Thursday, December 29, 2016

Russia and Turkey: Consistency versus Unreliability

Interesting analysis published by Defend Democracy Press

Russia and Turkey: Consistency versus Unreliability
In this brief analysis and evaluation, we shall consider the Ottoman Empire and Turkey as a single concept, since ‘neo-Ottomanism’ is currently all the rage in Turkey, even if it simply reflects the hubris of the post-imperial rigor mortis of an empire that died formally in 1923. Before looking at the last few years, let us note that, even when the Russian Empire was in a weakened state, it won most of its wars against the Ottomans, between the Sixteenth and Twentieth centuries, and the one that it did not win quickly and decisively, by taking Constantinople – was the result of mainly English intervention.

In its later days, the Ottoman Empire was indeed maintained by the British and Austro-Hungarians, for their own selfish strategic reasons. Today it is the US and their foreign policy subset Britain that prop up Turkey, through Turkish NATO membership (dating from 1952), the IMF, arms supplies, and turning a blind eye to the illegal occupation of Cyprus.
In 1919, as the Ottoman Empire was in terminal decline, a famous British diplomat wrote: ‘For the Turks I had, and have, no sympathy whatsoever. Long residence at Constantinople has convinced me that behind his mask of indolence, the Turk conceals instances of the most brutal savagery. This conviction was not diminished by his behaviour towards the Kut garrison or towards the Armenians within his border. The Turks have contributed nothing whatsoever towards the progress of humanity: they are a race of Anatolian marauders: I desired only in the Peace Treaty that they be relegated to Anatolia.’
But it was not to be: Venizelos’ over-ambitious policy and Greece’s allies consequently ‘betraying’ it meant that the new state of Turkey would control not only Constantinople but Eastern Thrace. And for that, Russia, of all countries, played an important rôle: in 1920, Lenin supplied Ataturk with gold and weapons (yes, the opportunist Ataturk ‘admired’ Lenin for a while!). Why? Because Russia’s traditional friend, Greece, betrayed her by fighting the Bolsheviks in the Ukraine. Plastiras proved to be Britain’s terrier. The Treaty of Kars established Turkey’s borders with the Soviet Union. Since then, Turkey has been key in the Anglo-Saxon’s anti-Soviet and then anti-Russian policies, to the point where Turkey, knowing its geographical importance, has prostituted itself to gain maximum advantage, epitomised perhaps by the invasion of Cyprus, allowed by the US, because of the latter’s radar and military installations in Turkey. Let us remember that it was Turkey’s willingness to allow US nuclear missiles on her territory that precipitated the Cuban missile crisis. Even Turkey’s cowardly shooting down of a Russian aircraft and murder of a pilot was only possible because Turkey immediately rushed into NATO’s underpants for protection.

Seen in the above context, it is quite possible that without Britain’s and the US’s irrational fear of Russia, Turkey as we know it would not exist or would at least be far smaller than it is. In contrast with Russia, an old country with a serious identity, Turks do not always know who they are. Ninety-three years is not a long time in the history of states. The Young Turks and Ataturk were desperate to ape West European habits, perhaps because they were unsure as to who exactly they were, or did not feel cultured enough. They even scrapped their Arab alphabet for the Roman one, and discarded many Arabic words for Turkified European ones. Thus, ‘toilet’ became ‘tuvalet’. Many educated Turks are desperate for Turkey to become an EU member, perhaps envious about their ‘sophisticated’ neighbours. Another British diplomat wrote: ‘Admittedly there are European ethnic strains in the people, but not so strong as the Asian. And their singular language is Central Asian in origin. There is no natural reason why the Turks should be so insistent on their European connexion. It is largely the dictum of Kamal Atatürk that makes them.’

Modern Turkey is a strange amalgam of Western structures underpinned by Ottoman habits. Their various governments, whether military or not, are still heavily influenced by its huge military, and the contradiction between religion and secularism stills bedevils its development. Russia knows this, and knows that the bazaar mentality prevails in Turkish foreign policy. Rather than provoke a collapse of the shaky Turkish state, Russia prefers to weaken a neurotic NATO, and eventually bring Turkey into its sphere of influence, in the interests of Middle Eastern stability.

