US Democrats Cultivated the Barbarism of Isis

by Jonathan Cook 

There is something profoundly deceitful in the Democratic Party and corporate media’s framing of Donald Trump’s decision to pull troops out of Syria.

One does not need to like Trump or ignore the dangers posed to the Kurds, at least in the short term, by the sudden departure of US forces from northern Syria to understand that the coverage is being crafted in such a way as to entirely overlook the bigger picture.

The problem is neatly illustrated in this line from a report by the Guardian newspaper of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s meeting this week with Trump, who is described as having had a “meltdown”. Explaining why she and other senior Democrats stormed out, the paper writes that “it became clear the president had no plan to deal with a potential revival of Isis in the Middle East”.

Hang on a minute! Let’s pull back a little, and not pretend – as the media and Democratic party leadership wish us to do – that the last 20 years did not actually happen. Many of us lived through those events. Our memories are not so short.

Islamic State, or Isis, didn’t emerge out of nowhere. It was entirely a creation of two decades of US interference in the Middle East. And I’m not even referring to the mountains of evidence that US officials backed their Saudi allies in directly funding and arming Isis – just as their predecessors in Washington, in their enthusiasm to oust the Soviets from the region, assisted the jihadists who went on to become al-Qaeda.

No, I’m talking about the fact that in destroying three key Arab states – Iraq, Libya and Syria – that refused to submit to the joint regional hegemony of Saudi Arabia and Israel, Washington’s local client states, the US created a giant void of governance at the heart of the Middle East. They knew that that void would be filled soon enough by religious extremists like Islamic State – and they didn’t care.

Overthrow, not regime change

You don’t have to be a Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi or Bashar Assad apologist to accept this point. You don’t even have to be concerned that these so-called “humanitarian” wars violated each state’s integrity and sovereignty, and are therefore defined in international law as “the supreme war crime”.

The bigger picture – the one no one appears to want us thinking about – is that the US intentionally sought to destroy these states with no obvious plan for the day after. As I explained in my book Israel and the Clash of Civilisations, these haven’t so much been regime-change wars as nation-state dismantling operations – what I have termed overthrow wars.

The logic was a horrifying hybrid of two schools of thought that meshed neatly in the psychopathic foreign policy goals embodied in the ideology of neoconservatism – the so-called “Washington consensus” since 9/11.

The first was Israel’s long-standing approach to the Palestinians. By constantly devastating any emerging Palestinian institution or social structures, Israel produced a divide-and-rule model on steriods, creating a leaderless, ravaged, enfeebled society that sucked out all the local population’s energy. That strategy proved very appealing to the neoconservatives, who saw it as one they could export to non-compliant states in the region.

The second was the Chicago school’s Shock Doctrine, as explained in Naomi Klein’s book of that name. The chaotic campaign of destruction, the psychological trauma and the sense of dislocation created by these overthrow wars were supposed to engender a far more malleable population that would be ripe for a US-controlled “colour revolution”.

The recalcitrant states would be made an example of, broken apart, asset-stripped of their resources and eventually remade as new dependent markets for US goods. That was what George W Bush, Dick Cheney and Halliburton really meant when they talked about building a New Middle East and exporting democracy.

Even judged by the vile aims of its proponents, the Shock Doctrine has been a half-century story of dismal economic failure everywhere it has been attempted – from Pinochet’s Chile to Yeltsin’s Russia. But let us not credit the architects of this policy with any kind of acumen for learning from past errors. As Bush’s senior adviser Karl Rove explained to a journalist whom he rebuked for being part of the “reality-based community”: “We’re an empire now and, when we act, we create our own reality.”

The birth of Islamic State

The barely veiled aim of the attacks on Iraq, Libya and Syria was to destroy the institutions and structures that held these societies together, however imperfectly. Though no one likes to mention it nowadays, these states – deeply authoritarian though they were – were also secular, and had well-developed welfare states that ensured high rates of literacy and some of the region’s finest public health services.

One can argue about the initial causes of the uprising against Assad that erupted in Syria in 2011. Did it start as a popular struggle for liberation from the Assad government’s authoritarianism? Or was it a sectarian insurgency by those who wished to replace Shia minority rule with Sunni majority rule? Or was it driven by something else: as a largely economic protest by an under-class suffering from food shortages as climate change led to repeated crop failures? Or are all these factors relevant to some degree?

Given how closed a society Syria was and is, and how difficult it therefore is to weigh the evidence in ways that are likely to prove convincing to those not already persuaded, let us set that issue aside. Anyway, it is irrelevant to the bigger picture I want to address.

The indisputable fact is that Washington and its Gulf allies wished to exploit this initial unrest as an opportunity to create a void in Syria – just as they had earlier done in Iraq, where there were no uprisings, nor even the WMDs the US promised would be found and that served as the pretext for Bush’s campaign of Shock and Awe.

The limited uprisings in Syria quickly turned into a much larger and far more vicious war because the Gulf states, with US backing, flooded the country with proxy fighters and arms in an effort to overthrow Assad and thereby weaken Iranian and Shia influence in the region. The events in Syria and earlier in Iraq gradually transformed the Sunni religious extremists of al-Qaeda into the even more barbaric, more nihilistic extremists of Islamic State.

