Why Pompeo is travelling to Middle East?

By Hanif Ghaffari

TEHRAN - American Secretary of States Mike Pompeo announced on Sunday that he will travel to Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates (UAE) to discuss the issues of western Asia. 

It seems that the intention behind this trip, like the previous trips of U.S. officials to Middle East, is to shake down Arab tycoons. In fact, Trump had recently said that Saudi Arabia must financially support U.S. actions and now Pompeo is making this trip to reap the benefits. 
In fact, with muddying the waters, U.S. is only trying to downplay his recent failures against Iran, especially after Iran downed U.S. super modern Global Hawk drone that had intruded into Iran’s airspace. 

Following the incident, Trump made a strange announcement saying that he wanted to retaliate, but he called off the attack against Iran just 10 minutes before it was to be launched. 

After this, the western media tried to start up a psychological warfare against Iran. First saying that Trump is ready to negotiate, and then repeated the false claims that they might return to nuclear deal. Amid all this tension, Trump once again sent a message to North Korea’s Supreme Leader, and now Pompeo’s trip to the Middle East is just another piece of this puzzle. 

Out of a general viewpoint, we can say that the followings are the main intentions of Pompeo with making this trip to Middle East: 

•    Announcing U.S. support for Saudi and UAE regimes to continue killing the innocent people of Yemen until they reach a big victory. 

Gaining more victories in Yemen has specially become important for Saudi-led coalition after Yemeni drones targeted Abha and Jizan airports in the south of Saudi Arabia. 

On the other hand, a rift has opened up between the two main pillars of Saudi-led coalition, Saudi Arabia and UAE because Saudi disagrees with UAE’s plans for dividing the northern and southern Yemen. 

•    Putting pressure on Arab countries to attend the Manama event where U.S. is planning to put forward the “deal of the century.” 

After massive protests of both Muslim and non-Muslims on Quds Day in different countries 

After thousands of both Muslims and non-Muslims took to the streets on Quds Day (May 31) in protest of the “deal of the century”, many countries stepped back from agreeing to this deal; which is according to many experts is a vague and unpractical plan. These events majorly hindered the project from going further. First, John Bolton, U.S. National Security Advisor tried to stop the failure of this deal by making a trip to occupied Palestine and now Pompeo is making a trip to pressure their allies among Arab countries to attend the Manama meeting as it is among the most important events arranged to facilitate the deal of the century. 

•    Fuelling Iranophobia among Arab countries.

White House has failed in carrying out many of his projects against Iran over the last two years; this has seriously undermined U.S. foreign policy; so, now, U.S. is trying to make them afraid of Iran and incite them into violent reactions. 

•    Diverting the attention out of the successful results of “active resistance” of Iranians in reaction to U.S. unilaterally leaving the nuclear agreement with Iran. 

After United Nations Security Council passed a resolution for step by step suspension of Iran’s commitment to the nuclear deal, U.S. plans for pressuring Iran into having new round negotiations were thwarted. 

Many experts believe that this would change the game in favor of Iran. So, it seems that one of Pompoe’s intentions in making this trip is to divert the public attention out of the mistakes of warmongers in White House. 

In general, Pompeo’s trip to Middle East is indeed not a sign of U.S. power and control over the region; on the contrary, it reveals U.S. failed plans and strategies in the region and especially in dealing with Iran.  

Anyway, the course of the events is showing that this trip will bring no achievement for neither U.S. nor ignorant tycoons of Middle East because Iran will never succumb to oppression and Yemen will never end its resistance against the usurpers. The deal of century has no influence over the changes in Middle East, especially now that all the evidences show that the Manama meeting is going to be a humiliating failure.  

Why Trump Backed Off On Iran

by Dr Arshad M Khan

War is a failure of reason, it has been said, and war with Iran makes little sense after they have faithfully complied with their nuclear agreement (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), endorsed as it has been by the Security Council. It was the US, and the US alone, choosing to abrogate the deal that has resulted in the current confrontation — an unequal one in the unexpected sense that the US carrier is a big fat sitting duck for Iran’s locally manufactured sophisticated missiles. Additionally, its air defenses supplied by Russia will render aerial bombing an expensive proposition in airplane losses.

A brief description of Iran’s missiles that pose a danger to the US fleet or air attacks is in order. First, Iran’s missile program is domestic with help from Russian and China. Iran now has the capacity to produce anti-aircraft missiles with up to long-range capability, such as the one used to destroy the $120 million sophisticated US drone which was not without avoidance measures.

Of greater worry to the task force must be the Qader anti-ship missile with a 300 km range (about 190 miles). It can counteract electronic warfare measures and can be launched from land, sea or air, extending its range. Deadlier still is the Khalij Fars anti-ship ballistic missile that slams down on a ship at Mach 3. It is much harder to defend against, particularly The Fateh Mobin version which uses infrared sensors for terminal guidance and is equipped with radar evasion features.

Iran’s missile inventory extends to a dozen or more functional types including medium range ballistic missiles. The Iranians often note these are of domestic manufacture, which in itself is a consequence of the long trade embargoes — yet another unintended consequence.

Of course, Iran also has the ability to use conventional weapons like mines to close off the Strait of Hormuz to tanker traffic, causing chaos in the world economy by throttling fossil fuel exports.

Iran is also now firmly within the China-Russia axis, and it remains a major supplier for China. The latter is expanding the sea port of Gwadar in Pakistan, round the corner from the Gulf, to enable tankers to unload for overland transport, cutting transit time to the Chinese border to less than 24 hours … that is when the north-south artery in Pakistan is extended to Gwadar. Infrastructure development and improvement is part of the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative to which Pakistan signed on almost immediately.

Since the rest of the signatories to the Iran Deal including the EU have declared Iran to have abided by it, the US is alone in the world in its unwarranted intransigence. In the recent past, the US has withdrawn from an anti-ballistic missile treaty with Russia, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Paris Agreement on climate change and has threatened to pull out of NAFTA — the latter leading to hurried minor changes. So here’s a question: if the US were not the 800 pound gorilla on the block, who would want to negotiate with such an unreliable partner?

