soleimani had personally supervised every combat success, these were legitimate acts of war. You cannot simply assassinate opposing generals who fought you, years after you invade.
The final, and perhaps silliest lie, is Vice President Mike Pence’s attempt to link Soleimani to 9/11. There is absolutely no link between Soleimani and 9/11, and the most strenuous efforts by the Bush regime to find evidence that would link either Iran or Iraq to 9/11 (and thus take the heat off their pals the al-Saud who were actually responsible) failed. Yes, it is true that some of the hijackers at one point transited Iran to Afghanistan. But there is zero evidence, as the 9/11 report specifically stated, that the Iranians knew what they were planning, or that Soleimani personally was involved. This is total bullshit. 9/11 was Sunni and Saudi led, nothing to do with Iran.
Soleimani actually was involved in intelligence and logistical cooperation with the United States in Afghanistan post 9/11 (the Taliban were his enemies too, the shia Tajiks being a key part of the US aligned Northern Alliance). He was in Iraq to fight ISIL.
The final aggravating factor in the Soleimani murder is that he was an accredited combatant general of a foreign state which the world – including the USA – recognises. The Bethlehem Doctrine specifically applies to “non-state actors”. Unlike all of the foregoing, this next is speculation, but I suspect that the legal argument in the Pentagon ran that Soleimani is a non-state actor when in Iraq, where the Shia militias have a semi-official status.
But that does not wash. Soleimani is a high official in Iran who was present in Iraq as a guest of the Iraqi government, to which the US government is allied. This greatly exacerbates the illegality of his assassination still further.
The political world in the UK is so cowed by the power of the neo-conservative Establishment and media, that the assassination of Soleimani is not being called out for the act of blatant illegality that it is. It was an act of state terrorism by the USA, pure and simple.
——————————————
Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-01-05--Who the Winners Are from America’s Destruction of Iraq and War Against Iran

Americans are unfortunately severely reluctant to disbelieve the lies that normally spew forth from the U.S. Government about foreign countries and especially about foreign countries that it invades or wants to invade .
Consider , for examples , the lies that were told against Iraq when Saddam Hussein ruled it , or about Libya when Muammar Gaddafi ruled it , or about Iran right now .
But Americans widely believe their Government ’ s lies , nonetheless .
On Friday , January 3rd , the Republican Fox ‘ News ’ channel headlined “ Rose McGowan , John Cusack bash killing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ” , and reported the two actors ’ opposition to the Republican U.S. President Trump ’ s violation of Iraqi sovereignty that day , and to his assassination at the Bagdad airport of Iran ’ s # 2 leader , General Qasem Solemani , as well as Trump ’ s murders there of some Iraqis , and of some other Iranians .
To judge from the “ Best ” ( most-liked ) reader-comments at that ‘ news ’ -report , Trump will have at least that Republican audience behind him regarding this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did there could spark World War III , and though the beneficiaries of his Republican predecessor George W. Bush ’ s 20 March 2003 invasion of Iraq haven ’ t been ordinary people such as those thousands of Republican commenters are , but instead have been , and are , billionaires from around the world who invested in the privatization of Iraq ’ s oil , which resulted from that invasion .
For a far-right audience such as that — people who can not distinguish between nationalism and patriotism , and who know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Rose [ McGowan ] , you do realize that in Iran , if you had worn that dress made of nothing but chains , you would have been stoned to death ?
Congratulations on being the new Jane Fonda.
” That person , “ JanWub1 , ” didn ’ t think , at all , about the U.S. Government ’ s lies that had persuaded the American public to boost their approval of George W. Bush from 57 % immediately before the invasion to 71 % immediately after his lie-based international war-crime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and everyone who clicked “ Like ” on it had obviously learned nothing from that historical example , nor did the individual commenter even so much as just mention the possibility of Trump ’ s having sparked WW III on that occasion , but instead “ JanWub1 ” personalized the issue to that commenter ’ s contempt and hatred of an actress who had opposed that 2003 international war-crime against Iraq by the USA , and transferred that hatred against her onto the present two thespians , who oppose this President ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how do we know who actually benefitted from that international war-crime — the invasion and military occupation of Iraq ?
