Screwing Over the Kurds: An All-American Pastime Reply

By Nicky Reid aka Comrade Hermit

Exile in Happy Valley

I have long been a vocal supporter of the Kurds, even before the Syrian clusterfuck sparked the Rojava Revolution. Part of this comes from my checkered past as a lapsed Tankie-Guevarist. I grew up gorging myself on New Left folk tails of Third World rebellion. The fearsome PKK were one of a dozen or so clans of crimson bearded renegades, fighting like Castro for some post-colonial utopia. I read everything I could find about the Bolshevik adventures of groups like FARC, Hezbollah and the Naxalites. But the thing that set the Kurds apart was their fourth quarter conversion to anarchism which closely mirrored my own.

Abdullah Ocalan discovered the works of Murray Bookchin right around the time I dropped communism for panarchy and syndicalism. And when the wrest of Syria sunk into CIA sponsored Salafi hell, the Ocalan influenced Kurds of the YPG created a successful stateless society that flourished amidst the chaos. It was proof positive that anarchism could work. But it was all over the moment the YPG accepted the poison gift of American military occupation. Anarchism quite simply cannot coexist with the greatest source of imperial tyranny on the fucking planet. The only sick comfort I took in this nauseating arrangement is that I knew it wouldn’t last. That’s because, dearest motherfuckers, screwing over the Kurds is a time-honored American pastime.

The original Kurdish screwjob was the work of that whimsical Bond villain known as Henry Kissinger. During his busy time as Secretary of State and National Security Adviser under Nixon and Ford, respectively, Henry cooked up a devilish little scheme with the help of his flunkies in Israel and the Shah’s Iran. Iraq was becoming suspiciously cozy with the Soviet Union. So they flooded Iraq’s long suffering Kurdish independence movement with Soviet hardware pilfered from the killing fields of Vietnam and the Sinai Peninsula. Mustafa Barzani, the founding father of the modern Peshmerga, didn’t trust the Shah farther than he could squeeze his ham-fist up his pinched little quisling asshole, no sane Mesopotamian did, but he believed in his heart of hearts that America was that shining beacon of freedom on the hill. Mustafa was a sucker. Once Henry and Co. managed to frighten Iraq into playing ball, we quickly drummed up a deal between them and Iran that included handing over the Kurds on a spit. Not only did old Henry, that Nobel pacifist, refuse to even return Mustafa’s frantic calls for help, he cut all humanitarian aide to the region as Helter Skelter came tumbling down. The Kurds were slaughtered and Kissinger summed up America’s Kurdish policy in a nutshell when he told a disgusted congress that “One should not confuse undercover action with social work.” If only the Kurds took his advice.

READ MORE

Pompeo has ‘ulterior motives’ in expressing desire to travel to Iran 2

Press TV. Listen here.

It is clear that US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has “ulterior motives” in expressing his desire to travel to Iran and be interviewed by Iranian news media, according to American political analyst Keith Preston.

On Thursday, July 25, Pompeo said he was willing to go to Iran for talks amid tensions between Tehran and Washington.

Asked if he would be willing to go to Tehran, Pompeo said in an interview with Bloomberg TV, “Sure. If that’s the call, I’d happily go there… I would welcome the chance to speak directly to the Iranian people.”

Some independent observers have said that Pompeo is actually not very interested in speaking with the Iranian people, but actually is concerned by the way Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif is presenting Iran’s case on the American media to the US public.

They say Pompeo wants to counter Zarif by pushing the idea of travelling to Tehran and speaking to the Iranian media which has suffered several restrictions in the United States. Washington has also pressured social media giants to block Iranian media channels on YouTube and Google.

Preston said that Pompeo “thinks it’s an opportunity to score some propaganda points.”

READ MORE

Trump threats against Iran are in line with his playbook 1

Press TV. Listen here.

US President Donald Trump’s threats against Iran are in line with his playbook and should not be taken seriously, says an American political analyst in Virginia.

“The comments that Donald Trump has made recently, as well as the particular policies that he has threatening to impose are fairly in character with both Donald Trump’s personality and, as well as the general policies that the American government has followed,” said Keith Preston, chief editor of AttacktheSystem.com.

Donald Trump is prone to a lot of blustery rhetoric but rarely does he ever follow through on anything of that type,” Preston told Press TV on Tuesday.

“We can remember that he was at one point threatening the North Koreans in a similar way and then he actually turned around and did an about face on North Korea and he could very easily do that with Iran,” he added.

