The Media and Elections

 In 2013, I was asked by the ACLU (Shasta Chapter) to give a one hour presentation about 'Government Secrecy', Drones, and Militarization of Police.    Social media was not yet a hindrance to our liberties at that time, although it did plenty to interfere in other countries.  So sadly, the issue of social media was never discussed.  But it is not separate from the mainstream media/corporations and other issues discussed in that talk.

Given what has happened in the 2020 elections, I am posting my talking points (all of it, mistakes and all) in the hope that it may help us understand what the media did in all this.

Incidentally, Trump's maker, i.e. Murdoch and Fox abandoned him as early as early-mid October.  See link here

ACLU talk   April 13, 2013

 

 

I would like to thank the ACLU (Shasta chapter) for inviting me to be here with you today – to talk about grave  issues  which are of so much concern to us, our rights, and our country --  "Government Secrecy, drones, and militarization".

 

 

A functioning democracy requires the people to hold their government to account. Accountability, in turn, requires knowledge about government activities.

 

 

Our fourth President, James  Madison  believed  Knowledge would always  govern ignorance; and the people must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives .

 

 

Surely then,  Secrecy is disempowering   cyber security bill  known as the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, CISPA would create a loophole in all existing privacy laws, allowing companies to share Internet users' data with the National Security Agency, part of the Department of Defense, and the biggest spy agency in the world — without any legal oversight. Increasingly, on a daily basis, while our rights are beign trampled upon, such as with CISPA bill,   government secrecy is increasing.  There seems to be direct correlation between government secrecy and our right to privacy!

 

A 2005 report found that for every $1 spent on declassification, $148 is spent to classify.

 

In 2011, The federal government spent more than $11 billion to protect its secrets, double the cost of classification a decade ago —and 1.2 billion dollars over the previous year. This sum  does not include the costs incurred by the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and other spy agencies, Pentagon, ….  — classified.. 

 

  It is

 

Moreover,  the government diminishes criticism by keeping information secret, and thereby regulates criticism.

 

There is no statutory base to what should be stamped as secret. , classification and declassification have been governed  by a series of executive orders, with no  legal framework.

 

 

Why should we care/  Some may argue it is to protect us and the country. 

 

The liberties of a people are not  secure when government transactions are concealed from them.

 Excessive secrecy, which is what we witness today, has significant consequences for the national interest when we cannot engage in informed debate and so government is not held accountable for its actions.   

 

Politics carried out in our name, in secret and without our knowledge or consent, have often – too often, led to blowback .   the unintended consequences of policies that were kept secret from the American people.

 

 

Somewhere on this planet an American commando is carrying out a mission.   a secret force within the U.S. military, the US special forces, taking operations in a majority of the world’s countries.  Some 120 of them. 

 

 

 

CIA coups

Iran Contra, 

cia rendition flights, torture

Underwear bomber -  CIA operative

Drone base in Saudi Arabia – 9/11 Osama bin Laden, first Gulf War…

Syria -

 

book  The Foreign Policy Disconnect, Benjamin Page and Marshall Bouton demonstrated that most of the crises in post-1945 U.S. foreign policy could have been avoided if U.S. leaders had paid more attention to the views of the public.  But how can the public have any influence on secret policy-making? 

 

To understand why, or how, we should look at who is pushing the buttons in Washington. In that the Powerful interests run today's America, there is no doubt.  Identifying them is not always so easy – as they seem separate, but often they are not.    

 

Who and what is big business?   This is a question that can’t be answered in one hour, or one day.  But there are some  which immediately jump to mind.

 

In 1935, a Major General in the U.S. Marine Corps. Smedley  Butler who died in 1940, and one of only two Marines to receive the Congressional Medal of Honor twice and author of a book called “War is a Racket – 1935) wrote:  "I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high-class muscle man for Big Business.

 

Today, the military is part and parcel of big business.  

 

Drones that can become chemichal biological warfare weapons

Radiological dispersal becomes possible and potentially effective with a UAV over large urban areas, but only if the source material is cesium chloride--the one radiological source that comes in powdered form.[18] Dispersal of chemical or especially biological agent is ideally suited for a UAV; its flight stability permits the release of agent evenly along a line of contamination

http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/unmanned-air-vehicles-terror-weapons/

 

 

 

President Eisenhower spoke of the military industrial complex.    But today,  we are facing a greater danger -   the military-industrial-media complex.   Media magnates and people on the boards of large media-related corporations have close links with the military industry and Washington’s foreign-policy – no longer separate from domestic policies.    

 

Just to give an example -  General Electric doesn’t just make appliances.   GE manufactures weapons – and it owns The vast NBC network .   GE designed, manufactured or supplied parts or maintenance for nearly every major weapon system used by the U.S. during the Gulf War 1991—including the Patriot and Tomahawk Cruise missiles.   Its media arm, NBC, then praised and justified the use of weapons made by their parent company. 

 

To the detriment of the public interest, and the world at large, the military-media ties have grown extensively.   

 

Top 10 media corporations share board director positions with the major defense contractors .  Example Disney (ABC), Boeing Alwyn Lewis: Disney (ABC), Halliburton, Douglas McCorkindale: Gannett, Lockheed-Martin ….

 

It is no accident that these giant weapons contractors use the news media as the public relations arm for their primary product - war and the weapons of war... big media in the United States effectively represent the interests of corporate America. 

