theduran--2020-01-09--Iran’s Strikes Against the U.S. Demonstrates the Unipolar System Is Truly Over

Submitted by InfoBrics , authored by Paul Antonopoulos , Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies… When U.S. President Donald Trump ordered the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani , he certainly had not expected that Iran would respond in the way it did by bombarding two U.S. military bases in Iraqi territory .
It is likely that his advisers had convinced him that no country in the world had the courage to attack the U.S. so blatantly as no one else had since the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor during World War II .
The Iranians did of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who understand the ideology of the Islamic Republic that has a deeply ingrained martyrdom complex that stretches back to 680AD when Imam Ali Ibn al-Husayn was killed in Karbala , Iraq .
Trump has claimed that there were no American casualties while Iran has claimed there were at least 80 .
With the Erbil and Ain al-Assad bases bombarded and several U.S. aircrafts , drones and helicopters destroyed , it is unlikely that there were no U.S. casualties – however there is no way in knowing at this time whether there were 80 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the true number of casualties a secret , in complete opposition to Iran who openly celebrate their martyrs .
The Ain al-Assad military base is the largest and most equipped U.S. base in the region , and one of a few U.S. special bases around the world , at the size of about half of Lebanon .
The fact that the Americans have deployed their most sophisticated radar systems in Iraq , many of which have been destroyed , demonstrates the ineffectiveness of the Patriot missile defense system .
This was despite U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high alert .
This will only be in Russia ’ s favors as it continues to lure the S-400 system to potential buyers .
Not only did the attack on the Ain al-Assad military base expose the ineffectiveness of the Patriot system , Iran also targeted the Erbil base in Iraqi Kurdistan .
This base was a center to try and encourage the Iraqi Kurds to rebel against the central government in order to put pressure on the central Iraqi government .
The attack on the Erbil base was a warning that even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make them any less safe .
It was expected by most commentators that Iran ’ s retaliation for the martyrdom of Soleimani would be in the form of utilizing its regional paramilitary allies on U.S. positions .
By directly attacking U.S. forces brazenly and openly , Tehran has demonstrated that the U.S. are not safe in any part of the region .
However , Iran had no choice but to retaliate as it would demonstrate the country ’ s leadership only had empty rhetoric in defending itself .
The U.S. would certainly be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against Iran and its allies if Tehran did not respond .
If there is a war going on in Iraq between the U.S. and Iran , it probably will not be limited to one country and will engulf the whole region , and potentially , across the world .
Washington can not be counted on to abide by international laws and regulations .
The countries in the region , particularly the Gulf States , should also bear in mind that the presence of U.S. bases on their land will not only fail to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their national security as all states who assist the U.S. in any aggression against Iran will become legitimate targets , as Tehran has already warned .
Rather , the murder of Soleimani has only united Iranians , including those who have been protesting across the country since November , blaming the government for the increased fuel prices and difficult economic situation , ignoring the crippling U.S. enforced sanctions .
The major demands of the Iranian people are now for the expulsion of the U.S. military from the region , something that the Islamic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clearly demanded as well .
Now that Iran has made its first response to the U.S. so directly , Trump for now is refusing to respond militarily and will impose greater sanctions against Iran .
However , Iran has already made the demand that the U.S. withdraws from the region .
To achieve this without directly provoking Trump again , Iran is likely to employ the militias it backs in Syria and Iraq to target U.S. military installations .
With any Israeli involvement in this war effort , Iran can use Hezbollah and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state internally and externally .
Therefore , since Iran has already promised to expel the U.S. from the region , the next phase of the anti-U.S. war effort will be asymmetrical warfare by Iran .
If Iran engages in asymmetrical warfare , the return of dead and wounded American soldiers will severely hamper Trump ’ s re-election campaign this year as he originally ran on the ticket of criticizing wars in West Asia when he was competing for the presidency against Hillary Clinton years earlier .
The Iranian leadership are now in control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and have demonstrated they are willing to retaliate against the U.S. who is seeking to maintain the unipolar hegemonic world order that emerged with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 .
Iran has once again shown that the 21st century is not one of unipolarity that Washington hopes to maintain , but rather multipolar with several strong middle and Great Powers .

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…
When U.S. President Donald Trump ordered the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, he certainly had not expected that Iran would respond in the way it did by bombarding two U.S. military bases in Iraqi territory. It is likely that his advisers had convinced him that no country in the world had the courage to attack the U.S. so blatantly as no one else had since the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor during World War II. The Iranians did of course, as was expected by those who understand the ideology of the Islamic Republic that has a deeply ingrained martyrdom complex that stretches back to 680AD when Imam Ali Ibn al-Husayn was killed in Karbala, Iraq.
Trump has claimed that there were no American casualties while Iran has claimed there were at least 80. With the Erbil and Ain al-Assad bases bombarded and several U.S. aircrafts, drones and helicopters destroyed, it is unlikely that there were no U.S. casualties – however there is no way in knowing at this time whether there were 80. We can expect Washington to keep the true number of casualties a secret, in complete opposition to Iran who openly celebrate their martyrs.
The Ain al-Assad military base is the largest and most equipped U.S. base in the region, and one of a few U.S. special bases around the world, at the size of about half of Lebanon. The fact that the Americans have deployed their most sophisticated radar systems in Iraq, many of which have been destroyed, demonstrates the ineffectiveness of the Patriot missile defense system. This was despite U.S. forces in the region being put on high alert. This will only be in Russia’s favors as it continues to lure the S-400 system to potential buyers.
Not only did the attack on the Ain al-Assad military base expose the ineffectiveness of the Patriot system, Iran also targeted the Erbil base in Iraqi Kurdistan. This base was a center to try and encourage the Iraqi Kurds to rebel against the central government in order to put pressure on the central Iraqi government. The attack on the Erbil base was a warning that even a U.S. withdrawal into Kurdistan does not make them any less safe.
It was expected by most commentators that Iran’s retaliation for the martyrdom of Soleimani would be in the form of utilizing its regional paramilitary allies on U.S. positions. By directly attacking U.S. forces brazenly and openly, Tehran has demonstrated that the U.S. are not safe in any part of the region. However, Iran had no choice but to retaliate as it would demonstrate the country’s leadership only had empty rhetoric in defending itself. The U.S. would certainly be more inclined to carry out further attacks against Iran and its allies if Tehran did not respond.
If there is a war going on in Iraq between the U.S. and Iran, it probably will not be limited to one country and will engulf the whole region, and potentially, across the world. Washington cannot be counted on to abide by international laws and regulations. The countries in the region, particularly the Gulf States, should also bear in mind that the presence of U.S. bases on their land will not only fail to provide security, but will also endanger their national security as all states who assist the U.S. in any aggression against Iran will become legitimate targets, as Tehran has already warned.
Rather, the murder of Soleimani has only united Iranians, including those who have been protesting across the country since November, blaming the government for the increased fuel prices and difficult economic situation, ignoring the crippling U.S. enforced sanctions. The major demands of the Iranian people are now for the expulsion of the U.S. military from the region, something that the Islamic Republic’s leadership has loudly and clearly demanded as well.
Now that Iran has made its first response to the U.S. so directly, Trump for now is refusing to respond militarily and will impose greater sanctions against Iran. However, Iran has already made the demand that the U.S. withdraws from the region. To achieve this without directly provoking Trump again, Iran is likely to employ the militias it backs in Syria and Iraq to target U.S. military installations. With any Israeli involvement in this war effort, Iran can use Hezbollah and various Palestinian militias to pressurize the Jewish state internally and externally.
Therefore, since Iran has already promised to expel the U.S. from the region, the next phase of the anti-U.S. war effort will be asymmetrical warfare by Iran. If Iran engages in asymmetrical warfare, the return of dead and wounded American soldiers will severely hamper Trump’s re-election campaign this year as he originally ran on the ticket of criticizing wars in West Asia when he was competing for the presidency against Hillary Clinton years earlier. The Iranian leadership are now in control of the future of the West Asia and have demonstrated they are willing to retaliate against the U.S. who is seeking to maintain the unipolar hegemonic world order that emerged with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Iran has once again shown that the 21st century is not one of unipolarity that Washington hopes to maintain, but rather multipolar with several strong middle and Great Powers.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-01-09--Soleimani’s Successor Is Failing

