Category: McMaster

About McMaster

Subscribe Feeds

John Bolton, nationaal veiligheidsadviseur, alsof de duivel zelf is benoemd……..

Posted on by Telmo Claro

Mensen ik had het bericht, waarin wordt ‘gesproken’ over de vervanging van figuren rond het beest Trump, ‘nog niet gepubliceerd’* of men maakte bekend dat McMaster, zelf al een enorme ploert van formaat, werd afgezet door het beest, om plaats te maken voor John Bolton, ofwel de duivel zelf….. (zo niet dan toch één van diens trouwste medewerkers…)

Bolton schreef onlangs ‘geheel toevallig een’ opiniestuk’ in de Wall Street Journal dat de VS Noord-Korea moet aanvallen…. uit zelfbehoud!!! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Alsof Noord-Korea ooit ook maar een miljoenste van een seconde een gevaar is geweest voor de VS……. Ja ik lach wel, maar deze opperploert is werkelijk een gevaar voor de hele wereld…….
Alsof je een oorlogsmisdadiger, die je minstens als terrorist moet zien, minister van defensie maakt…. Oh ja, deze benoeming is in feite nog erger…!!
Bolton is één van de hoofdverantwoordelijken voor de illegale oorlog tegen Irak, waar hij de massavernietigingsfabel bleef herhalen als ambassadeur bij de VN……… Al moest je ofwel een topidioot zijn om dit te geloven, dan wel een kwaadaardige collaborateur van de VS, of lobbyist van andere westerse regeringen zijn die achter deze illegale oorlog stonden (zoals de reguliere westerse media….)…. Hoewel een lobbyist van het militair-industrieel complex, of een combi van het e.e.a. heel goed mogelijk is………
Met Pompeo, een andere opperschoft op Buitenlandse Zaken, een groot voorstander van oorlog tegen Iran en Noord-Korea, laat zich raden wat er op het ‘menu staat…..’ (één of het liefst twee illegale oorlogen, misschien zelfs met het gebruik van ‘tactische’ kernwapens, zodat deze getest kunnen worden in de praktijk…….)
Ik hoef je niet te vertellen wat hiervan het gevolg zal zijn….. Och, waarom ook niet: Rusland zal dit zeker niet pikken en waarschijnlijk zal China al evenmin op de handen blijven zitten, ofwel WOIII zal dan een voldongen feit zijn………
Hoe is het mogelijk dat de westerse media zo relatief gelaten reageren op deze laatste benoemingen…..??? Ach ja, die zien niet eens de grootschalige terreur die de VS uitoefent op een explosief deel van de wereld….. Sterker: nog steeds durft men daar niet te stellen dat de VS meehelpt aan een genocide op de sjiitische bevolking van Jemen……

Darius Shahtahmasebi noemt Bolton America’s Worst Nightmare, ik zou een stap verder willen gaan en hem daarom de ergste nachtmerrie voor de wereld willen noemen…..

