Mercenaries take over!

When in unanimous move, Congress voted to withdraw support for the Yemen war, it did so under the '1973 war powers act'.  This weakened Trump, but also was a positive move for US propaganda, showing a 'humanitarian' side!

The mercenaries (Blackwater) had been working in the region both under Obama and Trump, working alongside UAE.

Troops will leave, but mercenaries will replace them. 

Syria Troop Withdrawal?

By his own admission, not to mention empirical evidence, Trump/US serves Israel's interest by being in the Middle East.

Trump was selected by Israeli-firsters, the Jewish casino man Adelson and the Evangelicals.

Trump was lobbying for Netanyahu in 2013.

Jerusalem was recognized as "Israel'" capital.

Less than a month ago, in November, US vetoed UN resolution condemning "Israeli" occupation of Syria Golan.  As Congress in April 2018 demanded that US formally recognize "Israeli" occupation of the Golan.

US is in Syria for Israel's sake.

So why the announcement that US announced it would withdraw troops - after it guaranteed  Turkey with arms to hold off Iran


http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/turkey-patriot-missile-system-and-related-support-and-equipment

Turkey is preparing for an all out assault on Syria.

"Israel" says it feels threatened by the US troop pull out and may even start an assault - one on Syria and one on Lebanon (tunnels being the excuse).

I fear very unfortunate times are coming.

Yellow Vest, Yellow Jackets ...

.

Manage


https://theintercept.com/2015/02/26/long-march-yellow/

I believe their first trial of this was the 2009 Iran elections.

The Mysterious Case of Khashoggi

The media is focused 24/7 on the mysterious disappearance of Khashoggi – and his death, a death without a corps.    The world is demanding action. The intense focus on the Saudi journalist has obfuscated a stream of facts that need to be brought to the forefront and determine cui bono?

This is in no way a defense of the Saudi Kingdom, its immoral policies or its radical ideology.  It’s an attempt to understand all other factors that may or may not have a direct bearing on the events.

The media cycle and US officials reaction to Khashoggi’s fate is ironic given its track record.   Putting aside the fact that the arrest of Mathew Hedges, a British citizen five months ago, charged for spying has had no media traction.  Nor has there been an outcry from the British and American officials.  The UAE enjoys immunity from criticism.

But the feigned importance given to journalists is laughable given America’s record.  Regrettably, journalism has always been a hazardous profession, not least because for decades the United States (and no doubt other countries) used, and continue to use journalists as spies.  This places a target on every journalist, and it is a travesty.  

America has been complicit in killing journalists.  Following the Iraq invasion, on October 30, 2003, al-Jazeera accused US-led forces in Iraq of harassment, after one of its journalists was detained.  Their cameraman, Samer Hamza was freed after two days in custody.   American soldiers fired at the Palestine hotel, the base for almost all the foreign media crews in Baghdad.  Their fire killed a Spanish TV network crew member and a Ukrainian camera man working for Reuters.  In June 2005, American troops opened fire on and killed an Iraqi television journalist - Ahmed Wael Bakri. American soldiers also shot and wounded Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena as she was headed for Baghdad airport in April 2005.  There was a great deal of controversy surrounding this shooting – still unresolved, I believe.

The Obama Justice Department’s secret directive targeting journalists received little condemnation in spite of its grave consequences. In  2017 journalist filed lawsuits against Trump over Obama’s “Kills List”! "Former Al Jazeera Islamabad bureau chief Ahmad Zaidan and freelance journalist Bilal Kareem filed a lawsuit Thursday in U.S. District Court in Washington, contending that they were erroneously placed on the "kill list" during the Obama administration and that Trump has illegally maintained that designation https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2017/03/journalists-sue-trump-kill-list-236738

The suit also alleged that Trump has loosened some of the safeguards the previous administration placed on the program.”    

But what of the Washington Post journalist, Khashoggi?

I was immediately reminded of another Washington Post journalist – Jason Rezaian, who had been arrested in Iran and freed by the Rohani government.  Rezaian  was complicit in the allegations for fraud in the 2009 Iran elections.  Rezaian was to have reported the results of the Iran elections from Iran to Tehran Bureau, while the IP address of Tehran Bureau was registered to Jason Rezaian.  It was Tehran Bureau that first came out with the false case of a fatwa alleging that elections had to be rigged. The lies took off from there.   This narrative became the headlines 24/7 and the lie lives on to this day. This comprehensive investigative article by Jeremy Hammond is a MUST READ for anyone seeking the truth: https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2009/07/21/the-case-of-the-fatwa-to-rig-irans-election/view-all/

But who would benefit from Khashoggi’s disappearance?  Already American senators are calling for a ‘change of heads” in Saudi Arabia, in other words, replace MbS (Muhammad bin Salman) (https://www.axios.com/lindsey-graham-says-toxic-mohammed-bin-salman-has-to-go-f06be364-b6fc-4e8d-8f0d-681469990c1f.html

But what else has happened concurrently?