Back on 15 April 2013 , a rare entirely honest CNN news-report about Iraq was published online , from the independent journalist Antonia Juhasz , who headlined “ Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil ” .
She wrote that : In 2000 , Big Oil , including Exxon , Chevron , BP and Shell , spent more money to get fellow oilmen Bush and Cheney into office than they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Just over a week into Bush ’ s first term , their efforts paid off when the National Energy Policy Development Group , chaired by Cheney , was formed , bringing the administration and the oil companies together to plot our collective energy future .
In March , the task force reviewed lists and maps outlining Iraq ’ s entire oil productive capacity .
Planning for a military invasion was soon under way .
Bush ’ s first Treasury secretary , Paul O ’ Neill , said in 2004 , “ Already by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was mostly about logistics .
Not the why ( to invade Iraq ) , but the how and how quickly.
” In its final report in May 2001 ( PDF ) , the task force argued that Middle Eastern countries should be urged “ to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment.
” This is precisely what has been achieved in Iraq .
… Juhasz made clear that all of the bombs and the corpses were done for investors in large international oil companies — not only for U.S. companies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investors from all countries .
Apparently , George W. Bush was a libertarian , who believed in the gospel of economic competition as being what the world needs more of — and not just more of American oil .
She noted : The new contracts lack the security a new legal structure would grant , and Iraqi lawmakers have argued that they run contrary to existing law , which requires government control , operation and ownership of Iraq ’ s oil sector .
But the contracts do achieve the key goal of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ privatizing the Iraqi oil sector and opening it to private foreign companies .
They also provide exceptionally long contract terms and high ownership stakes and eliminate requirements that Iraq ’ s oil stay in Iraq , that companies invest earnings in the local economy , or hire a majority of local workers .
Iraq ’ s oil production has increased by more than 40 % in the past five years to 3 million barrels of oil a day ( still below the 1979 high of 3.5 million set by Iraq ’ s state-owned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % of this is being exported out of the country .
… The oil and gas sectors today account directly for less than 2 % of total employment , as foreign companies rely instead on imported labor .
In just the last few weeks , more than 1,000 people have protested at ExxonMobil and Russia Lukoil ’ s super-giant West Qurna oil field , demanding jobs and payment for private land that has been lost or damaged by oil operations .
The Iraqi military was called in to respond .
The Iraqi government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and for foreign oil workers .
The profits , and the jobs , go abroad .
The destruction of Iraq was done for those oil companies — it was done for the investors who own them .
Saddam Hussein was killed for refusing to cooperate with this type of plan for his country .
On 1 January 2020 , 24 international oil giants were extracting and selling Iraq ’ s oil , and only ExxonMobil was American-based .
Five years earlier , back on 20 March 2015 , 28 were , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ExxonMobil , Heritage , Hunt , Marathon , and Occidental .
Perhaps Iraq ’ s Government , during the past five years , has been increasingly trying to free itself from the grip of the U.S. regime , and maybe that ’ s the reason why five of the six U.S. firms that were in Iraq in 2015 have left .
Also on January 1st of 2020 , Abbas Kadhim , of the nonprofit NATO public relations arm the Atlantic Council , headlined “ New low in US-Iraq relations : What ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he opened by saying that , “ In early 2019 , I predicted that US forces would remain in Iraq this past year despite calls in parliament to pass a law mandating their withdrawal .
My prediction was right .
My prediction for 2020 is that no US forces will remain in Iraq by the end of the year .
As someone who firmly believes in the importance of robust US-Iraq ties and works hard to help both sides improve and strengthen the relationship , I am saddened at this recent deterioration and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump had tweeted just the day before , on December 31st , “ Iran killed an American contractor , wounding many .
We strongly responded , and always will .
Now Iran is orchestrating an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Iraq .
They will be held fully responsible .
