False Flag: Trump Warns ‘Animal Assad’ Over Chemical Weapons Attack That Killed 70

Standard

Caving to neocon interests, US President Donald Trump has said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad will have a “big price to pay” for allegedly launching a deadly chemical weapons attack on civilians — and blamed Iran and Russian President Vladimir Putin for backing “animal Assad”.

This follows Trump’s earlier decision to strike a Syrian airbase in April 2017 in retaliation for Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons against his own people.

Recent tweets from Trump appear to advocate a direct overthrow of Assad.

In one of the tweets, Trump slammed Obama, who vowed in 2012 that such actions (a chemical weapons attack) would cross a “red line,” but later failed to enforce the promise a year later when hundreds of Syrians were killed by sarin gas.

Instead, Obama brokered a multi-nation deal in which Syrian President Bashar Assad pledged to remove his chemical-weapons stockpile.


The continuation of war.

This latest, likely false flag chemical weapons attack in Syria follows the defeat of ISIS, and provides the much-needed justification for the Zionist-neocon lobby to keep the US forces in Syria indefinitely — and judging by the heated rhetoric, maybe even move to overthrow Assad.

Despite all this, at a rally in Cleveland last week, Trump said that the US will get out of Syria “very soon.” It is now clear that the 4,000 US troops currently occupying Syria will in fact stay in Syria.

But just as Trump again comes out urging for military withdrawal, a false flag crops up and the US is thrown back into contention. The strings are being pulled.

Trump buying into this latest publicity stunt is a worrying sign of escalation and further interventionism — it was only a matter of time before something came up and the banker’s war was given a new lease of life.

30443265_481782188890667_6331916112679982069_n


There’s no motive for Syria to use chemical weapons and draw more attention to itself.

There is no reason for Assad to attack his own people with chemical weapons, the motive is not there, he wants deescalation and for NATO to leave Syria, why would he create reasons for further occupation? — also, the means of carrying out the attack aren’t there if we take Assad’s word for the dismantlement of Syria’s chemical weapons. If there are no means, there is no opportunity to carry out the attack to begin with.

Last year, a Syrian military statement published by state media on 4 April denied the use of “any chemical or toxic substance”, saying that the military “has never used them, anytime, anywhere, and will not do so in the future”.

President Bashar al-Assad subsequently said the 2017 chemical weapons incident was a “fabrication” used to justify a US cruise missile strike on Syria’s Shayrat airbase on 7 April.

Now, in 2018, history is repeating itself.

This shock-factor child poster image from the Zionist-owned Associated Press is up across all the mainstream media outlets.


US intelligence has links to training ‘moderate’ rebels in using chemical weapons.

Globalresearch reports:

CNN accuses Bashar Al Assad of killing his own people while also acknowledging that the “rebels” are not only in possession of chemical weapons, but that these “moderate terrorists” affiliated with Al Nusra are trained in the use of chemical weapons by specialists on contract to the Pentagon.

Moscow has provided evidence that the U.S is training Al Qaeda affiliated “militants groups” in the use of chemical. A March 17, Russia’s Ministry of Defense  states the following:

“We have reliable information at our disposal that US instructors have trained a number of militant groups in the vicinity of the town of At-Tanf, to stage provocations involving chemical warfare agents in southern Syria. The provocations will be used as a pretext by the United States and its allies to launch strikes on military and government infrastructure in Syria.”

The CNN report by Barbara Starr below dated September 2013 ultimately confirms Russia’s allegations.

Moreover, in an earlier report dated December 9 2012, CNN confirms that:

“The training [in chemical weapons], which is taking place in Jordan and Turkey, involves how to monitor and secure stockpiles and handle weapons sites and materials, according to the sources. Some of the contractors are on the ground in Syria working with the rebels to monitor some of the sites, according to one of the officials.

The nationality of the trainers was not disclosed, though the officials cautioned against assuming all are American. (CNN, December 09, 2012, emphasis added)

The above report by CNN’s award winning journalist Elise Labott (relegated to the status a CNN blog), refutes CNN’s numerous accusations directed against Bashar Al Assad.

Who is doing the training of terrorists in the use of chemical weapons? From the horse’s mouth: CNN

And these are the same terrorists (trained by the Pentagon) who are the alleged target of Washington’s counter-terrorism bombing campaign initiated by Obama in August 2014:

“The Pentagon scheme established in 2012 consisted in equipping and training Al Qaeda rebels in the use of chemical weapons, with the support of military contractors hired by the Pentagon, and then holding the Syrian government responsible  for using the WMD against the Syrian people.

What is unfolding is a diabolical scenario –which is an integral part of military planning– namely a situation where opposition terrorists advised by Western defense contractors are actually in possession of chemical weapons.

This is not a rebel training exercise in non-proliferation. While president Obama states that “you will be held accountable” if “you” (meaning the Syrian government) use chemical weapons, what is contemplated as part of this covert operation is the possession of chemical weapons by the US-NATO sponsored terrorists, namely “by our” Al Qaeda affiliated operatives, including the Al Nusra Front which constitutes the most effective Western financed and trained fighting group, largely integrated by foreign mercenaries. In a bitter twist, Jabhat al-Nusra, a US sponsored “intelligence asset”, was recently put on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations.

The West claims that it is coming to the rescue of the Syrian people, whose lives are allegedly threatened by Bashar Al Assad. The truth of the matter is that the Western military alliance is not only supporting the terrorists, including the Al Nusra Front, it is also making chemical weapons available to its proxy “opposition” rebel forces.

The next phase of this diabolical scenario is that the chemical weapons in the hands of Al Qaeda operatives will be used against civilians, which could potentially lead an entire nation into a humanitarian disaster.

The broader issue is: who is a threat to the Syrian people? The Syrian government of Bashar al Assad or the US-NATO-Israel military alliance which is recruiting “opposition” terrorist forces, which are now being trained in the use of chemical weapons.” (Michel Chossudovsky, May 8, 2013, minor edit)

Trump Officially Declares Trade War on China Days Before Launch of Petroyuan

Standard

D-Day for the US Dollar: China’s Petroyuan oil futures contracts to be issued from 26th March 2018.

Between 1944 and 1971, the international monetary system, known colloquially as the Bretton Woods System, revolved around the gold backed US Dollar. Whether in Africa or Asia, a US Dollar was literally as good as gold, because it was pegged to and therefore could be converted to gold anywhere in the world. Then in 1971, US President Richard Nixon made the decision to un-peg the US Dollar from a gold standard, thus transforming the world’s major currency into a floating fiat currency.

In order to maintain the Dollar’s position as the world’s leading currency, the US reached an agreement with the leaders of OPEC, Saudi Arabia in particular, to sell oil exclusively in US Dollars, irrespective of who the buyer was.