William Mallinson is a Former British Diplomat, Professor of Political Ideas and Institutions at Universita Guglielmo Marconi and author of Kissinger and the Invasion of Cyprus and of The Threat of Geopolitics to International Relations.

Wednesday, December 28, 2016

Antar Pahlavi's Latest Treason

Pahlavi shaking hands with 'bomb Iran' Adelson!

Tuesday, December 27, 2016

A Short List of US "Interventions"

A careful examination of U.S. foreign policy history reveals over 400 overt military interventions and over 6000 covert interventions, each one a violation of international law and each an act of war against a sovereign nation. 
Here’s a partial list of interventions, with the purpose of effecting “regime change,” attempted or materially supported by the United States—whether primarily by means of overt force (OF), covert operation (CO), or subverted election (SE):
1893 – Hawaii (Liliuokalani; monarchist): success (OF)
1912 – China (Piyu; monarchist): success (OF)
1918 – Panama (Arias; center-right): success (SE)
1919 – Hungary (Kun; communist): success (CO)
1920 – USSR (Lenin; communist): failure (OF)
1924 – Honduras (Carias; nationalist): success (SE)
1945 – Japan (Higashikuni; rightist): success (OF)
1946 – Thailand (Pridi; conservative): success (CO)
1946 – Argentina (Peron; military/centrist): failure (SE)
1947 – France (communist): success (SE)
1947 – Philippines (center-left): success (SE)
1947 – Romania (Gheorghiu-Dej; stalinist): failure (CO)
1948 – Italy (communist): success (SE)
1948 – Colombia (Gaitan; populist/leftist): success (SE)
1948 – Peru (Bustamante; left/centrist): success (CO)
1949 – Syria (Kuwatli; neutralist/Pan-Arabist): success (CO)
1949 – China (Mao; communist): failure (CO)
1950 – Albania (Hoxha; communist): failure (CO)
1951 – Bolivia (Paz; center/neutralist): success (CO)
1951 – DPRK (Kim; stalinist): failure (OF)
1951 – Poland (Cyrankiewicz; stalinist): failure (CO)
1951 – Thailand (Phibun; conservative): success (CO)
1952 – Egypt (Farouk; monarchist): success (CO)
1952 – Cuba (Prio; reform/populist): success (CO)
1952 – Lebanon (left/populist): success: (SE)
1953 – British Guyana (left/populist): success (CO)
1953 – Iran (Mossadegh; liberal nationalist): success (CO)
1953 – Costa Rica (Figueres; reform liberal): failure (CO)
1953 – Philippines (center-left): success (SE)
1954 – Guatemala (Arbenz; liberal nationalist): success (OF)
1955 – Costa Rica (Figueres; reform liberal): failure (CO)
1955 – India (Nehru; neutralist/socialist): failure (CO)
1955 – Argentina (Peron; military/centrist): success (CO)
1955 – China (Zhou; communist): failure (CO)
1955 – Vietnam (Ho; communist): success (SE)
1956 – Hungary (Hegedus; communist): success (CO)
1957 – Egypt (Nasser; military/nationalist): failure (CO)
1957 – Haiti (Sylvain; left/populist): success (CO)
1957 – Syria (Kuwatli; neutralist/Pan-Arabist): failure (CO)
1958 – Japan (left-center): success (SE)
1958 – Chile (leftists): success (SE)
1958 – Iraq (Feisal; monarchist): success (CO)
1958 – Laos (Phouma; nationalist): success (CO)
1958 – Sudan (Sovereignty Council; nationalist): success (CO)
1958 – Lebanon (leftist): success (SE)
1958 – Syria (Kuwatli; neutralist/Pan-Arabist): failure (CO)
1958 – Indonesia (Sukarno; militarist/neutralist): failure (SE)
1959 – Laos (Phouma; nationalist): success (CO)
1959 – Nepal (left-centrist): success (SE)
1959 – Cambodia (Sihanouk; moderate/neutralist): failure (CO)
1959 – Cuba (Castro; socialist/populist): failure (CO-OF)
1960 – Ecuador (Ponce; left/populist): success (CO)
1960 – Laos (Phouma; nationalist): success (CO)
1960 – Iraq (Qassem; rightist /militarist): failure (CO)
1960 – S. Korea (Syngman; rightist): success (CO)
1960 – Turkey (Menderes; liberal): success (CO)
1961 – Haiti (Duvalier; rightist/militarist): success (CO)
1961 – Cuba (Castro; communist): failure (CO)
1961 – Congo (Lumumba; leftist/pan-Africanist): success (CO)
1961 – Dominican Republic (Trujillo; rightwing/military): success (CO)
