Utter Confusion in Mentally-Retarded White House

By: Kayhan Int’l 

Washington, or more properly the administration of the quixotic Donald Trump, is in the grip of utter confusion, following failure of the "mentally-retarded” White House’s policy of economic terrorism against Iran, as well as its futile attempts to frighten the Islamic Republic through flexing of the US’ old, aching, and over-inflated military muscles.

Frantic senior US officials, having lost their mental equilibrium following Iran’s dexterous display of its defence capabilities in downing their most advanced and expensive radar-evading drone by the very missiles it was designed to dodge, are uttering nonsensical remarks against Tehran as they make desperate dashes around West Asia, to assure their scared clients in Riyadh, Tel Aviv, Abu Dhabi and elsewhere of Washington’s waning power.

These utterances, whether by the gangster Mike Pompeo or the bespectacled bozo John Bolton, betray the political and intellectual bankruptcy at both the State Department and the National Security Department, as well as at the Pentagon, the war headquarters of the US.

Donald the Dotard appeared the most delirious of them of all on Tuesday, when he used the last obsolete option on his rusting table by signing what he called sanctions on the assets of the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei.

He then went on to threaten Iran with total obliteration from the face of the earth.
What a harebrained fool! Trump is neither aware of the current international affairs nor does he know the history, geography, culture, and spiritual power of Iran.

First of all, the most revered person in the Islamic Republic doesn’t have any dollar or foreign currency account.

Secondly, senior commanders of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), at the mention of whose name, the CENTCOM terrorists violently shake with fear, are not persons to play pranks with.

It seems the whole US apparatus, including its military, are on the horns of dilemma on having seen a single instance of Iran’s defence capabilities in downing the drone, and are wondering what other powerful deterrents the Islamic Republic possesses to ward off any would-be aggressor.

Trump and his thugs have sent the cream of their naval and air forces to the Persian Gulf region, but now as an old English adage says about a shivering pigeon at the sight of an approaching falcon, they are: "Afraid to stay and afraid to fly.”

Anyone with some knowledge of history and the current developments are fully aware that Iran and the Iranian people have withstood the test of times in the face of heavy odds for the past two-and-a-half millenniums of cultural glories. 

Islam bestowed Iran with spiritual power that helped the Iranian people triumph over some of the most bloodthirsty marauders, including the modern day Ba’thist tyrant Saddam and the macabrely murderous Takfiri terrorists.

Under the circumstances, the best thing for the US and its president to avoid further defeats and humility that will surely drag them to the abysmal depths of the eternal inferno, is to pull back their forces from the entire Asia-African region, and accept the fact that the Islamic Republic system of government will stay even after the US ceases to be a superpower. 

It is the Muslim Ummah which has assured by God of final victory, as Iran has been saying by advocating Islamic unity, which means neither Israel will remain on the map of West Asia for long nor the fiefdoms that Britain created after World War.

Shinzo Abe’s Crucial Iran Visit

Hassan Rouhani and Shinzo Abe

by Kaveh L. Afrasiabi

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe will visit Tehran next week to mediate between the United States and Iran, taking center stage in one of the most vexing global issues today threatening international peace and security. Although this is the first official Tehran visit by a Japanese prime minister since 1978, Abe is no stranger to Iran’s leaders and, in fact, has met Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani on several occasions on the sidelines of UN gatherings in New York. Prior to President Trump’s lavish Tokyo visit last month, Abe met Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif and then openly broached the idea of going to Iran. Trump subsequently embraced this idea, pointing to Abe’s relationship with Iran’s leaders and, simultaneously, dialing back his “regime change” objective and suggesting that the United States can find a modus vivendi with the “existing leaders.”

Since then, the Trump administration has offered to engage in direct talks with Iran “without preconditions,” a move rejected by Tehran as tactical “wordplay.” At the same time, both Rouhani and Zarif have mentioned U.S. “respect” for Iran as one of the principal preconditions for U.S.-Iran talks, thus leaving the door for diplomacy ajar. Zarif’s deputy, Abbas Araghchi, who has also served as Iran’s ambassador to Japan, has welcomed Abe’s intervention as potentially easing tensions in the region.

