Friday 29th of May 2020

admiral arthur cebrowski's middle-east...

US middle east

Finding a way out of the war against Syria


by Thierry Meyssan


The White House is unable to extricate itself from the war in Syria. President Trump is hindered both by the self-proclaimed « stable state » (according to the anonymous op ed in the New York Times), which continues to pursue the Rumsfeld-Cebrowski strategy, and by the reactivated ambitions of his Israëli, French, British and Turkish allies. The logic of these interests could displace the war instead of resolving it.

Although the White House and Russia have agreed to end the proxy war fought by jihadists in Syria, peace is a long time coming. Why?

Why is there a war against Syria?

Contrary to the idea carefully sown by seven years of propaganda, the war against Syria is not a « revolution which went wrong ». It was decided by the Pentagon in September 2001, then prepared for many years, admittedly with a few difficulties.

A war in preparation for a decade

A reminder of the main stages of the planning of the war: 
- In September 2001, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld adopted the strategy of Admiral Arthur Cebrowski, which specified that the state structures of half of the world had to be destroyed. For those states whose economy is globalised, the United States would control the access to the natural resources of those regions not connected to the global economy. The Pentagon commenced its work by « remodelling » the « Greater Middle East » [1]. 
- On 12 December 2003, George Bush Jr. signed the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act. From that moment on, the President of the United States enjoyed the right to go to war with Syria without having to ask Congress for approval [2]. 
- The Lebanese civil war (1978-90) ended with the Taif Agreement. At the request of the Arab League, and with the approbation of the UN Security Council, the Syrian Arab Army came to the assistance of the Lebanese army in disarming the militias, then, acting as a Peace Force, stabilised the country. Thereafter, Israël accused Syria of having occupied Lebanon, which makes no sense at all. [3
- In 2004, during the summit of the Arab League in Tunis, President Ben Ali attempted to push through a motion authorising the League to legitimise the use of force against member states who refused to respect the League’s brand new Human Rights Charter. 
- In 2005, the CIA organised the Cedar revolution in Lebanon. By assassinating Sunni leader Rafic Hariri and blaming the Christian President of Lebanon and the Alaouite President of Syria, they hoped to trigger a Sunni uprising against the Syrian Peace Forces. With the Marines ready to disembark in Beïrut, Syria withdrew on its own initiative, and the tension was dissipated [4]. 
- In 2006, Dick Cheney tasked his daughter Liz with creating the « Iran Syria Policy and Operations Group ». They organised the Israeli attack against Hezbollah, thinking that they would be unable to resist for long. US Marines were then intended to disembark in Beïrut and continue their march of « liberation » on Damascus. However, the operation failed, and after 33 days of combat, Israël had to retreat [5]. 
- In 2008, Washington once again tried to create conflict with Lebanon as its flash point. Prime Minister Fouad Siniora decided to cut the internal communications of the Resistance and to interrupt air transport with Teheran. Within a few hours, Hezbollah had inverted the Western military system and replaced all of its infrastructures. 
- In 2010, Washington adopted the strategy of « leading from behind ». The Obama administration handed the attacks on Libya and Syria to France and the United Kingdom respectively (Lancaster House agreements). 
- In 2011, beginning of military operations in Syria.

It is therefore absurd to speak of the war against Syria as a spontaneous event sui generis [6].

Indirect war

The original feature of the war against Syria is that although it was declared by states (the « Friends of Syria »), it was in reality fought almost exclusively by non-state armies, the jihadists.

During the seven years of this war, more than 250,000 combatants arrived from overseas to fight against the Syrian Arab Republic. They were without doubt little more than cannon fodder, and insufficiently trained, but during the first four years of the conflict, these soldiers were better armed than the Syrian Arab Army. The most important arms traffic in History was organised in order to keep the jihadists supplied with war materials [7].

The Western powers had not used mercenaries on this scale since the European Renaissance [8].

It is therefore absurd to speak of a « revolution that went wrong ».

A war supervised by allies who have their own objectives

By asking Israël to attack Lebanon on their behalf, then by handing over the wars on Libya and Syria to France and the United Kingdom, and finally by using the NATO installations in Turkey, the Pentagon allowed its plan to be confounded by its allies.

Just as in all wars, the leading country has to promise its obedient allies that they will be awarded a return on their investment. However, with the entry of Russia into the war, Western victory became impossible. Every one of the United States allies turned progressively back towards its own strategy in the region. With time, the war objectives of the allies gained the upper hand over those of the United States, who refused to invest as much as they should have done, militarily speaking.


Pursuing the colonial ideology of some of its founding fathers, Israël implemented a policy of division intended to split its larger neighbours into a collection of small countries which were to be ethnically or religiously homogeneous. It therefore supported - in vain - the division of Lebanon into two states, one Muslim and one Christian, or again the creation of a Kurdistan in Iraq, then later in Syria. We do not have the Israëli strategic documents, but retrospectively, the line followed by Tel-Aviv corresponds to the « Yinon plan » of 1982 [9] or that of the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies of 1996 [10].