This system remained largely unchallenged until the the arrival of a non-Dollar based economy, China, as the new leading economic power of the world, whose GDP will soon eclipse that of the US. Already, China purchases more oil than any other country in the world, in spite of its increased domestic energy production and furthermore, China now has the world’s highest purchasing power of any nation on earth. Even before oil became the highly valued commodity it became in the 20th century, the nation with the largest economy and more importantly, the largest and most wide reaching purchasing power, has traditionally set the bar for their own currency becoming the de-facto global currency of exchange and the most pervasive reserve currency for global treasuries.

Western-aligned states will shift to Eastern alignment.

For China and China’s partners this means that they will be able to set the terms of major international trade deals. For OPEC, it means intensifying discussions with China and China’s long term partners, as opposed to the US and its long term partners. This means that even traditional US allies like Saudi Arabia will begin looking to open new doors with China in preparation for an oil export market that will see banknotes featuring images of Mao Zedong supplant those with images of George Washington.

This will have a knock on-effect in geopolitics, making the richest countries in the Arab world, particularly those in the Gulf Cooperation Council, less attached to US foreign policy making. If China becomes their biggest trading partner and if the trade is conducted in the Petroyuan, it will be China whose geostrategic goals will be able to hold sway in the court of Gulfi Arab monarchies rather than the whims of Washington. Already, Saudi Arabia has begun courting China, likely in order to attract investment for its new megaproject, the creation of a massive new city on the Gulf of Aqaba.

U.S. sanctions will lose their effectiveness.

The Petroyuan will also help to render US Treasury sanctions far less effective, as countries whose global trade is linked in with Chinese monetary and trade policies, will be out of the loop of the US Dollar based system. This represents new opportunities for countries as diverse as Syria, Venezuela, Iran and if the right conditions are met from Beijing’s perspective, also the DPRK.

While Washington denies that its Federal Reserve system is now the biggest basis for its continued, however waning international influence, the fact that US political leaders are openly horrified by the arrival of China and its Petroyuan, is a prima facie admission that while China has industry, innovation, military might and is on the cusp of edging the Dollar out as the world’s leading reserve and trading currency, soon the US will have little but military might to show for its superpower status and given how expensive this military might is for the US, the changes in world monetary markets, could also impact America’s ability to invest in its own military-industrial complex.

The myth of an “undervalued” Yuan.

Of course, the US accuses China of purposefully undervaluing the Yuan so as to make Chinese exports more affordable and thus attractive. What the US hasn’t considered is that when the Yuan becomes the de-facto global reserve currency, it’s floating rate will likely be higher than that of the US Dollar. In this sense, the lesson for the US is “be careful what you wish for” and the lesson for China is that if the US seeks to shut Chinese goods out of the US market with tariffs, sanctions or even embargoes – then China has nothing to lose by floating the Yuan and letting the Dollar’s value sink vis-a-vis the Yuan.

China is in a win-win position vis-a-vis the US Dollar, while for the US, Washington and Wall Street will have to examine how major European currencies coped in the post-Bretton Woods and pre-Euro period. Ultimately, the only way the US will be able to cope in such an environment is to invest more into domestic production in order to regenerate confidence in a Dollar whose value will have to be based on what America does, rather than what America was. While technically the US still is a monetary leader, when the Yuan inevitably eclipses the Dollar, the US will have to get used to the word was in respect of global hegemonic monetary dominance. Much to the relief of millions, the US will no longer be able to peddle the lie that US hegemony is due to a somehow superior political and social system. The reality that US hegemony is based on the accepted value of the Dollar will be starring the US, its allies and its adversaries in the face like an emperor without clothes.


As China takes a decisive economic step away from the dollar; the international bankers move in.

Now, in the run up to the launch of the Chinese Petroyuan on March 26th 2018, U.S. President Donald Trump is declaring economic war on China on the behalf of international banking interests.

Protectionism has its time and place and this is usually in a newly industrializing nation that has not yet reached its peak output.

When countries like Britain, the US, Germany, Japan and China began their unique and highly notable industrial revolutions, they did so under the cover of protectionist policies. In this sense, as a nation develops an industrial base, in order to reach the zenith of development, it is important not to rest on someone else’s laurels in the form of easy imports. Protection turns the industrializing nation into an industrial island, thus testing the limits of self-sufficiency in terms of industrial development and the development of an internal market.

This is exactly what is happening, a second planned industrial revolution — a shift away from Tertiary and Quaternary imbalanced economies back to the industrial roots that will make the West once more a major economic contender.

Once such a revolution reaches a comfortable level of self-sufficiency, a protectionist economy has reached maturity and is ready to test the waters of free trade.

In the short to mid-term, the Globalists are promoting an artificial divide of trade protectionism, pursuing a split between Western and Eastern exchange in a bid to isolate China and its partners, Trump’s latest sanctions are one facet of this, for example; artificially inflating the price of Chinese goods to stimulate confidence in domestic economies. Protectionist blocs and trade agreements such as the EU are at the forefront of these protectionist efforts to sever ties with non-Globalist economies.

In the longer term, Globalist agents seek to boost the third world population of Europe to create a low-paid, manufacturing powerhouse to challenge China, as well as shift manufacturing and industry back to Western soil to reduce dependencies on non-Western imports and diversify Western import-reliant economies.

To successfully do this, they must eliminate or reduce the majority Western white middle class that demands higher wages and tends to avoid work in laborious, low-pay jobs.

This is something they are actively pursuing by promoting the migrant crisis, promoting anti-nationalism, promoting white-guilt, and the racism hysteria, all intended to ‘water-down’ the West and give emphasis to a more lucrative, lower IQ, third world population.

Many economists call the sanctions ‘damaging’ for both economies, but that’s the point, that the West is filing for a near total divorce from the economies of the non-Globalist variety, this is just the beginning.

New Tariffs.

Trump has signed a Section 301 Action of the 1974 Trade Act, authorizing the implementation of new wide reaching tariffs covering the import of a wide variety of Chinese goods into the United States, with an emphasis on barring Chinese technology and technology investment from the US market. Trump also threatened to take further action against alleged intellectual property rights violations in China. During his speech he also threatened the European Union, Japan and South Korea, but most of his ire was aimed at China. Where weeks ago it was suggested that the US would pass $30 billion worth of tariffs on Chinese goods, today Trump doubled the figure to $60 billion. By invoking the Trade Act of 1974, Trump has bypassed the Congress to take unilateral action in a trade war that most of the Congress and the US Chamber of Commerce does not support.

Donald Trump reaffirmed that while the new measures will be implemented immediately, he will be willing to negotiate with all parties, including China regarding establishing what he calls a better trade balance. He even suggested that the countries whose goods he is slapping new tariffs on would welcome the move because they were “taking advantage” of the US for years. In reality, China, South Korea, the EU, Canada and others have already strongly criticised Trump’s reactionary approach to trade.

