theduran--2020-01-14--Pelosi gets ZERO from Senate as impeachment holdout ends (Video)

The Duran ’ s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss Nancy Pelosi ’ s failed attempt to extract concessions from the US Senate as her impeachment holdout appears to be coming to an end .
Subscribe to The Duran on YouTube – Find us on BitChute .
The Duran Audio Podcast : Follow on Soundcloud – Subscribe on iTunes .
“ Pelosi caves , ” by Byron York , via The Washington Examiner… More than three weeks after the House passed articles of impeachment against President Trump , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has decided to start the process of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate for trial .
In a letter to colleagues Friday , Pelosi did not say precisely when that will happen , but it appears it will be sometime next week .
The speaker got nothing in return for her decision to end the holdout .
Back on Dec. 18 , the night the House impeached the president , Pelosi said she would not send the articles until she received some assurance that the Senate trial would be “ fair.
” “ We can not name managers until we see the process on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ So far , we have not seen anything that looks fair to us , so , hopefully , it will be fair , and when we see what that is , we ’ ll send our managers.
” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell repeatedly told Pelosi that she would have no say in the structure of the Senate trial .
“ There will be no haggling with the House over Senate procedure , ” McConnell tweeted Wednesday .
“ We will not cede our authority to try this impeachment .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McConnell has said Republicans have enough votes to begin the Senate trial along the lines of the 1999 impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton .
Under that plan , after both sides have presented their case and after the Senate has discussed the matter , lawmakers would then take up the question of whether or not to call witnesses .
Pelosi and Senate Democrats have demanded witnesses .
McConnell and many other Republicans would prefer none , but there is a small group of GOP senators whose votes could be decisive who want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But that will happen within the context of McConnell ’ s plan without any assurances to Pelosi .
For days , some leading Democrats have prepared the way for Pelosi ’ s surrender .
The speaker ’ s gambit “ has helped our case , ” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said on Wednesday .
Schumer listed two reasons he considered the Pelosi ploy a success .
“ One , Mitch McConnell couldn ’ t do what some thought he might want to do : right before Christmas or after Christmas , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ And , second , in the last two weeks , there ’ s been a cascade of evidence that bolsters the case , strongly bolsters the case , for witnesses and documents.
” Neither argument had much merit .
No matter what “ some thought , ” McConnell was not going to execute a maneuver to dismiss the impeachment during the holiday when no one was watching .
That was not going to happen .
Second , the “ cascade of evidence ” that Schumer referred to is mostly documents either leaked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ Freedom of Information Act requests .
The documents also came out before a Senate trial would have begun had Pelosi not withheld the articles .
So , the idea that she somehow caused that to happen seems implausible .
Still , the revelations gave Pelosi a thin reed on which to claim success .
“ While the House was able to obtain compelling evidence of impeachable conduct , which is enough for removal , new information has emerged , ” she wrote , explaining her reason to end the holdout .
Therefore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have asked Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler to be prepared to bring to the floor next week a resolution to appoint managers and transmit articles of impeachment to the Senate .
I will be consulting with you at our Tuesday House Democratic Caucus meeting on how we proceed further.
” So , next week , perhaps , impeachment will go forward .
Pelosi will have delayed things by a week or two .
Democrats will make the case they were going to make , and Republicans will make the case they were going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finally ran out of options and realized there was no political gain anymore , ” Rep. Doug Collins , the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee , said in a text exchange Friday .
“ The case never changed , and the outcome has not been altered , but it appears to have allowed them to talk more about it and try to influence public opinion away from the show in the House and the inevitable result in the Senate.
” Collins ’ s words hinted that Pelosi had other motives for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t get any say over the structure of the Senate trial .
No , the holdout was not responsible for the emergence of new evidence .
No , there is no assurance that the trial will be “ fair.
” But Pelosi did grab headlines .
And she may believe that she kept Republicans off balance and rattled the president .
Maybe she did , although she certainly did not rattle McConnell .
Of course , Pelosi could not have said any of that on Dec. 18 .
After so much talk about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about her prayerfulness , about the urgency of acting immediately to remove the president , after all that , Pelosi could not have said , “ We ’ re going to mess with Trump for a while .
See you next year.
” Now , the holdout is apparently coming to an end .
A trial will begin .
Pelosi will undoubtedly keep trying to mess with the president .
But the trial will be out of her hands .

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 Nancy Pelosi’s failed attempt to extract concessions from the US Senate as her impeachment holdout appears to be coming to an end.
Support Free Speech:
Subscribe to The Duran on YouTube – Find us on BitChute.
The Duran Audio Podcast:
Follow on Soundcloud – Subscribe on iTunes.
“Pelosi caves,” by Byron York, via The Washington Examiner…
More than three weeks after the House passed articles of impeachment against President Trump, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has decided to start the process of appointing managers and sending the articles to the Senate for trial. In a letter to colleagues Friday, Pelosi did not say precisely when that will happen, but it appears it will be sometime next week.
The speaker got nothing in return for her decision to end the holdout. Back on Dec. 18, the night the House impeached the president, Pelosi said she would not send the articles until she received some assurance that the Senate trial would be “fair.”
“We cannot name managers until we see the process on the Senate side,” Pelosi said. “So far, we have not seen anything that looks fair to us, so, hopefully, it will be fair, and when we see what that is, we’ll send our managers.”
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell repeatedly told Pelosi that she would have no say in the structure of the Senate trial. “There will be no haggling with the House over Senate procedure,” McConnell tweeted Wednesday. “We will not cede our authority to try this impeachment. The House Democrats’ turn is over.”
McConnell has said Republicans have enough votes to begin the Senate trial along the lines of the 1999 impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton. Under that plan, after both sides have presented their case and after the Senate has discussed the matter, lawmakers would then take up the question of whether or not to call witnesses.
Pelosi and Senate Democrats have demanded witnesses. McConnell and many other Republicans would prefer none, but there is a small group of GOP senators whose votes could be decisive who want to explore the possibility of calling witnesses. But that will happen within the context of McConnell’s plan without any assurances to Pelosi.
For days, some leading Democrats have prepared the way for Pelosi’s surrender. The speaker’s gambit “has helped our case,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said on Wednesday. Schumer listed two reasons he considered the Pelosi ploy a success.
“One, Mitch McConnell couldn’t do what some thought he might want to do: right before Christmas or after Christmas, just dismiss,” Schumer said. “And, second, in the last two weeks, there’s been a cascade of evidence that bolsters the case, strongly bolsters the case, for witnesses and documents.”
Neither argument had much merit. No matter what “some thought,” McConnell was not going to execute a maneuver to dismiss the impeachment during the holiday when no one was watching. That was not going to happen.
Second, the “cascade of evidence” that Schumer referred to is mostly documents either leaked or released in response to activist groups’ Freedom of Information Act requests. The documents also came out before a Senate trial would have begun had Pelosi not withheld the articles. So, the idea that she somehow caused that to happen seems implausible.
Still, the revelations gave Pelosi a thin reed on which to claim success. “While the House was able to obtain compelling evidence of impeachable conduct, which is enough for removal, new information has emerged,” she wrote, explaining her reason to end the holdout.
Therefore, Pelosi told colleagues, “I have asked Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler to be prepared to bring to the floor next week a resolution to appoint managers and transmit articles of impeachment to the Senate. I will be consulting with you at our Tuesday House Democratic Caucus meeting on how we proceed further.”
So, next week, perhaps, impeachment will go forward. Pelosi will have delayed things by a week or two. Democrats will make the case they were going to make, and Republicans will make the case they were going to make.
“I believe she finally ran out of options and realized there was no political gain anymore,” Rep. Doug Collins, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said in a text exchange Friday. “The case never changed, and the outcome has not been altered, but it appears to have allowed them to talk more about it and try to influence public opinion away from the show in the House and the inevitable result in the Senate.”
Collins’s words hinted that Pelosi had other motives for the holdout. No, she didn’t get any say over the structure of the Senate trial. No, the holdout was not responsible for the emergence of new evidence. No, there is no assurance that the trial will be “fair.” But Pelosi did grab headlines. And she may believe that she kept Republicans off balance and rattled the president. Maybe she did, although she certainly did not rattle McConnell.
Of course, Pelosi could not have said any of that on Dec. 18. After so much talk about the grave constitutional responsibility of impeachment, about her prayerfulness, about the urgency of acting immediately to remove the president, after all that, Pelosi could not have said, “We’re going to mess with Trump for a while. See you next year.”