The Israëli strategy stayed within the limits of the « remodelling of the Greater Middle East » designed by Rumsfeld and Cebrowski. However, it did not have anything like the same objective - the Pentagon wanted to control the access to the region’s riches by the developed countries, while Israël wanted to ensure that none of its neighbours could become strong enough to challenge it.

The United Kingdom and France

The United Kingdom and France fell back on their colonial policy, as it was defined at the moment of the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the division of the Middle East (the Sykes-Picot agreements).

The British used a replay of the « Great Arab Revolt of 1915 » that Lawrence of Arabia had set up against the Ottomans. At that time, they had promised freedom to all Arabs if they would throw off the shackles of the Ottoman Empire and place the Wahhabites in power, This time they promised freedom if they would overthrow all their national governments and replace them with the Muslim Brotherhood. But neither in 1915, when the British Empire replaced the Ottoman Empire, nor in 2011, did the Arabs find their liberty. That was the « Arab Spring » plan of 2011 [11].

The French were seeking to re-establish the mandate on Syria which had been handed to them by the League of Nations. This was explained by Picot’s great-nephew (as in the Sykes-Picot agreements), ex- President Giscard d’Estaing [12]. And that is what President Hollande demanded during his visit to the United Nations, in September 2015. Just as in 1921, when France stood for the ethnic separation of the Kurds from the Arabs, it therefore defended the creation of a Kurdistan, not on its historic territory in Turkey, but anywhere, so long as it was on Arab land in Syria.


As for Turkey, it dreamed of realising the promise of its founder, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the « National Pact » (Misak-ı Millî) [13], adopted by the Ottoman Parliament on 12 February 1920. Its intention was to annex Northern Syria, including Aleppo, and also to eliminate the Christians, including the Catholics in Maaloula and the Armenians in Kessab.

Turkey entered into conflict with the other allies – with the Israëlis because they sought to annex Northern Syria rather than making it autonomous – with the British because they wanted to re-establish the Ottoman Caliphate - and with the French because they sought to create an independent Kurdistan in Syria. Above all, it entered into conflict with the United States themselves because they made no secret of wanting to destroy Syria after having dismantled it [14].

How to escape from this war?

After seven years of combat, the Syrian state is still standing. The Syrian Arab Republic and its allies, Russia, Iran and the Hezbollah, are victorious. The foreign armies (the jihadists) have suffered a crushing defeat, but not their commanders – the United States, Israël, the United Kingdom, France and Turkey.

Not only has the war re-awoken the ambitions of the beginning of the 20th century, but none of the protagonists who have not paid for their defeat in blood are ready to abandon the fight.

It may seem stupid to want to start over with a war which has already been lost by the jihadists. The presence of the Russian army makes impossible any direct confrontation. Far from being eliminated, the Syrian population is now battle-hardened, ready to suffer even more hardship, and is much better armed than before. Above all, it has given the situation some serious thought, and is less manipulable than it was in 2011. However, just as before, Western political rhetoric has once again taken up its refrain « Bachar must go ».

Logically, therefore, the conflict will have to start again on another battle-field. While in the past, Admiral Cebrowski had planned to take the next stage of the war to Central Asia and the South-East, his successors will first have to finish the job in the Greater Middle East. They are currently studying the possibility of relighting the fire in Iraq, as we see with the spectacular about-face of the Rohani administration and the riots in Bassorah.

Thierry Meyssan

Pete Kimberley





Trump, an expert in false facts...

Before the 2016 election, candidate Donald Trump told voters he would ‘find out who really knocked down the World Trade Center.’ His promise may turn out to be as empty as his predecessor’s undertaking to close down Guantánamo Bay. Or he may be prevented from keeping it by those who know the truth.

Trump, an expert in false facts, questioned the version of events provided by the 9/11 Commission Report. More significantly, so did many scientists, engineers, and intelligence analysts. Experts from a wide range of countries at The Toronto Hearings on 9/11 in 2011 produced a DVD two years later, subtitled ‘Uncovering Ten Years of Deception’. The facts are presented in several books, including those by David Ray Griffin, Peter Dale Scott, Paul Thompson and Nafeez Ahmed: but many still can’t believe them.

When Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was asked in 1996 if the deaths of half a million Arab children following Gulf War I was justified, she infamously replied, ‘I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it’ (US ‘60 Minutes,’ 12 May 1996). Most of the people who died on and after 11 September 2001 were not Arabs or children, yet their 3000-plus deaths caused much greater international outrage than those in Iraq. It set off a war of retribution that killed hundreds of thousands in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Sudan, and Syria, injured many more, and is still doing so. On a rough calculation, each of the New York and Washington deaths was worth at least 30 Iraqis.


Read more:

rumsfeld should be in prison for life...

