Israel’s latest campaign against Hezbollah: An utter failure?

Ali Rizk

The last few weeks have witnessed intensifying Israeli rhetoric regarding Hezbollah and its alleged receipt of “precision guided missiles” from Iran. Israeli media outlets have stated that Iranian cargo planes made direct flights recently to Beirut, carrying advanced weapons for the Lebanese movement.

At the same time Israeli Channel 10 has noted that the Israeli military operation currently underway dubbed “Operation Northern Shield”—which the usurper regime of Israel says is meant to destroy underground tunnels that Hezbollah had dug for future offensive operations—may be a prelude to a far bigger Israeli operation aimed at dealing with Hezbollah’s efforts to acquire precision guided missiles. Ali Rizk, a contributor to Al-Monitor and Al-Mayadeen, has written for other outlets including the Lebanese dailies Assafir and Al-Alakhbar. He has more on Israeli attempts against the anti-terror movement of Lebanon, Hezbollah, under the heading of “Israel’s latest campaign against Hezbollah: An utter failure?”

Some revealing developments have taken place in the midst of this Israeli campaign which do not appear to be in Israel’s favor. This perhaps explains why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently claimed that Israeli efforts have succeeded in preventing Hezbollah from acquiring large numbers of precision guided missiles, thereby indicating that a large scale Israeli military operation will not be taking place any time soon.
One of the most revealing of these developments relates to the U.S. position. As Israeli officials were hyping the Hezbollah threat, the U.S. Congress—traditionally famous for its pro-Israeli credentials—had its priorities elsewhere. Instead of joining the Israeli chorus, the Senate took aim at Saudi Arabia and its crown prince, Mohammad bin Salman (MBS)—ironically perceived more and more as an ally of the brutal and child killer regime of Israel. The Senate passed a resolution on December 13 calling on the Trump administration to halt its support for Saudi Arabia’s war against the Ansarullah movement and the revolutionaries in Yemen. At the same time the Senate passed a resolution which held MBS responsible for the killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

But what is more worrying for Israel is the announcement made by U.S. president Donald Trump on December 19 that he’s ordering U.S. forces to withdraw from Syria. One clear implication of Trump’s decision, which is no doubt comforting for Hezbollah, is that National Security Advisor John Bolton doesn’t have Trump’s ear and is not calling the shots.
Bolton had stated last September that U.S. troops will not be leaving Syria “as long as Iranian troops are outside Iranian borders, and that includes Iranian proxies and militias” (read: Hezbollah as per the US standpoint).

During the July 2006 Lebanon War, Bolton was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under then-President George W. Bush. During this war Bolton was an ardent supporter of Israel, with reports emerging that he even collaborated with the Israelis in secret against a draft resolution (which apparently had the backing of then U.S. secretary of state Condoleezza Rice) to reach a ceasefire.

Hence the fact that Trump overruled Bolton and announced the U.S. withdrawal from Syria means that the Zionist regime of Israel may not enjoy as much leverage in the White House as it might have believed.

“An utter failure.” This was how a Hezbollah official described the latest Israeli campaign against the Lebanese movement. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, noted that the “intimidation against Lebanon had failed.”

Senior Lebanese officials indeed abstained from making any criticism of Hezbollah despite Israeli claims that the movement was jeopardizing Lebanon’s security.
Lebanese President Michel Aoun referred to Israel’s ongoing violations of Lebanese sovereignty, while stressing at the same time his country’s commitment to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, which brought an end to the 2006 war. Lebanese Prime Minister Sa’d Hariri issued a similar statement and condemned Israel’s air and sea violations of his country.

The Hezbollah official also made mention of the fact that Israel had failed in getting the Security Council to take action against Hezbollah. The official was referring to a special session held by the Security Council on December 19, whereby Israel called on the Council to designate Hezbollah a terrorist organization. The Council abstained.

This same official went on to assert that “Netanyahu had limited options,” expressing his belief at the same time that the “factors on the ground” do not indicate than an Israeli war on Lebanon is imminent.

Representatives of the UN peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon, otherwise known as “UNIFIL,” also seemed to play down the likelihood of an imminent conflict between Israel and Lebanon. UNIFIL spokesman Andrea Teneti said that based on the “tripartite meetings”—which take place periodically between UNIFIL and representatives from the Lebanese and Israeli militaries—there appears to be “no appetite for conflict.”

Teneti stressed that UNIFIL was doing its utmost to implement its mandate—which is to monitor the cessation of hostilities following the end of the 2006 war, in accordance with Security Council Resolution 1701. And while emphasizing that UNIFIL takes all concerns seriously and was not turning a blind eye, Teneti added that the UN peacekeeping force had seen “no evidence of smuggling weapons” in their area of operations in southern Lebanon; Israeli officials have previously stated that weapons were being smuggled to Hezbollah in that area.

The UNIFIL spokesman pointed out that no such evidence had been found despite the fact that UNIFIL conducts 450 “activities per day”—which amount to 14,000 per month.

Regarding Israeli claims about the Lebanese Hezbollah stockpiling weapons in civilian areas in southern Lebanon, Teneti underscored that searching private property was not part of the UNIFIL mandate. He also played down the likelihood of this factor changing any time soon, pointing out that any such changes to the UN mandate would require the approval of the Security Council along with all the countries contributing troops to the UNIFIL force.

However, just recently a Hezbollah official has warned Israel against invading Lebanon, saying the resistance movement is strong enough to block any military aggression and retaliate against it. Hassan Hoballah, a member of Hezbollah’s political bureau, said “The days when Israel could simply attack Lebanon are over, even though the initiative to attack is in Israel’s hands.” The remarks came hours after the Israeli army launched an operation along Lebanon’s border under the pretext of “cutting off” what it claims are Hezbollah tunnels near the occupied territories.