America’s Worst Nightmare

March 23, 2018 at 11:45 am
(ANTIMEDIA Op-ed) — John Bolton’s inclusion in the Trump administration as Donald Trump’s new national security advisor is nothing short of a nightmare.
Bolton, a former U.N. ambassador under George W. Bush, will be replacing General H.R. McMaster as Trump’s national security advisor, who replaced former “disgraced” national security advisor Michael Flynn. When the president struck a Syrian airbase in April 2017, it was McMaster who drew up and briefed Trump on the strike proposals, one of which was reportedly very extensive.
McMaster was also reportedly one of the main backers of a secret plan to give North Korea’s Kim Jong-un a “bloody nose strike,” a limited strike to dismantle its nuclear ambitions without risking an all-out war.
However, despite this, it appears McMaster wasn’t hawkish enough for Donald Trump’s needs. While McMaster publicly berates Iran and North Korea on a regular basis, he persistently warned against Trump’s plan to completely derail the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) formed with Iran in 2015. He also later denied the claims that the Trump administration was looking to deliver the “bloody nose strike” on North Korea, perhaps indicating he was not completely on board with the idea after all (or had decided otherwise at that particular juncture in history).
Enter John Bolton. Less than month ago, he wrote an op-ed article published by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) entitled “The Legal Case for Striking North Korea First” — an idea so bad, it seems, that about a week later, the WSJ published a counter viewpoint simply entitled “Striking North Korea First Is a Bad Proposal.”
In Bolton’s short-sighted op-ed — aside from the fact that he offers no real legal analysis at all (those who do consider it a legal analysis must explain why the argument of preemptive self-defense applies to the U.S. but not to North Korea, which faces American aggression near its borders on a routine basis) — it’s also quite telling that he relies on the evidence of CIA Director Mike Pompeo, who alleged in January that Pyongyang was only “a handful of months” away from being able to strike the American mainland with nukes.
It is no coincidence that next in line for Donald Trump’s secretary of state position is Pompeo himself.
Together, Bolton and Pompeo will be able to advise Trump on anti-North Korean and anti-Iranian platforms so hawkish there is no telling what’s to come (though we have a fairly decent idea).
As some of you may know, John Bolton’s hawkishness has already led to some of the most despicable foreign policy agendas of our generation.
“We are confident that Saddam Hussein has hidden weapons of mass destruction and production facilities in Iraq,” Bolton famously said in 2002 while serving as President George W. Bush’s undersecretary of state for Arms Control and International Security. He also called Hussein a “threat to the region” and claimed he needed to be “disarmed.”
“But the end of the story is clear here. And if Saddam Hussein does not co-operate we have made it clear this is the last chance for him…I think the Iraqi people would be unique in history if they didn’t welcome the overthrow of this dictatorial regime,” he added.
Even when this rationale for invading Iraq and destabilizing an entire region turned out to be one of the worst editions of “fake news” ever to sting the planet, in 2015 – some 12 years later – Bolton still claimed the Iraq War was worth it and said that, conversely, the worst decision involving Iraq was the “2011 decision to withdraw U.S. and coalition forces.” In 2016, he then changed his mind to say that the only mistake of the Iraq War was that the U.S. did not get rid of Saddam Hussein sooner.
If John Bolton leads the cheers to invade Iran or North Korea, who will hold him accountable?
Apparently having learned no lessons at all from the criminal invasion of Iraq, Bolton also wrote a New York Times op-ed entitled “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran” in 2015. He made it quite clear that “only military action” could accomplish what was required to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. In Bolton’s eyes, the JCPOA doesn’t cut it.
He also openly called for the assassination of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, only to later condemn the Obama administration for doing just that (an invasion is bad if a Democrat does it, and vice versa, of course, depending on who you are running against).

John Bolton is also a strong anti-Russian, drone-warfare supporting imperialist who once also appeared to call for the invasion of Cuba.
He is now going to be advising Donald Trump, a seventy-one-year-old mass murdering narcissist with an attention span of two to four minutes, on matters of national security.
==============================================

VS: oud-geheime dienst medewerkers en inlichtingen veteranen waarschuwen Trump en de wereld voor een oorlog met Iran……..

Posted on by Telmo Claro

Oud-geheime dienst medewerkers en inlichtingen veteranen hebben een memorandum voor president beest Trump geschreven, met de waarschuwing geen oorlog met Iran te beginnen, dit daar ze de tekenen daartoe zien…… Zoals ze ook president George W Bush (nog zo’n gevaarlijke malloot, dat geldt overigens ook voor Obama de gespletene) waarschuwden geen oorlog te beginnen met Irak in de 6 weken voordat de VS illegaal, een op leugens gebaseerde oorlog begon tegen dat land…….

We weten wat van de illegale oorlog tegen Irak heeft gebracht: meer dan 1,5 miljoen vermoorde Irakezen en een land dat in chaos is gedompeld en in puin ligt (reken maar niet, met IS in het defensief, dat de ellende voor de bevolking daar voorbij is…..)
Een en ander is ook ingegeven door het bezoek dat de Israëlische Palestijnenslachter Netanyahu volgende week aan de VS zal brengen, deze psychopathische moordenaar ‘is gewond geraakt’ door met bewijs onderbouwde zware beschuldigingen van corruptie……* En als bij gewonde roofdieren moet je dan extra oppassen, immers een oorlog met Iran zou Netanyahu nu wel uitermate goed uitkomen…….

 Uiteraard zal de VS komen met een zogenaamd bewijs waarop het ‘niet anders kan’ dan Iran aanvallen, ofwel een ‘false flag’ operatie, zoals de VS die door haar bloedige geschiedenis heen heeft gebruikt voor het uitoefenen van ongebreidelde agressie, of beter gezegd: grootschalige terreur………..

