Friday 19th of January 2018

puppeteers of the middle orient...

turnaround...

Has Mossad infiltrated the CIA? The answer could be an overstatement. But is Israel controlling the US government? The answer is complex and not a question of “control” but that of persuasion. When the magician tells you you’re a chicken, you’re a chicken. You believe you’re a chicken. 

Seeing The Donald’s reversal of policies on the Middle east, one as to ask a few questions. Since about 4,000 years ago, this little part of the planet, especially its centre, has been a pox. Jerusalem is like no other place on earth. It’s the conjunction of three religions, born of the same Abrahamic belief, that have been in conflict with rarely a break since time immemorial. 

And there are many dynamics under the carpet. The Jews play the victim card while they victimise other people. The Arabs are divided -- and the Jews do their darnedest to make sure the Arab stay divided. Peace in the Middle East would be disastrous for Israel, because instead of playing the victim of persecution, they would have to come to terms with their own insecurity from within -- and possibly have to loose a bit of real estate. 

So it’s much simpler, as usual, to blame -- and fight -- someone else. Here The Jews are to maintain the pox as long as it does not become terminal. They are expert in maintaining the relative shit. They control the cash and act bigger than their station because of the US’s might. Meanwhile the Sunnis of the house of Saud control the oil. The US supplies the weapons. And everything is going according to plan as long as the Russians don’t interfere too much -- and as long as peace does not spoil the racket. 

It’s insane but that is the way things are done. The Donald wanted to solve the Middle East crisis... BOOM... He had to declare something against Iran in order to stay friendly with the Sauds and Israel. Donald wanted to be friend with the Russians... BOOM... The Jews do not like this attitude and manipulate the Donald to react against this judgement. 

Will Donald Trump and any other President before him, realise how they have been manipulated? Trump and his predecessors did not care as long as the US can sell weapons -- Trump more than any President before him -- and make a lot of cash.

Mother Courage is proud of her brood. God blesses the continuation of war... because without war, god is nothing more but a forgotten cloud.

 

nothing has changed, except the players...

 

Ten Years ago:

A JEWISH POLICY is now the central mark of American foreign policy. Why do I say this? Because 4 Jews are dictating American Foreign Policy to President George Bush:

1. Irving Kristol
2. Paul Wolfowitz
3. Richard Perle
4. Michael Ledeen

These Jews call themselves “neoconservatives.” But these Jewish neocons are really not“conservatives” in the strict sense of American conservatism. They are, rather, primarily “Jews.” And it is a Jewish cause, namely, Zionism that these 4 Jews are installing as the key component of George Bush’s Foreign Policy.

Although these Jews are promoting Zionism, none of them live in Israel - nor do they have plans to. This is because Zionism for Jews is simply having a place to escape to once a persecution (always justified) breaks out against them.

The neocon Jews tell Americans that they are advancing democracy. They tell Americans that their children should go to war to help advance that “worthy” cause. But what this love of democracy really means for the Jewish neocons is a love for the billions of dollars that America spends on lethal weapons earmarked for Israel so that Israel can defend “democracy” by burning little children’s faces in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip.

The Jewish neocons are former Democrats. When George McGovern wanted nothing more to do with militarism and opposing the Soviet Union in his 1972 election campaign, the Jewish Democrats bailed out. Where did they go? To the Republicans! Why? Because the Republicans were against the Soviet Union. For the Soviet Union, with their arming of Syria and training of Palestine Liberation operatives, was something these Zionist Jews and the Republicans were against.

The Jewish neocons began their takeover of Washington when Irving Kristol, the godfather of the movement and the founder of Commentary Magazine, (widely read by Jews and politicians on their payroll), in a series of articles written in the early 1990’s, launched the Jewish neoconservative agenda:

 “The historical task and political purpose of neo-conservatism is to convert the Republican Party and American conservatism in general, against their prospective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy.” 

The above can only be said by those who are in control. - Next came phase II of their takeover of Washington through the use of the Jewish controlled Media. The New RepublicThe National ReviewCommentary MagazineThe Weekly Standard, and most important, the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal began publishing tutoring sessions to convert, (against their wills), the Republican party and American foreign policy makers. In a 2003 offering, Irving Kristol compared the US of today with the old Soviet Union:

 “Large nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of yesteryear and the US of today, inevitably have ideological interests in addition to more material concerns.