Abe is not the only political leader seeking to act as interlocutor between Tehran and Washington. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has been in Bellinzona, Switzerland, which represents U.S. interests in Iran, reportedly to enlist his hosts for a “limited dialogue” with Iran.  But what can Abe and others possibly achieve when the Trump administration is hammering Iran with relentless economic warfare and Iran completely distrusts the current U.S. administration, particularly after it unilaterally exited the Iran nuclear deal? After all, Iran has signaled that no direct talks with the United States is possible unless Washington reverses itself on economic sanctions, which is highly unlikely if Trump can’t point to significant Iranian concessions to U.S. demands.

Abe’s advantage is that his government, while a key U.S. ally, has nonetheless shown vital signs of independence on various Middle East issues. For example, Japan distanced itself from the U.S. recognition of Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights and refused to follow Washington’s lead when it relocated its embassy to Jerusalem. Equally important, Japan has sided with Europe in defense of the Iran nuclear deal.

From Tehran’s vantage point, Abe’s visit, in addition to conferring legitimacy on the Iranian government, can highlight U.S. diplomatic isolation on the nuclear issue, particularly in light of the repeated International Atomic Energy Agency confirmation that Iran has faithfully observed its obligations under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). However, Abe’s intervention in this complicated diplomatic quagmire might backfire, fueling criticism at home that he has jeopardized U.S.-Japan relations at a time of rising tensions in in the Pacific and around the Korean Peninsula. This mission offers both opportunities and risks for Abe, who may wish to play a more prominent conflict-management role beyond Iran if successful in this Iran trip. Given Japan’s heavy reliance on Middle East oil—which accounts for 80 percent of Japan’s oil imports—Tokyo has a vested interest in Persian Gulf stability, which has been rocked by the recent escalation of tensions between Iran and the United States.

On the positive side, Abe’s Iran visit may create an off-ramp alternative for the current U.S.-Iran standoff through deft and imaginative diplomacy that elicits compromises from both sides. This would bode well for Iran-Japan economic relations as well, which surged in the post-JCPOA environment with an investment treaty in 2016 before experiencing a decline due to U.S. sanctions. That investment treaty, which laid the groundwork for possible Japanese investment in Iran’s energy and non-energy sectors, could be implemented given a breakthrough in the U.S.-Iran dispute.

Yet, on the negative side, Abe’s initiative could bolster Washington’s tactic of playing the peace card without relinquishing any essential element of its coercive diplomacy. Iran’s concern is that the Trump administration might be bluffing with its recent olive branches and could use a “failed” Abe’s mission to its advantage by painting Iran, reeling under U.S. sanctions, as rigid and inflexible. For some hardline Tehran politicians and pundits, such as the editors of the conservative daily Kayhan, the United States is on the war path with Iran, similar to the run-up to the Iraq War, and wants to claim that it exhausted all the diplomatic chances of  a peaceful resolution of tensions with Iran’s theocratic rulers.

Indeed, the Trump administration has shown no sign of stepping back from its strategy of maximum pressure, which has resulted in a substantial loss of Iran’s oil export market, much of which has been picked up by Saudi Arabia, which has increased production to stabilize the oil market. Unless Abe succeeds in convincing the Trump administration to ease U.S. sanctions—for instance, by renewing the oil exemptions for countries such as Japan, South Korea, and India—Tehran will not likely take Trump’s offer of dialogue seriously. Brian Hook, the State Department’s point man on Iran, has been sending contradictory signals on the issue of oil exemptions, which suggests that the administration is unclear about its next Iran steps.

If Washington is serious about giving Abe a chance with his Iran initiative, it must not only shift from sticks to carrots but move more fundamentally away from a confrontation strategy, centered on a regime change in Iran, to one of peaceful coexistence and détente. Iran has been offering a “non-aggression pact” to Saudi Arabia and other GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) states, which could be extended as well to the American patron state of these oil sheikhdoms. An important prerequisite for such a paradigm shift is a more nuanced U.S. policy toward Saudi Arabia, which enjoys unprecedented Washington backing for an aggressive regional policy that has alienated some of its Arab neighbors, including Qatar. A more balanced U.S. Persian Gulf policy is a sine qua non for de-confliction and a return of stability to a volatile region on the precipice of yet another calamitous war. Abe’s intervention could prove pivotal in tilting the United States toward just such a balanced relationship with the Persian Gulf states including Iran.