Chief of Staff of Israeli military, Lieutenant General Gadi Eizenkot, claimed that the so-called Operation Northern Shield had been launched before the tunnels were operational and “became an immediate and direct threat to northern communities and army bases.”

Elsewhere in his comments, Hoballah stressed that Hezbollah fighters are capable of blocking any Israeli assault and launching counter-attacks on the enemy. He added that the resistance forces are on “a constant state of alert and surveillance, and are assessing the situation.” The Hezbollah official also noted that the movement’s course of action will depend on developments in the field.

Separately, President Michel Aoun called on Lebanon’s military and security agencies to “closely monitor” the situation in the country’s south. Lebanon’s official National News Agency (NNA) reported that Aoun had held several phone calls with government officials and the army commander regarding the new Israeli operation. The report said “During President Aoun’s phone calls, the situation was evaluated in light of the available information about the objectives of the Israeli operation and security agencies were asked to closely monitor the situation”.

Additionally, the Lebanese army command said that it is watching the situation closely, reiterating its readiness to confront any emergency situation. An army communiqué read, “The situation is under close follow-up.” It further pointed out that the Lebanese army units are carrying out their usual missions near the occupied lands in cooperation with the United Nations peacekeeping force, known as UNIFIL, to prevent any escalation or destabilization in the region.

Analysts have, however, raised doubt about the declared objective of the Israeli operation, describing it as an attempt by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to divert attention from the corruption scandals he is grappling with.
Prominent regional analyst Abdel Bari Atwan, the editor-in-chief of Rai al-Youm, wrote that the Israeli premier is struggling to save his own political life and avoid ending behind bars for graft by announcing such an operation.

He also said the operation was launched shortly after Netanyahu’s meeting with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in the Belgian capital, stressing that the embattled prime minister had been in Brussels to ask Pompeo for help.

Miko Peled, a former member of the Israeli army who has now become a pro-Palestinian activist, also believes that the Israeli operation is actually meant to distract public opinion from Netanyahu’s corruption probes. Peled told Russia’s Sputnik news agency, “If you look at the Israeli papers, there are some mentions of the corruption charges. Today, it’s all southern Lebanon, it’s all Hezbollah”.

Year Ends But No End In Sight For Sufferings Of Yemeni People

By: Kayhan Int’l 

The year 2018 has come to its end, and tomorrow will be the start of the new Gregorian calendar year, but there is no end in sight for the wars and crises plaguing the world, mainly because of the devilish designs of the US and its clients.

In France the Yellow Jacket Movement continues to rock Paris and other cities, while there is uneasiness in most European countries. 

On the other side of the world, the US seems to be badly trapped in the wave of migration on its southern borders, with the intransigent Donald Trump (grandson of a German migrant), locked in a deadly duel with the Senate to the extent of ‘government shutdown’ because of the rejection of his absurd demand for financing the erection of a long apartheid wall on the frontier with Mexico.

The most catastrophic crisis, however, is the situation of Yemen, a country of 28 million, of whom 22 million are facing famine and starvation, because of the war imposed upon them by Saudi Arabia and the UAE, at the behest of the US.

A tentative peace was recently reached in Sweden, following UN mediation between the legal Ansarallah-led government in Sana’a and the militias of the south which are backed by the invaders.

The first step in the peace process calls for demilitarization of the strategic Red Sea port of Hodeidah, a plan to which the Ansarallah have given approval and are already in the process of withdrawing their forces, in order to enable the UN to monitor import-export activities that are vital to the survival of the whole nation of Yemen which is in dire need of urgent food supplies and medicines.

Unfortunately, the Saudi-UAE invaders are yet to fulfill their commitments to the peace process by withdrawing their forces from the vicinity of Hodeidah, stopping military activities, ceasing bombardment of Yemen, and lifting their sea and air blockade of the country, including the opening to international relief aid of the Sana’a airport. 

The result has been continuation of the stalemate with no end to the sufferings of the people of Yemen, while the Saudis and Emiratis, steeped in luxuries and unbothered of the catastrophe facing fellow Arab Muslims in Yemen, use poor mercenaries from as far as Darfur in Africa and Colombia in South America to either die on the battlefields of Yemen or kill the Yemeni people.

It is obvious that the invaders have already lost despite their massive military power. Having failed to reach their sinister goals through war they had schemed to take control of Hodeidah through so-called peace talks, but thanks to the vigilance of the people of Yemen, they have failed yet again.

There was no agreement in Sweden on handing over of Hodeidah to the invaders or their militias of the southern tribesmen. The Ansarallah had only said that the UN will be allowed supervision of activities at the port while the Yemeni armed forces will evacuate the city in order to facilitate such operations.
It means, the moment the Yemeni forces see that the clauses of the peace talks are violated by the southern militias and their Saudi-Emirati overlords, the Ansarallah will not hesitate to rally to the defence of the people of Hodeidah.

Thus, the onus is now on the UN to force the invaders and their proxy militias to respect the peace. If the World Body is really interested in peace, it should not hesitate to declare both Riyadh and Abu Dhabi as aggressors and demand complete end to military operations, in order to allow the people of Yemen to get together to resolve the crisis in a democratic manner, without any outside interference. 

