US foreign policy is for sale

Ben Freeman

Think tanks in Washington receive millions of dollars from authoritarian regimes around the world to shape American policies in their favor, according Ben Freeman, Director of the Foreign Influence Transparency Initiative at the Center for International Policy (CIP), in his article for the TomDispatch site, titled: “US foreign policy is for sale”.

Most Americans undoubtedly have little idea what a think tank actually does. Having worked at two of them myself, it’s fair to say that even those of us who have labored inside these basic building blocks for policy-making in Washington are often still trying to figure out just what many of them do. Still, whether you know it or not, you’ve certainly seen think-tank employees on cable news, heard them on the radio, or read their op-ed pieces.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

After all, think tanks are homes for so many of the so-called “experts” who are the go-to sources for media coverage of foreign-and domestic-policy topics on just about any day—and are often key go-to sources for those making policy in Washington, too). You know, the former Department of Defense official you caught on NBC News discussing Iran or the West Asian expert you saw quoted in Newsweek critiquing the Trump administration’s policies there. Outside the public eye, members of Congress and Executive Branch officials rely heavily on think tanks for expertise on a wide range of issues, for key congressional testimony, and even for quite literally helping craft public policy.

Those who run Washington generally trust the inhabitants of think tanks of their political bent to provide the intellectual foundations upon which much of public policy is built. At least in some cases, however, that trust couldn’t be more deeply misplaced, since cornerstones of the ever-expanding think-tank universe turn out to be for sale.

Every year foreign governments pour tens of millions of dollars into those very institutions and, though many think tanks are tax-exempt nonprofits, such donations often turn out to be anything but charitable gifts. Foreign contributions generally come with critically important strings attached—usually a favorable stance toward that country in whatever influential work the think tanks are doing. In other words, those experts you regularly read or see on screen, whose scholarship and advice Washington’s politicians and other officials often use, are in some cases being paid, directly or indirectly, by the very countries on which they are offering advice and analysis. And here’s the catch: They can do so without ever having to tell you about it.

The money trail from foreign governments to US think tanks runs deep. Brian Katulis of the Center for American Progress (CAP), said in this regard: “I’ve never had to worry in my years at CAP about an analyst or me saying X, Y, and Z and worry about a funding source. Never thought about it. Never.”

He was speaking at a Middle East Institute (MEI) event in January entitled “The Role of Think Tanks in Shaping Middle East Policy.” MEI President Paul Salem echoed this sentiment, noting that funding, particularly foreign-government funding, shouldn’t ever shape a think tank’s work. “Independence,” he proclaimed, “is sacred.”

Such comments, like the events themselves, are just the norm in Washington think-tank life—unless, that is, you follow the money, in which case they seem both striking and supremely ironic. On any given day, Washington is, in fact, awash in foreign-policy events at think tanks. There, experts convene to publicly discuss just about every topic you’d want to hear about—except one, of course: their funding. And that is what made the Katulis-Salem exchange particularly interesting. What they and their fellow panelists never mentioned at an event extolling the importance of think tanks in helping craft political Washington’s Middle East policies was this: Both CAP and MEI have received millions of dollars from authoritarian governments in the Middle East.

MEI has publicly reported receiving millions from Saudi Arabia and lesser amounts from the Persian Gulf states of Oman and Qatar. By far its largest donor, however, seems to have been the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which reportedly made a “secret” $20 million contribution to that think tank, earmarked to “hire experts in order to counter the more egregious misperceptions about the region” and “to inform US government policymakers.” In other words, in the spirit of that MEI panel title, the UAE’s funding was explicitly designed to shape that think tank’s—and so US—policy considerations. While hardly in that $20 million range, CAP has also publicly reported receiving at least $1.5 million from the UAE.

And keep in mind that those two think tanks are hardly the only ones receiving donations from countries in the West Asia-North African region. The Center for a New American Security, for instance, received $250,000 from the United Arab Emirates to produce a study on the need for the United States to export military-grade drones to countries like… the UAE. That think tank’s subsequent report on the topic notes that the United States doesn’t export drones to the UAE and other countries, but should because “this reluctance to transfer US drones harms US interests in tangible ways.” Never mind that a third of those killed in drone strikes in the devastating war in Yemen are civilians.

The Brookings Institution received a $14.8 million donation from Qatar. In fact, according to a New York Times analysis, nearly all of the most prominent foreign-policy think tanks in Washington have accepted money from authoritarian regimes in West Asia or elsewhere. And that, in turn, is just the tip of the iceberg, since think tanks are not legally required to publicly disclose their funding.

If think tanks are to be believed, the money they receive from such funders, changes little. Recent events at a number of think tanks, including the Center for American Progress and the Middle East Institute, should, however, give pause to anyone who assumes that such institutions are by their nature insulated from the influence of foreign funders.

Recently, serious questions have been raised about whether CAP’s ties to the UAE, itself a close ally of the Saudi royals, contributed to its awkward response to the brutal murder of Washington Post journalist and Saudi citizen Jamal Khashoggi in that Kingdom’s embassy in Istanbul, Turkey. Following that killing, CAP released a response condemning the Saudis for their involvement in Khashoggi’s murder, but not calling for specific consequences to punish the regime in Riyadh.