It all goes to show that when Trump called off this military escalation, he was not just thinking of the 150 Iranians he claimed would be killed, he was also concerned about US casualties and the loss of a ship or two, future relations with China and its partners, the lack of support from Europe, and the uncertainties of war — all with one eye on the 2020 elections.

Dr Arshad M Khan (http://ofthisandthat.org/index.html) is a former Professor based in the U.S. whose comments over several decades have appeared in a wide-ranging array of print and internet media. His work has been quoted in the U.S. Congress and published in the Congressional Record.

The Day After: What if Israel Annexes the West Bank?

by RAMZY BAROUD

Photograph Source: Mr. Kate – CC BY-SA 3.0

Calls for the annexation of the Occupied West Bank are gaining momentum in both Tel Aviv and Washington. But Israel and its American allies should be careful what they wish for. Annexing the Occupied Palestinian Territories will only reinforce the current rethink of the Palestinian strategy, as opposed to solving Israel’s self-induced problems.

Encouraged by the Donald Trump administration’s decision to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, Israeli government officials feel that the time for annexing the entirety of the West Bank is now.

In fact, “there is no better time than now” was the exact phrase used by former Israeli Justice Minister, Ayelet Shaked, as she promoted annexation at a recent New York conference.

Certainly, it is election season in Israel again, as Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, failed to form a government following the last elections in April. So much saber-rattling happens during such political campaigns, as candidates talk tough in the name of ‘security’, fighting terrorism, and so on.

But Shaked’s comments cannot be dismissed as fleeting election kerfuffle. They represent so much more, if understood within the larger political context.

Indeed, since Trump’s advent to the White House, Israel has never – and I mean, never – had it so easy. It is as if the rightwing government’s most radical agenda became a wish list for Israel’s allies in Washington. This list includes the US recognition of Israel’s illegal annexation of Occupied Palestinian East Jerusalem, of the Occupied Syrian Golan Heights, and the dismissal of the Palestinian refugees’ right of return altogether.

But that is not all. Statements made by influential US officials indicate initial interest in the outright annexation of the Occupied West Bank or, at least, large parts of it. The latest of such calls was made by US ambassador to Israel, David Friedman.

“Israel has the right to retain some … of the West Bank,” Friedman said in an interview, cited in the New York Times on June 8.

Friedman is deeply involved in the so-called ‘Deal of the Century’, a political gambit championed mostly by Trump’s top advisor and son-in-law, Jared Kushner. The apparent idea behind this ‘deal’ is to dismiss the core demands of the Palestinians, while reassuring Israel regarding its quest for demographic majority and ‘security’ concerns.

Other US officials behind Washington’s efforts on behalf of Israel include US Special Envoy to the Middle East, Jason Greenblatt, and former US Ambassador to the UN, Nicki Haley. In a recent interview with the Israeli rightwing newspaper, Israel Hayom, Haley said that the Israeli government “should not be worried” regarding the yet-to-be fully revealed details of the ‘Deal of the Century.’

Knowing Haley’s love-affair with – and brazen defense of – Israel at the United Nations, it should not be too difficult to fathom the subtle and obvious meaning of her words.

This is why Shaked’s call for the annexation of the West Bank cannot be dismissed as typical election season talk.

But can Israel annex the West Bank?

Practically speaking, yes, it can. True, it would be a flagrant violation of international law, but such a notion has never irked Israel, nor stopped it from annexing Palestinian or Arab territories. For example, it occupied East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights in 1980 and 1981 respectively.

Moreover, the political mood in Israel is increasingly receptive to such a step. A poll conducted by the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, last March revealed that 42% of Israelis back West Bank annexation. This number is expected to rise in the following months as Israel continues to move to the right.

It is also important to note that several steps have already been taken in that direction, including the Israeli Knesset’s (parliament) decision to apply the same civil laws to illegal Jewish settlers in the West Bank as to those living in Israel.

But that is where Israel faces its greatest dilemma.

According to a joint poll conducted by Tel Aviv University and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in August 2018, over 50% of Palestinians realize that a so-called two-state solution is no longer tenable. Moreover, a growing number of Palestinians also believe that co-existence in a single state, where Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs (Muslims and Christians, alike) live side by side, is the only possible formula for a better future.

The dichotomy for Israeli officials, who are keen on maintaining Jewish demographic majority and the marginalization of Palestinian rights, is that they no longer have good options.

First, they understand that the indefinite occupation of Palestinian territories cannot be sustained. Ongoing Palestinian resistance at home, and the rise of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement abroad is challenging Israel’s very political legitimacy across the world.

Second, they must also be aware of the fact that, from an Israeli Jewish leaders’ point of view, annexing the West Bank, along with millions of Palestinians, will multiply the very ‘demographic threat’ that they have been dreading for many years.

Third, the ethnic cleansing of whole Palestinian communities – the so-called ‘transfer’ option – as Israel has done upon its founding in 1948, and again, in 1967, is no longer possible. Neither will Arab countries open their borders for Israel’s convenient genocides, nor will Palestinians leave, however high the price. The fact that Gazans remained put, despite years of siege and brutal wars, is a case in point.

Political grandstanding aside, Israeli leaders understand that they are no longer in the driver’s seat and, despite their military and political advantage over Palestinians, it is becoming clear that firepower and Washington’s blind support are no longer enough to determine the future of the Palestinian people.

It is also clear that the Palestinian people are not, and never were, passive actors in their own fate. If Israel maintains its 52-year old Occupation, Palestinians will continue to resist. That resistance will not be weakened, or quelled, by any decision to annex the West Bank, in part or in full, the same way that Palestinian resistance in Jerusalem did not cease since its illegal annexation by Tel Aviv four decades ago.

Finally, the illegal annexation of the West Bank can only contribute to the irreversible awareness among Palestinians that their fight for freedom, human rights, justice and equality can be better served through a civil rights struggle within the borders of one single democratic state.

