US Stealing Syrian Oil. Controls About 30% of Syrian Territory

By Stephen Lendman

Imperial adventurism is grand theft on a global scale — seizing, controlling, and looting the resources of targeted nations, along with exploiting their people.

Operating from illegally constructed military bases in northern and southern parts of Syria, platforms for war and training of jihadists, the US controls about 30% of Syrian territory, including where most of the country’s oil reserves are located.

Pre-war, Syria was a small producer, the only Eastern Mediterranean country with significant/yet small reserves, estimated at about 2.5 billion barrels earlier by the Oil and Gas Journal, along with around 5.3 billion cubic meters of natural gas.

Looted Syrian oil by US-supported ISIS was earlier transported cross-border to Turkey for refining and sales.

President Erdogan, his family and cronies reportedly profited from the grand theft/smuggling operation.

Russia’s Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov earlier said

“Turkey is the main destination for the oil stolen from its legitimate owners, which are Syria and Iraq,” adding:

“Turkey resells this oil. The appalling part about it is that the country’s top political leadership is involved in the illegal business — President Erdogan and his family.”

Like the US, NATO, Israel, the Saudis, and their Middle East partners, Turkey supports regional jihadists these countries pretend to oppose.

Antonov earlier explained that

Idlib Province Syria: Infested with US-Supported Terrorists

Erdogan and other “Turkish elites conspir(e) to steal oil from their neighbors in industrial quantities along ‘rolling pipelines’ made up of thousands of tanker trucks.”

“We are certain that Turkey is the destination for stolen (Syrian and Iraqi) oil, and (have) irrefutable facts to prove it.”

The illicit trade was worth hundreds of millions of dollars on the black market. Turkey may still be involved as the destination for US-stolen Syrian oil.

On Monday, Russian General Staff/Main Operational Directorate commander General Sergey Rudskoy accused US and allied forces of “highjack(ing)” Syrian oil from ISIS, profiting from its sales — perhaps shipping it cross-border to Turkey and/or elsewhere, the Trump regime running a black market operation with looted Syrian oil, adding:

US-supported ISIS and other jihadists were also trained to destroy Syrian (and perhaps Iraqi) oil and gas infrastructure, along with continuing attacks on government forces and civilians, using heavy and other weapons supplied by Western and regional countries, including Israel, Turkey, the Saudis and UAE.

Rudskoy added that the Trump regime is arming Arab and Kurdish fighters, working with them as well in the illicit trafficking of stolen Syrian oil.

US trained and armed jihadists are also being used against Russia’s Khmeimim airbase in Syria’s Latakia province, attacking it with Western-supplied drones and rocket launchers.

They’re deployed by US transport planes and helicopters to continue endless war in Syria. Thousands are being trained at the Pentagon’s Al-Tanf base in southern Syria near the Iraqi and Jordanian borders.

The US came to Syria, Iraq, elsewhere in the region, North Africa, Central Asia, and other parts of the world to stay — part of its imperial aim for global conquest and control, endless wars its favored strategy.

*Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

The Yemen Tragedy Further Fueled by the West and Its Allies

Viktor Mikhin

A most sophisticated demagogy, blatant falsifying of facts, impudent interpretation of events with everything going upside down, these are the thoughts that come to one’s mind when one reads another forgery concocted in the West. We mean the statement addressed to Iran calling for the termination of the actions which are allegedly destabilizing the situation in the Persian Gulf. The statement was made by the governments of the US, the UK and their satellites: the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Saudi Arabia, on June 24, as reported by the US Department of State press service. In this manifesto, contrary to the obvious facts, the signatories held Iran responsible for the escalation of the situation in Yemen and the attacks on the oil tankers on May 12 and June 13, urging the Islamic Republic to start searching for a diplomatic solution. The intensity of this demagogy, as the saying goes, is beyond the scale.

Let us however, in a quiet fashion and on the basis of the obvious facts, consider the situation in the Persian Gulf area and ask several questions. Did Iran or the poor Yemen suffering a score of internal problems, indeed attack Saudi Arabia? Did the Houthis indeed create a so-called Arab coalition which has consistently bombed the Saudi cities and villages killing the civilians? By no means. It was the Saudis, namely the Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud who took up the foreign policy responsibilities due to the old age and numerous diseases of his father, the King, and who gave the order sanctioning the rough intervention of Riyadh in internal affairs of the neighboring state of Yemen and the total bombing of the Yemen cities.

The leader of the Houthis and the President of the Supreme Revolutionary Committee (SRC) Mohammed Ali al-Houthi demanded the UN Secretary General to condemn the war crimes committed in Yemen. Among the crimes perpetrated by the coalition of the Arab countries (led by Saudi Arabia and supported by the countries of the West), the Houthi leader named the ruthless blockade of the Yemen people, the famine in the country, the ongoing air embargo, the blockade of the Red Sea ports, the mass murders (including those of children), the destruction of civil facilities targeted during the military attacks.