The US will then always feel obliged to defend a democratic nation under attack from non democratic forces, external or internal. That is why we feel it is necessary to defend Israel when its survival is threatened. No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary.” 

Suddenly America is an “ideological” nation rather than a “Christian nation” founded by a particular ethno-cultural group of Western Europe that should preserve its Christian heritage.

Secondly, Irving Kristol cannot be ignorant that America has supported many non democratic nations. In the Cold War the US welcomed as allies, Chiang Kai-Shek, Franco, Somoza, President Marcos, the Shah of Iran, and militarists in Turkey.

read more:

http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=35

 

evicting the world...

The Israeli government held a debate on Sunday, vowing to kick out UN and affiliated agencies from its longstanding offices in East Jerusalem, as proposed by a minister of culture, after UNESCO passed a strongly-worded resolution, labelling Israel “the occupying power.”

While no information on the outcome of the meeting is yet available, there is only a slight chance that such an idea could be actually translated into action with the Israeli Foreign Ministry reportedly warning of repercussions.           

read more:

https://www.rt.com/news/387530-israel-debate-evict-un-jerusalem/

at the weapon market sale...

President Trump is preparing to reverse the Obama-era policy banning the sale of advanced guided missiles to Saudi Arabia. However, Russian observers say if the deal goes through, it will be a crushing blow to Grom-2, a Ukrainian program to create an analogue to Russia's Iskander short range ballistic missile system.

On Thursday, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir confirmed that the Trump administration had taken steps to modify the Congressional notification program in order to advance the sale of over $1 billion-worth of Raytheon Paveway precision-guided missiles and Penetrator warheads to Riyadh.

The deal is expected to be just a part of weapons contracts worth tens of billions of dollars currently being negotiated by US defense companies and Saudi Arabia ahead of Trump's visit to the country later this month. Al-Jubeir said that the president's visit would be "historic," and welcomed his administration's tough rhetoric against Iran.

read more:

https://sputniknews.com/military/201705061053344468-saudi-ukrainian-missile-deal/

....חדשות מזויפות

 

Referring to a recently modified policy by Palestinian political group Hamas, the embattled Israeli leader said: "Ever wonder what fake news is? Last week, headlines in CNN, Al Jazeera and The Guardian said Hamas now accepts a Palestinian state along the 1967 lines. The New York Times headline called this ‘moderation.'"

Netanyahu, under fire in Israel for corruption and increasingly extremist views, sought to cast offers for peace in the region from his government's primary foe as a mere distraction.

"The intimation is that Hamas now accepts the state of Israel," Netanyahu said. "Great news, right? Well except for one small detail: This is a complete distortion of the truth."

In reporting the new Hamas charter announcement, CNN wrote: "Hamas says it accepts '67 borders, but doesn't recognize Israel," while a New York Times headline stated: "Hamas Tempers Extreme Stances In Bid For Power."

The beleaguered prime minister, in attempting to distract from recent attention to his personal finances, stridently pushed back against the offer from Hamas to relax its policies toward Israel.

"It's bad enough Hamas lies to the world. We don't also have to lie to ourselves," Netanyahu remarked, prior to crumpling up a piece of paper purported to contain the policies and throwing it into a trash bin.

Read more:

https://sputniknews.com/politics/201705081053397669-netanyahu-claims-media-fake-news/

See toon at top... THIS IS NOT FAKE NEWS.

the russians are coming...

A photographer for a Russian state-owned news agency was allowed into the Oval Office on Wednesday during President Donald Trump's meeting with Russian diplomats, a level of access that was criticised by former US intelligence officials as a potential security breach.

The officials cited the danger that a listening device or other surveillance equipment could have been brought into the Oval Office while hidden in cameras or other electronics.

read more:

http://www.smh.com.au/world/russian-photographer-in-oval-office-raises-s...

 

a permanent state of war...

 

Despite efforts by the Pentagon and the military brass, including Gen David Petraeus, to get the Obama administration to renegotiate the deal with the Iraqi government to allow tens of thousands of combat troops to stay in the country, the Iraqis refused US demands for immunity from prosecution in Iraq, and the US had to withdraw all its troops.