Now, the holdout is apparently coming to an end. A trial will begin. Pelosi will undoubtedly keep trying to mess with the president. But the trial will be out of her hands.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-01-14--U.S. Media Says Russia the True Winner in Hostilities Against Iran

Submitted by InfoBrics , authored by Paul Antonopoulos , Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies… While the final outcome of the U.S.-Iran conflict is not yet clear , US media outlets and think tanks are already claiming that Russian President Putin is the winner .
The U.S.-Iran hostilities has undermined Washington ’ s confidence and reputation in the region , allowing Russian influence in the Middle East to increase as a force for peace and stability .
While it is unclear exactly how Moscow can benefit from escalations between Washington and Tehran , U.S. media are convinced that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kremlin ’ s plans to increase its political influence in the region and create a rift between Washington and its allies .
This simplistic explanation does not account the fact that Moscow has a clear foreign policy to achieve its geopolitical goals in the Middle East while Washington mostly depends on their own internal contradictions and events on the domestic political scene to guide their foreign policy .
The assassination of Iranian General Soleimani , made on orders from Trump , questions whether this was to demonstrate his power and determination to protect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ domestic criticisms , to serve Evangelical Christian interests on behalf of Israel , or part of a clear guided policy that the U.S. has for the Middle East .
The Democrats are trying to show the public that everything Trump does is contributing more to Russian interests rather than American .
It appears that the Democratic Party will continue with the same rhetoric to try and win this year ’ s election .
Moscow maintains good relations with all countries in the Middle East region and there is no country with which Russia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ successfully balances its relations between Saudi Arabia , Iran , Syria and Israel , while the U.S. attempts to divide the region into competing camps with no interest of defusing tensions , suggesting that even if Washington has a clearly defined Middle East policy , it is one based on division and destruction rather than one of balance and peace .
As a result of the assassination of General Soleimani , calls for U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq under pressure from local authorities have been made .
Without troops in Iraq , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ positions in Syria , which increases Russia ’ s manoeuvring space , strengthens its positions , influence , and opens space for filling the political vacuum .
The U.S. has become embroiled with so many Middle Eastern countries that it is now struggling to cope to withdraw .
Washington has already tried to withdraw its troops from Iraq during the Obama era .
But it is one thing to militarily withdraw on your own will and based on your decision , and another to withdraw because you have been asked too .
Although @ @ @ @ @ @ @ region and claims the Islamic Republic is acting in an aggressive manner , the Trump administration has not even hid away from the fact its an occupying force by flatly refusing to withdraw from Iraq despite being told to by the country ’ s parliament .
However it was the assassination of Soleimani that the most ridiculous claims were being made , with Bloomberg even suggesting that Putin needs a “ Plan B ” because the Iranian General ’ s death disrupted Russian plans for Syria , Iran and Turkey .
This scenario @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would elicit an even more aggressive response from the Iranian side , eventually leading to an escalation of the conflict in which Tehran lacked adequate defense capabilities .
This implies that Iran will lose the status of a regional power and Russia will have no choice but to betray Syria .
This option quickly disappeared from the media space as reality completely denied this possibility .
As for Putin ’ s victory , many cite the fact that many European leaders are increasingly turning to Russia as a reliable partner in face of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fair to say that the U.S strategy in the Middle East is a mystery even to U.S. allies .
With Washington being unrelenting in attempting to maintain the unipolar world order , it has forced Europeans to cooperate with reliable Russia .
This is not the first time that Washington has made a problem for its allies , citing the example of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 when Germany and France , along with Russia , protested U.S. President George Bush and his actions .
While Iraq was an example of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lose allies because of this , nor did NATO disintegrate .
However , domestic politics has always been a major focus for U.S. presidents , obviously , which in turn can influence foreign policy decisions for internal political use .
In the case of killing an Iranian general and in the propaganda that Russia is the victor in the U.S.-Iran conflict , nothing new has happened .

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.
Submitted by InfoBrics, authored by Paul Antonopoulos, Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies…
While the final outcome of the U.S.-Iran conflict is not yet clear, US media outlets and think tanks are already claiming that Russian President Putin is the winner. The U.S.-Iran hostilities has undermined Washington’s confidence and reputation in the region, allowing Russian influence in the Middle East to increase as a force for peace and stability. While it is unclear exactly how Moscow can benefit from escalations between Washington and Tehran, U.S. media are convinced that any outcome will be consistent with the Kremlin’s plans to increase its political influence in the region and create a rift between Washington and its allies.
This simplistic explanation does not account the fact that Moscow has a clear foreign policy to achieve its geopolitical goals in the Middle East while Washington mostly depends on their own internal contradictions and events on the domestic political scene to guide their foreign policy. The assassination of Iranian General Soleimani, made on orders from Trump, questions whether this was to demonstrate his power and determination to protect U.S. national interests in the face of domestic criticisms, to serve Evangelical Christian interests on behalf of Israel, or part of a clear guided policy that the U.S. has for the Middle East.
The Democrats are trying to show the public that everything Trump does is contributing more to Russian interests rather than American. It appears that the Democratic Party will continue with the same rhetoric to try and win this year’s election.
Moscow maintains good relations with all countries in the Middle East region and there is no country with which Russia has an openly hostile relationship. Moscow successfully balances its relations between Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria and Israel, while the U.S. attempts to divide the region into competing camps with no interest of defusing tensions, suggesting that even if Washington has a clearly defined Middle East policy, it is one based on division and destruction rather than one of balance and peace.
As a result of the assassination of General Soleimani, calls for U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq under pressure from local authorities have been made. Without troops in Iraq, the Americans are incapable of retaining their positions in Syria, which increases Russia’s manoeuvring space, strengthens its positions, influence, and opens space for filling the political vacuum. The U.S. has become embroiled with so many Middle Eastern countries that it is now struggling to cope to withdraw. Washington has already tried to withdraw its troops from Iraq during the Obama era.
But it is one thing to militarily withdraw on your own will and based on your decision, and another to withdraw because you have been asked too. Although the U.S. criticizes Iranian influence across the region and claims the Islamic Republic is acting in an aggressive manner, the Trump administration has not even hid away from the fact its an occupying force by flatly refusing to withdraw from Iraq despite being told to by the country’s parliament.
However it was the assassination of Soleimani that the most ridiculous claims were being made, with Bloomberg even suggesting that Putin needs a “Plan B” because the Iranian General’s death disrupted Russian plans for Syria, Iran and Turkey. This scenario implied that Trump’s aggressive actions would elicit an even more aggressive response from the Iranian side, eventually leading to an escalation of the conflict in which Tehran lacked adequate defense capabilities. This implies that Iran will lose the status of a regional power and Russia will have no choice but to betray Syria. This option quickly disappeared from the media space as reality completely denied this possibility.
As for Putin’s victory, many cite the fact that many European leaders are increasingly turning to Russia as a reliable partner in face of Trump’s unpredictability. It is fair to say that the U.S strategy in the Middle East is a mystery even to U.S. allies. With Washington being unrelenting in attempting to maintain the unipolar world order, it has forced Europeans to cooperate with reliable Russia.
This is not the first time that Washington has made a problem for its allies, citing the example of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 when Germany and France, along with Russia, protested U.S. President George Bush and his actions. While Iraq was an example of typical aggression, the Americans did not lose allies because of this, nor did NATO disintegrate. However, domestic politics has always been a major focus for U.S. presidents, obviously, which in turn can influence foreign policy decisions for internal political use. In the case of killing an Iranian general and in the propaganda that Russia is the victor in the U.S.-Iran conflict, nothing new has happened.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-01-14--Hussein Askary Discusses the New Silk Road’s Advance Across the Middle East

Anyone looking at a map of the Belt and Road Initiative will notice that Syria , Iraq and Iran ’ s stability and active participation are vital for this world changing program to function .
Anyone not realizing that this program of win-win cooperation is in direct anti-thesis to the neocon paradigm of “ a clash of civlizations ” would be blind to the very essence of world history and modern events .
Recently , EIR Southwest Asia Coordinator Hussein Askary gave a powerful interview with Syria Times where he described the Anglo-Zionist forces whose dystopic vision for the Middle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disrupted with Russian and China ’ s collaborative presence in the region : “ These forces have been upset with the victories achieved in Syria and Iraq to clean the country from the U.S. and British-backed terrorist groups , and finally pave the way for the integration of the region into the Belt and Road Initiative / New Silk Road from China , through Central Asia and Iran to Iraq then Syria and the Mediterranean .
President Bashar Al-Assad just two weeks ago declared that the Belt and Road Initiative is Syria ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Syria has six strategic mega projects in this regard .
The Iraqi Prime Minister , Adel Abdel-Mahdi was in China in late September and signed many significant agreements to exchange oil for reconstruction of infrastructure .
This was a revolutionary development.