Trump threatened Iran on Tuesday with “obliteration” if the country launches any attack on American forces in the Middle East region.

In a Twitter rant railing against the Islamic Republic, Trump said, “Iran’s very ignorant and insulting statement, put out today, only shows that they do not understand reality.”

PressTV-Trump threatens Iran with ‘obliteration’

PressTV-Trump threatens Iran with ‘obliteration’Trump has said has threatened Iran with “obliteration” if the country launches any attack on American forces.

Tensions have been running high between the US and Iran since Trump’s decision in May last year to abandon the 2015 Iran nuclear deal and reimpose sanctions on Tehran as part of a “maximum pressure” campaign aimed at forcing it to renegotiate a new deal that addresses its ballistic missile program and regional influence as well.

The US has also sent warships, bombers and additional troops to the region in the wake of suspicious tanker attacks in the Sea of Oman, which it has blamed on Iran without providing evidence.

Despite repeating threats and baseless accusations against Tehran, Washington has also been calling for negotiations.

Tehran has time and again asserted that it does not seek war with the US, yet stands ready to defend its interests in the region.

Tucker Carlson Tells Trump in Private: No War With Iran 4

Interesting if true.

The Daily Beast

In the upper echelons of the Trump administration, hawkish voices on Iran predominate—most notably Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Adviser John Bolton. But as tensions between the U.S. and Iran have escalated over the last few weeks, there’s been another, far different voice in the president’s ear: that of Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

A source familiar with the conversations told The Daily Beast that, in recent weeks, the Fox News host has privately advised Trump against taking military action against Iran. And a senior administration official said that during the president’s recent conversations with the Fox primetime host, Carlson has bashed the more “hawkish members” of his administration.

While some Fox News hosts have argued that a conflict with Iran would be justified, Carlson has consistently criticized U.S. military intervention abroad, particularly in the Middle East. In recent weeks, he has questioned whether war with Iran would be “in anyone’s interest.” Last month, he publicly chided Bolton, saying he was intentionally escalating tensions, and that a potential conflict would “be like Christmas, Thanksgiving, his birthday wrapped into one.”

READ MORE

Tucker: US came within minutes of war with Iran Reply

Tucker Carlson nails it. It’s interesting how he’s the most popular commentator on FOX which is otherwise Neocon Central. I’m sure Murdoch is regretting ever giving him a job there. But now he’s gotten too popular for the network to fire him without giving the game away. Paleocons and paleolibertarians are by far the best sector of the US right-wing.

Why “the System” is Vilifying Iran Reply

The Atlanticist-Zionist-Wahhabist axis regards Iran as the primary obstacle to its imperialist ambitions in the Middle East and Central Asia.

To break it down more precisely, it’s a geopolitical rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and between the kinds of Sunni fundamentalism that originate from Saudi Arabia and northern Egypt (Wahhabism, Salafism, Qubtism) and the Shia. For obvious reasons, the Shia throughout the region are aligned with Iran, but so are plenty of Sunni (particularly in Palestine and Syria) who reject Sunni fundamentalism of the kind being exported by the Gulf States, or who regard Saudia Arabia or (in the case of Hamas, for example) Israel as a greater enemy. Iran is Shia but their leader has called for unity among Shia and Sunni, and the Christian, Jewish, and Zoroastrian minorities in Iran are tolerated and even have seats in parliament (and there are women parliamentarians as well). Plenty of Christians, Alawites, Druze, and others who see Wahhabism, Salafism, Qubtism, etc as the primary threat are also tactically aligned with Iran. Everybody in the Middle East hates the Saudis, even their own allies in the Gulf. The Saudis threatened to invade Qatar a few years ago. The UAE is jealous of its more powerful big brother. The Omanis are Ibadi Muslims who are aligned with the GCC out of geopolitical necessity.

This article from Foreign Affairs (not exactly a pro-Iranian publication) from a couple years ago explains this pretty well:

“Arab elites, grappling with the consequences of an eroding Arab state system, poor governance, and the delegitimization of authoritarian states following the 2011 Arab Spring, enabled Iran and its partners, including Russia, to build a new regional political and security architecture from the ground up. With the support of Tehran as the undisputed center of the axis, Shiite armed movements in Iraq and across the axis of resistance have created a transnational, multiethnic, and cross-confessional political and security network that has made the axis more muscular and effective than ever before.”