 Lees het volgende uitstekende memorandum en oordeel zelf:

Intelligence Veterans Warn of Growing Risk for War With Iran Based on False Pretexts

February 26, 2018 at 9:05 am
(CN) — As President Donald Trump prepares to host Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu next week, a group of U.S. intelligence veterans offers corrections to a number of false accusations that have been leveled against Iran.
MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: War With Iran
INTRODUCTION
In our December 21st Memorandum to you, we cautioned that the claim that Iran is currently the world’s top sponsor of terrorism is unsupported by hard evidence. Meanwhile, other false accusations against Iran have intensified. Thus, we feel obliged to alert you to the virtually inevitable consequences of war with Iran, just as we warned President George W. Bush six weeks before the U.S. attack on Iraq 15 years ago.
In our first Memorandum in this genre we told then-President Bush that we saw “no compelling reason” to attack Iraq, and warned “the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.” The consequences will be far worse, should the U.S. become drawn into war with Iran. We fear that you are not getting the straight story on this from your intelligence and national security officials.
After choosing “War With Iran” for the subject-line of this Memo, we were reminded that we had used it before, namely, for a Memorandum to President Obama on August 3, 2010 in similar circumstances. You may wish to ask your staff to give you that one to read and ponder. It included a startling quote from then-Chairman of President Bush Jr.’s Intelligence Advisory Board (and former national security adviser to Bush Sr.) Gen. Brent Scowcroft, who told the Financial Times on October 14, 2004 that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had George W. Bush “mesmerized;” that “Sharon just has him wrapped around his little finger.” We wanted to remind you of that history, as you prepare to host Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu next week.
* * *
Rhetoric vs. Reality
We believe that the recent reporting regarding possible conflict with nuclear-armed North Korea has somewhat obscured consideration of the significantly higher probability that Israel or even Saudi Arabia will take steps that will lead to a war with Iran that will inevitably draw the United States in. Israel is particularly inclined to move aggressively, with potentially serious consequences for the U.S., in the wake of the recent incident involving an alleged Iranian drone and the shooting down of an Israeli aircraft.
There is also considerable anti-Iran rhetoric in U.S. media, which might well facilitate a transition from a cold war-type situation to a hot war involving U.S. forces. We have for some time been observing with some concern the growing hostility towards Iran coming out of Washington and from the governments of Israel and Saudi Arabia. National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster is warning that the “time to act is now” to thwart Iran’s aggressive regional ambitions while U.S. United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley sees a “wake-up” call in the recent shooting incident involving Syria and Israel. Particular concern has been expressed by the White House that Iran is exploiting Shi’a minorities in neighboring Sunni dominated states to create unrest and is also expanding its role in neighboring Iraq and Syria.
While we share concerns over the Iranian government’s intentions vis-à-vis its neighbors, we do not believe that the developments in the region, many of which came about through American missteps, have a major impact on vital U.S. national interests. Nor is Iran, which often sees itself as acting defensively against surrounding Sunni states, anything like an existential threat to the United States that would mandate the sustained military action that would inevitably result if Iran is attacked.
Iran’s alleged desire to stitch together a sphere of influence consisting of an arc of allied nations and proxy forces running from its western borders to the Mediterranean Sea has been frequently cited as justification for a more assertive policy against Tehran, but we believe this concern to be greatly exaggerated. Iran, with a population of more than 80 million, is, to be sure, a major regional power but militarily, economically and politically it is highly vulnerable.
Limited Military Capability
Tehran’s Revolutionary Guard is well armed and trained, but much of its “boots on the ground” army consists of militiamen of variable quality. Its Air Force is a “shadow” of what existed under the Shah and is significantly outgunned by its rivals in the Persian Gulf, not to mention Israel. Its navy is only “green water” capable in that it consists largely of smaller vessels responsible for coastal defense supplemented by the swarming of Revolutionary Guard small speedboats.
When Napoleon had conquered much of continental Europe and was contemplating invading Britain it was widely believed that England was helpless before him. British Admiral Earl St Vincent was unperturbed: “I do not say the French can’t come, I only say they can’t come by sea.” We likewise believe that Iran’s apparent threat is in reality decisively limited by its inability to project power across the water or through the air against neighboring states that have marked superiority in both respects.
The concern over a possibly developing “Shi’ite land bridge,” also referred to as an “arc” or “crescent,” is likewise overstated. It ignores the reality that Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon all have strong national identities and religiously mixed populations. They are influenced — some of them strongly — by Iran but they are not puppet states. And there is also an ethnic division that the neighboring states’ populations are very conscious of– they are Arabs and Iran is Persian, which is also true of the Shi’a populations in Saudi Arabia and the Emirates.
Majority Shi’a Iraq, for example, is now very friendly to Iran but it has to deal with considerable Kurdish and Sunni minorities in its governance and in the direction of its foreign policy. It will not do Iran’s bidding on a number of key issues, including Baghdad’s relationship with Washington, and would be unwilling to become a proxy in Tehran’s conflicts with Israel and Saudi Arabia. Iraqi Vice President Osama al-Nujaifi, the highest-ranking Sunni in the Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi government, has, for example, recently called for the demobilization of the Shi’ite Popular Mobilization Forces or militias that have been fighting ISIS because they “have their own political aspirations, their own [political] agendas. … They are very dangerous to the future of Iraq.”