All the reporting thus far has come from Turkey.  After the foiled/failed “coup” Erdogan played footsies with Putin and got his green light to invade Syria under various guises.  America could not be happier.

At the same time that Turkey returned the jailed pastor, Andrew Brunson to the United States, it gave the middle finger to Russia (to the delight of America and the West) when the Patriarchate of Constantinople in Istanbul revoked a part of its Synodical Issue Letter of 1686, in which the Patriarchate of Moscow was granted the right to appoint the bishop of Kiev. A slap in the face of Russians as Kiev was recognized as a new Patriarchate in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

How will Trump fare?

Trump publicly humiliated the Saudis and announced they would be gone in two weeks without  US protection.

Trump also demanded that Saudi Arabia  assist him in blocking Iran’s oil on November 4^th by increasing production and making up for the loss of Iran’s oil in the international market.  Saudi Arabia complied, but was told by the US that it needed more!  

One can be forgiven for thinking that Trump may have been in on some dark plan and has made the Saudis reliant on his decision to make the Khashoggi case go away in exchange for more oil production.   But what seems to be obvious often deceives.

Trump will not come out of this a winner.  If he works with the Saudis, he is damned by the public outcry , and if he doesn’t, oil prices will skyrocket and Republicans will lose mid-term and Trump 2020.

But how can the United States and its allies walk back the insults and anger directed at Saudi Arabia?  Exile Saudi prince, Prince Khaled bin Farhan who resides in Germany has been calling for regime change, stating that the US and Europe would have to ‘foot the bill” https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/transcript-interview-Prince-Khaled-bin-Farhan-Saudi-Arabia-726162742

Regime change may do the trick.  Which again, would not fare well for Trump or his son-in-Law, MbS buddy Jared Kushner.    And perhaps Trump understands this.

America has always regarded Saudi Arabia as being dispensable.  In 2012, US military officers were being taught to starve Saudis, bomb Mecca and Medina.  For the Saudis to think that they could secure themselves by acting as America’s gas station as well as its gladiators, was, and continues to be, foolish.

Moreover, it has been calculated that Saudi Arabia could become a net importer of oil by 2030 https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Saudi-Arabia-Could-Become-a-Net-Oil-Importer-by-2030.html so their utility is fast running out.

Are we witnessing a confluence of interests/plans? 

Who stands to gain and who loses?

Trump Willing To Meet Rohani Without Preconditions?

Not will he, but why is he saying this (and contradicted by Sec. Pompeo)?

He is taking a page from the Obama playbook.  Don't doubt it.

Obama squeezed Iran hard with his terrorism (sanctions).  This is what Obama said about negotiating with Iran:

"Our willingness to pursue diplomacy will make it easier to mobilize others to join our cause. If Iran fails to change course when presented with this choice by the United States it will be clear to the people of Iran and to the world that the Iranian regime is the author of its own isolation and that will strengthen our hand with Russia and China as we insist on stronger sanctions in the Security Council. And we should work with Europe, Japan, and the Gulf States to find every avenue outside the United Nations to isolate the Iranian regime from cutting off loan guarantees and expanding financial sanctions to banning the export of refined petroleum to Iran to boycotting firms associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard whose Kuds forces have rightly been labeled a terrorist organization."

Now Trump, after having created havoc in Iran by dishonoring the JCPOA, with the additional sanctions, threatening others with secondary sanctions, rumors of war, and increase in funds for direct broadcast into Iran, is saying he is willing to meet.

What a farce.

Not only Iran, but other countries would have to be truly stupid to trust America - Trump being its current White House occupier (though certainly not the one formulating foreign policy).  But Trump's message was heard.  Sadly, regrettably, even Iranian media (Press TV, Mehr) broadcast it.  Maybe even implying that Trump is giving in to Iran.   So now, the blame is put squarely on the shoulders of the Iranian government.  This Trump talk was meant to convey a message to Iranians:  'Your government is responsible for your hardship, not America'. 

The message to allies: 'We tried to work with them, they refused.  You need to get on board with us'.

Message to China and Russia:  'Iran is responsible for a potential conflict'.

