truthout--2020-08-11--Trump Plans to Gut Emission Rules for Oil, Gas Industry “Beyond Comprehension”

In a move one green group said shows the Trump EPA ’ s approach is “ manifestly inconsistent with the agency ’ s legal obligations ” and with science , the agency is under fire for preparations to roll back methane rules for U.S. oil and gas producers .
Before Friday , the New York Times reported , the EPA is expected to unveil two new rules regarding methane , a greenhouse gas with 80 times the heat-trapping power of carbon dioxide in the first two decades after emission .
One would eliminate federal regulation of methane emissions from oil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would prevent future regulation at sites built before 2015 , and another would weaken remaining requirements for companies , including one directing them to locate and fix leaks in wells .
With the new rules in place , meteorologist and climate reporter Eric Holthaus said , voting Trump out of office in November will be imperative to protect communities across the country from methane emissions , which the EPA itself has said are linked to premature death , stroke , chronic bronchitis , and low birth weight as well as the warming of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reelected and this rule sticks , it is probably the single most consequential near-term climate decision of his presidency , ” wrote Holthaus on social media .
“ A U.S. oil and gas industry unconcerned with methane would produce a surge in global warming with essentially irreversible consequences.
” About 10 % of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are made up of methane , and according to the Environmental Defense Fund , the EPA ’ s new rules could result in an additional five million metric tons of methane pollution to the atmosphere per @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significant EPA decisions to weaken environmental protections , including ones targeting the release of toxins from coal plants and tailpipe emissions .
“ Our federal methane safeguards have been in place since 2016 , protecting Americans from unhealthy and climate-damaging pollution .
The Trump administration ’ s decision to reverse course is deeply and fundamentally flawed , ” said Peter Zalzal , lead attorney for EDF , in a statement .
“ Eliminating these safeguards would ignore the overwhelming body of scientific evidence documenting the urgent need to reduce methane pollution.
” With @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the fossil fuel industry has in recent years promoted natural gas as a “ cleaner ” alternative and is concerned that methane leaks from gas wells will “ undermine that marketing message and hurt demand , ” the Times reported .
Meanwhile , advocates for climate action are focused on promoting solar , wind , and other sustainable energy sources that don ’ t involve fossil fuel extraction at all .
Minneapolis-based meteorologist Sven Sundgaard called the planned rollback “ yet another destructive and stupid act of this administration.
” “ Rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to protect this planet for our children and grandchildren , this administration is now easing regulations on polluters , ” tweeted Sen. Angus King ( I-Maine ) .
“ Let ’ s call this what it is : environmental sabotage .
”

The EPA plans to eliminate federal regulation of methane emissions from oil and gas wells across the country.
In a move one green group said shows the Trump EPA’s approach is “manifestly inconsistent with the agency’s legal obligations” and with science, the agency is under fire for preparations to roll back methane rules for U.S. oil and gas producers.
Before Friday, the New York Times reported, the EPA is expected to unveil two new rules regarding methane, a greenhouse gas with 80 times the heat-trapping power of carbon dioxide in the first two decades after emission.
One would eliminate federal regulation of methane emissions from oil and gas wells across the country and would prevent future regulation at sites built before 2015, and another would weaken remaining requirements for companies, including one directing them to locate and fix leaks in wells.
With the new rules in place, meteorologist and climate reporter Eric Holthaus said, voting Trump out of office in November will be imperative to protect communities across the country from methane emissions, which the EPA itself has said are linked to premature death, stroke, chronic bronchitis, and low birth weight as well as the warming of the planet.
“If Trump is reelected and this rule sticks, it is probably the single most consequential near-term climate decision of his presidency,” wrote Holthaus on social media. “A U.S. oil and gas industry unconcerned with methane would produce a surge in global warming with essentially irreversible consequences.”
Epidemiologist Eric Feigl-Ding denounced the expected rules as “sickening.”
TERRIBLE HORRIBLE NASTY— Trump’s @EPA is preparing to adopt new rules that would rescind regulations for methane-gas emissions, including ending requirements that oil-and-gas producers have systems and procedures to detect methane leaks. Sickening. https://t.co/d2r896Xy13 — Eric Feigl-Ding (@DrEricDing) August 11, 2020
About 10% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are made up of methane, and according to the Environmental Defense Fund, the EPA’s new rules could result in an additional five million metric tons of methane pollution to the atmosphere per year.
The expected rollback follows other significant EPA decisions to weaken environmental protections, including ones targeting the release of toxins from coal plants and tailpipe emissions.
“Our federal methane safeguards have been in place since 2016, protecting Americans from unhealthy and climate-damaging pollution. The Trump administration’s decision to reverse course is deeply and fundamentally flawed,” said Peter Zalzal, lead attorney for EDF, in a statement. “Eliminating these safeguards would ignore the overwhelming body of scientific evidence documenting the urgent need to reduce methane pollution.”
With public support for coal extraction waning significantly, the fossil fuel industry has in recent years promoted natural gas as a “cleaner” alternative and is concerned that methane leaks from gas wells will “undermine that marketing message and hurt demand,” the Times reported.
Meanwhile, advocates for climate action are focused on promoting solar, wind, and other sustainable energy sources that don’t involve fossil fuel extraction at all.
Minneapolis-based meteorologist Sven Sundgaard called the planned rollback “yet another destructive and stupid act of this administration.”
My God. Yet another destructive (& stupid) act of this administration. You cannot care for the environment in any way & support this admin. They continue to dismantle important protections. It’s beyond comprehension.https://t.co/zN0iy5YG3i — Sven Sundgaard (@svensundgaard) August 10, 2020
“Rather than trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to protect this planet for our children and grandchildren, this administration is now easing regulations on polluters,” tweeted Sen. Angus King (I-Maine). “Let’s call this what it is: environmental sabotage.”
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-08-11--Lebanon’s Government Resigns Amid Public Rage Over Beirut Blast

After days of protests , Lebanon ’ s government has resigned following the devastating explosion at the Port of Beirut that killed 200 people and injured thousands .
The port blast , the source of which was 2,700 tons of highly explosive ammonium nitrate left unattended in a warehouse for more than six years , occurred as Lebanon was already facing political , economic and public health crises .
We speak with Ziad Abu-Rish , a historian and research fellow at the Lebanese Center for Policy Studies and co-director of Bard College ’ s Masters of Arts program in human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ despite public outrage toppling the government , structural change may be harder to attain .
“ The fall of cabinets and even the holding of early parliamentary elections are not necessarily signs that fundamental transformation is underway in Lebanon , ” Abu-Rish says .
“ For now at least , this is politics as usual.
” This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : We begin in Lebanon , where the government resigned Monday , following days of protest after more than 200 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a devastating blast at Beirut ’ s port .
Dozens of people are still missing , many of them foreign workers .
Prime Minister Hassan Diab announced his resignation in a televised address .
AMY GOODMAN : The Lebanese president , Michel Aoun , accepted Diab ’ s resignation but asked him to stay on in a caretaker capacity until a new cabinet is formed .
Last week ’ s explosion was triggered by 2,700 tons of highly explosive ammonium nitrate left unattended in a warehouse at the port for over six years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time when Lebanon ’ s already facing political , economic and public health crises .
Ziad Abu-Rish joins us now from Beirut , Lebanon , a historian and research fellow at the Lebanese Center for Policy Studies and co-director of Bard College ’ s Master of Arts program in human rights and the arts .
Welcome to Democracy Now !
It ’ s great to have you with us , Ziad Abu-Rish .
Can you start off by talking about the significance of the fall of the Lebanese government , but the fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government , this as protesters continue to take to the streets in the midst of the aftermath of this horrific explosion ?
ZIAD ABU–RISH : Absolutely , Amy .
And thank you for having me and shedding light on this important topic .
The fall of the Diab government was a demand of protesters and critics of the government , as well as people who participated in the October 2019 revolution in Lebanon and had opposed the formation of this Cabinet .
However , I think it ’ s also important to recognize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also the product of internal conflicts between the various political parties that make up Lebanon ’ s political class .
You mentioned the issue of remaining in power as a caretaker government .