In her blind arrogance, Shaked and her rightwing ilk are only accelerating the demise of Israel as an ethnic, racist state, while opening up the stage for better possibilities than perpetual violence and apartheid.

Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and editor of Palestine Chronicle. His latest book is The Last Earth: A Palestinian Story (Pluto Press, London, 2018). He earned a Ph.D. in Palestine Studies from the University of Exeter and is a Non-Resident Scholar at Orfalea Center for Global and International Studies, UCSB.

EU meeting on Iran ends with no agreement to prevent US war

by Alex Lantier

On Friday, diplomats from Germany, Britain, France, the European Union, China, Russia and Iran met in Vienna for talks on the 2015 Iranian nuclear treaty, a year after Washington unilaterally scrapped the agreement. No agreement emerged from the meeting on the central issue: the growing danger of a US war against Iran.

Last week, amid an ongoing US military build-up in the Persian Gulf, US President Donald Trump announced that he had pulled back from launching air strikes on Iran that would have caused hundreds of deaths only 10 minutes before they were to begin. On Friday, at the G20 summit in Osaka, he indicated that US war threats would escalate, declaring that “there’s no rush” to ease tensions with Iran.

“There’s absolutely no time pressure,” he added. “I think that in the end, hopefully, it’s going to work out. If it does, great. And if doesn’t, you’ll be hearing about it.”

It is clear that Washington’s unilateral scrapping of the 2015 treaty and its imposition of sanctions targeting Iranian exports were a prelude to a new US war drive. Prior to the Vienna summit between representatives of the remaining signatories to the 2015 treaty, Iranian officials warned that it was the “last chance.”

“I think this meeting can be the last chance for the remaining parties … to gather and see how they can meet their commitments towards Iran,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi told the Fars news agency. He added that US sanctions against Iran “lack any legal basis” and are a “desperate” measure.

On Friday, during the G20 summit in Osaka, Chinese President Xi Jinping starkly warned that the Persian Gulf, the center of the world’s oil supply, is “standing at a crossroads of war and peace.” According to China’s Xinhua news agency, Xi said, “China always stands on the side of peace and opposes war. All parties must remain calm and exercise restraint, strengthen dialogue and consultations, and jointly safeguard regional peace and stability.”

Xi’s statement came after his June 5 summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow, where China and Russia vowed to “protect” their ties to Iran and “firmly oppose the imposition of unilateral sanctions” by anyone.

Nonetheless, despite the danger of all-out war across the Middle East, and potentially the entire world, under conditions where Iran and Russia are already engaged in a bloody eight-year proxy war against US-backed militias fighting for regime-change in Syria and Iraq, the Vienna summit failed to reach any deal.

“It was a step forward, but it is still not enough and not meeting Iran’s expectations,” Iran’s representative in Vienna, Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, said of the talks.

Araqchi said the sticking point was the EU’s refusal to defy crippling US sanctions on Iran’s oil exports that are strangling its economy. Araqchi criticized the Instex (Instrument to Support Trade Exchanges) institution set up in Paris by Germany, Britain and France to finance EU-Iran trade without using the US dollar. Up to now, the EU powers and European companies have refused to trade with Iran through Instex, citing fears of US retaliation.

“For Instex to be useful for Iran, Europeans need to buy oil or consider credit lines for this mechanism. Otherwise, Instex is not like they or we expect,” Araqchi said.

Even as it faces US trade war threats, China is defying US sanctions on Iranian oil and greeting Iranian oil tankers in its major ports. It is expected to import 200,000 barrels per day from Iran, according to industry estimates cited by the Financial Times.

Asked in Vienna whether China would obey Trump’s order to cut Iranian oil exports to “zero,” Chinese Foreign Ministry official Fu Cong said, “We reject the unilateral imposition of sanctions, and for us energy security is important … We do not accept this zero policy of the United States.”

The EU, Berlin, London and Paris are pursuing a different policy—capitulating to US threats and demanding that Iran take no action, even as Washington sends thousands of troops and an armada of warships to the Persian Gulf to threaten it.

In Vienna, EU diplomat Helga Schmid merely confirmed that Instex is “operational” before demanding Iran’s “full and effective implementation” of the 2015 treaty. She thus echoed demands this week from EU Council President Donald Tusk, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron that Tehran abide by the treaty, even after Washington has discarded it and threatened to bomb Iran.

Araqchi rebuffed these calls, warning that Iran could act on its threat to restart uranium enrichment and make more than the 300kg limit on uranium specified by the 2015 treaty. “I don’t think the progress made today will be enough to stop our process, but the decision will be made in Tehran,” he said.

This statement reflects growing anger with the EU in Iranian ruling circles. After German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas visited Tehran earlier this month to demand that Tehran observe the 2015 treaty, while warning that Europe “cannot work miracles” in foreign policy, the Iranian press mocked him. “The impotent cannot work miracles,” wrote the daily Resalat, while the daily Javancaricatured him as an officer doing a Nazi salute and asked, “What was the point of his visit?”

The Vienna talks underscore the failure of whatever hopes remained, after nearly 30 years of bloodletting after the first US war against Iraq in 1990-1991, that rival capitalist governments’ diplomatic maneuvers can avert a new imperialist war in the Middle East. Instead, even broader disasters are being prepared.

Amid its continuing economic decline compared to powers like China and Germany, Washington is resorting more aggressively to its military to try to restore its former global hegemony. Yet a US war with Iran, a country with three times the population and four times the size of Iraq, would dwarf even the horrific 2003-2011 US occupation of Iraq, which left a million dead. After a decade of bloody proxy wars in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, such a war would even more rapidly move toward a global war between the world’s major nuclear-armed powers, threatening the survival of humanity.

The EU powers’ attempts to whip Iran into line with US demands do not reflect agreement with Washington’s Iran policy. Behind the scenes, US-EU tensions are surging. At a NATO defense ministers’ meeting Thursday in Brussels, when newly installed acting US Defense Secretary Mark Esper said he would tolerate no further actions from Iran, his French counterpart, Florence Parly, reportedly replied by demanding that Washington not involve NATO in military action in the Persian Gulf.