According to reporting by The Intercept’s Ryan Grim, such consequences were stripped from the statement by a CAP staffer who just happened to be Brian Katulis. Then, in December, CAP largely sat on the sidelines as the Senate passed a historic resolution to end US involvement in the devastating Saudi-UAE war in Yemen. At the MEI event in January, Katulis dismissed those giving “energy and dynamism” to “the Yemen debate” for ignoring “the full complexity of the challenges.” Jamal Khashoggi’s name wasn’t even mentioned.

Despite MEI head Salem’s claim that “independence is sacred,” there’s reason to question how independent scholars can be when their work is, at least in part, dependent on foreign funding. In at least one case, for instance, Salem’s institute published the work of Fahad Nazer, who was directly on the Saudi payroll. While earning $7,000 a month as a foreign agent for Saudi Arabia, Nazer wrote several pro-Saudi articles for both think tanks and mainstream-media outlets, including one for MEI that made no mention of his financial ties to the Saudis. That March 2018 article did, however, encourage yet more US support for the Saudi Heir Apparent, Mohamed bin Salman (MBS), who, Nazer wrote, would “be good for Saudi Arabia, the United States, and the world.”

Just seven months later, MBS would authorize the brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi and, in January 2019, Nazer himself would become the official spokesperson for the Saudi Embassy in Washington.

Nazer’s case also illustrates a growing pattern of interactions between think tanks that receive foreign funding and the registered foreign agents of those countries. In fact, Emirati foreign agents last year reported contacting think tanks at least 85 times, according to an analysis of Foreign Agents Registration Act filings for a forthcoming report on the Emirati lobby in the United States by the Foreign Influence Transparency Initiative at the Center for International Policy, which I direct.

Perhaps not surprisingly, CAP’s Katulis and MEI were among the top think-tank contacts for UAE’s foreign agents. According to 2018 filings, Katulis was contacted at least 12 times by the Harbour Group, which the UAE paid more than $5 million in 2018 to “influence US policy,” according to the firm’s FARA filings. Katulis was a particular focus for them because he was helping to organize a “study tour” in which think-tank experts would take a luxurious trip to both the UAE and Saudi Arabia. That group also contacted MEI at least 14 times on behalf of the UAE, directing most of its efforts towards a “speaking engagement at MEI” for the Emirati ambassador to the United States, the same man who had directed that “secret” $20 million contribution to the institute.

Under current law, it is perfectly legal for think tanks that receive funding from foreign governments to also work with foreign agents registered to represent those very governments. FARA includes an exemption for those engaged in “bona fide…scholastic, academic, or scientific pursuits.” Like many parts of the FARA statute, it’s not at all clear what “bona fide” means, but think tanks are presumably exempt from registration if they meet this threshold.

While the work done by both think tanks and registered foreign agents can sometimes overlap, the two are worlds apart on one critical score: transparency. Under FARA, registered foreign agents are required to disclose a considerable amount of what they do, including whom they’re working for, how much they’re being paid, and whom they’re contacting, as well as when and where they do it, on behalf of foreign principals like the United Arab Emirates. And most of that information is available online. Anything they distribute on behalf of a foreign backer must also include a “conspicuous statement” to let anyone know that what they’re reading is being distributed on behalf of a foreign principal.

Think tanks receiving funding from foreign sources are, however, not required to do any of the above.

As is appropriate during tax season, most of this should, in the end, be blamed on the Internal Revenue Service. Think tanks usually operate as tax-exempt organizations and, according to the IRS, “a tax-exempt organization is generally not required to disclose publicly the names or addresses of its contributors set forth on its annual return.”

While MEI and CAP do both disclose their funding sources on their websites—for which they should be commended—many think tanks do not. And few, even among those that do, mention any potential conflicts of interest that might be reflected in their published reports or the speeches and media appearances of their members. Even more worrisome, a Project On Government Oversight investigation by Lydia Dennett found numerous examples of think-tank experts not reporting or mentioning financial ties to foreign governments when testifying before Congress. Hiding such potential conflicts of interest is likely to leave the public and policy-makers with the impression that they’re hearing truly objective experts, when they may, in fact, be taking testimony from someone who is functionally or literally on the payroll of a country with a deep stake in what they’re telling Congress.

If think tanks are to remain credible sources of foreign-policy expertise, such ties must, at the very least, be laid bare.

A first step would simply be to require think tanks to publicly disclose any foreign funding they receive, something easily done by amending the IRS code. In addition, just as registered foreign agents are required to include a “conspicuous statement” letting readers know they’re working on behalf of a foreign power, think tanks should have to fully disclose their funding sources and any potential conflicts of interest in all their written products, as well as at speaking engagements, especially testimony before Congress.

It should also be incumbent upon the media to do a better job of vetting sources. Sure, journalists are extraordinarily busy, but if a simple Google search can reveal that the Middle East “expert” you’re quoting is being paid by a country in the Middle East, it behooves you to tell your readers that.

Finally, transparency is essential, but it’s well past time for think tanks themselves to focus on the track records of the countries they’re getting money from. The Brookings Institution did just that by cutting ties with the Saudis shortly after the murder of Khashoggi and, soon after, MEI, too, announced that it would decline any further funding from the Saudi government. More recently, and following the questions raised about CAP’s involvement with the United Arab Emirates, that think tank announced that it would no longer accept UAE money. As a CAP spokesperson said, “It’s just the right thing to do.”