This is actually a very normal state of affairs after governments submit their resignation .
And in fact , the fall of cabinets and even the holding of early parliamentary elections are not necessarily signs that fundamental transformation is underway in Lebanon .
For now at least , this is politics as usual .
And the big question for people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in place of this Cabinet that has just resigned in the wake of the very deadly and devastating explosion , and a Cabinet that has failed to stem the tide of various financial , economic , health and infrastructural crises ?
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And , Ziad Abu-Rish , what about the president himself , Michel Aoun , and the other members of Parliament ?
Are the protesters calling for a much more wholesale change in the government ?
And if so , what kind of structural changes do you think are needed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Well , you know , I think it ’ s important to recognize that protesters are not necessarily unified in their demands .
However , I think they share a wholesale rejection of the status quo , in which all major political parties in Lebanon are implicated .
Whether it ’ s President Michel Aoun or presidents that have come before him , whether it ’ s Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri , all members of Parliament currently or former parliaments , this Cabinet or former cabinets , they have collectively failed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needs of the majority of the people who live in Lebanon , including citizens , refugees , migrant workers and other people .
I think what we want to look for as we move forward , as an indication if there ’ s going to be structural change or not , is who is going to be appointed to the next cabinet .
Is this cabinet going to be an independent cabinet ?
Is it going to be comprised of competent persons ?
And is it going to be empowered to legislate the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the transformation of the political system in Lebanon and pave the way to some meaningful accountability and transparency ?
For example , the electoral law in Lebanon is constantly voted on and passed before each election cycle .
Electoral laws , as you know , determine districting , the distribution of seats and the threshold for making it into office .
This has largely allowed for this political class to reproduce itself every time elections are held .
And if the electoral law is not fundamentally changed , then there ’ s no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ result in an entirely new composition of this Parliament .
Of course , there are other reforms that we can think of that protesters have demanded for a long time , including judicial reform for the creation of a truly independent judiciary , an addressment of the economic crisis , which has only continued to worsen .
There has been no forensic audit to understand what happened and who is responsible .
There have been no stopgap measures taken to prevent the continuous downward spiral .
And , of course , now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any new cabinet is going to have to establish a meaningful investigation of the causes of the explosion and holding those people responsible .
None of these things have happened , not in the Diab Cabinet and not in other cabinets before them .
And this is the fundamental issue here in Lebanon , if anyone hopes to see the kind of transformation that most protesters are calling for .
AMY GOODMAN : Can you respond to the French president , Macron , coming to Lebanon ?
The opening sentence of an AP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It was almost as if Emmanuel Macron forgot that Lebanon is no longer a French protectorate.
” He was in the streets before Lebanon ’ s prime minister was .
If you can talk about that relationship and also the $ 300 million that have been conferenced , a donors ’ conference set up , and where that money would go ?
ZIAD ABU–RISH : Absolutely .
Well , the fact that Macron was in the streets before the prime minister or any other major official in Lebanon was is more a reflection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ class to the population of Lebanon than it is the goodwill intentions of the president of France .
I think Macron was trying to seize the initiative for France and the European Union to get ahead of the United States in paving a way for some type of exit of the political and multiple crises in Lebanon .
And he is perhaps even trying to reposition France in relation to Lebanon and the broader Middle East .
That being said , I think it ’ s important to note that France , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the International Monetary Fund , the World Bank , as well as other powers , like Iran , Russia , Saudi Arabia , are all complicit in helping create , maintain and sustain the political system in Lebanon that most protesters are calling for the downfall of .
So , this is either an 11th-hour about-face turn by the Macron government , and France more generally , or it ’ s a cynical attempt to reestablish relationships .
And as you mentioned yourself with that AP report , France was responsible for creating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of World War II and was a colonial power from 1918 to 1946 , when it withdrew .
Most of the structural and institutional arrangements that are with us today in Lebanon were introduced and facilitated through French governance practices during the colonial period .
And I think if France wants to really change its relationship with Lebanon or champion the aspirations of the people of Lebanon , it should at least begin with a public apology and taking responsibility for its role , past and present , from the establishment of Lebanon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in contributing to the situation , even though , as I always say , the primary responsibility for the status quo in Lebanon is first and foremost amongst the political parties that make up the political class here in Lebanon .
That being said , outside powers have continuously aided and abetted them through financial aid , diplomatic support and other means .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : I ’ m wondering if you could talk about the role of Hezbollah in the current situation .
Clearly , the Lebanese government is trying to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , yet Hezbollah was very closely tied to the Diab government .
Could you talk about that relationship and how this affects the standing of Hezbollah within the multiparty situation that has existed in Lebanon for so many years ?
ZIAD ABU–RISH : Absolutely .
Well , I think we should start by making clear that Hezbollah is a part of the political system and the political class in Lebanon .
It has participated in various parliaments .
It has participated in various governments .
And Hezbollah is perhaps the most powerful political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used this power to buttress the political system in Lebanon , and it has used that power to oppose and confront protesters in Lebanon .
So I think that ’ s very important to make clear , and that any fundamental transformation , as protesters are demanding — kilon yani kilon , all of them means all of them — includes a fundamental rethinking of the role of Hezbollah in local politics here .
That being said , I think a focus on Hezbollah as the panacea for the problems of Lebanon misses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parties that have helped create , maintain and benefit from the system in place .
I think we need to distinguish between legitimate criticisms and opposition to Hezbollah as a part of the broader political and economic system in Lebanon and what I would call illegitimate criticisms of Hezbollah , those that simply seek to reshuffle the chairs in Lebanon , to restructure the balance of power in Lebanon , in the favor of other members of the political class at the exclusion of Hezbollah .
If we think that any solution to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ achieved by simply eliminating Hezbollah from the equation , then we are misreading the situation on the ground .
It is part and parcel of the problem , but as is all major politicians and all major political parties , especially those that have been backed by the United States , Saudi Arabia , France and others in the Western world .
AMY GOODMAN : Ziad , we just have 10 seconds , but do you expect the protests on the ground in this ravaged capital of Beirut to intensify ?
ZIAD ABU–RISH @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intensify .
But as is always the case , that challenge is : Can they translate their presence on the ground into meaningful pressure for institutional and structural change in Lebanon ?
I wish them the best .
I [ admire and am ] in awe of their bravery and courage despite repeated crises and traumas .
And we ’ ll have to wait and see what happens .
AMY GOODMAN : Ziad Abu-Rish , I want to thank you for being with us , research fellow at the Lebanese Center for Policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ master ’ s program in human rights and the arts at Bard College .
When we come back , we speak to The Atlantic ’ s Ed Yong about how the coronavirus has humbled and humiliated the planet ’ s most powerful nation .
Stay with us .

After days of protests, Lebanon’s government has resigned following the devastating explosion at the Port of Beirut that killed 200 people and injured thousands. The port blast, the source of which was 2,700 tons of highly explosive ammonium nitrate left unattended in a warehouse for more than six years, occurred as Lebanon was already facing political, economic and public health crises. We speak with Ziad Abu-Rish, a historian and research fellow at the Lebanese Center for Policy Studies and co-director of Bard College’s Masters of Arts program in human rights and the arts, who says despite public outrage toppling the government, structural change may be harder to attain. “The fall of cabinets and even the holding of early parliamentary elections are not necessarily signs that fundamental transformation is underway in Lebanon,” Abu-Rish says. “For now at least, this is politics as usual.”
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: We begin in Lebanon, where the government resigned Monday, following days of protest after more than 200 people were killed and thousands injured in a devastating blast at Beirut’s port. Dozens of people are still missing, many of them foreign workers. Prime Minister Hassan Diab announced his resignation in a televised address.
PRIME MINISTER HASSAN DIAB: [translated] We follow the will of the people to hold accountable those responsible for this disaster, that has been in hiding for seven years, and their desire for real change, from the corrupt, destructive state, state of brokerages and theft, to the state of law and justice and transparency, to a country that respects its people. In the face of this reality, we take a step back to stand with the people to undergo this battle of change with them. We want to open the door toward national salvation that the Lebanese people are taking part in, and thus I am announcing today the resignation of this government.