The EU powers plan to spend hundreds of billions of euros on a future independent European army, and Washington has sent repeated diplomatic communications in recent weeks threatening to cut off military cooperation with the European Union. Plans for an EU army are more and more clearly bound up with the rivalry between the United States and Europe over the trillions of dollars in oil money, critical positions on world markets and control of military bases at stake in the new round of imperialist wars of plunder that are being prepared.

Nevertheless, amid growing opposition from workers across Europe to police state policies and austerity measures intended to finance Europe’s military build-up, EU politicians are downplaying US war threats against Iran. Macron declared Thursday that he shares the US “strategic objective” in Iran, namely, preventing “Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.” He decried any Iranian moves to abandon the nuclear treaty.

Macron also contested Russian reports, backed by radar data, that the US drone shot down by Iran over the Persian Gulf was hit over Iranian territorial waters. He said the information available to French authorities indicated it was “in the international zone,” as alleged by Washington.

London has already announced the dispatch of a hundred British commandos to the Persian Gulf to join the military build-up against Iran.

The Lie Of The Century

by Jafar M Ramini

Well it’s happened. It’s real. Mr Jared Kushner, the son-in-law and Senior Advisor of President Trump has delivered 136 pages of lies, suppositions and conjuring tricks to seduce or compel us Palestinians to accept our fate and surrender our rights. What rights? As far as this document is concerned Palestinians have no rights whatsoever and as for a Palestinian perspective, what is that?

The Palestinians were not even invited to Manama, let alone considered. What about the Israelis? Were they there? Were they invited? On the face of it, no, but in reality they were amply represented. What is Jared Kushner if not the team captain for the Greater Israel Project? After all, he is Jewish, an ardent Zionist, an investor in the illegal settlements in Palestine and an advocate, par excellence, for Israeli survival and supremacy.

The Lie Of The Century, as I call it, is just that. A lie. From beginning to end, every word, every supposition of this long-winded deception is to ensure that the Greater Israel Project will advance unhindered and we, the Palestinians, are to accept the crumbs off the table of our land-lords. Or perish.

But, hang on a minute, how could an occupier who seized our land by brute force be made a legitimate land-lord over us? The answer is simple. In the Trumpian universe all that matters are power and Mammon. Isn’t this what the ‘Deal of The Century’ is all about? American/Israeli power exercised over us Palestinians without mercy? And what about the money? Oh yes, there is money, but it is not American nor Israeli money. It’s Arab money. To be extorted from despotic, Arabic regimes in the Gulf, as per usual. Trump demands and the Arab Regimes of the Gulf and Saudi Arabia oblige. If they don’t, as Mr Trump intimated, their shaky thrones wouldn’t last a week without US protection.

Mr Kushner promised $50 billion in Arab money to be divided between Palestine, Jordan and Egypt. Nowhere in the document was there any mention of Palestinian political rights, the right of return of the Palestinian refugees or even the Israeli occupation of Palestine. All was conveniently kicked into touch because it doesn’t matter, you see. What matters is Israeli survival and supremacy and the continued, rapid march of the Greater Israel Project.

I say ‘rapid march’ because who is to stop it? The Palestinians do not have an army, an airforce, a navy or even a coalition to stop this march. Jordan has already succumbed to American threats and promises of prosperity. The same goes for Egypt. Especially under the hand-picked President Abdul Fatah Alsisi, whose sole purpose is to neuter Egypt and serve as a facilitator for American and Israeli hegemony in our area.

Syria? Western powers, Israel and despotic Arab/Muslim states have made sure that Syria is taken out of the equation by embroiling it in a 7-year long devastating war.

The Gulf States? Saudi Arabia? Instead of stopping this advance of Greater Israel they are facilitating it by making a frantic rush towards normalisation with Israel and to form a coalition of the willing to combat a perceived threat from another Muslim country, Iran. The honourable exception is the State of Kuwait who refused to attend this farce and reaffirmed their total support of Palestinian rights and aspirations.

Let’s look closely at the word, ‘surrender’. Many of you might remember an article I wrote recently entitled, ‘Surrender Or Die’. It didn’t take too long for the Israelis to prove me right. There it is. From the Grand weasel’s mouth, none other than Danny Danon, the Israeli Ambassador to the UN. In an article entitled, ‘What’s Wrong With Palestinian Surrender”, published in the New York Times on June 24th, one day before the Manama ‘Workshop’. “Surrender”, he wrote,” is the recognition that in a contest, staying the course will prove costlier than submission.”

There you have it. To the victor the spoils.

And then comes the other Grand Weasel, Mr Jared Kushner, to deliver the message of surrender to a room full of weasels. All these aforementioned weasels, who have been gnawing at our heels for over a century omitted to consider one vital point. The Palestinian character and pride.

Surrender is not in our character. We’d rather die standing up, defending our rights than exist, kneeling at the feet of our self-appointed land-lords and benefactors.

Just in case any of those weasels calling for our surrender might have any interest in what we Palestinians want, here is how Executive Member of the PLO, Dr Hanan Ashrawi, put it.

Jafar M Ramini is a Palestinian writer and political analyst, based in London, presently in Perth, Western Australia. He was born in Jenin in 1943 and was five years old when he and his family had to flee the terror of the Urgun and Stern gangs. Justice for the people of Palestine is a life-long commitment.

USA Once Again on its Favorite Path Towards War Against Iran

Viktor Mikhin

The latest events pertaining to Iran are very much reminiscent of those transpiring in Europe right before the Fist World War. Tensions were high, all the nations were ready for the ‘big fight’ and were simply waiting for an excuse to start it. And then the opportune moment arrived when a 19-year old Bosnian Serb, Gavrilo Princip, who was a member of a terrorist organization, assassinated the heir presumptive to the Austro-Hungarian throne, the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, and his morganatic wife, Sophie Chotek, on 28 June 1914 in Sarajevo.