Kaveh Afrasiabi has taught at Tehran University and Boston University and is a former consultant to the UN Program on Dialogue Among Civilizations. He is the author of several books on Iran, Islam, and the Middle East, including After Khomeini: New Directions in Iran’s Foreign Policy (Westview Books, 1995) and most recently Iran Nuclear Accord and the Remaking of the Middle East (2018). He is the co-author of the forthcoming Trump and Iran: Containment to Confrontation.

Let them eat Trump

 Andrew J. Bacevich

The quixotic president of the US, Donald Trump, with his mongering policy abroad and his mismanagement of home affairs, has set in motion the decline of America. Andrew J. Bacevich, professor emeritus of history and international relations at Boston University, has written an article for ‘The Nation’, in this regard, titled: “Let Them Eat Trump”.

The media’s preoccupation with the Trump administration’s scandals often distract us from more important matters—especially America’s never-ending wars.

The news, however defined, always contains a fair amount of pap. Since Donald Trump’s ascent to the presidency, however, the trivia quotient in the average American’s daily newsfeed has grown like so many toadstools in a compost heap, overshadowing or crowding out matters of real substance. We’re living in TrumpWorld, folks. Never in the history of journalism have so many reporters, editors, and pundits expended so much energy fixating on one particular target, while other larger prey frolic unmolested within sight.

As diversion or entertainment—or as a way to make a buck or win 15 seconds of fame—this development is not without value. Yet the overall impact on democracy is problematic. It’s as if all the nation’s sportswriters obsessed 24/7 about beating New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick.

In TrumpWorld, journalistic importance now correlates with relevance to the ongoing saga of Donald J. Trump. To members of the mainstream media (Fox News, of course, excepted), that saga centers on efforts to oust the president from office before he destroys the Republic or blows up the planet.

Let me stipulate for the record: this cause is not entirely meritless. Yet to willingly embrace such a perspective is to forfeit situational awareness bigly. All that ends up mattering are the latest rumors, hints, signs, or sure-fire indicators that The Day of Reckoning approaches. Meanwhile, the president’s own tweets, ill-tempered remarks, and outlandish decisions each serve as a reminder that the moment when he becomes an ex-president can’t arrive too soon.

Ostensibly big stories erupt, command universal attention, and then evaporate like the dewfall on a summer morning, their place taken by the next equally big, no less ephemeral story. Call it the Michael Wolff syndrome. Just a year ago, Wolff’s Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House took the political world by storm, bits and pieces winging across the Internet while the book itself reportedly sold a cool million copies in the first four days of its release. Here was the unvarnished truth of TrumpWorld with a capital T. Yet as quickly as Fire and Fury appeared, it disappeared, leaving nary a trace.

Today, 99 cents will get you a copy of that same hardcover book. As a contribution to deciphering our times, the value of Wolff’s volume is about a dollar less than its current selling price. A mere year after its appearance, it’s hard to recall what all the fuss was about.

Smaller scale versions of the Wolff syndrome play themselves out almost daily. Remember the recent bombshell BuzzFeed report charging that Trump had ordered his lawyer Michael Cohen to lie about a proposed hotel project in Moscow? For a day or so, it was the all-encompassing, stop-the-presses-get-me-rewrite version of reality, the revelation—finally!—that would bring down the president. Then the office of special counsel Robert Mueller announced that key aspects of the report were “not accurate” and the 24/7 buzz created by that scoop vanished as quickly as it had appeared.

Immediately thereafter, Rudy Giuliani, once “America’s mayor,” now Trump’s Barney Fife–equivalent of a personal lawyer, announced on national television that he had never said “there was no collusion” between the Trump campaign and Russian authorities in election 2016. Observers on the lookout for the proverbial smoking gun quickly interpreted that odd formulation as an admission that collusion must, in fact, have occurred.

The headlines were thunderous. Yet within hours, the gotcha-interpretation fell apart. Alternative explanations appeared, suggesting that Giuliani was suffering from dementia or that his drinking habit had gotten out of hand. With the ex-mayor wasting little time walking back his own comment, another smoking gun morphed into a cap pistol.