Trump pulls troops out of Syria in desperate attempt to save his presidency

On December 19, Donald Trump announced in a Twitter message: "Our boys, our young women, our men, they're all coming back and they're coming back now. We won". Shortly thereafter, Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White said in a statement: "We have started the process of returning US troops home from Syria as we transition to the next phase of the campaign".

Federico Pieraccini, independent freelance writer specialized in international affairs, conflicts, politics and strategies, has analyzed the issue in his article titled, Trump Pulls Troops Out of Syria in Desperate Attempt to Save His Presidency, Causing Geopolitical Earthquake.

The reasons for Donald Trump’s move are many, but they are mainly driven by US domestic concerns. The temperature is heating up for Trump following the midterms, as the Democrats prepare to take command of the House of Representatives in January, something that Trump had always hoped to avert. He surrounded himself with generals, in the forlorn hope that this would somehow protect him. If the last two years of his presidency were constantly under the cloud of Mueller’s investigation, or insinuations of being an agent of Putin, from January 2019 the situation is going to get much more complicated. The Democratic electoral base is baying for the President’s impeachment, the party already in full pre-primary mode, with more than 20 candidates competing, with the incumbent of the White House offering the rallying cry.

The combination of these factors has forced Trump to change gears, considering that the military-industrial-intelligence-media-complex has always been ready to get rid of Trump, even in favor of a President Pence. The only option available for Trump in order to have a chance of reelection in 2020 is to undertake a self-promotion tour, a practice in which he has few peers, and which will involve him repeating his mantra of “Promises Made, Promises Kept”. He will list how he has fought against the fake-news media, suffered internal sabotage, as well as other efforts to hamper his efforts to “Make America Great Again”.

Trump has perhaps understood that in order to be re-elected, he must pursue a simple media strategy that will have a direct impact on his base. Withdrawing US troops from Syria, and partly from Afghanistan, serves this purpose. It is an easy way to win with his constituents, while it is a heavy blow to his fiercest critics in Washington who are against this decision. Given that 70% of Americans think that the war in Afghanistan was a mistake, the more that the mainstream media attacks Trump for his decision to withdraw, the more they direct votes to Trump. In this sense, Trump's move seems to be directed at a domestic rather than an international audience.

The decision to get out of Syria is timed to coincide with another move that will also very much please Trump’s base. The government shutdown is a result of the Democrats refusing to fund Trump’s campaign promise to build a wall on the Mexican border. It is not difficult to understand that the average citizen is fed up with the useless wars in West Asia, and Trump's words on immigration resonate with his voters. The more the media, the Democrats and the deep state criticize Trump on the wall, on the Syria pull out and on shutting down the government, the more they are campaigning for him.

This is why in order to understand the withdrawal of the United States from Syria it is necessary to see things from Trump's perspective, even as frustrating, confusing and incomprehensible that may seem at times.

The difference this time around was that the decision to withdraw US troops from Syria was Trump’s alone, not something imposed on him by the generals that surround him. The choice to announce to his base, via Twitter, a victory against Daesh and the immediate withdrawal of US troops was a smart election move with an eye on the 2020 election.

It is possible that Trump, as is his wont, also wanted to send a message to his alleged French and British allies present in the northeast of Syria alongside the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and US soldiers. Trump may be now taunting: "Let’s see what you can do without the US!"

It is as if Trump is admonishing these countries in a more concrete way for not lifting their weight in terms of military spending. Trump is vindictive and is not averse, after taking advantage of his opponent, to kicking him once he is down. Trump could be correct in this regard, and maybe French and British forces will be forced to withdraw their small group of 400 to 500 illegal occupiers of Syrian territory. Macron has for now reacted angrily at Trump's decision, intensifying the division between the two, and is adamant that the French military presence in Syria will continue.

There is also a more refined reason to justify the US withdrawal, even if Trump is probably unaware of it. The problem in these cases is always trying to peer through the fog of war and propaganda in order to discern the clear, unadulterated truth.

We should begin by listing the winners and losers of the Syrian war. Damascus, Moscow, Tehran and Hezbollah have won the war against aggression. Riyadh, Doha, Paris, London, Tel Aviv and Washington, with their al Qaeda, Daesh and Jabhat al-Nusra terrorist proxies, failed to destroy Syria, and following eight years of effort, are forced to scurry away in defeat.

Those who are walking a tightrope between war and defeat are Ankara and the so-called SDF. The withdrawal of the United States has confirmed the balance on the ledger of winners and losers, with the clock counting down for Erdogan and the SDF to make their next determinative move.

The enemies of Syria survive thanks to repeated bluffs. The Americans of the military-industrial-intelligence apparatus maintain the pretence that they still have an influence in Syria, what with troops on the ground, attacking Trump for withdrawing. In fact, since the Russians have imposed a no-fly-zone across the country, with the S-300 systems and other sophisticated equipment that integrate the Syrian air-defenses into the Russian air defenses, US coalition planes are for all intents and purposes grounded, and the same goes for the Israelis.

Of course the French and British in Syria are infected with the same delusional disease, choosing to believe that they can count for something without the US presence. We will see in the near future whether they also withdraw their illegal presence from Syria.

The biggest bluff of all probably comes from Erdogan, who for months threatened to invade Syria to fight Daesh, the Kurds, or any other plausible excuse to invade a sovereign country for the purposes of advancing his dreams of expanding Turkish territory as far as Idlib. Such an invasion, however, is unlikely to happen, as it would unite the SDF, Damascus and her allies to reject the Turkish advance on Syrian territory.

The Kurds in turn seem to have only one option left, namely, a forced negotiation with Damascus to give back to the Syrian people, in exchange for protection, the control of their territory that is rich in oil and gas.

