Sino/Russian Solidarity with Iran

by Stephen Lendman

The world community should, but hasn't, followed Sino/Russian support for Iran's sovereign rights, a few exceptions aside.

EU nations partner with Washington's hegemonic agenda. Second deputy chairman of Iran's National Security and Foreign Policy Parliament Commission Mohammad Javad Jamali slammed Brussels, saying:

Britain, France, Germany, and other EU nations lack commitment to the JCPOA, "not from their inability but from their lack of determination. They share the same viewpoint (as) the United States on Iran in terms of strategic issues" - while pretending to support the JCPOA they effectively abandoned by their policy choices. 

Jamali believes EU countries want to withdraw from the nuclear deal, then wrongfully blame Iran for their action, how things may turn out ahead  - showing Europe's support for the deal all along was pure illusion.

China and Russia adhere to JCPOA provisions. They oppose foreign interference in Iran's internal affairs by the Trump regime, an international law breach. More on this below.

Things heading for possible war will be catastrophic for the Islamic Republic and region if launched, why it's crucial for European and other world community nations to oppose joining a US coalition for war on a nation at peace with its neighbors, threatening no one.

Most congressional members and US public sentiment oppose war on Iran. A Harvard CAPS/Harris poll found 78% of Americans believe no US military action in response to Iran's (legal) downing of a Pentagon drone (illegally) in its airspace was the right policy choice.

Most Americans oppose war on Iran preemptively. A majority also disapprove of Trump regime relations with the country. 

Only 5% of respondents want the White House to declare war on Iran - an illegal act if not authorized by Security Council members.

Under the UN Charter, it's only permissible in response to being attacked, or if aggression is clearly imminent, never preemptively for any reason with no allowed exceptions, how all US wars were launched in the post-WW II era - against nations posing no threat to the US or anyone else.

US-stoked tensions with Iran are more intense than any time since its 1979 revolution because of the Trump regime's rage to return the country to US client state status, along with gaining control over its world's 4th largest proved oil reserves, a prize Washington covets.

Last week, Trump regime envoy for regime change in Iran Brian Hook said the US will sanction any countries and enterprises buying Iranian oil, adding "(t)here are right now no oil waivers in place."

Calling Iranian oil sales "illicit" defies international law while ignoring illegal US sanctions on the country, why no nations and enterprises should respect them.

China's Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang slammed unlawful Trump regime "maximum pressure" on Iran, calling it "the root cause of the current fraught tensions."

Beijing continues to buy Iranian oil it greatly values, refusing to go along with illegal US sanctions. Russia's Foreign Ministry commented as follows about unacceptable Trump regime pressure on Iran, saying:

"Moscow has watched with concern as the US has ratcheted up tensions around Iran for over a year," adding: 

"Leveling baseless charges and withdrawing from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Washington has steadily piled on massive sanction pressure and taken actions, including actions of a military nature, intended to provoke Iran, while demanding unwarranted concessions of it, up to and including the de facto abandonment of its absolutely legitimate interests in international affairs, despite the fact that Iran's nuclear activities are exclusively peaceful and fully supervised by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)."

US actions show it's "intent on burning bridges" with Iran, one of many "example(s) of the continued US propensity to dictate its will to sovereign states." 

"Imagining itself to be the master of the fate of the world, it adopts increasingly aggressive policies and is quick to 'punish' those who refuse to submit to (its) dictates."

"Russia stands in full solidarity with the friendly people of Iran and its government." 

The Trump regime "should consider where such a reckless course of action might lead. Not only (is it) destabiliz(ing) the Middle East, it threatens to undermine the entire system of international security."

The above remarks are usually candid about Washington's imperial agenda. Its rage to rule the world could end up destroying it.

It's already threatened with ecocide because of reckless industrial policies, endorsed in the West and elsewhere.

If the Trump regime attacks Iran preemptively, the Islamic Republic will hit back hard.

If Russia intervenes to aid Iran as it did to combat US-supported terrorists in Syria, things could spin out of control, turning regional war into a global conflict.