The UN strongly condemned the following Saudi air raid on the Yemen capital city of Sanaa which resulted in the death of many civilians, including five children; dozens of people were wounded. The head of the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) Henrietta Holsman Fore, speaking at the UN Security Council session, urged the international community to save the lives of the millions of Yemenite children. She emphasized that, since the beginning of the conflict in the country, according to official figures only, up to 10,000 children had been killed or wounded. According to the UN, the Saudi Air Force “aimed at the civilians systematically,” dropping bombs on hospitals, schools, weddings, funeral processions and even on the camps for the displaced persons escaping from bombing.

Representatives of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) emphasized that the belligerents, Saudi Arabia in the first place, must respect the principles of international humanitarian law, which includes protecting the civilians during the hostilities. Millions of people in Yemen are currently on the verge of starvation, and the humanitarian organizations often have no opportunity to deliver the aid: food, medicines and fuel, to those in need. A major part of humanitarian cargo comes to Yemen through the ports of Al Hudaydah, As-Salif and Ras Issa, where the Houthis, following the Stockholm agreement, withdrew their troops from. However, representatives of the international organizations, whose activities have suffered consistent pressure exerted by the United States, for some reason or other, are not in a hurry to fulfill their obligations.

The international community’s condemnation of the Saudi crimes reached such a degree that the Deputy Minister of Defense of Saudi Arabia Khalid bin Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud had to hold a meeting with the special envoy of the UN Secretary General on Yemen Martin Griffiths. However, his stance was only limited to demagogical statements “about Riyadh‘s commitment to a political solution of the conflict in Yemen.”

And, probably, in order to ensure “the wellbeing of the Yemen people,” the Riyadh-led coalition declared the launch of a new attack on the positions of the Houthi insurgents in the province of Sanaa, in western Yemen. This information was made public by the Al Arabiya TV channel, referring to the military. The main targets for the new airstrikes include air defense facilities and missile warehouses belonging to the rebels. It is known that this province is densely inhabited; numerous cities and settlements are located there, and, therefore, the number of victims among the civilians will only increase. Such is the “commitment” of Saudi Arabia to the “wellbeing” of its neighbor and the “support” of a political solution of the ongoing conflict. Many politicians claim (for a good reason) that had there been no intervention of the Saudis in the internal affairs of Yemen, then this conflict would not have existed at all, nor would there have been all the numerous victims.

The international community does not pay due attention to the humanitarian crisis in Yemen, no sufficient financing is allocated for it, said the President of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) Francesco Rocca: “The problem is not in providing more (help), but in receiving financing (to have an opportunity) to provide more (help). It is a vicious circle, the Yemen crisis lacks financing. It is forgotten, it is being ignored.”

More fuel to the long-lasting Yemen conflict fire was added by D. Trump who extended the sanctions against Yemen for another year. The White House website comments as follows: “The actions and policy of several former members of the Yemen government and other persons continue to threaten the peace, safety and stability of Yemen. Among other things, they interfere with the political process and the implementation of the peace treaty of November 23, 2011 between the government of Yemen and the opposition.” Let us remind the reader that the state of emergency concerning Yemen envisaging a number of restrictions was imposed in May 2012.

A faithful ally of the US, the UK has been actively partaking in this murderous war as well by delivering to the Saudis aviation bombs (for good money, too) which are used to kill the civilians of Yemen. On March 27, 2015 the day after the first British bombs fell on Yemen, the then Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary Philip Hammond told the reporters that the UK “will support the Saudis in every practical operation, by involvement in the fighting.” Since then, the British bombs which have been actively used by the Saudi pilots during the raids on the Yemen territory have been regularly manufactured in three British cities: Glenrothes in Scotland, and Harlow and Stevenage in Southeast England. The bombs which leave the production line for the Saudis on a daily basis belong to the Raytheon UK and ВАЕ Systems.

As soon as this weapon was bought by Saudi Arabia, the UK began to participate in the Yemen slaughter even more actively. The Saudi military lack experience to use this modern and lethal weapon. Therefore, for this air war to go on and for the British government to do good business on the blood of Yemenites, under another contract, London provides what is known as the “on-site military services.” In practical terms, it means that some 6,300 British experts have been deployed on the advanced operational bases in Saudi Arabia. It is them, not the Saudi pilots and technicians, who perform necessary repairs of the planes day and night so that they could fly across the Arabian Desert to their targets in Yemen again. They also control the Saudis loading bombs onto the planes and installing fuses on the bombs.

Thus, the West, which has been doing good business on the Yemen blood, will go on with its impudent demagogical statements that Iran, not Saudi Arabia, is responsible for the Yemen tragedy. Even more so, since Riyadh is buying arms amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars from the US alone, thus supporting the American military and industrial complex and giving Donald Trump a chance to create new jobs in the US. However, no one in the West seems to care at whose expense and on whose blood the US prospers.

During his recent trip to Yemen, the British conservative Member of Parliament Andrew Mitchell visited a school in the capital where he was “welcomed” by children who chanted slogans. The politician asked the accompanying Yemenite to interpret and learnt that they meant “death to the Saudis,” “death to the Americans,” and the third slogan remained untranslated, but it is easy to guess that it meant: “death to the British.”

Viktor Mikhin, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

What Does the Future Hold for Turkmenistan?

