TEHRAN- Friendly gatherings and the exchange of legislative experiences, according to the deputy Syrian head of the Syria-Iran parliamentary friendship group, are crucial to deepening connections between the two fraternal nations and governments.
Speaking to IRNA ahead of leaving Damascus for Tehran on Sunday, Haifa Jumaa said, "This visit is made based on an invitation forwarded by Abbas Golru, the Iranian head of the Iran-Syria parliamentary friendship group, and it is an honor for us to visit Tehran."
"The mutual purpose of these meetings between our friends and brothers in the Iranian Islamic Parliament and the Syrian People's Parliament is sharing experiences and renewing visits of our Iranian comrades," the Syrian MP continued.
Based on the comments of the top Syrian lawmaker, expanding parliamentary ties is crucial to the development of relations between the two nations.
Members of the Iranian-Syrian parliamentary friendship group visited Damascus last year; the Syrian parliamentary delegation is making a reciprocal visit.
Rishi Sunak's open endorsement of "Israel" will only result in Sunak being viewed as a controversial, polarizing, and divisive figure in the Middle East.
British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s foreign policy doctrine will now have a bearing on world affairs. His appointment by King Charles III on the 25th of October 2022 came at a critical juncture in British politics which has been reeling from the chaos of Boris Johnson’s nonchalance and apathy and Lizz Truss’ perceived ineptitude to address the flailing economy. With a new face in power however, the Conservative Party would hope to salvage its nosediving popularity and credibility through Sunak. Much of that salvation stems from the foreign policy that Sunak adopts as part of his playbook. In the Middle East, he does not instill much confidence.
Given the UK’s history of political meddling in the region, which ranges from endorsing the Balfour Declaration of 1917 to opposing Iranian policies, Sunak has not proposed anything constructive. With a reputation of being a recluse who maintains a low profile, Sunak has continued to bill himself as a conservative, centrist and pro-Brexit politician. Hence, anything could be expected on the global front. Such uncertainty mirrors the international curiosity witnessed when former US President Donald Trump was elected which quickly turned into international condemnation as his policies became a disaster for the region.
The same can be said about Sunak. Similar to most conservative politicians and lobbyists in the UK, Rishi Sunak is a pro-"Israel" Prime Minister. Earlier in 2022, he spoke to the Conservative Friends of Israel parliamentary group that is dedicated to strengthening cultural, economic, and political ties between the UK and "Israel". He relayed his controversial views by claiming that occupied Jerusalem is "Israel’s" capital. Such unabashed, insensitive and callous remarks not only downgrade years of international diplomacy dedicated to offsetting tensions between the Palestinians and Israelis but also normalizes apartheid and Palestinian isolation. Furthermore, in an interview with the Jewish Chronicle, Sunak denounced the apartheid label for "Israel" despite harrowing evidence of illegal settlements, summary killings, and deprivation of human rights being routine throughout the occupied West Bank and Gaza.
A continuation of this open endorsement of "Israel" will only result in Sunak being viewed as a controversial, polarizing, and divisive figure in the Middle East. Not much would change either from his predecessor’s doctrine, given that Lizz Truss in September 2022 spoke of moving the UK’s embassy in Tel Aviv to occupied Jerusalem which was in line with the United States. Such moves have fomented instability and given the leadership in "Tel Aviv", an open license to commit crimes against humanity. It also undercuts the just right of the Palestinians to seek self-determination amid Israeli repression.
Sunak’s views on Iran are equally polarizing and divisive. It continues the UK’s legacy of employing camp politics in the region by denigrating one country at the expense of another, as a classic zero-sum powerplay. Sunak’s fellow member of Parliament, Theresa Villiers for example, admitted that Sunak’s opposition to Iran developing nuclear weapons is a welcoming thought despite the fact that she ignores how his apparent concern over the UK not taking the nuclear threat seriously, is an affront to nuclear deterrence in the Middle East. Additionally, Sunak’s apathy to "Israel’s" opaque nuclear program which has continued unabated is staggering. Avner Cohen describes the program as the ‘world’s worst kept secret’ and Sunak’s silence on "Israel’s" threat to global nonproliferation efforts speaks volumes about the flawed orientation of his foreign policy.