If nuclear weapons are used for the first time in earnest, enough detonations could hasten humanity's demise far faster than environmental degradation.

Either way we're all doomed if reckless policies aren't checked and halted. No evidence suggests things may turn out this way - just the opposite. 

US hegemonic rage and lack of world community ecosanity are humanity's greatest threats.

Pres. Rouhani: Iran-Russia ties exceptional in region

In meeting with Russian President

Iran's President described Tehran-Moscow relations exceptional in the region in all economic, political and international fields, emphasising, “Today, with foreign interference in regional affairs and the United States’ illegal sanctions, which have made problems for stability and cooperation, development of Tehran-Moscow relations is very important for both countries and stability and development of the region”. 

AhlulBayt News Agency (ABNA): Iran's President described Tehran-Moscow relations exceptional in the region in all economic, political and international fields, emphasising, “Today, with foreign interference in regional affairs and the United States’ illegal sanctions, which have made problems for stability and cooperation, development of Tehran-Moscow relations is very important for both countries and stability and development of the region”. 

Speaking in a meeting with President Vladimir Putin of Russia on Friday on the sidelines of the 19th Summit of Shanghai Cooperation Organisation in Bishkek, President Hassan Rouhani said that Tehran and Moscow are on the same side in regional and international communities. 

“Implementation of economic agreements between the two countries, particularly in the fields of energy and transportation, has got a good pace and the meeting of the joint commission for cooperation that is going to be held in Tehran next week will accelerate this process,” he said. 

Pointing out that supporting the cooperation of the two countries’ private sectors will accelerate the process of developing trade relations, the president said, "By adopting the law on trade with Eurasia in the parliament, we will provide the preparations as soon as possible, which will accelerate business cooperation”. 

Dr Rouhani also emphasised, "In addition to its illegal withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the United States is imposing sanctions on companies and countries that want to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231”. 

"If the interests of the Iranian nation are met by the other parties, it is possible for us to return to the previous point," the president said, emphasising that Iran's actions are within the framework of its rights. 

Dr Rouhani described Russia's role in safeguarding the JCPOA and fulfilment of Europe’s commitments very important, and stated, “Iran has always supported the stability and security of the region and has proved its determination by fighting ISIS in the region as well as proposing a regional non-conflict agreement”. 

"In the case of Syria, we are also keen on continuing our good, effective bilateral cooperation on countering terrorism within the framework of the Astana Process with Turkey until we reach the final result," the president said. 

The Russian President said in the meeting that Moscow is determined to develop bilateral, regional and international cooperation with Iran, adding, “This cooperation will cover a wide range of economic and regional activities, particularly the joint fight against terrorism in the region”. 

Vladimir Putin emphasised, “The achievements we see today in Syria are the result of the positive role of Iran and the tripartite cooperation of Russia, Iran and Turkey in the Astana Process”. 

Putin continued, “Despite the existing problems, the two countries' trade relations are developing, and in the coming days, the Joint Commission on Cooperation between the two countries will be held in Tehran”. 

The Russian President added, “Moscow remains interested in being present and investing in the energy sector and is committed to cooperating in a wide range of areas of interest to the two countries, as well as promoting the implementation of agreements on the construction of new units in the Bushehr Power Plant and rail transport”. 

He went on to describe Iran's living up to the JCPOA, saying, “Moscow will continue its efforts for full implementation of the agreement by all parties”. 

Does Trump Lie to Say ‘We Have Defeated ISIS in Syria’?

ERIC ZUESSE

At 11:52AM on Wednesday, December 19th, CBS News headlined "White House orders Pentagon to pull troops from Syria immediately”and reported that, “Rep. Adam Kinzinger, a veteran of the US Air Force who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and now serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said it's ‘simply not true’ [which Trump, had said there, that] ISIS is defeated in Syria.” CBS News didn’t indicate which political Party Kinzinger represents, but he is a Republican, and he represents the rural Illinois 16th Congressional District, where Donald Trump had beaten Hillary Clinton by a 17% margin in 2016. So, Kinzinger is an anti-Trump Republican on this matter. He’s credible about that, not partisan about it. 