Fortunately for what little survives of his reputation, Giuliani’s latest gaffe was promptly eclipsed by video clips that seemed to show white students from an all-boys Catholic high school in Kentucky (strike one!) who had just participated in the annual March for Life in Washington (strike two!) and were taunting an elderly Native American Vietnam War veteran using Tomahawk chops while sporting MAGA hats on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial (strike three!).

The ensuing rush to judgment became a wind sprint. Here was the distilled essence of every terrible thing that Donald Trump had done to America. The pro-Trump baseball caps said it all. As a columnist in my hometown newspaper put it, “Like a white hood, that cap represents a provocation and a threat: ‘You know where we stand. You’ve been warned. And the president of the United States has our back.’ And, yes, I do equate MAGA gear with traditional Klan attire. The sartorial choices change, the racism remains the same.” For those too obtuse to grasp the underlying point, the title of the essay drove it home: “White America, come get your children.”

As luck would have it, however, the events that actually unfolded on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial turned out to be more complicated than was first reported. No matter: In TrumpWorld, all sides treat facts as malleable and striking the right moral posture counts for far more than balance or accuracy.

Anyway, soon after, with news that Trump confidant Roger Stone had been indicted on various charges, the boys from Covington could return to the obscurity from which they briefly emerged. To judge from the instantaneous media reaction, Stone’s first name might as well have been Rosetta. Here at last—for sure this time—was the key to getting the real dirt.

Rest assured, though, that by the time this essay appears, Stone and his Richard Nixon tattoo will have been superseded by yet another sensational Trump-related revelation (or two or three). And so it goes, in an endlessly churning cycle: “breaking news” goes viral; commentators rush in to explain what-it-all-means; the president himself retaliates by lashing out on Twitter (“The Greatest Witch Hunt in the History of our Country!”), much to the delight of his critics. This tit-for-tat exchange continues until the next fresh tidbit of “breaking news” gives the cycle another vigorous turn.

Do all of the words spoken or written result in citizens who are better informed and better able to reach sensible conclusions about the global situation in which our country finds itself? Not as far as I can tell. Granted, if I spent more time watching those gabbling heads on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News, I might feel differently. But I doubt it.

Still, having been involuntarily shanghaied into TrumpWorld, I worry that my fellow citizens are losing their ability to distinguish between what truly matters and what doesn’t, between what’s vital and what’s merely interesting. True, Donald J. Trump has a particular knack for simplifying and thereby distorting almost any subject to which he gives even the slightest attention, ranging from border security to forest management. Yet almost everywhere in TrumpWorld, this very tendency has become endemic, with nuance and perspective sacrificed to the larger cause of cleansing the temple of the president’s offending presence. Nothing, it appears, comes close to the importance of this effort. Not even wars.

I admit to a preoccupation with America’s seemingly never-ending armed conflicts. These days it’s not the conduct of our wars that interests me—they have become all but indecipherable—but their duration, aimlessness, and cumulative costs. Yet even more than all of these, what’s fascinating is the way that they continue more or less on autopilot.

I don’t wish to imply that political leaders and media outlets ignore our wars altogether. That would be unfair. Yet in TrumpWorld, while the president’s performance in office receives intensive and persistent coverage day in, day out, the attention given to America’s wars has been sparse and perfunctory, when not positively bizarre.

As a case in point, consider the op-ed that recently appeared in The New York Times (just as actual peace talks between the United States and the Taliban seemed to be progressing), making the case for prolonging the US war in Afghanistan, while chiding President Trump for considering a reduction in the number of US troops currently stationed there. Any such move, warned Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution, would be a “mistake” of the first order.

The ongoing Afghan War dates from a time when some of today’s recruits were still in diapers. Yet O’Hanlon counsels patience: a bit more time and things just might work out. This is more or less comparable to those who suggested back in the 1950s that African Americans might show a bit more patience in their struggle for equality: Hey, what’s the rush?

I don’t pretend to know what persuaded the editors of the Times that O’Hanlon’s call to make America’s longest war even longer qualifies as something readers of the nation’s most influential newspaper just now need to ponder. Yet I do know this: The dearth of critical attention to the costs and consequences of our various post-9/11 wars is nothing short of shameful, a charge to which politicians and journalists alike should plead equally guilty.