AMY GOODMAN: The Lebanese president, Michel Aoun, accepted Diab’s resignation but asked him to stay on in a caretaker capacity until a new cabinet is formed. Last week’s explosion was triggered by 2,700 tons of highly explosive ammonium nitrate left unattended in a warehouse at the port for over six years. The port blast came at a time when Lebanon’s already facing political, economic and public health crises.
Ziad Abu-Rish joins us now from Beirut, Lebanon, a historian and research fellow at the Lebanese Center for Policy Studies and co-director of Bard College’s Master of Arts program in human rights and the arts.
Welcome to Democracy Now! It’s great to have you with us, Ziad Abu-Rish. Can you start off by talking about the significance of the fall of the Lebanese government, but the fact that the government remains as a caretaker government, this as protesters continue to take to the streets in the midst of the aftermath of this horrific explosion?
ZIAD ABU–RISH: Absolutely, Amy. And thank you for having me and shedding light on this important topic.
The fall of the Diab government was a demand of protesters and critics of the government, as well as people who participated in the October 2019 revolution in Lebanon and had opposed the formation of this Cabinet. However, I think it’s also important to recognize that the fall of this government is also the product of internal conflicts between the various political parties that make up Lebanon’s political class.
You mentioned the issue of remaining in power as a caretaker government. This is actually a very normal state of affairs after governments submit their resignation. And in fact, the fall of cabinets and even the holding of early parliamentary elections are not necessarily signs that fundamental transformation is underway in Lebanon. For now at least, this is politics as usual. And the big question for people is: What is going to come in place of this Cabinet that has just resigned in the wake of the very deadly and devastating explosion, and a Cabinet that has failed to stem the tide of various financial, economic, health and infrastructural crises?
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Ziad Abu-Rish, what about the president himself, Michel Aoun, and the other members of Parliament? Are the protesters calling for a much more wholesale change in the government? And if so, what kind of structural changes do you think are needed in Lebanon today?
ZIAD ABU–RISH: Well, you know, I think it’s important to recognize that protesters are not necessarily unified in their demands. However, I think they share a wholesale rejection of the status quo, in which all major political parties in Lebanon are implicated. Whether it’s President Michel Aoun or presidents that have come before him, whether it’s Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri, all members of Parliament currently or former parliaments, this Cabinet or former cabinets, they have collectively failed to deliver on any of the aspirations and needs of the majority of the people who live in Lebanon, including citizens, refugees, migrant workers and other people.
I think what we want to look for as we move forward, as an indication if there’s going to be structural change or not, is who is going to be appointed to the next cabinet. Is this cabinet going to be an independent cabinet? Is it going to be comprised of competent persons? And is it going to be empowered to legislate the necessary laws that are required to begin the transformation of the political system in Lebanon and pave the way to some meaningful accountability and transparency?
For example, the electoral law in Lebanon is constantly voted on and passed before each election cycle. Electoral laws, as you know, determine districting, the distribution of seats and the threshold for making it into office. This has largely allowed for this political class to reproduce itself every time elections are held. And if the electoral law is not fundamentally changed, then there’s no reason to suspect that new elections will result in an entirely new composition of this Parliament.
Of course, there are other reforms that we can think of that protesters have demanded for a long time, including judicial reform for the creation of a truly independent judiciary, an addressment of the economic crisis, which has only continued to worsen. There has been no forensic audit to understand what happened and who is responsible. There have been no stopgap measures taken to prevent the continuous downward spiral. And, of course, now, in the wake of the explosion, any new cabinet is going to have to establish a meaningful investigation of the causes of the explosion and holding those people responsible. None of these things have happened, not in the Diab Cabinet and not in other cabinets before them. And this is the fundamental issue here in Lebanon, if anyone hopes to see the kind of transformation that most protesters are calling for.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you respond to the French president, Macron, coming to Lebanon? The opening sentence of an AP report on his trip begins, “It was almost as if Emmanuel Macron forgot that Lebanon is no longer a French protectorate.” He was in the streets before Lebanon’s prime minister was. If you can talk about that relationship and also the $300 million that have been conferenced, a donors’ conference set up, and where that money would go?
ZIAD ABU–RISH: Absolutely. Well, the fact that Macron was in the streets before the prime minister or any other major official in Lebanon was is more a reflection of the unaccountability of the Lebanese political class to the population of Lebanon than it is the goodwill intentions of the president of France.
I think Macron was trying to seize the initiative for France and the European Union to get ahead of the United States in paving a way for some type of exit of the political and multiple crises in Lebanon. And he is perhaps even trying to reposition France in relation to Lebanon and the broader Middle East.
That being said, I think it’s important to note that France, the United States, the European Union, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, as well as other powers, like Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, are all complicit in helping create, maintain and sustain the political system in Lebanon that most protesters are calling for the downfall of. So, this is either an 11th-hour about-face turn by the Macron government, and France more generally, or it’s a cynical attempt to reestablish relationships.
And as you mentioned yourself with that AP report, France was responsible for creating the state of Lebanon in the aftermath of World War II and was a colonial power from 1918 to 1946, when it withdrew. Most of the structural and institutional arrangements that are with us today in Lebanon were introduced and facilitated through French governance practices during the colonial period. And I think if France wants to really change its relationship with Lebanon or champion the aspirations of the people of Lebanon, it should at least begin with a public apology and taking responsibility for its role, past and present, from the establishment of Lebanon through the civil war and afterwards, in contributing to the situation, even though, as I always say, the primary responsibility for the status quo in Lebanon is first and foremost amongst the political parties that make up the political class here in Lebanon. That being said, outside powers have continuously aided and abetted them through financial aid, diplomatic support and other means.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I’m wondering if you could talk about the role of Hezbollah in the current situation. Clearly, the Lebanese government is trying to get financial assistance from the International Monetary Fund, yet Hezbollah was very closely tied to the Diab government. Could you talk about that relationship and how this affects the standing of Hezbollah within the multiparty situation that has existed in Lebanon for so many years?
ZIAD ABU–RISH: Absolutely. Well, I think we should start by making clear that Hezbollah is a part of the political system and the political class in Lebanon. It has participated in various parliaments. It has participated in various governments. And Hezbollah is perhaps the most powerful political party here in Lebanon. It has used this power to buttress the political system in Lebanon, and it has used that power to oppose and confront protesters in Lebanon. So I think that’s very important to make clear, and that any fundamental transformation, as protesters are demanding — kilon yani kilon, all of them means all of them — includes a fundamental rethinking of the role of Hezbollah in local politics here.
That being said, I think a focus on Hezbollah as the panacea for the problems of Lebanon misses the broader constellation of political forces and parties that have helped create, maintain and benefit from the system in place. I think we need to distinguish between legitimate criticisms and opposition to Hezbollah as a part of the broader political and economic system in Lebanon and what I would call illegitimate criticisms of Hezbollah, those that simply seek to reshuffle the chairs in Lebanon, to restructure the balance of power in Lebanon, in the favor of other members of the political class at the exclusion of Hezbollah. If we think that any solution to the fundamental problems of Lebanon can be achieved by simply eliminating Hezbollah from the equation, then we are misreading the situation on the ground. It is part and parcel of the problem, but as is all major politicians and all major political parties, especially those that have been backed by the United States, Saudi Arabia, France and others in the Western world.
AMY GOODMAN: Ziad, we just have 10 seconds, but do you expect the protests on the ground in this ravaged capital of Beirut to intensify?
ZIAD ABU–RISH: I do suspect that they will intensify. But as is always the case, that challenge is: Can they translate their presence on the ground into meaningful pressure for institutional and structural change in Lebanon? I wish them the best. I [admire and am] in awe of their bravery and courage despite repeated crises and traumas. And we’ll have to wait and see what happens.
AMY GOODMAN: Ziad Abu-Rish, I want to thank you for being with us, research fellow at the Lebanese Center for Policy Studies in Beirut, co-director of the master’s program in human rights and the arts at Bard College.
When we come back, we speak to The Atlantic’s Ed Yong about how the coronavirus has humbled and humiliated the planet’s most powerful nation. Stay with us.