A dark US vanity project

As Rove and Cheney played around with reality, nature got on with honouring the maxim that it always abhors a vacuum. Islamic State filled the vacuum Washington’s policy had engineered.

The clue, after all, was in the name. With the US and Gulf states using oil money to wage a proxy war against Assad, Isis saw its chance to establish a state inspired by a variety of Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabist dogma. Isis needed territory for their planned state, and the Saudis and US obliged by destroying Syria.

This barbarian army, one that murdered other religious groups as infidels and killed fellow Sunnis who refused to bow before their absolute rule, became the west’s chief allies in Syria. Directly and covertly, we gave them money and weapons to begin building their state on parts of Syria.

Again, let us ignore the fact that the US, in helping to destroy a sovereign nation, committed the supreme war crime, one that in a rightly ordered world would ensure every senior Washington official faces their own Nuremberg Trial. Let us ignore too for the moment that the US, consciously through its actions, brought to life a monster that sowed death and destruction everywhere it went.

The fact is that at the moment Assad called in Russia to help him survive, the battle the US and the Gulf states were waging through Islamic State and other proxies was lost. It was only a matter of time before Assad would reassert his rule.

From that point onwards, every single person who was killed and every single Syrian made homeless – and there were hundreds of thousands of them – suffered their terrible fate for no possible gain in US policy goals. A vastly destructive overthrow war became instead something darker still: a neoconservative vanity project that ravaged countless Syrian lives.

A giant red herring

Trump is now ending part of that policy. He may be doing so for the wrong reasons. But very belatedly – and possibly only temporarily – he is closing a small chapter in a horrifying story of western-sponsored barbarism in the Middle East, one intimately tied to Islamic State.

What of the supposed concerns of Pelosi and the Democratic Party under whose watch the barbarism in Syria took place? They should have no credibility on the matter to begin with.

But their claims that Trump has “no plan to deal with a potential revival of Isis in the Middle East” is a giant red herring they are viciously slapping us in the face with in the hope the spray of seawater blinds us.

First, Washington sowed the seeds of Islamic State by engineering a vacuum in Syria that Isis – or something very like it – was inevitably going to fill. Then, it allowed those seeds to flourish by assisting its Gulf allies in showering fighters in Syria with money and arms that came with only one string attached – a commitment to Sunni jihadist ideology inspired by Saudi Wahhabism.

Isis was made in Washington as much as it was in Riyadh. For that reason, the only certain strategy for preventing the revival of Islamic State is preventing the US and the Gulf states from interfering in Syria again.

With the Syrian army in charge of Syrian territory, there will be no vacuum for Isis to fill. Its state-building rationale is now unrealisable, at least in Syria. It will continue to wither, as it would have done years before if the US and its Gulf allies had not fuelled it in a proxy war they knew could not be won.

Doomed Great Game

The same lesson can be drawn by looking at the experience of the Syrian Kurds. The Rojava fiefdom they managed to carve out in northern Syria during the war survived till now only because of continuing US military support. With the US departure, and the Kurds too weak to maintain their improvised statelet, a vacuum was again created that this time risks sucking in the Turkish army, which fears a base for Kurdish nationalism on its doorstep.

The Syrian Kurds’ predicament is simple: face a takeover by Turkey or seek Assad’s protection to foil Turkish ambition. The best hope for the Kurds looks to be the Syrian army’s return, filling the vacuum and regaining a chance of long-term stability.

That could have been the case for all of Syria many tens of thousands of deaths ago. Whatever the corporate media suggest, those deaths were lost not in a failed heroic battle for freedom, which, even if it was an early aspiration for some fighters, quickly became a goal that was impossible for them to realise. No, those deaths were entirely pointless. They were sacrificed by a western military-industrial complex in a US-Saudi Great Game that dragged on for many years after everyone knew it was doomed.

Nancy Pelosi’s purported worries about Isis reviving because of Trump’s Syria withdrawal are simply crocodile fears. If she is really so worried about Islamic State, then why did she and other senior Democrats stand silently by as the US under Barack Obama spent years spawning, cultivating and financing Isis to destroy Syria, a state that was best placed to serve as a bulwark against the head-chopping extremists?

Pelosi and the Democratic leadership’s bad faith – and that of the corporate media – are revealed in their ongoing efforts to silence and smear Tulsi Gabbard, the party’s only candidate for the presidential nomination who has pointed out the harsh political realities in Syria, and tried to expose their years of lies.

Pelosi and most of the Democratic leadership don’t care about Syria, or its population’s welfare. They don’t care about Assad, or Isis. They care only about the maintenance and expansion of American power – and the personal wealth and influence it continues to bestow on them.

Manipulation of realities by mainstream media

By: Ramin Hossein Abadian

TEHRAN, (MNA) – Mainstream foreign propaganda and news outlets have launched a 

new wave of anti-Tehran campaign in order to 

deceive public opinion and overshadow Iran's 

stabilizing activities in the region.

Victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran 40 years ago was beginning of a new page of regional and international developments. Since then Iran has made efforts to establish unity among the countries of the Islamic world and to bring about lasting peace and stability throughout the region. These factors have led the Islamic Revolution to be heard by other governments and nations around the world. Today, many political observers believe that the emancipation from dictatorial regimes is practically possible through the implementation of  patterns' of Islamic Revolution of Iran.