1962 – Brazil (Goulart; liberal/neutralist): failure (SE)
1962 – Dominican Republic (left/populist): success (SE)
1962 – Indonesia (Sukarno; militarist/neutralist): failure (CO)
1963 – Dominican Republic (Bosch; social democrat): success (CO)
1963 – Honduras (Montes; left/populist): success (CO)
1963 – Iraq (Qassem; militarist/rightist): success (CO)
1963 – S. Vietnam (Diem; rightist): success (CO)
1963 – Cambodia (Sihanouk; moderate/neutralist): failure (CO)
1963 – Guatemala (Ygidoras; rightist/reform): success (CO)
1963 – Ecuador (Velasco; reform militarist): success (CO)
1964 – Guyana (Jagan; populist/reformist): success (CO)
1964 – Bolivia (Paz; centrist/neutralist): success (CO)
1964 – Brazil (Goulart; liberal/neutralist): success (CO)
1964 – Chile (Allende; social democrat/marxist): success (SE)
1965 – Indonesia (Sukarno; militarist/neutralist): success (CO)
1966 – Ghana (Nkrumah; leftist/pan-Africanist): success (CO)
1966 – Bolivia (leftist): success (SE)
1966 – France (de Gaulle; centrist): failure (CO)
1967 – Greece (Papandreou; social democrat): success (CO)
1968 – Iraq (Arif; rightist): success (CO)
1969 – Panama (Torrijos; military/reform populist): failure (CO)
1969 – Libya (Idris; monarchist): success (CO)
1970 – Bolivia (Ovando; reform nationalist): success (CO)
1970 – Cambodia (Sihanouk; moderate/neutralist): success (CO)
1970 – Chile (Allende; social democrat/Marxist): failure (SE)
1971 – Bolivia (Torres; nationalist/neutralist): success (CO)
1971 – Costa Rica (Figueres; reform liberal): failure (CO)
1971 – Liberia (Tubman; rightist): success (CO)
1971 – Turkey (Demirel; center-right): success (CO)
1971 – Uruguay (Frente Amplio; leftist): success (SE)
1972 – El Salvador (leftist): success (SE)
1972 – Australia (Whitlam; liberal/labor): failure (SE)
1973 – Chile (Allende; social democrat/Marxist): success (CO)
1975 – Australia (Whitlam; liberal/labor): success (CO)
1975 – Congo (Mobutu; military/rightist): failure (CO)
1975 – Bangladesh (Mujib; nationalist): success (CO)
1976 – Jamaica (Manley; social democrat): failure (SE)
1976 – Portugal (military/leftist): success (SE)
1976 – Nigeria (Mohammed; military/nationalist): success (CO)
1976 – Thailand (rightist): success (CO)
1976 – Uruguay (Bordaberry; center-right): success (CO)
1977 – Pakistan (Bhutto: center/nationalist): success (CO)
1978 – Dominican Republic (Balaguer; center): success (SE)
1979 – S. Korea (Park; rightist): success (CO)
1979 – Nicaragua (Sandinistas; leftist): failure (CO)
1980 – Bolivia (Siles; centrist/reform): success (CO)
1980 – Iran (Khomeini; Islamic nationalist): failure (CO)
1980 – Italy (leftist): success (SE)
1980 – Liberia (Tolbert; rightist): success (CO)
1980 – Jamaica (Manley; social democrat): success (SE)
1980 – Dominica (Seraphin; leftist): success (SE)
1980 – Turkey (Demirel; center-right): success (CO)
1981 – Seychelles (René; socialist): failure (CO)
1981 – Spain (Suarez; rightist/neutralist): failure (CO)
1981 – Panama (Torrijos; military/reform populist); success (CO)
1981 – Zambia (Kaunda; reform nationalist): failure (CO)
1982 – Mauritius (center-left): failure (SE)
1982 – Spain (Suarez; rightist/neutralist): success (SE)
1982 – Iran (Khomeini; Islamic nationalist): failure (CO)
1982 – Chad (Oueddei; Islamic nationalist): success (CO)
1983 – Mozambique (Machel; socialist): failure (CO)
1983 – Grenada (Bishop; socialist): success (OF)
1984 – Panama (reform/centrist): success (SE)
1984 – Nicaragua (Sandinistas; leftist): failure (SE)
1984 – Surinam (Bouterse; left/reformist/neutralist): success (CO)
1984 – India (Gandhi; nationalist): success (CO)
1986 – Libya (Qaddafi; Islamic nationalist): failure (OF)
1987 – Fiji (Bavrada; liberal): success (CO)
1989 – Panama (Noriega; military/reform populist): success (OF)
1990 – Haiti (Aristide; liberal reform): failure (SE)
1990 – Nicaragua (Ortega; Christian socialist): success (SE)
1991 – Albania (Alia; communist): success (SE)