In this case, the trigger for the attack on Iran was meant to be a provocative violation of this nation’s airspace by an American drone and a reconnaissance aircraft with 35 servicemen on board following the unmanned aerial vehicle. The unfortunate fate that had awaited them (i.e. being shot down by Iranian air defense systems) was supposed to signal the start of an aerial attack by U.S. forces on Iran, involving a heavy deployment of modern missiles and possibly low-yield nuclear weapons. These plans were already at the Pentagon, and in order to justify their execution, an American spokesperson was prepared to give a pre-prepared speech at just the right time during a United Nations Security Council emergency session. These were the plans concocted in Washington that did not come to fruition.

The Iranian leadership behaved in a much more rational and cautious manner than the US command and Donald Trump’s cronies. The Iranian air defense systems only shot down the drone and not the military aircraft with people on board. After all no one starts a war over a heap of metal when there have been no human casualties. Just recall the events in Sarajevo.

The Commander of Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Aerospace Force, Amir Ali Hajizadeh, stated that Iran chose not to shoot down the U.S. aircraft that was following the unmanned aerial vehicle.  “Along with the US drone, there was also an American P-8 plane with 35 people on board. This plane also entered our airspace and we could have targeted it, but we did not because our purpose behind shooting down the American drone was to give a warning to terrorist American forces,” said Amir Ali Hajizadeh.  He added that the Iranian military had sent two “warnings” to the American unmanned aerial vehicle before it was shot down.

We would like to remind our readers that on 3 July 1988, an Airbus A300B2-203 passenger plane (commercial flight IR655, operated by Iran Air), flying from Tehran via Bandar Abbas to Dubai over the Persian Gulf, was unceremoniously shot down by a surface-to-air missile, fired from USS Vincennes (a guided missile cruiser of the United States Navy), 7 minutes after he had left Bandar Abbas. American servicemen had not sent any warnings, they were simply having some fun on the missile cruiser. Recently, Iranians could have chosen to follow in U.S. footsteps and brought down the American aircraft with ease, but instead Tehran made a decision not to shoot down the American reconnaissance airplane that had violated their air space.

This time around, Donald Trump’s and his adviser’s plans to start a war against Iran were postponed for a later date, but most certainly not abandoned. It is also important to mention that there is a fierce debate over policy towards Iran in the United States right now. The so-called ‘B-team’, which includes the National Security Advisor of the United States, John R. Bolton, a number of leaders in the Middle Eastern region (including Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, Mohammad Bin Salman Al Saud, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, and Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the Crown Prince of the Emirate of Abu Dhabi) as well as the Senior Advisor to the U. S. President and the latter’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, has been desperately trying to get Donald Trump to fall into the Iranian trap. But being an experienced businessman, the President clearly understands that his power does not lie in the deployment of military forces. Plus the Iranian adventure would not be a walk in the park. As in an event of a war, Donald Trump’s ‘die hard fans’, the democrats, are bound to start the impeachment process against him. Hence the predicament that the U.S. President finds himself in: he is willing to apply non-stop pressure on his partners but not engage in military operations.

Evidence to this includes rather vague factual statements, publicized by the well-informed Reuters News Agency, that say Donald Trump had sent a message, via Oman, to Iran warning Tehran about the impending attacks against it, and giving its leadership a ‘limited’ amount of time to respond. The American President said that he preferred negotiations to war in his ‘letter’. “Reports that a message was passed last night to the Iranians via an Omani back channel are completely false. These reports are pure Iranian propaganda,” stated Morgan Ortagus, the Spokesperson for the United States Department of State. Kayvan Khosravi, the Spokesman of the Supreme National Security Council of Iran, also denied that Tehran had received such a message.

Arguably, this is the first time that Washington and Tehran have been able to agree on something. And the speed with which both sides repudiated the statement, made by the Reuters News Agency, only lends credence to the story that such a message had actually been sent by Donald Trump. After all, the adage does say ‘there is no smoke without fire’.

The possibility of a war between the United States and Iran is becoming more real, and Donald Trump’s allies will continue with their attempts to depict Iran as a threat, as was the case with Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. “A US war with Iran looms. Don’t for one second think that it is justified,” writes Owen Jones, a Guardian columnist, who is well-versed on this particular subject.  According to the political commentator, “We must not fall into step with their prefab bloodlust. We know how the story goes. The decision for war is made long in advance.”

However, there is another aspect to this story. Clearly, the leader of the largest super-power in the world has not been making empty threats, but still they should not be perceived at face value, since they are an integral part of national as well as foreign policies of the United States. The White House has issued such threats on numerous occasions before against Russia, the PRC, the DPRK and other countries but usually such words have not translated into action. Donald Trump prefers to only frighten his partners on the world stage, but so far he has not been tempted to engage in military action. However, there may come a time when the President’s advisers and cronies will manage to create such an environment that Donald Trump has no other recourse but to resort to the use of force (against his will and better judgement).

Seemingly, this must have been the aim of sending the drone and the U.S. reconnaissance aircraft to Iranian airspace. Still, this time around Iranians saw through the devious scheme and only shot down the American drone. It is quite clear that it is impossible to start a military conflict over one unmanned aerial vehicle. Thankfully, the war has been avoided this time around.

Viktor Mikhin, corresponding member of RANS, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
https://journal-neo.org/2019/06/27/usa-once-again-on-its-favorite-path-towards-war-against-iran/

How European Powers Have Sold Iran Out

Salman Rafi Sheikh

While European powers – the UK, Germany and France – are officially trying to ‘salvage’ the Iran nuke deal, the fact of the matter is that they have already sold out the deal to the US And while European officials continue to visit Tehran, they are not doing this to convince Iran of staying in the deal; their primary purpose has been to convince Iran of the importance of accepting core demands of the US and re-negotiate the deal. It is obvious that the European states have, although they officially continue to emphasize the importance of the deal, already succumbed to the US as far as the desire to re-negotiate the deal is concerned. As such, while British Middle East envoy was recently in Iran to discuss the crisis and salvage the deal, it was the UK that recently deployed UK Special Boat Service (SBS) frogmen to the Persian Gulf. Apart from these, elite commandos and highly-trained Royal Navy divers, who specialize in defusing explosives, have also been sent there to support the SBS to potentially protect British ships from Iranian attacks.