Not much is different from Sunak on other regional disputes either. He has gone on to condemn Turkiye’s rightful claims in Cyprus, unjustly through historical denialism and revisionism. While addressing the Conservative Friends of Cyprus, Sunak claimed that Ankara’s claims in Cyprus in 1974 constitute an invasion and that the Turkish side of the island should refrain from further provocations. This can be construed as a prelude to what Sunak’s policy towards the Turkiye Greece conflict could be, which serves to embolden the Erdogan leadership to remain defiant amid crass neocolonialism from the UK. Turkiye would be tempted to engage in a regional arms race and build up its military presence as it has done in Cyprus.
It is clear that Sunak’s views prior to the Prime Minister race will only serve to sow divisions and promote unrest in the Middle East. His diplomatic acumen remains transactional, shortsighted, and myopic at best. His experience in government has also been largely in the finance domain which is similar to Donald Trump's prior to joining and forming a government in Washington D.C. Serving as the head and second-in-command of the UK’s Treasury is different from running the affairs of a country which has had a checkered history in regions such as the Middle East. Stability in the region requires constructive approaches which are devoid of animus and so far, Sunak offers little to instill any confidence in that regard.
Make no mistake, a continuation of such policies is a threat to the region.
Information Clearing House -- "NBC" - Amid concerns that a new Congress could take a more skeptical view of aid to Ukraine, lawmakers from both parties are looking to lock in billions of dollars in military assistance to Kyiv before newly elected members are sworn in in January, according to a lawmaker and congressional staffers.
House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy of California, who is poised to take over as speaker if the GOP wins a majority in the House in the November midterm elections, warned this week that his fellow party members are “not going to write a blank check to Ukraine.”
With that threat to Ukraine aid looming, the bipartisan idea under consideration would use a government funding bill during the lame-duck session after the midterms to secure a much higher level of military and other assistance than prior aid packages for Ukraine, according to the lawmaker and the aides.
Congress last month approved $12 billion in military and economic aid to Ukraine, but the package being contemplated would be dramatically larger, the sources said.
The amount would be enough “to make sure [Ukraine] can get through the year,” a Republican senator with knowledge of the matter told NBC News. “It’ll make the $12 billion look like pocket change.”
The new aid package, which most likely would be part of an omnibus spending bill, could be within the range of roughly $50 billion, congressional aides and a source close to the Ukraine government said. The Biden administration has not yet made a formal request for new funding.
Congress has allocated a total of $65 billion in funding to Ukraine since Russia attacked the country in February.
‘Put your own oxygen mask on’
Many Republican candidates endorsed by former President Donald Trump have questioned the amount of U.S. aid delivered to Ukraine to help it fend off Russian forces, which invaded the country in February. They argue that the U.S. has more pressing domestic problems, that Ukraine’s fate is not tied to U.S. national interests and that European allies should be delivering a larger share of the weapons and other assistance to Kyiv.
On Thursday evening, President Joe Biden said of Republicans, “They said that if they win they’re not likely to fund, to continue to fund Ukraine.”
“These guys don’t get it. It’s a lot bigger than Ukraine. It’s Eastern Europe. It’s NATO. It’s really serious, serious consequential outcomes.”
House conservatives argue America needs to shore up its southern border and address the illegal immigration before worrying about Ukraine’s border with Russia.
“My constituents are saying, ‘Why are we more worried about Ukraine’s borders than we are about America’s borders?’ My constituents are not sitting there going, ‘Gosh, we have to save Ukraine’s borders,’” Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, a member of the conservative Trump-aligned Freedom Caucus, said in an interview.
Like Davidson, conservative Rep. Kat Cammack, R-Fla., said her heart breaks for the Ukrainian people, but she has not voted for recent Ukraine aid packages and isn’t inclined to do so next year if Republicans take control of the House, as most polls predict.
“I liken it to the airline videos they do before you take off: You need to put your own oxygen mask on before helping others,” Cammack, a member of the Homeland Security Committee, told NBC News. “And I just don’t think as a legislator that I could, in good conscience, support billions and billions of funding going overseas when we have such dire needs here.”
But some other Republicans in and outside of Congress disagree, reflecting deep divisions in the party over Ukraine and foreign policy more generally.
Rep. Chuck Fleischmann, R-Tenn., a member of the powerful Appropriations Committee that controls spending, said providing weapons and other assistance to Ukraine is crucial to halting Russia’s unprovoked invasion.
“I voted for the first funding bill, and I would be open to discussing more funding,” Fleischmann said. “If we do not take the necessary steps for Ukraine to protect its nation and sovereignty against Russia, I think the ripple effects will end up costing not only the United States but the world a lot more.”