1991 – Haiti (Aristide; liberal reform): success (CO)
1991 – Iraq (Hussein; military/rightist): failure (OF)
1991 – Bulgaria (communist): success (SE)
1992 – Afghanistan (Najibullah; communist): success (CO)
1993 – Somalia (Aidid; right/militarist): failure (OF)
1993 – Cambodia (Han Sen/CPP; leftist): failure (SE)
1993 – Burundi (Ndadaye; conservative): success (CO)
1993 – Azerbaijan (Elchibey; reformist): success (CO)
1994 – El Salvador (leftist): success (SE)
1994 – Rwanda (Habyarimana; conservative): success (CO)
1994 – Ukraine (Kravchuk; center-left): success (SE)
1995 – Iraq (Hussein; military/rightist): failure (CO)
1996 – Bosnia (Karadzic; centrist): success (CO)
1996 – Russia (Zyuganov; communist): success (SE)
1996 – Congo (Mobutu; military/rightist): success (CO)
1996 – Mongolia (center-left): success (SE)
1998 – Congo (Kabila; rightist/military): success (CO)
1998 – Indonesia (Suharto; military/rightist): success (CO)
1999 – Yugoslavia (Milosevic; left/nationalist): success (SE)
2000 – United States (Gore; conservative): success (SE)
2000 – Ecuador (leftist): success: (CO)
2001 – Afghanistan (Omar; rightist/Islamist): success (OF)
2001 – Belarus (Lukashenko; leftist): failure (SE)
2001 – Nicaragua (Ortega; Christian socialist): success (SE)
2001 – Nepal (Birendra; nationalist/monarchist): success (CO)
2002 – Venezuela (Chavez; reform-populist): failure (CO)
2002 – Bolivia (Morales; leftist/MAS): success (SE)
2002 – Brazil (Lula; center-left): failure (SE)
The following is a partial list of atrocities, massacres, murders, and injuries in recent history for which the largest, most deadly, most deceptive terrorist network the world has ever seen is responsible:
• 3,000,000 Vietnamese murdered over the course of about 30 years of US aggression.
• Well over 300,000 Japanese were massacred when the US raided Tokyo and dropped nuclear bombs on the urban civilian areas of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
• 600,000 civilians were killed in Cambodia by US bombing between 1969 and 1975.
• Over 500,000 people were killed in Laos when America subjected civilians to "secret bombing" from 1964 to 1973, dropping over two million tons of bombs on the country. Over one fourth of the population also became refugees.
• 100,000 people were murdered in South Korea prior to the Korean War by a brutal repression supported by US forces in 1945. This includes between 30,000 and 40,000 killed during the suppression of a peasant revolt on Cheju Island.
• Up to 4,500,000 Koreans were killed from 1951 to 1953 during America's massive slaughter in the Korean War.
• 200,000 were murdered when the Philippines were conquered by American forces. (This took place just over 100 years ago.)
• 23,000 people were slaughtered in Taiwan by US-backed, trained, equipped, and funded forces (Chiang's Nationalist army) during the late 1940s.
• 700,000 Indonesians (mostly landless peasants) were murdered in 1965 when the US armed and supported General Suharto.
• 200,000 were slaughtered in East Timor in 1975 by General Suharto with US support.
• 750,000 civilians were driven from their homes in East Timor by Indonesian forces in 1999 and 10,000 were killed with U.S. support.
• Over 1,700,000 Iraqis have been killed by US bombings and sanctions, mostly women and children.
• Over 1,000,000 lives were lost during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s in which the US used direct force and supported Hussein and Iraq.
• 35,000 Kurds were killed, 3,500 villages were destroyed, and between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000 became homeless as a result of aggression by Turkey with US arming and training in the 1990s.
• Over 1,000,000 people were killed in Afghanistan's civil war from 1979 to 1992, in which the US strongly supported the Moujahedeen, the most violent and sadistic of the forces. (This also set the stage for the CIA-backed Taliban to attain power.)