They are the watchdogs of acceptable ideological messages, responsible for manufacturing consent - Their goal is to control the news and information available to society. The two most prominent methods used to accomplish this task are censorship and propaganda.

 

Not to left unmentioned is the role of think tanks, and the Diaspora – the exiles and some NGOS – which Colin Powell referred to as force multipliers.   No war, no coup, no regime change would be possible without the Diaspora’s role in facilitating, or pushing for same.    To give a few recent examples, the Iraqi National Council (Chalabi), The Libyan National Transitional Council, the Syrian National Council, 

Cubans, etc.

 

Grasping this  dynamic will give us a clearer picture of the rise of the drones!

 

The drone program cost billions of dollars, until cost millions, flight hours thousands of dollars per hour.   Or drone wars, as they are called – there was a program by the same name, rise of the drones, on PBS, in part, funded by Lockheed martin!

 

You’ve probably heard of the Congressional Black Caucus, or perhaps the Progressive Caucus, but we now have a drone caucus! . Officially, it’s the Unmanned Systems Caucus and top donors are   Lockheed Martin,  Boeing, Northrop Grumman.

 

 

Drones are aerial robots – unmanned aerial vehincles - remotely controlled, that carry visual sensors, navigation systems, and even weapons. They come in all shapes and sizes and go by a variety of names. Since 2005, the federal government has awarded at least $12 billion in contracts for drones and drone supplies and maintenance. That includes at least $270 million for U.S.

 

Between 50 and 60 percent of the workforce of the CIA's most important directorate, the National Clandestine Service (NCS), responsible for the gathering of human intelligence, is composed of employees of for-profit corporations.

 

 

Amazing fact considering that drone makers not only lobby  to get drones approved, but as importantly,  Corporate intelligence professionals from companies such as Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Booz Allen Hamilton, and others are thoroughly integrated into analytical divisions throughout the intelligence community. 

 

 

estimates as high as 98% of drone strike casualties being civilians (50 for every one "suspected terrorist"). The Bureau of Investigative Journalism issued a report detailing how the CIA is deliberately targeting those who show up after the sight of an attack, rescuers, and mourners at funerals as a part of a "double-tap" strategy . 

 

The drone war is carried out remotely, from the U.S. and a network of secret bases around the world – and we recently learnt that one of the drone bases is in Saudi Arabia -   9/11.  blowback.  Where else? 

 

When the United States kills people in foreign, sovereign states, the world looks to international law for the standard of justification. Use of drones is illegal.  There are Last monght, During a  national press conference in Atlanta, Jimmy Carter expressed  that Drone attacks are gross violations of international law and human rights and are outright immoral. The claim that the President of the United States has the ultimate power to determine who is guilty and therefore a legitimate target of assassination is dangerous.

 

AT about the same time as Carter’s speech, Attorney General Eric Holder did not entirely rule out a scenario under which a drone strike would be ordered against Americans on U.S. soil, but says it has never been done previously and he could only see it being considered in an extraordinary circumstance. 

 

 

 "federal authorities have stepped up efforts to license surveillance drones for law enforcement and other uses in US airspace".  Mayor Bloomberg, "Like it or not, the eye in the sky will soon be following your every move".

 

Arkansas State Fusion Center Director Richard Davis recently confirmed Americans’ fears: the center does in fact spy on Americans – but only on those who are suspected to be ‘anti-government’.    This may well be interpreted to include all of us!

 

But there is much more to drones.

 

A drone named "Switchblade", described as "the ultimate assassin bug",  can  worm its way around buildings and into small areas, sending its surveillance imagery to an i-Pad held by the operator, who can then direct the Switchblade to lunge toward and kill the target by exploding in his face.

 

There are insect drones with the ability to land on you and infect you with a virus, or take DNA, or plant a tiny microchip.   It could land on you and stay, so that you take it with you into your home. Or it could fly into a building through a window. There are well-funded research projects working on such devices with such capabilities.

Aside from the threat posed to our civil rights and liberties – in itself, of utmost importance,  there are untold dangers posed by the drones. 

 

Drones can be easily hacked.   In June last year, the University of Texas at Austin reportedly demonstrated in front of Department of Homeland Security officials that it is relatively easy to take control of an airborne drone by hacking into its GPS system.

So, if these drones were created to be spies, or to kill, they can be hijacked and used against us. – turned on us.

 

They also be  duplicated.  Chinese  are making drones at a fraction fo the cost of US drones.  And looking for clients. 

 

No American safe.

 

The other public concern is the inability of drones to detect other aircraft (or each other!) in the area, creating safety problems in busy airspace. Law-enforcement agencies could use them to illegally monitor Americans.  

 

Drones are big business. 

 

 

 

What are the implications?

Historians and political scientists have warned us about  dangerous war fever sweeping the United States. Today we have gone beyond that.    

 

The "Global War on Terror" -  A war indefinite in duration, against an ill-defined and shifting enemy, al-qaeda the enemy, now being armed in Syria - and  without a clear explanation of American strategy, a specific definition of victory, or even a way to measure progress in the struggle has taken its toll on civil liberty.  The problem of militarization poses a danger to the very character of American government and society.

 

General Tommy Franks - in his first public interview after retiring from active duty in 2003, identified the single most dangerous possibility offered by an endless war on terrorism. An attack with weapons of mass destruction "just to create casualties ... to terrify" could lead "the western world, the free world" to forfeit its "freedom and liberty," to lose its democracy, and "begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass-casualty event, ... to potentially unravel the fabric of our Constitution.

