AuthorTopic: WW3??  (Read 89374 times)

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38930
    • View Profile
Re: WW3??
« Reply #705 on: June 22, 2019, 02:09:07 AM »

The Persians have been around for a long time. They are not going to accept foreign rule any time soon.

JOW

They had the Shah from 1941 to 1979.

RE

Yes, I get your point, but the Shah was actually Persian, even if he did eventually became a corrupt puppet.

The Empire always installs a Native Puppet.  The Brits learned way back you don't put a White Guy in charge, you get rebellions immediately.  A local gives the veneer of self-rule.

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 16324
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: WW3??
« Reply #706 on: June 22, 2019, 02:36:29 AM »

The Persians have been around for a long time. They are not going to accept foreign rule any time soon.

JOW

They had the Shah from 1941 to 1979.

RE

Yes, I get your point, but the Shah was actually Persian, even if he did eventually became a corrupt puppet.
There was a lot of English and US interference, particularly from 1950's on wards, which eventually resulted in a radical revolution in 79.... Sounds familiar. Just middle East not Central or South America.
Pretty sure the last 40 years of US animosity and blatant support for enemies (Saddam Hussein, remember him?) has resulted in the Persians being less than looking forward to the next puppet dictator.
Really dont know how anyone can think that after being shit on for 40 years someone would turn around, bow down and welcome the same arsehole as their new overlord without a pretty big fight..

What ever happened to no foreign entanglements.....?

This is all about oil, just like every other US war in the last 50 years. Riding down the Seneca cliff....

JOW

What ever happened to no foreign entanglements? The Dulles Brothers. The Persians have a history more ancient than Rome, and while they have put their country close to our bases, I do not believe an invasion would be Iraq 2.0. Trump is getting advice from the worst people in the history of American governance, and is actively flirting with a war that will ignite the Middle East, all to secure re-election.

Whether it is "all about oil" may well be so, but it sure as hell is about Israel. Netanyahu and the Zionist Apartheid State have been trying to get their huge, stupid thug friend to beat up Iran for years.
"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 16324
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: WW3??
« Reply #707 on: June 22, 2019, 02:38:11 AM »
Now it would seem that Merika is the private army of Bibbi, fighting his wars for him, Master-Blaster style : A small dick manipulating a big dumb bully to do his bidding.
JOW

Exactly. Perfect analogy.
"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 16324
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: Donald Trump Owns This Iran Crisis
« Reply #708 on: June 22, 2019, 02:45:14 AM »
"Unfortunately, Iran will provoke again, and next time the U.S. warmongers may win the argument"


The FSoA did the provoking by flying a drone in Iranian airspace.

RE

And they never will because the FSoA does not recognize Iranian airspace claims, and uses its own definitions. Thus conflict is guaranteed.
"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38930
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump Owns This Iran Crisis
« Reply #709 on: June 22, 2019, 04:49:40 AM »
"Unfortunately, Iran will provoke again, and next time the U.S. warmongers may win the argument"


The FSoA did the provoking by flying a drone in Iranian airspace.

RE

And they never will because the FSoA does not recognize Iranian airspace claims, and uses its own definitions. Thus conflict is guaranteed.

They never will what?

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline John of Wallan

  • Waitstaff
  • ***
  • Posts: 285
    • View Profile
Re: WW3??
« Reply #710 on: June 22, 2019, 06:52:34 PM »
Now it would seem that Merika is the private army of Bibbi, fighting his wars for him, Master-Blaster style : A small dick manipulating a big dumb bully to do his bidding.
JOW

Exactly. Perfect analogy.

Bibi-Trump/ Master-Blaster runs oil town.
The rest of us just have to respect their authoritah...


JOW




Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38930
    • View Profile
🚀 Saudi Airport Struck by Deadly Attack
« Reply #711 on: June 23, 2019, 04:56:18 PM »
The Proxy War is now on in full force.

RE

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/23/world/middleeast/saudi-airport-attacked.html

Saudi Airport Struck by Deadly Attack


The sign at the airport in Abha, Saudi Arabia, shown earlier this month.Credit Fayez Nureldine/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

By The Associated Press

    June 23, 2019

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — One person was killed and seven others were wounded on Sunday in an attack by Iranian-allied Yemeni rebels on a Saudi airport, Saudi Arabia said. The strike came as the American secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, traveled to the country for talks on Iran.

Regional tensions have flared in recent days. The United States abruptly called off a military strike against Iran last week in response to the shooting down of an unmanned American surveillance drone.

The Trump administration has vowed to combine a “maximum pressure” campaign of economic sanctions with a buildup of American forces in the region. A new set of sanctions on Iran is expected to be announced on Monday.

Sunday’s attack by the Yemeni rebels, known as Houthis, targeted the Saudi airport in Abha. Saudi Arabia has been at war with the Houthis in Yemen for more than four years.
Sign up for The Interpreter

Subscribe for original insights, commentary and discussions on the major news stories of the week, from columnists Max Fisher and Amanda Taub.