” These under-reported developments of the New Silk Road ’ s progress through the Middle East are vital to understand anything about the world , including the mass-protests calling for the Iraq government ’ s ouster , the western-backed regime change in Syria or the current dangerous events in Iran .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal with a largely independent CIA and Military Industrial Complex committed to undoing his aim to stop the “ forever wars ” has made it difficult for people to understand what is really going on inside the USA itself .
Askary has been invited to various Arab governments in recent years to present development plans for the Middle East and Africa under the Schiller Institute ’ s World Landbridge Report which develops upon the global extension of the New Silk Road across all continents as a replacement to the collapsing uni-polar world order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report into Arabic is available here , which also includes access to Chinese , Spanish and the original English versions .
His recent presentation on the Anglo-Zionist operation in the middle east and the Silk Road is worth watching for its depth of insight into causes and solutions to the greatest crises facing humanity .
Askary has also begun a new online course teaching the science of Physical Economy to Arab speakers which can be accessed here .
Matthew Ehret is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review and has authored 3 volumes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ book series .
His works appear regularly on The Duran , Strategic Culture , Sott , Fort Russ , Zero Hedge , Global Times , L.A. Review of Books , LeSaker.fr , Vigile Quebec , South Front and Veterans Today .
He is a correspondent/BRI Expert for Tactical Talk .
In 2019 Matthew co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide Foundation .
He can be reached at [ email protected ]

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.
Anyone looking at a map of the Belt and Road Initiative will notice that Syria, Iraq and Iran’s stability and active participation are vital for this world changing program to function. Anyone not realizing that this program of win-win cooperation is in direct anti-thesis to the neocon paradigm of “a clash of civlizations” would be blind to the very essence of world history and modern events.
Recently, EIR Southwest Asia Coordinator Hussein Askary gave a powerful interview with Syria Times where he described the Anglo-Zionist forces whose dystopic vision for the Middle East and world at large has been disrupted with Russian and China’s collaborative presence in the region:
“These forces have been upset with the victories achieved in Syria and Iraq to clean the country from the U.S. and British-backed terrorist groups, and finally pave the way for the integration of the region into the Belt and Road Initiative / New Silk Road from China, through Central Asia and Iran to Iraq then Syria and the Mediterranean. President Bashar Al-Assad just two weeks ago declared that the Belt and Road Initiative is Syria’s way to reconstruction, and revealed that Syria has six strategic mega projects in this regard. The Iraqi Prime Minister, Adel Abdel-Mahdi was in China in late September and signed many significant agreements to exchange oil for reconstruction of infrastructure. This was a revolutionary development.”
These under-reported developments of the New Silk Road’s progress through the Middle East are vital to understand anything about the world, including the mass-protests calling for the Iraq government’s ouster, the western-backed regime change in Syria or the current dangerous events in Iran. The fact that President Trump has to deal with a largely independent CIA and Military Industrial Complex committed to undoing his aim to stop the “forever wars” has made it difficult for people to understand what is really going on inside the USA itself.
Askary has been invited to various Arab governments in recent years to present development plans for the Middle East and Africa under the Schiller Institute’s World Landbridge Report which develops upon the global extension of the New Silk Road across all continents as a replacement to the collapsing uni-polar world order. Askary’s translation of the report into Arabic is available here, which also includes access to Chinese, Spanish and the original English versions.
His recent presentation on the Anglo-Zionist operation in the middle east and the Silk Road is worth watching for its depth of insight into causes and solutions to the greatest crises facing humanity.
Askary has also begun a new online course teaching the science of Physical Economy to Arab speakers which can be accessed here.
Matthew Ehret is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review and has authored 3 volumes of ‘Untold History of Canada’ book series. His works appear regularly on The Duran, Strategic Culture, Sott, Fort Russ, Zero Hedge, Global Times, L.A. Review of Books, LeSaker.fr, Vigile Quebec, South Front and Veterans Today. He is a correspondent/BRI Expert for Tactical Talk. In 2019 Matthew co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide Foundation. He can be reached at matt.ehret@tutamail.com
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-01-13--CONFIRMED, Trump White House used Swiss back channel to de-escalate Iran conflict (Video)

The Duran ’ s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss how the Trump White House worked through the Swiss Embassy , immediately following the death of Soleimani , to de-escalate the crisis with Iran .
Cutting through the fiery comments , tweets and media propaganda , Trump worked diplomatic back channels to find a way out of a potential war scenario .
This latest fact reported by the WSJ shows once again that the neocon wing of Trump ’ s administration manipulated the US President in his decision to take out Soleimani .
Subscribe to The Duran on YouTube @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Duran Audio Podcast : Follow on Soundcloud – Subscribe on iTunes .
Even as Trump was rage-tweeting on Jan 4 , two days after the killing of Iran ’ s top military leader Qassem Soleimani , that he would hit 52 targets including Iranian heritage sites for potential retaliation if America suffered losses following an Iranian attack , warning that “ those targets , and Iran itself , WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD ” , the US president was busy , secretly using an encrypted back-channel to bring the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As the WSJ reports , just hours after the U.S. strike which killed Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani , the Trump administration sent an urgent back channel message to Tehran : “ Don ’ t escalate.
” The encrypted fax message was sent via the Swiss Embassy in Iran , one of the few means of direct , confidential communication between the two sides , U.S. officials told the WSJ .
Then , in frantic attempts to de-escalate even as top US and Iranian leaders were stirring patriotic sentiment and nationalistic fervor , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ further messages in the days that followed , which officials in both countries described as far more measured than the fiery rhetoric traded publicly by politician .
It worked : a week later , and after a retaliatory , if highly theatrical , Iranian missile attack on two military bases hosting American troops that purposefully inflicted no casualties , Washington and Tehran have stepped back from the brink of open hostilities ( for now ) .
“ We don ’ t communicate with the Iranians that much , but when we do the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convey messages and avoid miscalculation , ” a senior U.S. official said .
While a spokesman at Iran ’ s mission to the United Nations declined to comment on the exchanges , he said “ we appreciate [ the Swiss ] for any efforts they make to provide an efficient channel to exchange letters when and if necessary.
” Another Iranian official said the back channel provided a welcome bridge , when all others had been burned : “ In the desert , even a drop of water matters.
” In retrospect , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the perpetually neutral Swiss were the last recourse to prevent potential war .
As the WSJ notes , from the Swiss Embassy , a Shah-era mansion overlooking Tehran , the country ’ s role as a diplomatic intermediary has stretched through four turbulent decades and seven presidencies , from the hostage crisis under Jimmy Carter to Barack Obama ’ s nuclear deal .
But it was seldom tested like this .
The first American fax was sent immediately after Washington confirmed the death of Soleimani , the most important figure in Iran ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. officials said .
It arrived on a special encrypted fax machine in a sealed room of the Swiss mission – the most enduring , and secret , method since the 1979 Islamic Revolution – for the White House to exchange messages with Iran ’ s top leadership , especially when the two nations are concurrently parading in public media in their bellicose propaganda to earn political brownie points .
The equipment operates on a secure Swiss government network linking its Tehran embassy to the Foreign Ministry in Bern and its embassy in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most senior officials have the key cards needed to use the equipment .
Early on Friday morning , just hours after Soleimani ’ s death , Swiss Ambassador Markus Leitner , a 53-year-old career diplomat , delivered the American message by hand to Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif .
Predictably , Zarif responded to the U.S. missive with anger , according to a WSJ source : “ [ U.S. Secretary of State Mike ] Pompeo is a bully , ” he said , according to one U.S. official briefed on Zarif ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the cause of all the problems.
” The US may indeed be the cause of all the problems , but it also has all the weapons , and despite the pompous rhetoric , Iran knew full well it could not hope to escalte in tit-for-tat fashion without risking virtually everything .
Which is why , Iran was quick to take advantage of Leitner ’ s mediation .
The Swiss ambassador – who regularly visits Washington for closed-door sessions with Pentagon , State Department and intelligence officials eager to tap his knowledge about Iran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spent the next several days after Soleimani ’ s killing shuttling back and forth in a low-key but high-wire diplomatic mission designed to let each side speak candidly .
It was a vivid contrast to the jabs of President Trump and Mr. Zarif on Twitter .
Shortly after Trump tweeted on Jan 4 that the US had picked 52 Iranian targets for eventual escalation , Zarif responded just as belligerently on the next day : “ A reminder to those hallucinating about emulating ISIS war crimes by targeting our cultural heritage , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history , barbarians have come and ravaged our cities , razed our monuments and burnt our libraries .
Where are they now ?
We ’ re still here , & standing tall.
” However , at the same time as Zarif was seeking to emulate Trump ’ s twitter bluster , the Iranian foreign minister called the Swiss ambassador to take a message to the U.S .