Who is telling the truth, Trump’s “We have defeated ISIS in Syria” or Kinzinger’s contrary, and what explains the contradiction between the accounts by Trump and Kinzinger?

As the CBS News report says, “Two weeks ago, Special Envoy Brett McGurk said the end of ISIS will be a long-term initiative, and "nobody is declaring mission accomplished.” CBS's report, however, fails to note that McGurk is an Obama appointee and has been consistently dedicated to America’s defeating Russia and replacing the leadership in all nations that are allied with (or even friendly toward) Russia, including, most especially, Syria and Iran.

At a deeper level, the question is: Which nations are primarily the cause of the considerable reduction in ISIS forces in Syria? If ISIS has been defeated in Syria, then, nonetheless, is it true for Trump to claim, “We have defeated ISIS in Syria,” or is the United States not even the main force which has done that?

On 30 September 2015, CNN headlined “Russia launches first airstrikes in Syria” and reported that, “Claiming to target ISIS, Russia conducted its first airstrikes in Syria, while US officials expressed serious doubts Wednesday about what the true intentions behind the move may be.” The next day, on October 1st, PBS bannered "Mike Morell, former deputy director of the CIA, talks about why Russia deployed airstrikes in Syria”, and Morell, who had always been speaking and writing against Russia and against any Government that is at all allied with Russia, said: "President Putin believes that if President Assad were to depart the scene, there would be even more instability in Syria and, with that greater instability, ISIS would have more running room, and you could actually end up with ISIS in Damascus. So that is the primary reason he's doing what he is doing. Now, the question is why doesn’t he just attack [only] ISIS then because President Assad is under attack from a variety of different groups? ISIS is one, al-Nusra [Al Qaeda in Syria] is one, and the moderate opposition is another. So in order to prop up Assad to keep him in control, to make sure you don’t have more instability, he wants to attack all of those groups, right. But his fundamental focus is on ISIS.” But, then, he argued for US President Barack Obama’s position, against Russia’s bombing campaign in Syria: “If we were to have a transition from Assad to another government that everybody can agree on, then we’re actually going to have more stability in Syria. And I think the President probably argued that as long as Assad is around, he is a magnet for fighters to join ISIS, to join al-Nusra to fight Assad. And you can’t ultimately defeat ISIS and defeat al-Nusra without getting rid of President Assad in the process.” So: Morell acknowledged that Putin’s main target was ISIS, but Morell said that Obama was correct to oppose Russia’s bombing campaign there, because “you can't ultimately defeat ISIS and defeat al-Nusra without getting rid of President Assad in the process.” Then, he said, of Putin, “this guy is a thug. This guy is a bully.” But he said that, unfortunately, America must deal with that “bully”: “"first thing we have to convince the Russians of is that you can’t successfully deal with ISIS and al-Nusra without Assad going away. We have to be able to convince them of that. We really believe that. We really believe that. We really believe that he is a magnet for drawing people to ISIS and to al-Nusra.” He was saying that Assad had caused ISIS, which was trying to overthrow and replace him.

Then, on 9 October 2015, investigative journalist Tony Cartalucci bannered “The Mystery of ISIS’ Toyota Army Solved” and he documented that ISIS had gotten its Toyota pickup trucks from the US-backed Free Syrian Army, whom Obama called moderate rebels. Whether the FSA had ever had those trucks wasn’t known.

Then, on 14 October 2015, the Financial Times bannered ”Isis Inc: how oil fuels the jihadi terrorists” and reported that, “Oil is the black gold that funds Isis’ black flag — it fuels its war machine, provides electricity and gives the fanatical jihadis critical leverage against their neighbours. … Selling crude is Isis’ biggest single source of revenue. … While al-Qaeda, the global terrorist network, depended on donations from wealthy foreign sponsors, Isis has derived its financial strength from its status as monopoly producer of an essential commodity consumed in vast quantities throughout the area it controls.”

