Eight Years of Corrosive Lies about Syria

The western media, under the clutches of Zionists, is never tired of promoting United States as the biggest democracy and peacekeeper on this planet. The bitter reality is opposite and only displayed in social media, which is often not liked by those at the top of helm of affairs even in the United States. The most recent evidences are ongoing turmoil being created in Venezuela and the failed efforts to topple the incumbent government in Syria of the United States.  

The hallmark of the US administration is telling lies and spreading disinformation with such a frequency that often a person with average wit is misled and start believing in lies. It may be said that the US spy agencies tell lies the way authoritarians do to demonstrate and expand their power. Three of the most glaring examples of blatant lies of spy agencies are presence of OBL in Afghanistan, manufacturing of WMD by Iraq and nuclear program of Iran. All this could be best understood if one just has a cursory look at eight years of corrosive lies of the US administration about Syrian war.

Let us begin with a story published in the Wall Street Journal about Syria telling that the United States may leave 1,000 troops in that country after all. If one can recall, the US president had announced a complete withdrawal of troops from Syria months ago. Then, weeks later the White House announced that a small force of 200 would stay behind. Now, the Journal was reporting that it would actually be 1,000. A few hours later the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said the original plan remained unchanged.

Reviewing three assertions routinely made about Syria by pundits, politicians, and policymakers show complete hypocrisy: 1) Syria shows the perils of U.S. non-intervention; 2) We’re only in Syria to fight ISIS and 3) U.S. withdrawal from Syria would mean handing a victory to Vladimir Putin. All of the above statements have become conventional wisdom. The same people sometimes repeat more than one of them, but they are entirely irreconcilable with one another.

If withdrawing from Syria means handing a victory to Vladimir Putin, then the US is doing something other than fighting ISIS there, something that certainly can’t be described as non-intervention.

CIA began the US mission in the Syrian Civil War years before ISIS came into being, and a full year before President Barak Obama began talking up his red lines and proposing a congressional vote to authorize intervention in Syria.

The world was told that the US was arming moderate rebels, but these moderate rebels fought side by side Al Nusra fighters who were often known to be using weapons brought in by the CIA or the Department of Defense to fight this war in which the US was not intervening. The US also funded a group called Nour al-Din al-Zenki, until its members showed up on YouTube beheading a child, at which point the moderate label no longer quite fit.

Apparently the Congress refused to authorize US military intervention in Syria, which was already ongoing. Did the intervention stopped? No, it continued under the 2001 AUMF that authorized the president to make war on al-Qaeda. The US is now using the legal authority to hunt and destroy al-Qaeda to fund and arm al-Qaeda’s allies on the ground in Syria.

United States gets ready to open a new military base in Oman

According to a Reuters report, the United States secured a strategic port deal with Oman that will allow the US military better access to the Gulf region and reduce the need to send ships through the Strait of Hormuz, a maritime choke point off Iran. The U.S. embassy in Oman said in a statement that the agreement governed U.S. access to facilities and ports in Duqm as well as in Salalah and reaffirms the commitment of both the countries to promoting mutual security goals.

The accord is viewed through an economic prism by Oman, which wants to develop Duqm while preserving its Switzerland-like neutral role in Middle Eastern politics and diplomacy. As the US concerns grow about Iran’s expanding missile programs that has improved in recent years, despite sanctions and diplomatic pressure by the US.

The deal was significant by improving access to ports that connect to a network of roads to the broader region, giving the US military great resiliency in a crisis. The US used to operate on the assumption that it could just steam into the Gulf. However the quality and quantity of Iranian weapons raises concerns.

According to the report, Tehran has in the past threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz, a major oil shipping route at the mouth of the Gulf. These threats were in retaliation for any hostile US action, including attempts to halt Iranian oil exports through sanctions. Still, the agreement is expected to expand US military options in the region in case of any eventuality.

Duqm is ideal port for large ships. It is big enough to turn around an aircraft carrier. The port itself is very important and the geostrategic location is very attractive, being outside the Strait of Hormuz.