It was more restrained , and subsequent statements from both sides helped prevent miscalculations , the officials said .
“ When tensions with Iran were high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reliable role that both sides appreciated , ” said a senior Trump administration official .
“ Their system is like a light that never turns off.
” Unlike Twitter , that is , which has emerged a medium for spreading premeditated , fake , outrage to mass consumption and whose sole purpose is to distract from what is truly happening behind the scenes .
It ’ s not the first time the Swiss have helped pull back the middle east from the brink of mushroom clouds : they have served as messengers between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the wake of the seizure of the American Embassy—and 52 hostages —in Tehran by Iranian revolutionaries .
Swiss diplomats call the role the “ brieftrager ” or “ the postman.
” In the years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 , the Swiss shepherded messages to help avoid direct clashes .
When President Obama assumed office , Switzerland hosted the talks that led to a nuclear deal .
When Washington lifted sanctions , Swiss businesses had an early jump on rivals .
When Trump reimposed sanctions , he gave the Swiss @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , saying : “ I ’ d like to see them call me.
” So far , Tehran has continued to speak through the Swiss .
Why has this archaic method of communication proven so effective at pulling the world back from the edge of crisis ?
Former Swiss ambassadors say the diplomatic channel is effective because the U.S. and Iran can trust a message will remain confidential , be delivered quickly , and will reach only its intended recipients .
Statements passed on the back channel are always precisely phrased , diplomatic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which is clearly impossible on Trump ’ s favorite social media platform , twitter , which he uses for precisely the opposite purpose : to spark outrage and to appeal to base emotions of his core supporter group .
Switzerland , a landlocked country of nine million with no standing army where everyone owns a gun , parlays its role as the world ’ s neutral “ postman ” ( and until recently , secret banker ) to lever access to the great powers .
And speaking of Swiss bank , the WSJ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get Washington ’ s green light for Swiss banks to finance exports to Iran that aren ’ t subject to sanctions—like food and medicine .
“ We do things for the world community , and it ’ s good , ” said a former ambassador .
“ But it is also good for our interests.
” Of course it is : for the privilege of funding the most basic human needs , those same Swiss banks can charge exorbitant rates of interest in a country that for years has had a negative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t the only geopolitical hot spot where the Swiss Embassy represents U.S. or other countries ’ interests after the breakdown of diplomatic relations : the Swiss now holds six mandates including representing Iran in Saudi Arabia , Georgia in Russia and Turkey in Libya and the U.S. in Cuba according to the WSJ .
In April 2019 , the Trump administration asked Bern to represent it in Venezuela but President Nicolás Maduro ’ s government has yet to approve .
And so , if the world has any hope of avoiding an all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it will have to go through Bern , at least figuratively .
As tensions between Washington and Tehran have escalated , the Swiss backchannel has remained active .
In December the two countries released prisoners at the same time at a special hangar in the Zurich airport – U.S. special envoy on Iran Brian Hook and Iran ’ s Zarif sat in separate rooms as the Swiss directed the carefully choreographed exchange .
“ The Swiss channel has become enormously important because of what they can do in the short term to lessen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gov .
Bill Richardson , who worked with the Swiss on the prisoner exchange .
“ It ’ s the only viable channel right now .
”

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 how the Trump White House worked through the Swiss Embassy, immediately following the death of Soleimani, to de-escalate the crisis with Iran.
Cutting through the fiery comments, tweets and media propaganda, Trump worked diplomatic back channels to find a way out of a potential war scenario. This latest fact reported by the WSJ shows once again that the neocon wing of Trump’s administration manipulated the US President in his decision to take out Soleimani.
Support Free Speech:
Subscribe to The Duran on YouTube – Find us on BitChute.
The Duran Audio Podcast:
Follow on Soundcloud – Subscribe on iTunes.
Via Zerohedge…
Even as Trump was rage-tweeting on Jan 4, two days after the killing of Iran’s top military leader Qassem Soleimani, that he would hit 52 targets including Iranian heritage sites for potential retaliation if America suffered losses following an Iranian attack, warning that “those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD”, the US president was busy, secretly using an encrypted back-channel to bring the world back from the brink of war.
As the WSJ reports, just hours after the U.S. strike which killed Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the Trump administration sent an urgent back channel message to Tehran: “Don’t escalate.” The encrypted fax message was sent via the Swiss Embassy in Iran, one of the few means of direct, confidential communication between the two sides, U.S. officials told the WSJ. Then, in frantic attempts to de-escalate even as top US and Iranian leaders were stirring patriotic sentiment and nationalistic fervor, the White House and Iranian leaders exchanged further messages in the days that followed, which officials in both countries described as far more measured than the fiery rhetoric traded publicly by politician.
It worked: a week later, and after a retaliatory, if highly theatrical, Iranian missile attack on two military bases hosting American troops that purposefully inflicted no casualties, Washington and Tehran have stepped back from the brink of open hostilities (for now).
“We don’t communicate with the Iranians that much, but when we do the Swiss have played a critical role to convey messages and avoid miscalculation,” a senior U.S. official said.
While a spokesman at Iran’s mission to the United Nations declined to comment on the exchanges, he said “we appreciate [the Swiss] for any efforts they make to provide an efficient channel to exchange letters when and if necessary.” Another Iranian official said the back channel provided a welcome bridge, when all others had been burned: “In the desert, even a drop of water matters.”
In retrospect, it should hardly be a surprise that the perpetually neutral Swiss were the last recourse to prevent potential war.
As the WSJ notes, from the Swiss Embassy, a Shah-era mansion overlooking Tehran, the country’s role as a diplomatic intermediary has stretched through four turbulent decades and seven presidencies, from the hostage crisis under Jimmy Carter to Barack Obama’s nuclear deal. But it was seldom tested like this.
Here’s how it happened.
The first American fax was sent immediately after Washington confirmed the death of Soleimani, the most important figure in Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the U.S. officials said. It arrived on a special encrypted fax machine in a sealed room of the Swiss mission – the most enduring, and secret, method since the 1979 Islamic Revolution – for the White House to exchange messages with Iran’s top leadership, especially when the two nations are concurrently parading in public media in their bellicose propaganda to earn political brownie points.
The equipment operates on a secure Swiss government network linking its Tehran embassy to the Foreign Ministry in Bern and its embassy in Washington, say Swiss diplomats. Only the most senior officials have the key cards needed to use the equipment.
Early on Friday morning, just hours after Soleimani’s death, Swiss Ambassador Markus Leitner, a 53-year-old career diplomat, delivered the American message by hand to Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif. Predictably, Zarif responded to the U.S. missive with anger, according to a WSJ source: “[U.S. Secretary of State Mike] Pompeo is a bully,” he said, according to one U.S. official briefed on Zarif’s response. “The U.S. is the cause of all the problems.”
The US may indeed be the cause of all the problems, but it also has all the weapons, and despite the pompous rhetoric, Iran knew full well it could not hope to escalte in tit-for-tat fashion without risking virtually everything. Which is why, Iran was quick to take advantage of Leitner’s mediation.
The Swiss ambassador – who regularly visits Washington for closed-door sessions with Pentagon, State Department and intelligence officials eager to tap his knowledge about Iran’s opaque and fluid politics – spent the next several days after Soleimani’s killing shuttling back and forth in a low-key but high-wire diplomatic mission designed to let each side speak candidly. It was a vivid contrast to the jabs of President Trump and Mr. Zarif on Twitter.
Shortly after Trump tweeted on Jan 4 that the US had picked 52 Iranian targets for eventual escalation, Zarif responded just as belligerently on the next day: “A reminder to those hallucinating about emulating ISIS war crimes by targeting our cultural heritage,” he wrote. “Through MILLENNIA of history, barbarians have come and ravaged our cities, razed our monuments and burnt our libraries. Where are they now? We’re still here, & standing tall.”
However, at the same time as Zarif was seeking to emulate Trump’s twitter bluster, the Iranian foreign minister called the Swiss ambassador to take a message to the U.S. It was more restrained, and subsequent statements from both sides helped prevent miscalculations, the officials said.
“When tensions with Iran were high, the Swiss played a useful and reliable role that both sides appreciated,” said a senior Trump administration official. “Their system is like a light that never turns off.” Unlike Twitter, that is, which has emerged a medium for spreading premeditated, fake, outrage to mass consumption and whose sole purpose is to distract from what is truly happening behind the scenes.
It’s not the first time the Swiss have helped pull back the middle east from the brink of mushroom clouds: they have served as messengers between Washington and Tehran since 1980, in the wake of the seizure of the American Embassy—and 52 hostages —in Tehran by Iranian revolutionaries. Swiss diplomats call the role the “brieftrager” or “the postman.”