Nuclear Weapons Thwarted
A major concern that has undergirded much of the perception of an Iranian threat is the possibility that Tehran will develop a nuclear weapon somewhere down the road. We believe that the current Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, even if imperfect, provides the best response to that Iranian proliferation problem. The U.N. inspections regime is strict and, if the agreement stands, there is every reason to believe that Iran will be unable to take the necessary precursor steps leading to a nuclear weapons program. Iran will be further limited in its options after the agreement expires in nine years. Experts believe that, at that point, Iran its not likely to choose to accumulate the necessary highly enriched uranium stocks to proceed.
The recent incident involving the shoot-down of a drone alleged to be Iranian, followed by the downing of an Israeli fighter by a Syrian air defense missile, resulted in a sharp response from Tel Aviv, though reportedly mitigated by a warning from Russian President Vladimir Putin that anything more provocative might inadvertently involve Russia in the conflict. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is said to have moderated his response but his government is clearly contemplating a more robust intervention to counter what he describes as a developing Iranian presence in Syria.
In addition, Netanyahu may be indicted on corruption charges, and it is conceivable that he might welcome a “small war” to deflect attention from mounting political problems at home.
Getting Snookered Into War
We believe that the mounting Iran hysteria evident in the U.S. media and reflected in Beltway groupthink has largely been generated by Saudi Arabia and Israel, who nurture their own aspirations for regional political and military supremacy. There are no actual American vital interests at stake and it is past time to pause and take a step backwards to consider what those interests actually are in a region that has seen nothing but disaster since 2003. Countering an assumed Iranian threat that is minimal and triggering a war would be catastrophic and would exacerbate instability, likely leading to a breakdown in the current political alignment of the entire Middle East. It would be costly for the United States.
Iran is not militarily formidable, but its ability to fight on the defensive against U.S. naval and air forces is considerable and can cause high casualties. There appears to be a perception in the Defense
Department that Iran could be defeated in a matter of days, but we would warn that such predictions tend to be based on overly optimistic projections, witness the outcomes in Afghanistan and Iraq. In addition, Tehran would be able again to unleash terrorist resources throughout the region, endangering U.S. military and diplomats based there as well as American travelers and businesses. The terrorist threat might easily extend beyond the Middle East into Europe and also the United States, while the dollar costs of a major new conflict and its aftermath could break the bank, literally.
Another major consideration before ratcheting up hostilities should be that a war with Iran might not be containable. As the warning from President Vladimir Putin to Netanyahu made clear, other major powers have interests in what goes on in the Persian Gulf, and there is a real danger that a regional war could have global consequences.
In sum, we see a growing risk that the U.S. will become drawn into hostilities on pretexts fabricated by Israel and Saudi Arabia for their actual common objective (“regime change” in Iran). A confluence of factors and misconceptions about what is at stake and how such a conflict is likely to develop, coming from both inside and outside the Administration have, unfortunately, made such an outcome increasingly likely.
We have seen this picture before, just 15 years ago in Iraq, which should serve as a warning. The prevailing perception of threat that the Mullahs of Iran allegedly pose directly against the security of the U.S. is largely contrived. Even if all the allegations were true, they would not justify an Iraq-style “preventive war” violating national as well as international law. An ill-considered U.S. intervention in Iran is surely not worth the horrific humanitarian, military, economic, and political cost to be paid if Washington allows itself to become part of an armed attack.
FOR THE STEERING GROUP, VETERAN INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS FOR SANITY
William Binney, former NSA Technical Director for World Geopolitical & Military Analysis; Co-founder of NSA’s Signals Intelligence Automation Research Center (ret.)
Kathleen Christison, CIA, Senior Analyst on Middle East (ret.)
Graham E. Fuller, Vice-Chair, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC Iraq; Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate VIPS)
Larry C. Johnson, former CIA and State Department Counter Terrorism officer
Michael S. Kearns, Captain, USAF; ex-Master SERE Instructor for Strategic Reconnaissance Operations (NSA/DIA) and Special Mission Units (JSOC) (ret.)
John Brady Kiesling, Foreign Service Officer; resigned Feb. 27, 2003 as Political Counselor, U.S. Embassy, Athens, in protest against the U.S. attack on Iraq (ret.)
John Kiriakou, Former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former senior investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Edward Loomis, Jr., former NSA Technical Director for the Office of Signals Processing (ret.)
David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council, National Intelligence Estimates Officer (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst; CIA Presidential briefer (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Near East (ret.)
Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)
Coleen Rowley, FBI Special Agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel (ret.)
Greg Thielmann, former Director of the Strategic, Proliferation, and Military Affairs Office, State
Department Bureau of Intelligence & Research (INR), and former senior staffer on Senate Intelligence Committee (ret.)
Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA ret.)
Lawrence Wilkerson, Colonel (USA, ret.), former Chief of Staff for Secretary of State; Distinguished Visiting Professor, College of William and Mary (associate VIPS)
Sarah G. Wilton, CDR, USNR, (ret.); Defense Intelligence Agency (ret.)
Robert Wing, former Foreign Service Officer (associate VIPS)
Ann Wright, Colonel, US Army (ret.); also Foreign Service Officer who, like Political Counselor John Brady Kiesling, resigned in opposition to the war on Iraq
Republished with permission / Consortium News / Report a typo