truthout--2020-08-11--Canceling College Football Could Save Lives — and Wake Up Some COVID Deniers

If you are one who is paying close attention to the COVID-19 pandemic but have little use for big-time organized sports in this country , I urge you to pay attention to this .
The 2020 college football season — slated to start within weeks — is on the verge of being canceled .
If there is no fall football this year , the effect will be seismic not just in the realm of sports , but across the entire social and political landscape .
The question of restarting the major U.S. sports leagues began approximately 19 seconds after the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its season on March 11 , right on the verge of the playoffs .
A day later , the National Collegiate Athletic Association ( NCAA ) canceled its wildly popular “ March Madness ” basketball championship festival .
Those decisions had a cascade effect , not only within the realm of sports but throughout the nation at large .
Oh , so this is actually serious , went the revelation for millions , and in time , the hard-hit eastern portion of the country got COVID under some semblance of control as our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wear masks and keep our distance .
The NBA ’ s postponed season and the NCAA ’ s lost tournament did not motivate this all on their own , but those decisions were a large awareness bomb that went off just when the country needed it to .
Donald Trump and his cohort of wreckers were no help in this , of course .
By the end of that same bleak and lethal month , Trump was pushing hard to reopen basically everything that had been closed for safety reasons .
Remember when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Easter ?
Isn ’ t that quaint ?
Trump is saying exactly the same type of things today about college football , pushed by the headwinds of the culture war he has stoked , and aided by mouthpieces in the sports media who want to get back to the business of printing money at the ballpark and the radio station , and never mind the body count .
At present , recently restarted MLB games are getting canceled left and right as a mess of blooming COVID infections across multiple teams has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ collapse .
The NBA , playing within a “ bubble ” at an Orlando resort complex , appears to have found an effective formula for keeping players safe while getting the games in : Everyone in the “ bubble ” stays there , upon pain of suspensions and fines .
The National Hockey League ( NHL ) is doing its own “ bubbles ” in Edmonton and Toronto , and with that league ’ s playoffs underway , no new COVID cases have been reported among players or staff ; the “ bubble @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The National Football League ( NFL ) is marching resolutely toward the opening of its season with no planned “ bubble , ” and dozens of players have opted out for the year rather than risk infection .
And then there is the NCAA college football season just around the corner , and the news report on Sunday that shook this astonishingly popular and beloved institution to its foundations .
“ Commissioners of the Power 5 conferences held an emergency meeting on Sunday , as there is growing concern among college athletics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other fall sports can ’ t be played because of the coronavirus pandemic , ” reported the all-sports network ESPN .
Smaller college football divisions had already canceled their seasons , but if the Power Five called off the year , it would be an earthquake that would shake the entire game .
That quake struck today , when the Big 10 division , one of the Power Five , announced they were canceling football for the 2020 season .
Big 10 schools include Ohio State , Michigan , Penn State , Kansas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Five call their seasons off , it will be a billion-dollar decision that will affect not only the players and the schools , but the cities and towns that rely on game-day revenues in the same way beach towns depend on the summer tourists .
If there are sharks in the water , the financial hit can be enormous , and there are COVID sharks in the waters around these college towns .
The Power Five divisions are proceeding with due and deliberate caution .
Thanks to Trump and people of his ilk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the culture wars right alongside wearing masks and reopening schools .
Those five divisions are looking past that , and even past the money they stand to lose in a canceled season , because the threat is bigger than any Trumpian bluster ever could be .
“ Big Ten officials aren ’ t considering postponement because they ’ re hesitant or weak , ” writes Sally Jenkins for The Washington Post .
“ They ’ re doing the math.
” It isn ’ t just that football — with its huddles , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spit-flecked screaming and vicious bodily contact during colder and drier months — is the ultimate COVID breeding ground .
Those players will be on college campuses teeming with students coming from all points on the compass .
If the COVID pattern holds , there will almost certainly be campus COVID spikes all across the country by Thanksgiving .
There is also an increasing body of scientific evidence that COVID can do permanent damage to the heart , not just of athletes , but everyone who may become infected .
Eduardo Rodriguez , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , became infected with COVID-19 .
Rodriguez recovered , but doctors discovered he had developed myocarditis , a dangerous heart condition , and he had to shut it down for the rest of the season .
Rodriguez may never play again .
“ Research raises the possibility that athletes who recover from covid-19 may face dire or lasting heart complications , ” reports Adam Kilgore for the Post , “ and medical experts have urged cardiac screening for athletes returning to play after contracting the virus.
” You better believe the Power Five @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deeply seriously , if for no other reason than they are worried about getting sued by some third-string punter with a ruined heart who caught COVID at practice because the league didn ’ t shut down the season .
Thousands of such lawsuits could come flying through the window if college football is allowed to play and the worst comes to pass .
Ask yourself : Since this pandemic began , when has the worst not come to pass ?
The cultural , medical and political impact of a canceled college football season @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sits at the right hand of God exactly , precisely in many of the regions of this country where COVID precautions are either not being taken seriously or are being actively flouted .
People in those places are not listening to the scientists warning them of danger… but if college ball gets tossed , that will get their attention in a huge hurry .
It will be like the NBA and NCAA ’ s decision back in March , but more impactful by an order of magnitude .
There are millions of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be deeply affected if Alabama v. Auburn and Ohio State v. Michigan do not happen this year .
It will make an indelible mark .
This is not a reason in and of itself to cancel the season ; those reasons already exist by the score .
If , however , losing college ball this year makes even a percentage of the science-resistant population finally take this thing seriously , we might make it to next spring without 500,000 new COVID deaths to contend with .
The U.S. endured one million new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and this winter will be cruel almost beyond description if immediate steps are not taken to rein this pandemic in .
Trump and his people can and will yell themselves hoarse , but if more of us are alive in May because college ball got benched , that would be the biggest win of all .
UPDATE 7:30 pm ET : “ According to Nicole Auerbach of The Athletic , the conference is aware of at least 10 players who have the rare heart condition myocarditis , which reportedly has a high prevalence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is considered an ‘ alarmingly high number ’ of the rare condition caused by viruses and it has caused decision-makers across college athletics to reconsider their views , per Auerbach.
” — Bleacher Report The Pac-12 , another Power Five division , has also cancelled its fall 2020 football season .

If more people are alive in May because college ball got benched, that would be the biggest win of all.
If you are one who is paying close attention to the COVID-19 pandemic but have little use for big-time organized sports in this country, I urge you to pay attention to this. The 2020 college football season — slated to start within weeks — is on the verge of being canceled. If there is no fall football this year, the effect will be seismic not just in the realm of sports, but across the entire social and political landscape.
The question of restarting the major U.S. sports leagues began approximately 19 seconds after the National Basketball Association (NBA) postponed its season on March 11, right on the verge of the playoffs. A day later, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) canceled its wildly popular “March Madness” basketball championship festival.
Those decisions had a cascade effect, not only within the realm of sports but throughout the nation at large. Oh, so this is actually serious, went the revelation for millions, and in time, the hard-hit eastern portion of the country got COVID under some semblance of control as our states locked down and urged us to wear masks and keep our distance.
The NBA’s postponed season and the NCAA’s lost tournament did not motivate this all on their own, but those decisions were a large awareness bomb that went off just when the country needed it to.
Donald Trump and his cohort of wreckers were no help in this, of course. By the end of that same bleak and lethal month, Trump was pushing hard to reopen basically everything that had been closed for safety reasons. Remember when he said the pandemic would be gone by Easter? Isn’t that quaint?
Trump is saying exactly the same type of things today about college football, pushed by the headwinds of the culture war he has stoked, and aided by mouthpieces in the sports media who want to get back to the business of printing money at the ballpark and the radio station, and never mind the body count.
At present, recently restarted MLB games are getting canceled left and right as a mess of blooming COVID infections across multiple teams has brought the season to the verge of collapse. The NBA, playing within a “bubble” at an Orlando resort complex, appears to have found an effective formula for keeping players safe while getting the games in: Everyone in the “bubble” stays there, upon pain of suspensions and fines.
If there is no fall football this year, the effect will be seismic not just in the realm of sports, but across the entire social and political landscape.