Then, on 16 November 2015, the New York Times bannered “US Warplanes Strike ISIS Oil Trucks in Syria” and reported that, “United States warplanes for the first time attacked hundreds of trucks on Monday that the extremist group [ISIS] has been using to smuggle the crude oil it has been producing in Syria, American officials said. … Until Monday, the United States refrained from striking the fleet used to transport oil, believed to include more than 1,000 tanker trucks.”

Two days later, on November 18th, the Pentagon said at a press conference, that “This is our first strike against tanker trucks” of ISIS.

Moreover, on November 24th, Zero Hedge bannered “'Get Out Of Your Trucks And Run Away’: US Gives ISIS 45 Minute Warning On Oil Tanker Strikes” and reported that the US Government were doing this oil-tanker-truck bombing only for show, because Russia had actually started the serious effort to conquer ISIS in Syria, and so the US needed to do something, for PR purposes.

Yet, further evidence also exists that the US Government supported ISIS against Syria’s Government: 

On 24 March 2013, the New York Times bannered “Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With Aid From C.I.A.”, and reported that “From offices at secret locations, American intelligence officers have helped the Arab governments shop for weapons,” and that “‘A conservative estimate of the payload of these flights would be 3,500 tons of military equipment,’ said Hugh Griffiths, of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, who monitors illicit arms transfers.” The US Government tried to hide its involvement in this, by doing it through allied “Arab governments,” which were named in this news-report: “Qatar and Saudi Arabia had been shipping military materials via Turkey,” and all four of these Governments (US, Sauds, Turkey, and Qatar) were trying to overthrow Syria’s Government. Then, on 8 September 2014, AFP headlined “Islamic State fighters using US arms: study”, and they reported that the US Government was supplying ISIS. On 1 September 2017, Russian Television reported that the US Government was secretly supplying weapons to ISIS and that an anti-Assad fighter had even quit the CIA-backed New Syrian Army because of that.

US President Barack Obama started the US policy to arm ISIS, and it was continued under the current US President.

There is considerable other evidence that the US Government has invaded, and been occupying, parts of Syria, solely in order to replace Syria’s Government by one that would be controlled by the Saud family, who own Saudi Arabia.

It is definitely a lie for Trump to say: “We have defeated ISIS in Syria.”

A big turn in these events had been the failed 15 July 2015 coup-attempt, to overthrow Turkey’s Government, and which Turkey’s President, Tayyip Erdogan, says was engineered by the Gulen organization headquartered in the US, which is connected to and protected by the CIA. After July 15th, Turkey increasingly has allied with Russia’s Government, against America’s Government.

The present withdrawal of the US Government from Syria is actually due to the success of Vladimir Putin’s and Tayyip Erdogan’s plan (which I described on 10 September 2018, and which they jointly announced a week later, on September 17th) for Turkey to handle the military task of conquering the jihadists in Syria’s Idlib province and of Turkey’s forces then moving eastward to compel the US Government to end its occupation of northeastern Syria — that nation’s crucial oil-producing region. If Russia’s troops, instead of Turkey’s, were to do that task, it would risk bringing on a US-Russia war, but, since Turkey is still in NATO, that danger doesn’t exist when Turkish troops and armor (backed by Russian air-power) do that highly sensitive job.

Instead of “We have defeated ISIS in Syria,” the truth, from the US Government, would be “We have been defeated in Syria.” However, Putin (and Erdogan, and maybe even Assad) will not be crowing about their victory. Syria’s Government has successfully resisted the US Government’s effort, since 2009, to replace Syria’s Government by one that would be controlled by the Sauds.

ERIC ZUESSE

American writer and investigative historian

Why is Israel tossing a lifeline to Jamal Khashoggi’s killers?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attends a weekly cabinet meeting at his office in Jerusalem on Oct. 7. (Abir Sultan/AP)

By Jackson Diehl

Deputy Editorial Page Editor

As Saudi Arabia’s Mohammed bin Salman tries to escape consequences for the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, it has been revealing to see who has stepped forward to help him out. There have been fellow Arab dictators, such as Egypt’s Abdel Fatah al-Sissi. There have been cynical opportunists, like Russia’s Vladi­mir Putin.