It beggars belief that Trump purposefully held off on attempting to negotiate new trade deals until after ordering tariffs which have a punitive effect on both America’s trading partners and the American tax payer. This kind of bullying of powerful nations will if anything, make countries less likely to negotiate a favourable deal in the future. Rather than use tariffs as a last resort after a respectful negotiating process, Trump has decided to use tariffs as a means of blackmailing other nations. The US will now learn the hard way, that there are many markets for goods other than the US market. If anything, this will enforce China’s decision to sell-off even more US Treasury bonds in preparation for a larger divestment of assets from the US, which itself is a requisite to the Yuan detaching its value from the Dollar and floating freely on global currency markets. A floating Yuan was always a matter of ‘when’ rather than ‘if’. Trump’s zero-sum attitude has now made the question of ‘when’, a matter of ‘sooner rather than later’. The result will be less investment in the US economy which means fewer jobs, combined with a weakening dollar which means less purchasing power for both US companies and US consumers. Trump’s move has made this reality all the more inevitable.

When signing the executive order, he claimed “This is only one…it is the first of many”. The markets are likely to respond negatively to this development, but in the medium term, Trump’s move could usher in a pivot away from the US on the part of wider international trading, including in the all important areas of currency and energy commodities markets.

On the 26th of March, China will formally introduce the Petroyuan. The issuing of oil futures contracts in China’s national currency looks to threaten the long term efficacy of the Petrodollar – something the US has used to artificially inflate the value of its currency ever since Richard Nixon detached the Dollar from a gold standard in 1971.

With the US failing to produce desirable quality goods as efficiently as other major industrial powers, Washington has resorted to a combination of tariffs and sanctions as its only remaining weapons to try and inflect economic harm on other nations. Just as sanctions have not caused any significant damage to the Russian economy, so too will China which now has the most powerful internal market in the world, not suffer from Trump’s tariffs, certainly not as much as American businesses and consumers. China’s rapid expansion into new global markets combined with its own continually growing internal market, will rapidly compensate for losses in terms of exports to the US.

De-dollarization: The End of the Petrodollar Age?

Standard

The diminished reliance on the US dollars is one of the major trends of international geopolitics. A lot of media attention has been paid to steps taken by the BRICS states, namely Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa to decrease their dependence on American currency. Both the BRICS states and a number of other international players have repeatedly voiced their concern over the design of the modern global economic architecture that was imposed on the rest of the world by the United States. The whole structure of this global economy simply ignores the growing influence of new emerging markets. Because of Washington’s relentless desire to remain a global hegemon, imposing its will on other countries, the US dollar remains an instrument of economic suppression. The creation of the Euro, the rapid rise of the Chinese economy, and the intentions of a number of countries of the former USSR,  the Middle East and Asia to switch to regional currency settlements have transformed the US dollar in a measuring instrument, thus undermining its status as a mandatory transaction currency.

To reach the goal of a Petroyuan, China will pressure Saudi Arabia and other leading oil exporters to trade oil in yuan instead of the U.S. Petrodollar, which would create the new Petroyuan and weaken the dollar significantly. Analysts believe the Saudis will certainly bend to this pressure as a result of China’s immense buying power, a buying power the West is attempting to counter, but has a long way to go in doing so.

For decades, the U.S. dollar has served as the world reserve currency and helped solidify the United States’ role as a global economic power.

That’s all about to come crashing down as China seeks to make its yuan the preeminent global currency.


Foreign policy: The U.S. response.

Creating a Western industrial & manufacturing powerhouse:

By engineering a ‘migrant crisis’ and importing a significant number of migrants into Europe, Washington will be able to create a ‘new China’ equivalent — imported migrant workers will saturate the lower end of the job market, dramatically increasing the employment of low-paid migrant workers, pushing down wages and eliminating the Western middle class; coupled with a huge expansion of the agricultural & industrial sectors, and economic diversification (Western nations are predominantly services based at the moment).

The aim of this is to counter the overwhelming sino-centric dependency.

This will usher in the formation of a high-birthrate, high-population working-class industrial powerhouse to rival, and eventually surpass China’s immense purchasing power and industrial preeminence. The goal is to overturn China’s huge market share in agriculture and industry, which is actively being used to pressure oil exporters to deal in the Petroyuan.

Sanctions and tariffs:

Furthermore, by sanctioning and imposing tariffs on Chinese trade, shifting jobs back to the U.S., and boosting industry in Europe, the Globalists hope to tilt the scales back in their favour, reducing dependency on Chinese and Eurasian goods and services that are not aligned with U.S. hegemony.

Protectionist trade agreements and unions of Western states:

The U.S. backed formation of the EU has created a protectionist shield against the growing Eurasian trade dominion, as various Eurasian trade projects attempt to steal trade influence from Western-aligned nations.

Plans for further Western unionization, the “ganging up” against Eastern economic and military competition are in place.

Invasion, occupation, and subversion of non-aligned states.

U.S. subversion and occupation of states that refuse to align with Washington’s interests is commonplace. The economic sabotage of Venezuela, the occupation of Syria and attempted removal of Assad, the war drums beating against Iran, any state that won’t voluntarily align with Western interests will be occupied for a ‘humanitarian’ reason until they change their mind, or are forced to.

Information warfare:

Negative press and numerous staged ‘atrocities’ have been pinned to Eastern powers, these are designed to pull investment and business away from the East and towards the Western sphere. It also whets public appetite for anti-Eastern foreign policy.


Russia’s and China’s gold reserves against the dollar domination.

The traditional transaction scheme, in which all financial operations are processed by London and a number of Swiss banks is losing its relevance these days as new centers of gold trade are emerging, primarily in India, China and South Africa. Suffice to say that Moscow and Beijing have already signed a memorandum on the development of mutual trade in gold. According Singapore -backed financial expert Ronan Manly, the gold reserves accumulated by China and Russia are a part of their strategy to move away from international trade denominated in US dollars. Manly is convinced that should those states show that they are holding more gold combined than the US, this would deal an enormous blow to the US dollar and to the position of the US within the global economy.

Article: Will The Dollar Survive The Petro-Yuan?

While all these initiatives can not immediately render the US dollar obsolete, one has to remember that China has been building its financial system for years and shows no signs of stopping.

The existing Western sanctions along with threats of new sanctions are forcing China and Russia to cooperate more strategically in what is becoming the seed of a genuine alternative to the petro-dollar system.

Since the 1998 sovereign default triggered by the West, Russia has been extremely cautious in all of its financial dealings, which allowed it to withstand the sanctions imposed on in by Washington in 2014, and forced the country to search elsewhere for the means of ensuring financial stability. That “elsewhere” is increasingly called the Peoples’ Republic of China.

Yuan-denominated bonds.

Now the Treasury of Russia is planning to launch the sale of Russian debt in the form of bonds denominated in Chinese yuan. The size of the first offering, a sort of a test of the market, will barely reach 1 billion US dollars, which amounts to 6 billion yuan. The move is being accelerated by reports that the US Treasury is examining the potential consequences of extending its economic pressure on Russia. It’s curious that Turkey’s Deputy Prime Minister Mehmet Şimşek has recently announced that Ankara is going to issue bonds in rubles and yuan in 2018, as it’s been reported by the Gercek Gundem recently.