In addition , we expect Iraq to use its forces to protect the Embassy , and so notified !
” Later on , that day , he tweeted , “ Iran will be held fully responsible for lives lost , or damage incurred @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They will pay a very BIG PRICE !
This is not a Warning , it is a Threat.
” Whether or not Iran had had anything to do with the attacks which had precipitated Trump ’ s “ Threat ” against Iran isn ’ t known , any more than it was known , when we invaded Iraq on 20 March 2003 , whether or not there were any WMDs in Iraq after the U.N. had destroyed all of them in 1998 .
Everything that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and Condoleezza @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that were lies , which the U.S. ‘ news ’ -media refused to expose as being lies from the Government .
Donald Trump is just as much a liar as they were , and as Barack Obama was ; so , when Trump followed through on his “ Threat ” against Iran , inside Iraq , on January 3rd , one can ’ t reasonably assume that it would be any more justifiable than our invasion of Iraq was , or than our conquest of Ukraine by means of a bloody coup in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the destruction of Libya in 2011 was , or than our destruction of Syria is , or than our assistance to the Sauds ’ destruction of Yemen is , or than our destruction of Bolivia for its lithium is .
All of that has been simply fascism , American-style .
America ’ s Republicans apparently like it , but perhaps America ’ s Democrats won ’ t like it in this instance ( since its from a Republican ) , and maybe even the independents won ’ t .
( However , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ non-mainstream , independent libertarian news-site , are unconcerned with the sheer psychopathy and enormous danger of Trump ’ s murders in Iraq on January 3rd , and are concerned almost only with whether or not what he did will be of benefit to Americans ; so , perhaps independents will turn out to be largely favorable toward what Trump did here .
Also : viewer-comments at a January 3rd youtube “ Pakistan : Soleimani killing sparks outrage among Shia community ” were rabidly hostile against the demonstrators , like a typical comment there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” is .
This is today ’ s supremacist America .
It ’ s not just the Republican Trump ’ s “ Make America Great Again ” ; it is also the Democrat Obama ’ s “ The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation.
” Pakistan , Iran , Iraq , etc .
— all other nations than the U.S. — are “ dispensable , ” according to Americans in both Parties .
Hello , Hitler , here ? )
Trump has started off the U.S. Presidential s ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bang , and he ’ s well-supported by America ’ s Republican billionaires , but it ’ s still doubtful whether he will get anything like the 14 % boost in approval-rating that Bush did by raping Iraq for global oil-investors , on 20 March 2003 .
Time will quickly tell .
However , already on January 3rd , the leader of Democrats in the U.S. Senate , Charles Schumer , said on the Senate floor , that “ No one should shed a tear over his [ Soleimani ’ s ] death.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ had not received “ any advance notification or consultation ” about the assassination and murders . )
Some of the Democratic Presidential candidates have refused to condemn Trump ’ s action .
Everyone will be looking at the polling-numbers .
And those will reflect the result of what America ’ s billionaires ’ ( or “ the mainstream ” ) ‘ news ’ -media present about this matter , to their respective publics .
It is conceivable that Trump could achieve bipartisan support for entirely needlessly starting WW III .
This could be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are .
Later in the day of January 3rd , Reuters headlined a news-report that , if true , is historically significant about all of this matter , “ Inside the plot by Iran ’ s Soleimani to attack U.S. forces in Iraq ” .
Written by “ Reuters staff , ” it opened : In mid-October , Iranian Major-General Qassem Soleimani met with his Iraqi Shi ’ ite militia allies at a villa on the banks of the Tigris River , looking across at the U.S. embassy complex in Baghdad .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Iraq , Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis , and other powerful militia leaders to step up attacks on U.S. targets in the country using sophisticated new weapons provided by Iran , two militia commanders and two security sources briefed on the gathering told Reuters .
The strategy session , which has not been previously reported , came as mass protests against Iran ’ s growing influence in Iraq were gaining momentum , putting the Islamic Republic in an unwelcome spotlight .