Nevertheless, propaganda and news outlets affiliated to the Hebrew-Arab-Western axis are trying to deceive public opinion of the region and the world by dissemination of fake news about the achievements of Iran.

For instance, they claim that Iran has been behind divisions between the Shias and the Sunnis. Assisting Palestinian, Standing with the Syrian government and supporting the Syrian people who are mostly Sunnis, holding conferences on Islamic unity as well as forbidding insulting prominent Sunni figures affirm that the Islamic Republic of Iran has always called for the unity between Shias and Sunni.

All the above mentioned issues indicate that the claims of media and news agencies about Tehran's divisiveness is nothing more than a big lie.

Accusing Iran of supporting terrorism is another claim of these medias against Iran; the claim that has never been provided with any conclusive evidences. Defending any group, party and organization which are struggling for their independence and territorial integrity is portrayed as manifestation of backing of terrorism by these mainstream medias. However, the Islamic Republic's definition of terrorism is plundering, encroaching upon the national sovereignty of nations, seizing the wealth and natural resources of nations, and killing defenseless and innocent people.

In this regard, the Islamic Republic of Iran has always fought with various terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda and ISIL. For instance, it has always supported resistance groups in Lebanon, especially Hezbollah which are effective in military, as well as political, social, and cultural fields in the region.

The widespread support of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Iraq and Syria has also led to eradication of ISIL. The Islamic Republic of Iran's explicit stance in Yemen is also based on support to resistance and opposition to the continuation of aggression.

These policies and positions of the Islamic Republic of Iran have prompted Americans and Westerners to propagate a wave of Iran phobia across the region and the world. They have always tried to portray Iran as a threat to the countries of the region, especially the Arab countries.

This is the reason why they try to attribute the attack on Saudi oil facilities to Tehran through a lot of propaganda, while satellite images illustrate the fact that Tehran did not intervene in the attack.

In this regard, they declared that Iran’s HOPE (Hormuz Peace Endeavor) initiative is nothing more than a claim to proclaim itself a harbinger of peace, while they themselves are supporting the Zionist Regime, the biggest threat to the region and the world in the Persian Gulf.

Reap What You Sow: Why Iran Has Total Disregard for United States?

TEHRAN (FNA)- US President Donald Trump says “Iran has total disregard for the United States,” repeating his talking point against the nuclear deal as “the worst deal I’ve ever seen negotiated.”

The New York billionaire, who during his presidential campaign more or less promised a non-interventionist foreign policy, has also repeated the anti-Iran rhetoric, promoted by war-party Washington and his cabinet members, accusing Tehran of supporting terrorism. In his words, “That deal, I would have lived with it if they said, OK we’re all together now. But it was just the opposite; it’s like they’re emboldened. We’ll see what happens.”

In response, if Iran has “total disregard” for the United States, it's because the US has historically earned it. If the Trump administration does not like the disregard it should begin to redeem itself:

1- Voltaire once said, “Our wretched species is so made that those who walk on the well-trodden path always throw stones at those who are showing a new road.” After signing the nuclear deal in 2015, it was Iran that showed a new road to the international community: conflict resolution. Quite the contrary, it was the United States that began throwing stones at Iran by refusing to commit itself to the historic deal since Washington saw the deal as a means of containment. Hence, the deal emboldened the Obama administration to impose new sanctions on Iran on vague charges. It was never the other way around.

2- The nuclear deal is cursed with the infernal actions of the United States (emphasis here) – especially seeing that the Trump administration has also published a list of 13 people and 12 entities facing new sanctions. Trump’s refusal to rule out attacking Iran militarily signals a marked escalation of tensions too. It came just hours after he said Tehran was "playing with fire” – all because it tested a single missile that the United Nations and other signatories to the nuclear treaty said didn’t violate it.

3- Trump’s former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn was desperate to convince the world that Iran is wrong - something his mind knew was a lie and wildly out of proportion. He said, "Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and engages in, and supports, violent activities that destabilize the Middle East." Similar statements have been made by incumbent National Security Advisor John Bolton. This talking point is filled with unutterable loathing, as in factual reality Iran is at the forefront of the Real War on Terror in Iraq and Syria. Those who disregard this reality suffer the painful consequences - left in the lurch at difficult times.

4- Wilful “disregard” for war-party Washington, not the United States and certainly not its people. Trump is desperate to make himself look intelligible, which is suicide for philosophy. Of the many things that the 37-year-old stalemate in relations demonstrates, one of them is Americans' shallow understanding of Iran and Iranians, who do not regard the US as an unfamiliar, hostile, and alien land. Iranians are savvy enough to debunk much of the corporate media they do receive. Americans are bombarded with misinformation and bias from Iran, the fake stories as powerful as they are ubiquitous. With few Iran issues treated with the depth they deserve, stereotypes are reinforced and existing perspectives hardened. It’s the new weapon of choice for war-party Washington to demonize Iran. 

5- Iran has lost tens of thousands of lives as a result of terrorism sponsored by the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia.

If Trump wants respect, it goes both ways. For this to happen, Trump has to stop upping the ante and lying to himself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lies comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for his administration in the international arena.