A Houthi spokesman, Yahia al-Sarie, said earlier Sunday that the rebels had launched drones against Saudi airports in the southern cities of Abha and Jizan.

Saudi Arabia’s military spokesman, Col. Turki al-Maliki, did not say what type of weapon was used in the attack late Sunday. The Saudi Press Agency reported that a Syrian resident of Saudi Arabia had been killed, but did not identify the nationalities of those wounded.

It was the second Houthi attack on Abha’s airport in less than two weeks. The Houthis launched a cruise missile at the airport on June 12, wounding 26 people. The Iranian-backed Houthis also claimed responsibility for bomb-laden drone strikes against a Saudi oil pipeline in recent weeks.

Mr. Pompeo was traveling to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates for talks on Iran. His meeting in Saudi Arabia will be in the Red Sea city of Jidda, about 315 miles north of the Saudi airport that was struck.

Speaking to reporters before flying out, he said he would be talking to the two United States allies “about how to make sure that we are all strategically aligned” and how to build a global coalition to “push back against the world’s largest state sponsor of terror.”
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38930
    • View Profile
🚀 Where was the U.S. drone when Iran shot it down?
« Reply #712 on: June 24, 2019, 02:18:05 AM »
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/UoAnRqSBtQ4" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/UoAnRqSBtQ4</a>
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38930
    • View Profile
🚀 What Trump Really Just Told the Iranians: He’s Out of Ideas.
« Reply #713 on: June 28, 2019, 12:28:36 AM »
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/06/27/donald-trump-iran-sanctions-227243

What Trump Really Just Told the Iranians: He’s Out of Ideas.

The administration’s new Iran sanctions are symbolic. But that’s not the problem—it’s the message they’re sending.

By JARRETT BLANC
June 27, 2019

Jarrett Blanc is a senior fellow in the Geoeconomics and Strategy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He was previously the State Department lead for the implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on Iran’s nuclear program.


AP Photo/Alex Brandon

The Trump administration’s announcement this week of plans to impose new sanctions targeting Iranian leaders and organizations—including the Supreme Leader and his office, military commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Foreign Minister Javad Zarif—will have little practical effect, according to sanctions experts. Senior Iranian officials and their organizations are very unlikely to use international financial institutions or hold substantial assets abroad, and those are the major pathways through which the United States exerts coercive economic pressure. In other words, the new sanctions are more symbolic than effective.

This is not a bad thing. Symbolism is useful in international affairs, especially between adversarial countries like Iran and the United States, which lack formal diplomatic relations and need to find other ways to communicate. Intermediaries can be one option, symbolic measures another.

The problem with these new sanctions is not that they are symbolic, but that the messages they convey to Iran and the rest of the world are foolish and dangerous, and will fail to advance U.S. interests.

Here are three messages the Trump administration sent to Iran this week:

First, targeting the Supreme Leader and his office sends a message that Trump is pursuing regime change. “Supreme Leader” is a somewhat misleading title. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is very powerful but must still balance competing political currents in Iran. (Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Reagan-era regime founder Trump mistakenly named in announcing the sanctions, was more powerful but also not all-powerful, and the cultural embarrassment of mixing up two similar names pales compared with the embarrassment of this poorly executed power politics.) Still, Khamenei is both the most important and most symbolic part of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s leadership, the “Vali-ye faqih,” or “guardian jurist,” on whom the regime’s Islamic ideology rests.

Trump has said he is not seeking regime change in Iran, perhaps intuiting that if Tehran interprets his admitted belligerence through this maximalist lens, the Iranians will have little incentive to give him the pageant-like summit meetings he so nakedly craves. His policy, though, is hard to understand as anything but an effort at regime change. Trump has tried and failed to settle those fears with rhetorical flourishes rather than changes in policy. Adding more aggressive attacks on the face of the Iranian regime will not help.

Second, the new sanctions appear to confirm widely held Iranian beliefs that the United States is out of effective economic measures and is scraping for new tools. With Iranian oil sales down to 300,000 barrels per day (from 2.5 million before sanctions were reapplied) and Iran’s economy suffering, the United States has effectively cut Iran out of international commerce already. Washington might have a few effective moves left, but a continued maximum-pressure economic campaign will now be more about sustaining than increasing costs to Iran, largely by making sure companies and countries grudgingly abiding by U.S. restrictions continue to do so. The real signal Iran will take from the new sanctions is that the Trump administration either does not understand this reality or cannot come up with a more effective option to improve upon it.

As is often the case with this administration, the rollout was confused, with the president and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin claiming variously that the designations were a response to Iran downing a U.S. drone or targeting commercial shipping last week, or were already expected before those provocations, or both. But it is hard to see the sanctions as anything but a tit-for-tat reaction, and that is how Iran will interpret them. That means that, if the United States wants to respond to future Iranian moves, whether increases in Iran’s nuclear program or proxy attacks in the region, Trump will be increasingly limited to military responses. The effect of this is to ratchet up tensions with no strategic outcome in mind, pointing us toward a confrontation simply for lack of a better idea.