By removing US troops, Trump imagines, relations between Turkey and the US may also improve. This of course is of little interest to the US deep state, since Erdogan, like Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), is considered unsuitable, and is accordingly branded a "dictator".

Trump probably believes that with this move, as with his defense of MBS concerning Khashoggi, that he can try and establish a strong personal friendship with Erdogan. There are even talks about the sale of Patriot systems to the Turks and the extradition of Gulen.

It remains to be confirmed when and to what extent US troops will leave Syria. If the US had no voice in the future in Syria, with 2,000 men on the ground, now it has even less. Leaving behind 200 to 300 special forces and CIA operatives, together with another 400 to 500 French and British personnel, will, once they are captured with their Daesh and al Qaeda friends, be an excellent bargaining chip for Damascus, as they were in Aleppo.

The military-industrial-intelligence-media complex considers Trump's decision the worst of all possible moves. Mattis even resigned on account of this. The presence of US troops in Syria allowed the foreign-policy establishment to continue to formulate plans based on the delusion that they are doing something in Syria to change the course of events. For Israel, it is a double disaster, with Netanyahu desperate to survive, seeking to factor in expected elections in a now-or-never political move. Trump probably understands that Bibi is done for, and that at this point, the withdrawal of troops, fulfilling a fundamental electoral promise, counts more than Israeli money and his friendship to Netanyahu.

Erdogan has two options before him. On the one hand, he can act against the Kurds. On the other hand, he can sit down at the negotiating table with Damascus and the SDF, in an Astana format, guided by Iran and Russia.

Iran, Russia, Syria are the only ones who do not need to bluff, because they occupy the best position – the commanding heights. They view Trump's decisions and his allies with distrust. They know very well that these are mostly moves for internal consumption by the enemies of Syria.

If the US withdraws, there is so much to be gained. The priority then becomes the west of Syria, sealing the borders with Jordan, removing the pockets of terrorists from the east, and securing the al-Tanf crossing. If the SDF will request protection from Damascus and will be willing to participate in the liberation of the country and its reconstruction, Erdogan will be done for, and this could lead to the total liberation of Idlib. It would be the best possible outcome, an important national reconciliation between two important parts of the population. It would give Damascus new economic impetus and prepare the Syrian people to expel the remaining invaders from the country, both in Idlib and in the northeast in Afrin.

Putin has always been five moves ahead. He is aware that the US could not stay long in Syria. He knows that France and the UK cannot support the SDF, and that the SDF cannot hold territory it holds in Syria without an agreement with Damascus. He is also conscious that Turkey does not have the strength to enter Syria and hold the territory if it did. It would only be able justify an advance on Idlib with the support of the Russian Air Force. Trump's move was driven by US domestic politics and aimed at the 2020 elections. But in doing so, Trump inevitably called out once and for all the bluffs built by Syria’s enemies, infuriating in the process the neoliberal imperialist establishment, revealing how each of these factions has no more cards to play and is in actual fact destined for defeat.

Trump’s visit to Iraq and Washington’s never-ending war in the Middle East

Bill Van Auken

US President Donald Trump’s brief, unannounced visit to Iraq on the day after Christmas was staged with a patent political motive. His appearance with assembled troops—for a total of 45 minutes—was allegedly aimed at shoring up support within the Pentagon as well as among rank-and-file soldiers in the wake of the resignation in protest of his defense secretary, General James Mattis, following Trump’s decision to withdraw US troops from Syria.

Bill Van Auken, a politician and activist for the Equality Party and also a presidential candidate in the U.S. presidential election of 2004, has more on Trump’s visit to Iraq. It is published in an article titled Trump’s visit to Iraq and Washington’s never-ending war in the Middle East.

The performance was the latest in a long line of such trips, beginning with one staged by George W. Bush just a year after the US launched its catastrophic and criminal war against Iraq.

Like Trump, Bush and his successor, Barack Obama, saw the utility of appearing before captive uniformed audiences, bound by military discipline to cheer at the appropriate moments for speeches riddled with lies and stupidities in defense of unending wars of aggression opposed by the majority of the population.

Improbably dressed in a bomber jacket, the New York real estate speculator-turned president gave a performance in line with this tradition, though somewhat more buffoonish. He marveled at having to fly into Iraq under the cover of darkness with the lights off and window shades down on Air Force One, which was heavily escorted by US fighter planes. Trump stated “Pretty sad when you spend $7 trillion in the Middle East and going in has to be under this massive cover”.

The results of a quarter-century of US war in the Middle East are “pretty sad” indeed. Aside from vast resources spent in the US imperialist effort to dominate the region, there are the consequences for those who live there, over a million of whom lost their lives as a consequence of Washington’s interventions, while tens of millions have been turned into homeless refugees.

The US invasion of Iraq and the wars for regime-change initiated by Washington and its NATO and regional allies in Libya and Syria have reduced entire societies to chaos and rubble.

Ever the irrepressible liar and braggart, Trump boasted to the troops that when he took office they had not received a pay raise for 10 years and that he overrode his aides to deliver a hike of more than 10 percent. All of this was a crude fabrication, obvious to those in the audience who receive their pay from the Pentagon. Trump’s pay raise was 2.4 percent, in line with similar raises that have been provided every year over the past decade. Trump repeated idiotically “I got you a big one. I got you a big one”.

He also used his speech to denounce his political opponents in the Democratic Party for failing to appropriate funds for his proposed border wall. He told the troops: “You know, when you think about it, you’re fighting for borders in other countries, and they don’t want to fight—the Democrats—for the border of our country. It doesn’t make a lot of sense.”