The National Hockey League (NHL) is doing its own “bubbles” in Edmonton and Toronto, and with that league’s playoffs underway, no new COVID cases have been reported among players or staff; the “bubble” thing clearly works if done right. The National Football League (NFL) is marching resolutely toward the opening of its season with no planned “bubble,” and dozens of players have opted out for the year rather than risk infection.
And then there is the NCAA college football season just around the corner, and the news report on Sunday that shook this astonishingly popular and beloved institution to its foundations.
“Commissioners of the Power 5 conferences held an emergency meeting on Sunday, as there is growing concern among college athletics officials that the upcoming football season and other fall sports can’t be played because of the coronavirus pandemic,” reported the all-sports network ESPN.
Smaller college football divisions had already canceled their seasons, but if the Power Five called off the year, it would be an earthquake that would shake the entire game. That quake struck today, when the Big 10 division, one of the Power Five, announced they were canceling football for the 2020 season. Big 10 schools include Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Kansas and Michigan State.
If the Power Five call their seasons off, it will be a billion-dollar decision that will affect not only the players and the schools, but the cities and towns that rely on game-day revenues in the same way beach towns depend on the summer tourists. If there are sharks in the water, the financial hit can be enormous, and there are COVID sharks in the waters around these college towns.
The Power Five divisions are proceeding with due and deliberate caution. Thanks to Trump and people of his ilk, restarting games has become a part of the culture wars right alongside wearing masks and reopening schools. Those five divisions are looking past that, and even past the money they stand to lose in a canceled season, because the threat is bigger than any Trumpian bluster ever could be. “Big Ten officials aren’t considering postponement because they’re hesitant or weak,” writes Sally Jenkins for The Washington Post. “They’re doing the math.”
It isn’t just that football — with its huddles, close quarters, blood, sweat, spit-flecked screaming and vicious bodily contact during colder and drier months — is the ultimate COVID breeding ground. Those players will be on college campuses teeming with students coming from all points on the compass. If the COVID pattern holds, there will almost certainly be campus COVID spikes all across the country by Thanksgiving.
There is also an increasing body of scientific evidence that COVID can do permanent damage to the heart, not just of athletes, but everyone who may become infected. Eduardo Rodriguez, a starting pitcher for the Boston Red Sox, became infected with COVID-19. Rodriguez recovered, but doctors discovered he had developed myocarditis, a dangerous heart condition, and he had to shut it down for the rest of the season. Rodriguez may never play again.
“Research raises the possibility that athletes who recover from covid-19 may face dire or lasting heart complications,” reports Adam Kilgore for the Post, “and medical experts have urged cardiac screening for athletes returning to play after contracting the virus.”
You better believe the Power Five divisions are taking these heart damage reports deeply seriously, if for no other reason than they are worried about getting sued by some third-string punter with a ruined heart who caught COVID at practice because the league didn’t shut down the season.
Thousands of such lawsuits could come flying through the window if college football is allowed to play and the worst comes to pass. Ask yourself: Since this pandemic began, when has the worst not come to pass?
The cultural, medical and political impact of a canceled college football season cannot be understated. College football sits at the right hand of God exactly, precisely in many of the regions of this country where COVID precautions are either not being taken seriously or are being actively flouted.
Trump and his people can and will yell themselves hoarse, but if more people are alive in May because college ball got benched, that would be the biggest win of all.
People in those places are not listening to the scientists warning them of danger… but if college ball gets tossed, that will get their attention in a huge hurry. It will be like the NBA and NCAA’s decision back in March, but more impactful by an order of magnitude. There are millions of people who may scoff at science, but will be deeply affected if Alabama v. Auburn and Ohio State v. Michigan do not happen this year. It will make an indelible mark.
This is not a reason in and of itself to cancel the season; those reasons already exist by the score. If, however, losing college ball this year makes even a percentage of the science-resistant population finally take this thing seriously, we might make it to next spring without 500,000 new COVID deaths to contend with.
The U.S. endured one million new infections in 17 days last month, and this winter will be cruel almost beyond description if immediate steps are not taken to rein this pandemic in. Trump and his people can and will yell themselves hoarse, but if more of us are alive in May because college ball got benched, that would be the biggest win of all.
UPDATE 7:30 pm ET: “According to Nicole Auerbach of The Athletic, the conference is aware of at least 10 players who have the rare heart condition myocarditis, which reportedly has a high prevalence in people who have had COVID-19. This is considered an ‘alarmingly high number’ of the rare condition caused by viruses and it has caused decision-makers across college athletics to reconsider their views, per Auerbach.” — Bleacher Report
The Pac-12, another Power Five division, has also cancelled its fall 2020 football season.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-08-11--As Putin Pushes Russia’s Untested COVID Vaccine, Experts Worry Trump May Follow

Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that his country has created a coronavirus vaccine , adding that his own daughter has already taken it .
“ I know it has proven efficient and forms a stable immunity , and I would like to repeat that it has passed all the necessary tests , ” Putin said upon announcing the vaccine .
However , experts urged caution against the Russian president ’ s claims , noting that the vaccine he is pushing did not go through the same rigorous standards that other nations are putting their COVID-19 vaccines through .
Russia skipped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trials , which involve inoculation of thousands of test participants to examine them for possible side effects and efficacy before going to the public .
A vaccine that hasn ’ t been tested enough could have negative consequences , including causing medical harm to a large percentage of the populace .
It could also simply be ineffective at preventing COVID-19 , which could cast doubts about future vaccines that are developed .
Many believe , at this point , a vaccine is inevitable , but how well it works won ’ t be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Three nations are currently either in or about to enter the third phase in testing a vaccine against COVID-19 : the United States , the United Kingdom , and China .
Sixteen other nations are in the clinical phase of testing .
The announcement from Russia was greeted with widespread skepticism .
Former Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) Commissioner Scott Gottlieb tweeted his misgivings on Tuesday morning .
“ Russia was reported to be behind disinformation campaigns to sow doubts in U.S. about our Covid vaccines , ” Gottlieb noted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they ‘ approved ’ a vaccine on the equivalent of phase 1 data may be another effort to stoke doubts or goad U.S. into forcing early action on our vaccines.
” Epidemiologist and health economist Eric Feigl-Ding also tweeted his mistrust of Putin ’ s announcement , insisting that their vaccine wasn ’ t tested vigorously enough .
“ Phase 3 ’ s larger sample size allows much better study of safety signals & in [ a ] wider range of patients .
Waiting for P3 will allow greater confidence , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russia , too , with Svetlana Zavidova , executive director of Russia ’ s Association of Clinical Trials Organizations , voicing concerns .
“ This is a political decision by Putin so he can claim that Russia was the first in the race to develop a Covid-19 vaccine , ” Zavidova said .
Overall , COVID-19 has killed around 750,000 individuals across the globe , and more than 20 million are currently infected with the disease .
If and when a vaccine can be developed in the United States , current FDA Commissioner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through the proper steps before it is approved for use .
“ All of our decisions will continue to be based on good science and the same careful deliberative processes we have always used when reviewing medical products , ” Hahn said earlier this week .
But according to a CNN poll conducted in May , about one-third of Americans expressed doubts about a vaccine created in the U.S. , too , suggesting that they would not get the vaccine even if it was widely available and not cost-prohibitive .
Skepticism grows if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t backed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) or by coronavirus task force member Anthony Fauci .
According to a recent Politico/Morning Consult poll , 43 percent of Americans say they ’ re more likely to accept a vaccine if Fauci endorses it , while the same percentage says they ’ ll be more willing to accept it if the CDC backs it up .
Conversely , the poll found that an endorsement by President Donald Trump — who a majority of respondents also said has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so far — wouldn ’ t have the same impact .
Only 14 percent in the poll said a vaccine backed by Trump would make them more likely to get it , while 21 percent said his endorsement would actually make them less likely to accept it ( for comparison , only 10 percent said an endorsement from Fauci would make them more skeptical ) .
Following Putin ’ s announcement of a vaccine , some online also theorized that Trump may be willing to take the Russian president at his word on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imitate him by releasing a U.S-based vaccine early .
“ Guess who ’ s most likely to believe Putin ’ s BS and who ’ ll try to emulate it , ” Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe wrote in a tweet , implying that the answer to his rhetorical question was Trump .