6- If Trump is serious about fighting terror, Iran is the best ally America can ever hope for in Iraq and Syria. It’s the real obvious: The terrorist groups of ISIL, Al-Qaeda, and their off-shoots are all enemies of Iran. The people of Iraq and Syria know full well who is “sending money all over the place and weapons;” it is the United States and its regional allies that are pushing for regime change in Baghdad and Damascus, not Iran. The people of Iraq and Syria regard the US and company as enemies, never potential partners in the ongoing fight against terror. Quite the contrary, they see Iran, Russia and Hezbollah as their allies.

In sum, the United States has been engaged in wars, occupations, and conflicts in at least seven Muslim countries. It has left failed states littered in the Greater Middle East, and spurred the spread of terrorist groups throughout the region and beyond – disregarding the lives of millions. It takes a lot of effort for the Trump administration to claim otherwise. At this point, beyond upping the ante against Iran, no one can predict just what force, set of groups, nation or nations, or even religion the Trumpsters might choose as the next “great threat to national security.”

If the past few days are any indication, when it comes to enemies, the Trumpsters won’t stop with Iran and Islam. They are intent on pouring money into the further “rebuilding” of a “depleted” US military. They play fill-in-the-blank at any moment, naming a new enemy as often as they wish. They are in a global war to the death, which they will lose, bringing even more ruin and “disregard” down on the United States.

America’s New Africa Strategy: US, China, and Economic Development

By Dan Steinbock 

John Bolton speaking at the International Students for Liberty
Conference in Washington, D.C., February 16, 2013 

Contrary to the new US Africa strategy, which seeks militarization and portrays China as a threat, Africa needs more cooperative economic development.

Recently, the White House released its new U.S. Africa strategy, which seeks militarization and portrays China as a threat. Both are misguided. Africa can greatly benefit from Chinese and U.S. economic development.

On December 13, 2018, U.S. National Security Adviser John Bolton gave a speech in the conservative Heritage Foundation about the Trump administration’s new “Africa strategy,” based on Trump’s ‘America First’ foreign policy doctrine.

In the United States, the media focus was on Bolton’s attack against U.S. adversaries and American aid. Specifically, Boston accused Russia and China of “predatory practices” in Africa.

In practice, the Trump administration’s Africa strategy implies militarization of U.S. activities in Africa to undermine Chinese economic contribution, which has effectively supported modernization and growth in the continent.Militarization of U.S. Africa Strategy

In 2017, the United States had a $39.0 billion in total goods trade with Sub-Saharan African countries and a trade deficit of $10.8 billion. America’s largest export markets were South Africa, Nigeria, Ghana, Ethiopia and Angola. In imports, Cote d’Ivoire and Botswana played a role as well.

In the past, U.S. Africa strategy focused mainly on economic cooperation and aid, and secondarily on military cooperation. In the new strategy, the focus areas have been reversed. The ‘America First’ Africa strategy purports to address three core U.S. interests in Africa:First, advancing U.S. trade and commercial ties with nations across the region to the benefit of both the United States and Africa… Second, countering the threat from Radical Islamic Terrorism and violent conflict… And third, we will ensure that U.S. taxpayer dollars for aid are used efficiently and effectively.

While the first core interest ostensibly involves economic dealings, it actually doesn’t. The Trump administration “wants our economic partners in the region to thrive,” but it downplays all economic efforts to boost African prosperity.

It is the second principle that’s the key to the new U.S. strategy. According to Bolton, “ISIS, al-Qaida, and their affiliates all operate and recruit on the African continent, plotting attacks against American citizens and targets.” The new strategy sees Africa mainly as a base of Islamic terrorism, which must be defused in the continent so that it will not threaten American interests.

Third, the new strategy will no longer support “unproductive, unsuccessful, and unaccountable U.N. peacekeeping missions.”

Moreover, the ‘America First’ stance portrays as adversarial the Chinese efforts to boost global economic integration through the One Road and Belt initiative in emerging and developing economies. China’s economic contribution is mainly an effort to “dominate the world.” As Bolton puts it: “[China’s] predatory actions are sub-components of broader Chinese strategic initiatives, including ‘One Belt, One Road’—a plan to develop a series of trade routes leading to and from China with the ultimate goal of advancing Chinese global dominance.”

Since economic facts do not support the Trump administration’s narrative, it relies increasingly on ideological trashing.

Chinese Economic Cooperation in Africa

Since the mid-2010s, Washington has accused China of “neocolonialism” in Africa. The misguided narrative seeks to reframe the eclipse of the commodity super-cycle, which caused a drastic fall in commodity prices, as another Chinese plot.

In 2016, the value of China-Africa trade was $128 billion, almost three times bigger than U.S. trade with the continent. The largest African exporters to China comprise Angola, South Africa and the Republic of Congo, whereas the largest buyers of Chinese goods include South Africa and Nigeria. The Sino-African trade increased rapidly some two decades until the fall of the commodity prices since 2014, when the bilateral trade peaked at $215 billion. Since then, the value of African exports to China has been penalized, even as Chinese exports to Africa have remained steady.

Meanwhile, U.S. investment in China has collapsed. U.S. FDI into Africa grew through the Bush years, when the White House still hoped to benefit from the impending industrialization in several African economies. But as the Obama administration presented its Africa vision in the early 2010s, U.S. FDI first plunged and then collapsed.