These events are unravelling against the backdrop of the undeclared economic war between the US and China, which is moving into its active phase. The United States has already formally notified the World Trade Organization (WTO) that they refuse to recognize China as a market economy and are preparing another portion of anti-dumping duties. Washington has been constantly engaged in all sorts of investigations of China’s market policies, while relying on the rules that are most commonly applied to states with non-market economies. In turn, China’s authorities are seeking ways to achieve a “market” status, in a bid to get rid of the protective duties that are hampering its goods.

Gold for oil.

But China has its own ways of turning the tables back on Washington, and while those ways are not quite as straightforward, their effects can potentially be much more devastating. China keeps pushing the US dollar off the global exchange market. Earlier, Beijing achieved the inclusion of the yuan in the SDR basket and is now about to challenge the dollar as a universal means of settling for oil futures. The twist is that the futures priced in yuans are going to be convertible into gold. It should be noted that gold-backed-oil-yuan-futures can prove to be extremely attractive for investors and oil-producing countries, particularly those that possess conflicting interests with the sole remaining “superpower”. Those are, among others, Russia, Venezuela, and Iran.

The sale of yuan priced futures is aimed at decreasing the dependency of the global financial markets on the US dollar, but this process can take a while. Since the 1970s, OPEC states have been selling oil in petrodollars, which has made the transformation of petrodollars into US treasury bonds an integral component of the US economy. But from now on, oil producers will be able to sidestep dollar priced futures by choosing those futures that they can freely convert into gold. In addition, China is going to give a greater share of the market to those countries that will agree to trade oil futures in yuan, thus the biggest trading partners of Beijing are going to be forced to invest in those futures in a bid to preserve their market share. The possibility of trading oil futures for yuan, no doubt, will be very in high demand across the Eurasian economic space, as well as in several countries of Africa and Latin America. Yet, this will be enough to increase China’s influence along the path chosen for the implementation of the One Belt, One Road massive infrastructure project.

Given the great strategic importance of oil and energy resources in general, the political aspect of yuan priced futures outweighs even the economic component of this shift. Even if initially they will occupy a small margin of the market, this will mean that China is capable of undermining the global reliance on the US dollar, which lays at the very foundation of Washington’s geopolitical power. As a result, we should expect a gradual, but nonetheless imminent reduction in the global dependence on petrodollars.

But don’t expect Washington to roll over and take it, escalations seen in Venezuela, with Iran, Syria, Pakistan, and any other nation that pivots away from the dollar and US hegemonic interests is all a direct result of this economic warfare that underpins major world events, unbeknownst to most.


Martin Berger is a freelance journalist and geopolitical analyst, exclusively for the online magazineNew Eastern Outlook.”  

The Largely Unrecognized US Occupation of Syria. Nearly One Third of Its Territory

Standard

The United States has invaded Syria with a significant military force, is occupying nearly one-third of its territory, has announced plans for an indefinite occupation, and is plundering the country’s petroleum resources. Washington has no authorization under international or even US law to invade and occupy Syria, much less attack Syrian forces, which it has done repeatedly.

Nor has it a legal warrant to create new administrative and governance structures in the country to replace the Syrian government, a project it is undertaking through a parallel invasion of US diplomatic personnel. These actions—criminal, plunderous, and an assault on democracy at an international level—amount to a retrograde project of recolonization by an empire bent on extending its supremacy to all the Arab and Muslim worlds, including the few remaining outposts of resistance to foreign tyranny. Moreover, US actions represent an escalation of Washington’s long war on Syria, previously carried out through proxies, including the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda, into a full-scale conventional war with direct US military involvement. Yet, despite the enormity of the project, and the escalation of the war, the US occupation of Syria has largely flown under the radar of public awareness.

Atop multiple indignities and affronts to liberty and democracy visited upon the Arab world by the West, including the plunder of Palestine by European settlers and the political oppression of Arabs by a retinue of military dictators, monarchs, emirs and sultans who rule largely at the pleasure of Washington and on its behalf, now arrives the latest US transgression on the ideals of sovereignty, independence, and the equality of nations: marauders in Washington have pilfered part of the territory of one of the last bastions of Arab independence—Syria. Indeed, Washington now controls “about one-third of the country including most of its oil wealth”, [1] has no intention of returning it to its rightful owners, has planned for an indefinite military occupation of eastern Syria, and is creating a new Israel, which is to say, an new imperialist outpost in the middle of the Arab world, to be governed by Kurdish proxies backed by US firepower. [2] The crime has been carried out openly, and yet has hardly been noticed or remarked upon.

Here are the facts:

In January, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson announced that US “troops will remain in Syria” indefinitely “to ensure that neither Iran nor President Bashar al-Assad of Syria will take over areas” [3] the United States captured from ISIS, even though these areas belong to the Syrian Arab Republic, by law and right, and not to Washington, or to Washington’s Kurdish proxy, the SDF. The SDF, or Syrian Democratic Force, is a US-constructed outfit which, in journalist Robert Fisk’s words, is neither Syrian (it’s dominated by Kurds, including those of Turkish origin) nor democratic (since it imposes Kurdish rule over traditionally Arab areas and dances to a tune called by a foreign master.) Moreover, it’s not much of a force, since, without US airpower, artillery, and Special Operations support, it is militarily inconsequential. [4] “US President Donald Trump’s rollout of an updated Syria policy,” reports Aaron Stein, writing in the unofficial journal of the US State Department, Foreign Affairs, “commits US forces to maintaining a presence” in northeast Syria in order to “hedge against” any attempt by Damascus to assert sovereignty over its own territory. [5]

The Pentagon officially admits to having 2,000 troops in Syria [6] but a top US general put the number higher, 4,000, in an October press briefing. [7] But even this figure is an “artificial construct,” as the Pentagon described a previous low-ball figure. On top of the infantry, artillery, and forward air controllers the Pentagon counts as deployed to Syria, there is an additional number of uncounted Special Operations personnel, as well as untallied troops assigned to classified missions and “an unspecified number of contractors” i.e., mercenaries. Additionally, combat aircrews are not counted, even though US airpower is critical to the occupation. [8] There are, therefore, many more times the officially acknowledged number of US troops in Syria, operating out of 10 bases in the country, including “a sprawling facility with a long runway, hangars, barracks and fuel depots.” [9]

In addition to US military advisers, Army Rangers, artillery, Special Operations forces, satellite-guided rockets and Apache attack helicopters [10], the United States has deployed US diplomats to Syria to create government and administrative structures to supersede the legitimate government of the Syrian Arab Republic. [11] Plus, the United States “is now working to transform Kurdish fighters into a local security force” to handle policing [12] while US diplomats on the ground work to establish local governments to run the occupied territory’s affairs. [13]