Valery Kulikov

According to the World Happiness Report — 2019, which is published on a yearly basis by the United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network, Turkmenistan, quite a resource-rich player in the Caspian region, ended up in 87th place, thus becoming the unhappiest nation among its Central Asian neighbors based on this ranking. Assessment criteria, such as GDP per capita, life expectancy, social support and the effect freedom and corruption have on important decision making processes, were used. A 10-point scale was employed to rate each of these indicators, and then an average was calculated for each nation.

This country has approximately 10% of the world’s proven natural gas reserves (it has the largest natural gas deposits in the world and is in fourth place in terms of proven reserves) and access to the Caspian Sea. Hence leading world players focus a great deal of their attention on this nation.

According to global rating agencies, the potential for economic growth in Turkmenistan, as well as in other Central Asian countries, is significantly limited by the fact that these countries are not well integrated into the world trading system. In addition, the global trade-associated costs that Central Asian economies have to bear are comparable only to those of African nations with no ocean access. This is why Turkmenistan and other countries in Central Asia have actively supported China’s ‘Silk Road Economic Belt’ initiative and its lending policy to implement this project in the region, in the hope that on its completion, Central Asia, due to its location and wealth of resources, would be the biggest beneficiary.

Based on various estimates, Turkmenistan’s external debt amounts to from $9 to $11.16 billion. However, official agencies do not provide detailed information on who this nation owes money to or the size of these debts. All the economic initiatives in Turkmenistan, which Ashgabat defines as vitally important, are first and foremost in China’s interests. For example, more than 90% of Turkmenistan’s entire natural gas exports go the PRC. And the sale of this natural resource is the largest source of income for Ashgabat. Moreover, the lion’s share of the profits is used to pay off these Chinese loans. As a result, in its push towards independence from Russia, Turkmenistan has become increasingly indebted to China. And it is hard to say whether it will be able to escape from the debt trap.

In recent months, Turkmenistan has experienced hyperinflation, and more disturbingly a countrywide food shortage. Experts at the Cato Institute believe that the level of inflation in this nation was at 294% in June 2018.

Turkmenistan does not have a large population, and if sensible economic policies were employed, it would be possible to feed all these people. According to analysts at the World Bank, the population of Turkmenistan was 5.7 million in 2017. However, many experts believe that the actual number is substantially lower, amounting to approximately 3.3 million Turkmen citizens, and more than 1.5 million Turkmens in the past 10 years have supposedly left the nation.

A failed harvest dealt a serious blow to the country’s economy. Since wheat and barley crops were severely damaged by a flood, there was a shortage of flour in a number of regions and even in the capital. And, currently, its sale to the residents is restricted to no more than 5 kg per person a month. Even with this rationing, there is not always enough bread for everyone. As a result, every day there are long queues in front of shops, where serious fights break out and overcrowding leads to jostling. There have even been a few casualties (at least two people were killed while queuing for bread in March and April). Several observers partially attribute the flour shortage to the foreign policy gesture made by the nations’ President Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow, who sent humanitarian aid to certain neighboring Afghani provinces where locals were also affected by the spring floods. But this aid did not come from reserves but instead from stocks meant for Turkmen citizens.

Many experts have been talking about the crises in Turkmenistan. For example, the Al Jazeera Media Network published an article entitled Hyperinflation and hunger: Turkmenistan on ‘edge of catastrophe’, which stated (with a reference to Britain’s Foreign Policy Centre) that Turkmenistan was facing the worst economic crisis in the last 30 years.

The International Partnership for Human Rights (IPHR) and the Turkmen Initiative for Human Rights (TIHR) accused the leadership of Turkmenistan of concealing the state of the economic crisis in the nation. The published report states that there is no official information about the economic situation, and that experts have not been allowed into the nation.

Observers have noted that rising discontent has not turned into anti-government protests as yet, which is, in large part, accounted for by the political behavior specific to Turkmenistan and the presence of powerful punitive structures in the nation.

According to a number of experts, the internal crisis in the country may very quickly transform into a large-scale catastrophe, mostly because of the recent rise of Daesh (a terrorist organization banned in the Russian Federation), which has been consolidating its forces in Afghanistan. It is common knowledge that this terrorist group is currently searching for a ‘home base’, where extremists could try and establish themselves and form new cells. After all, Daesh tends to flourish in places where there is a socio-economic crisis and ingrained social issues, and where governments are unable to meet even their most basic social obligations which, as a rule, any state bears towards its citizen. Increasing radicalization of citizens stems from a high level of poverty, unemployment, a large percentage of young people within the population, as well as an ideological vacuum, corruption and low levels of religious education.

Turkmenistan, as well as other Central Asian countries, is already in the sphere of influence of three geopolitical rivals in the Muslim world: Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. For example, Turkey is lobbying for a faster unification of nations where Turkic languages are spoken, and is, at the same time, trying to consolidate its role as one of the new centers in favor of progressive Islam.