Chinese FDI and US FDI to Africa (flows), 2003-2015 (Source: UNCTAD; China Statistical Yearbook; Difference Group)

When the administration began its attack against Chinese initiatives last fall, these outbursts were preceded by President Xi Jinping’s speech in the 2018 Forum on China Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) where Xi pledged $60 billion to the continent in loans, grants, and development financing.

The new U.S. Africa strategy is largely dictated by the concern that China has become Africa’s largest economic partner. In contrast to Bolton’s fearful images of Chinese negative impact in Africa, leading business consultancies, including McKinsey, offer very different accounts. The former is based on ideological bashing without facts. The latter reflects simple economic analysis:

Bolton on the U.S. Africa Strategy:

China uses bribes, opaque agreements, and the strategic use of debt to hold states in Africa captive to Beijing’s wishes and demands. Its investment ventures are riddled with corruption, and do not meet the same environmental or ethical standards as U.S. developmental programs.

McKinsey on China in Africa:

The Chinese “dragons”—firms of all sizes and sectors—are bringing capital investment, management know-how, and entrepreneurial energy to every corner of the continent—and in so doing, they are helping to accelerate the progress of Africa’s “lions,” as its economies are often referred to.

In the past two decades, Africa-China trade has been growing at some 20% per year. FDI has grown twice as fast in the past decade. McKinsey estimates China’s financial flows to Africa are 15% higher than official figures when non-traditional flows are included. China is also a large and fast-growing source of aid and the largest source of construction financing, which support Africa’s ambitious infrastructure developments.

But is Chinese infrastructure investment in Africa a threat to U.S. interests, really?

U.S., China, and Africa: Two Scenarios

Ever since the release of the U.S. administration’s new 2017 National Security Strategy, China has been perceived as America’s “adversary” rather than a partner: “For decades, U.S. policy was rooted in the belief that support for China’s rise and for its integration into the post-war international order would liberalize China.”

The new Africa strategy is actually based on the old neoconservative Wolfowitz Doctrine, which in the early ‘90s deems that the American goal must be “to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere that poses a threat.” That’s why the White House sees its China ties mainly in win-lose terms.

But there is another future scenario that sees the multipolar world economy as a strength rather than a liability. It is predicated on more stable, global prospects as developing economies focus on economic development, instead of militarization. Unlike the U.S. Africa strategy, the multipolar scenario would not foster “major power competition” in Africa. Rather, it supports a win-win scenario, in which both America and China would trade and invest, and provide development aid to African economies. That would accelerate modernization and industrialization across the continent and thus living standards. With rising prosperity, terror would diminish.

The multipolar scenario would fulfill the three U.S. core interests in Africa and foster triangular economic ties among the U.S., China and Africa, while intensifying modernization in the continent.  In contrast, the old new U.S. Africa strategy has potential to undermine such futures.

Dan Steinbock

Dr Dan Steinbock is an internationally recognized strategist of the multipolar world. and the founder of Difference Group. He has served at the India, China and America Institute (USA) , the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (China) and the EU Center (Singapore).

Barbaric Saudis from sword to saw

New York, Nov 18, IRNA – A primitive, alien-to-civilization mafia rules Saudi Arabia that has recently changed its tool of barbarity from sword to saw, said Iran's representative at the United Nations General Assembly Third Committee in response to the Saudi representative's speech.

'A shred of decency should have made Saudis keep quiet and not lecture Iranians on human rights. However, seeking decency in the barbaric Saudi that has recently changed its tool of choice from sword to saw has proven to be unrealistic,' said Mohammadi Hassaninejad in response to Abdullah Al Moallemi.

Saying that the Saudis kill any chance for democracy in the Middle East and the human rights and democracy are the biggest enemies of Saudi corrupt rulers, Hassaninejad said, 'A government that considers a bus full of students as a legitimate target can only resemble one evil, ISIS,' which is actually 'an offshoot of Saudi extremism.'

'ISIS TAKE CHILDREN HOSTAGE IN SYRIA AND ITS MENTOR Saudi KILLS THEM IN Yemen: The apple doesn't fall far from the tree!'

Regarding the similarities between the two villainous entities, he said that only ISIS and Saudis 'can call a bus full of students a legitimate target', 'behead peaceful opponents', 'find their strength in stirring sectarianism', 'can call everyone not thinking similar to them infidel', 'wipe out what has left from other traditions and cultures and call them heretic'.

And that's because they are coming from the same mindset: 'Saudi born Wahhabism have nurtured Al-Qaeda, Taliban, ISIS and the rest of the major terror groups around the world.'

Saying that it shouldn't be surprising that all of these terrorists groups 'received logistical, political and financial support from Saudis', he added, 'Isn't it expressive enough that ISIS educated its people in rank with books authored by the founder of Saudi takfiri school of thought?'

'Saudi is nothing but a well-documented repressive bully, a primitive tribal mafia, a corrupt oligarchy that is currently committing genocide in Yemen and repressing hopes for human rights and democracy in the whole region.'

He reminisced the last year meeting in which Iran 'welcomed Saudi to civilization' because they had finally 'allowed women to sit behind the wheels'. 

'Now that the women who called for that basic right are sitting behind the bars instead of the wheels that congratulatory remark seems to be premature. It looks premature as Saudi bombs bus full of students and shamelessly calls it a legitimate target. It looks premature as Saudi brutally butchers renowned journalists and peaceful critics. It looks premature as a simple harmless tweet [from Canada] receives a vicious backlash. It looks premature as peaceful dissidents are still facing beheading. So I have to withdraw that congratulatory statement. The primitive mafia that rules Saudi is alien to civilization.'