On the afternoon of September 11, Rumsfeld issued rapid orders to his aides to look for evidence of possible Iraqi involvement in regard to what had just occurred, according to notes taken by senior policy official Stephen Cambone. "Best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." – meaning Saddam Hussein – "at same time. Not only UBL" (Osama bin Laden), Cambone's notes quoted Rumsfeld as saying. "Need to move swiftly  – Near term target needs  – go massive  – sweep it all up. Things related and not."[61][62]

That evening, after President Bush spoke to the nation from the Oval Office, Rumsfeld recalled musing about the President's intended response to attack terrorists from whatever territory they planned and operated. He reported questioning whether that would include attacking American allies, and suggested that the problem be magnified and viewed from a broader scope. He recommended that state sponsors of terror, including Sudan, Libya, Iraq and Iran, be considered as possible places of sanctuary if the U.S. were to attack Afghanistan.[63]

Rumsfeld wrote in Known and Unknown, "Much has been written about the Bush administration's focus on Iraq after 9/11. Commentators have suggested that it was strange or obsessive for the President and his advisers to have raised questions about whether Saddam Hussein was somehow behind the attack. I have never understood the controversy. I had no idea if Iraq was or was not involved, but it would have been irresponsible for any administration not to have asked the question."[64]

Read more:


That premise by Rumsfeld that it would have been "irresponsible" not to ask the question, is "irresponsible" as the US administation would have known about the culprit and their relationship with the Saudis, rather than with Saddam, but Saddam made a "better story". One year after 9/11, Bush was still publicly blaming Saddam for it. Bush, Howard, Blair and their minions, such as Rumsfeld and Cheney, should be rotting in jail.

means, motive, and opportunity...

Published on: Sep 19, 2018 @ 01:06 – 

Russia appears to be involved in an appropriate and strategically prudent disinformation campaign to avoid any further irreparable damage in Franco-Russian relations. FRN will analyze why it is most probable that France took down the Russian Il-20 military aircraft, and not the SAA air defense systems as first Israeli, and then Russian media have today begun to officially report.

It will be critical of course to establish the key necessities in making the case. Means, motive, and opportunity. Once these are established, we then proceed to establishing that this is the most probable case even as others had one, two, or even all three of these and this will be done in part by countering some of the nevertheless intelligent but imperfect reasoning now being printed regarding possible theories. In general, the pro-Russian media sphere is at this time ‘following up’ on the quite recent Russian official pronouncements that the SAA themselves accidentally shot down the Il-20, even while nominally blaming Israel and naming it ‘responsible’ for the incident.

What the Russians claim is that Israeli craft using the Il-20 for cover ‘confused’ the SAA system and that the SAA system hit the Russian Il-20. We will explain that while this is possible, it is unlikely, and in fact the least likely of any realistic scenarios given the tremendous preparation and planning that goes into these events.

Why France?

The US wants to further damage Franco-Russian relations. France under multiple governments since 2011, has called for Assad to step down, and has already threatened ‘military action’ against Syria, so relations between these two countries are already ‘ruined’. But relations between France and Syria aren’t critical for peace, stability, and the general project for Eurasian-European integration. However, Franco-Russian relations are very critical, and while it’s been noted previously by experts that the aim of the U.S is to permanently poison EU-RF relations, Russia therefore is the obvious party that has the least interest in escalating tensions or further souring relations with France. 

We can see this in any number of cases, but specifically  in how they dealt with the Turkish downing of the Russian plane a few years ago over Syrian skies. Their aim was to de-escalate, and ultimately show that the Turkish pilot involved was part of a directly NATO controlled part of the Turkish military that was operating, essentially ‘rogue’ and not under Erdogan’s orders. When the coup attempt happened later, this same Turkish pilot was named in that group of anti-Erdogan coup-plotters. Russia did not use the opportunity to try to further worsen ties with Turkey. In fact, they used the opportunity to eventually strengthen ties with Turkey. This was wise, and most prudent, regardless of what actual facts were in play.

Last night Lattakia was attacked by navy assets off the Syrian coast, as well as Israeli airforce, and Russia appears to be saying it was ‘also’ France insofar as they report that ‘French missile launches were detected’ during the attack. FRN is clear that Russia ‘appears’ to be saying it was France that hit Lattakia, but isn’t saying this conclusively. This point will be explained.

This is an observational approach to information sharing, rather than deductive or conclusive. It also runs the two lines of information together, without necessarily connecting them. Russian official announcements, and Russian state run or synergy media like Sputnik, have all run the story the same way – running the two lines of information together, back to back, without necessarily connecting them causally or deductively. This will be important in untangling what Russia is officially, vs. not officially saying regarding the downing of the Russian Il-20 military aircraft off the coast of Syria and the death of 15 of its crew. The following screen shot with arrows and explanation added by FRN is meant to help prove and illustrate how Russian media is approaching this question.

So we have a Russian plane downed possibly by French Naval ship, or by the SAA air defense forces protecting Lattakia itself. The second proposition is least credible. So let’s now look at how the story looks specifically about the downed Russian Il-20 military aircraft. Hopefully, in terms of the veracity of FRN’s claims, Sputnik refrains from changing its textual presentation here, so nevertheless we provide screen shots immediately below which will allow us to see two things.