Soleimani ’ s plans to attack U.S. forces aimed to provoke a military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toward the United States , according to the sources briefed on the gathering , Iraqi Shi ’ ite politicians and government officials close to Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi .
Soleimani ’ s efforts ended up provoking the U.S. attack on Friday that killed him and Muhandis , marking a major escalation of tensions between the United States and Iran .
… Obviously , if that report is true , then Trump had cause to do on January 3rd what he did .
Even his having not given anyone in Congress advance-notice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this action ’ s being an emergency opportunity and in accord with his Commander-in-Chief powers to do in order to protect the Embassy .
It wouldn ’ t justify the psychopathically pro-U.S.-regime reader-comments earlier that day on January 3rd about what Trump had done , because all of recent American history is full of lies by the U.S. Government in order to ‘ justify ’ its invasions against countries that neither threatened nor perpetrated invasion of the United States .
However , if that Reuters report is true , then what Trump had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an authentic U.S. national-security matter , in response to what Soleimani and his colleagues were doing .
This isn ’ t necessarily to say that what Soleimani and his colleagues were doing there would have been unjustified .
The United States , ever since its 1953 coup against Iran , has been an oppressive foreign power — Iran ’ s enemy — and the U.S. , since at least its 2003 invasion against Iraq , is also Iraq ’ s enemy .
Neither Iran nor Iraq ever endangered the national security of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have instead been by the United States .
However , if this Reuters report is true , then the appropriate response by the Governments of U.S. , Iraq , and Iran , would be as follows : Trump would announce that he is herewith cancelling sanctions against Iran and restoring U.S. participation in the Iran nuclear agreement , the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action , which in 2015 was signed by China , France , Russia , United Kingdom , United States , Germany , and then the entire European Union .
Iran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to discuss with all of the signatories to that agreement , if a majority of them wish to do so , international negotiations regarding possible changes ( amendments ) to be made to that agreement .
The United States would then offer , separately , and on a strictly bi-lateral U.S.-Iran basis , to negotiate with Iran a settlement to all outstanding issues between the two nations , so that they may proceed forward with normal diplomatic relations , on a peaceful instead of mutually hostile , foundation .
Trump also would announce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about a total withdrawal from Iraq and closure of the U.S. Embassy there , to be replaced by a far smaller U.S. Embassy .
Trump would initiate this as a package-deal confidentially offered by him to Khamenei — all steps of it — in advance of any carrying-out of the steps , and initiated by him soon enough to ward off any retaliatory action by Iran , so as to avoid further escalation of the hostilities , which otherwise would likely escalate to a widespread and possibly global war .
In other words @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should already have been sought by Trump .
( If the Reuters article is true , this should have been planned by him at the very moment he started seeking an opportunity to assassinate Soleimani . )
I do not expect Trump to do any of that , not even the first step , and not even the offer to Khamenei ; and Iran is in no position to make the first step , in any case ( since the U.S. had started the mutual hostilities between the two nations in 1953 ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Reuters article ) , if Trump does , at least make the offer and then do the first step ( ending sanctions ) , then I think that he will easily win re-election , regardless of whom the Democratic nominee will be .
If he can re-establish friendly relations with Iran , then that will be a diplomatic achievement of historic proportions , the best and most important in decades .
No one would then be able to deny it .
He would , in fact , then deserve to win the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deserved to win , though he did win it ) .
But I don ’ t expect any of that to happen , because it would be exactly contrary to the way that any recent U.S. President has behaved , and because many in power in the United States would be furious against him if he did do it .
Furthermore , the Reuters report might be a lie , like so many other U.S.-and-allied ‘ news ’ -reports are .
In any case , however : The answer to the headline-question “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Destruction of Iraq and War Against Iran ” is : the owners of U.S.-and-allied international oil and gas corporations .
They were served when the U.S. regime in 1953 overthrew Iran ’ s democratically elected progressive Government and installed the brutal Shah to end Iran ’ s democracy and to control the country , and when he then privatized the National Iranian Oil company and cut American-and-allied aristocrats in on the profits from sales of Iranian oil .