Trump is a narcissist, racist excuse for a human being.  His handlers are the devil's disciples.

JCPOA. Israel & US accusations against Iran

No one has a right to be surprised.  This was fully expected.  No body wanted to listen,

Discussions on the JCPOA in 2015

Putin-Trump. Praise for Trump for doubting intelligence?

Many bright, informed, liberals, some very prominent individuals, have praised Donald Trump for doubting "US intelligence".  Their argument is: 'look at where our faulty intelligence took us with regards to Iraq'.

This would be a sound and justified argument if Trump had rejected the intelligence on Syria's alleged chemical weapons - he did not.  He bombed Syria without evidence.

He did not argue against intelligence on any other instance OTHER than Russia.

So this line of thinking does not merit consideration.

Is it good to talk to your 'adversary'?  Always, but why only Russia and nowhere else?

We cannot cherry pick and more than Trump can cherry pick.

Trump’s Iran Gambit Won’t Pay Off

It is as clear as day that President Trump is obsessed with regime change in Iran.  What is not made clear is how much his gambit is damaging to Americans and American interests.

Without cause or justification, Mr. Trump  pulled out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA), striking a hard blow to America’s European allies – and its own credibility.  Moreover, he threatened European countries with secondary sanctions should they continue to trade with Iran.

To top it all, in his latest move, he has called for all Iranian oil exports to be cut off by November. Or in practical terms, he is imposing an economic blockade on Iran.  This is a similar scenario that was played out by the British in 1951 against Iran and Dr. Mossadegh – who was later overthrown in the 1953 British-US coup. But today, the IR of Iran is not the Iran of 1953, and the brunt of American demands and actions will not be borne by Iran alone.   

Demanding that no country purchase oil from Iran is in fact an economic blockade.  It is an illegitimate use of power to force a sovereign nation to surrender.  It must be made clear however, that it is not just Iran that is the target here.  The Trump administration’s demands are an offensive exercise of extraterritorial authority with no regard for sovereign equality between states. All states involved in trade with Iran will either have to cower to his demands or be punished.  

But there is more than state sovereignty and indignation that is involved. These actions will have a dire effect on the economy of allies, and they will hit Americans in the wallet – hard.   If Mr. Trump is giving a November deadline, he hopes to postpone the impact this will have on the November elections.  He wants total rule over America before totally bankrupting it.

To fully appreciate how Mr. Trump intends to make ‘America great again’ where his policy regarding Iranian oil is concerned, one must take a look at some numbers and empirical evidence.

The oil strikes leading up to the toppling of Iran’s Shah were felt around the world.  During the 1978-79 revolution, Iranian oil production dropped 3.8 million barrels per day for 3 months.  Although outside production increased by 1.8 million barrels to make up for the loss, the net loss to the world was 150 million barrels of oil.  However, the compounding results of the production loss were significant around the globe. 

Many Americans may recall the lines at the fuel pumps, but that was just what met the eyes.  The increase in oil prices impacted farming, production, transportation of goods and services, and so on.  At that time, China, currently the second biggest oil consumer behind America, was a net exporter of oil.  The loss to U.S. economy was estimated at many billions of dollars in 1979 and 1980 (Deese and Nye 308-309)[i].  

More recent studies show that Iranian oil has a major impact on the U.S. economy even though America does not import a single barrel of oil from Iran.  In 2008, economists Dean DeRosa and Gary Hufbauer presented a paper in which they claimed that if the United States lifted sanctions on Iran, the world price of oil could fall by 10 percent which would translate into an annual savings of $38-76 billion for the United States[ii].

But sanctions alone were not responsible for oil price hikes in 2008 and beyond.  In July 2008, oil had reached a peak of $142.05/bbl (see chart HERE).   This price hike came on the heels of some important events.  In May, President Bush sent a ‘warning message’ to Iran on the same day that additional aircraft carriers with guided-missile destroyers were sent to the Persian Gulf.

In June of the same year, the New York Times reported that: “Israel carried out a major military exercise earlier this month that American officials say appeared to be a rehearsal for a potential bombing attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.”

In July, then presidential candidate Barak Obama asked for tougher sanctions to be imposed on Iran. 

It was not until September 2008 when President Bush declined to help Israel attack Iran that oil prices started to relax.  They hit a low of just over $53 /bbl in December 2008. 

Oil prices continued to rise again under Obama’s sanctions and reached well past the $100 mark.   The prices climbed down once again during the JCPOA negotiations reaching an all time low of $30.24/bbl in January 2016 – after the signing of the JCPOA. 