I take it as a given that President Trump is an incompetent nitwit, precisely as his critics charge. Yet his oft-repeated characterization of those wars as profoundly misguided has more than a little merit. Even more striking than Trump’s critique is the fact that so few members of the national-security establishment are willing to examine it seriously. As a consequence, the wars persist, devoid of purpose.

Still, I find myself wondering: If a proposed troop drawdown in Afghanistan qualifies as a “mistake,” as O’Hanlon contends, then what term best describes a war that has cost something like a trillion dollars, killed and maimed tens of thousands, and produced a protracted stalemate?

Disaster? Debacle? Catastrophe? Humiliation?

And, if recent press reports prove true, with US government officials accepting Taliban promises of good behavior as a basis for calling it quits, then this longest war in our history will not have provided much of a return on investment. Given the disparity between the US aims announced back in 2001 and the results actually achieved, defeat might be an apt characterization.

Yet the fault is not Trump’s. The fault belongs to those who have allowed their immersion in the dank precincts of TrumpWorld to preclude serious reexamination of misguided and reckless policies that predate the president by at least 15 years.

Venezuela May Turn Out to Be Another Syria for the US

 

By: Kayhan Int’l

The quixotic US president, Donald Trump, and his thuggish administration are making frenzied efforts to undermine the peace of independent countries and change their system of government, but without success.

latest target is Venezuela, where they have illegally endorsed the controversial National Assembly Chairman, Juan Guaido, as president, which is not only a blatant meddling into the internal affairs of an independent country, but follows a pattern in US foreign policy whereby leaders not readily pliable to American corporate interests get replaced in an uprising generously sponsored and minutely directed from Washington.

As observers point out, due to the abrasive nature of Trump’s administration, true US motifs are coming into the open: it is all about money, since Venezuela is one of the richest countries in terms of oil, which the American companies are intent upon looting by replacing the legitimate government of Nicolas Maduro. 

As US National Security Adviser, the bespectacled bozo John Bolton, who is one of the most devilish opponents of democracy and human rights, recently said: "It will make a big difference to the US economy if we could have American oil companies invest in and produce the oil capabilities in Venezuela.”

For Bolton and people who propelled him into his current position, Venezuela regime change is a "big business opportunity”.

In this regard, Guaido, the self-proclaimed "president,” in view of his slavish attitude to the US, has already become a traitor to his own nation as is evident by his endorsement of the new round of the illegal US sanctions to cripple Venezuela’s economy, thereby harming the livelihood of ordinary people.

The US sanctions against the Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA is meant to squeeze out Rosneft – Russia’s main investor in the Venezuelan petroleum sector. At the same time, the $50 billion that China has lent to Venezuela through oil-for-loan agreements will also be jeopardized.

The US arrogantly admits that regime change attempts in Venezuela are part of a bigger strategy to exert greater US influence over Latin America. It means Nicaragua and Cuba are next on the list of American state terrorism.

The Venezuelan military, however, is loyal to Maduro and the independent countries of the world, including the Islamic Republic of Iran ready to help the legal government of Maduro. 

Russia is resolved that the US will not succeed, and so is China. This means Venezuela may well become the next Syria, if not Vietnam for the US.

Interestingly, Washington is facing another debacle and hopefully it will prove to be the last nail in the coffin of the US.

Cornered Trump’s Near Suicidal Move in South China Sea Amid Trade Talks

By: Kayhan Int’l 

At home, while the quixotic US president, Donald Trump, has painted himself into a corner through his rash decision of ‘government shutdown’ in a futile bid to force the Congress to yield to his whimsical demand of funding the building of a wall on the Mexican border, on the international scene he is trying to flex his over-inflated muscles.

It is an exercise in futility, since neither the gangster Mike Pompeo whom he has made Secretary of State nor the bespectacled bozo John Bolton (his National Security Advisor) are capable of either terrifying opponents in Latin America and West Asia or lifting the sagging spirits of clients in those regions.

Thus, with failures looming large on all fronts, Trump made a near suicidal move in desperation on Monday by sending American naval ships to the South China Sea dangerously near to the Xisha Island chain (called Paracel by Beijing’s rivals), in a battle of nerves, even while the US and China are holding vice- ministerial level trade talks in Beijing.