Third, the new sanctions suggest that this administration is not looking for a negotiation. For some reason, the administration only said that foreign minister Zarif will be designated for sanctions but didn’t yet do designate him as such, which is, to say the least, odd. If the Treasury Department believed he had any assets abroad, this warning would allow him to move them (of course, he does not—the whole thing is symbolic). Washington’s Iran hawks consider Zarif a reprehensible avatar of a repugnant regime. But if you want to negotiate, the other side needs a representative. Iran has chosen theirs in Zarif, and targeting him will not ease the way to the table. Even more, targeting Zarif will lay bare the eroding limits of U.S. influence. European and Asian governments will happily continue to meet with him, facilitating his visits in the face of whatever financial pressure Washington applies. Each of these visits will be a measure of U.S. isolation.

What is Trump really after? He says he wants negotiations with Iran and has repeatedly sought a summit-level meeting. If that’s indeed what he wants, then the approach demonstrated with these new sanctions is misguided. He will not achieve talks with more belligerence, or with a sanctions regime that confirms Iranian fears of U.S. intentions and Iranian hopes of U.S. isolation and limited options.

If the administration is serious about a negotiation with Tehran, it needs to send a whole different set of signals—one that demonstrates unambiguous de-escalation. The options for such messages are limited only by Washington’s creativity, and many of them would not require showy public moves that Trump might find humiliating or hard to swallow.

For example, announced U.S. military deployments to the Gulf could be quietly pulled back or slow-rolled. U.S. forces in the region could take subtly less active postures in ways that the Iranians would be likely to detect, without any public announcements or tweeting. Trump could leave sanctions in place but let Allies and partners know that, in defined areas, they will not be actively enforced. Trump will see the remaining participants in the Iran nuclear deal at the G-20 meeting in Tokyo this week and can encourage them to offer accommodations that keep Iran in compliance with its nuclear deal obligations (or return Iran to compliance if it violates nuclear limits this week, as threatened). Europe could finalize the financial mechanism designed to facilitate humanitarian trade with Iran without further histrionic threats of U.S. sanctions.

Trump and his administration are inarticulate and cacophonous in much of what they do, both foreign and domestic. It is not surprising that their inability to communicate extends to subtle symbolism and diplomatic signaling. But it matters. The messages Trump is sending make negotiations with Tehran less and less likely and increase the chance of another ruinous war of choice in the Middle East.
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38930
    • View Profile
🚀 Will the US attack Iran?
« Reply #714 on: June 29, 2019, 01:03:39 AM »
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/3QfZZz-RrfE" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/3QfZZz-RrfE</a>
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38930
    • View Profile
🚀 Iran vs. Spineless Europe. How far will US-western Threats Go?
« Reply #715 on: July 16, 2019, 02:43:38 AM »
https://www.globalresearch.ca/iran-vs-spineless-europe-how-far-will-us-western-threats-go/5683369

Iran vs. Spineless Europe. How far will US-western Threats Go?
By Peter Koenig
Global Research, July 12, 2019
Region: Europe, Middle East & North Africa
Theme: Law and Justice, Oil and Energy, US NATO War Agenda
In-depth Report: IRAN: THE NEXT WAR?


Iran announced the second step in reducing her commitment under the 2015 so-called Nuclear Deal, officially known as The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), by exceeding the limit set by agreement of 3.67% uranium enrichment and 300 kg of enriched uranium accumulation. When asked by the media about his reaction, Trump says, “they know what they are doing” and adds, “they better be careful”. Pompeo warns Iran of “more isolation, more sanctions.”

Iran waited for 60 weeks, after the US unilaterally withdrew from the deal in May 2018, hoping that the Europeans, the so-called E3 (Germany, France and the UK) would honor their commitment to JCPOA, signed in July 2015 in Vienna, Austria. But to this day, the Europeans cannot bring themselves to detach from the US tyranny of sanctions. So, Iran went ahead with this crucial decision to also step out from the agreement.

Today, RT reports that Iran is forced to step further away from the nuclear deal. Iran is “pushing back against US sanctions and European inaction on trade, Iran is stepping up its uranium enrichment.”

In fact, Iran has already exceeded the 3.67% of enrichment and the 300 kg cap set under the JCPOA. And according to Iran’s deputy foreign minister Abbas Araghchi, who spoke to a press conference a few days ago, the enrichment levels would stand at 5 percent for now. Iran would give it another 60 weeks to wait for the European reaction.

Iran’s Foreign Minister, Javad Zarif, tweeted that

    “All such steps are reversible only through E3 compliance. Having failed to implement their obligations under JCPOA – including after the US withdrawal – EU/E3 should at a minimum politically support Iran’s remedial measures under Para 36 [of the JCPOA], including at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).” Mr.Zarif added, “E3 have no pretexts to avoid a firm political stance to preserve JCPOA and counter U.S unilateralism.”