For Oman, the deal will further advance its efforts to transform Duqm, once just a fishing village 550 km south of Muscat capital, into a key Middle East industrial and port center, as its diversifies its economy beyond oil and gas exports. The deal will also strengthen US position in the region.

United States wants global oil industry to support its foreign policy agenda

According to a Reuters news, U.S. Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo has urged the global oil industry to work with President Trump administration to promote U.S. foreign policy interests, especially in Asia and in Europe and to punish the “bad actors” on the world stage. He was addressing the participants of a conference in Houston, where U.S. oil and gas executives, energy luminaries and officials of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) gather annually to discuss global energy development.

Pompeo said, “Washington would use all its economic tools to help deal with the situation in Venezuela, which is mired in a years-long economic crisis and where socialist President Nicolas Maduro is maintaining power despite being disavowed by the US and about 50 other countries”.

The US has imposed harsh sanctions in the past several months on two major world oil producers, Venezuela and Iran. Washington re-imposed oil sanctions on Iran to curb its nuclear, missile and regional activities. “We’re committed to bringing Iranian crude oil exports to zero as quickly as market conditions will permit,” said Pompeo.

He went on to the extent of saying, “We need to roll up our sleeves and compete – by facilitating investment, encouraging partners to buy from us, and by punishing bad actors.” He also declared, “U.S. oil and gas export boom had given the country the ability to meet energy demand.”

Referring to a natural gas pipeline expansion from Russia to Central Europe, Pompeo warned, “We don’t want our European allies hooked on Russian gas through the NordStream II project, any more than we ourselves want to be dependent on Venezuelan oil supplies.”

Pompeo also met with top oil executives for about an hour to try to persuade energy companies to help the administration’s efforts to boost crude exports to Asia and to support its policy of isolating Iran. The US seems adamant at making significant progress on a Middle East security alliance over the next few months. The alliance is an attempt to form a US-backed bloc of Sunni Muslim countries including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait as a bulwark against Shi’ite Iranian influence in the Middle East.

Pompeo criticized China for “blocking energy development in the South China Sea through coercive means,” which he said prevents Southeast Asian countries from accessing more than US$2.5 trillion in recoverable energy reserves.

Pompeo also termed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine an attempt to gain access to the country’s oil and gas reserves.

“UK should freeze arms sales to Israel”, demands Jeremy Corbyn

UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn renewed his call for a British arms embargo against Israel after a United Nations Human Rights Council commission of inquiry said that IDF has likely committed war crimes on the Gaza border.

“The UK government must unequivocally condemn the killings and freeze arms sales to Israel,” Corbyn tweeted on Friday. Last year, the Labour Party approved a motion that called for an arms ban to Israel.

The 22-page report investigated the death of 189 Palestinians by the IDF during the Hamas-led weekly Great March of Return protests which have taken place along the Gaza border.

The UNHRC report was authored by a three-person commission of inquiry, which plans to submit a full report prior to a March 18 debate on the matter at the UNHRC’s 40th session in Geneva.

The report focused primarily on Israeli and not Hamas violence, and concluded that the protests were peaceful. It warned that the International Criminal Court could prosecute Israeli leaders and soldiers.

Last year, the UNHRC passed a resolution which called on all UN member states to halt the sale of any arms to Israel that could be used to violate international human rights law. United States special envoy Jason Greenblatt attacked the UNHRC report on Gaza in a series of tweets.

“This [commission of inquiry] report is another manifestation of the UNHRC’s clear bias against Israel, which remains the only country that the Council dedicates an entire standing agenda item to targeting. When will the HRC speak the truth?” he wrote.

Hamas behaved with reckless irresponsibility [and] disregard for human life when it incited violent (not ‘civilian’) protests, breaches [and] attacks at the Gaza fence-line,” Greenblatt wrote. “Hamas is directly responsible for the miserable situation of the people of Gaza.”