Former Vice President Mike Pence, speaking at a Heritage Foundation event on Wednesday, castigated Republicans who opposed backing Ukraine as “apologists” for Russian President Vladimir Putin.
“As Russia continues its unconscionable war of aggression to Ukraine, I believe that conservatives must make it clear that Putin must stop and Putin will pay,” Pence said. “There can be no room in the conservative movement for apologists to Putin. There is only room in this movement for champions of freedom.”
The Republican House leadership has “every incentive” to see a large aid package passed now while Democrats hold the majority, so that they do not have to face a divisive, internal debate over the issue if the GOP wins back control of the House, according to Daniel Vajdich, an adviser to Ukraine's state-owned energy industry and president of Yorktown Solutions, a Washington lobbying firm.
“They don’t want to deal with it next year,” said Vajdich, a former Republican congressional staffer.
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a staunch supporter of military aid to Ukraine, said last month that he had discussed the issue with McCarthy and that he agreed other countries need to do more to assist Ukraine. But he predicted Ukraine would continue to receive the support it needed.
“I think you can expect Republicans to ask others to do more,” Graham said, referring to America’s NATO partners. “In the House majority, which I think is likely, I am confident that the speaker and most members of the conference in the House on the Republican side understand that the outcome in Ukraine directly impacts our national security.”
But Ukraine, Eastern European governments and Kyiv’s supporters in Congress on both sides of the aisle are worried that a larger contingent of pro-Trump, isolationist-minded lawmakers in Congress could jeopardize the flow of weapons, ammunition and economic aid that has enabled Ukraine to gain ground against Russian troops in recent months.
“We are incredibly concerned that the MAGA wing of the party is planning to block life-saving aid to Ukraine if Republicans take over the House,” said one Democratic congressional aide.
“We are going to have to get creative in the coming months to front load as much aid to Ukraine as possible, given that we may again find ourselves in the calamitous position where Putin’s interests are once again aligned with that of Trump and his followers.”
Ukraine relies heavily on outside funding and arms deliveries to keep up its war effort against Russia. If U.S. aid were to dry up, Ukraine could eventually see a shortage of artillery ammunition, as it burns through thousands of artillery rounds a day, according to defense officials and military analysts. With Russian stepping up drone attacks on its electricity grid and other targets, Ukraine also is depleting its supply of S-300 anti-aircraft missiles and other air defense systems as it tries to counter the aerial assault.
Asked about concerns that congressional support for aid to Ukraine could be at risk, State Department deputy spokesperson Vedant Patel said Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken “have been very clear that our commitment to our Ukrainian partners is not just unwavering, but it is ironclad. And we’re going to continue to take steps to do what we can to ensure that Ukraine has what it needs to defend itself, to defend its territorial integrity and to put it in the best position possible at a potential negotiating table whenever that might be.”
During the Cold War and especially after 1991, too few asked the question: Upon whose blood did such abundance and “freedom” arise?
We have often heard World War II described as “the war to end all wars”.
Many in the west have even been led to believe that the ideology of Nazi fascism was simply so evil that nothing of the sort could possibly arise ever again.
The 1935 novel “It Can’t Happen Here” by Sinclair Lewis attempted to warn Americans that the greatest danger of fascism’s success resided not in its cartoonish goosestepping portrayed in the media, but rather in the mass psychological delusion that such a system could possibly arise in the freedom-loving land of America.
Sadly, as we have seen in the course of the nearly eight decades after the allied victory of 1945, fascism has indeed arisen once more in a more virulent expression than anyone had imagined.
As today’s financial system careens towards an inevitable collapse not entirely different from the controlled demolition of the casino economy bubbles of 1929, geopolitical forces are again being brought into play that are also evoking once more the very real possibility of a new world war.
Instead of efforts to avoid such a disastrous nuclear confrontation by honest attempts to accept diplomatic pathways offered by Russian and Chinese statesmen, only antagonistic sabre rattling can be heard across the self-flattering corridors of Davos and NATO.
Instead of seeing efforts to remedy the annihilation of viable forms of energy, food production, and industrial capacity needed to support life among western nations, the opposite trend has been seen to occur in lockstep. Across nearly every nation caught within the NATO cage, we find only puppet leaders devoid of anything approximating substance and who appear unwilling to reverse the self-induced crisis of scarcity threatening to destroy countless lives.