 

Over half a century ago,  Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson concluded   "by giving way to the passion, intolerance and suspicions of wartime, it is easy to reduce our liberties to a shadow, often in answer to exaggerated claims of security.".

That day is here.  Not only are we under constant surveillance , Take for example the kill list.  A  list which began under the Bush administration as a rationale for murdering suspect citizens of countries with which the United States was not at war has become Obama’s kill list and the scope of the list has been expanded to include the execution, without due process of law, of U.S. citizens accused, without evidence presented in court, of association with terrorism.   Blood ties to a suspect places you in the kill list.

And this is accepted by the people. Robert.

The framers of the Constitution recognized such dangers when they carefully subordinated the military to civilian authority and attempted to limit the power of the President to initiate war. 

 

Gregory Foster, a former Army officer and West Point graduate who now teaches national security studies at the National Defense University in Washington said that principle of civilian control of the military—an early building block of American democracy-  has become the  civilian subjugation to the military.   

Today, the degree to which  society's institutions, policies, behaviors, thought, and values are devoted to military power and shaped by war are alarming.   

The incursion of military recruiters and teachings into the public school system is well known..  .  Presidents favors speaking to captive audiences at military bases, defense plants, and on aircraft carriers.  lawmakers’ constant use of “support our troops” to justify defense spending, to TV programs and video games like “NCIS,” “Homeland” and “Call of Duty,” to reality show “Stars Earn Stripes,” Americans are subjected to a daily diet of stories that valorize the military while the storytellers pursue their own opportunistic political and commercial agendas

 

 

Former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged publicly in an October 24, 2003, interview in the Washington Times:

       "We are in a war of ideas, as well as a global war on terror. Ideas are important, and they need to be marshalled, and they need to be communicated in ways that are persuasive to the listeners."

Embedded journalists in Iraq and Afghanistan –

This was part of his information operations roadmap.   As part of the plan,  “public affairs officers brief journalists”.   In 2005 it came to light that the Pentagon paid the Lincoln Group (a private company) to plant ‘hundreds of stories’ in Iraqi papers in support of U.S. Policies

 

 

The war has been internalized, whether you look at drones, kill list, or militarization of the police force, or in the classrooms.  

During the Clinton administration, Congress passed what's now known as the "1033 Program," which formalized  Reagan administration's directive to the Pentagon to share surplus military gear with domestic police agencies. Since then, millions of pieces of military equipment designed for use on a battlefield have been transferred to local cops -- SWAT teams and others -- including machine guns, tanks, armored personnel carriers,

The Pentagon's 1033 program has exploded under Obama. 

Clinton also created the "Troops to Cops" program, which offered grants to police departments who hired soldiers returning from battle, contributing even further to the militarization of the police force.

David Grossman 2005 Retired US Army

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/heart/interviews/grossman.html

the law enforcement groups, worldwide to kill. 

Law enforcement should be for protection of the civilians. 

most of what I do is I train military and law enforcement in what I call the bulletproof mind

Prior preparation is that one variable in the equation that we can control ahead of time, and one of the key things is embracing the responsibility to kill.

So when I teach, one of the things I believe we need to do is embrace this word "kill."

Bloomberg and Kelly are the proud autocrats who brag of “hav(ing) my own army in the NYPD” and who used that army to spy on peaceful Occupy Wall Street protestors.

Radiation 

The Battle of Algiers - a lesson for us all

 I wrote this short film review in 2007.  I keep going back to it especially in light of France and Macron's hostilities towards the Moslem population I am posting here.  

In the film “The Battle of Algiers” (1966), the director Gillo Pontecorvo depicts the push for independence and the rise of nationalism.  He further demonstrates the oppressive and inhuman manner in which occupying forces treat the natives; a past so much alive today.   Not only is the right of the people taken away from them, but also their dignity.  Pontecorvo strongly condemns colonization with his production of this movie.  

He further suggests that the officials of the French Government were the first ones to commit terrorism, for by definition terrorism is an act of violence against civilians, which the French started by placing a bomb in the Casbah killing innocent women and children. the Algiers were not targeting civilians, only the representatives of the government, that is, the policemen, no civilians had been targeted up to that point.  However, when the commissionaire, a representative of the French government started an act of terror, a political reaction was put into play and the National Liberation Front (FLN) started their bombing campaign.

Pontecorvo makes a point for the Arabs in that they resorted to terror and bombing because they did not have the military advantage of the French army/paratroopers.  He would like us to conclude that the bombing of villages and killing of innocent people by French planes was more deplorable than the suicide bombings[i].   Pontecorvo’s message is clear in that although a military battle was won, and the terrorists eliminated, the French were not able to win the ideological battle, nor were they able to crush the peoples’ hope for freedom and independence. Guns can crush a man’s body but not his spirit.   The people did prevail and 5 years later the ultimate war was won by the people of Algiers.

The irony of this movie is that although it reflects events in the 1950’s (and Algeria got it’s independence in (1962), the same mistakes are being made today.  Iraq is a case in point.  The parallels are alarming.  A client state of the United States, the insurgents are fighting the occupiers (coalition forces), and have succeeded in isolating them.  The U.N., Red Cross and every other humanitarian organization has left the country.  The U.S. army is on the defensive whereas not long ago it bragged of an easy victory.  It wants to leave, but must leave in a face-saving manner.   Just like Col. Mathieu’s analogy, the US thought that if they caught the “head of the tapeworm”, it would be the end of terrorism.  Mathieu eliminated every “terrorist”, yet, five years later, the French were driven out of Algeria; Saddam Hossein was caught, humiliated in public view, and the insurgencies, bombings, and deaths escalated.  