Soleimani’s Successor Is Failing

As I have earlier indicated ( January 7th ) under the headline “ How Iran Can Checkmate Trump ” , the way that Iran could easily have checkmated Trump would have been Iran ’ s leaders have promised retaliation for what Trump did .
But they haven ’ t said when it will be done , or what it will entail .
If they just stand back and wait while the world-at-large ( other than American billionaires ’ core foreign allies the aristocracies of Saudi Arabia , Israel , and UK ) gradually abandon their alliances with the U.S. regime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. regime ’ s other main targets — Russia and China — will naturally rise in the international order , and this could become the way that the world ’ s most dangerous imperialistic regime , the United States Government ( since 1948 the serial perpetrator of coups and invasions ) , will finally be able to be defeated peacefully , and defanged gradually thereafter .
That would be Iran ’ s retaliation — none .
Iran has already violated it : on the night of January 7th , they rocket-attacked some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the features of Soleimani ’ s greatness as a general was his understanding of the strategic uses of restraint , and of waiting-the-enemy-out , so as to enable the sheer evilness , of his opponent ’ s provocation , to become more publicly displayed , to which he was responding , by his retaliation against it .
When he did retaliate , he did it only in ways which weren ’ t immediately clear and which therefore were deniable for long-enough a time so that if and when they did finally become clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the response had already become vastly more clear to the entire world than what his response to the provocation was .
Strategically , Soleimani was a master of this technique , and it couldn ’ t have been used , at all , if Iran ’ s Government had been in the wrong on the particular matter to which it was being applied .
In order for this technique to be able to succeed , the enemy against which it is being targeted has to be really evil — that is , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case , Trump ) needs to be evil and widely known or suspected to be evil ( and suspected even amongst the target ’ s — Trump ’ s — international allies : in this case , the EU ) , in order for this technique to succeed ( by alienating the target ’ s allies away from the target — weakening the support that the target will be receiving from his allies ) .
The longer that Iran would have waited before responding , the more pressure would be upon Trump now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , after Trump ’ s having illegally — not just in U.S. but in international law — assassinated Iran ’ s # 2 leader .
Instead , Iran did quickly retaliate .
A retaliation is a onetime event ; even a small retaliation , such as Iran did here , is the only retaliation that the public will recognize as being a “ response ” to the attack to which it was responding .
The retaliator doesn ’ t get a second chance to retaliate for Trump ’ s having assassinated Iran ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 8th , Iran launched , according to MarketWatch , “ about a dozen ” missiles at two U.S. military bases in Iraq , and no injuries or deaths were reported to result .
The extraordinarily reliable IntelliNews site ( which is EU-based ) had the real story on January 8th , “ Analysis : Theory Iran ’ s strikes on US Iraq bases were ‘ for show ’ firming up ” , and they opened : The theory that Iran went out of its way to avoid causing US casualties during its late @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Iraq has been boosted by a statement from Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi ’ s spokesman that the PM received word from Tehran that its response to the US assassination of its top general was either imminent or under way .
Although Iranian officials have told the home audience via official and semi-official news agencies that 80 US personnel were killed and around 200 injured in the attack , no casualties have been reported by Washington or Baghdad despite 17 missiles fired from Iran raining down on Al-Asad airbase in Iraq @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at a base in the northern Iraqi city of Erbil around 01:30 local time .
The bases house US troops .
US President Donald Trump had warned Iran that a move to revenge the January 3 drone missile killing of Qasem Soleimani — who was Iran ’ s second most important official — might trigger a “ disproportionate ” US response .
“ Shortly after midnight on Wednesday we received a verbal message from the Islamic Republic of Iran that the Iranian response to the assassination of the martyr Qasem Soleimani had started @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Abdul Mahdi ’ s spokesman said .
It is unclear whether it was a tip-off from Abdul Mahdi that enabled the US and allies to get all military personnel out of harm ’ s way , such as by moving soldiers to shelters , or whether the commanders of the troops responded to early warning systems that detected the ballistic missiles .
The latter scenario seems more likely , but the fact that Tehran contacted Abdul Mahdi in the way that it did shows that it was not counting with any big element @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Iran ’ s top leaders weren ’ t even thinking of not issuing a quick ‘ retaliation ’ , but were instead solely focused on making it a ‘ retaliation ’ that would not provoke a full-scale and prompt destruction of Iran by the United States .
Their strategic incompetency without Soleimani was simply stunning .
Soleimani was indispensable to Iran ’ s military success , and now he was gone — Trump had assassinated him , and ( because Soleimani was gone ) Trump was going to get away with having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , of course , in Trump ’ s court , and the international pressure upon him to terminate his anti-Iran sanctions was now gone , or nearly so , because the provocation ( Trump ’ s assassination of Soleimani ) was already responded to ( by this paltry missile-attack ) .
Iran blew its enormous international PR-opportunity , to weaken its self-declared enemy , which is Iran ’ s most powerful enemy ( far more powerful than Saudi Arabia or Israel ) , the U.S. regime .
The likelihood , now , of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Iran and of increasing its resistance against America ’ s anti-Iran sanctions , is vastly less than would have been the case if Iran had simply “ waited ” and not responded at all , but only continued threatening to respond , by saying that it will retaliate ( so as to satisfy the Iranian public ) .
If Iran had not retaliated , at all , then the growing pressure upon Trump ( from Europeans ) to capitulate on his sanctions would have been vastly greater , and strategically far more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iran ’ s Government ( internally ) to actually retaliate against the U.S. would have been .
Had Iran instead continued to wait , the real retaliation against Trump would then have come from Europeans , who would be becoming now increasingly anti-American on account of his blatantly evil and international-law-breaking assassination of Iran ’ s # 2 leader .
Now , they won ’ t abandon the U.S. regime .
There will be little , if any , pressure upon Trump to relent and to end his sanctions against Iran .
Iranians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ squirming against increasing condemnation from Europeans — strategically crucial U.S. allies .
Thus , there would have been little to no disappointment among the Iranian public urging “ Attack !
Attack !
” The world-at-large would be increasingly Trump ’ s opponent on the Iran-issue .
Everyone would have come to recognize that Trump was the real loser in this encounter between U.S. v. Iran .
It would have grown to become a humiliation of Trump , and of his aggressions .
It would have done more to end U.S. sanctions against Iran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ general though he was — would have been able to achieve .
It would have been as if Soleimani ’ s successor had been of Soleimani ’ s stature .
But that was not to be .
On January 8th , Reuters headlined “ After close brush with Iran , Trump finds an off-ramp – for now ” and reported that , “ Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif had said overnight the strikes ‘ concluded ’ Tehran ’ s response to the Soleimani ’ s killing.
” What did Tehran win , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ response ” — this retaliation ?
Of course , Iran ’ s Government recognized that this paltry response was puny compared to what had precipitated it , but they were right that “ the strikes concluded ” their response .
They knew that they had lost to Trump .
And this failure was the result of disastrous incompetence at the very top of the Iranian Government .
Trump had just made a grossly incompetent strategic decision , to murder Soleimani , but Soleimani ’ s successor , whomever it was , was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here .
Soleimani would never have done anything like this , responded this way , had he still been — as he had been — virtually Iran ’ s Commander-in-Chief ( not the President , not the Supreme Leader , Khamenei , the cleric who is really the very top official there ) .
Of course , if Khamenei took over the C-i-C role in Soleimani ’ s absence , then he is responsible for this enormous strategic blunder .
But , in that case , the man whom he had just selected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have simply refused the appointment , since it then would be merely a title without the power , a hollow shell .
The blunder — whomever did it — is exacerbated because even Republican U.S .
Senators , behind closed doors with the President ’ s team on January 8th , were shocked that Trump ’ s team had no evidence they could offer that corroborated Trump ’ s alleged reason to justify assassinating Soleimani .