The Chinese, unlike the upstart Americans, have a culture and statecraft dating at least two millennium, and they know how to checkmate their cowboy opponents.

After sending aircraft and warships to warn off the intruding Americans, Beijing launched a strong protest with Washington, pointing out with diplomatic courtesy that one wrong move or an accident might ignite a war – that will definitely drag on to the North American mainland before it reaches mainland China.

Is Trump the Dotard playing with fireworks in a vain effort to pressure the Chinese in the trade talks?
If so, he will be burned before he realizes what is really happening.

Meanwhile, irrespective of the strategic location of South China Sea and its exhaustive marine and hydrocarbon resources which the countries on its rim can peacefully share, provided the meddling Americans stay out, the trade talks in Beijing are having a positive effect on the stock markets of east and southeast Asia, right up to Australia – all of whom are tired of the trade war triggered by Trump.

According to reports, the US team led by Deputy Trade Representative Jeffrey Gerrish has had "positive and constructive discussions” with their Chinese counterparts.

As per the statement released by Lu Kang, the spokesman at the Chinese foreign ministry, Beijing is willing to resolve the trade disputes with Washington on an "equal footing”. 

It is worth noting that the world’s two largest economies slapped a series of punitive tariffs on each other’s goods last year, sparking concerns over a global economic slowdown.

If the US has put tariffs on $250 billion in Chinese goods and has threatened duties on double that value of products, China has responded with tariffs on $110 billion in US goods, targeting politically important industries such as agriculture.

As a result of the current talks which are still underway, stocks in Asia gained on Monday. This is a positive trend that should be allowed to take its course, if not the world economy will suffer.

It remains to be seen whether Trump and his team of tramps (with no adults left among them) are capable of reaching a deal with China, or will push the region and the world to the edge of the precipice by resorting to misadventures like the American naval intrusion in Chinese territorial waters, which might spark a doomsday confrontation in view of the military might of the two sides.

China is taking no chance, as is clear by last week’s signing of an order by President Xi Jinping that warrants its armed forces to prepare for a "comprehensive military struggle”. 

Trump’s Syria Plan Not to Change US Imperial Agenda: American Analyst

TEHRAN (Tasnim) – A senior political analyst from the US state of Illinois pointed to the recent decision by President Donald Trump to withdraw US troops from Syria, saying that whether the US stay or leave the Arab country, “Washington’s imperial agenda” will remain unchanged.

“Whether US forces stay or leave Syria, Washington’s imperial agenda 
remains unchanged - seeking regime change in Syria and against all other 
sovereign independent governments,” Chicago-based Stephen Lendman told 
Tasnim in an interview.

“It’s unknown for sure if US forces in Syria will stay or leave,” he said, 
adding, “Washington has 18 military bases in the country.”

Stephen Lendman is a writer, syndicated columnist, activist, News TV personality, 
and radio show host. He currently writes for MoneyNewsNow.com 
and VeteransToday.com and hosts, since 2007, a progressive radio show at 
The Progressive Radio News Hour on The Progressive Radio Network.

The following is the full text of the interview:

Tasnim: As you know, US President Donald Trump has recently decided 
to withdraw all US troops from Syria. Given that Trump is a businessman 
and thinks only about profit, what are the reasons behind this decision? 
What do you think about the possibility of the total withdrawal? Would he 
keep US strongholds in Syria? 

Lendman: Whether US forces stay or leave Syria, Washington’s imperial 
agenda remains unchanged - seeking regime change in Syria and against all 
other sovereign independent governments.

It’s unknown for sure if US forces in Syria will stay or leave. Washington has 18 
military bases in the country. It’s building two more and one or two others in Iraq 
near Syria’s border.

The Pentagon isn’t about to abandon these bases. US forces in Syria will either 
stay, be fully or partly redeployed to Iraq and/or elsewhere in the region.

Pentagon forces, if leave, will likely be replaced by private military contractors 
like Blackwater USA - unaccountable to US or local laws, norms, and standards. 
My best guess is this is what’s most likely in the new year.

Tasnim: Trump’s withdrawal plan has been met with widespread 
opposition inside and outside the US. France's President Emmanuel Macron 
has said he deeply regrets the controversial decision. “An ally must 
be dependable,” said Macron, who reportedly called Trump to warn him 
against the plan. US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and the US envoy 
to the global coalition fighting the Daesh terrorist group, Brett McGurk, 
resigned in protest over Trump’s decision. In your opinion, why is 
Trump insisting on his decision?