Some even appear to think this age of scarcity to be a good thing.
Unipolarists and transhumanists slithering around the corridors of power proclaim time and again that today’s crisis is actually an “opportunity” in disguise.
Changing Definitions: When “suicide” Became “opportunity”
Whether it is Mark Carney championing this civilizational crisis as a wonderful opportunity to break humanity off ifs addiction to cheap hydrocarbon-based fuels and embrace a new order of green energy, or whether it is Anthony Blinken’s uncomfortable celebration that Nordstream’s sabotage as a “tremendous opportunity” to liberate Europe from cheap Russian gas, the effect is always the same.
These detached elites all seem to believe that the collective behavior of the trans-Atlantic west can finally be transformed by this unfortunate crisis so that we learn to live with less, owning nothing while still being happy, eating bugs instead of ‘dirty’ meat and reducing our impact on the environment by “going green”. French President Emmanuel Macron stated this technocratic view most coldly in September when he proclaimed “the age of abundance is over”.
This is the same freedom-loving government that has poured trillions of dollars into bailing out zombie banks and pouring weapons mass destruction onto once-viable nations like Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Ukraine in recent years while spending next to nothing to rebuild the vital infrastructure and industries which citizens desperately require as a matter of basic survival.
Across the NATO countries, euthanasia laws are extended far beyond the limits of reason to include, the depressed, and “mature minors” who want a taxpayer funded suicide pill. Mind-altering drugs are sold by government propagandists as forms of liberation to be decriminalized while the City of London/Wall Street financiers who launder such drugs via off-shore accounts go unpunished.
Even “science magazines” like Live Science publish propaganda pieces that justify the absurd notion that a “small nuclear war” may actually be good for the environment by reversing global warming which IPCC computer models tell us has been happening despite any empirical evidence to the contrary.
While everything outlined above are symptoms, the particular essence of fascism’s modern expression has been difficult for many to identify for a variety of reasons.
Perhaps the most important of those reasons resides in the fact that the minds of anyone too well adapted to modern academia are crippled by design. It sounds harsh, but the truth often is.
Educated to Stupidity
Where education was once premised on encouraging students to make discoveries and learning how to think for oneself as the foundation of becoming both good workers and also good citizens, today’s educational norms have sunk into depths of mediocrity not thought possible by our grandparents’ generation.
Instead of reproducing the discoveries of truthful ideas, students processed through modern institutions of higher education instead learn how to memorize formulas required to pass tests without understanding how or why those formulae are true. Across the STEM programs, science-oriented students are taught to repeat commonly held beliefs promoted by consensuses of experts who control the reigns of peer-review journals rather than use their own sovereign powers of reason.
The brilliant agronomist Allan Savory who performed miracles in terraforming desert regions of the earth through elementary holistic practices outlined the fraud of modern peer-review brainwashing in the following short video:
Although students of history are taught explanatory models which emphasize sanitized readings of our past that gloss over the reality of intentions (aka: conspiracies) and science students are trained to think in terms of “statistical probability” instead of causal principles, the truth of our own crisis goes even deeper.
The Subjective Side to Fascism’s Success
While it is comfortable for some people to think that the cause of our problems is found in the corruption and manipulation of a conspiratorial elite, the truth is, as Shakespeare noted in his play Julius Caesar far more subjective.
In that play, Shakespeare’s Cassius warned his co-conspirator Brutus that “our fate… is not in our stars, but in ourselves that we are underlings”.
In other words: It takes two to tango.
In that sense, one of the most important reasons for the success of fascism’s post-WWII rise has less to do with the conspiratorial planning of oligarchical forces which infiltrated our governments since the untimely death of Franklin Roosevelt, and much more to do with the subtle corruption of the people themselves who make up the citizens of the so-called “free world”.
With few exceptions, the citizens of the “free and democratic rules based west” judged themselves to be free simply because they enjoyed high levels of comfort and abundance while much of the world did not.
If World War II had not been fully won by “the good guys”, we were told, then how could our personal freedom to consume whatever we wished, vote for whom we wish and speak what we wish be possible?
Sexual liberation, and freedom “to do what we willed” became the new standards of liberty and the idea that such freedom was contingent upon moral principles or the weight of conscience became synonymous with “authoritarianism” and “the obsolete wisdom of dead white European males”.