CAP, MEI, and Brookings are, however, the exceptions. Most think tanks haven’t done “the right thing” and dropped funding from autocratic regimes. Nor are they likely to voluntarily increase transparency about that funding. The burden then falls on Congress to enact reforms ensuring that senators and representatives will know when the expert they’re hearing discuss a specific country or the region it’s in is being paid by that very same country. Failure to act could leave Americans asking a simple and uncomfortable question: Which country is buying US foreign policy today?

Final steps of the multipolar revolution: Containing the US in Europe

Federico Pieraccini

The US hegemonic policies have gone to the extent that even its old allies in Europe have started to free themselves of the yoke of US and cease to be the vassals of Uncle Sam. Federico Pieraccini, independent freelance writer specialized in international affairs, conflicts, politics and strategies, has dwelt upon the issue in a piece titled, " Final steps of the multipolar revolution: Containing the US in Europe".

The United States has in the last three decades brought chaos and destruction to large parts of Europe, in spite of the common myth that the old continent has basked in the post-WWII peace of the American-led world order. This falsehood is fueled by European politicians devoted to the European Union and eager to justify and praise the European project. But history shows that the United States fueled or directed devastating wars on the European continent in Yugoslavia in the 1990s, with the conflict between Georgia and Ossetia at the beginning of the 1990s, with the war in Georgia in 2008, and in the coup in Ukraine in 2014, with the ensuing aggression against the Donbass.

The major problem for Washington's European allies has always been summoning the will to contain US imperialism. For many years, especially since the end of the Cold War, European countries have preferred to defer to Washington's positions, confirming their status as colonies rather than allies. It is fundamental to recognize that European politicians have always been at the service of Washington, eager to prostrate themselves to American exceptionalism, favoring US interests over European ones.

The wars on the European continent are a clear demonstration of how Washington used Europe to advance her own interests. The abiding goal of the neocons and the Washington establishment has been to deny any possibility of a rapprochement between Germany and Russia, something that could potentially result in a dangerous axis threatening Washington's interests. The war of aggression against Yugoslavia represented the deathblow to the Soviet republics, an effort to banish the influence of Moscow on the continent. The subsequent war in Ossetia, Georgia and Ukraine had the double objective of attacking and weakening the Russian Federation as well as creating a hostile climate for Moscow in Europe, limiting economic and diplomatic contacts between East and West.

In recent years, especially following the coup in Ukraine, the return of Crimea to the Russian Federation, and Kiev’s terrorist action against the Donbass, relations between Russia and the West have deteriorated to historically low levels.

The election of Trump has sent confusing signals to the Europeans vis-a-vis Russia. Initially Trump seemed intent on establishing good relations with Putin in the face of strong opposition from European allies like France, Germany and the UK. But the possibility of a US-Russia rapprochement has been severely undermined by a combination of Trump’s inexperience, the unhelpful advisors he has appointed, and the US deep state. This geopolitical upheaval has had two primary consequences. For the Germans, first and foremost, it has deepened energy and economic cooperation with Moscow, especially in relation to the Nord Stream 2. But on the other hand, Trump has found friends in European countries hostile to Russia like Poland.

The divergences between the US and Europe have widened with Washington’s withdrawal from a number of important treaties like the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) and Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), or the Iran nuclear deal, both of which have a direct impact on Europe in terms of security and the economy. Donald Trump and his “America First” attitude has thereby afforded Europeans some space to maneuver and establish some level of autonomy, resulting in increasing synergies with Moscow and especially Beijing.

In economic terms, China has offered Europe (with Greece as a prime example) full integration into the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a project with vast possibilities for increasing trade among dozens of countries. Europe will become the main market for Chinese goods, but at the moment one of the greatest obstacles to be overcome can be seen in the freight trains, which often start their journey towards Europe full but are half-empty on their return journey to China. Beijing and the major European capitals are well aware that to make the BRI project economically sustainable, this exchange must go in both directions so that both sides gain.

The technological interconnection between China and Europe is already happening thanks to Huawei devices that are being purchased by European companies in increasing numbers. The absence of back doors in Huawei systems, in contrast to what Snowden has shown with other Western systems, is the real reason why Washington has declared war on this Chinese company. Industrial espionage is a priceless advantage enjoyed by the United States, and the presence of backdoors on Western systems, to which the CIA and NSA have access, guarantees a competitive advantage allowing Washington to excel in terms of technology. With the spread of Huawei systems this advantage is lost, to the chagrin of Washington's spy apparatus. European allies understand the potential advantage to be gained and are protecting themselves with the Chinese systems.

In technological terms, Beijing's efforts are proving very successful in Europe and are paving the way for future physical integration in the BRI. In this sense, the participation of such European countries as the UK, France, Germany and Italy in the Chinese-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) also shows how the prospect of Chinese capital investments are of great interest to troubled European economies.

In the military field, the US withdrawal from the INF Treaty threatens the safety of European countries because of the measures adopted by the Russian Federation to guarantee necessary protection from US systems deployed in Europe. A proverb states that when elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers. Europe, as the potential battlefield in any great-power confrontation, has the most to lose from a renewed cold war that could turn hot. Moscow’s revelation of its new generation of weapons has caused anxiety among Europeans who worry that their lives may be sacrificed in order to please Americans who are thousands of miles away. At the same time, the Americans want to get rid of NATO while demanding that the Europeans spend more on American weapons and also limit Sino-Russian investments in Europe. It is likely that the breakdown of the INF Treaty, combined with the conventional and nuclear capabilities of Moscow, will boost diplomatic talks between Russia and Europe without the US being able to sabotage future agreements. Some European countries are keen to be rid of the policy of subordinating their interests to that of Washington, especially with regards to security.