“The idea in US policy circles” is to create “a soft partition” of Syria between the United States and Russia along the Euphrates, “as it was among the Elbe [in Germany] at the end of the Second World War.” [14] On top of the 28 percent of Syria the United States occupies, it controls “half of Syria’s energy resources, the Euphrates Dam at Tabqa, as well as much of Syria’s best agricultural land.” [15]

During the war against ISIS, US military planning called for the Kurds to push south along the Euphrates River to seize Syria’s oil-and gas-rich territory. [16] While the Syrian Arab Army and its allies focussed mostly on liberating cities from Islamic State, the Kurds, under US direction, went “after the strategic oil and gas fields”, [17] “robbing Islamic State of key territory,” as The Wall Street Journal put it. The US newspaper correctly designated the seizure of key territory as a robbery, but failed to acknowledge the victim, not Islamic State, which itself robbed the territory, but the Syrian Arab Republic. But this skein of equivocation needs to be further disentangled. It was not the Kurds who robbed ISIS which earlier robbed the Syrians, but the United States which robbed ISIS which robbed Syria. The Kurds, without the backing of the US armed forces, are a military cipher incapable, by their own efforts, of robbing the Arab republic. The Americans are the robbers, the Syrians the victims.

The United States has robbed Syria of “two of the largest oil and gas fields in Deir Ezzour”, including the al-Omar oil field, Syria’s largest. [18] Last September, the United States plundered Syria of “a gas field and plant known in Syria as the Conoco gas plant” (though its affiliation with Conoco is historical; the plant was acquired by the Syrian Gas Company in 2005.) [19] Russia observed that “the real aim” of the US forces’ (incontestably denominated) “illegal” presence in Syria has been “the seizure and retention of economic assets that only belong to the Syrian Arab Republic.” [20] The point is beyond dispute: the United States has stolen resources vital to the republic’s reconstruction (this from a country which proclaims property rights to be humanity’s highest value.)

Joshua Landis, a University of Oklahoma professor who specializes in Syria, has argued that by

“controlling half of Syria’s energy resources…the US will be able to keep Syria poor and under-resourced.” [21]

Bereft of its petroleum resources, and deprived of its best farmland, Syria will be hard-pressed to recover from the Islamist insurgency—an operation precipitated by Washington as part of its long war on nationalist influence in the Arab world—a war that has left Syria in ruins. The conclusion that “Assad has won” and that the war is over except for mopping up operations is unduly optimistic, even Pollyannaish. There is a long road ahead.

Needless to say, Damascus aspires to recover its lost territory, and “on February 7 sent a battalion-sized column to [recuperate] a critical gas plant near Deir Ezzour.” [22] This legitimate exercise of sovereignty was repulsed by an airstrike by US invaders, which left an estimated 100 Syrian Arab Army troops and their allies dead. [23] The significance of this event has been under-appreciated, and perhaps because press coverage of what transpired disguised its enormity. An emblematic Wall Street Journal report, for example, asserted that the US airstrike was a defensive response to an unprovoked attack by Syrian forces, as if the Syrians, on their own soil, were aggressors, and the invading Americans, victims. [24] We might inquire into the soundness of describing an aggression by invaders on a domestic military force operating within its own territory as a defensive response to an unprovoked attack. Likewise, we can inquire into the cogency of Washington’s insistence that it does not intend to wage war on the Syrian Arab Army. That this statement can be accepted as reasonable suggests the operation of what Charles Mills calls an epistemology of ignorance—a resistance to understanding the obvious. It should be evident—indeed, it’s axiomatic—that the unprovoked invasion and occupation of a country constitutes an aggression, but apparently this is not the case in the specially constructed reality of the Western media. Could Russia invade the United States west of the Colorado River, control the territory’s airspace, plunder its resources, establish new government and administrative structures to supplant local, state, and federal authority, and then credibly declare that it does not seek war with the United States and its armed services? Invasion and occupation are aggressive acts, a statement that shouldn’t need to be made.

Washington’s February 7 attack on Syrian forces was not the first.

“American troops carried out strikes against forces loyal to President Bashar Assad of Syria several times in 2017,” reported the New York Times. [25]

In other words, the United States has invaded Syria, is occupying nearly a third of its territory, and has carried out attacks on the Syrian military, and this aggression is supposed to be understood as a defensive response to Syrian provocations.

It is incontestable that US control of the airspace of eastern Syria, the invasion of the country by untold thousands of US military and diplomatic personnel, the plunder of the Levantine nation’s resources, and attacks on its military forces, are flagrant violations of international law. No country has more contempt for the rule of law than the United States, yet, in emetic fashion, its government incessantly invokes the very rule of law it spurns to justify its outrages against it. But what of US law? If, to Washington, international law is merely an impediment to be overcome on its way to expanding its empire, are the US invasion and occupation of Syria, and attacks on Syrian forces, in harmony with the laws of the United States? If you ask the White House and Pentagon the answer is yes, but that is tantamount to asking a thief to rule on his or her theft. The question is, does the US executive’s claim that its actions in Syria comport with US law stand up to scrutiny? Not only does it not, the claim is risible.

“Under both Mr. Obama and Mr. Trump,” explains the New York Times’ Charlie Savage, “the executive branch has argued that the war against Islamic State is covered by a 2001 law authorizing the use of military force against the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks [my emphasis] and a 2002 law authorizing the invasion of Iraq.”

However, while “ISIS grew out an offshoot of Al Qaeda, the two groups by 2014 had split and became warring rivals,” and ISIS did not perpetrate the 9/11 attacks. What’s more, before the rise of ISIS, the Obama administration had deemed the Iraq war over. [26]

Washington’s argument has other problems, as well. While the 2001 law does not authorize the use of military force against ISIS, is does authorize military action against Al Qaeda. Yet from 2011 to today, the United States has not only failed to use force against the Syrian-based Jabhat al-Nusra, Al Qaeda’s largest branch, it has trained and equipped Islamist fighters who are intermingled with, cooperate on the battle field with, share weapons with, and operate under licence to, the group, as I showed in my book Washington’s Long War on Syria, citing the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Washington Post, which have extensively reported on the interconnections between US trained and armed fighters and the organization founded by Osama bin Laden. [27]

Finally, by implication, since the law does not authorize the use of force against ISIS, it does not authorize the presence of US aircrews in Syrian airspace or US military and diplomatic personnel on Syrian soil. In addition, it certainly does not authorize the use of force against a Syrian military operating within its own borders.

Let’s look again at Washington’s stated reasons for its planned indefinite occupation of Syria: to prevent the return of ISIS; to stop the Syrian Arab Republic from exercising sovereignty over all of its territory; and to eclipse Iranian influence in Syria. For only one of these reasons, the first, does Washington offer any sort of legal justification. The latter two objectives are so totally devoid of legal warrant that Washington has not even tried to mount a legal defense of them. Yet, these are the authentic reasons for the US invasion and occupation of Syria. As to the first reason, if Washington were seriously motivated to use military force to crush Al Qaeda, it would not have armed, trained and directed the group’s auxiliaries in its war against Arab nationalist power in Damascus.

