Archive for February 2011
This Russia Today report from November 2010 briefly mentions U.S. government co-option of opposition parties in Egypt. It fails to note, however, the considerable presence, often in key positions, of those with a passionate attachment to Israel at “democracy promotion” groups like the National Endowment for Democracy, USAID, Freedom House, National Democratic Institute, International Republican Institute, and the Project on Middle East Democracy.
See the complete RT video here.
Madeleine Albright, chair of the regime-toppling National Democratic Institute, tells a fawning Rachel Maddow how Egypt should transition to democracy. Admonishing the Mubarak regime for its brutality, she says: “Beating people up is not the way to do it.”
But back in 1996, condemning 500,000 Iraqi children to a slow and painful death apparently was the way to do it. Of course, it’s not only democracy that Albright, like George Soros, wants to bring to the people of Africa…
In researching the myriad connections of Wall Street “philanthropists” George Soros and Peter Ackerman to the Egyptian coup, I continually came across references to subverting Iran. In a February 3 Washington Post op-ed in praise of the Egyptian protestors, Soros confidently asserted: “As regards contagion, it is more likely to endanger the enemies of the United States – Syria and Iran…” Back in 2006, Ackerman was touting the potential of nonviolent resistance to topple Ahmedinejad in a New York Times op-ed pointedly titled “Iran’s future? Watch the streets.”
Now, Dr. K R Bolton, who has written extensively on the subject, wonders if Iran might be “the next domino” to fall in the wave of nonviolent warfare sweeping across the region:
With the staging of a second attempt at a “green revolution” in Iran in the wake of the overthrow of the regimes in Tunisia and Egypt by groups primarily sponsored by the National Endowment for Democracy, International Republican Institute, Open Society Institute, Freedom House, USAID and a myriad of their fronts; the question might arise as to whether the turmoil inflicted on Egypt and Tunisia was intended as a prelude to the major target: Iran.
Read the rest here.
By Philip Giraldi, Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest
Last Friday’s American veto of the United Nations Security Council resolution that would have called Israeli settlement activity on the West Bank illegal was not only shameful, it was possibly the low point of the already foundering Obama presidency. To be sure, United States UN Ambassador Susan Rice accompanied the veto with a stirring rendition of “I’ll cry tomorrow” as she described how the Obama White House really is opposed to the settlements.
It’s just that supporting or even abstaining on a resolution criticizing Israel, however mildly framed, might setback the peace process, which, as Rice well knows, died completely over six months ago. But let’s not get hung up on the details. Rice should have said instead that her boss in the White House is so afraid of the Israel Lobby that he has to ask permission when he goes to the bathroom. At least that would have been completely credible, something you can believe in from an Administration that has otherwise delivered squat to the many voters who supported Obama in hopes that he might actually be interested in peace in our times.
Read the rest here.
Revolutions across the Arab world could see fanatics coming to power, breaking up states and leading to “fires for years”, Russia’s president has said.
Dmitry Medvedev’s comments on Tuesday contrasted with those of Western leaders, who have largely expressed sympathy with pro-democracy protesters in North Africa and the Middle East.
“The situation is tough. We could be talking about the disintegration of large, densely-populated states, talking about them breaking up into little pieces,” he said in comments broadcast on state television.
Oded Yinon’s “Strategy for Israel in the 1980s,” as summarised by Israel Shahak:
The plan operates on two essential premises. To survive, Israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states. Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel’s satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation.
By Joseph Fitsanakis
A British and a Pakistani newspaper have confirmed that an American diplomat, who is being held in Pakistan for killing two armed men in Lahore, is in reality an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency.
On January 25, former US Special Forces member Raymond Allen Davis (note: this may not be his real name) used an unregistered Glock semi-automatic pistol to shoot dead two passengers on a motorcycle, who he says tried to assault him while he was driving his car in Pakistan’s second largest city. Witnesses say Davis shot dead the one of the two men by firing ten shots from inside his vehicle, before stepping outside to shoot the second man as he was running away from the scene of the crime. Pakistani authorities say Davis’ claim to self-defense is discredited by the fact that the second man’s body was found almost 10 meters away from the motorcycle, bearing bullet wounds in his back. A third individual was struck and run over by a car carrying several armed Americans, whom Pakistanis say were also CIA operatives. The latter have since returned to the United States, according to Pakistani officials.
Soon after Davis’ arrest, US President Barack Obama insisted that Pakistani authorities had illegally captured a “US consulate worker” of an “administrative and technical” capacity, attached to the US consulate in Lahore. But British broadsheet The Guardian has now confirmed that, according to information supplied by knowledgeable individuals in the US and Pakistan, Davis, 36, is “beyond a shadow of a doubt” an employee of the CIA. The paper also states that several US media outlets are aware of Davis’ intelligence capacity, but have refrained from revealing it under pressure from the US government.
By Lawrence Davidson
The inspiring moments when President Obama appeared before the cameras, and thus the world, to declare that the dictator Hosni Mubarak must step down and the people of Egypt given the inalienable right to self-determination are now in the past. It was a moment when U.S. foreign policy actually appeared to correspond to the foreign reality it addressed. Ironically, it was this very correspondence that made the moment anomalous–something quite out of the ordinary. Therefore, soon after Mubarak went into involuntary retirement at Sharm el-Sheik, Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was off to Israel and Jordan to confirm that foreign policy would immediately return to its normal pathway. What is the norm here? Well, it is one where U.S. foreign policy references domestic political reality, like the power of the Zionist lobbies, rather than anything that might serve objective national interests. For all intents and purposes that was Mullen’s message, we are back on the normative track. And, on 18 February 2011, the administration backed up the admiral’s words with deeds.
By Thomas S. Harrington
The term Baroque was coined in the Iberian Peninsula—it is said to come from the Portuguese term for deformed pearl—to speak of the ornate cultural products generated in Spain and Portugal during the time when both nations (they were actually joined dynastically between 1580 and 1640) were simultaneously great powers and societies in the throes of self-evident decline and social dislocation. Give or take a few years, the esthetic had its heyday in those places in the period between 1580 and 1700.
K R Bolton thinks so:
There are long term, dialectical strategies involved that might require even removing seemingly pro-US regimes, that are simply now anomalies in the process of globalization.
However, there are indications that Mubarak was an impediment to US policy. The US and the Mubarak regime were at loggerheads over Sudan for example, Mubarak favoring a confederation, whereas the US sought dismemberment of the South from the north. Egypt’s influence was gaining in the Sudan, with investments and advisers. On Nov. 3, 2009 Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul-Gheit stated that within the previous five years Egypt had invested more than $87 million into projects in southern Sudan, including hospitals, schools and power stations, “in hope of convincing the people of southern Sudan to choose unity over secession.”
Towards the end of the Bush regime the U.S. Defense Department established the Africa Command (AFRICOM), a primary concern of this new US regional command being the establishment of a massive military base in southern Sudan.
There is a very interesting article on this in The Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs.
Read the rest of this interview with K R Bolton here.