One, that the pattern fits the same as the screen shot above, an event is registered as happening, and the activities of another party are named, but no connection is specifically made. Fact 1 and Fact 2 are divided. The reader is left to make of it what they will.

If this led some readers to ‘mistakenly’ conclude at first that France had something to do with the take down of the Il-20, they would, by Russian accounts, be ‘officially’ wrong, but most probably right. We can see the same Russian official method of information dissemination is used in the above screen shot, but in fact and indeed, Russia is not specifically ruling out that the registered missile launches had something to do with what hit Lattakia.

At the same time, (and this gets more complicated, but referring to the above map will help,) we propose instead that something else happened. Israeli warplanes hit Lattakia, and perhaps Israeli ground systems were also aimed and hit Lattakia (we have no reports of the latter), and perhaps also French naval vessels’ missiles hit Lattakia, but again this last point is not in fact established by Russian media per se. If Russia later revises or updates this story has events emerge, and diplomatic interactions take a certain, or more clear, or more definable direction, then perhaps Russian reportage on this will change, retroactively. But this is where the infowar stood at the time of the events, and through the early afternoon of September 18th, Belgrade time.

Secondly, readers will take note of the inclusion of the French denial. This French denial is bizarre and entirely out of place, since no one accused France. Do innocent parties randomly and yet officially deny involvement in things of which they are not formally accused? In most cases, no they do not.


Read more:




blaming the victim of aggression...

The tragic loss of a Russian military aircraft with 15 personnel onboard, off the Syrian coast, has to be seen in the context of the Arab country being attacked.

Attacked by the Israeli air force and facing an unprecedented buildup of NATO warships.

Yet, Syria – the victim of aggression – is the one being blamed.

What’s more, the Western news media are shamefully silent on condemning the aggression. Their silence is giving cover for further violence.

What exactly happened to the doomed Ilyushin IL-20 recon plane on Monday night is still being investigated. It appears to have been accidentally shot down by Syrian air defenses as it approached the Russian base at Hmeimim in northwest Syria.

READ MORE: Il-20 Accidentally Downed by Syria: Putin Calls Incident Tragic Chain of Events

Russia’s defense ministry blamed Israeli forces for putting the Il-20 in danger by flying four F-16 fighter jets in the vicinity, thereby possibly confusing Syrian radar signals to fire on an allied Russian plane. Was that a deliberate move by the Israelis?

But here’s the infuriating thing. Israel is saying that the “Assad regime” is fully to blame for the shoot-down of the Russian aircraft, adding that it “regrets” the loss of Russian lives.

Read more:


Yep... But read above comment (means, motive, and opportunity...) where a very plausible explanation has been exposed. The way the Russians are "playing the diplomacy" might actually save the planet from a full-on conflict.


Read from top.

the US recycle their terrorists...


The use of terrorism according to John Bolton

by Thierry Meyssan

After having taken back from Daesh the State they had promised, straddling parts of Iraq and Syria, the United States now intend to recuperate some of their mercenaries in order to make use of them in a different manner. National Security Advisor John Bolton has designed new goals, new partners and new methods. Since this new system is secret, we know about it only insofar as parts of the plan have already been implemented. Thierry Meyssan explores this world of violence.

In 1978, President Carter’s National Security Advisor, Zbignew Brzezinski, decided to use the Muslim Brotherhood against the Soviets, and sent Arab combatants to support the Afghan opposition against the Communist régime. Responding to a call for help from the Afghan government, the Red Army became bogged down in an unwinnable conflict.

In Afghanistan, the Muslim Brotherhood were not armed by the CIA, who were unable to obtain the authorisation from Congress for an operation of that magnitude, but by Israël. In view of their success, the Arab-Afghans were later mobilised in many other theatres of operation. It followed, amongst other things, that the Brotherhood, armed both by Israël and Iraq, took a shot at the Syrian Arab Republic, in 1978-82. One thing leading to another, a representative of the Brotherhood was incorporated into the staff of NATO during the attack in Kosovo against Yugoslavia.

The position of the Muslim Brotherhood as auxiliary troops for NATO was cancelled at the end of the Clinton presidency, but the collaboration of the Brotherhood with the CIA has never been terminated. It was clearly re-instated with the attack on Libya under the Obama presidency, where it furnished almost all of the ground troops for the Atlantic Alliance. One of their representatives was even incorporated into the US National Security Council. Then, during the attack on Syria, NATO’s LandCom, situated in Izmir, coordinated the jihadist troops.

Since the Trump administration opposes on principle the use of terrorist groups by the US Armies, the moment arrived for the White House to redefine the role of the Muslim Brotherhood.

We do not yet know the new strategy defined by National Security Advisor John Bolton. However, several elements enable us to guess its general form.