IAEA’s Director General, Yukiya Amano has informed the Board of Governors that the Agency verified on 1 July that Iran’s total enriched uranium stockpile exceeded the deal’s limit, and that Iran was in breach of the agreement.

But that is not true. There is no breach. Foreign Minister Zarif, rightly pointed out that Iran’s amassing more enriched uranium than permitted under the deal, was not a violation. Iran was exercising its right to respond to the US unilateral withdrawal from the pact a year ago, to the E3 not honoring their part of the deal, and to Washington’s imposed totally illegal and unjustified punishing sanctions on Tehran.

Zarif confirmed Iran’s action and why, by tweeting,

    “We triggered and exhausted para 36 after US withdrawal. Para 36 of the accord illustrates why. We gave E3+2 [also including Russia and China] a few weeks, while reserving our right. We finally took action after 60 weeks. As soon as E3 abide by their obligations, we’ll reverse.”

Mr. Zarif is absolutely right. Here is what the famous para 36 of the JCPOA says:

    Disputed Resolution Mechanism

    36. If Iran believed that any or all of the E3/EU+3 were not meeting their commitments under this JCPOA, Iran could refer the issue to the Joint Commission for resolution; similarly, if any of the E3/EU+3 believed that Iran was not meeting its commitments under this JCPOA, any of the E3/EU+3 could do the same. The Joint Commission would have 15 days to resolve the issue, unless the time period was extended by consensus. After Joint Commission consideration, any participant could refer the issue to Ministers of Foreign Affairs, if it believed the compliance issue had not been resolved. Ministers would have 15 days to resolve the issue, unless the time period was extended by consensus. After Joint Commission consideration – in parallel with (or in lieu of) review at the Ministerial level – either the complaining participant or the participant whose performance is in question could request that the issue be considered by an Advisory Board, which would consist of three members (one each appointed by the participants in the dispute and a third independent member). The Advisory Board should provide a non-binding opinion on the compliance issue within 15 days. If, after this 30-day process the issue is not resolved, the Joint Commission would consider the opinion of the Advisory Board for no more than 5 days in order to resolve the issue. If the issue still has not been resolved to the satisfaction of the complaining participant, and if the complaining participant deems the issue to constitute significant nonperformance, then that participant could treat the unresolved issue as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part and/or notify the UN Security Council that it believes the issue constitutes significant non-performance.

The provocations by the west seem to be inexhaustible. On Thursday, 4 July, the UK, ordered by Washington, has seized an Iranian oil tanker which they suspected of carrying oil for Syria. Al Jazeera reports:

    “British Royal Marines, police and customs agents on Thursday [4 July] stopped and seized the Grace 1 vessel in Gibraltar on suspicion it carried Iranian crude oil to Syria in breach of European union sanctions against President Bashar al-Assad’s government.”

Foreign Minister Zarif tweeted that UK’s unlawful seizure of a tanker with Iranian oil is piracy, pure and simple. Iran denied that the tanker was bound for Syria’s Baniyas refinery – which does not even have the capacity for such a super tanker to dock, says Iran’s deputy foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi. He did not elaborate on the final destination of the super tanker.

It is clear, the UK, in connivance with its transatlantic empire, does the bidding for Trump’s warrior team, Bolton and Pompeo. – How much farther will they go, the provocateurs? Do they want to incite war with Iran, a retaliatory action, like Iran seizing a UK tanker in return – so as to ‘justify’ a western, possibly Israeli, aggression on Iran, with a counter attack by Iran, triggering a direct intervention by Washington – of course, in defense of Israel – and a major conflict, possibly nuclear, might erupt?

Iran most likely will not fall into this trap. But the question must be asked, how far will the US-western threats, sanctions and physical aggressions go?

This morning, 10 July, RT reports,

    “The latest out of Washington is that the US is looking to put together a “coalition” that would “ensure freedom of navigation both in the Straits of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandeb,” as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joseph Dunford said on Tuesday. These are the waterways connecting the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman, and the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden, respectively.”

What this “freedom of navigation” means, is outsourcing naval blockade and wester piracy of Iranian oil tankers. And that in the 21st Century. How deep can you, WEST, fall to go for this kind of high sea crime practiced centuries ago? Your moral and ethical deterioration is accelerating rapidly into a bottomless black hole from where there is no return.

There is no question, that Iran does not seek to become a nuclear power, that was never the intention in the first place as was attested already almost ten years ago by the American 16 foremost intelligence agencies, but Iran wants to use its nuclear power generation capacity more efficiently – and that is their full right, especially if the Nuclear Deal is broken. The saber rattling, fear mongering and sanctions are meant to intimidate and punish Iran for not bending to the tyranny of Washington – mainly changing regime and hand over Iran’s riches to the US-western corporatocracy.