The new generation of baby boomers that learned to “not trust anyone over 30”, “live in the moment” and just “let it be” as new words of wisdom soaked in a post-truth ethic that was relatively alien to western civilization. While it appeared to many who lived through that age, to be an innocent shifting of values towards a more “emotionally”-driven relationship to truth based upon “empathy”, making love not war, and embracing relativism, something much darker was let in.
And as the flower power generation that turned on, tuned in and dropped out became the me-generation of the 1980s corporate world, the myth that fascism was forever defeated became ever more deeply enshrined into the zeitgeist. The ever more fluid definitions of truth and value slid into relativism as speculative financial instruments like derivatives that carried little connection to reality became treated as legitimate forms of value within the new market-driven society. Culturally, younger generations lost access to older non-liberal role models that exhibited truthfulness and dignity resulting in ever deeper slides into nihilism among Generation X, Y and millennials.
During the Cold War and especially after 1991’s disintegration of the Soviet Union, too few asked the question: Upon whose blood did such abundance and “freedom” arise? Why did nationalist leaders of Africa, Latin America or even our own trans Atlantic west die gruesome deaths or suffer coups under the careful coordination and financing of intelligence agencies connected to governments of England and the USA? If we, in the west ceased producing our own industrial goods for our own consumption, then who was filling the void? Where were the slave labor colonies that Hitler and his financial backers envisioned in our modern age? Is it possible that the intention behind the global plague of war, radicalism and famine plaguing the third world since 1945 has something to do with those forces managing the economic systems to which former colonial people have been expected to adapt by those same colonial powers we have been told had granted their independence over the past 80 years?
To restate the essential point: The real reason why fascism’s ugly grip is being felt once more, has much to do with the fact that too many of us enjoyed the fruits it provided to those “first world” subjects who benefited by its existence after WWII, and thus simply wished not to see it.
We may bemoan the criminal incompetence and malevolent agendas pushing our society towards a new dark age, but it is only once we realize that a people will get the political leaders they deserve, that we may begin to properly start healing from the self-inflicted wounds which we did to ourselves over the course of several generations.
Currently, nations of Eurasia have demonstrated that they do not wish to erase their histories, ancient systems of cultural heritage or traditional values in the face of a Great Reset. They don’t want war, and would much rather have win-win cooperation with nations of the west.
The concept of “adapting to scarcity” has been rejected in favor of creating abundance via the embrace of scientific and technological progress across nations of the multipolar alliance and not a single statesman across Russia, China or India has demonstrated an intention to either go to war or sacrifice their people on an altar of Gaia. With so many nations representing so many people and diverse cultures of the world wishing to reject fascism (aka: Transhuman neo-feudalism) amidst our current crisis-ridden age, why would we not do everything in our power to redeem the sins of the west by fighting to join this anti-fascist movement today?
Matthew EHRET
Matthew J.L. Ehret is a journalist, lecturer and founder of the Canadian Patriot Review.
Information Clearing House -- As it pertains to the American public, Ukraine’s response to the Russian invasion can be summed up with two words: "Zelensky demands."
To date, Washington elites and their politicians have been happy to provide – at public expense – lining their own pockets in the process.
As of this writing, U.S. aid for Ukraine has reached approximately $67.5 billion, a figure greater than Russia’s entire 2021 military budget. According to the State Department, this support includes $15.2 billion in direct military assistance. The support comes although 60-70% of lethal aid never reaches the front lines, according to a now-redacted CBS interview with on-the-ground activists.
Not only is the American taxpayer supporting much of the Ukrainian military, it is also supporting the Ukrainian government. The same working class Americans who were deemed "nonessential" in 2020 – who saw their businesses shuttered and burned down – now have to pay entitlement programs both at home and in Ukraine.
As of September 30, 2022, the US has provided $13 billion in "direct budget support," which is ostensibly used;
…to pay government salaries, meet pension obligations, maintain hospitals and schools, and protect critical infrastructure[,] support continuity operations at the national, regional, and local levels, support for [sic] the health sector, agricultural production, civil society, [and enable] programs to hold Russia and its forces accountable for their actions in Ukraine.
Although American taxpayers have already matched Russia’s 2021 military budget, Ukrainian president Volodomyr Zelensky only demands more. During an October 4 phone call, President Biden reviewed Washington’s latest $625 million dole to Zelensky. It includes, inter alia, 4 additional High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS), 16 155mm Howitzers, 75,000 155 mm artillery rounds, 500 precision-guided 155mm artillery rounds, 16 105mm Howitzers, 30,000 120 mm mortar rounds, and 200 MaxxPro Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles.