Russia cleverly uses two decisive instruments to limit Washington's influence on Europe and contain the chaos produced by its foreign-policy establishment. Firstly, it has the strength of its own conventional and nuclear arsenal that acts as a deterrent against excessive provocations. Secondly, it has huge deposits of oil and LNG that it exports to the European market in considerable quantities. The combination of these two factors allows Moscow to contain the chaos unleashed by the US in such places as Georgia or Ukraine as well as limit US influence on internal European affairs, as can be seen in the case of Germany and the Nord Stream 2 project. Merkel is forced to concede that in spite of her demonization of Moscow, Berlin cannot do away with Russia’s supply of energy. This has increased tensions between Berlin and Washington, with the US eager to replace Russian gas with its own much more expensive LNG shipped all the way across the Atlantic.

Chinese economic power, combined with Russia’s military deterrence as well as European reliance on Russia for its energy supply, shows that Europe cannot afford to follow its American ally in acting provocatively against the Sino-Russian axis. Europe has, moreover, suffered from US wars in West Asia and the waves of migrants brought on by this. Small shoots of strategic autonomy can be seen in the creation of the Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges (INSTEX), an alternative payment system to the dollar to work around sanctions against Iran. The little or no diplomatic support extended to Ukraine’s anti-Russia stance by France and Germany could be seen as another sign of the Europeans becoming more independent. The recent Munich Security Conference, with Poroshenko in attendance, further confirmed that Merkel intends to rely on Russian gas supplies in the interests of energy diversification.

The combined diplomatic, military and economic actions of Russia and China in Europe are decidedly more limited and effective in Europe compared to other parts of the world like the entire Asia. Political rhetoric, amplified by the media, that is against cooperation between Europe, Russia and China, only serves the interests of the United States. Russia and China are succeeding by proposing viable alternatives to Washington’s unipolar world order, extending to European countries a strategic liberty that would otherwise not be available to them in a Washington-directed unipolar world order.

It is still not clear whether the European capitals are turning to Moscow out of anti-Trump rather than anti-American sentiment. It remains to be seen whether these changes are temporary and await the return to the US presidency of someone who believes in liberal hegemony, or whether the changes underway are the first in a series of upheavals that will progressively reshape the world order from unipolar to multipolar, with Europe clearly being one of the main poles.

India and Pakistan on the warpath again

By Sanjay Kapoor

TEHRAN - On February 14, a suicide bomber rammed his explosives-laden vehicle into a convoy of para-military police force returning to trouble-torn Kashmir valley. When the haze cleared after the earth-shaking blast, the survivors of the large convoy carrying 2500 soldiers found only the mangled remains of what was a bus carrying 41 of their colleagues.

The suicide bomber, a Kashmiri national, in a recorded video claimed to be a member of Jaish-e-Muhammad, a Pakistan based militant organization responsible for many attacks at Indian installations.

Angry protesters baying for Pakistan’s blood have spilled over to many cities of the country. Social media too is on fire. The general view was not whether there would be war between the two nuclear-armed neighbors or not, but when.

Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan has denied India’s allegations of his country’s involvement in the terror attack and promised to retaliate if India decides to attack his country. Khan promised to probe the attack from his side if any evidence was shared with his government by Delhi. He has accused Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi of using the terror attack to win parliamentary elections a month from now.

Modi has handed over the responsibility of taking a decision on the time, place and scale of the response to the terrorist violence to the Indian Defense Forces. The big question is: Can the armed forces really take a decision on attacking Pakistan, which would have serious geo-political and domestic implications at a time the country is going for elections? Indian elections take place in April/May.  

Tensions between India and Pakistan have escalated in recent years- aggravated after each militant attack in the violence-racked states of Kashmir and Punjab.

Evidently, terror attacks are milestones of this blood-spattered journey of the ties between the two neighbors that couldn’t really reconcile to their post-partition identities.

Pakistan decided to be the Islamic Republic, and India chose to go secular- now being challenged by the Hindu right wing that is in power.

India and Pakistan have fought three big wars and hundreds of border skirmishes since the two countries were partitioned on August 15, 1947.

When they are not fighting, the two sides have played cricket, and Pakistani artists have sang together with Indians. Many times in the 70 years post- partition history, there have been periods of peace and bonhomie. As Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, General V K Singh candidly pointed out that there was peace in the Kashmir valley when the UPA was in power until 2013.

When the BJP won the elections in 2014, there was initially a lot of hope in the valley, but thereafter the situation began to rapidly slide. The nub of the problem is in the way the administration had been configured by the central government in Kashmir. The BJP followed a two-track approach, on the one hand, they formed a coalition government with a regional party considered to be close to those who want freedom or azadi from India.

On the other hand, they used the army and security forces to come down heavily on the restive youth. Pellet guns were used against the protesters that maimed hundreds of youth and caused international outrage. The reaction that followed saw a rise in homegrown terrorists with a leader of a militant outfit, Burhan Wani, getting killed in an encounter.

Wani’s death is considered to be the turning point when it comes to the rise in homegrown militancy in recent years. Since then, more and more young people have joined terror outfits with their bases in Pakistan.

In 2016, four armed militants attacked the Indian army’s cantonment at Uri in Kashmir, and 19 Indian soldiers died in it. Similar to the public protests that are sweeping the country now, at that time the BJP’s supporters demanded firm action against Pakistan for sending these terrorists to India.