• 45,000 people were killed in South Lebanon since 1982 by Israel, always armed and supported by the US.
• Hundreds of thousands have been killed in Palestine and millions (in both Palestine and Lebanon) were made refugees by US-backed Israel.
• Over 150,000 were killed in Greece when America advised, equipped, and financed violent interventions in the late 1940s and late 1960s.
• Over 75,000 civilians were killed and over one million refugees were created in El Salvador from 1980 to 1994 when the US intensely supported the efforts of a brutal regime and its death squads to eliminate a popular uprising.
• 40,000 civilians were killed by the US-backed National Guard in Nicaragua over the course of almost 50 years.
• 30,000 lives were killed by the US contras in Nicaragua from 1979 to 1989.
• 200,000 Guatemalans were slaughtered from 1960-1990s by a military apparatus trained, armed, funded, and assisted by America.
• Over 35,000 Colombian civilians have been killed during the US-supported Columbian war against left-wing rebels.
• More than 4,000 innocent civilians were killed in Panama during the US invasion in 1989.
• Hundreds of thousands were killed by US direct and indirect interventions in Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Peru, and Argentina from the mid 60s through the 80s.
• 50,000 Haitians were killed when the US military destroyed a peasant uprising in 1915.
• Between 4,000 and 5,000 Haitians were killed in the early 1990s by US-established forces.
• Thousands were killed in the Dominican Republic during the 1960s when US and Dominican troops crushed a pro-Bosch rebellion.
• Over 3,000 were killed and countless others injured by US interventions in Cuba.
• Hundreds were killed or injured when the US invaded Grenada in 1983.
• Over 50,000 Somalians were killed between 1978 and 1990 by US-supported Siad Barre.
• Up to 10,000 more Somalians were killed by US troops during America's "humanitarian mission" in 1993.
• In the US-supported Rwandan genocide, an estimated 800,000 people were killed in just 100 days in 1994.
• Over 300,000 were killed and 80,000 were crippled in Angola from a US-supported civil war.
• Tens of thousands were killed and up to 200,000 were tortured in Chad by Hissen Habre with US support during the 1980's.
• 1,500,000 were killed between 1980 and 1988 in southern Africa by the US-armed South Africa.
The Defense Department Base Structure Report for fiscal 2009 reported 716 overseas military bases either owned or leased by the United States and 4,863 domestic and territorial military bases - that does not include the U.S. military bases in Iraq, Afghanistan, Qatar and all others that are secret. For the 2010 fiscal year, the final size of the Department of Defense's budget was $693 billion, the Department of Homeland Security $53 billion and $80.1 billion was spent on intelligence gathering. The U.S. gives military aid to many countries in the world, the most goes to Israel, $2,775,000,000 in 2010, and next is Egypt, $1,300,000,000 in 2010.
Deaths In Other Nations Since WW II Due To U.S. Interventions -
Timeline of United States military operations -…
500 Nations The Story of Indian Americans Part 1 -
500 Nations The Story of Indian Americans Part 2 -
"Between 1776 and 1887, the United States seized over 1.5 billion acres from America's indigenous people by treaty and executive order. Explore how in this interactive map of every Native American land cession during that period."To watch the United States expand across the continent, click the movie icon in the top right. Use the slider below to see how things changed year to year.Click on any area of the map to see who ceded the land and when. Popup boxes contain links to treaty text.Find your home or a different address by clicking the target icon at the top right.Use the "Highlight By Nation" box to find all cessions by the Cherokee, the Sioux, or any other people.Select source maps to see nineteenth-century maps of land cessions."

