Thomas Barrack Don Quixote of US Imperialism

Colonialism was not merely a political and economic hegemony exercised by Western powers over large parts of the world. It was also a profound cultural and ideological plot intended to distort the history of colonized peoples, to fool them, and to impose deviant models of knowledge and values on them.

This is what US envoy Thomas Barrack is doing by exploiting the collective Lebanese consciousness, sometimes by calling on them to emulate the “amazing” example of the new Syrian interim president Ahmed al-Sharaa (the former HTS leader known as Abu Mohammad al-Julani), and other times by his open lie that Hezbollah welcomed the Israeli occupation forces by scattering flowers in the 1970s.

He made such false claims in an interview with Al-Jadeed TV. When the interviewer corrected him, he added that Hezbollah emerged as a result of the events of the 1970s, which are well-known to everyone. The daily Israeli attacks on the southerners at the time and the blatant American interference in Lebanese affairs.  

Commenting on Barrack’s lie, journalist Pierre Abi Saab wrote on X, “This is Trump’s culture and this is the Trump administration, a culture of domination, arrogance, and colonial barbarism; a culture steeped in illiteracy, ignorance, impudence, and absolute self-confidence, based on contempt for all rules and norms, and a rejection of international legitimacy and international law. They all come from the same intellectual stable!”

For his part, journalist Hassan Illaik wrote, “The idiot Morgan Ortagus has been succeeded by an even idiot.”

It is often said “there is a world of difference between the two” when comparing a seasoned sage with an evasive man. This is the case when comparing Washington’s diplomats with Tehran’s diplomats, such as late Amir Hossein Abdollahian, who moved from one country to another defending the dignity of the peoples of West Asia until his honorable martyrdom.

As for the likes of Washington’s notorious diplomats, whom there is no room to mention here, as each is more devious than the next, like Thomas Barrack, whose record is replete with gambling, financial and moral scandals, but they come to us to preach about honor and dignity.

Observers have expressed their fear about the path the situation in Lebanon could take after Barrack’s departure, particularly given his threat that Washington would withdraw its hand from “mediation” if Lebanon did not abide by the clause requiring Hezbollah to disarm. This could lead to Lebanon being isolated internationally and Arab-wide as a punishment for its well–calculated stance.

The US envoy reiterated, “My role is a political mediator to positively influence the parties.”

The irony is that Barrack has never been a “mediator,” but a mouthpiece for Israel as he himself stated, “We are in Lebanon to help bring about peace, but there is a timetable, and time is running out.”

In parallel, a hostile infantry force of approximately 20 Israeli soldiers penetrated from the vicinity of the border town of Abbasiyeh toward the Rihana Bari area in the Mari plain, at dawn on Wednesday, searching several homes, and interrogated a number of Lebanese residents and Syrian workers.

For more than an hour and a half, Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri presented Barrack with detailed figures on the Lebanese citizens killed by Israel, since November 27, reminding him of what was happening in Syria.

Berri stressed that as long as the situation remained as it was, it would be difficult for anyone to raise the issue of disarming the Resistance, especially since tens of thousands of Lebanese remain displaced as a result of the ongoing aggression, and preventing the southerners from returning to their demolished villages to reconstruct them.

Barrack also met Druze leader Walid Jumblatt to dissect what is happening in Syria, claiming that al-Sharaa has only 25,000 soldiers and that they are incapable of threatening Lebanon.

According to Axios, Barrack arranged an Israeli-Syrian meeting in Paris on Thursday to formulate “urgent security understandings” regarding southern Syria.

Courtesy: Tehran Times

Russia-Ukraine conflict: A US manufactured crisis

Few people today ask the most important question about the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Many people want America to stay out of the fight, but even they don’t ask the vital questions.

Why does the world face a crisis today? Why has a border dispute between Russia and Ukraine escalated to the point where people fear nuclear war?

The answer is simple. The United States, under the leadership of President Joe Biden and the forces controlling him, has done this and, by doing so, brought the world to the brink of disaster. As always, the great Dr. Ron Paul gets it right: “Three weeks into this terrible war, the US is not pursuing talks with Russia, instead of supporting negotiations between Ukraine and Russia that could lead to a ceasefire and an end to the bloodshed, the US government is actually escalating the situation which can only increase the bloodshed.

“The constant flow of US and allied weapons into Ukraine and talk of supporting an extended insurgency does not seem designed to give Ukraine a victory on the battlefield but rather to hand Russia what Secretary of State Blinken called ‘a strategic defeat.’

“It sounds an awful lot like the Biden Administration intends to fight Russia down to the last Ukrainian,” wrote Paul. ”The only solution for the United States is to get out. Let the Russians and Ukrainians reach an agreement. That means no NATO for Ukraine and no US missiles on Russian borders? So what! End the war then end NATO.”