Afterwards, he signed red “Make America Great Again” hats and other campaign paraphernalia for soldiers, a direct violation of military rules barring active duty personnel from engaging in “partisan political activities.” The violation was not an oversight, but part of a deliberate effort by Trump’s fascistic administration to build up an extra-constitutional base within the US armed forces.

The thrust of Trump’s speech was the “America First” agenda that he has promoted since the 2016 campaign. He cast US military interventions--and the US deployment in Syria in particular—in starkly transactional terms. He said “America shouldn’t be doing the fighting for every nation on Earth, not being reimbursed, in many cases, at all”. “If they want us to do the fighting, they also have to pay a price—and sometimes that’s also a monetary price—so we’re not the suckers of the world. We’re no longer the suckers, folks.”

At the same time, Trump boasted of the massive US military budget, which already exceeds the amount spent on armaments by the next eight major powers combined. He said to the troops in Iraq, “You’re getting such new equipment, your eyes are popping, right?”

While Trump’s nationalist and populist appeals about ending US wars in the Middle East may enjoy a measure of support among soldiers who have been subjected to unending deployments, the most significant element of his speech was the vow that the US will not withdraw its troops from Iraq. He added that the al-Asad airbase in western Iraq between Baghdad and the Syrian border, where he spoke to the troops, could be used “if we wanted to do something in Syria.”

As the Washington Post reported, “The decision allows the United States to maintain a presence in the heart of the Middle East and a bulwark against the will of regional nations, while also keeping a nearby staging ground should American troops wanted to reenter Syria.”

The utter contempt for Iraqi sovereignty that characterizes these plans was in evidence throughout Trump’s entire trip. Iraq’s Prime Minister, Adel Abdul-Mahdi, didn’t meet with Trump after being given just two hours’ notice of his visit and being summoned to the US air base. The two major blocs in the Iraqi parliament denounced the visit and called for an emergency session to vote on expelling US troops from the country.

The political firestorm unleashed in Washington over Trump’s decision to pull US troops out of Syria is driven entirely by tactical differences within the US ruling establishment and its two major parties over US imperialism’s global effort to utilize its military might to offset the decline of American capitalism’s position in the world economy.

Trump’s “America First” policy reflects the orientation of a significant section of the US ruling class, which sees the concentration of American military might in the Asia Pacific region to offset the growing influence of China as the most pressing priority. This faction disdains longstanding alliances in favor of a nationalistic policy dedicated to the naked pursuit of US financial and commercial interests around the globe.

Trump’s Democratic opponents are not bothered by the slaughter that has been carried out in the Middle East, including under the banner of the struggle against Daesh, in which the cities of Mosul in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria have been razed to the ground, with countless thousands of civilians buried under the rubble.

On the contrary, they are demanding a more aggressive policy directed at regime-change in Syria and the preparation of a direct confrontation in the region. Their differences over Syria are bound up with allegations of Trump’s supposed collusion with Moscow to win the 2016 election, which in turn are directed at forcing a more aggressive policy against nuclear-armed Russia.

This was expressed clearly by Democratic Senator Chris Coons, who declared that Trump’s decision to withdraw troops from Syria constituted “a great big Christmas gift to Vladimir Putin of Russia and Iran.” There is no faction within the US ruling establishment opposed to war, and Trump’s decision on ending the US deployment of troops in Syria signals no end to the drive to assert US hegemony over the Middle East’s oil reserves, no matter what the cost in civilian lives.

As it seems, it is merely part of the tactical preparations for far more devastating wars to come, first and foremost against the countries branded by the Pentagon and the national security apparatus as “revisionist powers” and “great power” rivals—Russia and China.

The absence of a mass antiwar movement in the United States is bound up with the role played by the pseudo left—groups claiming to be with the people while providing justifications for imperialist intervention and slaughter under the cynical banner of “human rights,” as well as claims that the operations of CIA-funded militias in Syria constitute a “democratic revolution.” The struggle against war, including the mounting threat of a nuclear Third World War, must be undertaken soon. The demand must be raised for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all US troops not only from Syria, but also from Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa and all of the hundreds of US military bases scattered across the globe.

Those who are responsible for the killing and maiming of millions in US imperialism’s wars of aggression must be prosecuted for war crimes, including Bush, Obama, Trump and their top generals and civilian aides.

Trump may have begun a serious turn for the better in the Middle East

By Martin Love

NORTH CAROLINA - Rarely does a U.S. President show common sense and a recognition of what is obvious. Donald Trump is indeed having some second thoughts about U.S. foreign policy, as suggested in a recent column, and it is extremely welcome even if hopes for change prove erroneous. He told some top brass in the military that: “We are spread out all over the world. We are in countries most people have not even heard about. Frankly, it’s ridiculous. You can’t have any more time. You’ve had enough time,” Trump stated.

One may ask, “enough time” for what? That’s a good question that can’t be easily answered. But the answer logically goes something like this: “Enough time” to have literally the entire world, or ALL the natives wherever the U.S. military is, quaking in their boots or shoes or sandals or bare feet or whatever in abject submission to the U.S. as if no one else exists except U.S. military personnel, or no one else with even a scintilla of an independent idea or an aversion to having U.S. soldiers on their soil.

This is the heart of the idea behind U.S. imperialism – that there can be NO opposition of substance at all in any particular country, which is an extreme absurdity. In fact, this absurdity has been used as a ploy or trick or device to ensure that U.S. soldiers never have to leave some foreign location or base or whatever or never can leave because, and this links to the second absurd fallacy: that as long as opposition to the U.S. remains, the U.S. cannot pull out because a pullout might expose the physical U.S. to another 9/11 sized “terrorist” event on U.S. soil.