In comparison to Uzbekistan with its ongoing reforms, Tajikistan, which is undergoing a political transition, and democratic Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan is viewed by many foreign experts (who predict unavoidable changes in it) as an archaic nation. Changes in this country may be brought about, on the one hand, by a severe socio-economic crisis, and, on the other hand, by challenges posed by pro-Islamic movements, which could have consequences for Turkmenistan’s geopolitical players. For example, the attitude towards China may sour if things become worse for the Muslims living in the autonomous region of Xinjiang. A similar reaction may follow in relation to the United States, which has a checkered reputation in the Muslim world.

This is why, rivalry of regional and international interests with respect to Turkmenistan will only intensify in the nearest future.

Valery Kulikov, expert politologist, exclusively for the online magazine ‘New Eastern Outlook’. 

WIll Shake Up at IAEA Impact Iran?

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Yukiya Amano’s passing has stirred up suspicion and further tensions amid US-Iranian tensions.

Amano was 72 years old and as of mid July 2019 had already begun preparing to step down due to poor health.

A July 18 AFP-JIJI article titled, “Japanese IAEA head Yukiya Amano to step down next year for health reasons: diplomatic sources,” reported:

The head of the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog, Yukiya Amano, will step down in March for health reasons, diplomatic sources said Wednesday, as the agency navigates verification of the increasingly fragile Iran nuclear deal.

However, in the wake of his death and because of his perceived opposition to US efforts to undermine the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) or “Iran Deal” – suspicions began circulating that the US or Israel – or both – may have played a role in his death.

Iran-based Tasnim News Agency in an article titled, “Sources Raise Possibility of Israeli Assassination of Amano,” would claim:

Informed sources have speculated that late chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Yukiya Amano was assassinated by Israel in collaboration with the US for refusing to give in to pressures to raise new fabricated allegations against Iran’s nuclear program.

Considering the foreign policy track records of either the US or Israel – an assassination targeting members of international institutions impeding Western interests certainly sounds plausible. However no evidence has been provided to suggest Amano was assassinated.

Furthermore – his death whatever the cause will likely have little impact on the IAEA’s policies or the general state of US-Iranian tensions – for several reasons.

International Institutions are the Sum of their Member States

International institutions reflect the vector sum of sponsoring nations’ interests. As the global balance of power shifts, so too does the proportion of influence of each member state represented by these institutions. In turn the agenda of these institutions changes accordingly.

The IAEA’s criticism of Washington’s undermining of the Iran Deal reflects not the IAEA’s independent assessment – but the collective interests of member nations the IAEA supposedly represents in all matters of nuclear technology. It is no coincidence that in the halls of foreign ministries around the globe similar criticism has been leveled against Washington regarding the Iran Deal.

Nations in Europe attempting to salvage the deal have taken measures to sidestep US sanctions imposed after the US unilaterally and without justification, withdrew. Whatever influence these same nations have within the UN and IAEA has certainly filtered through and was reflected by Amano’s position over the Iran Deal prior to his death.

With this in mind, one can expect the IAEA’s position to remain relatively unchanged regardless of who becomes the institution’s next chief.

Washington’s Abuse of International Institutions: A Tired Trick 

The United States and its partners have so regularly abused or even entirely sidestepped international institutions that the legitimacy and impact of these institutions have been greatly diminished.

While the IAEA may reflect a position supporting the Iran Deal’s continuation – nations of the world pragmatically sidestepping US sanctions and pursuing multilateral diplomacy is by far more important than anything the IAEA can contribute.

Should the US or Israel succeed in maneuvering to the head of the IAEA a new chief reflecting their interests it will only accelerate the IAEA’s irrelevancy further regarding the Iran Deal.

Were Amano’s death an assassination – it would have been an incredibly costly move with very little payoff in return. The fate of the Iran Deal rests not in the IAEA’s hands but rather in the hands of the deal’s remaining signatories and nations which trade with Iran.

The IAEA is not in a position to significantly influence how these nations move forward except by providing or denying the most superficial legitimacy to whatever decisions are made.

US Aggression Toward Iran Already Tramples International Law 

Finally – US foreign policy toward Iran already operates beyond international law. From the terrorists it sponsors within and along Iran’s borders, to unilateral sanctions, to provocations, as well as signed and dated policy papers admitting to all of it – no amount of legitimacy lent by the IAEA under even the most ideal circumstances could conceal the criminal nature of US aggression toward Iran. Nor can the IAEA paper over the wider hegemonic ambitions US aggression toward Iran fits into.

The shake up at the IAEA will likely have a minimum impact on the future of the Iran Deal. The deal’s fate rests in the hands of Iran’s trade partners and the remaining signatories to the deal.

Only if these nations seek the deal’s success and work vigorously to circumvent US efforts to sabotage it, can it be saved. If anything, this process will shape the IAEA and its stance, rather than the other way around.

For Iran, its leadership will need to continue exercising maximum diplomatic and strategic patience under Washington’s “maximum pressure” campaign. Tehran must continue working on proving through tangible incentives why trading with a stable and unified Iran is more beneficial to interests from Europe to East Asia than Washington’s vision of a divided and destroyed Iran.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”. 