Long List of Saudi War Crimes in Yemen

Clown Prince’s US and UK coalition rack up war crimes

By Yusuf Dhia-Allah

The Saudi-led war on Yemen has now gone on for more than 42 months. The so-called Arabian coalition that the Saudis had assembled to subdue Yemen has all but melted away with the exception of the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Sudan and Jordan abandoned the war and have slunk away. Others such as Pakistan and Egypt had more sense not to get involved at all. The Saudis are now relying increasingly on the US and Britain for air refueling, target selection, and logistical support.

They have also turned to mercenaries from South America and Africa to prosecute the ground war. There are mercenaries from Colombia and Senegal as well as Blackwater operatives. Additionally, the Saudis are relying increasingly on al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula to help them fight the Ansarallah fighters.

After three and a half years of a relentless bombing campaign, the Saudis are nowhere near achieving any of their military or political objectives. The war has exposed Saudi incompetence on a grand scale even if they have caused massive civilian casualties and inflicted immense infrastructure damage.

Let us first consider what their military and political objectives were. The Saudis launched their war on March 26, 2015. The announcement was made not in Riyadh but in Washington, DC. ‘Adil al-Jubayr who served as Saudi ambassador to the US at the time and is rumored to be gay, made the announcement at the Kingdom’s embassy in Washington, DC. This was a clear signal that the war had America’s blessings (al-Jubayr currently serves as Saudi foreign minister while Khalid bin Salman, the king’s young son, is ambassador to the court of King Donald Trump!).

The Saudis thought they would easily and quickly crush the Houthi-backed Ansarallah fighters — who had liberated Sana‘a, the Yemeni capital — and reinstall their puppet ‘Abd Rabbu Manßur Hadi. He had already fled the capital and sought refuge in Riyadh. Hadi was installed in power after the Saudis forced the former long-time president ‘Ali ‘Abdullah Salih to resign. Salih was summoned to Riyadh in February 2012 and ordered by then Saudi King ‘Abdullah to sign a paper confirming his resignation (Salih was killed in a Saudi air strike last year).

The Saudis have made a habit of summoning foreign rulers to Riyadh and ordering them to resign. The latest example of this was the Lebanese Prime Minister Sa‘d Hariri who underwent a similar experience in November 2017 only to reappear in Beirut via France saying he was withdrawing his resignation.

Salih’s February 2012 resignation, however, did not improve the situation in Yemen as far as the Saudis are concerned. With the Ansarallah fighters making steady gains against Hadi’s forces and taking over Sana‘a in 2014 (that they still control), the Saudis were forced to get involved directly. This occurred soon after King ‘Abdullah died and was succeeded by half-brother, Salman in January 2015.

Salman immediately appointed his young and reckless son Muhammad as defence minister and also gave him charge of court affairs (court secretary controlling access to the king). Muhammad bin Salman (MbS as he is commonly known) thought he would establish his credentials as a warrior prince by attacking dirt-poor Yemen, which he thought he would subdue in a matter of weeks, if not sooner.

While the old King Salman concentrated more and more power in the hands of his impetuous son, first making him deputy crown prince and then elevating him to the position of crown prince, he also made him in charge of Aramco and the Kingdom’s overall economic policy. Bin Salman has made a mess of everything. Apart from making grandiose pronouncements, he has achieved little of substance. The economy is not doing too well; foreign workers have been forced to leave and the war on Yemen has gone nowhere even if it has resulted in the killing of thousands of innocent people as well as the starvation of millions of others.

It is being called the “worst humanitarian crisis in the world”: nearly 80% of Yemen’s population is food insecure; millions are now enduring a famine. The situation has grown even worse since late-2017, when Saudi Arabia enacted a near-complete blockade on its borders with Yemen, making it nearly impossible for anyone to import food, water, and medical supplies. In addition to the humanitarian crisis, Yemen is facing an environmental catastrophe. Nearly 90% of the country is classified as arid or desert. Water was already scarce, but now with the war raging with no end in sight, what little agriculture the poor country had will no longer be feasible.

Here are some grim statistics about Yemen that are the direct result of the Saudi-led war. Since the Saudis and their allies have imposed a tight siege on Yemen preventing food and desperately needed medicines, a cholera epidemic rages in the country that the UN has called the worst epidemic in history. More than one million children are affected. On September 18, the British charity, Save the Children said at least 5.2 million Yemeni children faced starvation as a result of Saudi attacks on Hudaydah, the only entry point for food into the country that is not controlled by Saudi allied forces.

So far more than 13,000 Yemenis, mostly civilians, have been killed and several hundred thousand injured. The UN estimates that 22.3 million of Yemen’s 24 million people are food deficient and on the verge of starvation, “The conflict has made Yemen a living hell for its children,” Meritxell Relano, Unicef Representative in Yemen, said on September 13. She further revealed that more than 11 million children, or about 80% of the country’s population under the age of 18, were facing the threat of food shortages, disease, displacement, and acute lack of access to basic social services.

“An estimated 1.8 million children are malnourished in the country. Nearly 400,000 of them are severely acute malnourished and they are fighting for their lives every day,” said Ms. Relano.

