Todd Lewis and I will wrap up our eight part series on US foreign policy covering the “End of History” and the War on Terror.
A recent interview. Listen here.
Press TV. Listen here.
US President Donald Trump’s immigration policies are used a “political weapon” against nations that are not allies of the United States, according to an American analyst.
Trump said Wednesday he would renew efforts to terminate a particular immigration program known as the ‘Diversity Immigrant Visa’ program, also known as the green card lottery, following Tuesday’s terrorist attack in New York City.
“I am starting the process of terminating the diversity lottery program,” Trump angrily told reporters before a cabinet meeting at the White House.
“We have to do what’s right to protect our citizens,” he said. “We will get rid of this lottery program as soon as possible.”
The program awards US permanent resident visas to around 50,000 applicants from around the world each year, opening the door as well for members of their broader families to follow them, so-called chain migration.
“Trump has come out and claimed that we need to eliminate the diversity lottery as far as visas are concerned. What he means by that is that he wants to eliminate immigration into the United States by persons from predominately Islamic nations,” said Keith Preston, chief editor of AttacktheSystem.com.
“The Trump administration’s effort to curb immigration from Islamic nations is largely a prop that is used as a political weapon against nations that are simply not allies of the United States; that’s the real issue,” Preston told Press TV on Wednesday.
“It’s not about Islam; it is not about terrorism; it is not about immigration. This is a geo-political weapon, a rhetorical weapon on one hand but a geo-political weapon on another hand; the way he is taking action against nations and these populations of nations that are not aligned with the United States,” Preston said.
“For example the hijackers in New York in September 11, 2001; those individuals were from Saudi Arabia, yet there has been no effort by the Trump administration to curb immigration from Saudi Arabia,” he noted.
These are the freakazoids the neocons want to put in power in Iran.
American Herald Tribune
(From left to right: Maryam Rajavi- Rudy Giuliani and Senator Joe Lieberman at the free Iran Gathering – 1 July 2017. Image credit: Maryam Rajavi/ flickr)
If you want to change a group of terrorists who have killed American overseas into something that appears to be much more benign, all you have to do is pay off the right people in Washington. With enough money, you can even open a nice plush lobbying office on Pennsylvania Avenue in the District of Columbia, not too far from the White House and Capitol Hill.
One-time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been rightly blamed for the ill-conceived and badly bungled “regime change” in Libya in 2011 that eventually led to her mishandling of the resulting blowback in Benghazi, but one of her greatest failings just might have involved the piece of paper she signed when she removed the Mujaheddin e Khalq (MEK) group from the State Department list of “designated terrorist organizations” in September 2012.
How is it possible that the bad judgment demonstrated in the Libyan fiasco that created a failed state, a humanitarian disaster, a migrant crisis, armed terrorists and ultimately produced the murder of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans compare with a signature on a piece of paper? It is because that signature put in place one of the elements that will most likely in the near future lead to a far more disastrous war for the United States than was Libya. MEK, now labeled the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), has become a principal voice of the war party that is now seeking to attack Iran, a role similar to that played by Ahmad Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress in his disseminating of lies in the lead up to the catastrophic invasion of Iraq in 2003.
The tale of the rehabilitation and rise of MEK/NCRI is a subset of the ongoing corruption of America’s political culture, best illustrated by the fact that even national security is now up for sale, enabling a terrorist group to transform itself into a “resistance movement” and eventually be labeled “freedom fighters.”
How did this happen as MEK was on the State Department roster of foreign terrorist organizations since the list was established in 1997? Its inclusion derived from its having killed six Americans in the 1970s, its participation in the U.S. Embassy hostage-taking and from its record of extreme violence both inside and outside Iran since that time. When I was a CIA trainee our course included a simulation of the horrific attack on U.S. Air Force Officers in Tehran in 1973 that killed two colonels.
MEK is widely regarded as a terrorist cult headed by a bizarre husband and wife team Massoud and Maryam Rajavi. Its members are required to be celibate and are subjected to extensive brainwashing, physical torture, severe beatings even unto death, and prolonged solitary confinement if they question the leadership. One scholar who has studied them describes their beliefs as a “weird combination of Marxism and Islamic fundamentalism.”
Michael Malice (author) joins Dave Rubin to discuss American politics, his experience traveling inside North Korea, his book ‘Dear Reader: The Unauthorized Autobiography of Kim Jong Il,’ and North Korea’s nuclear and hydrogen bomb threats to America.