The founding members of that privatization in 1954 were British Petroleum ( 40 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( Shell now ) , French Compagnie Française des Pétroles ( CFP ) 6 % ( Total now ) , Gulf Oil 8 % ( Now Chevron ) , and the four American partners of Aramco 32 % ( 8 % each ) .
And they were served , yet again , when George W. Bush did the same to Iraq by means of an outright invasion ( instead of like Eisenhower ’ s 1953 method , coup ) in 2003 .
America ’ s international oil ( and other international extractions ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s ‘ defense ’ contractors — need to be nationalized , so that these ceaseless “ regime-change wars ” by the U.S. regime will be able to cease .
Otherwise , the world will self-destruct by war , if not subsequently by global burnout ( which is likely only over a much longer time-frame ) .
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author , most recently , of They ’ re Not Even Close : The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records , 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST ’ S VENTRILOQUISTS : The Event @ @ @ @

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Eric Zuesse
Americans are unfortunately severely reluctant to disbelieve the lies that normally spew forth from the U.S. Government about foreign countries and especially about foreign countries that it invades or wants to invade. Consider, for examples, the lies that were told against Iraq when Saddam Hussein ruled it, or about Libya when Muammar Gaddafi ruled it, or about Iran right now. But Americans widely believe their Government’s lies, nonetheless.
On Friday, January 3rd, the Republican Fox ‘News’ channel headlined “Rose McGowan, John Cusack bash killing of Iran’s Soleimani, slam Trump”, and reported the two actors’ opposition to the Republican U.S. President Trump’s violation of Iraqi sovereignty that day, and to his assassination at the Bagdad airport of Iran’s #2 leader, General Qasem Solemani, as well as Trump’s murders there of some Iraqis, and of some other Iranians.
To judge from the “Best” (most-liked) reader-comments at that ‘news’-report, Trump will have at least that Republican audience behind him regarding this action by him, though what he did there could spark World War III, and though the beneficiaries of his Republican predecessor George W. Bush’s 20 March 2003 invasion of Iraq haven’t been ordinary people such as those thousands of Republican commenters are, but instead have been, and are, billionaires from around the world who invested in the privatization of Iraq’s oil, which resulted from that invasion. For a far-right audience such as that — people who cannot distinguish between nationalism and patriotism, and who know only nationalism — the most-liked comment was “Rose [McGowan], you do realize that in Iran, if you had worn that dress made of nothing but chains, you would have been stoned to death? Congratulations on being the new Jane Fonda.” That person, “JanWub1,” didn’t think, at all, about the U.S. Government’s lies that had persuaded the American public to boost their approval of George W. Bush from 57% immediately before the invasion to 71% immediately after his lie-based international war-crime in invading Iraq, and that person and everyone who clicked “Like” on it had obviously learned nothing from that historical example, nor did the individual commenter even so much as just mention the possibility of Trump’s having sparked WW III on that occasion, but instead “JanWub1” personalized the issue to that commenter’s contempt and hatred of an actress who had opposed that 2003 international war-crime against Iraq by the USA, and transferred that hatred against her onto the present two thespians, who oppose this President’s illegal invasion and murders.
So: how do we know who actually benefitted from that international war-crime — the invasion and military occupation of Iraq?
Back on 15 April 2013, a rare entirely honest CNN news-report about Iraq was published online, from the independent journalist Antonia Juhasz, who headlined “Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil”. She wrote that:
In 2000, Big Oil, including Exxon, Chevron, BP and Shell, spent more money to get fellow oilmen Bush and Cheney into office than they had spent on any previous election. Just over a week into Bush’s first term, their efforts paid off when the National Energy Policy Development Group, chaired by Cheney, was formed, bringing the administration and the oil companies together to plot our collective energy future. In March, the task force reviewed lists and maps outlining Iraq’s entire oil productive capacity.