US Responsible for the Killing Fields of Afghanistan

By: Kayhan Int’l 

Death is a cause of grief and not an occasion to rejoice. And if death occurs, not through the natural process of old age, deadly disease, or accidents, but through the devilish machinations of fellow humans, such as murder, war, terrorism, and bomb blast, the shock and grief is multiplied and leaves deep scars on the memories of the survivors of such incidents, especially the bereaved family.

Unfortunately, because of the bloodshed that has become common throughout the world these days because of the criminal and terrorist policies of the Great Satan (US), people are being killed for no reason or rhyme. 

It seems the Muslim countries have become the prime victims of Washington’s culture of wars and arms exports that continues to unleash torrents of blood in Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Occupied Palestine and other lands, where untimely and unnatural deaths lurk around the corner.

The other day, the UN released figures of the casualty toll for American-occupied Afghanistan, where at least 3,812 civilians have been killed or wounded in the first half of the current Christian year, 2019, shocked the world.

Though terrorists and acts of terrorism are rife in Afghanistan, most of the civilians killed, including women, children, and the elderly, were by the US-led NATO troops. 

The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) called the toll "unacceptable”, and urged parties to the 18-year American war to find ways to end the killings.

It is obvious no one will heed the World Body’s call. Besides being weak and ineffective, the UN is a mere spectator to not just the bloodletting but the terrorist ranting of a criminal like the US president, Donald Trump, who recently implied that he could win the war in Afghanistan in a week by massacring – through weapons of mass destruction – at least ten million Afghans.

If there was justice in our world, Trump would have now been executed by the guillotine, hung on the gallows, or executed on an electric chair, not just for threatening to wipe out Afghanistan, but for his economic terrorism against the Islamic Republic of Iran and military threats against the free world from the Pacific Ocean to the Persian Gulf.

The megalomaniac who overrules the Senate’s decision to stop arms supplies to the Wahhabi cult of Saudi Arabia for the mass massacres in Yemen, is responsible for the deaths of not just the ordinary Afghan civilians, killed either by the jittery government forces and the various terrorist groups which continue to receive ever- increasing supply of American weapons, but also for the deaths of the two hapless US soldiers killed on Tuesday in Qandahar – by whoever, it doesn’t matter.

We are not happy at the killings, of even those whose governments oppose us, and we believe that US soldiers in Afghanistan – or for that matter in other place such as Syria, Iraq, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan – should not return to their families as corpses in body bags. 

They should leave, while there is still life in them, rather than compelling the resistant forces to send them home lifeless. 

The moment CENTCOM terrorists leave our part of the world, peace will definitely return, and neither tension will prevail in the region nor the killing fields exist anymore in Afghanistan.

In other words, as long as the US continues to meddle in the affairs of Afghanistan, there won’t be any relief from the sudden and unexpected deaths lurking around the corner, and this means the talks the Americans claim to be holding with the Taliban are nothing farcical. 

Why Should Iran Be Cherished And Defended

by Andre Vltchek

As I pen this short essay, Iran is standing against the mightiest nation on earth. It is facing tremendous danger; of annihilation even, if the world does not wake up fast, and rush to its rescue.

Stunning Iranian cities are in danger, but above all, its people: proud and beautiful, creative, formed by one of the oldest and deepest cultures on earth.

This is a reminder to the world: Iran may be bombed, devastated and injured terribly, for absolutely no reason. I repeat: there is zero rational reason for attacking Iran.

Iran has never attacked anyone. It has done nothing bad to the United States, to the United Kingdom, or even to those countries that want to destroy it immediately: Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Its only ‘crime’ is that it helped devastated Syria. And that it seriously stands by Palestine. And that it came to the rescue of many far away nations, like Cuba and Venezuela, when they were in awful need.

I am trying to choose the simplest words. No need for pirouettes and intellectual exercises.

Thousands, millions of Iranians may soon die, simply because a psychopath who is currently occupying the White House wants to humiliate his predecessor, who signed the nuclear deal. This information was leaked by his own staff. This is not about who is a bigger gangster. It is about the horrible fact that antagonizing Iran has absolutely nothing to do with Iran itself.

*

Which brings the question to my mind: in what world are we really living? Could this be tolerable? Can the world just stand by, idly, and watch how one of the greatest countries on earth gets violated by aggressive, brutal forces, without any justification?

I love Iran! I love its cinema, poetry, food. I love Teheran. And I love the Iranian people with their polite, educated flair. I love their thinkers. I don’t want anything bad to happen to them.

You know, you were of course never told by the Western media, but Iran is a socialist country. It professes a system that could be defined as “socialism with Iranian characteristics”. Like China, Iran is one of the most ancient nations on earth, and it is perfectly capable of creating and developing its own economic and social system.

Iran is an extremely successful nation. Despite the embargos and terrible intimidation from the West, it still sits at the threshold of the “Very high human development”, defined by UNDP; well above such darlings of the West as Ukraine, Colombia or Thailand.

It clearly has an internationalist spirit: it shows great solidarity with the countries that are being battered by Western imperialism, including those in Latin America.

*

I have no religion. In Iran, most of the people do. They are Shi’a Muslims. So what? I do not insist that everyone thinks like me. And my Iranian friends, comrades, brothers and sisters have never insisted that I feel or think the same way as they do. They are not fanatics, and they do not make people who are not like them, feel excluded. We are different and yet so similar. We fight for a better world. We are internationalists. We respect each other. We respect others.