It’s obvious, too, that enough American voters have bought into this bullcrap such that the same Neocon-ish characters get sent back again and again to Congress or a White House staff to maintain the same old tired policies that have virtually bankrupted the U.S. And worse.

The sad part is simply that aside from all the sheer damage the U.S. has done overseas to make life difficult for millions of people, the U.S. is now considered the most bellicose country on the planet – in a line, no friend to humanity at large. Many travelers know this now, which is one reason why when someone overseas asks “where from”, an answer can feel embarrassing. Many Americans simply say “Canada” provided they are not obliged to show their passports. It’s almost as bad and unsettling as having an Israeli or Zionist stamp of any kind in one’s travel documents.

No one can say, by claiming what he has recently, that Trump is some kind of genius. But he does show some common sense even while his Mideast policies have been and remain radically awry and dangerous. And make no mistake, Trump is beginning to bow to reality and that reality is simple enough: the U.S. with all the fiat dollars and all the debt it has churned out or created for decades is broke even if it gets away with pretending otherwise for a while longer. The U.S. as world policeman? It’s about over, and the Muslim world may rejoice ultimately. And where “terrorists” do exist, they exist largely because of destructive U.S. policies that have created anger abroad.

Anyway, the nearly trillion of fiat funny money dollars all told that will be spent in fiscal 2019 is not required to protect U.S territory, which anyway is separated by two oceans from most of the rest of the world. The U.S. has been squandering resources overseas for decades, really beginning with the Vietnam War (which forced Nixon in 1971 to abandon the dollar’s remaining link to real money, gold) and now, at last, this cannot continue without the ruination of the nation. It is probably this realization that has forced Trump, against many in Congress and all of his advisors including warmongers John Bolton and Mike Pompeo, to pull some troops out of Afghanistan and as well all U.S. soldiers out of Syria.

Trump’s decision this December to abandon Syria, an Iranian ally, was the first time he ever took a stand against the Neocons and interventionists in Congress, in the military and in his administration that have dictated U.S. foreign policy.

Some have even claimed that this decision has finally, after two years of blundering around, made him “presidential” – whatever that means. Trump’s focus may now be on preventing Turkey, Russia, and Iran from forging an alliance and on keeping Turkey in NATO. The idea of perpetual war in the Mideast to foment chaos and little more may be a thing of the past now and it appears the idea of creating a Kurdish state, which would likely be allied somehow with the Zionists, between Syria and Iran is dead.

 In many respects, if Trump holds firm, he has finally fulfilled the campaign promises that likely got him elected in the first place. More importantly, while hideous economic sanctions may remain against Iran, the likelihood of a military attack against Iran and thus a major war looks to be dead, too, because it is too fiscally difficult if not impossible. More surprising decisions by Trump may be ahead, too, that might relieve some of the pressures on Iran which has done good in sticking with the JCPOA.

Perhaps Trump and others in the U.S. government will also begin to see that carte blanche support for anything the Zionists want, as has been the case for decades, does not also make for policy beneficial to the U.S. in the Middle East going forward. What’s interesting is that the entire ugly edifice and cruel plans of the Zionists, which Netanyahu has pushed hard for, may not be sustainable without that carte blanche support the U.S. has maintained for decades.

 Israel is not going to dissolve. It’s too strong militarily, but it may have to get real and become a friendlier neighbor to other countries in the Mideast, and kinder to its natives, the Palestinians, to survive at all in the longer term. You might say “Israel” could have within itself aspects of a Ponzi scheme that makes the entire colonial project unsustainable, as it has been, without a blank check given by the U.S. to do as it pleases.

In 2018, Trump’s erratic belligerence spiraled

Syed Zafar Mehdi

TEHRAN - As we get ready to bid adieu to 2018, an eventful year marked by trials, tribulations and triumphs, it is time to look back at some of the major developments that shaped the year.

As yet another year goes by, it is time to reflect and see whether the world is getting better or worse. Optimists would tell you that the world is certainly becoming a better place. But, there is a section of people who believe that the world has taken a turn for the worse.

Their misgivings aren’t completely unfounded. Looking at the world today and how certain countries are acting as ‘globocops’, bullying and intimidating other countries through interventionism, intrusiveness, and imperialism, it can be argued that our world still isn’t a better place to live in.

It was another year for the American industrial-military complex to advance their hegemony around the world and for the megalomaniac U.S. president to prove why he is such a loathed world figure today.

The year 2018 started with Donald Trump launching a tirade against former U.S. ally Pakistan with a hyperbolic tweet, which raised eyebrows in Islamabad and led to fractures in the U.S.-Pakistan ties.

“The United States has foolishly given Pakistan more than 33 billion dollars in aid over the last 15 years, and they have given us nothing but lies & deceit, thinking of our leaders as fools. They give safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan, with little help,” Trump tweeted.

It was followed by suspension of security aid to Pakistan, from $255 million to whopping $900 million before culminating in $3 billion. The sequence of events that led to the decline and fall of this relationship began on the first day of this year. Despite the latest overtures, the divorce is final.

Another interesting development that happened in the beginning of this year was the sensational Twitter battle between North Korea’s Kim Jong Un and Trump.

Kim warned that the U.S. was “within the range of our nuclear strike and a nuclear button is always on the desk of my office.” That didn’t go down well with mandarins in Washington and the president himself. He responded in his characteristic way, boasting he had a bigger nuclear button than Kim.