Russia’s vaccine did not go through Phase 3 testing involving thousands of subjects, meaning its efficacy is in doubt.
Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that his country has created a coronavirus vaccine, adding that his own daughter has already taken it.
“I know it has proven efficient and forms a stable immunity, and I would like to repeat that it has passed all the necessary tests,” Putin said upon announcing the vaccine.
However, experts urged caution against the Russian president’s claims, noting that the vaccine he is pushing did not go through the same rigorous standards that other nations are putting their COVID-19 vaccines through. Russia skipped, for example, Phase 3 testing trials, which involve inoculation of thousands of test participants to examine them for possible side effects and efficacy before going to the public.
A vaccine that hasn’t been tested enough could have negative consequences, including causing medical harm to a large percentage of the populace. It could also simply be ineffective at preventing COVID-19, which could cast doubts about future vaccines that are developed. Many believe, at this point, a vaccine is inevitable, but how well it works won’t be known until Phase 3 testing is completed.
Three nations are currently either in or about to enter the third phase in testing a vaccine against COVID-19: the United States, the United Kingdom, and China. Sixteen other nations are in the clinical phase of testing.
The announcement from Russia was greeted with widespread skepticism. Former Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Scott Gottlieb tweeted his misgivings on Tuesday morning.
“Russia was reported to be behind disinformation campaigns to sow doubts in U.S. about our Covid vaccines,” Gottlieb noted, “and today’s news that they ‘approved’ a vaccine on the equivalent of phase 1 data may be another effort to stoke doubts or goad U.S. into forcing early action on our vaccines.”
Epidemiologist and health economist Eric Feigl-Ding also tweeted his mistrust of Putin’s announcement, insisting that their vaccine wasn’t tested vigorously enough.
“Phase 3’s larger sample size allows much better study of safety signals & in [a] wider range of patients. Waiting for P3 will allow greater confidence,” Feigl-Ding explained.
Criticism came from within Russia, too, with Svetlana Zavidova, executive director of Russia’s Association of Clinical Trials Organizations, voicing concerns.
“This is a political decision by Putin so he can claim that Russia was the first in the race to develop a Covid-19 vaccine,” Zavidova said.
Overall, COVID-19 has killed around 750,000 individuals across the globe, and more than 20 million are currently infected with the disease.
If and when a vaccine can be developed in the United States, current FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn has said it will go through the proper steps before it is approved for use.
“All of our decisions will continue to be based on good science and the same careful deliberative processes we have always used when reviewing medical products,” Hahn said earlier this week.
But according to a CNN poll conducted in May, about one-third of Americans expressed doubts about a vaccine created in the U.S., too, suggesting that they would not get the vaccine even if it was widely available and not cost-prohibitive.
Skepticism grows if the eventual vaccine offered in the U.S. isn’t backed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or by coronavirus task force member Anthony Fauci. According to a recent Politico/Morning Consult poll, 43 percent of Americans say they’re more likely to accept a vaccine if Fauci endorses it, while the same percentage says they’ll be more willing to accept it if the CDC backs it up.
Conversely, the poll found that an endorsement by President Donald Trump — who a majority of respondents also said has performed poorly in responding to the pandemic so far — wouldn’t have the same impact. Only 14 percent in the poll said a vaccine backed by Trump would make them more likely to get it, while 21 percent said his endorsement would actually make them less likely to accept it (for comparison, only 10 percent said an endorsement from Fauci would make them more skeptical).
Following Putin’s announcement of a vaccine, some online also theorized that Trump may be willing to take the Russian president at his word on its efficacy, or may try to imitate him by releasing a U.S-based vaccine early.
“Guess who’s most likely to believe Putin’s BS and who’ll try to emulate it,” Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe wrote in a tweet, implying that the answer to his rhetorical question was Trump.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-08-11--Is Trump Hoping Warmongering Against Iran Will Help Him Win the Election?

Was Donald Trump ’ s January 3rd drone assassination of Major General Qasem Soleimani the first step in turning the simmering Cold War between the United States and Iran into a hot war in the weeks before an American presidential election ?
Of course , there ’ s no way to know , but behind by double digits in most national polls and flanked by ultra-hawkish Secretary of State Mike Pompeo , Trump is a notoriously impetuous and erratic figure .
In recent weeks , for instance , he didn ’ t hesitate to dispatch federal paramilitary forces to American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration also seems to have launched a series of covert actions against Tehran that look increasingly overt and have Iran watchers concerned about whether an October surprise could be in the cards .
Much of that concern arises from the fact that , across Iran , things have been blowing up or catching fire in ways that have seemed both mysterious and threatening .
Early last month , for instance , a suspicious explosion at an Iranian nuclear research facility at Natanz , which is also the site of its centrifuge production , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ site was severely damaged by a bomb smuggled into the building or some kind of airstrike remains unknown .
“ A Middle Eastern intelligence official said Israel planted a bomb in a building where advanced centrifuges were being developed , ” reported the New York Times .
Similar fiery events have been plaguing the country for weeks .
On June 26th , for instance , there was “ a huge explosion in the area of a major Iranian military and weapons development base east of Tehran.
” On July 15th , seven ships @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Other mysterious fires and explosions have hit industrial facilities , a power plant , a missile production factory , a medical complex , a petrochemical plant , and other sites as well .
“ Some officials say that a joint American-Israeli strategy is evolving — some might argue regressing — to a series of short-of-war clandestine strikes , ” concluded another report in the Times .
Some of this sabotage has been conducted against the backdrop of a two-year-old “ very aggressive ” CIA action plan to engage in offensive cyber attacks against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ News investigative report put it : “ The Central Intelligence Agency has conducted a series of covert cyber operations against Iran and other targets since winning a secret victory in 2018 when President Trump signed what amounts to a sweeping authorization for such activities , according to former U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the matter… .
The finding has made it easier for the CIA to damage adversaries ’ critical infrastructure , such as petrochemical plants.
” Meanwhile , on July 23rd , two U.S. fighter jets buzzed an Iranian civilian airliner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to swerve and drop altitude suddenly , injuring a number of the plane ’ s passengers .
For many in Iran , the drone assassination of Soleimani — and the campaign of sabotage that followed — has amounted to a virtual declaration of war .
The equivalent to the Iranian major general ’ s presidentially ordered murder , according to some analysts , would have been Iran assassinating Secretary of State Pompeo or Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley , although such analogies actually understate Soleimani ’ s stature in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Iran largely held its fire , its only response being a limited , telegraphed strike at a pair of American military bases in Iraq .
If Soleimani ’ s murder was intended to draw Iran into a tit-for-tat military escalation in an election year , it failed .
So perhaps the U.S. and Israel designed the drumbeat of attacks against critical Iranian targets this summer as escalating provocations meant to goad Iran into retaliating in ways that might provide an excuse for a far larger U.S. response .
Such a conflict-to-come would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against a nation several times larger and more powerful than Iraq .
Instead , it would perhaps involve a sustained campaign of airstrikes against dozens of Iranian air defense installations and other military targets , along with the widespread network of facilities that the United States has identified as being part of that country ’ s nuclear research program .
The “ Art ” of the Deal in 2020 In addition to military pressure and fierce sanctions against the Iranian economy , Washington has been cynically trying to take advantage of the fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state , has been especially hard hit by the Covid-19 pandemic .
Those American sanctions have , for instance , made it far harder for that country to get the economic support and medical and humanitarian supplies it so desperately needs , given its soaring death count .
According to a report by the European Leadership Network : “ Rather than easing the pressure during the crisis , the U.S. has applied four more rounds of sanctions since February and contributed to the derailing of Iran ’ s application for an IMF [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three special financial instruments designed to facilitate the transfer of humanitarian aid to Iran in the face of secondary sanctions on international banking transactions … have proven so far to have been one-shot channels , stymied by U.S. regulatory red tape.
” To no avail did Human Rights Watch call on the United States in April to ease its sanctions in order to facilitate Iran ’ s ability to grapple with the deadly pandemic , which has officially killed nearly 17,000 people since February ( or possibly , if a leaked account of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is accurate , nearly 42,000 ) .