A few months after the incident, the Indian army launched a surgical strike hitting at alleged terrorist bases across the border. Pakistan again denied that the Indian Special Forces had attacked any installations on their soil.

The terror attack was followed by a “surgical strike” which was converted into a Bollywood film that did very well at the box office, with many of the BJP ministers joyfully mouthing the film’s dialogue like “how’s the josh” (enthusiasm).
The success of the film “Uri” also reflected the nationalist fervour that the BJP and its front organisations had been able to create in the country.

Quite expectedly, when the Pulwama attack took place, there was a bewildering mobilization of those who wanted Pakistan to be punished for the incident.

The Congress party, which is putting up a spirited challenge to the BJP in the last few months, was the target of the attack. Photoshopped images of Congress President Rahul Gandhi in the company of the Pulwama bomber, and his sister Priyanka in the company of Pakistan Army Chief General Bajwa, began to circulate on Facebook and Whatsapp. These images were challenged by fact-checking websites.

In the coming weeks, India’s Election Commission will announce the date of the elections. The ruling BJP will try to ensure that its supporters continue to have “josh” (enthusiasm) on issues of nationalism, and are not swayed by the opposition demanding answers on alleged corruption in the purchase of the Rafale jet fighter from France, or “ jobless growth.”

Modi was seen to be in a corner until the recent terror attack provided him and his party with an opportunity to shut the opposition up, and harp on the issue of the threat of terrorism from Pakistan. Harping on Islamic terrorism is the BJP’s comfort zone, as it also brings about majority consolidation and dis-empowers the Muslim minority of 19% in the country, which traditionally supports the Congress party.

The BJP, which was on the threshold of losing the Parliamentary elections, may have gotten a new lease on life after the Pulwama terror attack. If India indeed goes to war during this electoral period, then opposition parties would be hard put to weave a narrative that gets them back into the reckoning.

Author is a New Delhi based journalist and author, editor of Hard News magazine.

The complete failure of Washington and Riyadh in Yemen

By Hanif Ghaffari 

TEHRAN - The humanitarian crisis in Yemen continues. Famine has spread across Yemen. Meanwhile, the United States, and Germany, Britain and France as its allies continue to maintain arms support for the Saudi assassination regime.

Undoubtedly, the role of Washington and its allies in the killing of Yemeni women and children is very high. The fact is that now, bin Salman is blamed by the Saudi court for of defeat in Yemen and the rising expense of the Saudis in this scene.

 However, the signs of Saudi Arabia's defeat in Yemen, throughout the region and in the world is becoming more and more clear. Under such conditions, Mohammed bin Salman seeks to reduce the cost of this heavy defeat in any way possible, but the harder he tries, Al Saud is more likely to fail.

Along with the ongoing developments in Yemen and the Saudi House, we should point to a more important issue, that is, the general dissatisfaction in Saudi Arabia of the ruling family. In the near future, this issue can turn into Saudis' Achilles heels (even if bin Salman is ousted from power).

 The corruption of the Saudi House can be in no way ignored. The financial corruption of the Royal Family is such that all Saudi citizens are aware of it. While poverty raises in many parts of Saudi Arabia, Saudi officials continue to plunder their country's resources.

 Despite the fact that Saudi Arabia is enjoying the rich revenues from oil sales and pilgrimages, the people of Saudi Arabia suffer from poverty, injustice, unemployment and other social problems. Experts see the cause of this in the appointment, and not selection of the rulers, the lack of public supervision over the authorities and budget spending, lack of a modern constitution, the monopoly of power in the hands of the Saudi family, and the Saudi family's dependence on the West, especially on the United States.

 Poverty and unemployment in Saudi Arabia, which is one of the richest countries in the world, have turned to a political bomb which may explode any moment.

The fact is that in a very near future, the Yemeni state will become a symbol of the defeat of the United States and Saudi Arabia and the European allies of Washington. This will not only weaken or even crush Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince of power, but also undermine the previous U.S. calculations in the region. Anyway, a complete failure will await Washington and Riyadh in West Asia.

‘Indian media playing into U.S. hands by stirring tensions between India, China’

TEHRAN - The heightened tensions between India and Pakistan in the wake of recent terror attack in Indian-controlled Kashmir are increasingly becoming a threat to regional peace and stability.

Many regional countries have urged the two South Asian nuclear powers to scale down the war rhetoric and resolve the contentious issues through dialogue and talks.

China, which shares border with both the countries, has also joined the growing chorus, warning about the consequences of any military adventure on part of the two warring countries.

Although Beijing is seen close to Islamabad due to the massive China-Pakistan economic project currently underway, it has urged both New Delhi and Islamabad to avoid any military confrontation.

The deadly attack in southern Kashmir less than two weeks ago, which killed 44 members of India’s paramilitary police force, was claimed by Jaish e Mohammad (JeM), which is allegedly based in Pakistan.

Following the attack, India vowed a ‘befitting reply’ and said it will take all possible measures to ‘diplomatically isolate Pakistan’.

Over the past one week, Indian media has been replete with reports about preparations for a small-scale war. The situation in the disputed Kashmir region, which is sandwiched between the two South Asian giants, continues to be tense.

It has also reported about China’s tilt towards Pakistan because of its own scores to settle with India.

Azhar is based in Pakistan and Islamabad has refused India’s demands to extradite him. China, reports in Indian media said, has blocked India’s moves to have him designated a ‘global terrorist’ at the United Nations Security Council.