What this development shows in nutshell is that the British authorities believe, just like the US., that Iran is provoking attacks in the Gulf and that Iranian behaviour is unacceptable, completely overlooking the fact that Iran is still in the deal and that it is the US. that has violated the deal and imposed unilateral sanctions on Iran and that the core cause of the Gulf crisis is the US, not Iran.

Unsurprisingly then, Iran was reasonably disappointed at what British minister, Andrew Murrison, had to offer them in Tehran. Kamal Kharrazi, the head of Iran’s Strategic Council of Foreign Relations that works under Khamenei, said that meeting was “repetitive” with nothing new to offer, reiterating also that the three European countries, France, Germany and the UK “did not take serious actions” to save the JCPOA. Equally unsurprising was to see Murrison blatantly accusing Iran for oil attacks in the Gulf, adding UK believes Iran “almost certainly bears responsibility for the attacks”, meaning thereby that if the US retaliates for these [alleged] attacks, the UK will be ‘forced’ to side with it, since Iran, in such a scenario, would have failed to ‘correct’ its behaviour in the Gulf.

The UK isn’t the only European country that believes that Iran was behind the oil attacks. Germany’s Merkel, too, believes that there is “strong evidence” that suggests Iran as the culprit. With Germany, too, having fell in line with the US over Iran, the recent visit of German foreign minister to Iran more or less constituted a representation of US interests than German concerns vis-à-vis the deal or what Iran is widely thought to be doing.

An important development has been an undeclared imposition of ‘no fly zone’ over the Gulf. The US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has ordered all of the US airlines to avoid the Gulf because of an “Iranian threat”. Accordingly, among the airlines that have followed US dictate include those of the UK (British Airways), Germany (Lufthansa), and France (Air France), adding further credibility to the contention that Europe is actually playing with Iran and that it is, in reality, clearly siding with the US and is in the middle of preparing for a war in the Gulf. A no-fly zone is not a decision taken during peaceful times.

Europe’s tacit capitulation is a result of an active strategy of persuasion followed by the US officials. Acting secretary of defence and Pentagon chief Mark Esper, a well know hawk, said, on his way to Brussels, recently that he wants to advance the idea of forming a broader international coalition to deter Iran and compel its leaders to return to the negotiating table for nuclear talks. His visit to the NATO countries was aimed at reinforcing a message delivered the previous week by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who met with Saudi and Emirati leaders and discussed options about countering any military threat from Iran by building a broad coalition that includes Asian and European countries; hence, Europe’s reluctance to implement its commitments according to the Iran nuke-deal and its willingness to impress upon Iran to somehow accept US demands so that they can continue to do business with Tehran.

Making his intentions crystal clear, Esper further said his goal is, first of all, to convince allies to express outrage over Iran’s activities in the Gulf. Secondly, he said, he wants allies to support “any range of activities” vis-à-vis conflict with Iran. While “any range of activities” officially includes “talks”, Esper is someone who is known as an advocate of an aggressive military preparation and its active use on a global level to protect and project US interests. Talks are, therefore, going to be lesser concern, if a concern at all.

Another reason for Europe’s quick fall to the US dictate is that they the US has, as circumstance show, been able to persuade European countries of the “irrefutable” evidence of Iranian involvement in the Gulf attacks. As a matter of fact, the US is trying to show the Europeans that Iran threatens them as well and they must protect the Strait of Hormuz. For instance, Trump has recently said that European countries must “pay up” if they want security in the Strait.

An alternative, on the other hand, to “paying up” might just be standing with the US when the push comes to shove. The US is thus actively seeking to enlist European support against Iran and has already achieved reasonable success in this context, leaving Iran with little to no belief in Europe’s ability to avert crisis and normalize the situation.

Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

https://journal-neo.org/2019/06/27/how-european-powers-have-sold-iran-out/

Three Fat Men or Three Blind Mice?

Deena Stryker

President Trump’s last minute decision NOT to attack Iran after it shot down an unmanned US drone in what may have been international waters calls to mind an English nursery rhyme that still enchants toddlers: just substitute three fat men arguing over whether to go to war with Iran:

Three blind mice,
Three blind mice
See how they run,
See how they run!

They all ran after
The farmer’s wife
She cut off their tails
With a carving knife
Did you ever see
Such a sight in your life
As three blind mice?

As American planes were secretly ready to take off on a mission to bomb Iran, Congress was bracing for a fight with the president over its prerogative to declare war. It was clear they had lost that power, when Donald Trump cancelled the operation, revealing it at the same time. Usually on the side of Congress, the media admitted the President had made a wise choice by cancelling an attack long sought by his foreign policy advisors obsessed with the idea that Iran could at some future date launch a nuclear attack against (nuclear-armed) Israel.

Coming just as the president begins to ramp up his 2020 re-election campaign, had these strikes been carried out they would have precipitated a war that even Trump’s trigger-happy base does not want.More importantly, although the President is entitled to appoint who he wishes to his cabinet, subject to Congressional approval, the press raised no alarm when known hawks Bolton and Pompeo sailed through that formality. Why did it fail to raise loud objections when there was still time? After all, both men have publicly called for attacking Iran (as well as North Korea and Venezuela, signaling America’s reach to all corners of the globe). The fact that on the day after this near-catastrophe, it talks of nothing else but Joe Biden’s continuing lead in the polls for an election that will happen a year and a half from now suggests it knows what is expected of it.

The President’s decision to cancel an attack that would have killed 150 Iranians can only be negative: he waited until planes were ready for take-off to ask how many casualties the attack would cause, although an assessment of expected fatalities would have been part of the Pentagon’s response to his initial request for action. Even the fact that he found the attack disproportionate to the shooting down of an unmanned drone, is all about his love of the spotlight.

As for responsibility, the Pentagon has not produced visual proof that the drone was shot down in international waters, while the Iranians claim to have recovered parts of the drone in their territorial waters, removing the evidence before the international community could confirm the location. (France 24 reports that Europe, Russia and China doubt the US claim.)