A few months later, he held a summit with his Korean counterpart and famously told a crowd of his supporters that he had “fallen in love” with the North Korean leader. A perfect match it was.

Ironically, a year later, North Korea’s nuclear program is still thriving and Trump’s handshake and love letters have failed to dissuade North Koreans from building a robust nuclear arsenal.

Known for his loud-mouthed, thoughtless utterances, Trump made many controversial and provocative remarks throughout the year. He called some African nations “shithole countries”, which backfired in a way he wouldn’t have imagined.

Trump used the vulgarity to describe Haiti during a meeting on immigration. However, veteran journalist Bob Woodward in his recent book ‘Fear: Trump in the White House’ writes that Trump has used the term many times, including during his 2016 campaign in Little Haiti.

This year, the U.S. president also blasted G7 leaders in Canada, insulted leaders of European Union and announced an unprecedented trade war with China. He threatened to impose heavy tariffs on Chinese imports to force Beijing into renegotiating its trade balance with the U.S.

However, the old man forgot that the U.S. will be a loser as big companies like Walmart import billions of dollars of cheap goods from China. The war is still going on and there is no sign of truce.

The year’s most important strategic event, though, was Trump’s unilateral withdrawal from the nuclear deal with Iran – a decision that shocked the world and exposed the hypocrisy of the U.S. As Financial Times noted, Trump “isolated America from the rest of the West by quitting the Iran deal”.

The brutal murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi was one of the biggest stories of this year. And the way Trump deemed “credible” Saudi explanation that the journalist died in a fistfight was preposterous. He even denied a U.S. intelligence conclusion that Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman was directly involved in the killing.

This year, Trump not only engaged in blatant war-mongering and saber-rattling, but he also crushed the values of universal human rights, violated press freedom, and supported dictators accused of horrendous war crimes.

Yet he had the audacity to stand up in the United Nations and claim that his administration had “accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country.” The titters from the world leaders sitting in the hall was a perfect response to his grandiloquence and pomposity.

As Guardian editorial on Thursday noted, Trump’s increasingly “erratic belligerency” is not simply a display of his unsuitability for the presidency. “It is the behavior of a president who sees the threats facing him and whose instability is such that he may try to pull the temple down with him.”

Bloomberg, reviewing his performance this year, said the damage Trump has wreaked on the U.S. role in the world is “only beginning to manifest itself”, adding that the year saw a “staggering number of countries misruled by the worst crop of world leaders in recent memory”, with Trump topping the list.

New York Times said 2018 has been a year of “perpetual motion” for Trump, who has “presided over near constant turmoil as he has increasingly relied on his own instincts”.

The year ends where it began, with resignation of Defense Secretary James Mattis, withdrawal of U.S. forces from Syria and Afghanistan and the much-publicized government shutdown.

The latest poll by Reuters/Ipsos showed that 47 percent of adult Americans held Trump responsible for the government shutdown, which officially began at midnight on December 22.

The year ahead doesn’t promise much change with people like Trump presiding over a devilish empire, announcing open war against the world, barring Israel and Saudi Arabia. Because petrodollars matter and the powerful Jewish lobby in the U.S. matters too.

Marking ‘the Dey’ Iran Put End to Sedition

Iranians mark the eighth anniversary of "Dey 9 epic feat" at the Imam Khomeini
Grand Prayer Grounds (Mosalla) in the capital Tehran on December 30, 2017.

TEHRAN (Press TV) -- The Iranian nation is marking on Sunday the anniversary of the 2009 mass rallies that were held in support of the Islamic Republic and put an end to post-election unrest back then.

People from all walks of life will be taking part in demonstrations and ceremonies in several Iranian cities to mark the "Dey 9 epic feat,” which refers to the historic rallies held on the ninth day of the Persian calendar month of Dey.

On December 30, 2009, millions of Iranians held rallies in the capital Tehran and several other cities to condemn the foreign-orchestrated unrest, which had erupted following the presidential elections earlier that year.

People were especially angered by incidents that had taken place days earlier in Tehran, where a group of opportunists offended the sacred values of the nation on the day of Ashura, the martyrdom anniversary of Imam Hussein (AS), the third Shia Imam.

The unrest was orchestrated by Mehdi Karroubi and Mir Hussein Musavi, two of the candidates who had lost the election. They claimed that the results had been rigged. Both remain under house arrest on charges of provoking the public and harming national security.

Iran has also been the scene of some economy-related protests over the past year or so, with some foreign states and entities seeking to take advantage of the conditions to foment violence in the Islamic Republic.

Price hikes triggered demonstrations late last December in a number of Iranian cities, including Tehran and Mashhad, with the participants demanding the administration of President Hassan Rouhani resolve the economic woes.

Several arrests were made during the gatherings, which were organized without permits from relevant authorities. Local officials said those arrested were trying to damage public property.
Police also exercised restraint in bringing the situation under control.

On January 9, Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei said a "triangle” of enemies - with the United States and Israel comprising one of its sides, a rich Persian Gulf littoral state on its second side and the anti-Iran MKO terrorist organization on the third side - has been plotting for the past few months to incite chaos and violence in Iran.

"The plot has been hatched by Americans and Zionists. They have been working on it for several months, planning to begin from small towns and then move on towards the center. The cash comes from one of the filthy rich Persian Gulf littoral states. Obviously, such projects need money, but the Americans won't be willing to spend anything as long as they have these (rich allies),” the Leader said.

A U.S.-backed campaign, known as the Hot Summer Project, to stir up unrest in Iranian cities also fell flat this year. The effort sought to whip up public anger over water and electricity shortages in the face of a protracted drought.