Apparently , the atrocity had been based only on lies .
Some of the Senators seem to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they hadn ’ t even been consulted in advance , about an invasion ( assassination of Iran ’ s # 2 leader , on Iraqi soil ) that was ‘ justifiable ’ only on the basis of dubious ‘ evidence ’ .
As the Reuters article said : “ Five days into this and you still haven ’ t heard anything about ‘ imminent danger , ’ ” said a former senior administration official .
“ That means they ’ ve got a problem.
” CNN reported that , “ Senate Democrats — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a classified briefing Wednesday on the strike that killed Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani , charging that administration officials failed to provide evidence to show the attack [ which Trump alleged that Soleimani was planning ] was imminent and dismissed the role Congress should play in deciding to take military action.
” Trump was just another George W. Bush , another Barack Obama , another international aggressor on the basis of lies .
And yet , Iran simply caved to him , immediately , no contest .
They had been handed the golden opportunity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( to drive the Europeans to reject Trump ’ s anti-Iran sanctions and then to counter-sanction against the United States ) , and simply blew it .
Who did this enormous strategic blunder ?
How did it happen ?
On January 3rd , Professor Narges Barjoghli , of Johns Hopkins ’ s prestigious School of Advanced International Studies ( SAIS ) reported “ Soleimani ’ s replacement announced by Khamenei : Brigadier General Ismail Ghani , a veteran of the Iran-Iraq war , active in the Quds Force for years , including in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s already obvious that Soleimani ’ s successor is not nearly as skilled as was Soleimani .
If Ghani is actually Soleimani ’ s successor , then Khamenei needs to select another .
Otherwise , Khamenei needs to depart the Commander-in-Chief role immediately .
On January 9th , Russia ’ s RT bannered “ ‘ Harsher revenge ’ : Revolutionary Guards commander vows it ’ s not over after Iranian missile strikes on US forces in Iraq ” and reported that “ A senior Iranian military commander has promised further action against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tehran launched missiles at two bases housing US troops in Iraq.
” Iran ’ s Foreign Minister , Zarif , having admitted that the missile-strikes had “ concluded ” the matter ( which was tragically a truthful statement ) , outraged the Guards ’ Commander : “ Abdollah Araghi said that Iran would take ‘ harsher revenge soon ’ .
” Whether Araghi was correct or not about his prediction-threat , any such additional ‘ retaliation ’ would be labelled by the global public not as a retaliation , but instead as an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States .
The fact was beginning to sink in , to Iranians , that someone , at or near the very top , of Iran ’ s Government , was incompetent .
Not only did Iran ’ s Government not checkmate Trump for his Soleimani-assassination move , but it weakened itself internally by its catastrophic counter-move .
Increased unrest within Iran will result .
Unless Iran promptly replaces its new top general by one that has Soleimani ’ s stature , the world could now easily slide quickly into , first , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vast pool of blood ( since Trump still retains the support of Europe ’ s leaders — even after that assassination ) , and then , as a likely result from that massive bloodshed , either a capitulation of all countries that the U.S. regime has been trying to take over ( starting with Iran , Iraq , Syria , Lebanon , Turkey , Venezuela — the first resisting ones that might be taken now ) , or else an outright World War III if Russia ( militarily the strongest holdout against the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a finalization of the U.S. regime ’ s grab for total global power .
The worst-case scenario would be either a dictatorial and militarily imposed global U.S. empire , or else a nuclear war that pits the world ’ s two nuclear super-powers ( U.S. and Russia ) against each other .
By contrast , if the method that I had proposed on January 7th ( no response — other than mere verbal threats to respond — as constituting Iran ’ s retaliation against that assassination ) can , somehow , still be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s not already too late — as I think it is — for this situation to be able to be salvaged ) , then the sheer repulsiveness of today ’ s America ’ s cravenous and insatiable fascist imperialism will rise and break up and end the NATO alliance ; and then Europe , instead of continuing to be allied westward across the Atlantic , with the United States , will fundamentally re-orient itself toward the east and unification with the rest of the EurAsian land-mass ( which is by far the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , instead of the EU , there will be a much larger , and globally dominant , EurAsian federation of nations , which would ultimately come to lead even at the U.N .
The U.N. itself would then become freed from its present dictatorial host , the U.S. regime , which won ’ t even allow to enter the United States ( to attend there ) foreign leaders of whatever nations that the U.S. regime happens to be trying , at the time , to conquer .
Consequently , the result would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whatever ‘ international law ’ exists in actual practice , the international law that emanates from the U.N. itself might come ultimately to be applied as actually ruling and being applied over international relations .
It certainly isn ’ t now — especially not after Iran ’ s blunder .
The world ’ s future will be either a global U.S. international dictatorship imposed by force ( the U.S. ) , or else a global international democratic federation of nations that is ruled under the U.N. ’ s existing and evolving body of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the question of whether or not any given nation is a democracy would be strictly a matter determined by and within that given nation ; and , whereas international human-rights law will have a bearing in the global body ( the U.N. ) , it will never bear in such a way as to override the primary sovereignty of any nation ’ s Government within that nation ’ s boundaries .
This is ultimately the only way that global peace will be able to become established and maintained ( if that still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ handover , to the U.N. , of all nuclear weapons , of all countries .
This entire arrangement was Franklin Delano Roosevelt ’ s vision , and it ended when he did , but it conceivably could become established in the real world , if and when the U.S. Government gives up on its dream and intention ( ever since 26 July 1945 ) of conquering and ruling the entire world .
But who is there now who can bring that about ?
Iran ’ s January 8th missiles fired into Iraq probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ January 9th , Reuters headlined “ At U.N. , U.S. justifies killing Iranian commander as self-defense ” , and reported : The United States told the United Nations on Wednesday that the killing of Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani last week was self-defense and vowed to take additional action “ as necessary ” in the Middle East to protect U.S. personnel and interests .
… The killing of Soleimani in Baghdad on Friday was justified under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter , wrote Craft in the letter seen by Reuters , adding “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ additional actions in the region as necessary to continue to protect U.S. personnel and interests.
” Under Article 51 , countries are required to “ immediately report ” to the 15-member Security Council any measures taken in exercising the right of self-defense .
… Also on January 9th , RT headlined “ Trump confirms more sanctions against Iran ” and reported his saying , with evident pride : “ It ’ s already been done .
… They were very severe , but now it ’ s increased substantially.
” He was taking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increase it , and to increase the stakes for Iran , doing all he could to force an attack from Iran which would be destructive enough to ‘ justify ’ the U.S. ( plus any of its attacked allies such as Israel ) destroying Iran .
Like Hitler , he ’ ll grab all he can get , and he ’ s happy to destroy whatever he labels an ‘ enemy ’ .
The supplicant will get from Emperor Trump nothing but a swift , very hard and bloody , kick in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to resist in any way would be suicidal .
Has the U.S. regime now , already , conquered both Iran and the U.N. — and the EU ?
( Europe still holds the cards here .
Otherwise put : the ball is still theirs to play , and what they do with it will determine the world ’ s future . )
In a subsequent report , I shall suggest a way for the Europeans to force the U.S. regime to accept peacefully the end of the trans-Atlantic alliance and the re-orientation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — toward ultimately a United States of EurAsia ( by whatever name ) .
The first step will be forcing Trump to end his secondary sanctions regarding Iran .
European leaders still have the capacity to save the world , if they want to do so .
Trump right now is not just exceedingly powerful ; he is also exceedingly vulnerable , because this is America ’ s Presidential-election year .
I don ’ t expect European leaders — or any leaders — to protect the world ’ s future ( for example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for show ) , but some might have a sincere interest in doing that .
Things aren ’ t yet entirely hopeless .
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 .