One thing that has not been signaled is Donald Trump’s use of an identical ploy to the one he recently announced regarding North Korea: ‘Iran could be a fantastic country with the right Western help.’ If the US record on carrying out agreements with North Korea is any indication, however, that is about as likely as a farmers wife cutting off mice tails.

Deena Stryker is an international expert, author and journalist that has been at the forefront of international politics for over thirty years. She can be reached at Otherjones. 
https://journal-neo.org/2019/06/28/three-fat-men-or-three-blind-mice/

Kushner Seeks to Complete Nakba: a Note to Israeli Ambassador Danon

by YOAV LITVIN

On Monday June 24^th, Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon laid out his case for Palestinian surrender to Israeli settler colonialism, white supremacy, apartheid and genocide in the land between the river Jordan, the Mediterranean Sea, and beyond.

Danon’s article is impressive as a condensed version of Zionist propagandaand historical revisionism. He pleads with Palestinian leadership to submit to a “new approach” and details his reasoning for why the United States, with its economic, diplomatic, political, military and ideological ties to Israel should be, yet again, trusted by the Palestinians in forging a path toward their liberation.

Danon’s appeal is the equivalent of a rapist demanding the submission of his victim under the threat to her life.

The sole purpose of Kushner’s “plan” (i.e. setup) is to justify future annexation of the occupied West Bank and the atrocities it entails by presenting Palestinians as the recalcitrant party, unwilling to engage in “peace efforts” or “compromise”.

Predictably, US President Donald Trump has abandoned all pretense of serving as a neutral intermediary, and Israel’s far-right government has seized the opportunity to complete the Palestinian Nakba once and for all.

Yoav Litvin is a Doctor of Psychology/ Behavioral Neuroscience.  

Palestine Is Being Led to the Crematorium

by RAOUF HALABY

Would one employ a convicted pedophile to work in an early childhood center? Would one employ a convicted felon with a mile-long record to be a Boy Scout Master? And, would one employ a convicted serial killer to patrol school hallways?

How silly of me; of course not.

Donald Trump, the consummate-narcissist-in-chief, the one who loves to make a spectacle of every decision he makes and every policy he pontificates, and the one who loves to hold court while he signs a miscellany of edicts with maximum media pageantry, appointed his wet-behind-the-ears Harvard-purchased admission school boy as the Near East negotiator.

I just love to watch Donald Trump’s fanfare as he signs his name – always using bold script to fill up the page. Methinks that the longer he’s in office, the larger his signatures get. The consummate self-centered promoter, Trump revels in exhibiting his egotistical calligraphic scribblings.

A word of caution to those who have allergies, should they be invited to such a ceremony, they need make sure that their sniffling and coughing is done either before, or immediately after they exit the imperial rotunda. Someone’s opined that Trump does not like weak people, and anyone with a cough or a sniffle is banished (for the whole world to witness) from the inner sanctum by a ruler who’s also been accused of being a germaphobic.

Kushner is a real estate wheeler dealer who’s been accused of leveraging his business with loans from a variety of sources, including Emirati, Saudi, and Gulf nations, and oil tycoons with deep pockets eager to buy favor with Donald Trump. In return, Trump’s Iran policy is dictated by Israel and her new BFF’s; Netanyahu and Saudi Arabia’s MBS have placed U.S./Iran policy in the Trump/Pompeo/Bolton crosshairs. Why not? If you can sucker the school yard bully to fight your wars, you’re home scot free. Think Iraq, Syria, Libya and soon – Iran.

While many former Presidents and Secretaries of State have miserably failed to broker a peace agreement between Palestinians and Israel, the Palestinians’ forever brutal masters and occupiers, Donald Trump appointed his inept son-in-law as the gatekeeper and master of ceremonies for the Bahrain so-called Peace conference.

Jared Kushner is an avowed hardcore Zionist. His family’s friendship with Netanyahu spans decades. Observers have pointed out that Netanyahu’s overnight stays at the Kushner house were the indoctrinating sessions on which young Kushner was suckled and cut his teeth, visits that inculcated the young apprentice with the same Bibi Netanyahu venom of hatred, anger, vengeance, and bigotry that have become Israel’s trademark.

As a prelude to the Trump/Kushner crematorium in which the dream of a free and independent Palestinian state has been deposited, Trump moved the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem; he severed diplomatic relations with the Palestinian leadership; he cut off UNRWA funding to starve an already emaciated population under the most brutal occupation of the last 50 years, he warned the entire world that should Israeli violations/violators of human rights abuses and brutalities be held accountable for their crimes at an international tribunal, the U.S. would retaliate in a variety of ways (including his favorite weapons – freezing diplomatic relations, the implementation of sanctions, tariffs, and embargoes, and possibly annihilation); he shut down the PLO office in Washington, D.C.; and he recognized Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights for which he was rewarded by Netanyahu, his like-minded bosom buddy, for having a Jewish community on the Golan Heights named after him.

Who knows, perhaps a Trump Golan Golf Course of the Century will soon be part of the “Ultimate Deal.”

Now wouldn’t this be the sweetheart real estate deal of The Century?

I wish someone had kept a detailed record of Trump’s obsession and preoccupation with money. Only recently he told Chuck Todd that “his only interest in the Middle East are [sic.] preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons and protecting Israel and Saudi Arabia.” As for Saudi Arabia’s MBS having to account for the barbaric use of a hack saw to surreptitiously dispose journalist Khashoggi’s mutilated corpse, Trump would not have any of that.

During the interview Trump affirmed the following: “That’s all [money] I care about. … Look, Saudi Arabia is buying $400 billion worth of things from us. That’s a very good thing.” The actual purchases are more like $15 billion, yet one more manufactured fact that only Trump could fabricate. Furthermore, Saudi money “means something to me, it’s a producer of jobs, [and they are] a big buyer, [for this reason I am] willing to overlook [Saudi] bad behavior.” To drive his point home, he assured Todd that he would “Take their money, Take their money, Chuck.”