What it boils down to is whether the E3 – Germany, France and the UK – have sufficient backbone to go ahead on their own, honoring the JCPOA accord, and whether they and the European Union as a whole, would be willing and sovereignly capable of defending their companies from US sanctions, if they start trading with Iran. This is the question that many European corporations are already asking, especially European oil corporations.

At one point, there seems to have been political will by Europe to circumvent the US sanctions regime by introducing a special payment method, called the Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges (INSTEX) which would allow companies in Europe to do business with Iran outside the US-and dollar-dominated SWIFT payment system.However, this works only, if the EU stands up for their companies defending them from US sanctions. Otherwise, as Pompeo already hinted,

    “We will simply sanction all companies that use INSTEX.”

In the long run there are three realities to keep in mind.

First, US sanctions will not go away, unless the rest of the world stands up to the US and sanctions them back, in other words stops trading with the US and uses different payment modes than SWIFT and the US-dollar, for example, local currencies, or yuan and ruble through the Chinese International Payment System (CIPS), or the Russian MIR system (MIR – meaning, world, or peace), introduced by the Bank of Russia in 2015 and which is also opening up to worldwide use.

Second, it is only a matter of time until the Europeans, either as a union or as individual countries will realize that trading with the East – Russia, China and all of the huge mega-Continent of Eurasia which also includes the Middle East, is the most natural trading that can be. It has existed for thousands of years, before the ascent of the AngloZionist empire, some 300 years ago. There is no division of seas. It is a contiguous landmass. And everybody from other continents is welcome to join, peacefully, without the intention of domination and ransacking natural resources.

Third, this second reality will be enhanced and accelerated by China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), also called the New Silk Road – which makes already significant inroads with peoples connecting infrastructure – roads, railways, maritime routes – plus industry, education, research and cultural connections and bridges along the BRI-routes. BRI will very likely become the future for connecting humanity with equitable socioeconomic development for decades to come.

Therefore, Iran may seriously consider dropping for now her ambition to trade with the west – the west is a sinking ship. And instead look to the East for the future. It may mean temporary losses – yes, but so what – the future is not composed of a pyramid of fake dollar-based instant profit – but of foresight and vision. Iran is on the right track by aspiring and most likely shortly entering the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) as a full-fledged member. But, yes, it means dropping the west for now – until the west sees the light on her own.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on New Eastern Outlook.
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38930
    • View Profile
🚀 Russia Gains Stranglehold Over Persian Gulf
« Reply #716 on: August 05, 2019, 12:46:37 PM »
Ya hadda know the Ruskies would not let the Empire simply waltz in and steal the Iranian Oil.

RE

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Russia-Gains-Stranglehold-Over-Persian-Gulf.html

Russia Gains Stranglehold Over Persian Gulf
By Simon Watkins - Aug 04, 2019, 4:00 PM CDT


In a potentially catastrophic escalation of tensions in the Persian Gulf, Russia plans to use Iran’s ports in Bandar-e-Bushehr and Chabahar as forward military bases for warships and nuclear submarines, guarded by hundreds of Special Forces troops under the guise of ‘military advisers’, and an airbase near Bandar-e-Bushehr as a hub for 35 Sukhoi Su-57 fighter planes OilPrice.com has exclusively been told by senior sources close to the Iranian regime. The next round of joint military exercises in the Indian Ocean and the Strait of Hormuz will mark the onset of this in-situ military expansion in Iran, as the Russian ships involved will be allowed by Iran to use the facilities in Bandar-e-Bushehr and Chabahar. Depending on the practical strength of domestic and international reaction to this, these ships and Spetsntaz will remain in place and will be expanded in numbers over the next 50 years.

This gradual roll-out of Russian capability in a country is the Kremlin’s tried and tested operating procedure for leveraging economic and/or political support for a country into that country allowing itself to be used as, effectively, one large multi-level forward military base for Russia. Exactly the same plan was used, and remains in place, in Syria, with Russia maintaining a massive army presence in and around Latakia, Syria, despite having repeatedly made assurances that it was to withdraw from this military theatre. In the early stages, these troops – again, in reality all Spetsnatz foreign operatives – appeared in the guise of military advisers and to provide ‘security staff’ for the huge Russian Khmeimim Air Base and the S-400 Triumf missile system in place in and around Latakia. This Russian presence was later duly expanded and formalised under an agreement signed with Syria in January 2017, which allowed Russia to continue its operations in Latakia and also to utilise the naval facility at Tartus for the next 49 years. This is precisely the format of agreement that has been agreed by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp (IRGC) and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in the last few days, despite muted protest from the broadly pro-JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) nuclear deal allies of President Hassan Rouhani.