Planning for a military invasion was soon under way. Bush’s first Treasury secretary, Paul O’Neill, said in 2004, “Already by February (2001), the talk was mostly about logistics. Not the why (to invade Iraq), but the how and how quickly.”
In its final report in May 2001 (PDF), the task force argued that Middle Eastern countries should be urged “to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment.” This is precisely what has been achieved in Iraq. …
Juhasz made clear that all of the bombs and the corpses were done for investors in large international oil companies — not only for U.S. companies, but for the benefit of mega-oil investors from all countries. Apparently, George W. Bush was a libertarian, who believed in the gospel of economic competition as being what the world needs more of — and not just more of American oil. She noted:
The new contracts lack the security a new legal structure would grant, and Iraqi lawmakers have argued that they run contrary to existing law, which requires government control, operation and ownership of Iraq’s oil sector.
But the contracts do achieve the key goal of the Cheney energy task force: all but privatizing the Iraqi oil sector and opening it to private foreign companies.
They also provide exceptionally long contract terms and high ownership stakes and eliminate requirements that Iraq’s oil stay in Iraq, that companies invest earnings in the local economy, or hire a majority of local workers.
Iraq’s oil production has increased by more than 40% in the past five years to 3 million barrels of oil a day (still below the 1979 high of 3.5 million set by Iraq’s state-owned companies), but a full 80% of this is being exported out of the country. …
The oil and gas sectors today account directly for less than 2% of total employment, as foreign companies rely instead on imported labor.
In just the last few weeks, more than 1,000 people have protested at ExxonMobil and Russia Lukoil’s super-giant West Qurna oil field, demanding jobs and payment for private land that has been lost or damaged by oil operations. The Iraqi military was called in to respond.
The Iraqi government serve as gendarmes for foreign oil companies, and for foreign oil workers. The profits, and the jobs, go abroad. The destruction of Iraq was done for those oil companies — it was done for the investors who own them.
Saddam Hussein was killed for refusing to cooperate with this type of plan for his country.
On 1 January 2020, 24 international oil giants were extracting and selling Iraq’s oil, and only ExxonMobil was American-based. Five years earlier, back on 20 March 2015, 28 were, and 6 of them were American: Chevron, ExxonMobil, Heritage, Hunt, Marathon, and Occidental. Perhaps Iraq’s Government, during the past five years, has been increasingly trying to free itself from the grip of the U.S. regime, and maybe that’s the reason why five of the six U.S. firms that were in Iraq in 2015 have left.
Also on January 1st of 2020, Abbas Kadhim, of the nonprofit NATO public relations arm the Atlantic Council, headlined “New low in US-Iraq relations: What’s next for 2020”, and he opened by saying that, “In early 2019, I predicted that US forces would remain in Iraq this past year despite calls in parliament to pass a law mandating their withdrawal. My prediction was right. My prediction for 2020 is that no US forces will remain in Iraq by the end of the year. As someone who firmly believes in the importance of robust US-Iraq ties and works hard to help both sides improve and strengthen the relationship, I am saddened at this recent deterioration and am concerned about the future.”
Donald Trump had tweeted just the day before, on December 31st, “Iran killed an American contractor, wounding many. We strongly responded, and always will. Now Iran is orchestrating an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Iraq. They will be held fully responsible. In addition, we expect Iraq to use its forces to protect the Embassy, and so notified!”
Later on, that day, he tweeted, “Iran will be held fully responsible for lives lost, or damage incurred, at any of our facilities. They will pay a very BIG PRICE! This is not a Warning, it is a Threat.”
Whether or not Iran had had anything to do with the attacks which had precipitated Trump’s “Threat” against Iran isn’t known, any more than it was known, when we invaded Iraq on 20 March 2003, whether or not there were any WMDs in Iraq after the U.N. had destroyed all of them in 1998. Everything that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice, etc., had said about that were lies, which the U.S. ‘news’-media refused to expose as being lies from the Government. Donald Trump is just as much a liar as they were, and as Barack Obama was; so, when Trump followed through on his “Threat” against Iran, inside Iraq, on January 3rd, one can’t reasonably assume that it would be any more justifiable than our invasion of Iraq was, or than our conquest of Ukraine by means of a bloody coup in 2014 was, or than our participation in the destruction of Libya in 2011 was, or than our destruction of Syria is, or than our assistance to the Sauds’ destruction of Yemen is, or than our destruction of Bolivia for its lithium is.