A report in Global Times, which reflects views of the Chinese government, alleged that the Indian media was “playing into the hands of the U.S. and creating tensions between India and China” in the aftermath of Kashmir attack even as the Indian government maintained strategic autonomy in its foreign policy.

The report blasted the Western media, which it alleged used the Kashmir attack to affect China’s relations with India and shift the focus from the attack itself to China.

“The United Nations has a strict set of procedures for listing terrorist organizations and individuals. India’s requirements can be understood, but India cannot be arbitrary,” the report said.

“In fact, the ‘East Turkistan Islamic Movement’ (ETIM) in China’s Xinjiang has also been listed on the UN 1267 Committee’s list of terrorist groups. China has also asked for some specific people to be listed but it cannot happen according to one’s own wishes,” said the report, translated into English.

Commenting on the escalating situation, China’s state-run daily Sina International, which also reflects the views of the government in Beijing, said the Kashmir attack “pushed lukewarm India-Pakistan ties to a new low”, leading to “tensions in South Asia” after the Wuhan Summit between PM Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping had “helped stabilise the situation”.

“In response to this attack India wants to expand its influence. The Indian government said it had irrefutable evidence that Pakistan was involved in the attack. This can be serious. It accuses a country of participating in such an attack,” said the report.

The report said the upcoming general elections in India had forced the Modi government to adopt a tough stance on the attack. “Modi is trying every way to get re-elected. In this case, he is likely to choose a radical approach,” it said.

Any action against Jaish e Mohammad, the report stressed, will be very difficult in the absence of mutual trust between India and Pakistan.

“However, Western countries such as the United States, Britain, France, Germany and Australia all stood by the Indian side. Obviously, the West wants to pick up the India-Pakistan conflict and create something around China,” it noted.

“In response to this situation, if India makes a big fuss and launch a large-scale military operation in Kashmir, then the military conflict between India and Pakistan will reach its peak. How the situation evolves depends on the attitude of India and the political goals the Modi government wants to achieve,” the report further added.

However, the report said it will not have much bearing on India-China relations and the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) if the situation subsides after the initial tensions.

“China will continue to pay attention to the tension in South Asia caused by this attack. China hopes that India can make wise choices,” it said.

Assad’s Iran visit heralds lasting alliance between Tehran & Damascus

February 27, The Iran Project – In a sudden trip abroad since the start of the Syrian war eight years ago, President Bashar al-Assad made a first public visit to Iran, his closest regional ally, signaling that Tehran-Damascus alliance would grow even further in the future.

Iran has been a key ally of Syria during the war which has killed between 360,000 and 560,000 people, according to different monitoring groups.

At the request of Damascus, Iran has been providing military advisory assistance to Syrian government forces in their fight against foreign-backed Takfiri terrorists. Tehran’s advisory support has enabled the Syrian army to liberate almost all areas from the terrorists’ grip.

Washington led the charge to topple Assad for years of the crisis, supporting anti-government rebels aligned with al-Qaeda. But the Trump administration have apparently walked back on the ultimatum about the removal of Assad after Syrian government forces and their allies’ victories.

.During a visit to Tehran on Monday (Feb. 25), Assad, who has not traveled anywhere apart from Russia since the conflict began, held talks with Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei and President Hassan Rouhani, as well.

“Iran proud of backing Syria”

In a meeting with Syrian President Assad in Tehran, Ayatollah Khamenei stated that the Islamic Republic is honored to support Syria and considers it as equal to supporting the entire resistance front while mentioning resistance of Syrian president and people as the main reason behind the defeat of the United States and its regional mercenaries.

The Leader stressed that the triumph of the resistance front in Syria has made Americans angry and prompted them to hatch new plots, adding, “The issue of the buffer zone, which Americans seek to establish in Syria, is among those dangerous plots that must be categorically rejected and stood against.”

He also pointed to a miscalculation by enemies in the case of Syria, saying, “The enemies’ error was that they mistook Syria with some other Arab countries. While in those countries, people’s movement was in line with resistance and was, in fact, an uprising against America and its stooges.”

Iran to help rebuild Syria: Rouhani

Speaking on Monday evening in a meeting with the President of Syria, President Rouhani said the Islamic Republic is ready to help Syria with its reconstruction plans and restore stability to the war-ravaged country, noting that, “The Islamic Republic of Iran, just like in the past, will stand by the Syrian nation and government.”

Rouhani highlighted that multilateral cooperation among regional countries has led to the promotion of security across the region.

The hidden message of Assad’s visit to Tehran

Special Assistant to the Speaker of the Iranian Parliament for International Affairs, Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, said that the secret message of the trip was Assad’s response to the Americans’ new political game in which they are trying to convey this message to Assad that they can guarantee his lifetime presidency provided that Damascus distances itself from Iran and Hezbollah.

Pres. Assad responded to enemies’ message with a ‘loud voice’ that the Islamic Republic of Iran and Syria, beside their allies, will guard the Resistance Axis and regional peace and security, he noted

US-Israel bids can’t persuade Syria to end alliance with Iran

In an interview with Press TV, Syed Mohsin Abbas said an American-Israeli bid to persuade Syria to stop receiving support from Iran is doomed to failure, and that President Bashar al-Assad’s visit to Tehran heralds a lasting alliance between the two nations.