Israel is tacitly aligned with Saudi Arabia because they both regard Iran and Syria as their primary geopolitical rivals. The Americans and the British simply want to create network of colonies and client states in the region. As Neal de los Huecos in a thread on my other page, these are the de facto goals of US foreign policy regarding in the region”

“1) Pull support from Hezbollah and let Israel take over Southern Iran, 2) Pull support from the Syrian Druze and let Israel take over Syria, 3) Pull support from the Houthis and let Saudi take over Yemen. 4) Quit all alliances with the Shia Iraqi Govt and let Iraq be the colony it was meant to be. 5) Arrest the Mullahs and bring in the “exiled-to-Los Angeles” National Council of Iran to reinstate the Pahlavi Dynasty.”

Whatever one thinks of Iran, the Iranians are the primary bulwarks against all of the above.

US tanker story evades rational reasoning Reply

Press TV. Listen here.

The United States’ assertion that Iran was behind blasts on board two tankers in the Sea of Oman evades rational reasoning, says an American political analyst.

Speaking to Press TV from Virginia on Sunday, Keith Preston said, “The story that the United States is spinning about the attack doesn’t make any sense.”

The US Central Command (CENTCOM) has released a video after the Thursday blasts purportedly showing “Iranian sailors” removing a mine from one vessel’s hull earlier that day.

Refuting the alleged evidence, Preston said, “The tankers that were attacked were owned by parties that are friendly to Iran: Japan and also a Norwegian shipping company that has been doing business with Iran for years.”

PressTV-‘Two tankers hit by explosions in Sea of Oman’

PressTV-‘Two tankers hit by explosions in Sea of Oman’Two large tankers have reportedly been bit by explosions in the Sea of Oman.

“So, it makes no sense that Iran would have carried out attacks of this kind. It certainly wouldn’t have been in Iran’s interest,” added the commentator and author. However, “it appears that the Americans are rushing to blame Iran for the attacks irrespective of what is the actual evidence of that,” he added.

Upon being notified of the incident, Iranian authorities dispatched rescue missions to the area to try and douse the fire. Iranian vessels also took in the tankers’ crewmembers, transferring them to the southern Iranian Jask Port.

PressTV-‘Tankers attacks false flag incident to frame Iran’

PressTV-‘Tankers attacks false flag incident to frame Iran’A senior analyst says recent attacks on tankers near Persian Gulf waters were meant to target Iran.

Pompeo words, actions don’t go together

Separately, Preston addressed recent remarks by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, in which he distanced himself from his usual adversarial rhetoric concerning Iran, alleging that the US does not seek war with the Islamic Republic. “President [Donald] Trump has done everything he can to avoid war. We don’t want war,” Pompeo said on Sunday in an interview with Fox News.

Preston described the US top diplomat’s remarks as “a bit odd” at a time when “the level of bellicosity that’s coming from officials in the Trump administration has certainly escalated.”

“The actions of the members of the Trump administration are not consistent with what they’re actually saying,” Preston added.

He was apparently referring to numerous instances when Pompeo has been trying to forge international consensus against Iran during his overseas’ visits and highlight Washington’s animosity towards Tehran.

“The Gulf of Credibility“ Reply

By Craig Murray

I really cannot begin to fathom how stupid you would have to be to believe that Iran would attack a Japanese oil tanker at the very moment that the Japanese Prime Minister was sitting down to friendly, US-disapproved talks in Tehran on economic cooperation that can help Iran survive the effects of US economic sanctions.

The Japanese-owned Kokuka Courageous was holed above the water line. That rules out a torpedo attack, which is the explanation being touted by the neo-cons.

The second vessel, the Front Altair, is Norwegian owned and 50% Russian crewed (the others being Filipinos). It is owned by Frontline, a massive tanker leasing company that also has a specific record of being helpful to Iran in continuing to ship oil despite sanctions.

It was Iran that rescued the crews and helped bring the damaged vessels under control.

That Iran would target a Japanese ship and a friendly Russian crewed ship is a ludicrous allegation. They are however very much the targets that the USA allies in the region – the Saudis, their Gulf Cooperation Council colleagues, and Israel – would target for a false flag. It is worth noting that John Bolton was meeting with United Arab Emirates ministers two weeks ago – both ships had just left the UAE.

The USA and their UK stooges have both immediately leapt in to blame Iran. The media is amplifying this with almost none of the scepticism which is required. I cannot think of a single reason why anybody would believe this particular false flag. It is notable that neither Norway nor Japan has joined in with this ridiculous assertion.