Regarding Washington’s stated aim of eclipsing Iranian influence in Syria, we may remind ourselves of the contents of a leaked 2012 U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency report. That report revealed that the insurgency in Syria was sectarian and led by the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda in Iraq, the forerunner of Islamic State. The report also disclosed that the United States, Arab Gulf oil monarchies and Turkey supported the insurgents. The analysis correctly predicted the establishment of a “Salafist principality,” an Islamic state, in eastern Syria, noting that this was desired by the insurgency’s foreign backers, which wanted to see the secular Arab nationalists isolated and cut-off from Iran. [28] The United States has since decided to take on the role that it had once planned for a Salafist principality. A planned Saudi-style state dividing Damascus from Tehran has become an indefinite US occupation, from whose womb US planners hope to midwife the birth of a Kurd mini-state as a new Israel.

The reality that the US operation in Syria is illegal may account for why, with Washington’s misdirection and the press’s collusion, it has largely flown under the radar of public awareness. Misdirection is accomplished by disguising the US occupation of eastern Syria as a Kurd-, or SDF-effort, which the United States is merely assisting, rather than directing. The misdirection appears to be successful, because the narrative has been widely mentally imbibed, including by otherwise critical people. There are parallels. The United States is prosecuting a war of aggression in Yemen, against a movement that threatens US hegemony in the Middle East, as the Syrian Arab Republic, Iran and Hezbollah do. The aggression against Yemen is as lacking in legal warrant as is the US war on Syria. It flagrantly violates international law; the Houthis did not attack Saudi Arabia, let alone the United States, and therefore there is no justification for military action on international legal grounds against them. What’s more, the Pentagon can’t even point to authorization for the use of force against Yemen’s rebels under US domestic law since they are not Al Qaeda and have no connection to the 9/11 attacks. To side step the difficulty of deploying military force without a legal warrant, the war, then, is presented as “Saudi-led”, with the involvement of the United States relegated in the hermeneutics to the periphery. Yet Washington is directing the war. The United States flies its own drones and reconnaissance aircraft over Yemen to gather intelligence to select targets for Saudi pilots. [29] It refuels Saudi bombers in flight. Its warships enforce a naval blockade. And significantly, it runs an operations center to coordinate the bombing campaign among the US satellites who participate in it. In the language of the military, the United States has command and control of the aggression against Yemen. The only US absence is in the provision of pilots to drop the bombs, this role having been farmed out to Arab allies. [30] And that is the key to the misdirection. Because Saudi pilots handle one visible aspect of the multi-dimensional war, (whose various other dimensions are run by the Americans), it can be passed off to the public as a Saudi affair, while those who find the Saudi monarchy abhorrent (which it is) can vent their spleen on a scapegoat. We do the same to the Kurds, hurling rhetorical thunderbolts at them, when they are merely pawns of the US government pursuing a project of empire-building. Jeremy Corbyn, the British Labour Party leader, has seen through the misdirection, declaring that it is the West, not the Saudis, who are ‘directing the war’ in Yemen. [31]

It would profit us to heed the words of Ibrahim Al-Amin, who, on the occasion of the White House recognizing Al-Quds (Jerusalem) as the capital of Israel, asked Arabs whether it wasn’t time to realize that the United States is the origin of all that plagues them. Let us leave ‘Israel’ aside, he counseled. “Whatever is said about its power, superiority and preparation, it is but an America-British colony that cannot live a day without the protection, care and blind support of the West.” [32] The same can be said of the Saudi monarchy and the SDF.

I leave the last word to the Syrian government, whose voice is hardly ever heard above the din of Western war propaganda. The invasion and occupation of eastern Syria is “a blatant interference, a flagrant violation of [the] UN Charter’s principles…an unjustified aggression on the sovereignty and independence of Syria.” [33] None of this is controversial. For his part, Syrian president Bashar al-Assad has pointed out incontestably that foreign troops in Syria “without our invitation or consultation or permission…are invaders.” It is time the US invasion and occupation of Syria—illegal, anti-democratic, plunderous, and a project of recolonization—was recognized, opposed, and ended. There is far more to Washington’s long war on Syria than Al Qaeda, the White Helmets and the Kurds. As significant as these forces are, the threat they pose to the Syrian center of opposition to foreign tyranny has been surpassed by a more formidable challenge—the war’s escalation into a US military and diplomatic occupation accompanied by direct US military confrontation with the Syrian Arab Army and its allies.

Article: Syrian army vows to eject US troops.

*

Notes

1. Neil MacFarquhar, ‘Russia’s greatest problem in Syria: It’s ally president Assad,’ The New York Times, March 8, 2018.

2. Anne Barnard, “US-backed force could cement a Kurdish enclave in Syria,” The New York Times, January 16, 2018; Domenico Losurdo, “Crisis in the Imperialist World Order,” Revista Opera, March 2, 2018.

3. Gardiner Harris, “Tillerson says US troops to stay in Syria beyond battle with ISIS, The New York Times, January 17, 2018.

4. Robert Fisk, “The next Kurdish war is on the horizon—Turkey and Syria will never allow it to create a mini-state,” The Independent, January 18, 2018.

5. Aaron Stein, “Turkey’s Afrin offensive and America’s future in Syria: Why Washington should be eying the exit,” Foreign Affairs, January 23, 2018.

6. Nancy A. Yousef, “US to remain in Syria indefinitely, Pentagon officials say, The Wall Street Journal, December 8, 2017.

7. Andrew deGrandpre, “A top US general just said 4,000 American troops are in Syria. The Pentagon says there are only 500,” the Washington Post, October 31, 2017.

8. John Ismay, “US says 2,000 troops are in Syria, a fourfold increase,” The New York Times, December 6, 2017; Nancy A. Yousef, “US to remain in Syria indefinitely, Pentagon officials say,” The Wall Street Journal, December 8, 2017).

9. Dion Nissenbaum, “Map said to show locations of US forces in Syria published in Turkey,” The Wall Street Journal, July 19, 2017.

10. Michael R. Gordon, “In a desperate Syrian city, a test of Trump’s policies,” The New York Times, July 1, 2017.

11. Nancy A. Yousef, “US to send more diplomats and personnel to Syria,” The Wall Street Journal, December 29, 2017.

12. Dion Nissenbaum, “US moves to halt Turkey’s drift toward Iran and Russia,” the Wall Street Journal, February 21, 2018.

13. Nancy A. Yousef, “Some US-backed Syrian fighters leave ISIS battle to counter Turkey,” The Wall Street Journal, February 6, 2018.

14. Yaroslav Trofimov, “In Syria, new conflict looms as ISIS loses ground,” The Wall Street Journal, September 7, 2017.

15. Gregory Shupak, “Media erase US role in Syria’s misery, call for US to inflict more misery,” FAIR.org, March 7, 2018.