Reversing withdrawals

Now the regional context has shifted dramatically in favour of the US military’s ambitions. On one hand, the war against Islamic State (IS) is coming to a climax in both Iraq and Syria, and the Iraq government recognises the need for more US troops to ensure that it can’t rise again; and in Syria, the division of the country into zones of control that depend on foreign powers is an overriding fact.  

Meanwhile in Afghanistan, growing Taliban power and control across the country is being cited as the rationale for a proposal to reverse the withdrawals of US and NATO troops in recent years and to allow a limited return by US forces to combat.

Now that Islamic State forces are being pushed out of Mosul, both the Trump administration and the Iraqi government are beginning to focus on how to ensure that the terrorists do not return.

They are now negotiating on an agreement that would station US forces in Iraq indefinitely. And the troops would not be there merely to defeat IS, but to carry out what the war bureaucracies call “stabilisation operations” - getting involved in building local political and military institutions.   

Plans for Syria

The question of what to do about Syria is apparently the subject of in-fighting between Mattis and the Pentagon, on one hand, and McMaster, on the other.

The initial plan for the defeat of IS in Syria, submitted to Trump in February, called for an increase in the size of US ground forces beyond the present level of 1,000.

 

But a group of officers who have worked closely with Gen Petraeus on Iraq and Afghanistan, which includes McMaster, has been pushing a much more ambitious plan, in which thousands – and perhaps many thousands - of US ground troops would lead a coalition of Sunni Arab troops to destroy Islamic State’s forces in Syria rather than relying on Kurdish forces to do the job. 

Both the original plan and the one advanced by McMaster for Syria would also involve US troops in “stabilisation operations” for many years across a wide expanse of eastern Syria that would require large numbers of troops for many years.

Both in its reliance on Sunni Arab allies and in its envisioning a large US military zone of control in Syria, the plan bears striking resemblance to the one developed for Hillary Clinton by the Center for New American Security when she was viewed as the president-in-waiting.

Reversing Obama's Afghanistan policy

The Pentagon proposal on Afghanistan, which had not been formally submitted by Mattis as of this week, calls for increasing the present level of 8,400 US troops in Afghanistan by 1,500 to 5,000, both to train Afghan forces and to fight the Taliban. It also calls for resuming full-scale US air strikes against the Taliban. Both policy shifts would reverse decisions made by the Obama administration.

 

Five past US commanders in Afghanistan, including Petraeus, have publicly caIled for the US to commit itself to an “enduring partnership” with the Afghan government. That means, according to their joint statement, ending the practice of periodic reassessments as the basis for determining whether the US should continue to be involved militarily in the war, an idea that is likely part of the package now being formulated by Mattis.

But the problem with such a plan is that the US military and its Afghan client government have now been trying to suppress the Taliban for 16 years. The longer they have tried, the stronger the Taliban have become. The US and NATO were not able to pressure the Taliban to negotiate with the government even when they had more than 100,000 troops in the country.

Committing the US to endless war in Afghanistan would only reinforce the corruption, abuses of power and culture of impunity that Gen Stanley A McChystal acknowledged in 2009 were the primary obstacles to reducing support for the Taliban. Only the knowledge that the US will let the Afghans themselves determine the country’s future could shock the political elite sufficiently to change its ways.

Most political and national security elites as well as the corporate news media support the push to formalise a permanent US presence in Afghanistan, despite the fact that national polls indicate that it is the most unpopular war in US history with 80 percent of those surveyed in a CNN poll in 2013 opposing its continuation.

Beltway brawl?

There are signs that Trump may reject at least the plans for Afghanistan and Syria. Only days after his approval of the missile strike on a Russian-Syrian airbase, Trump told Fox Business in an interview, “We’re not going into Syria.”  

And White House spokesman Sean Spicer seemed to suggest this week that Trump was not enamoured with the plan to spend many more years trying to “transform” Afghanistan. “There is a difference between Afghanistan proper and our effort to defeat ISIS,” Spicer said

Despite Trump’s love for the military brass, the process of deciding on the series of new initiatives aimed at committing the US more deeply to three wars in the greater Middle East is bound to pose conflicts between the political interests of the White House and the institutional interests of the Pentagon and military leaders.

 

http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/pentagon-seeks-permanent-war-iraq-a...

Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist and winner of the 2012 Gellhorn Prize for journalism. He is the author of the newly published Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

 

Note:The Martha Gellhorn Prize rewards journalism at the cutting edge. This prestigious award celebrates journalism that challenges secrecy and mendacity in public affairs — ‘official drivel’, as Gellhorn called it — and raises 'forgotten' issues of public importance, without fear or favour. In the first years of its existence, the Martha Gellhorn Prize sought submissions from the press in the United Kingdom only. This was then broadened to include any suitable work published in English. In the last few years, the award has begun to reflect the growing power of the world wide web and the rise of web-based journalism.

 

In the view of the judges, the prize must continue to reflect this trend, and respond to the high quality of much internet journalism. Often such material goes against the grain of news and current affairs fashions. Just as often, it gives a stark demonstration of discrepancies between what governments say they are doing and their actual deeds: a state of affairs that ‘mainstream’ print journalism can be slow to address. The Martha Gellhorn Prize welcomes this new and vital source of information.

Though we will not advertise for them as we have in the past, we shall continue to welcome articles published in print.

We are now receiving submissions for journalism published in print or online in 2016.

As in previous years, all entries, electronic or printed, must be substantial and credible, and demonstrate a facts-based approach. Blogs and opinion pieces will not be considered and we are unable to take submissions from previous winners.

 

read more:

http://www.marthagellhorn.com/

 

 

 

 

 

meanwhile, from the backside of the US loony prez...

 

The US forces in Syria have bombed a militia group fighting alongside the Syrian government forces in southern Syria on Thursday, the US-led coalition has confirmed.

The coalition said in a statement that the Syrian forces "posed a threat" to US and partner troops at Tanf base near the Syria-Iraq-Jordan border.

May 18 #Coalition struck #Syrian pro-regime forces advancing in a de-confliction zone near At Tanf posing a threat to #US partner forces1/3

— Inherent Resolve (@CJTFOIR) May 18, 2017

"This action was taken after apparent Russian attempts to dissuade Syrian pro-regime movement south towards At Tanf were unsuccessful, a coalition aircraft show of force, and the firing of warning shots," the statement said.

Having commented on the incident, the US Defense Secretary James Mattis said Washington was not deepening its role in the Syrian conflict, but would defend its troops.

#BREAKING US 'not increasing' role in Syrian civil war: Mattis

— AFP news agency (@AFP) May 18, 2017

The Syrian forces allegedly entered a so-called "de-confliction" zone in the Homs Governorate, which was perceived as a threat to "US-allied troops." The militia forces allegedly clashed with the Pentagon-backed Maghawir Al-Thawra militant group (formerly known as New Syrian Army), which called in coalition air support.

We notified the coalition that we were being attacked by the Syrian army and Iranians in this point and the coalition came and destroyed the advancing convoy," Reuters cited a militant representative as saying.

#Coalition forces have operated in the At Tanf area for many months training & advising vetted partner forces who are fighting #ISIS.3/3

— Inherent Resolve (@CJTFOIR) May 18, 2017

US special forces have been present in the area "for many months" to train and advise Free Syrian Army fighters. Damascus considers such Washington's presence illegal in the country, as no official invitation has been extended to the US to conduct any military action on its territory.

If true, this is FRICKIN ILLEGAL. Trump does not have Congressional authorization to attack Syria, a country that has not attacked US. https://t.co/5cf7gBVwC7

— Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) May 18, 2017

A tank and a bulldozer were hit during the strike, AP reports, citing unnamed US defense officials. There have been unconfirmed reports of casualties on the Syrian side.

READ MORE: US denies responsibility for Deir ez-Zor airstrikes that killed dozens

According to Al-Masdar News citing the Syrian military, the coalition warplane entered Syrian airspace from the Jordanian border. It reportedly hit a convoy of five tanks, destroying two of them.

Six military personnel were killed and another three injured, Al-Masdar News reported, citing the military.

read more:

https://www.rt.com/usa/388864-us-led-coalition-confirms-strike-syria/

 

Of course the Yankees do not want the Assad led coalition to win the war in Syria. Not even against Daesh. The US want to take the cake for itself and gift it to the Saudis. So the US is doing ILLEGAL bombings in Syria under false pretexts all designed to prolong the war and blame this on Assad... Note that the US does not have TROOPS in Syria to defend, just a few bunches of terrorists paid by the US to bid for the US.