He pointed to the significance of Assad’s visit to Iran, now that his country has successfully defeated the Takfiri terrorists on almost all fronts thanks to Tehran’s advisory assistance, predicting that “They are very much going to be an alliance that will stretch into the foreseeable future for sure.”

The U.S. may have created a pool of quicksand…and jumped in

By Martin Love

NORTH CAROLINA - It has been suggested that the various hostile moves initiated by the Trump administration against Venezuela and Iran, to cite just two countries under economic siege, is that the U.S. literally has no alternative. No alternative but to try to counter every single development anywhere that might diminish the concept (at the least) of America as the sole superpower and hegemon, as it has been especially since the fall of the Soviet Union. This, it has been argued, is because the U.S. is fundamentally tapped out financially (with over $22 trillion in debt and at least $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities) and must resort literally to stealing resources and power and demanding obeisance wherever it can be had wherever it may be waning.

A simple case in point is U.S. hostility to Germany and Russia over the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline that may go on line later this year and augment Germany’s and Europe’s access to relatively cheap energy and, as well, shore up if not expand Europe’s relationships both diplomatic and economic with Europe’s natural partner to the east, Russia. But just about anywhere you look, challenges to U.S. hegemony and a multi-polar world are cropping up.

 It appears that the U.S. game plan involves threats of war and destruction unless the various challenges to “empire” can be obviated by other means. But it is definitely a double-edged sword, for as much as the U.S. over extends itself overseas, it also risks internal implosion in the so-called “homeland” and above all, further rejection of the prime lynchpin of U.S. power which is the dollar.

And the U.S. seems clearly to be overplaying its hand. Regarding Venezuela, where the regime-change efforts have so far not gone to plan and “progressed” appears to have stalled out, the only further option seems to be an outright invasion or the stoking of a civil war – both of which even many U.S. elites consider foolish and counter- productive. And regarding Iran, it is absolutely heartening that Iranian leadership has been faithful to the JCPOA, because it does appear that Iran’s steady cool is gaining the Islamic Republic increasing respect and viability.

Meanwhile, desperation in the Trump administration is mounting, just as it seems to be in Israel. In the U.S., for example, there is worldwide disgust at twit Senator Marco Rubio’s tweet this week threatening Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela with Ghaddaffi’s cruel fate in Libya. And in Israel, Netanyahu, desperate to remain in power with the upcoming April 9th election there, has admitted in to his prospective Likud coalition people who even in Israel are considered by some the absolute worst kind of racists, even terrorists -- lingering advocates of those who long ago championed Meir Kahane and the Kach organization, now essentially reconstituted into Otzma Yehudit (“Jewish Power”).

This move by Netanyahu, shifting Israel even farther to the fascist right, is even being condemned by many Jews in the U.S, and by the primary Zionist lobby, AIPAC, which is beginning to realize it is losing its grip on the Palestine narrative and its ability to advocate successfully for the Zionists in the U.S. But real danger exists.

Will Trump, if somehow regime change fails in Venezuela, as its been envisioned by the likes of Pompeo, Pence, Abrams and Bolton, then go for broke with the Zionists and the Saudis in a Hail Mary pass of sorts involving a military attack on Iran, where economic pressures and sanctions have so far failed to create the kind of chaos inside Iran that might destroy the Islamic Republic?

 Will the search for and demands for some kind of insane “victory” in the face of repeated failures by the Trump administration occur? It is possible, but even with that there would be no victory but rather further condemnation of U.S. foreign policy and further erosion of U.S. clout with countries increasingly eager to break with obeisance to U.S. diktat and the dollar, the source of U.S. economic power.

It should, at any rate, be obvious to anyone in the West that Iran does not intend to pursue nuclear weapons, unlike, perhaps Saudi Arabia, which reports suggest has allegedly been receiving or is going to receive critical nuclear technology from the U.S. The hypocrisy is almost unbearable given the fact that of all Middle East regimes, the least “democratic” and the most rogue, aside from Israel, happens to be the Saudis.

 Thus, it appears – as with Venezuela – the real aim of the U.S. is to prevent countries from pursuing independent energy and economic policies. Mounting efforts to conduct business by Venezuela, Iran, Russia and China, among other countries, without the use of the dollar, if successful, would likely crater some major Western banks and financial markets.

In some ways one might conclude that Iran so far has, despite the pain and the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA, outwitted Trump and the Neocons by maintaining steadiness and cool – and this is increasingly appreciated and working towards the erosion of harsh views of the Islamic Republic globally.

 Anyone who was a child as I was during the 1950s when the U.S. was largely seen as a force for some good in the world has been thoroughly corrected in the past three decades: the U.S. is all out for itself and no one else, and more and more Americans are, in fact, realizing that if ever there was a rogue superpower, the U.S. is it. At the least citizens in the U.S. are incredibly tired of the various wars initiated by Washington and supported by small-minded psychopaths like Sen. Marco Rubio and his Neocon ilk.

Assad’s message while in Tehran

By Mohammad Ghaderi 

TEHRAN - Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s visit to the Islamic Republic of Iran and his meeting with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and our President Hassan Rouhani, has terrified once again the enemies of the axis of resistance and regional security, especially the axis of evil – the West, Israel and Saudi Arabia.  

 But the occurrence of this important event, especially at the present time, is very important.

The fact is that the U.S. is no longer able to cover over increasing deficits in Syria and, in general, in southwest Asia.  Damascus, Sanaa and even Kabul mark the obvious defeat of U.S. regional policy. Thus, Donald Trump has fewer and fewer options.