Iran does not want to conquer anyone. But when its friends are attacked, it offers a helping hand. Like to Syria.

In the past, it was colonized by the West, and its democratic government was overthrown, in 1953, simply because it wanted to use its natural resources for improving the lives of its people. The morbid dictatorship of Shah Pahlavi was installed from abroad. And then, later, again, a terrible war unleashed against Iran by Iraq, with the full and candid support of the West.

I promised to make this essay short. There is no time for long litanies. And in fact, this is not really an essay at all: it is an appeal.

As this goes to print, many people in Iran are anxious. They do not understand what they have done to deserve this; the sanctions, the US aircraft carriers sailing near their shores, and deadly B-52s deployed only dozens of miles away.

Iranians are brave, proud people. If confronted, if attacked, they will fight. And they will die with dignity, if there is no other alternative.

But why? Why should they fight and why should they die?

Those of you, my readers, living in the West: Study; study quickly. Then ask this question to your government: “What is the reason for this terrible scenario?”

Rent Iranian films; they are everywhere, winning all festivals. Read Iranian poets. Go eat Iranian food. Search for images of both historic and modern Iranian cities. Look at the faces of the people. Do not allow this to happen. Do not permit psychopathic reasoning to ruin millions of lives.

There was no real reason for the wars against Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. The West perpetrated the most terrible imperialist interventions, ruining entire nations.

But Iran – it all goes one step further. It’s a total lack of logic and accountability on the part of the West.

Here, I declare my full support to the people of Iran, and to the country that has been giving countless cultural treasures to the world, for millennia.

It is because I have doubts that if Iran is destroyed, the human race could survive.

*Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Four of his latest books are China and Ecological Civilizationwith John B. Cobb, Jr., Revolutionary Optimism, Western Nihilism, a revolutionary novel “Aurora” and a bestselling work of political non-fiction: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire”. View his other books here. Watch Rwanda Gambit, his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo and his film/dialogue with Noam Chomsky “On Western Terrorism”. Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and the Middle East, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through his website and his Twitter. 

A Brief History of the CIA’s Dirty War in South Sudan

by Thomas C Mountain

With the CIA’s Dirty War in South Sudan winding down its time to take a brief but comprehensive look at the origins and history of this most secret of Pax Americana crimes in Africa.

It is in the national interests of the USA to deprive China of access to African energy resources, with the Sudanese oil fields being the only Chinese owned and operated in Africa. It was no coincidence that one of the first targets of the “rebellion” in South Sudan was the Chinese oil fields. It has been US vs China in South Sudan from the start.

To begin this history we must go back to the origins of the South Sudan peace process that developed in 2004. This new breakthrough came about following the East Sudan uprising and subsequent intervention in Sudan by the Eritrean military in support of the Beja and Rashida peoples movement in 2003. Eritrean commandos cut the Port Sudan-Khartoum highway, the lifeline for 25 million residents of Sudans capital. For two weeks the Sudanese army counterattacked and ended up utterly defeated by the Eritrean special forces.

Facing critical food and fuel shortages the Sudanese officer core that was then the base of support for the recently deposed Omar Al Bashir capitulated and as part of the peace deal agreed to begin good faith negotiations with the various Sudanese resistance groups, both east, south and even, supposedly, in the west.

This resulted in John Garang, head of the Sudanese Peoples Liberation Movement and the President of Sudan Omar Al Bashir sitting down together to sign a comprehensive peace deal in Asmara, Eritrea late in 2004.

In December of 2004 we flew into Asmara, Eritrea and checked into the old Imperial Hotel, the Emboisoira, and found ourselves sharing breakfast with senior leaders of the SPLM. We had a satellite dish back in the US with EritreanTV so we had seen our breakfast mates on the news covering the recently signed peace deal in Asmara. They were all in high spirits, still excited about the prospect for peace in Sudan.

Later, after returning home to the USA in 2015 we heard of a new peace deal, this time being signed in Navaisha in Kenya. And this time the deal was brokered by the USA. The only real difference between the 2004 Asmara agreement and the 2005 Kenya deal was the inclusion of a clause calling for a referendum on independence for South Sudan.

The USA forced Bashir and Garang to accept this independence referendum after forcing a new peace “negotiation” and eventual, deal, in Kenya, away from Eritrean mediation efforts. Carrot and the stick, inducements and threats by the worlds superpower forced Garang and Bashir to accept the dismemberment of Sudan and created the conditions for one of the most brutal civil wars in African history. This was the doings of the USA from the get go.

After signing the peace deal John Garang, as head of the Sudanese Peoples Liberation Movement (SPLM), held his first public rally in Khartoum and drew a million people or more, three times the largest crowd Bashir had ever had. There he made a fateful speech.

John Garang made it clear that he was strongly AGAINST independence for South Sudan, instead calling on his fellow Sudanese in the North to help elect him president to build a new Sudan based on equal rights and justice for all Sudanese.