Let’s look at an analogy that will help us understand Paul’s point. For years, the Ukrainian government has attacked an area in the Donbass region that has seceded from Ukraine and formed an independent, pro-Russian, republic. Just before Putin moved against Ukraine, Ukrainians increased the scale and scope of their attack.

Rick Rozoff describes what they did, “Two-thirds of Ukrainian army servicemen have been amassed along the Donbass contact line, Eduard Basurin, spokesman for the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) militia, said on Thursday.

“Another three brigades are on their way to Donbass, which is 20,000 to 25,000 troops more. The total number will reach 150,000, not to mention the nationalists. This is about two-thirds of Ukrainian Armed Forces’ personnel,” Basurin said on the Rossiya 1 television channel (VGTRK) on Thursday.

Ukrainian troops are stationed along the 320-kilometer front line, he said.”

Unlike what has just happened, the Ukrainian attack did not result in US sanctions on Ukraine. There were no meetings of the UN to condemn Ukrainian aggression. There was no talk of world war. On the contrary, the Ukraine government used American weapons in its attack and asked America for more weapons to continue their attack.

Let’s listen to Rozoff again, “The Armed Forces of Ukraine used the American anti-tank missile system Javelin in the hostilities in Donbass. This was announced by the head of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine Kirill Budanov in an interview.

“Budanov said that ideally, the US would help deter any Russian incursion, through additional military aid and increased diplomatic and economic pressure, including more sanctions against Russia and the seizure and blocking of Russian banking accounts.

“Also, in addition to US aid already promised and delivered, including Mark VI patrol boats, Javelin anti-armor systems and AN/TPQ-53 light counter-fire radar systems, Ukraine seeks additional air, missile and drone defense systems and electronic jamming devices, Budonov said. Patriot missile batteries and counter rocket, artillery and mortar systems are on Ukraine’s wish list.

“The AN/TPQ-53 systems were used to great effect, Ukraine military officials have previously reported. Budanov said the Javelin systems have also been used against Russian forces. Those, along with Turkish-manufactured drones, used against Russian-aligned separatist artillery troops, have a significant psychological deterrent value, said Budanov.”

The US should have not have shipped arms to Ukraine. Doing this made the situation worse. But for what we’re saying now, it doesn’t matter what you think of the policy. The key point is that because there was no international outcry and no sanctions, the matter remained a local fight. If Biden and his team had reacted to the so-called Russian invasion in the same way, the matter would have remained a local quarrel. Russia and Ukraine would have made a deal and that would be that.

The neocon warmongers and other defenders of democracy, who unfortunately include some deluded libertarians object. Don’t we have a duty to resist aggression? The answer is clear, No, we don’t. We do not have a duty to evaluate every foreign quarrel and assess who is at fault. We do not have a duty to require leaders of regimes we, or rather our masters in Washington, don’t like to accept existing boundaries of countries as unchangeable. We should reject the false doctrine of “collective security,” which makes every border dispute a world war.

The great American historian Charles Beard recognized what was wrong with “collective security” in the 1930s. In his article, “Giddy Minds and Foreign Quarrels,” he asked: “On what … should the foreign policy of the United States be based? Here is one answer and it is not excogitated in any professor’s study or supplied by political agitators. It is the doctrine formulated by George Washington, supplemented by James Monroe, and followed by the Government of the United States until near the end of the nineteenth century, when the frenzy for foreign adventurism burst upon the country.

This doctrine is simple. Europe has a set of ‘primary interests’ which have little or no relation to us, and is constantly vexed by ‘ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice.’

The United States is a continental power separated from Europe by a wide ocean which, despite all changes in warfare, is still a powerful asset of defense. In the ordinary or regular vicissitudes of European politics the United States should not become implicated by any permanent ties. We should promote commerce, but force ‘nothing.’ We should steer dear of hates and loves. We should maintain correct and formal relations with all established governments without respect to their forms or their religions, whether Christian, Mohammedan, Shinto, or what have you.”

Beard then responded to those who wanted to scrap our traditional policy of non-intervention with “collective security”. In the rest of the world, outside this hemisphere, our interests are remote and our power to enforce our will is relatively slight. Nothing we can do for Europeans will substantially increase our trade or add to our, or their, well-being. Nothing we can do for Asiatics will materially increase our trade or add to our, or their, well-being. With all countries in Europe and Asia, our relations should be formal and correct. As individuals we may indulge in hate and love, but the Government of the United States embarks on stormy seas when it begins to love one power and hate another officially.”

We should heed Beard’s wisdom today. Otherwise, the world may go up in flames.