If “It’s all about the Benjamins, baby,” then for sure Trump’s proposed Deal of the Century (Palestine/Israel proposed peace) is all about taking “their money.”

Recently Reporter Eli Clifton observed the following about the Benjamins used to buy/influence Trump’s foreign policy vis à vis Palestine, Israel and Iran:

Those funds came from Sheldon and Miriam Adelson, Paul Singer and Bernard Marcus, donors who have made no secret, both through public statements and funding think tanks that support military action against Iran, of their desire for the United States to destroy the Islamic Republic.

Adelson, who alongside his wife Miriam are the biggest donors to Trump and the GOP, contributed $205 million to Republicans [with $130 million to Trump’s campaign] in the past two political cycles and reportedly sent $35 million to the Future 45 Super PAC that supported Trump’s presidential bid.

The above does not include tens of millions of dollars’ worth of tax free contributions to fund illegal Israeli settlements and other Zionist projects at home and abroad.

Masquerading as a Kushnerized version of a peace proposal, the plan is a version of the Clinton/Bush/ Rabin/Sharon/Netanyahu/Zionist plan with one exception – it is a plan on steroids to legitimize apartheid, place the Palestinians under permanent occupation, and make them the orphans of the Middle East in perpetuity.

The Clinton peace deal forced the Palestinians to become economically dependent on Israel for every aspect of their lives. Israel collected taxes on Palestinian goods and dispensed the funds when and if they wished. Israel controlled all borders, security, education, health care, electric grids, water resources, the use and development of natural resources, economic growth, and infrastructure. Under Bush the Dumber, Tony Blair, Bush’s Poodle, spent years pretending to develop the decimated Palestinian infrastructure caused by Israel’s Nazi policies. Needless to say, while Blair got rich off his Balfourian (after Lord Balfour) scheme, a scheme which gave Israel the cover to steal more land and to impose sanctions on the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza (especially Gaza, the world’s largest open air prison in which over 2 million people are caged), he helped cement and institutionalize Israeli apartheid. Above all, Blair’s criminal policies condoned, excused, and ameliorated Israel’s brutality by making it palatable to his European EU compadres.

Obama inherited a Palestinian patient so brutalized and, instead of changing course by pumping life into a by-now body on life support, he was outmaneuvered by Netanyahu at every turn. For eight years Obama, ever the docile servant, played field hand to Bibi Netanyahu, carrying his water, begging, cajoling, pleading, and apologizing. One of the most humiliating White House scenes is the embarrassingly demeaning confrontation during which the Netanyahu-lecturing-Obama-episode too place. Barack Obama, the President of the most powerful nation on the face of this earth blinked. Emboldened, Bibi Netanyahu, the prime minister of a tiny country whose survival is solely dependent on American beneficence, went on to address an equally servile Congress that gave him 67 standing ovations.

In his final weeks in office Obama played his last cowardly Israel hand; he gifted Israel a guaranteed 38 billion precious tax payer dollars. Like Casey’s final stand at the bat, he struck out; how servile the Mighty Obama became. After all, the Presidential library must be built in Chicago, and donors have to be courted to write checks in the millions of Benjamins.

So Kushner is proposing a $50 billion dollar scheme to cinch the Deal of the Century.

Like a shrewd real estate investor, he is using the OPM formula (Other People’s Money scheme) to cough up the $50 billion dollars. Some 10 billion will go to Egypt, and another 7 billion to Jordan – to buy their complicity. I call this hushing the opposition with Benjamins.

The rest of the funds will (supposedly) be invested in West Bank/Gaza infrastructure projects. The mercurial behavior of Gulf Arabs, EU, and U.S. donors, as evidenced by their reneging on previous financial commitments to Palestinians, makes this a very iffy proposition.

And finally, will the Israelis, who’ve always cashed in on Palestinian misery by stealing their lands, their cultural heritage, and their natural resources, and by ruining their lives and killing them with impunity, exploit this proposal by becoming the brokers, deciders, planners, controllers, exchequers, arbitrators, and the-go-between of this, The Deal of Century?

Rest assured that Trump is looking for his cut.

As long as this Deal of the Century does not address the aspirations of a free and independent Palestine state, the Palestinians will forever live in servitude, humiliation, and degradation.

For the Palestinians it ain’t about the Benjamins; rather, it is about dignity, independence, freedom, the birthright of all the brutalized peoples of the world.

Donald Trump chose three politically inexperienced men to concoct the “Ultimate Deal” scheme. None of them has served in the diplomatic core, and their only qualifications are: they are Jewish, they are ardent Zionists, they’ve supported (verbally and financially) Illegal Israeli settlements, they’ve been very vocal about their support of Israeli policies, their antipathy for Palestinians mirrors Israeli thinking, and , likely, they hold dual American and Israeli citizenships. Above all, they are Trump’s fixers, confidents, and bail bonders.

I doubt that the troika of Jared Kushner, Jason Greenblatt, and David Friedman are the sole planners in a hands-off Trump foreign policy that is dictated to him by the likes of Bolton, Pompeo, Lindsey Graham, and Stephen Miller who, much like Rasputin, lurks in the shadowy hallways of the White House.

The first is Trump’s son-in-law, the second was/is Trump’s lawyer and executive vice president and Chief Legal Council to The Trump organization. The third is Trump’s bankruptcy lawyer and now U.S. Ambassador to Israel.

I have no doubt that Benjamin Netanyahu, along with MBS and other Emirati and Bahraini characters (in a less active role) are the planners of this scheme. How ironic it is that proposed funding (mostly Arab money) is rewarding Israel for its 71 years of the theft of Palestine and its long history of transgressions against the Palestinian people, the orphans of the Arab world.

For his Ultimate Deal of the Century Donald Trump has chosen the wrong set of characters. And that is precisely why his plan, like most of his other “tremendous” real estate schemes, will fail.

The man who boasts about using bankruptcy as “a good business practice” is about to embark on his biggest failure of the century.

Raouf J. Halaby is a Professor Emeritus of English and Art. He is a writer, photographer, sculptor, an avid gardener, and a peace activist.