Lendman: Trump is a businessman, television personality, a geopolitical 
know-nothing. He understands profit-making, not affairs of state.

After escalating wars in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen for nearly two 
years in office, his decision to pull back is inconsistent with what he’s gone along 
with so far.

I can’t read his mind. I’ve explained that he delegated geopolitical issues to 
regime hardliners, Pompeo, and Bolton most of all. He’s notorious for saying one 
thing and doing another.

Even if he withdraws forces from Syria and Afghanistan he’ll do no more than 
move pieces around on America’s chessboard - leaving its imperial 
agenda unchanged. If he pushes too far, which is unlikely, he could be impeached 
or assassinated like Jack Kennedy.

Tasnim: Some analysts say that the US withdrawal would be a victory for 
Iran. What is your assessment of the Islamic Republic’s role in 
developments which led Trump to take such a decision?

Lendman: Withdrawal or staying changes nothing. Either way, it’s no victory for 
Iran - wanting regional peace and stability not forthcoming because the US 
wants endless war.

1st Int’l Confab against US/NATO bases addresses militarism

Unlike so much political discourse in the US, which is obsessed with the quixotic character of President Donald Trump, an international conference on US/NATO bases pierced the distracting fog to focus on continuity of US militarism regardless of who sits in the Oval Office.

These were the views of Roger D. Harris, board member of the 33-year-old anti-imperialist human rights organization named ‘Task Force on the Americas’, who is active with the Campaign to End US-Canadian Sanctions Against Venezuela.

For the first time in the history of humanity, the technical means are at hand to eliminate poverty if resources were not diverted to making war. World hunger could be abolished with only a small diversion from military budgets. The only luxuries that so-called middle-class Americans would have to forego would be the Blue Angels air show and drone-bombing wedding parties in West Asia and Afghanistan. Yet, military spending is expanding, and with it global poverty.

On November 16-18, some 300 peace activists representing over 35 countries gathered in Dublin, Ireland, for the first International Conference against US/NATO Military Bases to address this tragic paradox of the technical ability to serve humanity and the political proclivity by the ruling circles in the West to do the opposite.

Roger Cole of the Irish peace organization PANA identified the twin threats to humankind of global warming and global war, both driven by accelerating militarization.

Ajamu Baraka of the US-based Black Alliance for Peace highlighted the reactionary role of the US and its allies, which have by far the largest military expenditures in the world. The material basis for the absence of peace and the accelerating proliferation of military bases, in his words, is US imperialism.

Guantánamo, which has earned notoriety for American atrocities against detainees, was the first of the world network of US foreign military bases, according to keynote speaker Dr. Aleida Guevara from Cuba, daughter of the late Che. Cuba opposes this violation of national sovereignty. Today the US possesses some 1000 foreign military bases with troops stationed in over 170 countries.

Australian Annette Brownlie of IPAN (Intellectual Property Awareness Network) warned of a new Cold War. The recent US National Security Strategy document, focusing on “great power confrontation,” signals open preparations for direct military confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia and China.

David Webb of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in the UK explained that the US is the only nation with nuclear weapons based outside its soil. US policy is to develop “usable” nuclear weapons in an enhanced first-strike capacity. Missile defense, he reproved, is the shield for the sword of nuclear weapons. The purpose of missile defense is to protect the aggressor against the inevitable retaliation after a first nuclear strike.

Margaret Flowers of Popular Resistance reported that the recent US midterm elections brought in more Congressional representatives with military or security state backgrounds. The duopoly of the two US “war parties” is united in supporting an accelerated arms race. Well over half of the US government’s discretionary budget now goes to the military.

The session on the environmental and health impacts featured testimony on the toxic effects of military bases in Okinawa, Czech Republic, and Turkey. The US Department of Defense is the world’s largest polluter.

National Coordinator of the Irish Trade Union Federation and Secretary of the People’s Movement, Frank Keoghan, described the transformation of the European Union (EU) into a war project with the recent rush to create a single EU army. Ilda Figueiredo from the Portuguese Council for Peace and Cooperation and another activist from France warned that the drive for an EU army would transform all national military bases into NATO bases and would in effect allow “nuclear bomb sharing.”