In the years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Swiss shepherded messages to help avoid direct clashes. When President Obama assumed office, Switzerland hosted the talks that led to a nuclear deal. When Washington lifted sanctions, Swiss businesses had an early jump on rivals. When Trump reimposed sanctions, he gave the Swiss a phone number to pass the Iranians, saying: “I’d like to see them call me.”
So far, Tehran has continued to speak through the Swiss.
Why has this archaic method of communication proven so effective at pulling the world back from the edge of crisis?
Former Swiss ambassadors say the diplomatic channel is effective because the U.S. and Iran can trust a message will remain confidential, be delivered quickly, and will reach only its intended recipients. Statements passed on the back channel are always precisely phrased, diplomatic, and free of emotion, something which is clearly impossible on Trump’s favorite social media platform, twitter, which he uses for precisely the opposite purpose: to spark outrage and to appeal to base emotions of his core supporter group.
Switzerland, a landlocked country of nine million with no standing army where everyone owns a gun, parlays its role as the world’s neutral “postman” (and until recently, secret banker) to lever access to the great powers.
And speaking of Swiss bank, the WSJ notes that currently Swiss diplomats are working to get Washington’s green light for Swiss banks to finance exports to Iran that aren’t subject to sanctions—like food and medicine. “We do things for the world community, and it’s good,” said a former ambassador. “But it is also good for our interests.” Of course it is: for the privilege of funding the most basic human needs, those same Swiss banks can charge exorbitant rates of interest in a country that for years has had a negative official interest rate.
Iran isn’t the only geopolitical hot spot where the Swiss Embassy represents U.S. or other countries’ interests after the breakdown of diplomatic relations: the Swiss now holds six mandates including representing Iran in Saudi Arabia, Georgia in Russia and Turkey in Libya and the U.S. in Cuba according to the WSJ. In April 2019, the Trump administration asked Bern to represent it in Venezuela but President Nicolás Maduro’s government has yet to approve.
And so, if the world has any hope of avoiding an all out war between US and Iran, it will have to go through Bern, at least figuratively. As tensions between Washington and Tehran have escalated, the Swiss backchannel has remained active. In December the two countries released prisoners at the same time at a special hangar in the Zurich airport – U.S. special envoy on Iran Brian Hook and Iran’s Zarif sat in separate rooms as the Swiss directed the carefully choreographed exchange.
“The Swiss channel has become enormously important because of what they can do in the short term to lessen tensions,” said former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who worked with the Swiss on the prisoner exchange. “It’s the only viable channel right now.”
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-01-13--ISIS and Israel praise Trump’s assassination of Iranian top general Soleimani

Ten days have passed since US President Donald J. Trump ordered the assassination of Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force ( IRCG ) Lieutenant General Qassem Soleimani , and Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis .
Soleimani had just arrived at Baghdad International airport from Damascus at the invitation of Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi for a declared diplomatic peace mission to lessen tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia .
The White House was provided with important details from Israeli intelligence and carried out the airstrike without congressional support or knowledge and without providing a shred of evidence that Soleimani @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and US embassies .
The lie that was told to the American public ( and by extension the world ) by the Trump administration is that Soleimani was an imminent threat and was planning terror missions targeting American ’ s , US soldiers , and US embassies , and in order to thwart his plans the US had to act quickly and assassinate Iran ’ s top military official .
During President Trump ’ s speech to the nation on Wednesday he accused Soleimani of directing recent attacks against US personnel in Iraq @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In an interview with Fox News that aired on Thursday , Pompeo said “ There is no doubt that there were a series of imminent attacks that were being plotted by Qassem Soleimani , ” He went on to say , “ we don ’ t know precisely when , and we don ’ t know precisely where , but it was real.
” Maybe it ’ s just me , but without having any specifics whatsoever Pompeo ’ s statements do not make Soleimani sound like a “ real ” threat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the White House used a lie that lacks any evidential backing to bring us inches away from war with a nuclear regional power .
Iraqi Prime Minister Abdul-Mahdi called the assassination of Soleimani and al-Muhandis an act of aggression against Iraq and the Iraqi people , and a flagrant violation of Iraqi sovereignty , and stated it was a dangerous escalation .
Since then US troops have been asked to leave Iraq but the request has fallen on deaf ears .
Iraq does not want to become a battlefield for war between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ General Soleimani was an instrumental figure in the fight against Daesh in Syria and Iraq and saved countless Christian and Muslim lives by thwarting missions that put their civilian lives in danger .
However , as is the case in many of Washington ’ s manufactured pretexts used to justify unwarranted wars and invasions , heroes are vilified and terrorists ( along with their sponsors ) are revered .
It ’ s particularly interesting to see ISIS , Israel , and the United States on the same side when it comes to Soleimani @ @ @ @ @ @ @ newspaper called al-Naba praised the assassination and called it “ divine intervention ” “ an act of God ” and stated that Soleimani ’ s death will assist their efforts to regroup in Iraq .
It ’ s blatantly obvious that ISIS saw him as a deterrent while Washington painted him to be the “ number one terrorist ” .
This further illustrates how Washington ’ s alleged “ war on terror ” is nothing more than an excuse to invade countries and control their natural resources all while bolding Israel .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Iran since the US-backed Shah Muhammad Reza Pahlavi was overthrown in 1979 and has engaged in acts of war against Iran through economic sanctions and other means throughout the years .
In 2018 , President Trump unilaterally withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action ( JCPOA ) and reinstated crippling sanctions under its maximum pressure campaign .
After waiting a year for the United States to come back to the nuclear deal or negotiate new terms , or at the bare minimum for the European nations that are signatories on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ avail , Iran started scaling back its commitments under the nuclear deal every sixty days .
Clearly the current administration does not intend to come back to the JCPOA , nor do they intend on lifting harsh sanctions , nor do they want to negotiate changes to the existing deal or propose a new nuclear deal till the JCPOA expires .
In response to Soleimani ’ s assassination , Iran fired 15 ballistic missiles at two Iraqi bases which housed not only Iraqi but US soldiers as well , one military base was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the attack against Soleimani was initiated .
US officials and Pentagon officials believe that Iran deliberately avoided incurring any loss of life .
Iran ’ s intention was not to kill American ’ s but instead to show its target accuracy , and Washington ’ s inability to protect their bases and that US defense and interception systems are not as effective as they boast , also that Iran is willing to take measured and calculated retaliation when it deems necessary .
De-escalation soon followed with neither side interested in further military action @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sanctions and called for NATO to step up their involvement in the region .
Iran has claimed responsibility for the tragic unintentional downing of a Ukrainian passenger plane which took the lives of 176 civilians aboard .
A series of unfortunate events led to this grave human error which was due to heightened tensions between the United States and Iran .
Since this admission , protestors have taken to the streets to demand that President Hassan Rouhani step down , without delay President Trump and Israel ’ s Benjamin Netanyahu publicly stated their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tel Aviv ’ s ultimate goal remains regime change , whether it ’ s done internally or externally , ousting the current Iranian administration and installing a puppet leader is of top priority .
Iran wants to limit US presence in the region and stands in the way of US expansion , hegemony , and control of resources .
Iran ’ s opposition to the Israeli occupation of Palestine is another reason why the US has incessantly vilified Iran on the global stage and labelled them as their number one enemy .

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.
Submitted by InfoBrics, authored by Sarah Abed, independent journalist/analyst…
Ten days have passed since US President Donald J. Trump ordered the assassination of Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force (IRCG) Lieutenant General Qassem Soleimani, and Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. Soleimani had just arrived at Baghdad International airport from Damascus at the invitation of Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi for a declared diplomatic peace mission to lessen tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
The White House was provided with important details from Israeli intelligence and carried out the airstrike without congressional support or knowledge and without providing a shred of evidence that Soleimani was planning attacks on American’s and US embassies.
The lie that was told to the American public (and by extension the world) by the Trump administration is that Soleimani was an imminent threat and was planning terror missions targeting American’s, US soldiers, and US embassies, and in order to thwart his plans the US had to act quickly and assassinate Iran’s top military official. During President Trump’s speech to the nation on Wednesday he accused Soleimani of directing recent attacks against US personnel in Iraq which injured four and killed one American.
In an interview with Fox News that aired on Thursday, Pompeo said “There is no doubt that there were a series of imminent attacks that were being plotted by Qassem Soleimani,” He went on to say, “we don’t know precisely when, and we don’t know precisely where, but it was real.” Maybe it’s just me, but without having any specifics whatsoever Pompeo’s statements do not make Soleimani sound like a “real” threat, if anything this solidifies the notion that the White House used a lie that lacks any evidential backing to bring us inches away from war with a nuclear regional power.