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
As I have earlier indicated (January 7th) under the headline “How Iran Can Checkmate Trump”, the way that Iran could easily have checkmated Trump would have been
Iran’s leaders have promised retaliation for what Trump did. But they haven’t said when it will be done, or what it will entail. If they just stand back and wait while the world-at-large (other than American billionaires’ core foreign allies the aristocracies of Saudi Arabia, Israel, and UK) gradually abandon their alliances with the U.S. regime, then not only Iran but also the U.S. regime’s other main targets — Russia and China — will naturally rise in the international order, and this could become the way that the world’s most dangerous imperialistic regime, the United States Government (since 1948 the serial perpetrator of coups and invasions), will finally be able to be defeated peacefully, and defanged gradually thereafter.
That would be Iran’s retaliation — none.
(I detailed there the follow-up, but that passage in the presentation is the core of the presentation.)
Iran has already violated it: on the night of January 7th, they rocket-attacked some U.S. facilities in Iraq.
One of the features of Soleimani’s greatness as a general was his understanding of the strategic uses of restraint, and of waiting-the-enemy-out, so as to enable the sheer evilness, of his opponent’s provocation, to become more publicly displayed, to which he was responding, by his retaliation against it. When he did retaliate, he did it only in ways which weren’t immediately clear and which therefore were deniable for long-enough a time so that if and when they did finally become clear, the evilness of what had provoked the response had already become vastly more clear to the entire world than what his response to the provocation was. Strategically, Soleimani was a master of this technique, and it couldn’t have been used, at all, if Iran’s Government had been in the wrong on the particular matter to which it was being applied. In order for this technique to be able to succeed, the enemy against which it is being targeted has to be really evil — that is, the ruler of the enemy (in this case, Trump) needs to be evil and widely known or suspected to be evil (and suspected even amongst the target’s — Trump’s — international allies: in this case, the EU), in order for this technique to succeed (by alienating the target’s allies away from the target — weakening the support that the target will be receiving from his allies).
The longer that Iran would have waited before responding, the more pressure would be upon Trump now, to terminate his sanctions against Iran, after Trump’s having illegally — not just in U.S. but in international law — assassinated Iran’s #2 leader.
Instead, Iran did quickly retaliate. A retaliation is a onetime event; even a small retaliation, such as Iran did here, is the only retaliation that the public will recognize as being a “response” to the attack to which it was responding. The retaliator doesn’t get a second chance to retaliate for Trump’s having assassinated Iran’s #2 leader. On January 8th, Iran launched, according to MarketWatch, “about a dozen” missiles at two U.S. military bases in Iraq, and no injuries or deaths were reported to result.
The extraordinarily reliable IntelliNews site (which is EU-based) had the real story on January 8th, “Analysis: Theory Iran’s strikes on US Iraq bases were ‘for show’ firming up”, and they opened:
The theory that Iran went out of its way to avoid causing US casualties during its late January 7 missile strikes on military bases in Iraq has been boosted by a statement from Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi’s spokesman that the PM received word from Tehran that its response to the US assassination of its top general was either imminent or under way.
Although Iranian officials have told the home audience via official and semi-official news agencies that 80 US personnel were killed and around 200 injured in the attack, no casualties have been reported by Washington or Baghdad despite 17 missiles fired from Iran raining down on Al-Asad airbase in Iraq’s Anbar province and five targeted at a base in the northern Iraqi city of Erbil around 01:30 local time. The bases house US troops. US President Donald Trump had warned Iran that a move to revenge the January 3 drone missile killing of Qasem Soleimani — who was Iran’s second most important official — might trigger a “disproportionate” US response.
“Shortly after midnight on Wednesday we received a verbal message from the Islamic Republic of Iran that the Iranian response to the assassination of the martyr Qasem Soleimani had started or was about to start,” Abdul Mahdi’s spokesman said.
It is unclear whether it was a tip-off from Abdul Mahdi that enabled the US and allies to get all military personnel out of harm’s way, such as by moving soldiers to shelters, or whether the commanders of the troops responded to early warning systems that detected the ballistic missiles. The latter scenario seems more likely, but the fact that Tehran contacted Abdul Mahdi in the way that it did shows that it was not counting with any big element of surprise. …
Clearly, then, Iran’s top leaders weren’t even thinking of not issuing a quick ‘retaliation’, but were instead solely focused on making it a ‘retaliation’ that would not provoke a full-scale and prompt destruction of Iran by the United States. Their strategic incompetency without Soleimani was simply stunning.
Soleimani was indispensable to Iran’s military success, and now he was gone — Trump had assassinated him, and (because Soleimani was gone) Trump was going to get away with having done so.
The ball then was, of course, in Trump’s court, and the international pressure upon him to terminate his anti-Iran sanctions was now gone, or nearly so, because the provocation (Trump’s assassination of Soleimani) was already responded to (by this paltry missile-attack). Iran blew its enormous international PR-opportunity, to weaken its self-declared enemy, which is Iran’s most powerful enemy (far more powerful than Saudi Arabia or Israel), the U.S. regime. The likelihood, now, of Europe’s separating itself from U.S. on Iran and of increasing its resistance against America’s anti-Iran sanctions, is vastly less than would have been the case if Iran had simply “waited” and not responded at all, but only continued threatening to respond, by saying that it will retaliate (so as to satisfy the Iranian public). If Iran had not retaliated, at all, then the growing pressure upon Trump (from Europeans) to capitulate on his sanctions would have been vastly greater, and strategically far more significant, than any growing pressure upon Iran’s Government (internally) to actually retaliate against the U.S. would have been.
Had Iran instead continued to wait, the real retaliation against Trump would then have come from Europeans, who would be becoming now increasingly anti-American on account of his blatantly evil and international-law-breaking assassination of Iran’s #2 leader. Now, they won’t abandon the U.S. regime. There will be little, if any, pressure upon Trump to relent and to end his sanctions against Iran.
Iranians would have been delighted to see Trump squirming against increasing condemnation from Europeans — strategically crucial U.S. allies. Thus, there would have been little to no disappointment among the Iranian public urging “Attack! Attack!” The world-at-large would be increasingly Trump’s opponent on the Iran-issue. Everyone would have come to recognize that Trump was the real loser in this encounter between U.S. v. Iran. It would have grown to become a humiliation of Trump, and of his aggressions. It would have done more to end U.S. sanctions against Iran than any living Soleimani — great a general though he was — would have been able to achieve. It would have been as if Soleimani’s successor had been of Soleimani’s stature.
But that was not to be.
On January 8th, Reuters headlined “After close brush with Iran, Trump finds an off-ramp – for now” and reported that, “Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif had said overnight the strikes ‘concluded’ Tehran’s response to the Soleimani’s killing.” What did Tehran win, what did they achieve, by this “response” — this retaliation? Of course, Iran’s Government recognized that this paltry response was puny compared to what had precipitated it, but they were right that “the strikes concluded” their response. They knew that they had lost to Trump. And this failure was the result of disastrous incompetence at the very top of the Iranian Government. Trump had just made a grossly incompetent strategic decision, to murder Soleimani, but Soleimani’s successor, whomever it was, was strategically at least as incompetent as Trump here. Soleimani would never have done anything like this, responded this way, had he still been — as he had been — virtually Iran’s Commander-in-Chief (not the President, not the Supreme Leader, Khamenei, the cleric who is really the very top official there). Of course, if Khamenei took over the C-i-C role in Soleimani’s absence, then he is responsible for this enormous strategic blunder. But, in that case, the man whom he had just selected to be Soleimani’s successor should have simply refused the appointment, since it then would be merely a title without the power, a hollow shell.
The blunder — whomever did it — is exacerbated because even Republican U.S. Senators, behind closed doors with the President’s team on January 8th, were shocked that Trump’s team had no evidence they could offer that corroborated Trump’s alleged reason to justify assassinating Soleimani. Apparently, the atrocity had been based only on lies. Some of the Senators seem to have felt insulted by this — that they hadn’t even been consulted in advance, about an invasion (assassination of Iran’s #2 leader, on Iraqi soil) that was ‘justifiable’ only on the basis of dubious ‘evidence’.
As the Reuters article said:
“Five days into this and you still haven’t heard anything about ‘imminent danger,’” said a former senior administration official. “That means they’ve got a problem.”
CNN reported that, “Senate Democrats — and two key GOP senators — slammed a classified briefing Wednesday on the strike that killed Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani, charging that administration officials failed to provide evidence to show the attack [which Trump alleged that Soleimani was planning] was imminent and dismissed the role Congress should play in deciding to take military action.”
Trump was just another George W. Bush, another Barack Obama, another international aggressor on the basis of lies. And yet, Iran simply caved to him, immediately, no contest. They had been handed the golden opportunity which they had always dreamed of having (to drive the Europeans to reject Trump’s anti-Iran sanctions and then to counter-sanction against the United States), and simply blew it. Who did this enormous strategic blunder? How did it happen?
On January 3rd, Professor Narges Barjoghli, of Johns Hopkins’s prestigious School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) reported “Soleimani’s replacement announced by Khamenei: Brigadier General Ismail Ghani, a veteran of the Iran-Iraq war, active in the Quds Force for years, including in fighting against ISIS in Syria.” It’s already obvious that Soleimani’s successor is not nearly as skilled as was Soleimani. If Ghani is actually Soleimani’s successor, then Khamenei needs to select another. Otherwise, Khamenei needs to depart the Commander-in-Chief role immediately.
On January 9th, Russia’s RT bannered “‘Harsher revenge’: Revolutionary Guards commander vows it’s not over after Iranian missile strikes on US forces in Iraq” and reported that “A senior Iranian military commander has promised further action against the United States, a day after Tehran launched missiles at two bases housing US troops in Iraq.” Iran’s Foreign Minister, Zarif, having admitted that the missile-strikes had “concluded” the matter (which was tragically a truthful statement), outraged the Guards’ Commander: “Abdollah Araghi said that Iran would take ‘harsher revenge soon’.” Whether Araghi was correct or not about his prediction-threat, any such additional ‘retaliation’ would be labelled by the global public not as a retaliation, but instead as an aggression, by Iran, against the United States. The fact was beginning to sink in, to Iranians, that someone, at or near the very top, of Iran’s Government, was incompetent. Not only did Iran’s Government not checkmate Trump for his Soleimani-assassination move, but it weakened itself internally by its catastrophic counter-move. Increased unrest within Iran will result.
Unless Iran promptly replaces its new top general by one that has Soleimani’s stature, the world could now easily slide quickly into, first, much of the Middle East becoming a vast pool of blood (since Trump still retains the support of Europe’s leaders — even after that assassination), and then, as a likely result from that massive bloodshed, either a capitulation of all countries that the U.S. regime has been trying to take over (starting with Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Venezuela — the first resisting ones that might be taken now), or else an outright World War III if Russia (militarily the strongest holdout against the U.S. empire) were to resist such a finalization of the U.S. regime’s grab for total global power.
The worst-case scenario would be either a dictatorial and militarily imposed global U.S. empire, or else a nuclear war that pits the world’s two nuclear super-powers (U.S. and Russia) against each other.
By contrast, if the method that I had proposed on January 7th (no response — other than mere verbal threats to respond — as constituting Iran’s retaliation against that assassination) can, somehow, still be implemented (i.e., if it’s not already too late — as I think it is — for this situation to be able to be salvaged), then the sheer repulsiveness of today’s America’s cravenous and insatiable fascist imperialism will rise and break up and end the NATO alliance; and then Europe, instead of continuing to be allied westward across the Atlantic, with the United States, will fundamentally re-orient itself toward the east and unification with the rest of the EurAsian land-mass (which is by far the world’s largest), so that, instead of the EU, there will be a much larger, and globally dominant, EurAsian federation of nations, which would ultimately come to lead even at the U.N. The U.N. itself would then become freed from its present dictatorial host, the U.S. regime, which won’t even allow to enter the United States (to attend there) foreign leaders of whatever nations that the U.S. regime happens to be trying, at the time, to conquer. Consequently, the result would be that, instead of U.S. dictat constituting whatever ‘international law’ exists in actual practice, the international law that emanates from the U.N. itself might come ultimately to be applied as actually ruling and being applied over international relations. It certainly isn’t now — especially not after Iran’s blunder.
The world’s future will be either a global U.S. international dictatorship imposed by force (the U.S.), or else a global international democratic federation of nations that is ruled under the U.N.’s existing and evolving body of international law. In the latter instance, the question of whether or not any given nation is a democracy would be strictly a matter determined by and within that given nation; and, whereas international human-rights law will have a bearing in the global body (the U.N.), it will never bear in such a way as to override the primary sovereignty of any nation’s Government within that nation’s boundaries. This is ultimately the only way that global peace will be able to become established and maintained (if that still remains possible). It entails the handover, to the U.N., of all nuclear weapons, of all countries. This entire arrangement was Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s vision, and it ended when he did, but it conceivably could become established in the real world, if and when the U.S. Government gives up on its dream and intention (ever since 26 July 1945) of conquering and ruling the entire world. But who is there now who can bring that about?
Iran’s January 8th missiles fired into Iraq probably foreclosed any such optimistic outcome.
On January 9th, Reuters headlined “At U.N., U.S. justifies killing Iranian commander as self-defense”, and reported:
The United States told the United Nations on Wednesday that the killing of Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani last week was self-defense and vowed to take additional action “as necessary” in the Middle East to protect U.S. personnel and interests. …
The killing of Soleimani in Baghdad on Friday was justified under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, wrote Craft in the letter seen by Reuters, adding “the United States is prepared to take additional actions in the region as necessary to continue to protect U.S. personnel and interests.”
Under Article 51, countries are required to “immediately report” to the 15-member Security Council any measures taken in exercising the right of self-defense. …
Also on January 9th, RT headlined “Trump confirms more sanctions against Iran” and reported his saying, with evident pride: “It’s already been done. … They were very severe, but now it’s increased substantially.” He was taking full advantage of his win, to increase it, and to increase the stakes for Iran, doing all he could to force an attack from Iran which would be destructive enough to ‘justify’ the U.S. (plus any of its attacked allies such as Israel) destroying Iran. Like Hitler, he’ll grab all he can get, and he’s happy to destroy whatever he labels an ‘enemy’.
The supplicant will get from Emperor Trump nothing but a swift, very hard and bloody, kick in the teeth. Obviously, at this stage, to resist in any way would be suicidal.
Has the U.S. regime now, already, conquered both Iran and the U.N. — and the EU? (Europe still holds the cards here. Otherwise put: the ball is still theirs to play, and what they do with it will determine the world’s future.)
In a subsequent report, I shall suggest a way for the Europeans to force the U.S. regime to accept peacefully the end of the trans-Atlantic alliance and the re-orientation of the European nations toward the east — toward ultimately a United States of EurAsia (by whatever name). The first step will be forcing Trump to end his secondary sanctions regarding Iran. European leaders still have the capacity to save the world, if they want to do so. Trump right now is not just exceedingly powerful; he is also exceedingly vulnerable, because this is America’s Presidential-election year. I don’t expect European leaders — or any leaders — to protect the world’s future (for example, the Paris Climate Agreement was just for show), but some might have a sincere interest in doing that. Things aren’t yet entirely hopeless.
—————
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