At the beginning of 2018, US Special Forces illegally stationed in Syria exfiltrated thousands of Daesh combatants overseas. In May 2018, General Yahya Rahim Safavi, military advisor to Ayatollah Khamenei, accused the USA of organising the transfer of Daesh combatants to Afghanistan.

Currently, approximately 7,000 of them are still on Afghani soil. Contrary to their past position, they do not support the Taliban, who are currently opposed to all foreign presence, but now oppose them.

JPEG - 30.1 kb

According to the spokesman for the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (in other words the Taliban), Qari Muhammad Youssuf Ahmadi - 
« The American invaders and their lackeys carried out a raid last night [12 January 2019] against a Mujahedin camp where members of Daesh were being held, situated in Pani Bus in the district of Jwand, Bâdghîs province. The joint enemy forces martyred two guards and left with 40 Daesh-affiliated prisoners. Apparently the American invaders and their henchmen from the Kabul administration launched this raid in order to help the Daesh prisoners. Every time the Mujahedin of the Islamic Emirate [the Taliban] have fought Daesh, the American invaders have assisted Daesh and bombed Mujahedin positions. Exactly the same way that when Daesh was uprooted by the Mujahedin of Darzab, in the district of Jowzjan, and was about to be destroyed [last August], the American invaders and the Kabul administration jointly assisted 200 members of Daesh by helicopter ».

JPEG - 60.5 kb

It was at this moment that the Combating Terrorism Centre of the military Academy of West Point published a historical study of the divergences between the Mujahedin during the war against the Soviets. This document noted that in 1989, during the retreat of the Red Army, and when Oussama Ben Laden had returned to Saudi Arabia, certain young members of the Muslim Brotherhood questioned the laxism of their senior officers. They created the « Jalalabad School », which was much more strict, and began to accuse various people of impiety and excommunicated them (takfir). This, they say, is the conflict that blew up again in 2014, provoking the split between Al-Qaïda and Daesh.

This flashback should not blind us to the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood continued to welcome not only the Taliban, but all Afghani resistants, until the assassination of Ahmed Chah Massoud (himself an ex-member of the Muslim Brotherhood), on 9 September 2001 (two days before the attacks of New York and the Pentagon). For two decades, Afghanistan became the training ground for jihadists from all over the world, particularly the combatants from the Russian Caucasus. Today the Taliban are much more careful with their choice of allies and their friends. It is true that today they control 60 % of the territory. They no longer base themselves on theological grounds, but on nationalist criteria.

JPEG - 33.9 kb
Brother Gulbuddin Hekmatyar is the war commander for Pakistan and Turkey in Afghanistan 

During the war against the Soviets, the Muslim Brotherhood were mainly aligned with ex-Prime Minister Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who was their representative in the country. On 22 September 2016, with the support of the Obama administration, he was awarded the pardon of the new Afghan state and was removed from the UN list of terrorists.

JPEG - 37.5 kb
The siege of the Taliban in Qatar 

The arrival of Daesh in Afghanistan occurred at the time when the Trump administration had been trying - since July 2018 - to negotiate with the Taliban. Preliminary contacts took place in Qatar with ambassador Alice Wells, assistant to Mike Pompeo for Central Asia. The negotiations were headed by ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad in September and October, despite the anxiety of the Afghan government, which sent a representative but were not admitted. Khalilzad had fought alongside the Talibans, Pachtuns like himself, against the Soviets, before taking US citizenship. He was trained in neoconservatism and became ambassador to the UNO in 2007, when the Senate opposed the nomination of John Bolton.

JPEG - 34.2 kb
Built by Israël between 2013 and 2015 close to Tirana, the secret town of Manza is the military base for the People’s Mujahedin in Albania. 
The People’s Mujaheddin

Last week, the head of the People’s Mujaheddin (MEK) of Iran, Maryam Radjavi, travelled to Kabul on an official visit, from Tirana, where she lives. She met specifically with the President of the National Security Council and ex-ambassador to the United States, Hamdullah Mohib. Within the next few days, she should be travelling to Herat, in the district of Shindand, to establish a military base for her organisation. According to the Pakistani newspaper Ummat, the Pentagon has already trained 2,000 of the People’s Mujahedin there, in October 2012.

Despite their apparent similarity in name, there is no connection between the Mujahedin (with one d) of the Muslim Brotherhood (who are Arabs and Sunnis) and the Mujaheddin (with two d’s) of the MEK (who are Persian and Chiites). The only objective link between the two groups is that they have both been used by the United States and both practise terrorism.

As from 2013, the MEK has been transferred from Iraq to Albania with the support of the United States. A small town has been built for them by Israëli companies. However, on 23 June 2014, Maryam Radjavi, in a long speech given before 80,000 members of the sect and 600 Western personalities, spoke of her satisfaction that Iraq had been conquered by Daesh. We should remember that this victory had been organised with the help of General Ezzat Ibrahim al-Douri, ex-right-hand man for President Saddam Hussein, and as such, protector of the People’s Mujahedin.