Iraqi Prime Minister Abdul-Mahdi called the assassination of Soleimani and al-Muhandis an act of aggression against Iraq and the Iraqi people, and a flagrant violation of Iraqi sovereignty, and stated it was a dangerous escalation. Since then US troops have been asked to leave Iraq but the request has fallen on deaf ears. Iraq does not want to become a battlefield for war between the United States and Iran.
Lt. General Soleimani was an instrumental figure in the fight against Daesh in Syria and Iraq and saved countless Christian and Muslim lives by thwarting missions that put their civilian lives in danger. However, as is the case in many of Washington’s manufactured pretexts used to justify unwarranted wars and invasions, heroes are vilified and terrorists (along with their sponsors) are revered.
It’s particularly interesting to see ISIS, Israel, and the United States on the same side when it comes to Soleimani’s death. A weekly ISIS newspaper called al-Naba praised the assassination and called it “divine intervention” “an act of God” and stated that Soleimani’s death will assist their efforts to regroup in Iraq. It’s blatantly obvious that ISIS saw him as a deterrent while Washington painted him to be the “number one terrorist”. This further illustrates how Washington’s alleged “war on terror” is nothing more than an excuse to invade countries and control their natural resources all while bolding Israel.
The United States has essentially been at war with Iran since the US-backed Shah Muhammad Reza Pahlavi was overthrown in 1979 and has engaged in acts of war against Iran through economic sanctions and other means throughout the years.
In 2018, President Trump unilaterally withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and reinstated crippling sanctions under its maximum pressure campaign. After waiting a year for the United States to come back to the nuclear deal or negotiate new terms, or at the bare minimum for the European nations that are signatories on the deal to offer sanctions relief to no avail, Iran started scaling back its commitments under the nuclear deal every sixty days.
Clearly the current administration does not intend to come back to the JCPOA, nor do they intend on lifting harsh sanctions, nor do they want to negotiate changes to the existing deal or propose a new nuclear deal till the JCPOA expires.
In response to Soleimani’s assassination, Iran fired 15 ballistic missiles at two Iraqi bases which housed not only Iraqi but US soldiers as well, one military base was specifically targeted because that’s where the attack against Soleimani was initiated. US officials and Pentagon officials believe that Iran deliberately avoided incurring any loss of life. Iran’s intention was not to kill American’s but instead to show its target accuracy, and Washington’s inability to protect their bases and that US defense and interception systems are not as effective as they boast, also that Iran is willing to take measured and calculated retaliation when it deems necessary.
De-escalation soon followed with neither side interested in further military action, President Trump opted for more harsh sanctions and called for NATO to step up their involvement in the region.
Iran has claimed responsibility for the tragic unintentional downing of a Ukrainian passenger plane which took the lives of 176 civilians aboard. A series of unfortunate events led to this grave human error which was due to heightened tensions between the United States and Iran.
Since this admission, protestors have taken to the streets to demand that President Hassan Rouhani step down, without delay President Trump and Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu publicly stated their support for the protestors.
Washington and Tel Aviv’s ultimate goal remains regime change, whether it’s done internally or externally, ousting the current Iranian administration and installing a puppet leader is of top priority. Iran wants to limit US presence in the region and stands in the way of US expansion, hegemony, and control of resources. Iran’s opposition to the Israeli occupation of Palestine is another reason why the US has incessantly vilified Iran on the global stage and labelled them as their number one enemy.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-01-13--Once Upon a Time in Iraq

Once Upon a Time in Iraq

“ A Society of Sheep must in time beget a Government of Wolves ” — Bertrand de Jouvenel Stephen Hadley , former National Security Advisor to the George W Bush regime , is one of the top US Neoconservative activists .
Hadley is a pro , a battle-wizened key promoter of US aggression in Iraq .
Hadley applauds and expounds on the ‘ universal western morality ’ regarding the US assassination of Iran ’ s key military commander Suleimani via the major media .
That ’ s no surprise .
However , Hadley ’ s enthusiasm for Suleimani ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of Raytheon Systems ( as a key military supplier to the US military ) than it does as justification for an apparent US war crime , only one among many .
Trouble is , nowhere does the Raytheon gun-toting [ 1 ] Hadley reveal his inactionable puff piece links to Raytheon in his television appearances or articles .
Now , in an Orwellian twist of doublethink only possible in a US war establishment run amok , Hadley is Board chair of Reagan ’ s United States Institute of Peace which would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tragic .
[ 2 ] Former NSA head Hadley ’ s ‘ peace institute ’ promotes only flagrant US war propaganda and touts foreign adventurism and aggression that would have embarrassed even Vladimir Pozner back in the day .
But rhetorically speaking , Raytheon ’ s ‘ Kill Vehicle ’ Hadley is no exception to the Raytheon revolving door with regard to the warmongers who infest Washington ’ s snake pit .
Washington ’ s revolving door for state-sponsored corporate terror revolves only too well .
For example , US Defense Secretary Dr @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the former Raytheon VP advocate for “ governmental relations ” .
Presumably those “ government relations ” were designed to milk the federal beast for all the military contracts Esper ’ s salary as a Raytheon lobbyist could muster .
Now Raytheon ’ s Esper has the ultimate job as US Secretary of Defense where the Raytheon/ governmental revolving door of war and aggression just goes around and around as profitably as the Federal Reserve will allow .
But warmonger Barak Obama ’ s reign of terror was no different ; no different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his successor with regard to bloodthirsty guile .
Obama ’ s crew was just as morally culpable for the death and destruction that the US wrought in Iraq , Libya , Syria , Afghanistan , Gaza , and Yemen as Bush sports like Hadley were , the occupation that they still invoke in Iraq today .
Just one example of an Obama revolving door war boss apparently in favour of aggression and political assassination is Lockheed Martin ’ s , Jeh Johnson .
According to Johnson : “ If you believe everything that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was a lawful military target .
And the president , under his Constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief , had ample domestic legal authority to take him out without an additional Congressional authorization.
” Key words are : “ If you believe everything… ” Yes , who believes anything that the US government says ?
Whether it ’ s about chemical weapons , WMD ’ s , terror attacks , or anything else… the US government invariably lies .
Here , Jeh Johnson is the former Barak Obama lackey speaking on Fox News , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which implicitly assumes that the public “ will believe ” that which the US government declares .
It ’ s the Imperial fiat mantra , law by presidential decree , and long live the Emperor .
Johnson ’ s incorporated brief is that a foreign leader may be justifiably assassinated if the executive director of the United States orders it , of course handily employing Lockheed Martin or Raytheon ’ s tech — or that of any other military contractor .
Shoot first… ask questions later .
No moral consideration need apply .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to political assassination is not only ignored but despised , just as it is in Israel .
There is no moral consideration about politically-motivated killing where US leaders are concerned , ‘ life concentrated ’ is in the form of US dollar primacy via Jeh Johnson ’ s Lockheed Martin and Raytheon ’ s technology being all that matters — and that is the media message , too .
In other words , Greed is Good .
And if Lockheed Martin or Raytheon must supply the equipment to kill for hubris or profit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then that ’ s good for the gander too .
The surprise is that the progenitors of US aggression and destabilization in the Middle East ( and most of the rest of the world ) should still infest US airwaves and the Washington Post .
The Neocon/Statist presence is just a little staggering in light of their historic abject failures , whether they be : Israel-Palestine .
Cuba .
Bay of Pigs .
Korea 1950 .
Iran 1953 .
Vietnam .
Laos .
Cambodia .
Chile 1973 .
Pinochet .
Iran 1979 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iran contra .
Afghanistan .
al qaeda .
Iraq .
Lebanon .
Gaza .
Libya .
Egypt .
Syria .
Gaza .
Afghanistan .
ISIS .
Sahel .
Mena .
Yemen .
Sudan .
Somalia .
Eritrea .
Ukraine… etc etc etc .
The Rulers of the Planet lost most of the world and only the dominance of the $ US still remains .
Those who perceive one Donald J Trump [ 3 ] as their Lord and saviour may now be supremely disappointed .
With this political assassination we can expect nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the blood of the fallen that all US administrations offer .
And should a new war erupt , fake praise for the dead as required by any war-profiteer ’ s miserable existence .
Meanwhile the US moral fakery extant in western Corporate media , is where our rulers purvey the message that they may politically assassinate and still possess the moral high ground , while people who object to political assassination are traitors… and probably terrorists , too .
The foregoing is not to endorse any so-called US opposition movement as objecting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is virtually no effective resistance to the satanic crowd who pound their major media wired podium every minute of every hour of every day with their wired digital jack boot .
The political class ’ s thinly veiled hatred for peace and humanity provides them with just too much profit , and that guy with the haircut hijacked the populist movement long ago .