Keith Preston and Todd Lewis will discuss US foreign policy in the latter half of the Cold War.
Todd Lewis and Keith Preston analysis of US foreign policy into the Cold War from 1945-1965.
Many of these regionalist movements in Europe seem similar to tendencies we have in the US, i.e. either more affluent regions that don’t want to pay taxes to the central government which they view as “too leftist” but have no interest in critiquing state-capitalism per se, or PC liberals and leftists who think the central government is “too conservative” but who totally support the UN and other international governmental institutions.
Part of the problem is that the Kurds are caught between a rock and a hard place. The Western axis within global capitalism is trying to coopt the Kurds as a tool to be used against the Eastern axis, and the Eastern axis realizes this and is trying to suppress the Kurds. That’s why so many publications that represent the Socialist hard Left are stridently anti-Kurd. The situation is a case study in why we need to build an alliance of separatists and independence movements from the bottom up that are mutually supportive of each other in a way that will make it less necessary for independence movements to receive support from major powers.
By Sarah Abed
Abdullah Ocalan, the leader of the PKK, took inspiration from American anarchist Murray Bookchin in creating his philosophy, which he calls “Democratic Confederalism.”
The PKK spin-off group YPG represents most of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in Syria.
With Western political support, they have gained popularity and garnered an impressive amount of support from anarchists and military veterans in the West, some of whom have left the comfort of their home countries to fight with the group.
One of their most productive marketing tools has been to use young, attractive female fighters as the face of the guerrillas. During their fight against Daesh, the PKK has saturated the media with images of these young female “freedom fighters,” using them as a marketing tool to take their cause from obscurity to fame. Some of these female fighters in the YPJ are fighting alongside their male counterparts under the direction of the U.S. in the SDF.
By Tim Black
And so, once again, it looks as if regional and international powers are set on betraying the Kurds.
It’s a familiar narrative. Think back to the Treaty of Sevres in 1920, for example. Then, in the aftermath of the First World War, the Great Powers, busily dividing up their Middle Eastern spoils, promised the long country-less Kurds a small nation in what was Turkey. But Turkey had other ideas. So, reborn as a nationalist, secular state under Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Turkey promptly took back what would have been Kurdistan. And what did Britain and France do? They tossed the Kurds to the wind, abandoning them to live statelessly, in contiguous areas in Syria, Turkey, Iran and, of course, Iraq.
Again and again, the Kurds’ aspiration for some form of ethno-national autonomy has been thwarted by international friends bearing gifts (or arms, as was the case in 1975 when the US and Iran provided the Iraqi Kurds with weapons to fight Saddam Hussein’s Baathist regime, only to withdraw all support when they both suddenly struck a deal with Saddam). And so it is once more. For the past two years, the Kurds in both Syria and Iraq have been the recipients of international, especially US support, because they have effectively been fighting ISIS on the West’s behalf. In return it’s clear the Kurds, particularly those in Iraq who already enjoy a degree of regional autonomy, believed that their role in the fight against ISIS would strengthen their claims for an independent state. Hence this week the Kurdish government in the autonomous region in northern Iraq staged a referendum on full independence. The international response? Condemnation and threats.
It seems Trump got a lesson in Imperialism 101 from the national security establishment.
By Matthew Lee and Jonathan Lemire
NEW YORK (AP) — On a sweltering Washington summer day, President Donald Trump’s motorcade pulled up to the Pentagon for a meeting largely billed as a briefing on the Afghanistan conflict and the fight against the Islamic State group.
There, in the windowless meeting room known as “The Tank”, Trump was to be briefed on the state of America’s longest-running war as he and his top aides plotted ways ahead. But, according to current and former U.S. officials familiar with the meeting, it was, in reality, about much more.
Trump’s national security team had become alarmed by the president’s frequent questioning about the value of a robust American presence around the world. When briefed on the diplomatic, military and intelligence posts, the new president would often cast doubt on the need for all the resources. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson organized the July 20 session to lay out the case for maintaining far-flung outposts — and to present it, using charts and maps, in a way the businessman-turned-politician would appreciate.