theduran--2020-01-09--Trump stops neocon drive towards war with Iran (Video)

The Duran ’ s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss U.S. President Trump ’ s statement signaling an end to military hostilities between the United States and Iran , following , what has been confirmed to be , a symbolic Iranian missile strike on American military targets within Iraq .
Support Free Speech : Subscribe to The Duran on YouTube – Find us on BitChute .
The Duran Audio Podcast : Follow on Soundcloud – Subscribe on iTunes .
“ Pompeo ’ s Gulf Of Tonkin Incident , ” authored by Gareth Porter , via The American Conservative… Like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. invasions of Vietnam and Iraq , the assassination of Qassem Soleimani was aimed at building popular support for war on Iran .
Not only the justification , but the assassination itself were part of a broader strategy to grease the skids into war .
The Soleimani ploy has apparently failed , however , thanks to the carefully prepared Iranian response , which did not provoke Donald Trump to raise the stakes further .
At least not yet .
The fingerprints of Pompeo are all over this provocation to war .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accompanied the Gulf of Tonkin crisis in 1964—in which the American public was told about an attack on a U.S. ship that never happened , precipitating the Vietnam War—Pompeo and his allies carried out a complex deception in regard to the Soleimani hit .
They claimed they had to kill the second most popular leader of Iran with no advance notice to Congress because the Iranian general was planning a massive attack that put the country in “ imminent ” danger .
Trump officials have so far not provided any evidence publicly to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In fact , when briefed by DoD officials Wednesday , Democrats complained about the lack of hard evidence presented , leaving them unconvinced there was an imminent threat .
Republican Sen. Rand Paul , R-KY. , said the briefing was “ less than satisfying.
” The deception accompanying Soleimani ’ s killing was just the latest in a much longer string of efforts by Pompeo that began in September 2018 .
That ’ s when Pompeo and then-National Security Advisor John Bolton established the basic propaganda line that was used to sell the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few mortar rounds in the vicinity of the U.S. embassy and a consulate in Basra were evidence of an effort by Tehran to kill or injure U.S. diplomats .
Bolton then demanded the Pentagon come up with retaliatory options if any Americans were harmed by any action of an Iranian “ proxy , ” Pompeo issued a public threat to attack Iran over the incidents .
But in fact those rockets landed a kilometer away from the U.S. Embassy in the Green Zone where all foreign embassies are located , and that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s outer perimeter was nowhere near the U.S. consulate .
And they were fired the same night that anti-Iran rioters were setting fire to the Iranian consulate in Basra and shutting down the country ’ s only seaport , and at the same time Sadrist protesters were rallying against the Iraqi government at the entrance to the Green Zone in sympathy with the anti-Iran protests .
In May 2019 , Bolton claimed new “ escalatory indications and warnings ” of a threat to U.S. personnel in the Middle East and vowed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States interests or on those of our allies will be met with unrelenting force.
” He and Pompeo leaked to major news outlets that there was intelligence about Iran ordering militia allies in the region to “ target ” Americans .
But other officials who had seen the intelligence told the Wall Street Journal that Tehran sent its allies a directive telling them to prepare for possible attack by the United States .
The Bolton-Pompeo effort to lure Trump into a war with Iran faltered when the president twice refused their advice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a U.S. drone and the drone attack on a key Saudi oil facility .
Bolton got fired in September , but Pompeo continued what they had begun .
On December 13 , he condemned two attacks on a Iraqi military base located near the Baghdad Airport on Dec. 7 and Dec. 9 , in which two Iraqi anti-terrorist troops were injured , and then added , “ We must also use this opportunity to remind Iran ’ s leaders that any attacks by them , or their proxies of any identity , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our interests will be answered with a decisive U.S. response.
” But the circumstances surrounding those rocket attacks made it unclear who might have fired the two to four mortars or rockets at the Iraqi Security Forces headquarters near Baghdad Airport , wounding two Iraqi counter-terrorism personnel .
Opponents of the government had just launched new protests against repression of demonstrations by lethal forces by Iraqi security forces , including anti-riot police , and Moqtada al Sadr , who had been supporting the Iraqi government , but had just started to support the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sadrist militiamen or other opponents of the government had fired the rockets at the base in protest .
Two weeks later , on December 27 , a rocket attack on the K1 Iraqi base near Kirkuk killed an American contractor , as “ Operation Inherent Resolve ” command confirmed .
The Trump administration immediately went into crisis mode , discussing both killing Soleimani and retaliatory strikes against Kataib Hezbollah .
But the provenance of the event that triggered the fateful decisions that followed is shrouded in ambiguity .
As The New York Times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wasn ’ t clear who was responsible for the attack , ” adding that the base had been threatened previously by both Iranian-backed militias and Islamic State forces .
The IS forces in the area of Kirkuk where the K1 base was located had become increasingly active in 2018 and 2019 , with a rapidly growing pace of attacks , operating freely out of the rugged mountainous north and south of the city .
In fact there had been more attacks by IS on government targets in Kirkuk in 2018 than anywhere else @ @ @ @ @ @ @ highest rate of growth as well .
To confirm the origins of the rockets might have taken some time , but Pompeo wasn ’ t interested in waiting .
Instead of taking on the responsibility of investigating the incident thoroughly , the Pentagon and the command of Operation Inherent Resolve turned that responsibility over to the Iraqi Security Forces .
If there was indeed an investigation that turned up information indicating that Kataib Hezbollah was responsible , it would certainly have been released publicly , but no further information on the incident has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commands .
The only specific information available has been a Reuters report from “ security sources that Iraqi security forces had found a ‘ launchpad ’ for Katyusha rockets in ‘ an abandoned vehicle near the base , ’ ” which further deepened the mystery .
But it can be argued that Pompeo was eager for the United States to provoke a military confrontation with Iran , just as Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara was eager to begin airstrikes against North Vietnamese targets in August 1964 .
Even though he knew there were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. commander in the Gulf of Tonkin that an American ship had been attacked by North Vietnamese patrol boats on Aug. 4 , McNamara did not inform President Lyndon Johnson , and went ahead with the order for retaliatory strikes that night .
Similarly , Pompeo apparently led Trump to believe that there was no doubt that pro-Iranian militia forces had killed an American in Kirkuk , despite the genuine uncertainty about the provenance of the attack .
In the initial meeting with Trump to discuss retaliation for the Dec. 27 attack , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark A. Milley presented the option of assassinating Gen. Soleimani along with strikes against Kataib Hezbollah , which they were blaming for the attack .
According to The New York Times , the principals suggested the “ improbable ” assassination option only to make the retaliatory airstrikes more palatable .
But considering Pompeo ’ s record of pushing for a military confrontation with Iran , and everything he has said publicly since , “ taking Soleimani out ” was probably Pompeo ’ s ultimate objective .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s weapons storage sites and other targets on Dec. 29 were nowhere near Kirkuk .
One of the strikes was against al Qaim on the Syrian border 400 kilometers away from Kirkuk and two others were in Syria .
It was obvious those retaliatory strikes would provoke a response by pro-Iranian militias in Baghdad that could be used to justify the assassination of Soleimani .
And the response was not long in coming : thousands of angry pro-Iranian Shiite militants , many in militia uniforms , broke into the Embassy compound and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outer wall a reception area before being ordered by militia leaders to disperse , because they had delivered the desired “ message.
” That was enough to persuade Trump to support the Soleimani assassination option .
Pompeo had achieved his objective of U.S. military aggression , while publicly making the obviously specious argument that it was aimed at “ deterring ” Iran from further military actions .
No one in the national security elite , which was universally convinced that Iran would have to retaliate against the assassination , took Pompeo ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , however , to allow Pompeo to so easily maneuver it into a confrontation that would serve the interests of American hawks and Israel .
Iran has its own much more complex political-military strategy for managing the problem of the Trump administration ’ s policy of economic and military warfare .
It now appears from the results of Iran ’ s military retaliation Tuesday night that it has foregone any mass casualty strike in revenge for the U.S. assassination of its second most prominent official .
And Trump , as yet , will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will have to come up with a new deception to try to provoke U.S.-Iran war .
Gareth Porter is an independent journalist and winner of the 2012 Gellhorn Prize for journalism .
He is the author of numerous books , including Manufactured Crisis : The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare ( Just World Books , 2014 ) .