Garang stated his intent to be politically independent from the western powers instead looking to China, already in the oil business in Sudan, to develop Sudans economy. Sudan, as a whole, is the largest and potentially richest country in Africa and for the USA to lose Sudan to China wasn’t acceptable to Pax Americana.

John Garang was dead two weeks later in a mysterious helicopter crash and with him died a unified Sudan.

With in a few years a referendum was held for “independence” for South Sudan and voila it was a done deal. The irony is that John Garang, who was vehemently against independence for South Sudan, is now proclaimed “The Father” of the South Sudanese independent state.

In 2009 my old friend Alexander Cockburn contacted me asking for a story about what was going on vis a vis Sudan/South Sudan. I had been living next door in Eritrea for the past few years and I responded with “Storm Clouds Over South Sudan” which Alex and Jeffrey St. Claire published on their website “Counterpunch” where I predicted the upcoming holocaust in the worlds newest “independent” country.

I only wish my words had not come true.

I was repeatedly forced to continue exposing the CIA’s dirty war in South Sudan over the next few years with titles like “US vs China in South Sudan”, “The CIA’s DIrty War in South Sudan” amongst others in an attempt to shine the light of day on this most dirty, and secret, CIA covert war.

I am not exagerating when I call the civil war in South Sudan the most secret major covert military operation by the CIA in the Agency’s history. The proof of this is the fact that not a single writer other than myself has made this charge. This might be explained by the lengths prominent western journalists have attempted to point the blame away from the Agency and instead at the South Sudanese peoples themselves.

Its been horrific first hand stories by award winning progressive journalists like Nick Turse that painted this dirty war as black on black, African tribal violence at its worst.

When I pointed out to Nick Turse that the rebels were being paid $300 a month salaries, Mr. Turse denied the accuracy of my claim. In an exchange on Twitter he said that the rebels were making maybe $300 a year if that, so no need to explain the $6 million a month it would take to pay 20,000 rebel combatants salaries?

The problem with Mr. Turse assertion is that former South Sudanese rebel fighters have confirmed being paid $300 a month when they were under arms. In South Sudan young men join the army because it’s the only way to get enough money to feed your family, not out of patriotic zeal. When the money periodically dried up, usually stolen by the rebel generals, the soldiers start to leave, as my sources had experienced.

Do the math, 20,000 rebels paid $300 a month times 6 years plus food, fuel and ammo and you come out with over $500 million and counting? Honestly now, who has a history of coming up with that amount of cash, entirely secret for that long but the CIA? Must we be reminded of the CIA’s dirty wars in Angola and Mozambique in support of South African Apartheid back in the 1970’s and 80’s?

Show me the money, right? How come no one in the international media has ever asked this question? The rebels have no visible means of support, where could they be getting their funds from?

This story remains the best kept secret “dirty war” the CIA has ever operated. Until the Chinese brought in a couple thousand armed “peacekeepers” to protect their oil fields this CIA operation was successful, shutting down, temporarily Chinese oil production in South Sudan. But more importantly, it pretty much shut down Chinese expansion in South Sudan. That is what this dirty war was all about, preventing China from gaining a major foothold in Africa’s oil fields.

Show me the money? Show me the ONLY party that benefits from this war? Thats right, the ONLY party to benefit from this brutal, foreign funded African holocaust has been Pax Americana, the U.S. of A, by shutting down Chinese oil production and expansion in South Sudan.

Today peace has broken out in South Sudan, shaky as it may be. The CIA had been using the former regime in power in Ethiopia, the TPLF, to funnel their filthy lucre to the rebel armies in South Sudan but with the “Peaceful Revolution” breaking out in Ethiopia this avenue to the rebels was cut off. The rebel leadership had no choice but to cut a deal with South Sudan President Salva Kiir for cash so they could pay their troops salaries. No money, no honey, you get what you pay for and without hard CIA cash to pay their troops it became “Give peace a chance”. Of course corruption remains rife and stolen salaries for various ethnically based military departments have continued to cause revolts and instability.

Yet so far the peace deal signed, sealed and delivered in Asmara in 2018 has been holding. The CIA are now almost completely out of the picture in South Sudan though one should never underestimate the Agency’s capacity for evil. Its in the US national interest to deny China access to African oil so it will always continue to be US vs China in South Sudan, as part of Pax Americana’s designs for Africa as a whole.

Thomas C. Mountain is an historian and educator living and reporting from Eritrea since 2006. See thomascmountain on Facebook or best contact him at thomascmountain at g mail dot com

With criticism crushed in the west, Israel can enjoy its impunity

 Jonathan Cook

Nazareth: Recent events have shone a spotlight not only on how Israel is intensifying its abuse of Palestinians under its rule, but the utterly depraved complicity of western governments in its actions.

The arrival of Donald Trump in the White House two-and-a-half years ago has emboldened Israel as never before, leaving it free to unleash new waves of brutality in the occupied territories.

Western states have not only turned a blind eye to these outrages, but are actively assisting in silencing anyone who dares to speak out.

It is rapidly creating a vicious spiral: the more Israel violates international law, the more the West represses criticism, the more Israel luxuriates in its impunity.