===========================

* En misdadiger Netanyahu wordt nog serieus genomen ook door de reguliere westerse journalistiek en het grootste deel van de westerse politici…..

Zie ook: ‘Oost-Ghouta >> ‘gematigde rebellen’ schieten op vluchtende burgers, aldus VN……. Aandacht in Nederlandse media nul komma nada….‘ (waar me het nog meeviel dat deze media niet hebben gemeld dat Syrische troepen op de vluchtelingen schoten, zoals in Oost-Aleppo gebeurde, waarover je rustig kan zeggen dat dit een false flag operatie was)

en: ‘VS agressie in Syrië voorzien van een vooropgezet plan…….‘

en: ‘Oost-Ghouta: MSM leugens ofwel het zoveelste geval van ‘fake news’ lekt weg uit uit de massamedia‘

en: ‘VS bezig met voorbereiding van een ‘door Syrië’ gepleegde gifgasaanval, ofwel de volgende VS false flag operatie‘

Washington uit op oorlog met Iran……

Posted on by Telmo Claro

De Trump administratie wil hoe dan ook de ‘Iran nuclear deal’ de nek omdraaien en eist van de andere deelnemers, vooral die in de EU dezelfde houding, zonder dat deze administratie daar over wil discussiëren……….

De VS wil ‘opnieuw onderhandelen’ over deze overeenkomst met Iran, met daarin bepalingen waarvan men weet dat Iran hier niet mee akkoord kan en zal gaan…….
‘Uiteraard’ komt de Trump administratie met het versleten cliché over de Iraanse ongebreidelde agressie….. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Een gevalletje de pot verwijt een piepklein keteltje dat het zwart ziet, waarbij opgemerkt moet worden dat de VS kleurenblind is (behalve als het om de repressie tegen de gekleurde bevolking in de VS gaat)……..
Als er een ‘land’ is dat ongebreidelde agressie gebruikt, is het de VS wel! Alleen deze eeuw al 4 illegale oorlogen en de regie over een paar (illegale) oorlogen in Afrika……. Dit nog buiten de door Washington op poten gezette opstanden die tot een coup hebben geleid en als dit niet lukte alsnog uitmonden in een (illegale) oorlog, zoals in Syrië, waar de VS al vanaf 2006 bezig was met het opzetten van een opstand (die tot een coup moest leiden)……
Kortom de Trump administratie is bezig met de voorbereiding op een oorlog tegen Iran (waarvoor de nucleaire leugen tegen Iran overigens maar één van de ‘redenen’ is…..)…. Het is maar zeer de vraag of Rusland en China zich afzijdig zullen houden, mocht de VS een illegale oorlog tegen Iran beginnen….. Als dit niet het geval zal zijn, is een in volle omvang uitbarsten van WOIII bijzonder dichtbij……
Hoe is het mogelijk dat men in het westen in de 60er, 70er en 80er jaren massaal in opstand kwam tegen de terreur van de VS, waar ook toen een nucleaire oorlog meermaals in de lucht hing, waar men nu doodstil is en de VS haar gang laat gaan…??? Terwijl het gevaar op een nucleaire oorlog nu veel groter is dan destijds, immers de VS (en Groot-Brittannië) spreken nu openlijk over het inzetten van nucleaire wapens bij een militair conflict, sterker nog: de Trump administratie dreigt zelfs met nucleaire vergelding als ‘een land’ (Rusland, China en Noord-Korea) mocht beslissen een ‘cyberaanval’ te beginnen tegen de VS……. ‘Cyberaanvallen’ zoals de zogenaamde manipulatie van de VS presidentsverkiezingen, waarvoor tot op heden geen enkel steekhoudend bewijs is geleverd, maar waar wel een enorm aantal bewijzen liggen voor dit soort van handelingen door de VS zelf in andere landen!!
Washington Delivers New Ultimatum On Iran
By Bill Van Auken

February 21, 2018 “Information Clearing House” – The US State Department has issued a fresh ultimatum on the Iran nuclear deal to Washington’s ostensible major allies in Europe, demanding that Germany, Britain and France commit themselves to altering the agreement along the lines demanded by President Donald Trump or face its unilateral abrogation by the US.