Today, oil prices stands at $74.30/bbl.  A fact not lost on any American who has filled up his/her gas tank lately– and paid for groceries.   The deadline for Iran oil cut off is yet months away, but the impact has started.

Given that other countries may step in to compensate for some of the Iranian oil loss, other factors which effect prices must be considered – the most important of which is the security of the Strait of Hormuz.  As mentioned previously, the British oil blockade scenario of 1951 will have far different consequences in 2018 should America impose an economic blockade or oil embargo.

In the 1950’s, Iran did not have the military might to retaliate to the oil embargo and the naval blockade was aimed at crushing the economy in order to bring about regime change.   This economic blockade, should it be allowed to happen, would crush the economy of much of the world.

As it stands, 35% of seaborne oil goes through the Strait of Hormuz 85% of which goes to Asian markets.   As the US Energy Information Administration  (EIA) has stated: “The blockage of the Strait of Hormuz, even temporarily, could lead to substantial increases in total energy costs.”  Today, Iran not only has the military might to block the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation, but it also has the legal right.

The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) stipulates that vessels can exercise the right of innocent passage, and coastal states should not impede their passage. Under UNCLOS framework of international law, a coastal state can block ships from entering its territorial waters if the passage of the ships harms “peace, good order or security” of said state, as the passage of such ships would no longer be deemed “innocent”[iii].   Saudi Arabia and the UAE export oil through Iran’s territorial waters.   Should they help America choke Iran’s economy, their passage is not deemed ‘innocent’.

Even if Iran simply chooses to merely delay the passage of tankers by exercising its right to inspect every hostile oil tanker that passes through the Strait of Hormuz, such inspections and subsequent delays would contribute to higher oil prices.

No doubt, the Iranian navy is no match for the formidable US navy.  However, the shallow, narrow waters of Hormuz do not allow for the maneuvering of US battleships.  The very presence of warships can lead to incidents.  At its narrowest point, the Strait of Hormuz is 21 miles wide – hardly wide enough for a naval battle to take place and allow the passage of oil tankers at the same time. In recent years (2012), the USS Porter, a US navy destroyer, collided with an oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz.   The collision left a big whole in the navy destroyer.

American officials and oil companies have attempted to assuage the concern of over oil shortages by stating that America is one of the top oil producers.  Some fact checking is in order.

According to EIA’s latest available data, America’s total exports in 2018 (thousands of barrels/month) was 7,730 bbl in April.  The same governmental body stated that total imports for the same month was 310,295.    According to the EIA: “In 2017, the United States produced about 15.4 million barrels of petroleum per day (MMb/d), and it consumed about 19.9 MMb/d. Imports from other countries help to supply demand for petroleum.” (Click HERE for explanation of imports and exports).

These facts do not stop the spread of such news.  As recently as June 4, 2018, Offshore Technology announced America is marching toward being the biggest oil producer.    Important factors to bear in mind are that 1.  America is the largest oil consumer and continues to have a deficit, and 2. Shale oil production is up thanks to higher oil prices.

While environmentalists objected to shale oil production, oil companies halted the extraction of oil when prices dropped. Anything above $50/bbl makes shale oil production feasible – which also makes it more expensive of the consumer.  Although Mr. Trump and his administration have no regard for the environment, many states and countries have banned shale oil production (see LINK for list as of December 2017).

So the American people (and much of the rest of the world) is left with a stark choice.  Either cave in to Mr. Trump’s demands, accept loss of business, pay much higher oil prices at the pump and for consumer goods, prepare for a potential war, and sacrifice the environment – especially water, and mortgage the future of the earth more than we already have, or, don’t heed Trump’s demands – even if means a short term loss. 

Either way, messing with Iran’s oil exports is not an alternative that the world can afford.  It may well be that Mr. Trump is beholden to Mr. Netanyahu.   He may well feel comfortable enough to subject the American people – and their allies to financial hardship; but the question is will Americans and the rest of the world sacrifice themselves at the Trump-Netanyahu altar?  

---

[i] Deese, David A. and Joseph S. Nye, ed. Energy and Security. Cambridge: Balllinger Publishing Co.: 1981.

[ii] Dean A. DeRosa & Gary Clyde Hufbauer. Normalization of Economic Relations Consequences for Iran’s Economy and the United States. National Foreign Trade Council  2008

[iii] Martin Wahlisch, The Yale Journal of International Law, March 2012, citing UNCLOS, supra note 12, , art. 19, para1, and art. 25, para1.