Another great source:

Monday, December 19, 2016

The Killing of Adrey Karlov

The assassination of Andrey Karlov Karlov, the Russian envoy to Turkey is tragic.  What is more tragic, at least politically, is that (some) Russians, as with the "failed coup in Turkey", are only looking at the obvious (parroted by American mainstream media but with different wording) and look at this as an attempt to distance Russia and Turkey. I expect American media to point to the obvious, but expected Russians to be have more critical thinking capabilities.  What is undeniable is the fact that this incident is making the Russians the villains of the war crimes committed in Syria by US-led partners in crime.   How could the mainstream Western media not gloat over the words of the assassin and build on those words?

Moreover, today's terrorist act enables the separation of Russia and Moslems, it facilitate turning them on each other.   Getting the stage ready for Trump and his plans.  

Thursday, December 15, 2016

Can We Make Sense of Trump?

A month has passed since Donald Trump was declared president-elect soon to be the 45th president of the United States.    Since his win, pundits, analysts, and experts continue to debate the victory – a surprise to most.   While the reason/s for this victory depend on one’s perspective, most agree on one thing: Trump is unpredictable.  

But is he really?

There is clear indication that US foreign policy will not change course under a Trump administration – it will simply change tactic.   Those who continue to believe that the relations with Russia are headed for a reset are more optimistic than analytical.   US may deviate from the path previously trodden, but it is still headed for the same goal/s.

Trump resembles Loki – a colorful character in Norse mythology.   Similar to Loki, what is thought and said about Trump depends on the source.   And similar to Loki, Trump is a trickster, a shape shifter (policy shifter).  So to understand him better, we should concentrate on what we do know – his team.

Judging from his picks, Trump considers Islam as the number one enemy, followed by Iran, China, and Russia.  The ideology of those he has picked to serve in his administration are supporters of this continuity in US foreign policy, and, contradicts his campaign slogan of ‘non-interference’. Numerous articles analyzing Trump’s choices point to the mindset of his team (click on names to read relevant articles) including Mike Pence , General Flynn, James Mattis,  and John Bolton,  (see footnote for additional links)[i]

Additionally, Israel’s domination of US policy has never been more apparent.  Decades earlier many considered other than occupied Palestine  “….the White House occupied territory”.  Donald Trump proved them right.  His son-in-law Jared Kushner will have an office in the West Wing of the White House.  Kushner has financed illegal, Jewish settlements on Palestinian land. 