This latest boon notwithstanding, in the same phone call, Zelensky urged Biden to provide Ukraine with air defense systems that will be used to shoot down Russian planes. Par for the course, Washington elites will provide the weapons systems and have even expedited their shipment per Zelensky’s demand.
Much like Washington’s response to COVID-19, a no-holds-barred approach to Ukraine is so widely supported, it is a foregone conclusion. Despite this, some Republicans have valiantly opposed this rampant and provocative spending. Notable dissenters are: Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MS), Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), Rep. Marjorie Taylor-Greene (R-GA), and Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL).
Republicans like Taylor-Greene, Gaetz, and Hawley understand the cost of empire: endless warfare, a decaying home front, and a beclowned international reputation. They understand that a war between the U.S. and Russia will be unlike anything Americans have ever experienced. Although they cloak their condemnation of war with Russia in criticism of "weak Joe Biden," they understand it is the West that provoked this conflict and seeks to prolong it "to the last Ukrainian." They know that the conflict – even if it remains by-proxy – is a cost war-weary working class Americans do not want and cannot afford.
They must, then, realize that the same Washington elites waxing American fat off the Ukraine conflict are cultivating Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen as a Zelensky in-waiting.
Although US military aid to Taiwan traditionally comes by way of arms sales, that may soon change. Senators Bob Menendez (D-NJ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) have introduced the Taiwan Policy Act – a piece of legislation that would radically overhaul Sino-American relations.
In short, "the Taiwan Policy Act would give Taiwan $6.5 billion in military aid, give the island the benefits of being a ‘major non-NATO ally,’ expedite arms sales to Taipei, and require sanction in the event of Chinese aggression." The bill would also authorize up to $2 billion in loans to Taiwan.
On September 14, the bill passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Rather than passing it as a standalone piece of legislation, the bill’s supporters currently seek to incorporate "much" of the bill into the $817 billion 2023 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
Thankfully, on Monday, it was revealed that the diplomatic language applying sanctions against China and designating Taiwan as a "major non-NATO ally," was removed from the NDAA version of the Taiwan Policy Act. However, this latest NDAA version would almost double the $6.5 billion in direct military aid originally proposed, bringing the grand total to $10 billion.
A final vote on the modified NDAA is expected after the November midterm elections.
As above noted, the Taiwan Policy Act was introduced in the Senate on June 16, 2022 by Senators Bob Menendez and Lindsey Graham. Both Menendez and Graham are ardent supporters of Ukraine and Zelensky.
Graham met with Zelensky in July to hand deliver a plaque of his proposed Senate resolution to designate Russia as a State Sponsor of Terrorism. Since the Russian invasion, Graham has made regular appearances on Fox News whipping up lethal aid for Ukraine while calling for regime change in Moscow.
Menendez, as Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has spearheaded Washington’s Ukraine support. In January, he began and continues to lead the comprehensive US sanctions campaign against Russia. In March, Menendez lambasted Congressional Republicans, mainly Senator Rick Scott (R-FL), for undermining Ukraine aid. In May, Menendez, among others, introduced a Senate resolution approving the bids of Finland and Sweden to join NATO (something Josh Hawley correctly opposed).
On June 23 Menendez specifically invoked the 75th anniversary of the Marshall Plan to stoke support for Ukraine. The problem with this comparison is that the Marshall Plan came after WWII, not during it. At this point in time, a similar plan would only further involve the US in a conflict with Russia.
Republicans opposing US support for Ukraine should take note that both Menendez and Graham have repeatedly met with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen to pledge American support for Taiwan. In their latest visit on April 15, 2022, president Ing-wen called Lindsey Graham a "pillar of strength for Taiwan in the US Congress" and dubbed Menendez one of Taiwan’s "staunchest friends."
In his meeting remarks, Graham likened US support for Ukraine to its support for Taiwan, saying:
[a]s we’re here today to show our support for Taiwan, all of us have our hearts broken regarding the people of Ukraine…I just want to let you know that, while we’ve been watching the Ukraine on television, while it has broken our hearts, the American people understand how important you are to us…So here’s my promise to the Taiwanese people: We’re going to start making China pay a greater price for what they’re doing all over the world. The support for Putin must come with a price. The never-ending cyberattacks on your economy and your people by the Communist Chinese need to come with a price.