The session was, in effect, American Power 101 and the student was the man working the levers. It was part of the ongoing education of a president who arrived at the White House with no experience in the military or government and brought with him advisers deeply skeptical of what they labeled the “globalist” worldview. In coordinated efforts and quiet conversations, some of Trump’s aides have worked for months to counter that view, hoping the president can be persuaded to maintain — if not expand — the American footprint and influence abroad.
The result of the meeting and other similar entreaties may start to become clear this week, as Trump heads to New York for his first address to the United Nations General Assembly. The annual gathering of world leaders will open amid serious concerns about Trump’s priorities, his support for the body he is addressing and a series of spiraling global crises.
Trump, who seized as his mantra “America First” and at times unnerved world leaders with his unpredictability, is expected to offer warmth to the United States’ allies and warnings to its adversaries, particularly North Korea and Iran. The president’s envoy to the global body suggested a presidential message that would focus on the basics on America’s role in the world.
“I personally think he slaps the right people, he hugs the right people, and he comes out with the U.S. being very strong in the end,” Ambassador Nikki Haley said.
Press TV. Listen here.
US President Donald Trump’s threats of military action against North Korea are “overblown” statement that would never come true, an American analyst says, arguing American military officials are well-aware how “devastating” such warfare would be.
Keith Preston, director of attackthesystem.org, made the remarks while discussing Trump’s debut speech at the United Nations General Assembly, where he said Tuesday that the US was ready to destroy the North to resolve the ongoing standoff over the country’s ballistic missile and nuclear weapons program.
“Trump is known for his blustering and overblown rhetoric,” Preston told Press TV on Wednesday. “Anything that Trump says along the lines of threatening to destroy North Korea has to be taken with a grain of salt.”
“This is a long-standing conflict between the United States and North Korea and the norm is that the countries like to talk tough against one another… but nothing ever comes of this,” the analyst argued.
Last month, when the standoff between North Korea and the US over Pyongyang’s ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programs reached its peak, Trump threatened North Korean leader Kim Jong-un with “fire and fury the world has never seen.”
The threats, however, have not gone down well with traditional US allies like the UK, France and Germany who have all called for diplomatic solutions.
‘American people have other priorities’
Preston said American military action against North Korea under the Trump administration was “unlikely” because US military officials would oppose it and the Republican “tends to be very deferent to military opinion.”
“There is a wide range of areas in which Trump has shifted his own positions out of deference to the judgment of the military hierarchy and I don’t think that the American military establishment is fund of the idea” of a war with North Korea because it would be “devastating.”
Citing the “disastrous” US-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Preston said a direct military confrontation with Pyongyang would be “even more disastrous.”
Another reason that made the war unlikely, according to Preston, was the fact that the American public was preoccupied with more important problems like the economy, immigration and healthcare and didn’t pay much attention to tensions with North Korea.
Last night, the Senate overwhelmingly approved an $80 billion annual increase in military spending. Trump had asked for just $48 billion.
That $80 billion increase in military spending is enough to have satisfied Bernie Sanders’s campaign promise to make tuition free at public colleges and universities. (You may recall that when Bernie announced his proposal critics from both parties said the idea would bankrupt the country.)
If the Senate’s military package becomes law, U.S. spending on the military would exceed the total spending of America’s next 10 rivals put together.
Given the recent exchange on anti-Semitism between anarcho-communist Wayne Price, national-anarchist Sean Jobst and myself, this article from Unz Review and the article from Telos posted adjacently offer two diametrically opposed perspectives on US-Israel relations, Zionism, Jewish power and anti-Semitism.
By Philip Giraldi
I spoke recently at a conference on America’s war party where afterwards an elderly gentleman came up to me and asked, “Why doesn’t anyone ever speak honestly about the six-hundred-pound gorilla in the room? Nobody has mentioned Israel in this conference and we all know it’s American Jews with all their money and power who are supporting every war in the Middle East for Netanyahu? Shouldn’t we start calling them out and not letting them get away with it?”
It was a question combined with a comment that I have heard many times before and my answer is always the same: any organization that aspires to be heard on foreign policy knows that to touch the live wire of Israel and American Jews guarantees a quick trip to obscurity. Jewish groups and deep pocket individual donors not only control the politicians, they own and run the media and entertainment industries, meaning that no one will hear about or from the offending party ever again. They are particularly sensitive on the issue of so-called “dual loyalty,” particularly as the expression itself is a bit of a sham since it is pretty clear that some of them only have real loyalty to Israel.