John Bolton’s links with the MEK date back to the Bush administration. They were strengthened by his presence - for a price of 40,000 dollars - during their annual meetings at Villepinte (France), in 2010 and 2017. Having become the National Security Advisor, he now unites the jihadists from Daesh and the loyal followers of Maryam Radjavi against their common objective.

The most immediate of the targets of this terrorist alliance should be Iran, with whom Afghanistan shares a long frontier, hard to defend.

Thierry Meyssan

Pete Kimberley

Mint Press News (USA)


Read more:




Read from top.

is trump slowly bringing in peace to the world?

Will Donald Trump Bring Peace?

by Thierry Meyssan

After two and a half years in power, President Donald Trump is about to impose his views on the Pentagon. The one who put an end to Daesh’s "Sunnistan" plan is to end the Rumsfeld / Cebrowski doctrine of destroying state structures in the wider Middle East. If it succeeds, peace will return to the region as well as to the Caribbean Basin. However, the peoples who have survived military imperialism will still have to fight for their economic sovereignty.

For two and a half years, the United States has pursued two contradictory and incompatible strategies [1]. 

- On the one hand, the destruction of state structures in large areas - the enlarged Middle East since 2001, then the Caribbean Basin since 2018 - supported by the Department of Defense (Rumsfeld / Cebrowski doctrine) [2]; 

- On the other, the control of the world energy market (Trump / Pompeo doctrine), supported by the White House, the CIA and the State Department [3].

It seems that President Donald Trump is about to impose his thoughts on his administration, still dominated by officials and military from the Bush and Obama eras, and to announce the consequences on September 19, at the 73rd Assembly United Nations General Assembly: Peace in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Venezuela and Nicaragua.

Announced during its election campaign in 2016, the transition from a bellicose logic of conquest to another, peaceful, economic hegemony is still not formally decided.

Even once recorded, such a turnaround will not happen in a day. And it will come with a price to pay.

Regarding the current main conflict, Syria, the principles of an agreement have been negotiated between the United States, Iran, Russia and Turkey. 

- We will not touch the borders of the country and we will not create a new state (neither the "Sunnistan" of Daesh [4], nor the "Kurdistan" of the PKK). But the country will be neutralized: the legal military bases of Russia on the Mediterranean coast will be balanced by permanent US posts - for the moment illegal - in the North-East of the country. 

- No pipeline will cross the country, be it Qatari or Iranian. Russia will exploit hydrocarbons, but the United States will have to be associated [5]. 

- Syrian reconciliation will be allowed in Geneva, when a new constitution is drafted by a representative committee of the various forces to the conflict. 

- US companies will have to participate, directly or indirectly, in the reconstruction of Syria.

The preparatory process for this agreement is still in its infancy. For the past two months, the Syrian Arab Army has been authorized to recapture the al-Qaeda-occupied Idleb governorate [6] and the United States has helped by bombing the headquarters of the terrorist organization [7]. Then, the United States began dismantling the fortification of pseudo-Kurdistan ("Rojava") [8] while developing those of their illegal military bases, including Hassaké. For the moment, the economic part of the plan has not started. The United States has besieged Syria since the fall of 2017 and sanctioned foreign companies - with the exception of the Emirati - who dared to participate in the 61st International Damascus Fair (August 28-September 6, 2019). [9] The reconstruction of the country remains impossible.

Simultaneously, in the Caribbean Basin, negotiations began quietly in June 2019 between the United States and Venezuela [10]. While Washington still repeats that Nicolás Maduro’s re-election in May 2018 is null and void, there is no longer any question of diplomats denigrating Chavismo or "judging the dictator", but offering a way out to "Constitutional president" [11]. The United States is prepared to abandon its plans to destroy state structures if they are involved in oil exploitation and trade.

It will be easy for pseudo-intellectuals to explain that the United States has led all these destabilizations and wars only for oil. But this theory does not account for what has happened for eighteen years. The Pentagon’s mission was to destroy the state structures of these regions. It did it in Afghanistan, Libya and Yemen, partly in Iraq and not at all in Syria. It is only today that the oil issue is back on the agenda.

The Trump / Pompeo strategy is a new calamity for the oil regions, but it is infinitely less damaging than that of Rumsfeld / Cebrowski which has devastated the broader Middle East for two decades with its tens of thousands of tortures and hundreds of thousands of murders.

Thierry Meyssan


Roger Lagassé



Read more:



Read from top.

is turkey "doing" the admiral doctrine on the US behalf?...

Read from top.

when "peace" is a war with invasion...

According to Finnish Prime Minister Antti Rinne, Turkey's actions have exacerbated the already-complicated humanitarian situation in Syria and could potentially spark a new refugee crisis.

Finland's centre-left government, led by the Social Democrats, has condemned the Turkish offensive in Syria, pledging to stop all arms exports to Ankara.

Just three weeks ago, the Finnish government approved drone exports to Turkey. Now, Helsinki has stopped all such weapons exports and strongly condemned Turkey's actions.