Margaret Kimberley of the Black Agenda Report chaired the Africa session. South African Chris Matlhako and Kenyan Ann Atambo discussed the dependency of African states on foreign aid, which is used as a tool to facilitate the occupation of Africa by foreign militaries.

Paul Pumphrey of Friends of the Congo described the development of US strategy in Africa, which has used African proxies to allow domination and extraction of valuable resources such as coltan from the Congo. Now the strategy also includes direct occupation by the US military. George W. Bush established AFRICOM in 2008 with just a single acknowledged US military base on the continent, followed by an explosion to some 50 bases and a military presence in practically every African nation under Obama.

The session on Latin America and the Caribbean outlined the immediate threat of military intervention in Venezuela, caught in the crosshairs of US imperialism. Veteran Cuban peace activist Silvio Platero of MOVPAZ condemned the continuing US blockade of Cuba and the colonial status of Puerto Rico. Speakers from Colombia (now a NATO partner), Argentina, and Brazil reported that their right-wing governments are cooperating militarily with the US.

Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mairead Maguire from Ireland made an impassioned plea for all-out support of WikiLeaks whistleblower Julian Assange, “our hero of truth,” lest he die in a US prison.

The conference concluded on a high note of unity among the international peace forces. Conference coordinator Bahman Azad of the World Peace Council closed with a call to first educate and then mobilize.

Actions are being planned in Washington, D.C., around the 70th anniversary of NATO on April 4th. Coincidentally that is the date of the assassination of Martin Luther King and of his famous speech a year before when he presciently admonished, “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today is my own government.”

US Regime, Chief of All Hypocrites

By: Kayhan Int’l 

When it comes to double standards the US administration is the perfect hypocrite. Successive regimes in the White House, whether Democrat or Republican have tried to excell each other in hypocrisy.

Perhaps the current regime of the quixotic Donald Trump has outdid all the past power-wielders in Washington, as is evident by its stances, against the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Despite claiming to be a democracy, Trump unabashedly supports dictatorships and has imposed illegal sanctions on Iran because the Islamic Republic, as popular system of government based on the people’s will, refuses to kowtow to dictates from the US.

Because of the US, the British created spurious entity called Saudi Arabia, which is not a historical state, neither a geographical area, nor a culturally cohesive system based on people’s wills, has always gotten away with funding terrorism and extremism, suppressing the rights of the people it rules, and silencing its critics, mostly by killing them – the latest incident being the gruesome murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, and that too in its diplomatic mission on foreign soil (Turkey).

Trump and team, after weeks of changing their statements in the case of the macabre murder of the Washington Post correspondent, have shamelessly tried to absolve the chief culprit, Heir Apparent Mohamed bin Salman (MBS), by openly saying that hundreds of billions of dollars of weapons-supply agreement (to kill more and more defenceless Yemenis) might be lost if Riyadh is condemned for its roguishness.

Yet, this same hypocrites in the White House have no inhibitions to utter the most preposterous lies regarding the law-abiding policies of Iran, which they said they intent to punish.

Punish for what?

It is obvious for not allowing the US to re-impose its hegemony on Iran which in 1979 the grassroots Islamic movement of the Iranian people had ended for good.

Another glaring instance of US hypocrisy is the case of the Palestine. The Palestinian people who have been deprived of their ancestral lands by illegal Zionist migrants of Eastern Europe which the British settled between the two World Wars to plant the fake entity called Israel, are subjected to all sorts of humilities, while the illegitimate Jewish regime, which is notorious for its racist policies and child-killing get billions of aid from the hard earned revenues of the US taxpayers.

Then there is Yemen, whose people want to be independent rather than allow a stooge of Saudi Arabia, the UAE to rule over them – without any popular mandate, without any votes cast in his favour.

On the other hand, the popular Ansarallah Movement, which has the people’s support and practically proved it on the battlefields for the past three-and-a-half years, is being called terrorist and a destabilizing force, is being bombed and reduced to starvation – albeit in vain.

The same US hypocrisy is crystal clear in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Turkey, and will result in more humiliation and disgrace for Washington, without the least gains, whether short term or long term.