Although The Pentagon uses this movie as an excellent source for training in terrorism and counter-terrorism, in reality the real lesson to be learnt here is we must not be occupiers – we should not underestimate nationalism and national pride – that we cannot impose our political will with our military might.  Unless we learn from history, we are doomed to relive it.  This is precisely what is happening today.   In relating this film to the course, one realizes that we are repeating the same mistakes that the French made in trying to “conquer and master” the Algiers.  Our invasion of Iraq was a mistake in thinking that we can occupy their land.  The U.S. has the strongest military in the world but lacks all moral authority.  It will never win wars. 

What I also took away with me, which may not have been Pontecorvo’s message, is that the United Nations has always been, and continues to be, as to eloquently articulated by George W. Bush, irrelevant.  It failed to back the Algiers after their peaceful, 7-day strike, it divided the land in Palestine, it stood by when hundreds of thousands were butchered in Rwanda, it stood by when Iraq gassed Iranians, it stood by when the United States invaded Iraq, and the list goes on. It is always observing, claiming it does not have the power.  But when push comes to shove, and it needs to back a major power, it seems to find the necessary power – it finds relevance.

 

---

[i] This point is conveyed to the audience when  a terror suspect is being questioned by the Western media and he is condemned for suicide bombing.  His answer is “which is worse, the indiscriminate bombing of villages and killing of innocent civilians by French planes or the suicide bombing of police stations? Give us your planes and we will not attack the police stations.”

Shirin Ebadi Poking Her Ugly Head Out - Again!

Calling for sanctions again in this Video    .  This woman who was given a Nobel Peace prize to give her a platform to promote sanctions, interference, and hardships against Iranians so that USisrael can install a puppet in Iran, has a history of working with brutal dictators.  

The Nobel Laureate and I: A Response to 'Shirin Ebadi Prepares for the End'

 

Nobel Laureate Shirin Ebadi's belief that the regime's days in Tehran are numbered is based on optimism; but regrettably, the interview belies her habitual style of distorting reality to her advantage.  It was this unattractive trait that turned the pride I felt in being her interpreter in January 2006 to disappointment, disbelief, and displeasure.

 

It is curious that once again Ebadi, this 'human rights' lawyer, should get herself involved in Iran's nuclear program and opine that the 'leadership is not negotiating in good faith'.  It was her very assessment of Iranians and her source of information which dumbstruck me in 2006 when she stated that the Iranian people didn't support the nuclear program and the supporters we witnessed on television were the 'paid Basij'.   

 

Contrary to this misinformation, the uniting factor in Iran is the nuclear program.  A 2004 poll showed that 75-80% of the Iranians rallied behind the Islamic Republic of Iran in support of its nuclear program including the full fuel cycle.  A fact confirmed in a 2007 poll conducted by the U.S. Institute of Peace.  The latter elaborates that: "Even with the crackdown on liberties, free press, and the increasing oppression in the country, the poll found that 64% of those polled said that US legislation repealing regime change in Iran would not be incentive enough to give up the nuclear program and full fuel-cycle".

 

What is most surprising is that this recipient of a Nobel prize, a lawyer, is totally ignorant of international treaties, although she can be forgiven for not knowing the American Constitution.   Ms. Ebadi recommends that the United States continue its blatant violation of the Algiers Accords -- a bilateral agreement concluded between Iran and the United States, and  use VOA and Radio Farda to reach Iranians inside Iran 'to convince them  that the sanctions are targeted at the regime and not the ordinary Iranians'.

 

If Ms. Ebadi has been 'harassed' by officials in Iran, its perhaps her total disregard for law.   Point I.1 of the Algiers Accord states: “The United States pledge that it is and from now will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran’s internal affairs.”  Per Article VI of the Algiers Accords, the violated party, Iran, has the right to refer the matter to the Tribunal at Hague, the Netherlands, where the International Court of Justice will have jurisdiction.    

 

Further, the 1955 Treaty of Amity signed between the United States and Iran, which due to its 2/3 majority approval was signed into law and recorded at the United Nations. The linchpin of the Treaty is free trade between the two countries.  Neither party has called to dissolve the Treaty.  Yet, in spite of the Treaty being in full force, sanctions have been imposed on Iran and Ms. Ebadi is encouraging the United States not only to dishonor its own treaty, but to violate the bilateral Algiers Accords. 

 

This promoter of human rights, who has taken it upon herself to speak on behalf of Iranians, states:  'Iranians will endure considerable hardship if they think the endgame is greater respect for human rights'.  Is she suggesting that Iranians, like Iraqis, be subjected to considerable hardship if they can have respect for human rights - a respect that has yet to be translated into reality on the ground after hundreds of thousands have died.    

 

It is a coincidence that this indistinguishable figure who was proud to be a judge during the Shah's era, a period of dictatorship when the more fortunate dissidents were subjected to SAVAK's torture techniques while others disappeared,  is now hailed as the champion of human rights endorsing meddling in Iran's affairs by the American propaganda machine.  Almost too much of a coincidence.  What made her stand out against all the other activists not only in Iran, but around the globe who worked so hard towards the  'liberties'  that the Western perspective could  recognize and relate to? 