All of that has been simply fascism, American-style. America’s Republicans apparently like it, but perhaps America’s Democrats won’t like it in this instance (since it’s from a Republican), and maybe even the independents won’t. (However, the reader-comments at Zero Hedge, a non-mainstream, independent libertarian news-site, are unconcerned with the sheer psychopathy and enormous danger of Trump’s murders in Iraq on January 3rd, and are concerned almost only with whether or not what he did will be of benefit to Americans; so, perhaps independents will turn out to be largely favorable toward what Trump did here. Also: viewer-comments at a January 3rd youtube “Pakistan: Soleimani killing sparks outrage among Shia community” were rabidly hostile against the demonstrators, like a typical comment there, “feel American power, infidels,” is. This is today’s supremacist America. It’s not just the Republican Trump’s “Make America Great Again”; it is also the Democrat Obama’s “The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation.” Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, etc. — all other nations than the U.S. — are “dispensable,” according to Americans in both Parties. Hello, Hitler, here?)
Trump has started off the U.S. Presidential s‘election’ year of 2020 with a bang, and he’s well-supported by America’s Republican billionaires, but it’s still doubtful whether he will get anything like the 14% boost in approval-rating that Bush did by raping Iraq for global oil-investors, on 20 March 2003. Time will quickly tell. However, already on January 3rd, the leader of Democrats in the U.S. Senate, Charles Schumer, said on the Senate floor, that “No one should shed a tear over his [Soleimani’s] death.” (Schumer objected only that he had not received “any advance notification or consultation” about the assassination and murders.) Some of the Democratic Presidential candidates have refused to condemn Trump’s action. Everyone will be looking at the polling-numbers. And those will reflect the result of what America’s billionaires’ (or “the mainstream”) ‘news’-media present about this matter, to their respective publics. It is conceivable that Trump could achieve bipartisan support for entirely needlessly starting WW III. This could be the way that today’s Americans are.
Later in the day of January 3rd, Reuters headlined a news-report that, if true, is historically significant about all of this matter, “Inside the plot by Iran’s Soleimani to attack U.S. forces in Iraq”. Written by “Reuters staff,” it opened:
In mid-October, Iranian Major-General Qassem Soleimani met with his Iraqi Shi’ite militia allies at a villa on the banks of the Tigris River, looking across at the U.S. embassy complex in Baghdad.
The Revolutionary Guards commander instructed his top ally in Iraq, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and other powerful militia leaders to step up attacks on U.S. targets in the country using sophisticated new weapons provided by Iran, two militia commanders and two security sources briefed on the gathering told Reuters.
The strategy session, which has not been previously reported, came as mass protests against Iran’s growing influence in Iraq were gaining momentum, putting the Islamic Republic in an unwelcome spotlight. Soleimani’s plans to attack U.S. forces aimed to provoke a military response that would redirect that rising anger toward the United States, according to the sources briefed on the gathering, Iraqi Shi’ite politicians and government officials close to Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi.