Most recently, some pundits, including myself, have been warning of an impending war with Iran. To be sure, the urging to strike Iran comes from many quarters, to include generals in the Administration who always think first in terms of settling problems through force, from a Saudi government obsessed with fear over Iranian hegemony, and, of course, from Israel itself. But what makes the war engine run is provided by American Jews who have taken upon themselves the onerous task of starting a war with a country that does not conceivably threaten the United States. They have been very successful at faking the Iranian threat, so much so that nearly all Republican and most Democratic congressmen as well as much of the media seem to be convinced that Iran needs to be dealt with firmly, most definitely by using the U.S. military, and the sooner the better.
Todd Lewis joined by Keith Preston to discuss US foreign policy during the interwar period and WW2.
Press TV. Listen here.
he United States is planning to include Ukraine in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), suggests an American analyst, arguing that the move would separate Moscow and Kiev forever and serve Washington’s ultimate goal of “encircling” Russia.
“The relationship between the US and Russia is bound to be strained because the two nations have entirely different geopolitical interests,” Keith Preston, director of the attackthesystem.com, told Press TV.
“The ambition of the United States, when it comes to Russia, is to encircle Russia and isolate it militarily and politically in the sense of extending the NATO alliance straight up to Russia’s borders so all of the Easter European and Baltic States would be included” in the military pact, he argued.
Russia, on the other hand, is seeking to salvage relations with Ukraine to protect its own geopolitical interests.
“So, essentially, Ukraine as a nation is caught right in the middle in this geopolitical rivalry between the United States and the NATO alliance on the one hand and Russia on the other,” the analyst continued.
Ukraine has applied to join the alliance.
Conflict erupted in eastern Ukraine after people in the Black Sea peninsula of Crimea voted for unification with Russia in March 2014.
The West brands the unification as annexation of the territory by Russia. The US and its allies in Europe also accuse Russia of having a major hand in the crisis in eastern Ukraine, an allegation denied by Moscow.
During a news conference on Tuesday, Russian president Vladimir Putin warned Washington against supplying arms to Kiev, arguing that the decision would fuel the conflict in eastern Ukraine.
Putin said arming Ukraine will possibly prompt pro-Russia forces to expand their campaign, stressing that the move would not change the situation and would only add to the number of casualties.
The crisis has left over 10,000 people dead and more than a million others displaced, according to the United Nations.
Preston said Washington was also seeking to curb Moscow’s influence in the Middle East through a similar policy.
A Facebook friend has this to say about North Korea:
HOW IS IT THAT WE DO NOT FIND IT OBSCENE AND REVOLTING that the USA media openly talk about a murderous military invasion of North Korea, for the sole asserted reason that North Korea wants to develop a credible (and obviously needed) nuclear deterrent?
In many decades the most militarily aggressive nations that have nuclear weapons have clearly been the USA and Israel. What country that is in the sights of these two violent nations would not want nuclear weapons as freaking soon as possible? I sure would. This is especially true in light of North Korea’s history (below). Yet we don’t find it obscene that the USA and its media openly talk about murdering the entire nation with a military invasion because it dares to want to have the only military deterrent that could work against USA madness. Insane.
Michael Mac Aodha: “It is some Orwellian “Two Minutes Hate” for us to be freaking out about North Korea. Super brief history: Korea was colonized in 1910 by Japan, liberated by Moscow in August 1945, and went to war with US and the US-backed forces in South Korea in 1951. By 1953 the US Air Force ran out of military targets and started bombing dams to flood rice fields and cause starvation. North Korea has never forgotten, and formally the war has never ended. Until very recently both countries have claimed ALL of Korea. Both countries didn’t join UN until1991. In 1994 NK signed on to the Agreed Framework with US, but Washington dragged its feet while NK upheld their end of the bargain. They gave our government a chance to make peace and we blew it. They know, just like we claim for ourselves, that they have to have nukes to deter and to compel others to have dialog. US opposes banning nukes every year because we don’t want to get rid of our leverage, yet we can’t see that with North Korea, a much weaker and vulnerable country really facing existential threats. We depict them as irrational, hostile boogeymen bent on world domination—an image that more reflects our own government. We are being jingoistic about North Korea. We misunderstand them and are thirsty for blood. US and South Korea just held major military exercises running through plans of overthrowing the North, and Japan’s prime minister is trying to get their constitution rewritten so they can go to war again North Korea. But even USA Today, a conservative newspaper, admits that all they want is (1) guarantees from the US that we want try and overthrow them; (2) to keep their nukes for assurances; (3) lifting of sanctions; (4) removal of US troops from South Korea; and (5) a peace treaty with South Korea. That last one is a significant concession. The North is foregoing their claim to ALL of Korea and is willing to formally recognize them as a sovereign country that they want to have normalized peace relations with. All very reasonable stuff, but look how we’re acting.”