 

It is curious that in interviewing Mr. Ebadi, Jeffrey Gedmin of Foreign Policy should mention Vaclav Havel.  A new wave of liberal thinking emerged which endorsed the idea of promoting 'democracy'  ("liberal Imperialism")  in places of interest, i.e. Iraq and Iran through an individual  "And even more important, one could point to the success of leaders like Kim Dae Jung, Nelson Mandela, Vaclav Havel....."  It was also believed that transition to 'democracy' required focusing on "political strategies" and introducing "indeterminancy" and "uncertainty" into the process of political change which in itself was ground for cautious optimism that democracy could catch on.

 

In 2006, when Ms. Ebadi was being praised for her "bravery" and asked how it was that she was not afraid to go to Iran, she responded: When I got my Nobel prize and went back to Iran, there were over one million people at the airport waiting for me.  They [the government] wouldn't dare touch me.".   One has to wonder why she would be afraid to come back with her one million supporters?  Or perhaps it is the hardship she is encouraging for the Iranians that keep her away from the land which will no doubt reject interference, including all those who solicit them.  

The Hariri Assassination Verdict

 On February 14, 2005, an explosion rocked Beirut killing and injuring hundred of people chief among them the former Prime Minister of Lebanon, Rafik al-Hariri. The West was quick to blame Hezbollah and Syria.   In 2006, Israel and its tanks rolled into Lebanon.

15 years later, on August 4^th, another explosion rocked Lebanon.  This time, the fingers were again pointed at Hezbollah and its ‘Iran backers’.   And once again,  Israeli tanks crossed into Lebanon. 

After years of investigating the first incident, on Tuesday, August 18, 2020, Syria and Hezbollah were acquitted of involvement in the 2005 explosion.    Judges at a U.N.-backed tribunal said Tuesday that there was no evidence the leadership of the Hezbollah militant group and Syria were involved in the 2005 suicide truck bomb assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.” 

Yet reading the Western media headlines, one would think that the judge had found Hezbollah guilty.   Just as the most recent explosion was blamed on Hezbollah.  But what would Hezbollah gain from such horrific acts?  If not Hezbollah, ‘cui bono’?  The answer is simple.  Proving it is not.

The 1967 war resulted in the exponential expansion of Israeli water sources including the  control of the Golan “Heights” (also referred to as the Syrian Golan).   For decades, Syrian Golan and the return of its control to Syria had posed a major obstacle to the Israeli-Syrian peace negotiations.   Israel’s water demands make it virtually impossible to accommodate this process.  In fact, even with full control of the Golan, Israel’s water crisis in 2000 were so acute that it prompted Israel to turn to Turkey for water purchase.   

Importantly, Syria’s presence in Lebanon since the outbreak of the Lebanese civil war in 1975 played a crucial role in hindering Israel’s never-ending water demands.   Although the 1955 Johnston Plan (under the auspices of the Eisenhower administration) proposed diverting water from Lebanon’s Litani River into Lake Kinneret, it was not officially formulated, though it remained an attractive prospect.    In 1982, Israeli forces established the frontline of their security zone in Lebanon along the Litani.   Numerous reports alleged that Israel was diverting large quantities of Litani water.  

On June 6, 1982, Israel advanced into Lebanon.   However, the Syrian army halted the Israeli army advance in the battle of Sultan Yakub and the battle of Ain Zahalta.  Sharon’s plan to conquer all of Lebanon and destroy Syria as a military power was thwarted.  In reviewing the book and the battles, the famous scholar and activist, Israel Shahak, opined that “the principal purpose of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon was destruction of the Syrian Army”[i].

A 1987 book by Col. Emmanuel Wald of the Israeli General Staff entitled “The Ruse of the Broken Vessels: The Twilight of Israeli Military Might (1967-1982) reveals the aims of the 1982 invasion of Lebanon and the month of pre-planning that had gone into it.  Wald writes that Ariel Sharon’s master plan codenamed “Oranim” was to defeat the Syrian troops deployed in the Bekaa Valley all the way to the district of Baalbek in North of Lebanon.  According to Wald, “during the first days, it was quietly approved by the U.S.”.

Sharon’s plans were put in the backburner.   Though the urgency of the successful implantation of the plan was not lost on Israelis; perhaps made even more urgent in the face of the 1991 Lebanese-Syrian Treaty of Brotherhood, Cooperation and Coordination .  The treaty was a challenge to Israel and its diversion of water and annexation.  When Syria replaced Israel as the dominant power in southern Lebanon in May 2000, Israeli fears grew that Syrian success in controlling the Golan and by extension, Lake Kinneret, would have a devastating effect on Israel. 

Washington, always ready to serve Israel, passed the Syrian Accountability Act and the Lebanon Sovereignty Restoration Act.  Without any hesitation to investigate the explosion, Washington and the West did not hesitate to place the blame on Syria and Hezbollah.   Much to the delight of The Washington Institute, the pro-Israel think tank, the United States implemented the Act which in addition to sanctions, called for the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon.   In 2006, the deck was cleared for Israel to attack Lebanon.

Although the Tribunal found no ties to Syria or Hezbollah leadership, it did convict Salim Ayyash -  a Hezbollah member.   The question is, was Ayyash a rogue member acting on his own or was he a member of Israel’s “Arab Platoon” (Ronen Bergman, 2018)[ii].  