Israel has rejected the report and holds that the protests are violent riots led by Hamas members.

During those riots, Palestinians in Gaza have thrown stones and Molotov cocktails at soldiers. The protesters have attempted to breach the border fence and have placed explosive devices by the fence. Palestinians in Gaza have also launched incendiary devices into Israel, burning thousands of dunams of fields and forests.

Republican lawmakers in the US also spoke out against the report and in support of Israel’s right to self-defense.

Congressman Lee Zeldin, a ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations and co-chair of the House Republican Israel Caucus, was among those who issued a statement on the matter.

“This one-sided, highly biased and woefully inaccurate report fails to take into account key facts; most evidently, Hamas’s provocation and orchestration of this violence, its purposeful destabilization of order along the border and its continued incursions into Israel’s sovereign soil, including the launching of over 10,000 rockets and mortars on Israeli towns and villages, and the dozens of tunnels, enabling their death squads, since the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza,” Zeldin wrote.

“Warsaw meeting a failure for Arabs”, says Nuri al-Maliki

Former Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki called the Warsaw conference an “open failure” for Arabs, saying the meeting was primarily intended to deflect attention from the Israeli aggressions in the region to a focus on Iran, according to an ISNA report.

Speaking on Alahad TV, Maliki warned about the aims of the conference and its danger for the entire region.

The Warsaw meeting, co-hosted by the U.S. and Poland was intended to isolate Iran but it ended in failure as major European countries sent low level officials to the meeting and criticized the U.S. for trying to demonize Iran.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who initially announced that the conference was intended to highlight what he called Iran’s “destabilizing behavior” in the region, was forced to change the agenda of the conference when he faced pressure from Europe and others.

Noting that such moves threaten Iraq and all other regional states, Maliki said the Warsaw conference revealed the “secret relationship” between certain Arab states with the Zionist regime which has been existing since some years ago.

The former prime minister praised the Iraqi government’s position on the conference and its refusal to participate in it.

Citing a story, Maliki said when he was prime minister a foreign minister from an Arab country proposed establishment of “the Middle East economic system” in which Israel would be a member.

 “I told the Arab minister that Iraq will not be party to any organization which Israel would be a member,” explained Maliki.

Hidden agenda of Warsaw Summit

The US decision to host a Middle East conference in Warsaw was a curious diplomatic occasion. A question came to mind, why is this gathering of mainly Western and Arab governments being held in the Polish capital? Poland, which co-hosted the conference, is not known for its involvement in the Middle East's myriad problems.

Some analysts believe that Poland is an active member of the Nato and its dark history at the hands of Russia gives good reasons to get closer to Washington. Indeed some Poles are eager to see a large fully-fledged US military base on their soil. But one is left with the nagging thought that this meeting was in Poland primarily for one reason - none of Washington's other close partners in Europe were eager to host it.

This gathering was arranged by the Americans to have an international meeting to increase the pressure on Tehran. But this idea was quickly revised since there was little enthusiasm among some of Washington's Western European allies. Indeed it became evident that putting the spotlight on Iran might simply highlight the divisions in the Western camp in the wake of the Trump administration's decision to pull out of the nuclear agreement - the JCPOA - with Tehran.

Therefore, the agenda was broadened to "Promoting a Future of Peace and Security in the Middle East". Iran was not named on the agenda, but included broader issues like humanitarian and refugee challenges, missile proliferation and 21st Century threats like cyber and terrorism.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict was also not on the agenda, because Palestinians were not attending since they are boycotting the Trump administration.

The US was likely represented by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo but Vice-President Mike Pence and the president's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, (architect of the administration's yet to be revealed Middle East peace plan) would also probably attend. British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt was also expected to be there - at least for the opening session. Other major European players were likely to be represented at a lower level.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was most likely to be there along with representatives of several Arab governments, including Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Morocco, Oman and the United Arab Emirates, along with Egypt and Tunisia.