“The situation is serious. For my own area of responsibility, I note the following: Finland does not export defence material to countries that wage wars or violate human rights”, Finnish Defence Minister Antti Kaikkonen of the Centre Party tweeted. “No new arms export licenses from Finland to Turkey will be granted for the time being. The situation is also being investigated for the arms export licenses already granted”, Kaikkonen added.


Read more:





Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has warned Europe against criticizing his country’s newly-launched military incursion into Syria, claiming he could allow millions of refugees to pour into the EU if he so chooses.

In a speech to lawmakers from his AK party, Erdogan warned that there would be repercussions if Europe viewed Turkey’s operation in Syria as an invasion.

Hey EU, wake up. I say it again: if you try to frame our operation there as an invasion, our task is simple: we will open the doors and send 3.6 million migrants to you.

The threat comes after European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said that Ankara “must cease the ongoing military operation” in northeast Syria. He said that the incursion would “not work” and that Turkey should not expect Europe’s help with creating a so-called “safe-zone.”


Read more:


Note: Turkey hosts more than 4 million refugees in camps....





Ankara’s operation against Kurdish-led militias in northeastern Syria has been criticized across Europe and the Middle East, as one country after another sounded the alarm over the impact to the Syrian peace process.

The offensive by Turkish army and affiliated Syrian “opposition” militants kicked off on Wednesday with massive air and artillery strikes, followed by a land invasion dubbed ‘Operation Peace Spring.’

The EU has condemned the invasion and urged Turkey to halt it, expressing doubt the proclaimed goal of establishing a “safe zone” where refugees could return would be reached. EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said that Ankara should not “expect the EU to pay for any of” the said zone.

“The EU calls upon Turkey to cease the unilateral military action,” the 28 members of the bloc said in a joint statement. “It is unlikely that a so-called 'safe zone' in north-east Syria, as envisaged by Turkey, would satisfy international criteria for refugee return.”


Russian President Vladimir Putin urged his Turkish counterpart to “gauge the situation comprehensively” so that Ankara’s actions would not undermine the peace process in Syria.

An extraordinary UN Security Council meeting to assess the situation in Syria has been called by France and the UK and is expected to be held behind closed doors on Thursday, according to media reports.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said the Turkish actions were “jeopardizing the anti-Islamic State coalition's security and humanitarian efforts,” while his Dutch counterpart Stef Blok condemned the invasion and summoned Ankara’s envoy over it.

Egypt has urged the UNSC to halt “any attempts to occupy Syrian territories” and condemned the Turkish aggression in the “strongest terms,” calling for an emergency meeting of the League of Arab States as well. Similar reactions came from Saudi Arabia, Bahrein, Iran and others.


Read more:




Admitting that Turkey “invaded” Syria, US President Donald Trump called the attack “a bad idea” and said the US does not endorse it. Turkey is now responsible for guarding all the Islamic State captives in the area, he added.

“Turkey has committed to protecting civilians, protecting religious minorities, including Christians, and ensuring no humanitarian crisis takes place—and we will hold them to this commitment,” Trump said in a statement published by the White House on Wednesday.

Turkey is now responsible for ensuring all ISIS fighters being held captive remain in prison and that ISIS does not reconstitute in any way, shape, or form.

The US president announced on Monday he would be pulling back the 50 or so US troops from the area controlled by Kurdish militias allied with Washington. The US backed these militias as part of an effort to defeat Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS), and blocked the return of the liberated areas to Syrian government sovereignty.


Read more:




Members of the US Congress have threatened to kick Turkey out of NATO if it sent troops into northern Syria against Washington’s Kurdish allies. What would be the consequences of such a step?

If Ankara launches a military operation against the Kurds in Syria, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) said he would submit a bill that would suspend Turkey’s NATO membership. 

Similar statements have been made in the US before – in January 2018, for example, when Turkish forces were engaged in fighting near Afrin, and Fox News aired an opinion that Turkey should be pushed out of NATO. The channel is known to have the ear of US President Donald Trump. The call was repeated in July 2019, during another escalation over Cyprus. 

It is not yet clear what procedures will be invoked to execute the ruling. The NATO treaty does not provide for a clear procedure of expulsion. There is Article 13, which reads as follows:

“After the Treaty has been in force for twenty years, any Party may cease to be a Party one year after its notice of denunciation has been given to the Government of the United States of America, which will inform the Governments of the other Parties of the deposit of each notice of denunciation.”

No word of expulsion, only ceasing to be a member at one’s own initiative. To date, the only example of this was France’s voluntary suspension of any engagement in the bloc’s military structures, under Charles de Gaulle. It appears Brussels (or Washington) would first have to draft the expulsion procedure, get it approved by all the NATO members, and then use the legally binding act to somehow push Turkey out. So far, it is unclear how US threats versus Ankara could materialize.


Read more:


Read from top.



is turkey "doing" the admiral doctrine on the US behalf?...



See also:

the bottomless well of afghanistan...