The bloody and dangerous game that Barack Obama launched in Syria in 2011 is near an end.  Although Washington's conspiracy is likely to continue in Syria, the failure of Takfiri terrorism that the U.S. supported is already largely apparent. The problem is clear in Syria. The western media announced outright the failure of the West and Arab moves in Syria and Takfiri terrorist groups in Syria continue to find themselves in much more difficult situation, a process that will continue until their total destruction.

With the defeat of U.S. plans in Syria, the backbone of Takfiri terrorism has been broken, a fact that has upset the Saudis, too. If Syria was the only symbol of hostility against the sworn enemies of the resistance front, today it has become the symbol of “stability and victory” for those seeking regional peace.

These days, not only Western media but the American and European politicians cannot deny their defeat in Syria. Since 2011, the U.S. has begun has played a dangerous game against the Syrian government and people using its Arab reactionary pawns to challenge the process of the domino effect of the Arab revolutions in the region. Also, the Western moves might have provided more security to Zionists. Today, however, after about eight years, we are witnessing the defeat of the Washington game.

In 2013, Barack Obama set up ISIS in Syria, along with First Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and even some of the allegedly rival White House senators (such as John McCain) went along with this.

This bloody legacy came to Donald Trump at the end of 2016. Trump, who, like Obama, had a particular attachment to ISIS and other terrorist and insurgent groups in Syria, did not hesitate to act to support them. However, the triumph of the resistance front in Syria destroyed Trump's dreams and imposed a historical defeat on them. The failure, with the wise leadership of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution and allies, will always be recorded in the shameful U.S. foreign policy record.

Therefore, Bashar al-Assad’s visit to Iran, in the wake of his victory and his meeting with the Supreme Leader, who is the most reliable support for the oppressed people in the world and the most significant theoretician of the resistance against the invasion of the cruel West in the present century, suggest many messages. First of all, for those who stand in the great devil's side, relying on money and the power of weaponry, have committed this great crime and are still not willing to accept their mistakes. Secondly, for those who, on their own front, sometimes did not see the power of God and questioned the divine promise of “If you help God, he will help you and he will take your steps solid” and they spoke of settlement with the devil.

Scary Armageddon estimates

Island Daily Editorial

Thursday 28th February, 2019

 

Gripped by a gnawing fear of being blown up anytime, thanks to the nuke stockpiles at the disposal of belligerent nations, the world must have heaved a sigh of relief when US President Donald Trump and his North Korean counterpart Kim Jon-un agreed to have a second round of talks. It is a pleasant sight to see the volatile duo talk peace instead of bellowing rhetoric and threatening to push nuclear buttons on their desks; they have certain traits in common such as the volatility of their tempers and sartorial elegance despite their tonsorial peculiarities and ideological differences.

Alas, the relief that the world felt was short-lived. Hours before Trump and Kim met in Hanoi, Vietnam, to avert a nuclear war, India and Pakistan, two rival nuclear powers, started clashing once again. In retaliation for the killing of 40 of Jawans in a terrorist blast in Kashmir, the Indian Air Force pounded targets inside Pakistan after 48 years, and Pakistan responded in a similar manner. It was a terrible loss for India, but New Delhi should have acted with restraint. (After all, that is what Sri Lanka was asked to do while it was suffering heavy losses at the hands of the LTTE.) Heavy shelling across the Line of Control was reported at the time of writing.

Clashes between India and Pakistan erupted while Trump and Kim were reportedly getting ready to declare an end to the frozen war between their countries, which agreed to a truce in 1953. Kim seems to be the least of Trump’s problems, at present, given the prospect of the Indo-Pakistan clashes escalating into a full-blown war—absit omen! Perhaps, Trump should fly to New Delhi and Islamabad straight from Hanoi to help bring the situation under control.

Mutually assured destruction (MAD) is generally thought to act as a deterrent anent nuclear capable nations in spite of their belligerence and, therefore, border disputes among them may not invariably reach the level of nukes being fired. But the escalation of such clashes has to be prevented at all costs in that the Armageddon estimates are chillingly scary.

Experts fear that more than 20 million people would immediately perish in a nuclear war in this region. Researchers at Rutgers, the University of Colorado-Boulder, and the University of California-Los Angeles have warned that if India and Pakistan happened to explode 100 Hiroshima-sized bombs, their impact, within less than 10 days, would cause temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere to get too cold for food production in countries like Canada and Russia. ‘The resulting 10 percent drop in rainfall — especially in Asian locales that rely on monsoons — would exhaust worldwide food supplies, leading to the starvation of up to 100 million or more people.' Experts also warn that aside from the food crisis, a nuclear war in South Asia would destroy between 25 to 70 percent of the Northern Hemisphere’s ozone layer. This is a frightening proposition for the whole of the human race.

The United Nations has to swing into action to prevent conflicts like the current one between India and Pakistan before they develop into wars, without limiting its role to taking punitive action against only smaller member states embroiled in conflicts, championing human rights selectively and peacekeeping in countries which powerful nations plunge into chaos.

Beijing was the first to call upon both India and Pakistan to act with restraint though whether the two rivals will heed its call remains to be seen. China can play a pivotal role in defusing tensions in the region. However, no détente will be possible unless the vexed issue of cross-border terrorism is tackled effectively and the Kashmir problem resolved once and for all. Easier said than done, but the nettle has to be grasped if two traditionally hostile nuclear powers are to be reconciled and peace restored.