READ MORE

Waiting Out the Landlord’s Clock In Iran Reply

By Nicky Reid aka Comrade Hermit

Exile in Happy Valley

Quick hypothetical; Lets say you’ve been living in the same house in the same neighborhood for your whole life, generations in fact. There have been some minor squabbles but for the most part you’ve managed to get along with the neighbors. Then one day, some outside landlord buys the house next door. After several tenants come and go, a real loudmouth thug moves in, making threats, beating his wife and kids. Finally, the bastard truly breaks bad, tares down your fence and declares your backyard to be part of his property. After an epic battle in the courts, he finally returns to his property and eventually gets evicted. ‘Great!’, you think, naturally, and you even help the landlord clean up the place. Everything seems peachy fucking keen for suburbia. And then the landlord moves in.

Suddenly, this brash wealthy landlord is building shit up, putting up new outbuildings and sheds near the property line, erecting tall steel fences with razor wire. Suddenly, it dawns on you that the last tenant wasn’t the problem, you were, and the last tenant was only removed because he wasn’t trouble enough for you. And the threats start up again. Local street kids who you’ve helped out in the past are declared gangs and you get blamed for running them. The landlord accuses you of possessing certain weapons that your neighbors have and freely flaunt but you’ve never showed any interest in. Finally, after dealing with years of threats, you sign a deal with the landlord promising to stop procuring these fictional weapons if the landlord backs off. Things calm down for a tip. Then the landlord pulls out of the deal and shit gets nuts again.

READ MORE

Iran’s Rejection of Washington Consensus Main Reason behind US Pressures Reply

TEHRAN (Tasnim) – An American political analyst said Iran’s pursuit of independent policy and its refusal to be incorporated into the Washington Consensus are the main reasons behind the Trump administration’s pressure campaign against it.

Iran’s Rejection of Washington Consensus Main Reason behind US Pressures: Analyst

“The objective of these officials is to continue to carry out a longstanding plan that was developed in the 1990s by the leadership of the neoconservative movement which has controlled US foreign policy in the Middle East for decades. The plan has always been to eliminate independent nations in the region that refuse to be incorporated into the Washington Consensus that was developed at the end of the Cold War. The idea behind the Washington Consensus is that the United States should be the de facto world government that rules on a unipolar basis, and that nations that refuse to be incorporated into the American empire should be subjugated or destroyed,” Keith Preston, the chief editor and director of attackthesystem.com, told the Tasnim news agency in an interview.

READ MORE

Is Bolton’s War With Iran Becoming A Reality? Reply

I really doubt that a President Hillary Clinton would have been any less aggressive when it comes to Iran or Venezuela. She has been rhetorically belligerent against Iran, voted for the Iraq war when she was in the Senate and was the architect of the Libyan war, US backing of the jihadis in Syria, and an attempted coup in Honduras when she was Secretary of State. Bolton seems to be an especially unhinged character, but policies typically represent the consensus of the ruling class, not the perspective of any single official or office-holder.

By Curt Mills

The National Interest

It was the best of times; it was the worst of times. Depending on the day, and depending on who you ask, this is Ambassador John Bolton’s moment of ultimate triumph—or it’s the national security advisor’s moment of final overreach.

Two sources familiar with the matter tell me President Donald Trump’s rumbustious National Security Council chief is headed for the exits, having flown too close to the sun on his regime change efforts for Iran, Venezuela and North Korea. “Hearing that Trump wants him out,” a former senior administration official told me.

But is he? For Bolton, it’s full steam ahead: reportedly commissioning a prospective Pentagon plan for an enormous deployment to the region in the event of an Iranian attack. And for his part, the president has poured cold water on talk of a Bolton ouster.

It was the best of times; it was the worst of times. Depending on the day, and depending on who you ask, this is Ambassador John Bolton’s moment of ultimate triumph—or it’s the national security advisor’s moment of final overreach.

Two sources familiar with the matter tell me President Donald Trump’s rumbustious National Security Council chief is headed for the exits, having flown too close to the sun on his regime change efforts for Iran, Venezuela and North Korea. “Hearing that Trump wants him out,” a former senior administration official told me.

But is he? For Bolton, it’s full steam ahead: reportedly commissioning a prospective Pentagon plan for an enormous deployment to the region in the event of an Iranian attack. And for his part, the president has poured cold water on talk of a Bolton ouster.

READ MORE