This shameless descent was starkly illustrated last week when hundreds of heavily armed Israeli soldiers, many of them masked, raided a neighbourhood of Sur Baher, on the edges of Jerusalem. Explosives and bulldozers destroyed dozens of homes, leaving many hundreds of Palestinians without a roof over their heads.

During the operation, extreme force was used against residents, as well as international volunteers there in the forlorn hope that their presence would deter violence. Videos showed the soldiers cheering and celebrating as they razed the neighbourhood.

House destructions have long been an ugly staple of Israel’s belligerent occupation, but there were grounds for extra alarm on this occasion.

Traditionally, demolitions occur on the two-thirds of the West Bank placed by the Oslo accords temporarily under Israeli control. That is bad enough: Israel should have handed over what is called “Area C” to the Palestinian Authority 20 years ago. Instead, it has hounded Palestinians off these areas to free them up for illegal Jewish settlement.

But the Sur Baher demolitions took place in “Area A”, land assigned by Oslo to the Palestinians’ government-in-waiting – as a prelude to Palestinian statehood. Israel is supposed to have zero planning or security jurisdiction there.

Palestinians rightly fear that Israel has established a dangerous precedent, further reversing the Oslo Accords, which can one day be used to justify driving many thousands more Palestinians off land under PA control.

Most western governments barely raised their voices. Even the United Nations offered a mealy-mouthed expression of “sadness” at what took place.

A few kilometres north, in Issawiya, another East Jerusalem suburb, Israeli soldiers have been terrorising 20,000 Palestinian residents for weeks. They have set up checkpoints, carried out dozens of random night-time arrests, imposed arbitrary fines and traffic tickets, and shot live ammunition and rubber-coated steel bullets into residential areas.

Ir Amim, an Israeli human rights group, calls Issawiya’s treatment a “perpetual state of collective punishment” – that is, a war crime.

Over in Gaza, not only are the 2 million inhabitants being slowly starved by Israel’s 12-year blockade, but a weekly shooting spree against Palestinians who protest at the fence imprisoning them has become so routine it barely attracts attention any more.

On Friday, Israeli snipers killed one protester and seriously injured 56, including 22 children.

That followed new revelations that Israeli’s policy of shooting unarmed protesters in the upper leg to injure them – another war crime – continued long after it became clear a significant proportion of Palestinians were dying from their wounds.

Belatedly – after more than 200 deaths and the severe disabling of many thousands of Palestinians – snipers have been advised to “ease up” by shooting protesters in the ankle.

B’Tselem, another Israeli rights organisation, called the army’s open-fire regulation a “criminal policy”, one that “consciously chose not to regard those standing on the other side of the fence as humans”.

Rather than end such criminal practices, Israel prefers to conceal them. It has effectively sealed Palestinian areas off to avoid scrutiny.

Omar Shakir, a researcher for Human Rights Watch, is facing imminent deportation, yet more evidence of Israel’s growing crackdown on the human rights community.

A report by the Palestinian Right to Enter campaign last week warned that Israel is systematically denying foreign nationals permits to live and work in the occupied territories, including areas supposedly under PA control.

That affects both foreign-born Palestinians, often those marrying local Palestinians, and internationals. According to recent reports, Israel is actively forcing out academics teaching at the West Bank’s leading university, Bir Zeit, in a severe blow to Palestinian academic freedom.

Palestinian journalists highlighting Israeli crimes are in Israel’s sights too. Last week, Israel stripped one – Mustafa Al Haruf – of his Jerusalem residency, tearing him from his wife and young child. Because it is illegal to leave someone stateless, Israel is now bullying Jordan to accept him.

Another exclusion policy – denying entry to Israel’s fiercest critics, those who back the international boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement – is facing its first challenge.

Two US congresswomen who support BDS – Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, who has family in the West Bank – have announced plans to visit.

Israeli officials have indicated they will exempt them both, apparently fearful of drawing wider attention to Israel’s draconian entry restrictions, which also cover the occupied territories.

Israel is probably being overly cautious. The BDS movement, which alone argues for the imposition of penalties on Israel until it halts its abuse of Palestinians, is being bludgeoned by western governments.

In the US and Europe, strong criticism of Israel, even from Jews – let alone demands for meaningful action – is being conflated with antisemitism. Much of this furore seems intended to ease the path towards silencing Israel’s critics.

More than two dozen US states, as well as the Senate, have passed laws – drafted by pro-Israel lobby groups – to limit the rights of the American public to support boycotts of Israel.

Anti-BDS legislation has also been passed by the German and French parliaments.

And last week the US House of Representatives joined them, overwhelmingly passing a resolution condemning the BDS movement. Only 17 legislators demurred.

It was a slap in the face to Omar, who has been promoting a bill designed to uphold the First Amendment rights of boycott supporters.

It seems absurd that these curbs on free speech have emerged just as Israel makes clear it has no interest in peace, will never concede Palestinian statehood and is entrenching a permanent system of apartheid in the occupied territories.

But there should be no surprise. The clampdown is further evidence that western support for Israel is indeed based on shared values – those that treat the Palestinians as lesser beings, whose rights can be trampled at will.

A version of this article first appeared in the National, Abu Dhabi.

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books).