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 U.S. President Trump’s statement signaling an end to military hostilities between the United States and Iran, following, what has been confirmed to be, a symbolic Iranian missile strike on American military targets within Iraq.
Support Free Speech:
Subscribe to The Duran on YouTube – Find us on BitChute.
The Duran Audio Podcast:
Follow on Soundcloud – Subscribe on iTunes.
“Pompeo’s Gulf Of Tonkin Incident,” authored by Gareth Porter, via The American Conservative…
Like the crucial steps toward public acceptance preceding the U.S. invasions of Vietnam and Iraq, the assassination of Qassem Soleimani was aimed at building popular support for war on Iran. Not only the justification, but the assassination itself were part of a broader strategy to grease the skids into war.
The Soleimani ploy has apparently failed, however, thanks to the carefully prepared Iranian response, which did not provoke Donald Trump to raise the stakes further. At least not yet.
The fingerprints of Pompeo are all over this provocation to war. In a striking parallel to the deception that accompanied the Gulf of Tonkin crisis in 1964—in which the American public was told about an attack on a U.S. ship that never happened, precipitating the Vietnam War—Pompeo and his allies carried out a complex deception in regard to the Soleimani hit. They claimed they had to kill the second most popular leader of Iran with no advance notice to Congress because the Iranian general was planning a massive attack that put the country in “imminent” danger. Trump officials have so far not provided any evidence publicly to back up this version of events. In fact, when briefed by DoD officials Wednesday, Democrats complained about the lack of hard evidence presented, leaving them unconvinced there was an imminent threat. Republican Sen. Rand Paul, R-KY., said the briefing was “less than satisfying.”
The deception accompanying Soleimani’s killing was just the latest in a much longer string of efforts by Pompeo that began in September 2018. That’s when Pompeo and then-National Security Advisor John Bolton established the basic propaganda line that was used to sell the Soleimani assassination. They claimed that a few mortar rounds in the vicinity of the U.S. embassy and a consulate in Basra were evidence of an effort by Tehran to kill or injure U.S. diplomats. Bolton then demanded the Pentagon come up with retaliatory options if any Americans were harmed by any action of an Iranian “proxy,” Pompeo issued a public threat to attack Iran over the incidents.
But in fact those rockets landed a kilometer away from the U.S. Embassy in the Green Zone where all foreign embassies are located, and that the one that fell near the Basra airport’s outer perimeter was nowhere near the U.S. consulate. And they were fired the same night that anti-Iran rioters were setting fire to the Iranian consulate in Basra and shutting down the country’s only seaport, and at the same time Sadrist protesters were rallying against the Iraqi government at the entrance to the Green Zone in sympathy with the anti-Iran protests.
In May 2019, Bolton claimed new “escalatory indications and warnings” of a threat to U.S. personnel in the Middle East and vowed, “[A]ny attack on United States interests or on those of our allies will be met with unrelenting force.” He and Pompeo leaked to major news outlets that there was intelligence about Iran ordering militia allies in the region to “target” Americans. But other officials who had seen the intelligence told the Wall Street Journal that Tehran sent its allies a directive telling them to prepare for possible attack by the United States.
The Bolton-Pompeo effort to lure Trump into a war with Iran faltered when the president twice refused their advice to retaliate militarily over the shoot-down of a U.S. drone and the drone attack on a key Saudi oil facility. Bolton got fired in September, but Pompeo continued what they had begun. On December 13, he condemned two attacks on a Iraqi military base located near the Baghdad Airport on Dec. 7 and Dec. 9, in which two Iraqi anti-terrorist troops were injured, and then added, “We must also use this opportunity to remind Iran’s leaders that any attacks by them, or their proxies of any identity, that harm Americans, our allies, or our interests will be answered with a decisive U.S. response.”
But the circumstances surrounding those rocket attacks made it unclear who might have fired the two to four mortars or rockets at the Iraqi Security Forces headquarters near Baghdad Airport, wounding two Iraqi counter-terrorism personnel. Opponents of the government had just launched new protests against repression of demonstrations by lethal forces by Iraqi security forces, including anti-riot police, and Moqtada al Sadr, who had been supporting the Iraqi government, but had just started to support the demonstrators. It is entirely possible that Sadrist militiamen or other opponents of the government had fired the rockets at the base in protest.
Two weeks later, on December 27, a rocket attack on the K1 Iraqi base near Kirkuk killed an American contractor, as “Operation Inherent Resolve” command confirmed. The Trump administration immediately went into crisis mode, discussing both killing Soleimani and retaliatory strikes against Kataib Hezbollah. But the provenance of the event that triggered the fateful decisions that followed is shrouded in ambiguity. As The New York Times reported on Dec. 27, “It wasn’t clear who was responsible for the attack,” adding that the base had been threatened previously by both Iranian-backed militias and Islamic State forces.
The IS forces in the area of Kirkuk where the K1 base was located had become increasingly active in 2018 and 2019, with a rapidly growing pace of attacks, operating freely out of the rugged mountainous north and south of the city. In fact there had been more attacks by IS on government targets in Kirkuk in 2018 than anywhere else in Iraq, and it had the highest rate of growth as well.
To confirm the origins of the rockets might have taken some time, but Pompeo wasn’t interested in waiting. Instead of taking on the responsibility of investigating the incident thoroughly, the Pentagon and the command of Operation Inherent Resolve turned that responsibility over to the Iraqi Security Forces. If there was indeed an investigation that turned up information indicating that Kataib Hezbollah was responsible, it would certainly have been released publicly, but no further information on the incident has been forthcoming from either Iraqi or U.S. commands. The only specific information available has been a Reuters report from “security sources that Iraqi security forces had found a ‘launchpad’ for Katyusha rockets in ‘an abandoned vehicle near the base,’” which further deepened the mystery.
But it can be argued that Pompeo was eager for the United States to provoke a military confrontation with Iran, just as Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara was eager to begin airstrikes against North Vietnamese targets in August 1964. Even though he knew there were serious doubts on the part of the U.S. commander in the Gulf of Tonkin that an American ship had been attacked by North Vietnamese patrol boats on Aug. 4, McNamara did not inform President Lyndon Johnson, and went ahead with the order for retaliatory strikes that night. Similarly, Pompeo apparently led Trump to believe that there was no doubt that pro-Iranian militia forces had killed an American in Kirkuk, despite the genuine uncertainty about the provenance of the attack.
In the initial meeting with Trump to discuss retaliation for the Dec. 27 attack, Pompeo, Defense Secretary Mark Esper, and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark A. Milley presented the option of assassinating Gen. Soleimani along with strikes against Kataib Hezbollah, which they were blaming for the attack. According to The New York Times, the principals suggested the “improbable” assassination option only to make the retaliatory airstrikes more palatable. But considering Pompeo’s record of pushing for a military confrontation with Iran, and everything he has said publicly since, “taking Soleimani out” was probably Pompeo’s ultimate objective.
The U.S. retaliatory strikes against the militia’s weapons storage sites and other targets on Dec. 29 were nowhere near Kirkuk. One of the strikes was against al Qaim on the Syrian border 400 kilometers away from Kirkuk and two others were in Syria. It was obvious those retaliatory strikes would provoke a response by pro-Iranian militias in Baghdad that could be used to justify the assassination of Soleimani. And the response was not long in coming: thousands of angry pro-Iranian Shiite militants, many in militia uniforms, broke into the Embassy compound and set fire to three trailers near the outer wall a reception area before being ordered by militia leaders to disperse, because they had delivered the desired “message.”
That was enough to persuade Trump to support the Soleimani assassination option. Pompeo had achieved his objective of U.S. military aggression, while publicly making the obviously specious argument that it was aimed at “deterring” Iran from further military actions. No one in the national security elite, which was universally convinced that Iran would have to retaliate against the assassination, took Pompeo’s argument seriously.
Iran is too clever, however, to allow Pompeo to so easily maneuver it into a confrontation that would serve the interests of American hawks and Israel. Iran has its own much more complex political-military strategy for managing the problem of the Trump administration’s policy of economic and military warfare. It now appears from the results of Iran’s military retaliation Tuesday night that it has foregone any mass casualty strike in revenge for the U.S. assassination of its second most prominent official. And Trump, as yet, will not retaliate in response. Now Pompeo will have to come up with a new deception to try to provoke U.S.-Iran war.
Gareth Porter is an independent journalist and winner of the 2012 Gellhorn Prize for journalism. He is the author of numerous books, including Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare (Just World Books, 2014).
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-01-09--The mystery behind the Iraq withdrawal letter (Video)

PLEASE NOTE : We recorded this video hours before the Iranian missile strikes and US President Trump ’ s statement signaling the conclusion of military actions between the United States and Iran .
The Duran ’ s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the origins , and possible authors , of the “ Iraq withdrawal letter ” leaked to Iraqi media , prompting U.S. General Milley and Defense Secretary Mark Esper to excuse the letter away as an “ unauthorized draft ” and “ an honest mistake ” Support Free Speech : Subscribe to The Duran on YouTube – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Audio Podcast : Follow on Soundcloud – Subscribe on iTunes .
The inside account of how the now infamous “ phony ” letter announcing complete US troop withdrawal from Iraq after seventeen years details astoundingly how the “ posting of the letter online unleashed a mad , behind-the-scenes scramble at the Pentagon , the White House , and on Capitol Hill , as elected officials , policymakers , military advisers and journalists sought to understand whether the letter intended to communicate what its plain language suggested.
” As different departments and levels within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , the story changed multiple times .
In a matter of a couple hours it went from “ authentic ” to “ phony ” to part of an effort to sow “ active disinformation ” — and finally according to a confused press briefing by Gen. Milley and Defense Secretary Mark Esper an “ unauthorized draft ” and “ an honest mistake ” .
This after The Washington Post and a host of other major outlets “ confirmed ” it as “ authentic ” — in the words of WaPo ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Monday ’ s Pentagon briefing itself which attempted to assess the origins of the mysterious draft letter , The Dispatch summarized the atmosphere : “ Was the United States really moving to remove its remaining troops from Iraq ?
Nobody seemed to know.
” And ultimately no definitive answers came , other than the Pentagon and administration denying than an Iraq pullout is happening , as to just how a “ draft letter ” which had been making the rounds at CENTCOM came to be in the hands of the Iraqis , after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Dispatch notes , the letter wasn ’ t merely announced by some Iraqi politician in Baghdad , but was released via America ’ s enemies : The news was a propaganda coup for the Iranians and those in Iraq who support them .
The story broke on the television channel of an Iran-backed Iraqi militia , Asaib Ahl al-Haq ( AAH ) , after it was leaked by the Iraqi prime minister ’ s office , according to Liz Sly , Beirut bureau chief for the Washington Post , who noted that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terrorist and his militia is responsible for the deaths of dozens of Americans .
The letter soon made its way into the American media .
Initially , there was this statement out of the Pentagon policy office in conjunction with Operation Inherent Resolve : “ OIR has confirmed with us at the working level that this is active disinformation.
” The Pentagon was “ fairly certain that this is a fake ” according to that early media statement .
But then this later at the Pentagon press briefing : They didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ couldn ’ t offer much of an explanation of its provenance or meaning , either .
Esper pleaded ignorance .
“ I don ’ t know what that letter is , ” he said .
“ We ’ re trying to find out where that ’ s coming from , what that is .
But there has been no decision made to leave Iraq , period.
” He declined to confirm its authenticity .
“ No , I can ’ t. ” Gen. Milley couldn ’ t verify that the letter was real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it ’ s not signed , ” he said .
“ But I just looked at it right there ; it ’ s not signed.
” So even the attempts to account for what may or may not be a “ draft ” letter which originated within the Pentagon itself and then leaked to the Iraqis remain contradictory .
The final word from the Defense Department seems to be a shoulder shrug and that it was “ an honest mistake ” .
What remains is that the whole embarrassing and bizarre episode @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the Iranians and those in Iraq who support them .
”