16. Trofimov, September 7, 2017.

17. Raj Abdulrahim and Ghassan Adnan, “Syria and Iraq rob Islamic State of key territory,” The Wall Street Journal, November 3, 2018.

18. Raj Abdulrahim and Ghassan Adnan, “Syria and Iraq rob Islamic State of key territory,” The Wall Street Journal, November 3, 2018.

19. Abdulrahim and Adnan, November 3, 2018.

20. Raja Abdulrahim and Thomas Grove, “Syria condemns US airstrike as tension rise,” the Wall Street Journal, February 8, 2018.

21. Joshua Landis, “US policy toward the Levant, Kurds and Turkey,” Syria Comment, January 15, 2018.

22. Yaroslav Trofimov, “As alliances shift, Syria’s tangle of war grows more dangerous,” The Wall Street Journal, February 15, 2018.

23. Raja Abdulralhim and Thomas Grove, “Syria condemns US airstrike as tensions rise,” The Wall Street Journal, February 8, 2018; Nancy A. Yousef and Thomas Grove, “Russians among those killed in US airstrike is eastern Syria,” The Wall Street Journal, February 13, 2018.

24. Yousef and Grove, February 13, 2018.

25. Charlie Savage, “US says troops can stay in Syria without new authorization,” The New York Times, February 22, 2018.

26. Savage, February 22, 2018.

27. Stephen Gowans. Washington’s Long War on Syria. Baraka Books. 20017. Pp. 149-150.

28. DIA document leaked to Judicial Watch, Inc., a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, which promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf

29. Mark Mazzetti and Eric Schmitt, “Quiet support for Saudis entangles U.S. in Yemen,” The New York Times, March 13, 2016.

30. Stephen Gowans, “The US-Led War on Yemen, what’s left, November 6, 2017.

31. William James, “May defends Saudi ties as Crown Prince gets royal welcome in London,” Reuters, March 7, 2018.

32. Ibrahim Al-Amin, “Either America or Al-Quds,” Alahednews, December 8, 2017.

33. Syria condemns presence of French and German special forces in Ain al-Arab and Manbij as overt unjustified aggression on Syria’s sovereignty and independence, SANA, June 15, 2016.

The Globalist-backed Iranian Color Revolution & Other Geopolitics

Standard

Iran is a nation with a long and proud history, dating back to the Persian empire.  It is about the size of Western Europe and has a population in excess of 80 million. Iran also has the 3rd largest reserves of conventional (cheaply extracted) oil in the world and the 2nd largest natural gas reserves. Iran is clearly a force to be reckoned with. As such, it considers itself the protector of Shi’a Muslims, who often live under extreme Sunni repression throughout the region. No amount of US pressure has succeeded in halting the counter-globalist “protector” policy.

The Zio-Globalist establishment has failed to effectively weaken Iran, and is now using more active strategies to suppress the nation. POTUS Trump, who is Zio-controlled has come out advocating regime change in Iran.

The President, who acts mostly as a puppet, is obviously on board with globalist foreign policy, whether by willful choice or not, it makes no difference:

Iran’s seventh and current President, Hassan Rouhani has claimed Israel is behind the current protests in Iran, he would be quite right.

Iran is blaming foreign agents for the unrest and violence taking place in the country. They are right to do so. It is not a coincidence that these mass protests are occurring just a short time after the military defeat of ISIS.

The US is poised to crack down on the ‘corrupt’ Iranian regime, the color revolution may be part of or the prime conduit for this to happen.

Libya, you shall recall, was bombed into oblivion on the premise that the bombs were helping protesters, the principle could be similar here.

This is literally how it started:

However, given Iran is a considerable power, orchestrated internal regime change is a better route for the globalists’ to pursue than direct military intervention. But outright war is never not on the cards.


Iran remains an eminent threat to the Globalists’ expansionism agenda.

Iran is the principal backer of Hezbollah, and thus the primary impediment to Israel’s broader ethnostate aspirations. Hezbollah, the Shi’a militia operating on Israel’s northern border, demonstrated the martial competence to repel the Israeli military during a 2006 incursion into Lebanon, known to them as the “Divine Victory.” Since then, it has significantly improved its military capabilities, particularly missiles, with extensive Iranian support. Israel regards this group as an existential threat to its survival.

Zionist slant: Trump is obviously referring to the Iranian-backed Hezbollah as ‘terrorists’, despite the US-Saudi coalition backing their own military group PMCs (i.e. ISIS et al) to further their agenda — there are two sides to every story.

“The ideal scenario in this case would be that the United States and the international community present a package of positive inducements so enticing that the Iranian citizenry would support the deal, only to have the regime reject it.

In a similar vein, any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context — both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it.

The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer — one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down.

Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians ‘brought it on themselves’ by refusing a very good deal.”

Iran teaming up with Eastern powers and pushing for further economic independence.

Iran will be a linchpin in China’s ambitious “One Belt One Road” trade network. It will also be able to conduct transactions with key partners like China and Russia free of the dollar, using new mechanisms such as a gold-convertible crude oil futures contract denominated in yuan and China’s CIPS international payment system, which will make the use of SWIFT against Iran irrelevant.

The first article in this series from Russia Insider discussed the looming specter of war with Iran. To understand why a completely unnecessary war is such a strong possibility, let’s take a look at each of the nations that would be involved.

Israel

The Israelis are in a much more desperate predicament than they were less than ten years ago. They’d anticipated that bringing down Assad would create a fractious situation in Syria that would be favorable to them in a few key ways. First, the destruction of a strong, secular Syrian state would allow Israel to formally annex the Golan Heights, which it has been occupying for decades. Second, a chaotic and divided Syria would be unable to offer real resistance to any of Israel’s other actions.

Third, and most importantly, the ability of Hezbollah to operate and receive supplies from Iran would be severely disrupted. It would also be forced to battle Sunni jihadists in a chaotic, post-government Syria rather than oppose Israel.

Back in 2006, Hezbollah showed itself capable of withstanding the Israeli military. Now, it is a better equipped and seasoned fighting force. It is the primary threat to Israel’s security. For instance, back in 2016 an ammonia plant was constructed in the northern Israeli  city of Haifa. Hezbollah cheerfully pointed out that they looked forward to blowing it up the next time hostilities commenced, since it would have an effect similar to a nuclear explosion and kill tens of thousands. The Israelis quickly realized that this was well within its capabilities. The plant was shut down.

There’s a lot of propaganda about Iran nuking Israel, but that’s about as likely to happen as mutual annihilation between the US and Russia. If Iran acquired nuclear weapons capability, then it would probably be years down the road. The practical effect would be to inhibit Israel’s ability to act in an aggressive manner, since overt military action is rarely carried out by other nations against nuclear powers.

Hezbollah is the real, immediate threat to Israel’s safety, especially if the Iranians are able to keep helping them upgrade missile capabilities. The prospect of Hezbollah unleashing an effective barrage on their northern population centers probably keeps a lot of Israeli security officials awake at night. They can’t neutralize this threat without separating Hezbollah from its source of support, Iran.