Menendez echoed Graham’s sentiment in his own remarks, shedding light on Washington’s Ukrainian plans for Taiwan:
…I am proud to be back to reaffirm our rock-solid relationship with Taiwan…So you have a high-level delegation whose attention could be brought any place in the world – and for which many of our colleagues are right now in Europe, dealing with the challenges of Ukraine – but we understand that here in Taiwan, here in this region – this is where the future is. [Emphasis added].
Menendez followed up these remarks with an op-ed in The New York Times, stating:
Vladimir Putin’s brutal attack on his Ukrainian neighbors has sparked global outrage – and forged unprecedented unity – among the democratic nations of the world. Not so with Xi Jinping, the hypernationalist president of the People’s Republic of China. Rather, he is no doubt taking notes and learning lessons from Russia’s unprovoked attack on Ukraine to apply to his plans for Taiwan. The United States and our partners in the international community need to do the same to develop and put in place a new and more resilient strategy for Taiwan while there is still time.
These remarks should terrify working class Americans. Essentially, Menendez is proposing a redoubling of military support for Taiwan – the same "preventive policy" which played a large role in provoking Putin to invade Ukraine. We simply cannot afford it.
The above-named Congressional Republicans were right to oppose aid to Ukraine. For those same reasons, they should oppose adding Tsai Ing-wen to the same dole as the entitled and ungrateful Zelensky. Like Rand Paul, they should oppose the Taiwan Policy Act in all its forms.
Patrick MacFarlane is the Justin Raimondo Fellow at the Libertarian Institute where he advocates a noninterventionist foreign policy. He is a Wisconsin attorney in private practice. He is the host of the Vital Dissent at www.vitaldissent.com, where he seeks to oppose calamitous escalation in US foreign policy by exposing establishment narratives with well-researched documentary content and insightful guest interviews. His work has appeared on antiwar.com, GlobalResearch.ca, and Zerohedge.
Strategic Council Online – Interview: An expert on Israeli affairs said the Zionist regime has expanded its security and military presence and influence in the Arab states of the Persian Gulf. He noted: The Zionist regime, by trying to magnify claims about “Iran’s threat” and by misusing the discussions raised regarding the use of the Iranian “Shahed 136” in Ukraine, is trying to exploit it for its own benefit.
Speaking in an interview with the Website of the Strategic Council on Foreign Relations, Ali Abdi, referred to the UAE deployment of Israel’s first anti-aircraft systems known as “Barak” and reiterated: With the formalization of the UAE-Zionist regime relations, their cooperation will develop and deepen. Deployment of such systems in the UAE is also within the framework of a series of movements which have been raised in the past year with the so-called title “Arab NATO” and for the creation of regional integrated air defenses against Iran’s air power and the Resistance Axis.
He pointed to the Zionist regime’s attempt to sell its weapons to Arab countries in the region, saying: Recently, the Wall Street Journal had also reported that Democratic and Republican representatives of the U.S. Congress had introduced a bill for the “integration of Israel’s defensive defense and some Arab countries against Iran’s threats”, and it seems that they are trying to implement the plan. The plan would increase Israel’s arms sales and place the region for the deployment of its air defense systems, and on the other hand, would increase Israel’s political, military and security influence in the region.
Referring to the U.S.-Israel attempt to build a broad network of security and military cooperation with Arab countries, Abdi continued: Given the end of the ceasefire between Yemen’s Ansarollah and Saudi Arabia, and the possibility of a re-ignition of the war and a missile attack by the Yemeni armed forces, the UAE needs a large number of such systems; Yemenis have had successful attacks on the UAE and this is very damaging for the prestige of the UAE. They fear the Yemenis and this cannot be denied.
According to Abdi, the Israelis have invested heavily in the UAE in several areas, and this is also a major contract between Israel and the UAE. According to media reports, other anti-aircraft systems will be deployed in the UAE within the framework of the deal.
The expert on the Zionist regime affairs recalled that the Barack system was first produced in cooperation with India to be embedded on warships and it is not clear which version of it was given to the UAE, adding: Israel has announced that it has signed agreements to equip Bahrain and Maghreb with Barack advanced air defense systems, and in addition to building a drone factory in Maghreb, it is investigating the sale of advanced radar technology to the UAE, Bahrain and Maghreb.