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.
PLEASE NOTE: We recorded this video hours before the Iranian missile strikes and US President Trump’s statement signaling the conclusion of military actions between the United States and Iran.
The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the origins, and possible authors, of the “Iraq withdrawal letter” leaked to Iraqi media, prompting U.S. General Milley and Defense Secretary Mark Esper to excuse the letter away as an “unauthorized draft” and “an honest mistake”
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…
The inside account of how the now infamous “phony” letter announcing complete US troop withdrawal from Iraq after seventeen years details astoundingly how the “posting of the letter online unleashed a mad, behind-the-scenes scramble at the Pentagon, the White House, and on Capitol Hill, as elected officials, policymakers, military advisers and journalists sought to understand whether the letter intended to communicate what its plain language suggested.”
As different departments and levels within the Pentagon bureaucracy attempted to account for it, the story changed multiple times. In a matter of a couple hours it went from “authentic” to “phony” to part of an effort to sow “active disinformation” — and finally according to a confused press briefing by Gen. Milley and Defense Secretary Mark Esper an “unauthorized draft” and “an honest mistake”.
This after The Washington Post and a host of other major outlets “confirmed” it as “authentic” — in the words of WaPo’s Beirut Bureau chief Liz Sly.
On draft Iraq memo apparently sent to the Iraqi government by mistaken. “Hello darkness my old friend.” Photo h/t @dave_brown24 pic.twitter.com/kfxwt3rb8h — James LaPorta (@JimLaPorta) January 6, 2020
At Monday’s Pentagon briefing itself which attempted to assess the origins of the mysterious draft letter, The Dispatch summarized the atmosphere: “Was the United States really moving to remove its remaining troops from Iraq? Nobody seemed to know.”
And ultimately no definitive answers came, other than the Pentagon and administration denying than an Iraq pullout is happening, as to just how a “draft letter” which had been making the rounds at CENTCOM came to be in the hands of the Iraqis, after which it was posted online.
As The Dispatch notes, the letter wasn’t merely announced by some Iraqi politician in Baghdad, but was released via America’s enemies:
The news was a propaganda coup for the Iranians and those in Iraq who support them. The story broke on the television channel of an Iran-backed Iraqi militia, Asaib Ahl al-Haq (AAH), after it was leaked by the Iraqi prime minister’s office, according to Liz Sly, Beirut bureau chief for the Washington Post, who noted that the leader of AAH is a U.S.-designated terrorist and his militia is responsible for the deaths of dozens of Americans. The letter soon made its way into the American media.
Initially, there was this statement out of the Pentagon policy office in conjunction with Operation Inherent Resolve: “OIR has confirmed with us at the working level that this is active disinformation.” The Pentagon was “fairly certain that this is a fake” according to that early media statement.
Though the letter doesn’t bear a signature, the US military has confirmed its authenticity. Not clear yet whether it’s a full or partial withdrawal, but the reference to deference to the Iraqi parliament’s decision makes it seem pretty definitive. — Liz Sly (@LizSly) January 6, 2020
But then this later at the Pentagon press briefing:
They didn’t declare the letter a fake but they couldn’t offer much of an explanation of its provenance or meaning, either. Esper pleaded ignorance. “I don’t know what that letter is,” he said. “We’re trying to find out where that’s coming from, what that is. But there has been no decision made to leave Iraq, period.” He declined to confirm its authenticity. “No, I can’t.” Gen. Milley couldn’t verify that the letter was real, either. “I do know that it’s not signed,” he said. “But I just looked at it right there; it’s not signed.”
So even the attempts to account for what may or may not be a “draft” letter which originated within the Pentagon itself and then leaked to the Iraqis remain contradictory.
The final word from the Defense Department seems to be a shoulder shrug and that it was “an honest mistake”.
What remains is that the whole embarrassing and bizarre episode does indeed appear a “propaganda coup for the Iranians and those in Iraq who support them.”
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-01-10--Russia, Turkey, Serbia, Bulgaria celebrate TurkStream (Video)

The Duran ’ s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the Putin – Erdogan meeting following the Iran-Iraq , US tensions .
For Russia , TurkStream is a geopolitical coup , and for Turkey it is an economic success .
Putin and Erdogan also made a move to broker a ceasefire together in Libya , which has been resisted by Haftar forces .
Support Free Speech : Subscribe to The Duran on YouTube – Find us on BitChute .
The Duran Audio Podcast : Follow on Soundcloud – Subscribe on iTunes .
The TurkStream pipeline , supplying Russian gas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will boost energy security of the entire southern Europe and the US won ’ t interfere with it , said Sakir Arikan , managing director of TurkAkim Gas .
The much-anticipated 930km pipeline was launched by Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan , during a special ceremony on Wednesday .
The massive infrastructure project was completed in less than three years , despite active resistance from Washington .
The US was alarmed that TurkStream would make Europe overly “ dependent ” on Russian energy supplies – and less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
When asked if he was expecting any further American attempts to derail the project , such as sanctions threats , Arikan said no .
TurkStream wasn ’ t the first time when Washington threatened Ankara with sanctions , political analyst Yusuf Erim noted , referring to the US push to stop Turkey ’ s purchase of Russian S-400 air defense systems last year , which ultimately failed .
Arikan , whose company built the Turkish section of the pipeline , agrees the new route through a “ reliable ” transit country “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this region.
” “ We hosted the President of Serbia [ Aleksandar Vucic ] and Bulgarian Prime Minister [ Boyko Borissov ] here , also there are some guests from other countries in Southern Europe , ” Arikan said .
“ This gas will directly go to these countries – Greece , North Macedonia , Montenegro , Bosnia and Herzegovina , [ Serbia ] , Bulgaria , maybe Romania , and then go to Hungary and Austria.
” Mithat Rende , board member of the Turkish energy company ENGIE , pointed out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ankara to achieve diversification of energy supply routes , which it was looking for since the late 1990s .
The pipeline is “ important for Turkey as we aren ’ t gas producers , ” he told RT .
The gas will arrive directly from Russia to a receiving station located some 100 km west of Istanbul , powering Turkey ’ s largest city but also the industrial zones around it .

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 the Putin – Erdogan meeting following the Iran-Iraq, US tensions. For Russia, TurkStream is a geopolitical coup, and for Turkey it is an economic success.
Putin and Erdogan also made a move to broker a ceasefire together in Libya, which has been resisted by Haftar forces.
Support Free Speech:
Subscribe to The Duran on YouTube – Find us on BitChute.
The Duran Audio Podcast:
Follow on Soundcloud – Subscribe on iTunes.
Via RT…
The TurkStream pipeline, supplying Russian gas to Turkey under the Black Sea, will boost energy security of the entire southern Europe and the US won’t interfere with it, said Sakir Arikan, managing director of TurkAkim Gas.
The much-anticipated 930km pipeline was launched by Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan, during a special ceremony on Wednesday. The massive infrastructure project was completed in less than three years, despite active resistance from Washington.
The US was alarmed that TurkStream would make Europe overly “dependent” on Russian energy supplies – and less eager to buy more expensive American LNG. When asked if he was expecting any further American attempts to derail the project, such as sanctions threats, Arikan said no.
I don’t think so, because the pipeline is already completed and started… Everything is done.
TurkStream wasn’t the first time when Washington threatened Ankara with sanctions, political analyst Yusuf Erim noted, referring to the US push to stop Turkey’s purchase of Russian S-400 air defense systems last year, which ultimately failed.
The Turks have shown that they’re willing to stick to their guns when it comes to matters of national security…. and Turk Stream is a matter of national security when it comes to energy.
Arikan, whose company built the Turkish section of the pipeline, agrees the new route through a “reliable” transit country “will enhance the supply security of gas in this region.”
“We hosted the President of Serbia [Aleksandar Vucic] and Bulgarian Prime Minister [Boyko Borissov] here, also there are some guests from other countries in Southern Europe,” Arikan said. “This gas will directly go to these countries – Greece, North Macedonia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, [Serbia], Bulgaria, maybe Romania, and then go to Hungary and Austria.”
Mithat Rende, board member of the Turkish energy company ENGIE, pointed out meanwhile that the launch of TurkStream allowed Ankara to achieve diversification of energy supply routes, which it was looking for since the late 1990s.
The pipeline is “important for Turkey as we aren’t gas producers,” he told RT. The gas will arrive directly from Russia to a receiving station located some 100 km west of Istanbul, powering Turkey’s largest city but also the industrial zones around it.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-01-10--US’ ‘experiments’ with democracy, regime change and 2 invasions over 30 years in Iraq

If you are getting tired of jingoistic nonsense from generals and officials who can ’ t even seem to be @ @ @ @ @ brain food from somebody who is .
Shekhar Gupta is an experienced journalist from India @ @ @ @ @ any US partisan baggage .
In addition to being a regular contributor to India Today @ @ @ @ @ a news , analysis , opinion and knowledge venture , launched in August 2017 by @ @ @ @ @ sharply focused on politics and policy , government and governance .
Its leadership team includes @ @ @ @ @ and respected journalists with proven track records in the finest news organisations .
Liked it @ @ @ @ @ support The Duran on Patreon !