Frustrated by lack of progress on the military front, the Saudis have resorted to indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas. Factories, hospitals, schools, markets, and homes have been bombed and destroyed. Even funeral processions have not been spared. And in a more recent outrage, on August 9, the Saudis fired a missile at a school bus killing 40 children instantly and injuring many others in Yemen’s northern Sadaa province.

Most Saudi attacks constitute war crimes and Bin Salman could be hauled before a war crimes tribunal to face war crime charges one day. As the Kingdom’s defence minister and de facto ruler, he is personally and directly responsible for such crimes.

As a result of Saudi war crimes, several European countries have cancelled weapons contracts with the Saudis. These include Sweden, Germany, and Norway. They have all said they would not supply weapons to a regime that may be committing war crimes. Still, other major arms suppliers like the US, Britain, and France continue to sell weapons to the Bedouins.

Even two-bit player Canada is in on the act and is supplying $15 billion worth of weapons. The deal was signed by the former Conservative regime of Stephen Harper in 2014 but the “sunny ways” Liberal government of Justin Trudeau has not seen fit to cancel the deal despite growing calls within Canada to do so. There have been protests in different cities demanding cancellation of the deal. The most recent one was held on September 8 outside the Toronto constituency office of Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland. Canadian media outlets have also carried detailed reports about the Kingdom’s gross human rights abuses.

So far Ottawa has not canceled the arms deal even though the Bedouins reacted angrily to a tweet from Ms. Freeland that was mildly critical of Saudi mistreatment of female human rights activists. The Bedouins thought they would make an example of Canada seeing it as a soft target. This was an opportunity for Canada to stand up for its principles but it failed.

Such failure will cost Canada dearly. The Saudis have failed to win the war in Yemen; the regime is facing internal opposition and its economy is rapidly declining. These are signs of an impending collapse.

Syria – UN, US Try to Delay Idlib's Liberation

Moon of Alabama

The United Nations Special Envoy for Syria, Staffan de Mistura and his Special Advisor, Jan Egeland, held a press conference (vid) today. They appealed to the Russian President Putin and President Erdogan of Turkey to find a solution for Idleb province that would avoid the upcoming Syrian army attack on the province ruled by al-Qaeda.

De Mistura claimed that there are 2.9 million civilians in the area. That number is nonsense. In 2011 Idleb governorate had a population of 1.5 million. Several hundred thousands of those, Christians, Alawites, government employees, soldiers and their families, fled when in 2015 al-Qaeda and its Free Syrian Army allies attacked and occupied it. Some new people, 10-20,000 Chinese Uyghurs as well as other foreign Jihadis, arrived. But their total numbers were in the ten thousands, not in the hundred thousands. When in 2017 the Syrian army liberated Aleppo and then east-Ghouta and other areas, about 50,000 people in total asked to be put on buses and to be shipped off to Idleb. The total number of people in the province and the attached areas held by the Jihadis must be well under 2 million.

As for the number of terrorists in Idleb de Mistura only spoke of some 10,000 of the al-Qaeda aligned Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the former Jabhat Al-Nusra Front. But the total number of radical Jihadists in the governorate is much larger. There are two large groups of "rebels" in Idleb.

Turkey’s favourite is the NLF, which is led by Fadlallah al-Hajji, a Muslim Brotherhood ally. The NLF includes Turkey-friendly Islamists like Ahrar al-Sham, the Noureddine al-Zengi Brigades, Failaq al-Sham, Jaish al-Ahrar, and groups that fought under the Free Syrian Army banner, like the Victory Army and the 2ndCoastal Division.

Big but brittle, the NLF is held together by Turkish sponsorship and shared enemies: al-Assad’s government, Syrian Kurdish groups, and hardline jihadists.

These ain't your friendly neighbors but brutal Islamists. Ahrar al Sham is a recognized terrorist group founded by a senior al-Qaeda veteran. The al-Zengi brigades became famous when they published a video which showed them beheading a wounded 12 year old boy.

The second, larger, and even more brutal group is the alliance around HTS under its leader Abu Mohammed al-Golani. It includes several thousand Uyghur and Chechen fighters:

Some of al-Golani’s jihadist critics, many of whom are Jordanians and Palestinians, have gathered in a pro-al-Qaeda splinter faction known as Hurras al-Deen...

Hurras al-Deen is accompanied by a number of small foreign-led factions close to Tahrir al-Sham, including the Chechens of Junoud al-Sham. The so-called Islamic State also operates clandestine cells in the area, hunted by both the NLF and Tahrir al-Sham.

Jaish al-Ezzah, a Free Syrian Army-flagged faction based near Hama, has not joined the Turkish-backed NLF like many of its former comrades. Some see the group as a covert Tahrir al-Sham ally...

In the western part of the enclave, Jisr al-Shughour has emerged as a stronghold of the Turkestan Islamic Party, TIP, a group of Uyghur Chinese jihadists.

HTS and other Jihadis have rejected Turkish requests to dissolve themselves. When the liberation of Idleb starts the Turkish influenced NLF will join HTS and other Jihadis in the fight:

[T]o the Syrian government, Idlib’s rebels are all terrorists pure and simple – and the Idlib fighters themselves also see al-Assad as their primary enemy, transcending factional divides. Aba-Zeid insisted that if Russia green-lights a Syrian government offensive on Idlib, no matter how the various groups view Turkey or each other, they would all “prioritise repelling the attack”.