 A secret State Department cable obtained by Reuters presents what are essentially the same demands made by Trump last January. At that time, he announced that he was prepared to relaunch all-out US economic warfare against Iran unless the European powers joined Washington in imposing a rewritten nuclear accord on Tehran, including provisions that the Iranian government cannot and will not accept.

 The occasion for Trump’s threat was his reluctant announcement on January 12 that he had decided to waive the reimposition of US sanctions that were lifted as part of the nuclear agreement, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). He vowed that this would be the last time he issued such a waiver, unless his conditions were met. The next deadline for waiving the sanctions is May 12.

 The message from the State Department to the European powers asks for their “commitment that we should work together to seek a supplemental or follow-on agreement that addresses Iran’s development or testing long-range missiles, ensures strong IAEA inspections, and fixes the flaws of the ‘sunset clause.’”

 Washington has demanded that Iran grant International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors immediate and unlimited access to any site in the country, including military bases; the elimination of “sunset clauses” in the JCPOA, making time-limited restrictions on aspects of Iran’s civil nuclear program permanent; and drastically limiting, if not outlawing, Iran’s ballistic missile program.

 While presented by Reuters and other media as a softening of the position outlined by Trump in January, the cable makes it clear that the US is continuing to present its nominal allies in Europe with an ultimatum.

 “In the absence of a clear commitment from your side to address these issues, the United States will not again waive sanctions in order to stay in the Iran nuclear deal. If at any time the President judges that such commitment is not within reach, the President indicated he would end US participation in the deal.”

 The cable’s “talking points” for US diplomats to advance Washington’s agenda in Europe stress “the Trump administration’s strategy to counter the Iranian regime’s reckless aggression,” which “addresses the full range of Iranian threats, of which Iran’s nuclear program is only one element.”

 The clear implication is that Washington is embarked on a trajectory of war with Iran, either with or without the collaboration of its NATO allies in Berlin, London and Paris. Should they join with the US in ripping up the nuclear accord, it will set them on a collision course not only with Iran, but also with Russia and China, the two other signatories to the JCPOA.

 The US has spelled out its own intentions in the Trump administration’s recent National Security Strategy, lumping Iran together with North Korea under the category of “rogue states” that represent a threat to US “national interests” and are to be confronted and defeated.

 None of the European powers responded directly to the US cable, which the State Department itself refused to discuss. Asked about the US demands in an online media briefing, the French Foreign Ministry declared: “The French position on the Iran nuclear deal is known. As the President of the Republic [Emmanuel Macron] has said, we reaffirm our full attachment to the global action plan and its strict implementation.” It added that Paris would “continue to talk about the Iran nuclear program with our European and American partners.”

 The European powers are pursuing their own imperialist interests in the Middle East and are increasingly at odds with US interests and strategies. The lifting of sanctions against Iran was greeted by European corporations as an opportunity to generate a fresh stream of profits through billions of dollars in new investments and trade deals. Many of these plans remain unfulfilled because of concerns that the US will target companies with unilateral sanctions, and that their investments could go up in smoke in the event of a new and catastrophic US war in the Middle East.

 While hostile to Iran’s growing influence in the region, the European powers are increasingly alarmed at the prospect that Washington’s strategy of forging a regional anti-Iranian alliance with Israel and Saudi Arabia, together with the other Sunni Gulf oil sheikdoms, will produce a military confrontation that could cut off oil supplies upon which Europe depends and unleash a political and refugee crisis that will spill onto the continent.

 Washington has issued its latest ultimatum in the midst of an explosive escalation of regional tensions, driven in the main by US and Israeli aggression. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spelled out Tel Aviv’s aggressive stance against Iran in a bellicose speech to the Munich Security Conference on Sunday. Holding up what he claimed was a piece of an Iranian drone shot down over Israeli-occupied Syrian territory in the Golan Heights, he denounced Iran as “the greatest threat to the world,” equating it with Nazi Germany.

 “We will act without hesitation to defend ourselves, and we will act if necessary not just against Iran’s proxies that are attacking us, but against Iran itself,” said Netanyahu, in a clear threat to attack Iran, an action that his government would undertake only with US backing.