The Arab Platoon a clandestine commando unit whose members operated disguised as Arabs, were trained fighters who could operate inside ‘enemy’ lines, gather information, and carry out sabotage and targeted killings. Their training included commando tactics and explosives, but also intensive study of Islam and Arab customs.  Nicknamed the “Mistaravim” (the name by which the Jews went in some Arab countries), they practiced Judaism but in all other aspects were Arabs.

It is not clear to this writer if Ayyash was a Hezbollah member or a Mistaravim.  However, it is evident that neither Syria, Lebanon, nor Hezbollah benefited from the attack.    

Curiously, the initial tribunal date coincided with the Lebanon port explosion which devasted the country, even making it appear as if the explosion and the delay in the hearing would benefit Hezbollah.  Undoubtedly, the findings of the Tribunal must have been very disappointing for Israel and its backers who had placed the blame on Hezbollah and Syrian leadership.  It may be reassuring for some and worrying for others that the FBI is in Beirut investigating.  FBI has managed to build quite a reputation for cover ups.   

Beirut has been devastated.  And as with 2006, every foe is out to grab a part of this beautiful country.  During the 2006 war, while Israel bombed Lebanon, Carlyle profited greatly – as did the Saudis, the U.S., and of course, Israeli. The systematic destruction of Lebanon translated into significant opportunity for the Carlyle Group and with the ‘crisis, they announced a $1.3 billion fund for investment in the region. They were not alone. The rush was on. The big investment banks -- Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers – all increased their presence in the region. Israel, the perpetrator as the benefactor, received an increase of USD 500 million additional in aid package from the U.S. in September of the same year (Ynet news).

With millions of funds from  CIA/NED spent in Lebanon over the past few years (NED 2018, etc.), the country is ripe for its enemies to bend it to their will.   Clearly, this would not benefit Hezbollah, Iran, or Lebanon.   Fingers have also been pointed at Israel for being the culpit.  It may take several years for the truth to come out – and be proven.  At the end of the day though, cui bono?

---

[i] Sahak, Israel.  Israel Considers War With Syria as It Ponders 1982 Invasion of Lebanon,The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (September 30, 1992).

[ii] Ronen Bergman.  Rise And Kill First; The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations.  P. 24.  Random House 2018

JCPOA: The Deal That Wasn’t

July 14^th, 2020, marks the fifth anniversary of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) Agreement, often referred to as the Iran Nuclear Deal (or simply the Deal) – the Deal that wasn’t.   It was yet another attempt at regime change.

Of all the plans to control Iran beginning from Operation Ajax to Operation JCPOA and everything in between, the Iran Nuclear Deal was by far the most devious attempt at undermining the sovereignty of Iran – one way or another.   The Greek’s Trojan Horse pales compared to this dastardly scheme.  Years in the making, the crafty plan even prompted Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) to nominate John Kerry and Javad Zarif to recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize. 

As such, it is high time that the Deal’s planners, their motivations and their associations were discussed in order to grasp the depth of the deception.

[7

Iran, due to its geopolitical position, has always been considered a jewel in the crown of the colonial powers.   Attempts to conquer Iran through a proxy which started with Operation Ajax in August 1953, at the behest of the British and carried out by the CIA were not abandoned even with the ousting of America’s man, the Shah.    Although the Islamic Revolution reclaimed Iran’s sovereignty,  America was not ready to abandon its plans of domination over Iran, and by extension, the Persian Gulf.

The Persian Gulf has been the lynchpin of US foreign policy. "To all intents and purposes," a former senior Defense Department official observed, "'Gulf waters' now extend from the Straits of Malacca to the South Atlantic." Nevertheless, bases nearer the [Persian] Gulf had a special importance, and Pentagon planners urged "as substantial a land presence in the as can be managed." (Anthony H. Cordesman, “The Gulf and the Search for Strategic Stability”, Boulder: Westview, 1984).

Having failed in numerous attempts including the Nojeh coup at the nascent stages of the IR Iran’s newly formed government, war, sanctions, terrorism,  and a failed color revolution,  the United States needed other alternatives to reach its goal.  Unlike the illegal war against Iraq, war with Iran was not a feasible option.  The United States was aware of its inability to wage a successful war against Iran without serious damage to itself and its allies.  

When George W. Bush took office, he commissioned a war exercise to gage the feasibility of an attack against Iran. The  2002 Millennium Challenge,  was a major war game exercise conducted by the United States Armed Forces in mid-2002. The exercise, which ran from July 24 to August 15 and cost $250 million,  proved that the US would not defeat Iran.   The US  even restarted the war games changing rules to ensure an American victory, in reality, cheating itself.  This led to accusations that the war game had turned from an honest, open, playtest of U.S. war-fighting capabilities into a controlled and scripted exercise intended to end in a U.S. victory to promote a false narrative of US invincibility. 

For this reason, the United States continued its attempts at undermining Iran’s sovereignty by means of sanctions, terror, and creating divisions among the Iranians.   The JCPOA would be its master plan.

A simple observation of Iran clearly suggests simple ideological divisions among the Iranian people (pro-West, anti-West, minorities, religious, secular) which have all been amply exploited by the United States and allies.   None of the exploits delivered the prize the US was seeking.  And so it was that it was decided to exploit the one factor which united Iranians of ALL persuasion.  Iran’s civilian nuclear program.