According to Clinton influencer Carroll Quigley in his book ‘ Tragedy and Hope ’ : “ The argument that two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies , one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the other of the Left , is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers .
Instead , the two parties should be almost identical , so that the American people can “ throw the rascals out ” at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy….Then it should be possible to replace it , every four years if necessary , by the other party which will be none of these things but will still pursue , with new vigor , approximately the same basic policies.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which is now US political doctrine as embraced by all US regimes and their sponsors for the past thirty years — we must now consider the momentous topic of what just happened in Iraq , and the relevance of the Raytheon connection as above .
We must ask what happened because no one is saying — not even the alt-Media .
What just happened in Iraq ?
After the US assassination of Iran ’ s military leader Suleimani , there was some idea that Iran would retaliate right away in a deadly strike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resulting in a broad war .
Others , including this author , believed that Iran ’ s leadership would bide its time , maintain the moral high ground , and retaliate later on in an unexpected way .
But the public call for retaliation in Iran was quite outspoken , and Iran ’ s people demanded a just response .
That public call for revenge was too strong for Khamenei to ignore , so a strike on two US bases in Iraq was arranged via a Swiss channel .
Note the word arranged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how to prove this arrangement ?
Later we will return to Raytheon ’ s equipment at US bases in Iraq , which provides an important clue .
But first , consider that an arranged armed response to mutually draw down tension between sides is rare , but not unheard of in conflict zones .
A recent face-saving arranged combat event occurred near the Lebanese/Israeli border as we examined in Israel v Hezbollah : Disputed Claims in a Disputed Territory .
In late August of 2019 , Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon vowed to retaliate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shuba Hills region and Beirut .
Neither side was prepared for war over two somewhat minor incidents — by the region ’ s standards — and Hezbollah carried out what Israel called a symbolic strike on an Israeli robotic target to quell outraged public opinion on both sides .
Hezbollah claimed a strike on a real Israeli target ( which appeared true ) while Israel claimed the military APC was operated remotely , and the Israeli wounded recorded at the scene were ‘ crisis actors ’ .
While truth is the first to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did appear to avoid a broader conflict .
There is ample reason to assume that the same type of staged event just occurred by Iran ’ s strike on two US bases in Iraq .
That ’ s because neither side is desirous of a wider war in the region… at least for now — if Trump can be believed — and since this is an election year he probably can .
Iran too , has clearly stated that it does not want war with the US , even subsequent to the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so , via the Swiss diplomatic channel , Iran could exercise its Article 51 right to reprisal as agreed with a limited strike on two US bases .
The Trump regime was informed about the two bases Iran would strike , when , where , and how .
We can further verify the save-face strike agreement by the standing-down of the Raytheon GEM-T missiles at both bases , conclusive proof that Iran ’ s strike was pre-arranged .
Of all missiles fired , only four were duds .
If the GEM-T systems had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rate of Iranian ballistic missile strikes on the bases would be far higher .
As a result , the bases would suffer minor damage , far less than may be seen in verifiably released satellite photographs of the two bases , independent and from non-US or Iran government sources .
Some analysts have argued that the Erbil base had no GEM-T defense , but information exists that Israel has three secret intelligence sites near that base so any idea that Erbil would be undefended by anti-missile systems borders on the preposterous .
Likewise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Iran specifically due to its symbolic association with the Kurds and Israel , a tactical consideration not lost on the US military or on Israel ; and Israel possesses plenty of its own GEM-T ’ s .
At both bases , the GEM-T defenses were demonstrably not in operation .
While the US military is quite capable of mass killing and destruction , self-defense is of paramount importance .
The notion that the US military would stand-down its anti-missile defenses at a time of imminent peril without a pre-arranged agreement with Iran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — it is absurd .
Furthermore , the fact that there were no casualties of any sort at either US base , with a long lead time for evacuation and US bunkering , proves that Iran provided plenty of warning to the United States via the Swiss diplomats , prior to the strikes .
Ironically we must now return to the Raytheon corporate shills , likely highly amused and enthused at what just occurred in Iraq .
The Washington Post , cheerleader for Raytheon ’ s people and weaponry , is running a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Raytheon and the need for bigger , better , newer and yet more expensive US anti-missile systems .
Lamothe even claims that the US bases attacked did not possess anti-missile systems , a revelation which on its own must surely be vetted by US intelligence services before being released and can not be a publicly verifiable factual statement .
So why say it ?
With conclusive proof that the two US base strikes in Iraq were pre-arranged between Iran and the United States , media disinformation is required to maintain the balance of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public attention is needed to assail the truth .
The fact of the pre-arranged strikes based on the US political assassination of Iran ’ s senior military leader raises major moral , ethical , legal , due process , political and international law questions about the role of the United States as occupier and invader — not just about its role as global hegemon through weaponization of the dollar and military force .
For example , that the US would agree to a planned Iranian counter-strike versus two US bases in Iraq proves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iran ’ s military leader was not only illegal according to international law , but also a war crime .
The agreement further focuses on that fact that according to the United State government only might makes a right , a militarist argument frequently written about in the US and Israeli press .
But to have its citizens focus on the US proposition that only might makes right , where US influence is only enforced by the barrel of a gun , is not a discussion the political class wants its citizens to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States may now be a force for evil in the world by political assassination and by force of arms , and not for good , is another subject our masters wish for us to avoid .
We must not avoid it .
• Note the Hadley institute ’ s name : “ of ” peace and not “ for ” peace , an important Orwellian distinction .
• who might deliver them from Obama ’ s implicit evil ?
Steve Brown is the author of “ Iraq : the Road to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Bush Administration War Crimes in Iraq ” ( Sourcewatch ) “ Trump ’ s Limited Hangout ” and “ Federal Reserve : Out-sourcing the Monetary System to the Money Trust Oligarchs Since 1913 ” ; Steve is an antiwar activist , a published scholar on the US monetary system , and has appeared as guest contributor to The Duran , Fort Russ News , Herland Report , Lew Rockwell Report , The Ron Paul Institute , and Strategika51 .
Twitter : @ newsypaperz

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.
Submitted by Steve Brown
“A Society of Sheep must in time beget a Government of Wolves” — Bertrand de Jouvenel
Stephen Hadley, former National Security Advisor to the George W Bush regime, is one of the top US Neoconservative activists. Hadley is a pro, a battle-wizened key promoter of US aggression in Iraq. Hadley applauds and expounds on the ‘universal western morality’ regarding the US assassination of Iran’s key military commander Suleimani via the major media. That’s no surprise. However, Hadley’s enthusiasm for Suleimani’s destruction reeks more of puffery on the part of Raytheon Systems (as a key military supplier to the US military) than it does as justification for an apparent US war crime, only one among many.
Trouble is, nowhere does the Raytheon gun-toting [1] Hadley reveal his inactionable puff piece links to Raytheon in his television appearances or articles. Now, in an Orwellian twist of doublethink only possible in a US war establishment run amok, Hadley is Board chair of Reagan’s United States Institute of Peace which would be laughable, if it were not so tragic. [2] Former NSA head Hadley’s ‘peace institute’ promotes only flagrant US war propaganda and touts foreign adventurism and aggression that would have embarrassed even Vladimir Pozner back in the day. But rhetorically speaking, Raytheon’s ‘Kill Vehicle’ Hadley is no exception to the Raytheon revolving door with regard to the warmongers who infest Washington’s snake pit.
Washington’s revolving door for state-sponsored corporate terror revolves only too well. For example, US Defense Secretary Dr Mark Esper is another ex-Raytheon heavyweight, the former Raytheon VP advocate for “governmental relations”. Presumably those “government relations” were designed to milk the federal beast for all the military contracts Esper’s salary as a Raytheon lobbyist could muster. Now Raytheon’s Esper has the ultimate job as US Secretary of Defense where the Raytheon/ governmental revolving door of war and aggression just goes around and around as profitably as the Federal Reserve will allow.
But warmonger Barak Obama’s reign of terror was no different; no different from that of his predecessor or of his successor with regard to bloodthirsty guile. Obama’s crew was just as morally culpable for the death and destruction that the US wrought in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Gaza, and Yemen as Bush sports like Hadley were, the occupation that they still invoke in Iraq today. Just one example of an Obama revolving door war boss apparently in favour of aggression and political assassination is Lockheed Martin’s, Jeh Johnson. According to Johnson :
“If you believe everything that our government is saying about General Soleimani he was a lawful military target. And the president, under his Constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief, had ample domestic legal authority to take him out without an additional Congressional authorization.”