The above stated information is the obvious – what meets the eye.  What is more crucial is obfuscated.  While Trump has made his position vis-à-vis China, Iran, and “radical Islam” abundantly clear, the media has led us on a different path where Russia is concerned.   As such, one could be forgiven for thinking that Trump will reset the button with Russia.  In fact, in the scheme of things, Trump is attempting to wean Russia away from China, Iran, and Syria  in order to continue and accomplish US goals:  Total domination, prevent Russia from re-emerging, contain China, contain Iran, Israel expansion.

It is important to Trump team to weaken both Russia and China by creating a divide between them -  favoring one over the other.  Trump defends Russia against allegations of hacking.  To the unsuspecting eye, he has appointed a seemingly “Russia friendly” Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson (though undoubtedly the hawkish under-secretary of state John Bolton will be behind the wheel).   Though under close scrutiny, Tillerson as Secretary of State is certainly not an ‘offering’ to Putin, although but he may well be a Trojan Horse.

What we are told of him is the fact that he is the CEO of Exxon Mobil Corporation.   That he knows Putin; and that he opposed sanctions against Russia.   What we are not told is that he is also a Trustee at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) – a neoconservative think tank.  (Click HERE for full description of CSIS).   Henry Kissinger, Richard Armitage, and Zbigniew Brzezinski are some of his trustee colleagues at CSIS.

Further, while Tillerson/Exxon has ties to Russia, it also has ties to Ukraine.   In 2010, CIA/State Department propaganda voice, Radio Free Europe, announced that “Ukraine has been the target of democracy-promoting Western foundations, such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), for a quarter of a century”.  NED’s counterpart in England, the UK funded Westminster Foundation for Democracy was an active partner in the endeavor.  It was the Westminster Foundation that coopted the “Ukrainian Foundation for Democracy” – The People’s First Foundation that later same year would become a member of the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council (USUBC). 

Senior advisors to the USUBC came from pro-Israel think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and Brookings, and Board of Directors executives selected from powerful players such as Raytheon and Boeing.  Exxon joined USUBC in 2010.
Why has the media left out this contentious fact?  And is this censorship directed at the West, or at Russia?

It is worthwhile mentioning that Exxon recently signed deals for oil exploration in Iraq and in defiance of the Iraqi government who asked President Obama to halt the exploration for fear that it would cause instability.   Of note, Turkey is a part of this deal!   Iraqi oil has been exported to Israel by the Kurds, and Israel considers oil from Iraq’s Erbil to be profitable for Israel.  Aware of the Israeli domination of Washington, the Iraqi Kurds are in league with Israel and have solicited their help in establishing independence. 

As with every other administration before it, the Trump administration will serve Israel.  Serving Israel will come at the expense of the region, and Russia.  There has always been a conflict between Israel and Russian interests (see for example the Ukraine case HERE).  Netanyahu, exuberant with a Trump victory and Kushner in the White House, this week embarked on a visit to  two vitally imported states: Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. 
These two countries have been on Israel’s radar for well over a decade.  Since Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan are not OPEC members, and both produce high volume of oil, control of these would erode OPEC’s power.   US administration promotion of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline has been to bypass Iran and Russia. 

Netanyahu aims to promote business with Kazakhstan – a founding member of Shanghai Corporation Organization (SCO).  The import of SCO in countering American-led ambitions cannot be adequately emphasized.    No doubt it is this significance that has renewed Israel’s interest and taken Netanyahu there  – to divide, corrupt, and weaken.  A similar undertaking was taken with regards to BRICS. 
Azerbaijan has particular value for Israel.   Israel views Azerbaijan as an ally against Iran and Russia. As reported by JTA in 2002: There were many similarities between Israel and Azerbaijan. "Fear of Iran and radical Islam; suspicion of Russia; friendship with Turkey, and a desire to be part of the West."   It is also hoped that Azerbijan would fan flames of hostility and stir up discontent among the Azari population in Iran.

As the incoming Administration continues to take shape, and we are being distracted with “news”, battle lines are being drawn up.   Perhaps the most important thing to remember and believe about Trump is his fondness of ‘surprises’.