Mustafa Sejari, a leader in the Ankara-backed Moutassem Brigade, agreed. “This is the last fortress of the Syrian opposition and preserving it is everyone’s obligation,” he said.

HTS and its allies must have some 15-25,000 fighters, the groups aligned with Turkey may have a slightly lower number, some are locals and they are probably less willing to fight. In total the Syrian army is likely to face a force of some 30-45,000 capable and willing fighters.

What these groups currently lack is the supply of weapons and ammunition. In August 2018 not one anti-tank guided missiles was used against the Syrian army. The U.S. officially ended its supplies for the "rebels". The Gulf states have washed their hands over Idelb. It is no longer their fight. Turkey also seems to have stopped weapon supplies. Without constant resupply of anti-tank weapons and especially artillery ammunition the "rebel" groups will soon run out of the basic necessities for waging war.

But their are still voiced who call for further arming the Jihadis. The "eminent scholar" and warmonger Anthony Cordesman of CSIS just advised to re-up such supplies:

If anything, the U.S. should begin now to evaluate the kind of aid it might give any renewed Sunni or other rebels faction both now in Idlib or later.

This is in line with the idea of U.S. administration officials who want to "create quagmires" for Syria and Russia.

The New York Times did its best to push for that with an op-ed of some "democratic" Jihadi fan-girl and a propagandistic "news" piece on Idleb that took the reader to the 21st paragraphs to learn that the province is ruled by al-Qaeda:

H.T.S. has controlled much of Idlib since 2015, acting as de facto governmental authority, facilitating trade across the long border with Turkey and organizing aid deliveries.

The "de-facto governmental authority" HTS is known to publicly execute women accused of adultery. It "facilitates trade" by taxing it to finance its terrorist activities. It "organizing aid deliveries" by talking half of any aid that is brought in. That is the reason why the Inspector General of USAID recently shut down its aid program in Idleb.

If the U.S. wants to "create a quagmire" in Idleb it will need Turkish support to restart its arming of the terrorists. Today U.S. emissaries arrived in Ankara likely to offer a deal:

United States Special Envoy for Syria James Jeffrey held talks with Defense Minister Hulusi Akar and Deputy Foreign Minister Sedat Önal in the Turkish capital on Sept. 4.

Jeffrey had served as the U.S. Ambassador to Ankara between the years of 2008 and 2010 and thus have great knowledge on the importance of Turkish-American ties...

The top three issues in regards to the current situation on Syrian soil that Turkish officials discussed with Jeffrey were the looming Idlib operation by Syria-Russia, delays in the implementation of the Manbij deal and efforts to speed up political settlement in Syria.

On Idlib, Turkey and the U.S. are on the same page and have expressed that a massive operation into the overpopulated province would create an unprecedented humanitarian tragedy if civilians are not separated from terrorists. Both countries think al-Nusra and affiliated groups should be eliminated but this should be done carefully and without civilian casualties.

The de Mistura press conference today made the same point and was likely coordinated with these talks.

But neither de Mistura nor James Jeffrey nor any Turkish official have presented an idea of how to achieve that. Turkey was given several month to solve the Jihadist problem in Idleb by talks. It tried and failed.

The current situation can not continue. It is unconscionable to leave the 1-2 million civilians in Syria under the rule of al-Qaeda. HTS is just now arresting hundreds of civilians who want to reconcile with the government. It builds gallows as warning to not talk to the government. It executes those who do and publishes pictures of it.

Two UN Security Council resolutions demand to fight the "Al-Nusra Front (ANF), and all other individuals, groups, undertakings, and entities associated with Al Qaeda or ISIL, and other terrorist groups" and "to eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Syria ...".

How is that supposed to be done without fighting them? Will the U.S. offer to resettle HTS and the other Jihadis in Wyoming? Will Turkey give them apartments in Antalya? No? Then what?

U.S. President Trump added another warning against the Idelb operation:

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump - 22:20 utc - 3 Sep 2018

President Bashar al-Assad of Syria must not recklessly attack Idlib Province. The Russians and Iranians would be making a grave humanitarian mistake to take part in this potential human tragedy. Hundreds of thousands of people could be killed. Don’t let that happen!

(Note: Instead of the "animal Assad" Trump used in an earlier tweet he now properly addressed Syria's president.)

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Dunford, also chipped in:

“We don’t see any way that significant military operations are going to be beneficial to the people of Syria,” Dunford told reporters during a trip to Athens. “If major military operations take place we can expect humanitarian catastrophe and I think we would all want to see that be avoided,” ...

Pressed about the best course, Dunford said: “More of a discussion between the Turks, the Syrians and the Russians at more precise counterterrorism operations — as opposed to large scale conventional operations — would be the right approach.”

The U.S. is not a friend of the people of Syria. If it gives advice the Syrian government and its allies should do the opposite. Any delay of the liberation of Idleb will strengthen their enemy. They should launch the operation as soon as possible.

Today the Syrian army began to prepare the battlefield for the upcoming fight. Some 30 bombing attacks were flown by the Syrian and Russian air force. The targets were depots and headquarters of the Jihadis. Removing their supplies is the easiest way to shorten the fight and to thereby prevent unnecessary civilian casualties.