Iran has every reason to feel aggrieved .
At great political risk , President Hassan Rouhani and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei agreed in 2015 to a deal with the United States and five other world powers over Iran ’ s nuclear research program .
That accord , the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action ( JCPOA ) , accomplished exactly what it was supposed to do : it led Iran to make significant concessions , cutting back both on its nuclear research and its uranium enrichment program @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sanctions by the United States and other trade partners .
Though the JCPOA worked well , in 2018 President Trump unilaterally withdrew from it , reimposed far tougher sanctions on Iran , began what the administration called a campaign of “ maximum pressure ” against Tehran , and since assassinating Soleimani has apparently launched military actions just short of actual war .
Inside Iran , Trump ’ s confrontational stance has helped tilt politics to the right , undermining Rouhani , a relative moderate , and eviscerating the reformist movement there .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and hardliners swept to a major victory .
But the Iranian leadership can read a calendar , too .
Like voters in the United States , they know that the Trump administration is probably going to be voted out of office in three months .
And they know that , in the event of war , it ’ s more likely than not that many Americans — including , sadly , some hawkish Democrats in Congress , and influential analysts at middle-of-the-road Washington think tanks — will rally to the White House .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ against targets in Iran were to intensify dramatically , the Iranian leadership isn ’ t likely to give Trump , Pompeo , and crew the excuse they ’ re looking for .
As evidence that Iran ’ s leadership is paying close attention to the president ’ s electoral difficulties , Khamenei only recently rejected in the most explicit terms possible what most observers believe is yet another cynical ploy by the American president , when he suddenly asked Iran to reengage in direct leader-to-leader talks .
In a July 31st speech , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well aware Trump is seeking only sham talks to help him in November .
( In June , Trump tweeted Iran : “ Don ’ t wait until after the U.S. Election to make the Big deal !
I ’ m going to win !
” ) Indeed , proving that Washington has no intention of negotiating with Iran in good faith , after wrecking the JCPOA and ratcheting up sanctions , the Trump administration announced an onerous list of 12 conditions that would have to precede the start of such talks .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ demand for a wholesale , humiliating Iranian surrender .
So much for the art of the deal in 2020 .
October Surprises , Then and Now Meanwhile , the United States isn ’ t getting much support from the rest of the world for its thinly disguised effort to create chaos , a possible uprising , and the conditions to force regime change on Iran before November 3rd .
At the United Nations , when Secretary of State Pompeo called on the Security Council to extend an onerous arms embargo on Iran , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to veto any such resolution but America ’ s European allies opposed it , too .
They were particularly offended by Pompeo ’ s threat to impose “ snapback ” economic sanctions on Iran as laid out in the JCPOA if the arms embargo wasn ’ t endorsed by the council .
Not lost on the participants was the fact that , in justifying his demand for such new U.N. sanctions , the American secretary of state was invoking the very agreement that Washington had unilaterally abandoned .
“ Having quit the JCPOA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ participant and has no right to trigger a snapback at the U.N. , ” was the way China ’ s U.N. ambassador put it .
That other emerging great power has , in fact , become a major spoiler and Iranian ally against the Trump administration ’ s regime-change strategy , even as its own relations with Washington grow grimmer by the week .
Last month , the New York Times reported that Iran and China had inked “ a sweeping economic and security partnership that would clear the way for billions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other sectors , undercutting the Trump administration ’ s efforts to isolate the Iranian government.
” The 18-page document reportedly calls for closer military cooperation and a $ 400 billion Chinese investment and trade accord that , among other things , takes direct aim at the Trump-Pompeo effort to cripple Iran ’ s economy and its oil exports .
According to Shireen Hunter , a veteran Middle Eastern analyst at Georgetown University , that accord should be considered a world-changing one , as it potentially gives China “ a permanent foothold in Iran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supremacy in the [ Persian ] Gulf.
” It is , she noted with some alarm , a direct result of Trump ’ s anti-Iranian obsession and Europe ’ s reluctance to confront Washington ’ s harsh sanctions policy .
On June 20th , in a scathing editorial , the Washington Post agreed , ridiculing the administration ’ s “ maximum pressure ” strategy against Iran .
Not only had the president failed to bring down Iran ’ s government or compelled it to change its behavior in conflicts in places like Syria @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a powerful blow to U.S. interests , “ an Iranian partnership with China … could rescue Iran ’ s economy while giving Beijing a powerful new place in the region.
” If , however , the traditional Washington foreign policy establishment believes that Trump ’ s policy toward Iran is backfiring and so working against U.S. hegemony in the Persian Gulf , his administration seems not to care .
As evidence mounts that its approach to Iran isn ’ t having the intended effect , the White House continues apace : squeezing that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fight Covid-19 , threatening it militarily , appointing an extra-hardliner as its “ special envoy ” for Iran , and apparently ( along with Israel ) carrying out a covert campaign of terrorism inside the country .
Over the past four decades , “ October surprise ” has evolved into a catch-all phrase meaning any unexpected action by a presidential campaign just before an election designed to give one of the candidates a surprise advantage .
Ironically , its origins lay in Iran .
In 1980 , during the contest between President Jimmy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , rumors surfaced that Carter might stage a raid to rescue scores of American diplomats then held captive in Tehran .
( He didn ’ t . )
According to other reports , the Reagan campaign had made clandestine contact with Tehran aimed at persuading that country not to release its American hostages until after the election .
( Two books , October Surprise by Gary Sick , a senior national security adviser to Carter , and Trick or Treason by investigative journalist Bob Parry delved into the possibility that candidate Reagan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ others had engaged in a conspiracy with Iran to win that election . )
Consider it beyond irony if , this October , the latest election “ surprise ” were to take us back to the very origins of the term in the form of some kind of armed conflict that could only end terribly for everyone involved .
It ’ s a formula for disaster and like so many other things , when it comes to Donald J. Trump , it can ’ t be ruled out .

Was Donald Trump’s January 3rd drone assassination of Major General Qasem Soleimani the first step in turning the simmering Cold War between the United States and Iran into a hot war in the weeks before an American presidential election? Of course, there’s no way to know, but behind by double digits in most national polls and flanked by ultra-hawkish Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Trump is a notoriously impetuous and erratic figure. In recent weeks, for instance, he didn’t hesitate to dispatch federal paramilitary forces to American cities run by Democratic mayors and his administration also seems to have launched a series of covert actions against Tehran that look increasingly overt and have Iran watchers concerned about whether an October surprise could be in the cards.
Much of that concern arises from the fact that, across Iran, things have been blowing up or catching fire in ways that have seemed both mysterious and threatening. Early last month, for instance, a suspicious explosion at an Iranian nuclear research facility at Natanz, which is also the site of its centrifuge production, briefly grabbed the headlines. Whether the site was severely damaged by a bomb smuggled into the building or some kind of airstrike remains unknown. “A Middle Eastern intelligence official said Israel planted a bomb in a building where advanced centrifuges were being developed,” reported the New York Times. Similar fiery events have been plaguing the country for weeks. On June 26th, for instance, there was “a huge explosion in the area of a major Iranian military and weapons development base east of Tehran.” On July 15th, seven ships caught fire at an Iranian shipyard. Other mysterious fires and explosions have hit industrial facilities, a power plant, a missile production factory, a medical complex, a petrochemical plant, and other sites as well.
“Some officials say that a joint American-Israeli strategy is evolving — some might argue regressing — to a series of short-of-war clandestine strikes,” concluded another report in the Times.
Some of this sabotage has been conducted against the backdrop of a two-year-old “very aggressive” CIA action plan to engage in offensive cyber attacks against that country. As a Yahoo! News investigative report put it: “The Central Intelligence Agency has conducted a series of covert cyber operations against Iran and other targets since winning a secret victory in 2018 when President Trump signed what amounts to a sweeping authorization for such activities, according to former U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the matter…. The finding has made it easier for the CIA to damage adversaries’ critical infrastructure, such as petrochemical plants.”
Meanwhile, on July 23rd, two U.S. fighter jets buzzed an Iranian civilian airliner in Syrian airspace, causing its pilot to swerve and drop altitude suddenly, injuring a number of the plane’s passengers.