Then there’s Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of a nation whose right to exist has yet to be recognized by Saudi Arabia. You wouldn’t think Israel, in contrast to every Western democracy, would be explicitly endorsing a latter-day version of Saddam Hussein — a man so toxic that even K Street lobbyists are rejecting his money. And yet Netanyahu is emerging as Mohammed bin Salman’s friend-in-need.

For a month after Khashoggi disappeared inside the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul, the Israeli government was conspicuously silent. Then, a day or two after it was reported that Netanyahu had phoned the White House to lobby for Mohammed, he spoke up: While “what happened in the Istanbul consulate was horrendous, and should be duly dealt with,” he said, “it’s very important for the stability of the world . . . that Saudi Arabia remain stable.”

In case there is some doubt what it means to “duly deal” with the strangling and dismemberment of a journalist by a team of 15 thugs, Israel’s ambassador in Washington, Ron Dermer, was more clear: It means, he said, that the United States should “not throw out the prince with the bathwater.”

Why throw a lifeline to this killer? For Netanyahu, the Khashoggi crisis threatens to undo a carefully constructed regional strategy built around the 33-year-old Saudi crown prince — and President Trump. The idea is to forge a de facto alliance between Israel and the Middle East’s new generation of Sunni dictators, united against Iran — and to enlist the United States to provide muscle. As a side benefit, Mohammed would support a Trump Middle East peace plan that, while yet to be unveiled, seems to amount to coercing Palestinians into accepting Israel’s terms.

Until Khashoggi’s disappearance, everything was going smoothly: Trump withdrew from the nuclear deal with Iran and restored economic sanctions;cut off U.S. aid to Palestinian refugees in Gaza while moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem; and resumed U.S. support for a Saudi bombing campaign against Iranian-backed rebels in Yemen that has killed tens of thousands of civilians. Netanyahu was meanwhile invited to visit Oman, aSaudi ally.

Netanyahu also has made a show of identifying himself with Trump. He has been the Mike Pence of the Middle East; he even called out CNN for “fake news.” When Trump visited Tree of Life synagogue following the Pittsburgh massacre, against the wishes of local leaders, just one official was there to welcome him: Dermer. Naftali Bennett, a Netanyahu cabinet member who also flew in, spent the next few days vigorously defending Trump against charges that his support for white nationalism had encouraged U.S. anti-Semites. On the eve of the midterm elections, Bennett, who aspires to succeed Netanyahu, took to Twitter to heap still more praise on the president — in English — for “Making The Ayatollahs Scared Again.”

Of course, Israel has a long history of cultivating nasty dictators, as well as occupants of the Oval Office. Netanyahu’s problem is that in betting so heavily on Mohammed and Trump, he took a large risk with two very unstable actors, each of whom has polarized their political systems. If Mohammed survives — something that for now seems more likely than not, given that the Trump administration remains committed to him — he will be weakened and wary. He won’t be able to deliver the Palestinians for Trump’s peace plan. There’s a good chance Congress will cut off aid forbombing Yemen. Saudi Arabia’s support for the anti-Iran coalition will amount to pumping oil.

Trump, too, has been weakened by the Democrats’ capture of the House of Representatives — and so has Netanyahu. What was once bipartisan U.S. support for Israel disappears when it comes to its current leader, who feuded with Barack Obama and all but campaigned for Mitt Romney in 2012. According to a Pew Research Center poll released this year, only 18 percent of Democrats had a favorable view of Netanyahu; twice as many regarded him unfavorably. That compared with 52 percent of Republicans who approved of the Israeli leader.

While key Democratic leaders in the incoming House, including likely speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Eliot L. Engel (N.Y.), are staunchly pro-Israel, many of their new rank and file will not be. And a lot of Republicans as well as Democrats will be repelled by Netanyahu’s appeals on Mohammed’s behalf. Instead, the spectacle of an Israeli leader lobbying to excuse an Arab dictator for murder will only compound the damage he has done to his country’s relationship with the United States.

Jackson DiehlJackson Diehl is deputy editorial page editor of The Post. He is an editorial writer specializing in foreign affairs and writes a biweekly column that appears on Mondays.