Israel responded to the alleged overflight of the drone, which Tehran insists was launched by independent Syrian militia elements in Syria, by targeting Iranian personnel in Syria with air strikes. Syrian air defense units succeeded in shooting down an Israeli F-16 fighter jet, the first such loss for the Israeli Air Force since the early 1980s.

 Speaking in response to Netanyahu at the Munich conference, Mohammad Javad Zarif, the Iranian foreign minister, attributed the frenzied tone of Netanyahu’s speech to the downing of the warplane. “The so-called invincibility of [Israel] has crumbled,” he said.

 The US military and intelligence apparatus and its loyal stenographers in the US corporate media are churning out continuous war propaganda against Iran.

 Speaking at the Munich Security Conference on Saturday, US national security advisor Gen. H.R. McMaster declared it was necessary to “act against Iran,” which he accused of arming a “network of proxies” that is “becoming more and more capable as Iran seeds more and more…destructive weapons into these networks.”

 The New York Times published a lengthy piece Monday based on interviews with Israeli military officers and government officials along with representatives of US, Israeli and Saudi-funded think tanks alleging that Iran is “creating an infrastructure [in Syria] to threaten Israel.” Needless to say, the article made no mention of Israel’s own funding and aid for Sunni Islamist militias attacking the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad.

 The same issue of the Times carried an opinion piece by US ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley claiming, falsely, that a report issued by the United Nations proved that Iran has shipped missiles to the Houthi rebels in Yemen to fire at Saudi Arabia. The actual report found that “remnants” of the missiles were of Iranian origin, while providing no evidence as to how they got there.

 Haley insists that the world must “act before a missile hits a school or a hospital and leads to a dangerous military escalation that provokes a Saudi military response.”

 The column echoes the “big lie” methods pioneered by Nazi Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels.

That Saudi Arabia has been bombing Yemeni schools, hospitals, neighborhoods and infrastructure for nearly three years, killing some 13,000 Yemeni civilians and plunging the country’s population into the worst humanitarian crisis on the planet, goes unmentioned.

 Haley is also silent on the fact that the US has provided the vast majority of the bombs and missiles dropped on the Yemeni people, while mounting logistical and refueling operations that make the mass slaughter possible.

This article was originally published by “WSWS” –

Copyright © 1998-2018 World Socialist Web Site

Zie ook: ‘The Coming Wars to End AllWars‘ geschreven door Edward Curtin:

The Trump and Netanyahu governments have a problem: How to start a greatly expanded Middle-Eastern war without having a justifiable reason for one.
===============================================

PS: ben het niet eens met Auken wat betreft de opstelling van de EU, als zou de EU haar eigen imperialistische belangen najagen in het Midden-Oosten, waar hij de ‘Iran deal’ als voorbeeld noemt. Uiteraard blijven de andere partijen die voor deze deal tekenden, geloven in deze deal, dit daar de Trump administratie (zoals gewoonlijk) met een hele bak leugens komt om deze deal de nek om te draaien….. Wat dit met imperialisme te maken heeft zie ik niet. Verder lopen de meeste EU landen blindelings aan achter de grootste terreurentiteit op aarde: de VS………..

Zie ook: ‘Rex Tillerson (VS BuZA) geeft toe dat de VS een staatsgreep wil uitvoeren in Iran…….. Het is nog ‘iets te rustig’ in dat gebied……..‘

en: ‘Iraanse protesten allesbehalve compleet spontaan (zoals VS ambassadeur bij de VN Haley durfde te stellen…)….‘

en: ‘Protesten Iran opgezet door de VS en Israël‘

en: ‘Iran, de protesten en wat de media je niet vertellen………‘

en: ‘De VS gaf meer dan 1 miljoen dollar uit om protesten tegen Iraans bewind uit te buiten (en te organiseren)‘

en: ‘Het verborgen motief achter de Israëlische agressie tegen Iran en Syrië‘

en: ‘VS bewandelt dezelfde weg richting Iran, als die voor de illegale oorlog tegen Irak in 2003, aldus één van de verantwoordelijken voor die oorlog……..‘

en: ‘Netanyahu vergelijkt Iran met nazi-Duitsland en stelt dat Iran een bedreiging is voor de wereldvrede….. ha! ha! ha! ha!‘

en: ‘Oliemaatschappijen weigeren n.a.v. VS sancties de jet van Iraanse minister af te tanken‘

en: ‘Israël bezig met voorbereiding op meerdere fronten oorlog…….. (met hulp van de VS‘

en: ‘John Bolton heeft beloofd dat Iran voor 2019 onder een ander regime zal leven…….‘

en: ‘Saoedi-Arabië dreigt Iran aan te vallen voor vanuit Jemen afgevuurde ‘raketten’ op Saoedische ‘doelen……….’‘

en: ‘VS rechter gelast Iran miljarden te betalen aan de families van 911 slachtoffers…..‘

en: ‘Iran moet hangen en Iran-deal moet van tafel……. Israël speelt wolf in schaapskleren‘

en: ‘Iran het volgende slachtoffer van ongebreidelde VS terreur‘

Trumps vrede met Rusland weer van de kaart met aanstelling McMaster?