Given how poorly Iran has fared in its recent dealings with Russia – most notably over its Caspian Sea oil and gas rights– Iran’s decision to go ahead with this latest deal may seem surprising to many but is the product of two key reasons. First, Iran has no other choice of a potential geopolitical ally in its current fight against sanction-induced economic austerity and political marginalisation. There are only five Permanent Members on the United Nations Security Council: the U.S. (the prime mover against Iran), the U.K. and France (both toeing the U.S. line), China (whose support ebbs and flows according to its own agenda), and Russia. “If you have no means of getting food from the supermarket ten miles away then you have no choice but to shop at the store around the corner, no matter how crappy it is,” one senior Iran source told OilPrice.com last week.
Related: A Surprising Innovation In Energy’s Hottest Market

The second reason is that President Rouhani and his broadly moderate pro-West, pro-JCPOA supporters have lost the confidence of many who voted for him due to his inability to deliver the economic prosperity that he promised would result from the nuclear deal agreed in 2015 and implemented on 16 January 2016. “This includes [Supreme Leader, Ali] Khamenei, who supported Rouhani for the first few years but now has no choice but to go along with the IRGC’s recommendations, and this Russia deal is at the forefront of these,” said a senior Iran source.

Why is the IRGC backing this deal with Russia, given that its senior personnel are extremely capable people and hardened military officers, well aware of the trouble that the deal could create on a global scale? “Firstly, they [the IRGC] honestly believe that a corollary financial deal agreed with Russia last year is the only economic lifeline that Iran has that will stop it from falling into a popular revolutionary scenario, and the second reason is that some of the most senior figures in the IRGC also stand to gain monetarily by co-operating with Russia,” an Iran source told OilPrice.com last week. The cornerstone deal in question was part of a wide-ranging 22-point memorandum of understanding signed by Iran’s deputy petroleum minister, Amir-Hossein Zamaninia, and Russia’s deputy energy minister, Kirill Molodtsov, at the time covering closer co-operation between the two countries across the board.

For the oil and gas sector, specifically, it involved Russia giving US$50 billion per year every year for at least five years so it could complete its top priority oil and gas projects to Western standards, which was estimated to cost around US$250 billion. Another US$250 billion would then be available for the following five years for Iran to build-out the remainder of its economy. In exchange for this, Iran would give Russian companies preference in all future oil and gas field exploration and development deals, to add to the seven already agreed at that time. These included: Zarubezhneft for Aban and Paydar-e Gharb, Lukoil for Ab Teymour and Mansouri, GazpromNeft for Changouleh and Cheshmeh-Khosh, and Tatneft for Dehloran. In addition – and crucial for what is now in view militarily – Iran also agreed to buy Russia’s S-400 missile defence system, to allow Russia to expand its number of listening posts in Iran, and to double the number of senior ranking IRGC officers that are seconded in Moscow for ongoing training, to between 120 and 130.

The deal also ensured that there was a clause not allowing Iran to impose any penalties on any Russian development firm for slow progress on any field for 10 years, including not being able to re-offer these fields in new bidding rounds even if no progress at all was being made. Over the 10-year period the Russians would have the right to dictate exactly how much oil was produced from each field (to the barrel), when it was sold (to the day), to whom it was sold (by company), and for how much it was sold (to the cent). “Added to this is the fact that within the contracts there was another killer clause: Russia had the right to be able to buy all of the oil – or gas – being produced from fields that their companies were supposedly developing at 55 to 72 per cent of its open market value, for the next 10 years,” said one of the Iran sources. In just the last week as well, Russia – despite it swindling Iran out of its arguably rightful share of Caspian Sea resources – has offered to extract oil and gas from Iran’s sector in the Caspian and sell supplies on in the international markets.
Related: The Bakken Oil Boom Is Facing A New Bottleneck

The other reason that has prompted the IRGC into allowing Russia to use Iran as a forward operating military base is that at least two of the most senior commanders have been given monetary inducements to champion Russia’s cause. This was also the reason why Iran ended up buying the inferior capability 28-year old S-300 missile system from Russia rather than the cutting edge new S-400 system. “Russia told Iran that it didn’t actually need the S-400 system and that the S-300 system would be adequate for its needs, despite the S-300 system still costing in total US$7 billion – US$4 billion up front and US$3 billion when it was actually delivered – which was three times the cost that Russia charged Egypt for the better S-400 system,” said one of the Iran sources. “At the same time, two of the key IRGC commanders who had allowed this deal to go ahead pocketed US$105 million each just from that one deal, and they and others get another cut of the US$50 billion per year deal if that fully re-emerges and of the newly-agreed Caspian deal,” he added.