Ayatollah Khamenei added that the third side of the triangle was the "murderous" MKO, whose elements served as their lackeys on the ground.

Also addressing the families of Iranian martyrs in a meeting in Tehran on December 12, Ayatollah Khamenei underlined Washington’s stepped-up campaign against Iran over the past two years, saying the Americans sought to increase pressure on the country through sanctions and measures to disrupt its national security with the aim of creating division and conflict among various groups.

"They were planning to lead some to the streets and had even referred to it as ‘the Hot Summer.’ To the enemies' dismay, this past summer was one of the best ever,” the Leader stated.

As part of its bids to exert pressure on the Iranian people, the U.S. has also re-imposed sanctions on the Islamic Republic.

U.S. President Donald Trump withdrew his country in May from the landmark Iran nuclear deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and decided to re-impose unilateral sanctions against Tehran.

In November, the Trump administration announced the re-imposition of the "toughest” sanctions ever against Iran's banking and energy sectors with the aim of cutting off the country's oil sales and crucial exports.

A first round of American sanctions took effect in August, targeting Iran's access to the U.S. dollar, metals trading, coal, industrial software, and auto sector.

Time for Iraq to Expel US Forces, Prosecute Trespasser Trump

By: Kayhan Int’l      

Does the United Nations Charter give permission to a leader of a member state to violate the sovereignty of another member state by stealthily intruding into its territory – without an invitation, without any prior notice, without diplomatic protocol, and in an impudently arrogant manner, on a military aircraft and faraway from the capital of that country?

Doesn’t that UN member state, whose sovereignty and territorial integrity is being violated, has the right to arrest that particular violator, regardless of his status, and to try him for such an unpardonable crime?

These are among the questions doing the rounds in diplomatic and international legal circles, following the trespassing of Iraq’s sovereignty and territorial integrity by US President Donald Trump, who last Wednesday sneaked like a dacoit into the Ain al-Asad airbase (a hundred km north of Baghdad), talked trash in a bid to lift the sagging spirits of his demoralized troops, grunted against the Islamic Republic of Iran which has the most excellent relations with the elected government of Iraq, and then insolently asked the Iraqi prime minister to come and meet him in the dead of night – an insulting demand that Adel Abdul-Mahdi firmly rejected.

The question is: If Iraq was a powerful country, equipped with state-of-the-art military technology, including sophisticated radars and advanced defence systems, would the loudmouthed Trump still dare to violate the sovereignty of the Land of the Two Rivers?
The answer is a big "NO”. Trump is not just a dotard – to quote North Korean leader Kim Jong-un – but a dastard as well, albeit with a devilish bent of mind, as is evident by his recent decision to withdraw the 2,000 American occupation troops from Syria, whose government had made it clear that in case of prolonging the uninvited stay their government should start arranging body bags for return home of their corpses.

Sneaking in without being noticed has been the way of thieves, dacoits, spies and saboteurs. It means, the Iraqi politicians and the people have the right to demand action against Trump for his act of trespassing.

Trespass to land is a common law tort or crime that is committed when an individual or the object of an individual intentionally enters the land of another without permission. Thus, the party whose land is trespassed may sue even if no actual harm is done.

Iraqi lawmakers, irrespective of their factional loyalties have with one voice strongly denounced Trump’s stealth visit, calling it a blatant violation of Iraq’s national sovereignty and territorial integrity.

They have also called on the parliament to legislate expulsion of all American military personnel, whom the former government had unwittingly invited on the presumption of help against the takfiri terrorists who, ironically with covert US and Saudi support, had been destroying towns and cities and massacring people in the most macabre manner.
The Americans, who are bragging about having defeated the terrorists – in both Iraq and Syria – had actually helped them militarily by dropping for them crates full of weapons, while feigning to bomb them.

It was only the prudence of Grand Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Sistani in calling for formation of popular mobilization forces and the timely help – upon request – in weapons and battlefield tactics these units received from the brotherly people and government of the Islamic Republic that defeated the bloodthirsty terrorists, much to the chagrin of the US.
Unfortunately, the divided nature of Iraqi politics provided Washington with the excuse to harp on governmental invitation and stay in the country, even though the people and the popular mobilization forces had been strongly objecting to the American military presence.

Now Trump’s trespassing of Iraq’s territorial integrity and insult to national sovereignty has seemingly united all parties, which following last May’s general elections had formed the coalition for setting up the new broad-based government – which has yet to take shape because of unwarranted American meddling. 

Moreover, Trump is behaving like the tyrant Saddam of the overthrown Ba’th minority regime in threatening military strikes in Syria from Iraq’s soil and of disrupting Iraq’s age-old fraternal ties with Iran. 

In view of these undeniable realities, the Iraqi lawmakers should understand that they never can achieve Iraq’s full independence just by paper work, roundtable discussions, or angry calls for action against Trump and expulsion of American forces. 

What is needed is coordinated action through the Legislature for passing a law obliging the Executive Branch to order expulsion of all US military personnel from the soil of Iraq and to lodge formal complaint at the UN against Trump for breach of Iraq’s sovereignty.
The various militias which make up the Hashd as-Sha’bi (Popular Mobilization Forces) have made it clear that if the Americans fail to heed the formal order for exit from the soil of Iraq, they have enough experience to deal with such a situation and are capable of driving out the US troops in the same manner that they defeated the US-backed Daesh. 

The writing on the wall ought to be clear for Trump and his gang of thugs, who should understand that it is high time for exiting Iraq, rather bring home the poor marines in body bags.