Key words are: “If you believe everything…” Yes, who believes anything that the US government says? Whether it’s about chemical weapons, WMD’s, terror attacks, or anything else… the US government invariably lies. Here, Jeh Johnson is the former Barak Obama lackey speaking on Fox News, endorsing the Lockheed Martin Marietta Corporate line which implicitly assumes that the public “will believe” that which the US government declares. It’s the Imperial fiat mantra, law by presidential decree, and long live the Emperor.
Johnson’s incorporated brief is that a foreign leader may be justifiably assassinated if the executive director of the United States orders it, of course handily employing Lockheed Martin or Raytheon’s tech — or that of any other military contractor. Shoot first… ask questions later. No moral consideration need apply. The moral and legal consideration with regard to political assassination is not only ignored but despised, just as it is in Israel. There is no moral consideration about politically-motivated killing where US leaders are concerned, ‘life concentrated’ is in the form of US dollar primacy via Jeh Johnson’s Lockheed Martin and Raytheon’s technology being all that matters — and that is the media message, too.
In other words, Greed is Good. And if Lockheed Martin or Raytheon must supply the equipment to kill for hubris or profit when the president pronounces that necessary, then that’s good for the gander too. The surprise is that the progenitors of US aggression and destabilization in the Middle East (and most of the rest of the world) should still infest US airwaves and the Washington Post. The Neocon/Statist presence is just a little staggering in light of their historic abject failures, whether they be:
Israel-Palestine. Cuba. Bay of Pigs. Korea 1950. Iran 1953. Vietnam. Laos. Cambodia. Chile 1973. Pinochet. Iran 1979. El Salvador. Nicaragua. Panama. Iran contra. Afghanistan. al qaeda. Iraq. Lebanon. Gaza. Libya. Egypt. Syria. Gaza. Afghanistan. ISIS. Sahel. Mena. Yemen. Sudan. Somalia. Eritrea. Ukraine… etc etc etc.
The Rulers of the Planet lost most of the world and only the dominance of the $ US still remains. Those who perceive one Donald J Trump [3] as their Lord and saviour may now be supremely disappointed. With this political assassination we can expect nothing more from him than the same condolences over the blood of the fallen that all US administrations offer. And should a new war erupt, fake praise for the dead as required by any war-profiteer’s miserable existence.
Meanwhile the US moral fakery extant in western Corporate media, is where our rulers purvey the message that they may politically assassinate and still possess the moral high ground, while people who object to political assassination are traitors… and probably terrorists, too. The foregoing is not to endorse any so-called US opposition movement as objecting, because there is none.
There is virtually no effective resistance to the satanic crowd who pound their major media wired podium every minute of every hour of every day with their wired digital jack boot. The political class’s thinly veiled hatred for peace and humanity provides them with just too much profit, and that guy with the haircut hijacked the populist movement long ago. According to Clinton influencer Carroll Quigley in his book ‘Tragedy and Hope’:
“The argument that two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can “throw the rascals out” at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy….Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.”
Beyond Quigley’s political theory — which is now US political doctrine as embraced by all US regimes and their sponsors for the past thirty years — we must now consider the momentous topic of what just happened in Iraq, and the relevance of the Raytheon connection as above. We must ask what happened because no one is saying — not even the alt-Media.
What just happened in Iraq?
After the US assassination of Iran’s military leader Suleimani, there was some idea that Iran would retaliate right away in a deadly strike on the US in Iraq, perhaps resulting in a broad war. Others, including this author, believed that Iran’s leadership would bide its time, maintain the moral high ground, and retaliate later on in an unexpected way.
But the public call for retaliation in Iran was quite outspoken, and Iran’s people demanded a just response. That public call for revenge was too strong for Khamenei to ignore, so a strike on two US bases in Iraq was arranged via a Swiss channel. Note the word arranged. There has been much speculation… but how to prove this arrangement? Later we will return to Raytheon’s equipment at US bases in Iraq, which provides an important clue.
But first, consider that an arranged armed response to mutually draw down tension between sides is rare, but not unheard of in conflict zones. A recent face-saving arranged combat event occurred near the Lebanese/Israeli border as we examined in Israel v Hezbollah: Disputed Claims in a Disputed Territory .
In late August of 2019, Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon vowed to retaliate for Israeli aggressive tactics in the Kfar Shuba Hills region and Beirut. Neither side was prepared for war over two somewhat minor incidents — by the region’s standards — and Hezbollah carried out what Israel called a symbolic strike on an Israeli robotic target to quell outraged public opinion on both sides.
Hezbollah claimed a strike on a real Israeli target (which appeared true) while Israel claimed the military APC was operated remotely, and the Israeli wounded recorded at the scene were ‘crisis actors’. While truth is the first to die in war, the Avivim escapade did appear to avoid a broader conflict. There is ample reason to assume that the same type of staged event just occurred by Iran’s strike on two US bases in Iraq.
That’s because neither side is desirous of a wider war in the region… at least for now — if Trump can be believed — and since this is an election year he probably can. Iran too, has clearly stated that it does not want war with the US, even subsequent to the US assassination of its military leader. And so, via the Swiss diplomatic channel, Iran could exercise its Article 51 right to reprisal as agreed with a limited strike on two US bases. The Trump regime was informed about the two bases Iran would strike, when, where, and how.
We can further verify the save-face strike agreement by the standing-down of the Raytheon GEM-T missiles at both bases, conclusive proof that Iran’s strike was pre-arranged. Of all missiles fired, only four were duds. If the GEM-T systems had been readied and in use the failure rate of Iranian ballistic missile strikes on the bases would be far higher. As a result, the bases would suffer minor damage, far less than may be seen in verifiably released satellite photographs of the two bases, independent and from non-US or Iran government sources.
Some analysts have argued that the Erbil base had no GEM-T defense, but information exists that Israel has three secret intelligence sites near that base so any idea that Erbil would be undefended by anti-missile systems borders on the preposterous. Likewise that base was chosen as a target by Iran specifically due to its symbolic association with the Kurds and Israel, a tactical consideration not lost on the US military or on Israel; and Israel possesses plenty of its own GEM-T’s. At both bases, the GEM-T defenses were demonstrably not in operation.
While the US military is quite capable of mass killing and destruction, self-defense is of paramount importance. The notion that the US military would stand-down its anti-missile defenses at a time of imminent peril without a pre-arranged agreement with Iran via its leaders, is beyond preposterous — it is absurd. Furthermore, the fact that there were no casualties of any sort at either US base, with a long lead time for evacuation and US bunkering, proves that Iran provided plenty of warning to the United States via the Swiss diplomats, prior to the strikes.
Ironically we must now return to the Raytheon corporate shills, likely highly amused and enthused at what just occurred in Iraq. The Washington Post, cheerleader for Raytheon’s people and weaponry, is running a Dan Lamothe article again about poor little Raytheon and the need for bigger, better, newer and yet more expensive US anti-missile systems. Lamothe even claims that the US bases attacked did not possess anti-missile systems, a revelation which on its own must surely be vetted by US intelligence services before being released and cannot be a publicly verifiable factual statement.
So why say it? With conclusive proof that the two US base strikes in Iraq were pre-arranged between Iran and the United States, media disinformation is required to maintain the balance of illusion, and a major diversion of public attention is needed to assail the truth. The fact of the pre-arranged strikes based on the US political assassination of Iran’s senior military leader raises major moral, ethical, legal, due process, political and international law questions about the role of the United States as occupier and invader — not just about its role as global hegemon through weaponization of the dollar and military force.
For example, that the US would agree to a planned Iranian counter-strike versus two US bases in Iraq proves that the US understands its assassination of Iran’s military leader was not only illegal according to international law, but also a war crime. The agreement further focuses on that fact that according to the United State government only might makes a right, a militarist argument frequently written about in the US and Israeli press. But to have its citizens focus on the US proposition that only might makes right, where US influence is only enforced by the barrel of a gun, is not a discussion the political class wants its citizens to have internally. And finally, that the United States may now be a force for evil in the world by political assassination and by force of arms, and not for good, is another subject our masters wish for us to avoid. We must not avoid it.
Notes:
Rhetorically speaking! Note the Hadley institute’s name: “of” peace and not “for” peace, an important Orwellian distinction. who might deliver them from Obama’s implicit evil?
Steve Brown is the author of “Iraq: the Road to War” (Sourcewatch) editor of “Bush Administration War Crimes in Iraq” (Sourcewatch) “Trump’s Limited Hangout” and “Federal Reserve: Out-sourcing the Monetary System to the Money Trust Oligarchs Since 1913”; Steve is an antiwar activist, a published scholar on the US monetary system, and has appeared as guest contributor to The Duran, Fort Russ News, Herland Report, Lew Rockwell Report, The Ron Paul Institute, and Strategika51. Twitter: @newsypaperz
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report