The summit was termed the first major diplomatic gathering where Israel and the moderate Arab States would discuss regional security since the Madrid talks during the early 1990s. Some aspects of the peace process will inevitably come up but Iran is still likely to be a major area of discussion.

There is a fundamental division amongest the participants here. The US, Israel and many of the moderate Arab States see Iran as a malevolent influence in the region, seeking to expand its role at every opportunity. They were skeptical about the 2015 nuclear deal that was intended to constrain Iran's nuclear activities.

Netanyahu is likely to argue that Iran should not be looked at through the prism of divisions between the US and Europe over the nuclear deal. Instead he will argue that it is European values that are at stake. Iran's behavior - its support for terrorism; its human rights abuses, the detention of foreign nationals - are all issues that should matter to European governments.

It is certainly true that foreign ministries in London, Paris and Germany are concerned about Iran's regional behavior and its developing missile programs. But there is uncertainty about quite what to do about them. For the Europeans, maintaining what they see as the nuclear deal's brakes on Iran's nuclear activities is the paramount concern. For Washington, Israel and the moderate Arabs this is insufficient.

But Europe is distracted by Brexit and a host of other issues. Persistent tensions with the Trump administration and the US president's erratic policy decisions - the move to pull US forces out of Syria and the threatened draw-down in Afghanistan for example - only make matters worse. The US withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal is perceived unreliability of Washington in many European eyes. This gathering may tell us just as much about the divisions in the Western camp which seem to be getting worse rather than better.

United States Godfathering Mutiny in Venezuela

According to a Reuters report, United States is holding direct communications with members of Venezuela’s military, urging them to abandon President Nicolas Maduro and is also preparing new sanctions aimed at increasing pressure on him.

The Trump administration expects further military defections from Maduro’s side, despite only a few senior officers having done so since opposition leader Juan Guaido declared himself interim president last month, earning the recognition of the United States and dozens of other countries.

One of the officials accepting US offer said, “We believe these to be those first couple pebbles before we start really seeing bigger rocks rolling down the hill. We’re still having conversations with members of the Maduro regime, with military members, although those conversations are very, very limited.”

The official declined to provide details on the discussions or the level at which they are being held, and it was unclear whether such contacts could create cracks in the Venezuelan socialist leader’s support from the military, which is pivotal to his grip on power.

With the Venezuelan military still apparently loyal to Maduro, a source in Washington close to the opposition expressed doubts whether the Trump administration has laid enough groundwork to spur a wider mutiny in the ranks where many officers are suspected of benefiting from corruption and drug trafficking.

Members of the South American country’s security forces fear they or their families could be targeted by Maduro if they defect, so the U.S. would need to offer them something that could outweigh those concerns, said representative of an American think tank in Washington.

The U.S. government also sees European allies as likely to do more to prevent Maduro from transferring or hiding Venezuela government assets held outside the country.

Major European countries have joined the United States in backing Guaido but they have stopped short of the sweeping oil sanctions and financial measures that Washington has imposed.

At the same time, the Trump administration is readying further possible sanctions on Venezuela.

Previous rounds have targeted dozens of Venezuelan military and government officials, including Maduro himself, and last month finally hit the OPEC member’s vital oil sector. But the administration has stopped short of imposing so-called “secondary” sanctions, which would punish non-U.S. companies for doing business with the Venezuela government or the state oil monopoly PDVSA.

It is believed that Washington is using all available tools to apply pressure on Maduro and his associates to accept a legitimate democratic transition.

The U.S. government is also weighing possible sanctions on Cuban military and intelligence officials accused of helping Maduro remain in power.

Maduro’s government has accused Guaido of staging a U.S. directed coup.

Guaido has actively courted members of the military with promises of amnesty and preferential legal treatment if they disavow Maduro and disobey his orders, and Washington this week raised the prospect of dropping sanctions on senior Venezuelan officers if they recognize Guaido.

Maduro still has the support of the military high command, and now routinely appears in pre-recorded events at military bases where officers stand behind him and chant triumphal slogans such as “Loyal always, traitors never.”