Trump is predictably going neocon on foreign policy, which is to be expected given that the neocon foreign policy perspective represents the consensus both the general elites and their guardians in the Deep State.
By Rep. John J. Duncan, Jr.
The American Conservative
A few days before the 2000 elections, I hosted the Duncan Family Barbecue at the Knoxville Civic Coliseum, which aside from free food, always features bands, choirs, and top names from the Country music and Oldies worlds, drawing upwards of 10,000 people.
Governor George W. Bush, then the Republican Presidential nominee, walked out to the podium to the sound of the University of Tennessee Pep Band. After his speech, I walked him back to his vehicle parked in the bowels of the coliseum, and I told him “Governor, you are going to carry Tennessee.” He replied: “If I do, I will win the election,” and that is exactly what happened.
Later that night, one of my sons said, “Dad, I have never heard you so excited as when you said, “The next President of the United States!” when introducing Gov. Bush. In truth, I was excited, primarily because Gov. Bush said almost every day on the campaign trail that what we needed was a more humble foreign policy and we should not be in the business of nation building.
Because the consensus of state/ruling class/power elite opinion said so. Duh?
The real issue here is the intramural rivalry within the global-capitalist empire, with the Eastern axis, especially China, but also Russia and Iran, wanting to develop Afghanistan for the BRICS, while the Western axis wants to retain Afghanistan for itself.
As I have said all along, Trump is a Nixon-Rockefeller moderate Republican, who takes his foreign policy cues from Kissinger, and not a “Nazi,” “fascist,” “Alt-Right,” or even “Alt-Lite.” What this shows is that presidential politics is a waste of time, and that sensible people need to forget all about this Red/Blue nonsense just as they need to forget about the Nazi/Antifa nonsense.
Putin seems to me to wish to create a Eurasian alliance against the Atlanticist axis with what would amount to a restored Russian empire as the leadership of an Eastern axis of this kind. It’s essentially happening in the form of the growing relationship between the BRICS, the Shia block and the Global South. Putin is pretty much following the National-Bolshevik playbook, even if he doesn’t call it that, with Alexander Dugin playing the role of the Russian Kissinger. I wrote about the possibility of such a development in the early to mid 2000s and it seems to be happening at present, This is beneficial because it creates an intramural rift and accelerated division in the global capitalist empire led by the G20. Just as it is a desirable state of affairs for the domestic regime to be divided into the Red and Blue Teams, thereby limiting the maneuverability of the state, so is is desired for the global plutocracy to be divided into the Western axis and Eastern axis.
By Maxwell Tani
After repeatedly criticizing the war in Afghanistan for years, President Donald Trump in a primetime speech Monday night said he was increasing the US military presence in the country.
In an address to military members in Virginia, Trump said he sympathized with Americans who were “weary of war without victory” and said he shared “the American people’s frustration” with a “foreign policy that has spent too much time, energy, money, and most importantly lives trying to rebuild countries in our own image.”
He also acknowledged the reversal in his decision to increase the American troop presence in a country he had previously called for the US to exit.
“My original instinct was to pull out, and historically I like following my instincts, but all of my life I heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office,” Trump said.
Derrick Broze has some common sense observations on why the alt-right has become worthless as an opposition force in North America:
“This is the dude you altright wannabe libertarians worship? This horrible man who ordered the deaths of thousands? This is the guy you like to invoke when you talk about throwing people out of helicopters? sad.
“On 11 September 1973 the combined Chilean Armed Forces (the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Carabineros) overthrew Allende’s government in a coup, during which the presidential palace, La Moneda, was shelled and Allende committed suicide.
Here Pinochet and Kissinger smile and enjoy each others company.”
On 11 September 1973 the combined Chilean Armed Forces (the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Carabineros) overthrew Allende’s government in a coup, during which the presidential palace, La Moneda, was shelled and Allende committed suicide.
Here Pinochet and Kissinger smile and enjoy each others company.