3,000 billion dollars into the bottomless well of Afghanistan

by Manlio Dinucci

The documents that the Washington Post has managed to make public concerning the war against Afghanistan do not show that the United States have failed to pacify that country. On the contrary, they show that the Pentagon is still faithfully following the strategy of « endless war » elaborated by Donald Rumsfeld and Admiral Arthur Cebrowski. The military operation which was supposed to last no more than a few weeks has been deliberately prolonged for 18 years.

The Rumsfeld/Cebrowski strategy is a plan to adapt the mission of the Pentagon to the globalisation of capitalism. Thus, state structures must be destroyed in several regions of the world, beginning with the Greater Middle East, for the benefit of « constructive chaos ». This is the « endless war » announced by George Bush, pursued by Barack Obama and denounced by Donald Trump.

In the London Declaration [1], the 29 member countries of NATO reaffirmed « the engagement for the security and long-term stability of Afghanistan ». One week later, on the basis of the Freedom of Information Act, (used to empty a number of aging skeletons out of the closets, according to political necessity), the Washington Post managed to force the declassification of 2,000 pages of documents which reveal that « US civil servants fooled the public about the war in Afghanistan » [2]. Basically, they hid its disastrous effects, including the economic effects, of a war which has been dragging on for 18 years.

The most interesting data that emerge are those concerning the economic costs. 1,500 billion dollars have been spent for military operations, a figure that « remains opaque » - or in other words, underestimated – no-one knows how much the secret services have spent on the war, or the real cost of the contractors, the mercenaries recruited for the war (currently about 6,000).

Since « the war was financed with borrowed money », the accrued interest has risen to 500 billion, which brings the total expenditure to 2,000 billion dollars. To this must be added other posts – 87 billion for the training of Afghan forces, 54 billion for « reconstruction », of which a large part was « lost to corruption and failed projects ». At least 10 billion more were spent for the « struggle against narco-trafficking », with the triumphant result of a strong increase in the production of opium – today Afghanistan supplies 80 % of the heroin on the world market.

With the interests which continue to accumulate, (in 2023 they will rise to 600 billion), and the cost of the operations currently under way, expenditure easily overtakes 2,000 billion. We also need to consider the cost of medical assistance for the veterans returning from the war with serious or invalidating wounds. So far, 350 billion dollars have already been spent for those who fought in Afghanistan or Iraq, and this sum will rise to 1,400 billion dollars over the next 40 years. Since half of this sum is spent for veterans of Afghanistan, the cost of the war for the US is more than 3,000 billion dollars.

After 18 years of war, and an unquantifiable number of civilian victims, the results at the military level are as follows - « the Talibans control a major part of the country, and Afghanistan remains one of the greatest sources of refugees and migrants ». The Washington Post therefore concludes that the declassified documents reveal « the brutal reality of the errors and failures of the American effort to pacify and rebuild Afghanistan ».

In this way the prestigious news outlet, which explains the way in which US civil servants have « fooled the public », now fools the public once again by presenting the war as « the American effort to pacify and rebuild Afghanistan ». The true goal of the war in Afghanistan waged by the USA, in which NATO has been participating since 2003, is the control of this region, which is of capital strategic importance – at the crossroads between the Middle East, Central, Southern and Eastern Asia , particularly taking into account the proximity of Russia and China.

Italy is also participating in this war, under US command, since in October 2002 Parliament authorised the delivery of a first military contingent as from March 2003. The cost for Italy, paid from the public treasury, as is the case in the USA, is estimated to be approximately 8 billion Euros, to which must be added various other costs. In order to convince the population, hard hit by cuts in social expenditure, that further sums are necessary for Afghanistan, they are told that the money is used to guarantee better living conditions for the Afghan people. And the Brothers of the Sacro Convento of Assisi handed President Mattarella « San Francesco’s Lamp of Peace », thereby recognising that « Italy, with its missions and its soldiers, collaborates actively in the promotion of peace everywhere in the world ».

Manlio Dinucci


Pete Kimberley


Il Manifesto (Italy)



Read more:




Read from top.

the demise of saudi arabia?...

As Washington takes stock of the Saudi defeat in Yemen and rumors in Riyadh of a possible coup d’etat are rife, Victoria Coates has been nominated US Special Envoy for Energy. She is reported to have arrived in Riyadh where she will reside.

Ms. Coates is suspected of having penned the column published in 2018 by the New York Times, "I am part of the resistance within the Trump administration" [1] and of having written the book: A warning (Une alert) [2].

Reputed to be close to Donald Rumsfeld, the Pentagon and Israel, she served as advisor to Senator Ted Cruz during his election campaign. In her latter position as deputy to current National Security Advisor, Robert O’Brien, Coates was in charge, in particular, of the Iranian dossier.

The White House is reportedly considering taking direct control of Aramco (Saudi Arabian Oil Company) which was privatized in the order of 1.5% last December. Such a move would deprive the Saouds of their only source of income in exchange for being kept in power in one of the five states that would emerge from the dismantling of the country.


Read more:


Read from top.