As it stands, then, Russia not only has unfettered access to all of Iran’s onshore, offshore and Caspian Sea oil and gas reserves to sell on as it wishes, however it wishes, but also is set to secure two of the most strategically well-placed ports and surrounding areas in the world’s most sensitive oil and gas hotspot, giving it effective control over the Strait of Hormuz. The Strait, of course, remains the world’s most important oil transit chokepoint – and the key route from the Arabian Gulf to the Far East via the Indian Ocean - with roughly 35% of all seaborne oil and about a third of global liquefied natural gas supplies passing through it. “Bandar-e-Bushehr and Chabahar will give Russia a potential stranglehold over the entire Persian Gulf area and into the Indian Ocean, which will allow it as well to conduct joint naval operations with China with more ease in the U.S. sphere of influence in the East, including around Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines,” a London-based intelligence analyst told OilPrice.com last week. “The fact that Russia also intends to use these two ports not just for warships but for nuclear submarines as well when the waters in its more northern ports are frozen is significantly upping the Russian ante on the West in general and on the U.S. in particular,” he concluded.

By Simon Watkins for Oilprice.com
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38930
    • View Profile
🚀 John Pilger- We Are in a WAR SITUATION with China!
« Reply #717 on: August 23, 2019, 02:32:22 AM »
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/3OXTfShPMHg" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/3OXTfShPMHg</a>
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38930
    • View Profile
🚀 Eighteen years and counting: Are we ever getting out of Afghanistan?
« Reply #718 on: September 15, 2019, 12:11:38 AM »
https://www.salon.com/2019/09/14/eighteen-years-and-counting-are-we-ever-getting-out-of-afghanistan/

Eighteen years and counting: Are we ever getting out of Afghanistan?
After the collapse of his peace deal with the Taliban, Trump’s answer seems to be no. So we've learned nothing

Lucian K. Truscott IV
September 14, 2019 12:00PM (UTC)


It’s been a week since Donald Trump canceled the peace talks with the Taliban that were supposed to happen at the presidential retreat at Camp David last weekend. Negotiations between the United States and Taliban leaders had been going on in Doha for nearly a year. Former U.S. ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad led the U.S. delegation through nine rounds of talks and produced an “agreement in principle” for the U.S. to pull about 5,000 troops out of Afghanistan in return for the Taliban’s assurances that the country would not become a haven for terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Qaida.

After 18 years,  more than 2,000 American soldiers dead and 20,000 wounded, that seems like a reasonable goal, don’t you think? Especially considering that keeping Afghanistan from being a safe haven for al-Qaida terrorists was the reason we invaded in the first place.

So what are we doing walking away from an agreement of any kind that would reduce the number of troops we have in Afghanistan and potentially lead to an end to that misbegotten war? Well, we could ask the president’s national security adviser, except Trump doesn’t have one of those anymore, having fired his third one, John Bolton, a couple of days after ending the peace talks. Or we could ask Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who presumably had something to do with the peace talks, since they were an exercise in diplomacy. But we don’t have a secretary of state. What we’ve got instead is a portly, grinning yes-man whose major accomplishment in office so far seems to be having survived longer than the portly yes-man who preceded him, Rex Tillerson.

Or we could ask the secretary of defense, Mark Esper, but he’s only been in office for about a month, and is probably still having a hard time finding his way around the E-Ring of the Pentagon. We could ask a couple of the other guys who have served as acting secretaries of defense over the last six months or so, but they weren’t around for long, and nobody can remember who the hell they were, so why bother?

Do you see where I’m going with this? We’ve got 14,000 troops still serving in Afghanistan and there is nobody in Washington who’s been around long enough to be able to tell you where they are on the ground over there, or what they’re doing, much less why they’re still there.
00:00/01:12

It’s an incredible state of affairs. There were more stories this week about troops staying at Trump’s Turnberry golf resort in Scotland during refueling stops than there were about the cancellation of the Afghanistan peace talks. That’s what the 18-year war in Afghanistan has become: an afterthought, just another item in a long list of Trump’s capricious, spur-of-the-moment tweets.

Oh, Trump tweeted something about the China tariffs? What did the market do? He’s taking after some television actress who said something nasty about him? The next thing you know he’ll be tweeting about the size of the crowd at his inauguration, or claiming that it was him, not Hillary, who really won the popular vote in 2016.

Meanwhile, there doesn’t appear to be anyone in any position of authority or responsibility in the Trump administration (or in the two administrations that preceded it, for that matter) who is giving any thought at all to the folly of thinking that we should be the ones in charge of picking which of the warring factions will end up running Afghanistan. That’s the original sin of it all, thinking that because we can put thousands of soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan and back them up with about a trillion dollars, that we can decide who wins and who loses over there.

That was the mistake we made in Vietnam, remember? It was the mistake we made going into Iraq, too, and it’s the mistake we’re making every single day we keep American soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan. Call it what you will – folly, or hubris, or simple boneheadedness – it’s what we do every time we figure we know better what should happen in some distant country better than the people who actually live there.

Trump got his panties all in a wad last week because the Taliban set off a car bomb last week in Kabul that killed an American soldier and 10 Afghan civilians. Where the hell has he been? A couple of weeks before that, a series of bombs exploded in the eastern Afghan city of Jalalabad, wounding 66 people, including 10 children. The day before, a bomb planted by ISIS exploded at a wedding hall in Kabul, killing 66 and wounding more than 200.