Switch to the dark mode that's kinder on your eyes at night time.
Switch to the light mode that's kinder on your eyes at day time.


theduran--2020-01-10--Ex-Daesh Women and Children Transferred Across Durand Line

Amid all of this noise we hear from our fearless leaders about Irani state terrorism , no mention is made @ @ @ @ @ goes on .
It is a clear indication of who is actually sponsoring Daesh , @ @ @ @ @ other fun bunch shooting a lot more bullets than Irani backed groups .
For many @ @ @ @ @ Pakistan has been the foundational and chief supporter of terror and a state sponsor .
@ @ @ @ @ the key US partners in this and continue to .
So we say to the @ @ @ @ @ our SECSTATE , SECDEF , DCIA , rubbish !
Whatever Iran or Soleimani has done @ @ @ @ @ to Pakistan .
Pakistan has fed and armed virtually anything that can carry a rifle @ @ @ @ @ last 20 years and nothing has been done about it .
We still train their @ @ @ @ @ planes .
Nobody ever suggested going to war with them .
The key difference ?
@ @ @ @ @ .
America actually helped them to develop those nukes .

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.
https://tolonews.com/afghanistan/ex-daesh-women-and-children-transferred-across-durand-line
Amid all of this noise we hear from our fearless leaders about Irani state terrorism, no mention is made of Pakistan. Yet this goes on. It is a clear indication of who is actually sponsoring Daesh, the Taliban all of the other fun bunch shooting a lot more bullets than Irani backed groups. For many years jezail has maintained that Pakistan has been the foundational and chief supporter of terror and a state sponsor. We have identified many of the key US partners in this and continue to. So we say to the claims of Irani terror by our SECSTATE, SECDEF, DCIA, rubbish! Whatever Iran or Soleimani has done, it pales in comparison to Pakistan. Pakistan has fed and armed virtually anything that can carry a rifle against the US for the last 20 years and nothing has been done about it. We still train their military and still maintain their planes. Nobody ever suggested going to war with them. The key difference? Pakistan has plenty of nukes. America actually helped them to develop those nukes.
jezail.org on the web
and
jezail.org on FaceBook
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-01-10--Estonian sauna, prostitutes and aggressiveness

Unfortunately , aggressiveness is the hallmark of our time .
People face aggressiveness more and more often .
Sometimes the aggressiveness ends without consequences , sometimes innocent people suffer .
This is especially dangerous when they attack those people who they must defend .
On Saturday night , a NATO soldier was aggressive while in the spa at the largest Estonian spa and sauna centre .
Mustamyae Elamuste Keskus staff had to call the police .
The troublemaker turned out to be a 27-year-old NATO soldier .
Representative of the NATO enhanced forward presence battle group at Tapa reported that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eyewitness to the incident told that the soldier was overly aggressive and physically attacked both the spa workers and other visitors .
The brawl took place at 2 a.m .
It is worth noting that the spa at such a late hour operates in 21+ mode , that means it is open only to adult visitors , minors are not allowed at this time .
The managers of the largest spa and sauna centre in Estonia declined to comment on what happened .
“ According to our internal rules , everything that happens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and we , unfortunately , can not comment on the actions of our client , ” said Andres Tiik , the Executive Director of Elamuste Keskus Mustam .
The circumstances of the incident , the time and age limit of the clients of the center speak for the adult party with alcohol and prostitutes .
Though prostitution in Estonia is legalized , such behaviour of soldiers is against generally accepted moral standards .
Most likely this is a consequence of inappropriate screening of NATO military personnel who often have a criminal record @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The more so , foreign troops feel permissiveness and impunity in the Baltic States because of existing Status of forces agreement which give them immunity while on mission abroad .
Thus , NATO military have become the “ untouchable caste ” .
As usually , nobody will know the truth but NATO soldiers ’ reputation is tarnished forever in Estonian sauna .
This is a case in point .
Each new case of inappropriate behavior of NATO military personnel makes one think about who has been given the authority to defend ordinary citizens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are they ?
What did they do before deploying to the Baltic States ?
Were they criminals or alcoholics with unbalanced psyche ?
Do they deserve to be the defendants ?

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 Viktors Dumbors…
Unfortunately, aggressiveness is the hallmark of our time. People face aggressiveness more and more often. Sometimes the aggressiveness ends without consequences, sometimes innocent people suffer.
This is especially dangerous when they attack those people who they must defend.
On Saturday night, a NATO soldier was aggressive while in the spa at the largest Estonian spa and sauna centre. Mustamyae Elamuste Keskus staff had to call the police.
The troublemaker turned out to be a 27-year-old NATO soldier. Representative of the NATO enhanced forward presence battle group at Tapa reported that the incident is being investigated.
An eyewitness to the incident told that the soldier was overly aggressive and physically attacked both the spa workers and other visitors. The brawl took place at 2 a.m.
It is worth noting that the spa at such a late hour operates in 21+ mode, that means it is open only to adult visitors, minors are not allowed at this time.
The managers of the largest spa and sauna centre in Estonia declined to comment on what happened. “According to our internal rules, everything that happens in the centre remains in the centre, and we, unfortunately, cannot comment on the actions of our client,” said Andres Tiik, the Executive Director of Elamuste Keskus Mustam.
The circumstances of the incident, the time and age limit of the clients of the center speak for the adult party with alcohol and prostitutes. Though prostitution in Estonia is legalized, such behaviour of soldiers is against generally accepted moral standards. Most likely this is a consequence of inappropriate screening of NATO military personnel who often have a criminal record or problems with drugs and alcohol. The more so, foreign troops feel permissiveness and impunity in the Baltic States because of existing Status of forces agreement which give them immunity while on mission abroad.
Thus, NATO military have become the “untouchable caste”. As usually, nobody will know the truth but NATO soldiers’ reputation is tarnished forever in Estonian sauna.
This is a case in point. Each new case of inappropriate behavior of NATO military personnel makes one think about who has been given the authority to defend ordinary citizens with weapons in the hands? Who are they? What did they do before deploying to the Baltic States? Were they criminals or alcoholics with unbalanced psyche? Do they deserve to be the defendants?
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-01-10--Canadian PM Steps Into the Mud of Slander Blaming Iran For Boeing Crash

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau ’ s recent claim that Ukraine ’ s flight PS752 was shot down by Iranian rockets according to “ secret intelligence ” has provoked the Iranian government to respond by calling out the bluff which has spread like wildfire in the recent 48 hours .
On Wednesday , Trudeau stated : “ We have intelligence from multiple sources , including our allies and our own intelligence .
The evidence indicates that the plane was shot down by an Iranian surface-to-air missile .
This may well have been unintentional.
” Canadians represented 63 of the 176 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so the words of the Canadian government obviously carries more emotional weight than other nations in this matter .
Trudeau ’ s claims , ( along with those made minutes earlier by the UK ’ s Boris Johnson to the same effect ) represent the first serious attempt to legitimize the gossip which first originated by anonymous sources within the US State Department hours after the crash occurred .
After making these remarks , Trudeau stated that he had shared this secret intelligence with the government of Ukraine as well as the Dutch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2014 Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 which crashed over Eastern Ukraine and which recent information from Ukrainian whistle-blower Lt. Col. Vasily Prozorov proved was actually caused by the Azov-connected Poroshenko government working alongside British Intelligence .
While sufficient evidence has not yet come to light in the current case , the parallels between this week ’ s tragedy and MH17 can not be ignored .
Iran ’ s Foreign Minister Ali Rabiei responded to US , British and Canadian assertions of “ secret evidence ” by inviting all countries who have lost citizens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in order to investigate the black box ( which they rightfully refused to hand over to US officials ) .
Rabiei stated on Thursday : “ All these reports are a psychological warfare against Iran .
All those countries whose citizens were aboard the plane can send representatives and we urge Boeing to send its representative to join the process of investigating the black box.
” Iran stated that all evidence gathered should be “ published and publicized to the world.
” Matthew Ehret is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 [ 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.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s recent claim that Ukraine’s flight PS752 was shot down by Iranian rockets according to “secret intelligence” has provoked the Iranian government to respond by calling out the bluff which has spread like wildfire in the recent 48 hours.
On Wednesday, Trudeau stated: “We have intelligence from multiple sources, including our allies and our own intelligence. The evidence indicates that the plane was shot down by an Iranian surface-to-air missile. This may well have been unintentional.” Canadians represented 63 of the 176 victims who died in the crash and so the words of the Canadian government obviously carries more emotional weight than other nations in this matter.
Trudeau’s claims, (along with those made minutes earlier by the UK’s Boris Johnson to the same effect) represent the first serious attempt to legitimize the gossip which first originated by anonymous sources within the US State Department hours after the crash occurred. After making these remarks, Trudeau stated that he had shared this secret intelligence with the government of Ukraine as well as the Dutch government that had conducted the investigation into the 2014 Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 which crashed over Eastern Ukraine and which recent information from Ukrainian whistle-blower Lt. Col. Vasily Prozorov proved was actually caused by the Azov-connected Poroshenko government working alongside British Intelligence.
While sufficient evidence has not yet come to light in the current case, the parallels between this week’s tragedy and MH17 cannot be ignored.
Iran’s Foreign Minister Ali Rabiei responded to US, British and Canadian assertions of “secret evidence” by inviting all countries who have lost citizens in the disaster to come to Tehran in order to investigate the black box (which they rightfully refused to hand over to US officials). Rabiei stated on Thursday: “All these reports are a psychological warfare against Iran. All those countries whose citizens were aboard the plane can send representatives and we urge Boeing to send its representative to join the process of investigating the black box.”
Iran stated that all evidence gathered should be “published and publicized to the world.”
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