For many in Iran, the drone assassination of Soleimani — and the campaign of sabotage that followed — has amounted to a virtual declaration of war. The equivalent to the Iranian major general’s presidentially ordered murder, according to some analysts, would have been Iran assassinating Secretary of State Pompeo or Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, although such analogies actually understate Soleimani’s stature in the Iranian firmament.
In its aftermath, Iran largely held its fire, its only response being a limited, telegraphed strike at a pair of American military bases in Iraq. If Soleimani’s murder was intended to draw Iran into a tit-for-tat military escalation in an election year, it failed. So perhaps the U.S. and Israel designed the drumbeat of attacks against critical Iranian targets this summer as escalating provocations meant to goad Iran into retaliating in ways that might provide an excuse for a far larger U.S. response.
Such a conflict-to-come would be unlikely to involve U.S. ground forces against a nation several times larger and more powerful than Iraq. Instead, it would perhaps involve a sustained campaign of airstrikes against dozens of Iranian air defense installations and other military targets, along with the widespread network of facilities that the United States has identified as being part of that country’s nuclear research program.
The “Art” of the Deal in 2020
In addition to military pressure and fierce sanctions against the Iranian economy, Washington has been cynically trying to take advantage of the fact that Iran, already in a weakened state, has been especially hard hit by the Covid-19 pandemic. Those American sanctions have, for instance, made it far harder for that country to get the economic support and medical and humanitarian supplies it so desperately needs, given its soaring death count.
According to a report by the European Leadership Network: “Rather than easing the pressure during the crisis, the U.S. has applied four more rounds of sanctions since February and contributed to the derailing of Iran’s application for an IMF [International Monetary Fund] loan. The three special financial instruments designed to facilitate the transfer of humanitarian aid to Iran in the face of secondary sanctions on international banking transactions … have proven so far to have been one-shot channels, stymied by U.S. regulatory red tape.”
To no avail did Human Rights Watch call on the United States in April to ease its sanctions in order to facilitate Iran’s ability to grapple with the deadly pandemic, which has officially killed nearly 17,000 people since February (or possibly, if a leaked account of the government’s actual death figures is accurate, nearly 42,000).
Iran has every reason to feel aggrieved. At great political risk, President Hassan Rouhani and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei agreed in 2015 to a deal with the United States and five other world powers over Iran’s nuclear research program. That accord, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), accomplished exactly what it was supposed to do: it led Iran to make significant concessions, cutting back both on its nuclear research and its uranium enrichment program in exchange for an easing of economic sanctions by the United States and other trade partners.
Though the JCPOA worked well, in 2018 President Trump unilaterally withdrew from it, reimposed far tougher sanctions on Iran, began what the administration called a campaign of “maximum pressure” against Tehran, and since assassinating Soleimani has apparently launched military actions just short of actual war. Inside Iran, Trump’s confrontational stance has helped tilt politics to the right, undermining Rouhani, a relative moderate, and eviscerating the reformist movement there. In elections for parliament in February, ultraconservatives and hardliners swept to a major victory.
But the Iranian leadership can read a calendar, too. Like voters in the United States, they know that the Trump administration is probably going to be voted out of office in three months. And they know that, in the event of war, it’s more likely than not that many Americans — including, sadly, some hawkish Democrats in Congress, and influential analysts at middle-of-the-road Washington think tanks — will rally to the White House. So unless the campaign of covert warfare against targets in Iran were to intensify dramatically, the Iranian leadership isn’t likely to give Trump, Pompeo, and crew the excuse they’re looking for.
As evidence that Iran’s leadership is paying close attention to the president’s electoral difficulties, Khamenei only recently rejected in the most explicit terms possible what most observers believe is yet another cynical ploy by the American president, when he suddenly asked Iran to reengage in direct leader-to-leader talks. In a July 31st speech, the Iranian leader replied that Iran is well aware Trump is seeking only sham talks to help him in November. (In June, Trump tweeted Iran: “Don’t wait until after the U.S. Election to make the Big deal! I’m going to win!”) Indeed, proving that Washington has no intention of negotiating with Iran in good faith, after wrecking the JCPOA and ratcheting up sanctions, the Trump administration announced an onerous list of 12 conditions that would have to precede the start of such talks. In sum, they amounted to a demand for a wholesale, humiliating Iranian surrender. So much for the art of the deal in 2020.
October Surprises, Then and Now
Meanwhile, the United States isn’t getting much support from the rest of the world for its thinly disguised effort to create chaos, a possible uprising, and the conditions to force regime change on Iran before November 3rd. At the United Nations, when Secretary of State Pompeo called on the Security Council to extend an onerous arms embargo on Iran, not only did Russia and China promise to veto any such resolution but America’s European allies opposed it, too. They were particularly offended by Pompeo’s threat to impose “snapback” economic sanctions on Iran as laid out in the JCPOA if the arms embargo wasn’t endorsed by the council. Not lost on the participants was the fact that, in justifying his demand for such new U.N. sanctions, the American secretary of state was invoking the very agreement that Washington had unilaterally abandoned. “Having quit the JCPOA, the U.S. is no longer a participant and has no right to trigger a snapback at the U.N.,” was the way China’s U.N. ambassador put it.
That other emerging great power has, in fact, become a major spoiler and Iranian ally against the Trump administration’s regime-change strategy, even as its own relations with Washington grow grimmer by the week. Last month, the New York Times reported that Iran and China had inked “a sweeping economic and security partnership that would clear the way for billions of dollars of Chinese investments in energy and other sectors, undercutting the Trump administration’s efforts to isolate the Iranian government.” The 18-page document reportedly calls for closer military cooperation and a $400 billion Chinese investment and trade accord that, among other things, takes direct aim at the Trump-Pompeo effort to cripple Iran’s economy and its oil exports.
According to Shireen Hunter, a veteran Middle Eastern analyst at Georgetown University, that accord should be considered a world-changing one, as it potentially gives China “a permanent foothold in Iran” and undermines “U.S. strategic supremacy in the [Persian] Gulf.” It is, she noted with some alarm, a direct result of Trump’s anti-Iranian obsession and Europe’s reluctance to confront Washington’s harsh sanctions policy.
On June 20th, in a scathing editorial, the Washington Post agreed, ridiculing the administration’s “maximum pressure” strategy against Iran. Not only had the president failed to bring down Iran’s government or compelled it to change its behavior in conflicts in places like Syria and Yemen, but now, in a powerful blow to U.S. interests, “an Iranian partnership with China … could rescue Iran’s economy while giving Beijing a powerful new place in the region.”
If, however, the traditional Washington foreign policy establishment believes that Trump’s policy toward Iran is backfiring and so working against U.S. hegemony in the Persian Gulf, his administration seems not to care. As evidence mounts that its approach to Iran isn’t having the intended effect, the White House continues apace: squeezing that country economically, undermining its effort to fight Covid-19, threatening it militarily, appointing an extra-hardliner as its “special envoy” for Iran, and apparently (along with Israel) carrying out a covert campaign of terrorism inside the country.
Over the past four decades, “October surprise” has evolved into a catch-all phrase meaning any unexpected action by a presidential campaign just before an election designed to give one of the candidates a surprise advantage. Ironically, its origins lay in Iran. In 1980, during the contest between President Jimmy Carter and former California Governor Ronald Reagan, rumors surfaced that Carter might stage a raid to rescue scores of American diplomats then held captive in Tehran. (He didn’t.) According to other reports, the Reagan campaign had made clandestine contact with Tehran aimed at persuading that country not to release its American hostages until after the election. (Two books, October Surprise by Gary Sick, a senior national security adviser to Carter, and Trick or Treason by investigative journalist Bob Parry delved into the possibility that candidate Reagan, former CIA Director Bill Casey, and others had engaged in a conspiracy with Iran to win that election.)
Consider it beyond irony if, this October, the latest election “surprise” were to take us back to the very origins of the term in the form of some kind of armed conflict that could only end terribly for everyone involved. It’s a formula for disaster and like so many other things, when it comes to Donald J. Trump, it can’t be ruled out.