Netanyahu recently declared that Hezbollah “wouldn’t last a day without Iran.” He’s probably right because they need a lot of funding and equipment. Most ominously, the Jerusalem Post recently reported his pronouncement that Israel must “act now against Iran.” The Israelis are still conducting airstrikes in Syria based on evidence about as credible as the Trump Administration’s claim that Assad was gassing children. This is a hot war, not a topic of speculation. When Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman declared that Israel “will not allow the Shi’ite Axis to establish Syria as its forefront base,” he meant it.

Saudi Arabia

King Salman of Saudi Arabia is senile and near death. His favorite son, Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman, has rapidly consolidated power and stepped over thousands of more senior princes in the House of Saud. Many of his uncles were accustomed to being at the center of power when their fathers held the throne.

The sheer size of the Saudi royal family and the tribal balancing act it must also maintain makes the situation very complicated for any outsider to really develop a clear picture. However, it’s plain to see that the money is running out. This is why MBS imprisoned a bunch of his wealthiest and most recalcitrant relatives at the Ritz-Carlton in Riyadh. He needs to extort money from them to keep the country running. It’s a risky move to outrage the family, but when you’re broke, you’re broke.

Saudi Arabia maintains the laughably spurious claim that its oil reserves are unchanged since the 1980’s even though they’ve pumped a couple hundred billion barrels since then. Worse still, the desert kingdom’s rapidly diminishing fossil water aquifers are becoming too salty to drink. Desalinating seawater for drinking is enormously expensive.

Moving forward, The Saudi government will have to provide most of the water for its rapidly growing population in this manner. It’s highly doubtful that they can make a transition away from oil. At the some point in the future, Saudi Arabia will probably collapse. But, if MBS doesn’t want that to happen fast, he needs the price of oil to at least double very soon so that he can cover his budgets without borrowing additional foreign money.

The prospect of Iran being able to fully utilize its huge oil reserves will make that more difficult. That could be one reason why Saudi Arabia has been engaging in such strident rhetoric against Iran lately. Last month, it claimed to have intercepted a missile fired at Riyadh from Yemen by Houthis rebels. The Saudis labeled it “a blatant act of aggression” by Iran that could be grounds for war.

Last month, MBS summoned Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri to Saudi Arabia, essentially held him hostage, and forced him to resign for being too tolerant of Hezbollah. Like their Israeli partners, the Saudis are terrified of Hezbollah because of its popularity among their Shi’a minority, who reside mainly in the Eastern Province along with most of the oil.

At just 32 years old, MBS has shown himself to be remarkably aggressive in a short amount of time. His desperation is understandable given his tenuous position. He’s got a short window to raise oil revenues, cut costs, and fundamentally restructure the backwards kingdom to avert an implosion. It’s not a popular agenda with senior royals accustomed to do things quite differently under conditions that no longer exist. Conflict with Iran will probably make these disgruntled princes hesitant to attempt a coup in order to halt this ambitious project.

The United States

MBS has received the fawning praise of our MSM and developed a close working relationship with Jared Kushner. That should be evidence enough that something bad could be afoot. Perhaps the recent decision by Trump to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem was a ploy to provoke some act of violence by either Hezbollah or Iran that could be used as a pretext for attack. There’s no way that it was done without consulting the Saudis and other key Arab allies and getting their approval, so don’t pay any attention to their protests.

Trump is surrounded by Neocons and other assorted Jews. As with Bush and Obama, they’re likely presenting him with misleading information and a set of policy options all designed to produce a similar outcome no matter which one he chooses. When Trump decided to bomb Syria over completely bogus evidence that Assad was using chemical weapons against his own people, he received effusive praise from the media. Hopefully that wasn’t an instructive experience for him, but it’s doubtful.

It’s hard to speculate from the outside on precisely how US Presidents are conned into approving disastrous foreign aggression. One justification probably fed to them is an assault on the vital Petrodollar System. Saddam wanted to sell his oil for Euros, and Gaddafi wanted to sell it for gold. With Iran poised to conduct most of its trade eastward without dollars, this would probably be one of the reasons sold to Trump.

Does Iran pose a threat to the US? No. Would war with Iran benefit the US? No. Is there any credible pretext? No. Would war be a disaster? Yes. Does all this mean that a war won’t happen? Absolutely not. The same line of inquiry was made by “paranoid anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists” like myself prior to the invasion of Iraq. How did that turn out? The reality is that any Saudi-Israeli offensive against Iran would be futile without massive American involvement, which will be discussed in the next article.

The most effective maxim that one can use to make a prediction about a piece of legislation or US foreign policy decision is this: what Israel wants from the US, Israel gets. The consequences to the US are of little relevance.

Russia

Russia intervened in Syria to stop the US from further encircling it by knocking off yet another ally and depriving it of a naval base in the Mediterranean. It doesn’t really wish to conduct any further military operations in the Middle East beyond that victory. Israel is striking “Hezbollah” targets in Syria without Russian opposition, because that’s not their fight. Indeed, Putin recently made a surprise visit to Syria and announced the withdrawal of all Russian troops now that Assad’s government is secure. Russia is really the only key player in the situation that could prevent a full-scale war from breaking out.

It is looking to form and lead a new oil cartel that would be much more disciplined and effective at controlling prices than OPEC. Geopolitics are very complicated, especially in the Middle East. Although the Saudis supported the insurgency to topple Assad and thus deployed forces against the Russian military, the two nations have a good relationship.

Russia is one of the world’s largest oil exporters, which makes their cooperation crucial for the Saudis to boost oil prices. This prompted MBS to dispatch King Salman to Moscow to bend the knee back in October. The Saudis have also shown their affection in the best way that they know how—by purchasing Russian weapon systems.

The greatest hope of the Russians is for the Saudis to break with decades of strict policy and conduct trade with the emerging Eastern economic sphere (mainly China, their largest customer) in something other than dollars. This is why both the Russians and Chinese have been amassing huge tonnages of gold. In a taste of the new world order to come, China will soon be introducing gold-convertible crude oil futures contracts.

At the moment, Saudi Arabia accepting anything other than dollars for oil is not a possibility. MBS is in an extremely fragile position. He’s well aware that if he pissed off Uncle Sam like that, then he would be gone in a heartbeat. But, in the future many things could be possible.

The Russians have developed a close alliance with the Iranians and sold them military hardware such as the S-300 AA system. They’re looking to make Iran part of the new cartel referenced above. Due to this influence over both Saudi Arabia and Iran, it is now the premier power broker in the Middle East. It also has zero to gain from a fight between these two countries.

If someone is willing and able to step in and prevent war, it will be the Russians. That’s why we shouldn’t expect the Russian collusion hysteria to abate, no matter how many embarrassing revelations emerge about its absurd origins. Part 3 of this series will examine the timing of a potential conflict with Iran, and the probable avenues of attack.