What does Trump think we can do about the bombings in Afghanistan? We’ve already got 14,000 troops over there. What does he want to do now? Throw a few more thousand into the mix and see what happens? Suicide bombings, truck bombings, car bombings – it’s the way they fight the war amongst themselves in Afghanistan. It’s almost as if we’re not even there. They just go on bombing each other, and sometimes one of our soldiers gets hit and killed. But the fighting among Afghans over who is going to end up running things goes on. Nothing we do over there is going to stop it.

I got a close-up look at the “war” we were waging in Afghanistan when I was over there 15 years ago. One week, I was down in Kandahar on an American base camp surrounded by soldiers. The next week, I was in a little four-wheel-drive truck with a driver and a translator and a photographer, stuck in a traffic jam on the road from Kabul to Jalalabad. It was 3 o’clock in the morning. Two of the vehicles that were holding up the traffic were buses blocking the way at the bottom of a steep gorge. We had to get them moved out of the way if we were going to make it to Jalalabad. The buses were filled with armed Taliban fighters going toward Kabul.

There were no American soldiers anywhere near us. Not one. I had a satellite phone, but there was no one I could call in Kabul with a warning, even if the phone was working, which it wasn’t, because it couldn’t pick up a satellite signal from the bottom of the narrow river gorge. The Taliban were going one way, and we were going the other. It took some maneuvering, but finally we got the Taliban buses moved and we continued on our way. The next day, I heard in Jalalabad that the Taliban had shot up a marketplace in Kabul. I was pretty sure the guys we saw on those buses blocking our way in the gorge were the ones who did that attack in Kabul.

What good were the thousands of American soldiers on base camps in Kandahar and Kabul and Khost and Jalalabad and Bagram? Could they have stopped the  Taliban attack?

The answer then was no. The answer now is no.

Trump blew up the peace talks with the Taliban last week in a fit of pique, just so he could tweet out to his base that he did it. Big, strong, macho Trump. Nobody’s going to get away with killing one of our soldiers while I’m negotiating! I’ll show them! I’ll send out a tweet, and I’ll cancel!

Well, we tried everything else – hundreds of thousands of troops, millions of bullets, hundreds of thousands of bombs, more than 2,000 dead soldiers, more than 20,000 wounded, 18 long years of war.

May as well try tweeting against the Taliban. Hell, his tweets frightened an entire American political party into surrendering to him. Maybe they’ll work in Afghanistan. Nothing else has. 

Lucian K. Truscott IV

Lucian K. Truscott IV, a graduate of West Point, has had a 50-year career as a journalist, novelist and screenwriter. He has covered stories such as Watergate, the Stonewall riots and wars in Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan. He is also the author of five bestselling novels and several unsuccessful motion pictures. He has three children, lives on the East End of Long Island and spends his time Worrying About the State of Our Nation and madly scribbling in a so-far fruitless attempt to Make Things Better. He can be followed on Facebook at The Rabbit Hole and on Twitter @LucianKTruscott.
Save As Many As You Can

Offline azozeo

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 9169
    • View Profile
Re: WW3??
« Reply #719 on: September 22, 2019, 05:49:31 PM »


An unsealed document of american intelligence
signed by the former Central Agency officer Graham Fuller
confirms the bloody project with Israel and Turkey
for Assad’s opposition to Muslim Brotherhood pipeline

by Fabio Giuseppe Carlo Carisio for VT Italia

Syria at present has a hammerlock on US interests both in Lebanon and in Gulf, through closure of Iraq’s pipeline thereby threatening Iraqi internationalization of war. The US should consider sharply escalating the pressure against a Assad through covertly orchestrating simultaneous threats against Syria from three border states hostile to Syria: Iraq, Israel and Turkey».

In an paper of the American CIA (Central Inteligence Agency), declassified on May 27, 2008 and therefore available as Open Source Intellgence (Osint), the occult project of military aggression against Syria by the US is described and also the reasons for doing so.

Signing the document is not just any secret agent but Graham E. Fuller, operating in the Middle East during the administration of President Ronald Reagan (1981-1989), who later became CIA office in Washington and vice president of the US National Intelligence Council.

Three are the certainties that emerge from the document: the need to threaten the Syrian president of that time Hafiz Al Assad, father of Bashar, for his hostility to the Iraqi gas pipeline Qatar-Turkey strongly backed by the Muslim Brotherhood of Sunnite Islamic confession, and therefore enemies of the Shiite Alawites who support the head of syrian government, the rooting of American terrorists as a force of provocation, and the pushing for military action by Iraq, Israel and Turkey.


https://www.veteranstoday.com/2019/09/19/cia-top-secret-file-the-us-war-in-syria-planned-since-1983/
I know exactly what you mean. Let me tell you why you’re here. You’re here because you know something. What you know you can’t explain, but you feel it. You’ve felt it your entire life, that there’s something wrong with the world.
You don’t know what it is but its there, like a splinter in your mind