Abdi continued: Given the issues raised regarding the reduction of U.S. commitments to the UAE, as well as the passivity shown in previous Yemeni attacks on the UAE, the country is now seeking to increase its security factor. This comes as Israel, under various pretexts, is increasing its number of officers at Dubai Airport and its security infiltration.
Referring to news on equipment of Saudi Arabia with the U.S. laser air defense system if Biden agrees, he noted: U.S.-Saudi relations are experiencing challenges, while Israeli-Saudi relations have not yet been formalized, and this is an obstacle to military cooperation between them.
In addition, the foundation of the UAE-Israel relations was initially military, and in the first decade of the 21st century, it began by equipping and modernizing the UAE F-16 fighters and later developed. Under such circumstances, the UAE has gained more possibility of exploiting Israeli and American military weapons than Saudi Arabia.
Recalling that 70 percent of the UAE’s population are immigrants and the government’s concerns over the pressure of public opinion are less than the Saudi government’s concerns, the analyst of the Zionist regime added: It was previously agreed that a senior Israeli naval officer would be present as an observer member of the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet based in Bahrain, and that the discussion of training and equipping the Bahraini security force by Israel had also been officially announced. Therefore, Israel has expanded its security and military presence and influence in the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, which could have irreparable consequences for the region.
Strategic Council Online – Interview: An expert on the Middle East affairs commenting about the maritime border agreement between Lebanon and the Zionist regime said: Various news reports have been published about the agreement between Lebanon and the Zionist regime on the maritime borders between the Occupied Palestine and Lebanon and it seems that the process of developing gas resources by the two sides has been determined.
In an interview with the website of the Strategic Council on Foreign Relations, Hossein Ajorloo emphasized: As Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah pointed out, the agreement is for the purpose of not having a border problem in this regard in the future as long as the occupied Palestine is a neighbor of Lebanon.
As for the drawing of the borders, Ajorloo said: The borders of Lebanon and the occupied Palestine have been reached from past agreements until today; that is to say, the agreements that were signed after the French protectorate over Lebanon and the British protectorate over the occupied Palestine were signed. Those agreements include the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916, the agreements of 1920 and 1923, then the 1949 agreement which was a ceasefire in Ras Naqoura, and recently in 1996 an agreement was signed in which the Zionist regime evacuated many parts of southern Lebanon, especially in Ras Naqoura.
The expert said that following those agreements, the border between Lebanon and the occupied Palestine was formed, but the sea borders were not defined.
He added: Actually, maritime borders were not very important for the two players until two gas resources, Qana and Karish, were brought up. At first, the Lebanese government was reluctant to enter into negotiations with the Zionist regime because it considered any type of negotiation as a form of normalization of relations, but finally, due to financial needs, the insistence of the American side for the finalization of the conflict, and the Zionist regime’s desire for the exploitation of both the gas resources, the Lebanese government agreed to negotiate.
The expert on Lebanon affairs explained: Since 2013, negotiations have been going on indirectly between the two sides, and in 2020, negotiations became serious, and it was finally agreed that the Qana gas field would be for Lebanon, and the gas field of Karish would be for the Zionist regime. However, the agreement has not been finalized yet.
About the reasons for the seriousness of negotiations in recent years, Ajorloo said: Lebanon needs to exploit its gas fields due to financial problems. At the same time, because the case was not resolved, the Zionist regime started vandalism in 10 other blocks that were located north of the hypothetical line. Also, due to the fuel crisis in Europe, those resources can be considered as alternative export sources to Europe. In this regard, the Zionists had conducted many consultations and they needed to exploit the gas resources of Karish.
He further emphasized that Lebanon can also export part of its gas with international investments.
According to the expert, the Americans sought to present a successful case in the West Asian region and saw the conditions being prepared for the settlement of the case of the conflict between the Zionist regime and Lebanon.
Ajorloo says: Within Lebanon, success in extracting gas and turning Lebanon into an energy powerhouse could be a major achievement for the current president and resistance groups.
The expert emphasized that such reasons and motivations joined together to bring Lebanon at the negotiating table and take a step on the path towards becoming a power in the field of energy in the near future.
The expert on West Asia affairs explained: On the other hand, with regard to the approach of the elections and the political pressures on Yair Lapid, solving such dispute and gas exploitation can be a positive trump for him in his election case.
In conclusion, Ajorloo said that in the discussion of the border dispute between Lebanon and the Zionist regime and drafting of an agreement over it, the two sides had interests that made them willing to finally finalize the years-long negotiations.