In an interview with National Public Radio (25 November 2004), Ray Takyeh (Council on Foreign Relations CFR and husband to Iran expert Suzanne Maloney  of Brookings) stated that according to polls 75-80% of the Iranians rallied behind the Islamic Republic of Iran in support of its nuclear program, including the full fuel cycle.   In other words, the overwhelming uniting factor among the Iranians for the Islamic Republic was the nuclear program.  (USIA poll conducted in 2007 found that 64% of those questioned said that US legislation repealing regime change in Iran would not be incentive enough to give up the nuclear program and full fuel-cycle).    The next phase was to cause disunity on an issue that united Iranians of all stripes:  negotiate away the nuclear program.

The first round of nuclear negotiations 2003-2005 dubbed the Paris Agreement between Iran and the EU3 proved to be futile, and as  one European diplomat put it: “We gave them a beautiful box of chocolate that was, however, empty.”  As West’s fortune would have it, the same Iranian officials who had participated in the 2003-2005 negotiations would negotiate the JCPOA.

Around the time of the end of the first round of negotiations, another Brookings Fellow, Flynt Leverett , senior advisor for National Security Center, published a book “Inheriting Syria, Bashar’s Trial by Fire” (Brookings book publication, April 2005).  In his book, Leverett argued that instead of conflict, George W. Bush should seek to cooperate with Syria as Assad was popular, but instead seek to weaken Assad’s position among his people by targeting the Golan (induce him to give it up) so that he would lose popularity among the Syrians.   The JCPOA was designed in part along the same line of thinking.   And more.  His wife Hillary Leverett had a prominent role in ‘selling’ the Deal.

Secret negotiations between the Americans and ‘reform-minded’ Iranians never ceased, bypassing both Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, and the President at the time – Mahmood Ahmadinejad.  In a 2012 meeting at the University of Southern California, present members of the Iran Project team had no reservations about suggesting that it was more beneficial to engage Iran rather than attack.  They went as far as stating in the Q&A session to this writer that “they had been engaged with the “Green” (the opposition movement in the failed 2009 color revolution) for years, but Ahmadinejad won” (referring to the 2009 elections).  But Ahmadinejad would soon leave office and be replaced by Rohani – a more amenable player.

Why Negotiate?

Fully appreciating the challenge of attacking Iran, in 2004, the pro-Israel  Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), presented its policy paper “The Challenges of U.S. Preventive Military Action” authored by Michael Eisenstadt.   It was opined that the ideal situation was (and continues to be) to have a compliant ‘regime’ in Tehran.   Eisenstadt was of the opinion that unlike the Osiraq nuclear power plant which was bombed and destroyed, Isarel/US would not be able to bomb Iran’s Bushehr reactor with the same ease.  In particular, Eisenstadt claimed that Israel may have benefited from French aid in destroying Osiraq. French intelligence reportedly emplaced a homing beacon at Osiraq to help Israeli pilots locate the facility or target a critical underground structure there.

In this light, it was recommended that the principal goal of U.S. action should be to delay Iran's nuclear program long enough to allow for the possible emergence of new leadership in Tehran.  Failing that, war would have been facilitated.

It was thought the Paris Agreement talks would fail (as the JCPOA was designed to fail) and as such, the following were some of the suggestions made:

• harassment or murder of key Iranian scientists or technicians;

• introduction of fatal design flaws into critical reactor, centrifuge, or weapons components during their production, to ensure catastrophic failure during use;

• disruption or interdiction of key technology or material transfers through sabotage or covert military actions on land, in the air, or at sea;

• sabotage of critical facilities by U.S. intelligence assets, including third country nationals or Iranian agents with access to key facilities;

• introduction of destructive viruses into Iranian computer systems controlling the production of components or the operation of facilities;

• damage or destruction of critical facilities through sabotage or direct action by U.S. special forces.

As with the murder and terror of the nuclear scientists, and the Stuxnet virus into the reactor, the JCPOA enabled personnel on the ground in Iran to carry out extensive sabotage as has been recently observed in recent days and weeks.  Rohani’s visa free travel opened the flood gates to spies and saboteurs – dual citizens,  who easily traveled with passports other than American, British, and Australian.  Iran even managed to prevent an IAEA inspector who triggered an alarm at Iran’s nuclear facility.  But it would seem, Iran has not been able to stop other intruders and terrorists – not yet. 

Other Motivational Factors for Negotiating

According to studies, as of 2008 Iran’s Bushehr nuclear reactor had 82 tons of enriched uranium (U235) loaded into it, according to Israeli and Chinese reports.  This amount was significantly higher pre and during negotiations.  History has not witnessed the bombing of a nuclear power plant with an operational nuclear enrichment facility.  Deliberate bombing of such facilities would result breach containment and radioactive elements released.  The death toll horrifying.  The Union of Concerned Scientists has estimated 3 million deaths would result in 3 weeks from bombing the nuclear enrichment facilities near Esfahan, and the contamination would cover Afghanistan, Pakistan, all the way to India.

The JCPOA significantly reduced the amount of enriched uranium reducing the potential casualty deaths in the event that a strike is carried out.

The Deal buys time -  Iran’s strength has been its ability to retaliate to any attack by closing down the Strait of Hormuz. Given that 17 million barrels of oil a day, or 35% of the world’s seaborne oil exports go through the Strait of Hormuz, incidents in the Strait would be fatal for the world economy. Enter Nigeria (West Africa) and Yemen.

In 1998, Clinton’s national security agenda made it clear that unhampered access to Nigerian oil and other vital resources was a key US policy. In early 2000s, Chatham House was one of the publications that determined African oil would be a good alternate to Persian Gulf oil in case of oil disruption. This followed a strategy paper for US to move toward African oil. Push for African oil was on Dick Cheney’s desk on May 31, 2000. In 2002, the Israeli based IASPS suggested America push toward African oil. In the same year Boko Haram was ‘founded’.