Posted on by Telmo Claro

Donald ‘het beest’ Trump liet tijdens de verkiezingen weten, dat hij de relaties met Rusland wilde verbeteren en ook na zijn verkiezing noemde hij dit nog een paar keer. Intussen blijkt dat Trump zich heeft neergelegd bij de bestaande status quo: de Koude Oorlog 2.0.

Met het aanstellen van generaal McMaster* als nationale veiligheidsadviseur, heeft Trump bevestigd, dat hij zich heeft gevoegd bij de anti-Russische oorlogshitserij in het Pentagon en bij de geheime diensten, zoals de CIA en de NSA……….

McMaster is een oorlogshitser van de eerste orde en liegt dat het gedrukt staat, o.a. over Georgië, De Krim en Oekraïne (zoals u in het artikel hieronder kan lezen).

Hier dat artikel van Anti-Media, gisteren ontvangen (lees en zie ook de artikelen/video onder de links in dat artikel):

Hopes of Peace with Russia Could Be Crushed by Trump’s New National Security Advisor

February 22, 2017 at 10:44 am

(RPI)** President Trump has selected Gen. H.R. McMaster to be his National Security Advisor, replacing the short-lived Gen. Michael Flynn. Those breathing a sigh of relief that the rumored favorite John Bolton didn’t get the nod may want to hold that thought — and their breath. McMaster is not the man to guide President Trump toward better relations with Russia and less US interference in the internal affairs of others.

In fact, he believes the opposite.

In a speech*** delivered at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) just last May, Gen. McMaster blamed the lack of sufficient US military presence overseas for what he calls a more aggressive Russian geostrategic posturing.

Said the General:

“Even though it may have been apparent, at least since 2008, that Russia was changing its geostrategic behavior and engaging in…probing, probing at the far reaches of American power, our strategic response was to accelerate our withdrawal of…army forces from Europe. And what we’re seeing now is we’ve awakened to obviously this threat from Russia who is waging limited war for limited objectives. Annexing Crimea. Invading Ukraine. At zero cost. And consolidating gains over that territory, and portraying the reaction by us and partners as escalatory. … What is required is forward deterrence. To be able to ratchet up the cost at the frontier.”

The General also made the completely fallacious assertion that Russia invaded Georgia in 2008. Even the highly critical if not overtly anti-Russia European Union concluded that Georgia was to blame for launching an ill-advised attack on Russian peacekeeping forces that were part of an international mission in South Ossetia.

Does this sound like someone who is going to work to help President Trump improve relations with Russia?

No wonder neocons Max Boot and Sen. John McCain are absolutely thrilled with Trump’s choice of McMaster to be National Security Advisor.

Sen. McCain, who just returned from attacking President Trump at the Munich Security Conference for not being harder on Russia, said today that McMaster:

“…knows how to succeed. I give President Trump great credit for this decision, as well as his national security cabinet choices. I could not imagine a better, more capable national security team than the one we have right now.”

Max Boot had a similar reaction:

“H.R. McMaster is one of the most impressive army officers of his generation—a rare combination of soldier and scholar.”

McMaster’s claim to fame was the 1997 Dereliction of Duty, which is billed as a brave attack on the mistake of the Vietnam war, but was in fact largely focused on the failure to devote enough resources to actually winning the war — a typical neocon critique of failed military interventions.

Is McMaster a worse choice than John Bolton? Perhaps. Whereas Bolton would have been under the microscope, McMaster may just be able, due to his military history, be able to avoid close scrutiny.
Whatever the case, McMaster is all about conflict with Russia. Will his boss keep him in check?

Whatever the case, McMaster is all about conflict with Russia. Will his boss keep him in check?

By Daniel McAdams / Republished with permission / RPI / Report a typo

======================================

* McMaster bedankte Trump uitvoerig voor zijn benoeming, terwijl hij vierde keus was…….. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

 ** RPI: Ron Paul Institute

*** Een toespraak op een conferentie die werd betaald door Rolls Royce Noord-Amerika………. (Rolls Royce bouwt o.a. vliegtuigmotoren…..)