Soleimani’s efforts ended up provoking the U.S. attack on Friday that killed him and Muhandis, marking a major escalation of tensions between the United States and Iran. …
Obviously, if that report is true, then Trump had cause to do on January 3rd what he did. Even his having not given anyone in Congress advance-notice about it would have been justifiable as this action’s being an emergency opportunity and in accord with his Commander-in-Chief powers to do in order to protect the Embassy. It wouldn’t justify the psychopathically pro-U.S.-regime reader-comments earlier that day on January 3rd about what Trump had done, because all of recent American history is full of lies by the U.S. Government in order to ‘justify’ its invasions against countries that neither threatened nor perpetrated invasion of the United States. However, if that Reuters report is true, then what Trump had done on January 3rd was done as an authentic U.S. national-security matter, in response to what Soleimani and his colleagues were doing. This isn’t necessarily to say that what Soleimani and his colleagues were doing there would have been unjustified. The United States, ever since its 1953 coup against Iran, has been an oppressive foreign power — Iran’s enemy — and the U.S., since at least its 2003 invasion against Iraq, is also Iraq’s enemy. Neither Iran nor Iraq ever endangered the national security of the United States. All of the aggressions have instead been by the United States. However, if this Reuters report is true, then the appropriate response by the Governments of U.S., Iraq, and Iran, would be as follows:
Trump would announce that he is herewith cancelling sanctions against Iran and restoring U.S. participation in the Iran nuclear agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which in 2015 was signed by China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States, Germany, and then the entire European Union. Iran would then announce that it is willing to discuss with all of the signatories to that agreement, if a majority of them wish to do so, international negotiations regarding possible changes (amendments) to be made to that agreement. The United States would then offer, separately, and on a strictly bi-lateral U.S.-Iran basis, to negotiate with Iran a settlement to all outstanding issues between the two nations, so that they may proceed forward with normal diplomatic relations, on a peaceful instead of mutually hostile, foundation.
Trump also would announce that he is seeking negotiations with Iraq about a total withdrawal from Iraq and closure of the U.S. Embassy there, to be replaced by a far smaller U.S. Embassy.
Trump would initiate this as a package-deal confidentially offered by him to Khamenei — all steps of it — in advance of any carrying-out of the steps, and initiated by him soon enough to ward off any retaliatory action by Iran, so as to avoid further escalation of the hostilities, which otherwise would likely escalate to a widespread and possibly global war. In other words, this direct communication between the two should already have been sought by Trump. (If the Reuters article is true, this should have been planned by him at the very moment he started seeking an opportunity to assassinate Soleimani.)
I do not expect Trump to do any of that, not even the first step, and not even the offer to Khamenei; and Iran is in no position to make the first step, in any case (since the U.S. had started the mutual hostilities between the two nations in 1953). However (assuming the gtruthfulness of the Reuters article), if Trump does, at least make the offer and then do the first step (ending sanctions), then I think that he will easily win re-election, regardless of whom the Democratic nominee will be. If he can re-establish friendly relations with Iran, then that will be a diplomatic achievement of historic proportions, the best and most important in decades. No one would then be able to deny it. He would, in fact, then deserve to win the Nobel Peace Prize (which Obama never deserved to win, though he did win it). But I don’t expect any of that to happen, because it would be exactly contrary to the way that any recent U.S. President has behaved, and because many in power in the United States would be furious against him if he did do it.
Furthermore, the Reuters report might be a lie, like so many other U.S.-and-allied ‘news’-reports are.
In any case, however: The answer to the headline-question “Who the Winners Are from America’s Destruction of Iraq and War Against Iran” is: the owners of U.S.-and-allied international oil and gas corporations. They were served when the U.S. regime in 1953 overthrew Iran’s democratically elected progressive Government and installed the brutal Shah to end Iran’s democracy and to control the country, and when he then privatized the National Iranian Oil company and cut American-and-allied aristocrats in on the profits from sales of Iranian oil. The founding members of that privatization in 1954 were British Petroleum (40%), Royal Dutch Shell 14% (Shell now), French Compagnie Française des Pétroles (CFP) 6% (Total now), Gulf Oil 8% (Now Chevron), and the four American partners of Aramco 32% (8% each). And they were served, yet again, when George W. Bush did the same to Iraq by means of an outright invasion (instead of like Eisenhower’s 1953 method, coup) in 2003.
America’s international oil (and other international extractions) corporations — and not only America’s ‘defense’ contractors — need to be nationalized, so that these ceaseless “regime-change wars” by the U.S. regime will be able to cease. Otherwise, the world will self-destruct by war, if not subsequently by global burnout (which is likely only over a much longer time-frame).
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report