In 2007, AFRICOM helped consolidate this push into the region. The 2011, a publication titled: “Globalizing West African Oil: US ‘energy security’ and the global economy” outlined ‘US positioning itself to use military force to ensure African oil continued to flow to the United States’. This was but one strategy to supply oil in addition to or as an alternate to the passage of oil through the Strait of Hormuz.  (See HERE for full article).

JCPOA as a starting point

It has now been made abundantly clear that the Deal was simply JCPOA1.  Other Deals were to follow to disarm Iran even further, to stop Iran’s defensive missile program, and to stop Iran helping its allies in the region.   This would have been relatively easy to achieve had Hillary Clinton been elected – as had been the hope.  The plan was to allow trade and neoliberal polices which the Rohani administration readily embraced, a sharp increase in imports (harming domestic production and self-reliance) while building hope – or as Maloney called it ‘crisis of expectation’.   It was thought that with a semblance of ‘normalcy’ in international relations and free of sanctions, Iranians would want to continue abandoning their sovereignty, their defenses, and rally around the pro-West/America politicians at the expense of the core ideology of the Islamic Revolution, the conservatives and the IRGC.   In other words, regime change.  (several meetings speak to this; see for example, and here). 

The players

The most prominent, one could argue, was President Obama.  Obama was not about peace.   The biggest threat to an empire is peace.  Obama had chosen feigned diplomacy as his weapon.   But before picking up the mantle of diplomacy, he had proposed terrorism – sanctioned terrorism.  Obama, while a junior senator introduced S. 1430 in 2007  and had "crippling sanctions" in mind for the Iranian people.   As president, his executive orders assured this. 

Addressing AIPAC as a candidate, he said: "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."

No wonder he was dubbed ‘the first Jewish president’!

Not to be left unmentioned was the darling of the theatrics of this Deal – Federica Mogherini.  So enamored were some of the Iranian parliamentarians with her that to the embarrassment of Iran, the internet was abuzz with these MPs taking pictures with her.   Perhaps they looked at her and not her years as a German Marshall Fund Fellow.

The German Marshall Fund (GMF) sounds harmless enough, but perhaps Russia many not view it that way.  And Iran shouldn’t.  The GMF pushed for bringing Ukraine into NATO’s fold.  Furthermore, the GMF gives funding to American Abroad Media.    AMA boasts of some of the most dangerous anti-Iran neoconservatives who have shaped America’s policies such as Dennis Ross, James Woolsey, Martin Indyk (responsible for the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act later to  become ISA and still in place after the JCPOA), Tom Pickering (one of the main proponents of the Iran Deal and member of the Iran Project).  Supporters are not limited to the GMF.   Others include Rockerfeller, Ford Foundation, and NED.

And a most active proponent of the JCPOA was none other than NED recipient, Trita Parsi/NIAC.    Trita Parsi was personally thanked for his role in pushing the JCPOA through.  Job well done for a 3 time recipient of NED funds .  No wonder the George Soros – Koch foundation Quincy Institute selected him as their Executive Vice President.

And last but not least, Hillary Mann Leverett (wife of aforementioned Flynn Leverett) who persuaded her audiences that the JCPOA was akin to “Nixon going to China”.   While some in Iran naively believed this to be the case, and even defended her, they failed to realize that when Nixon went to China it was to bring China on board against Russia.   And Israel was not a player.   It was not an opening to befriend Iran any more than Nixon’s trip had altruist motivations.

Russia and China’s role

The Russians and the Chinese were so eager to embrace a long-awaited peace after all the calamity caused by the United States that they fully embraced this Deal, even though it was detrimental to their interests in so doing.

America’s animosity and never-ending schemes encouraged cooperation between Russia, China, and Iran.  Although the lifting of sanctions post JCPOA would have facilitated trade and enhanced diplomacy between Iran and the West, at a cost to China and Russia, they  stood steadfast by the Deal.  Peace was more valuable.  But far more importantly, the two powerful nations allowed the United States to be the arbitrator of an international treaty – the NPT. 

During the Shah’s reign, President Ford had signed onto a National Security Decision Memorandum (NSDM 292, 1975) allowing and encouraging Iran to not only enrich uranium, but sell it to neighboring countries to profit America.  The United States then decided that since the Islamic Republic of Iran did not serve the interests of the United States, the United States would determine how the NPT should apply to Iran.    

But their efforts at peace and the West’s efforts at regime change all came to naught.  What is important to bear in mind is that America’s efforts at war, sabotage, and terrorism have not ended.  Imposing unilateral sanctions – terrorism against the Iranian people, has not ceased.  Although the Iranian people and their selected representative in the new Iranian parliament are far more aware of, and have an aversion to America’s ploys and the Deal, China and Russia must do their part not only as guarantors of peace, but also to maintain their integrity in a world where both aspire to live in multilateralism.   The world already has a super power without morals and integrity; it does not need other great powers that act similarly.

Iran has fended off another assault on its sovereignty.  However,  saboteurs and terrorists are soliciting war with their recent string of terrorism in Iran.  As the fifth anniversary of this trap approaches, the world needs to understand and step up in order to defend peace, international law and social justice.   The future of all depends on it. 

And to American compatriots:  Make sure Trump understands war will not get him re-elected.