The Zionist/Neocon War Beast Is Alive and Well, In Control of Trump’s Brain

David Wurmser and Trump’s Zionist Occupied Brain

a.k.a., Another Day in the Empire – by Kurt Nimmo

It’s antisemitism time. If you criticize Israel and the cadre of chickenhawk neocons steering Donald Trump’s foreign policy, you will be pilloried and exiled to the political wilderness, forever condemned as a white supremacist.

Scratch a little bit beneath the surface and you will discover at the core of this anti-free speech campaign a rabid Zionist, the same Zionist agitators responsible for advocating and organizing the murder of over a million Iraqis.  

It’s no longer permissible to criticize Jewish neocons. The very word “neocon” is considered an antisemitic slur because most of these chickenhawk war criminals are Jewish. It is never mentioned in the NYT or WaPo that the second Iraq mass murder campaign was strictly a Zionist (another word that will get you labeled an antisemite) affair designed to benefit Israel at the expense of the United States. 

Jon Schwarz, writing for The Intercept, tells us something many of us already knew—the forever war neocons are embedded deep within the Trump administration, led by David Wurmser. 

“An influential neoconservative in President George W. Bush’s White House who became a significant force behind the push for war with Iraq in 2003, Wurmser has recently been serving as an informal adviser to the Trump administration, according to new reporting from Bloomberg News. In that capacity, Wurmser helped make the case for the recent drone strike that assassinated Iranian Gen. Qassim Suleimani,” Schwarz writes. 

During the reign of the second dynastic Bush, Wurmser advised Dick Cheney on how best to destroy Iraq and  immiserate millions of people and kill what turned out to be a million and a half Iraqis, the vast majority innocent civilians. 

Wurmer’s inside man in the Trump WH was John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser and one of the most vociferous and hateful non-Jewish individuals within the creative destruction klatch. Bolton’s over the top calls for endless violence, cruelty, and his apparent inability to kowtow to the narcissist Trump resulted in his departure from the administration. 

Bolton may be gone but the Zionist blueprint for undermining Israel’s neighbors and gobbling up as much land and expelling (in addition to torturing and murdering) as many native inhabitants as possible. This is being driven from afar and in secret by David Wurmser and his equally repugnant wife, Meyrav, from the heights of the vile Zionists outfit, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Meyrav helped found the organization. As well, she is the director of the Center for Middle East Policy at the neocon-infested Hudson Institute.

Her husband played a key role in the pro-Zionist formulations at the American Enterprise Institute, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. The Wurmsers are rock-ribbed Zionist provocateurs. 

David Wurmser might be considered a guardian of the neocon mission. In 2018, he sent a letter to Newt Gingrich demanding then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson purge all staffers at the State Department not sufficiently loyal to Trump—that is to say, not sufficiently loyal to the neocon cause, which is Israel’s cause. 

He is responsible in large part (along with his wife, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle) for A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, a document prepared for incoming Likud PM Bibi Netanyahu. The document recommends working closely with “Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize, and roll back” regional threats (for instance, advocating on behalf of the Palestinians) and using “Israeli proxy forces” based in Lebanon for “striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon.”

If that should “prove insufficient, [Israel should strike] at select targets in Syria proper.” It argues “Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, even rolling back Syria.” This would create a “natural axis” between Israel, Jordan, a Hashemite Iraq, and Turkey that “would squeeze and detach Syria from the Saudi Peninsula,” which “could be the prelude to a redrawing of the map of the Middle East, which could threaten Syria’s territorial integrity.”

The staying power of the neocons—analogous to the grip of a pit bull—is one of the more remarkable political stories of our time. The exit of the neocons during the second term of George W. Bush was viewed by many as a purge from the government of a group of fanatical ideologues doing the work of a foreign government. 

The neocons, of course, didn’t disappear—they slunk back to their think tanks and foundations and conspired with more politically palatable (and more skilled at telling lies) “humanitarian interventionists” in the Obama administration. 

The result was 30,000 dead in Libya, the engineered influx of crazed Wahhabi mercenaries in Syria (over 600,000 Syrians killed thus far) under the direction of the cackling war criminal Hillary Clinton, then-Secretary of State.

Obama also continued and expanded Bush’s illegal drone murder program and intensified the war against whistleblowers such as Julian Assange and Edward Snowden. Obama redoubled the war on investigative journalism. Despite all this, Democrats consider Obama a saint. 

It has been obvious for many months that Donald Trump is nothing if not an automaton for the Israelis. He routinely fawns over Israeli war criminals and medieval Saudi head-choppers. He has given Israel whatever it wants—billions of dollars a year, recognition through an embassy in contested Jerusalem, a thumbs-up for Israel’s theft of around 700 square miles of land in Syria, encouragement to finally annex the West Bank and squeeze out the Palestinians, considered drugged cockroaches in a bottle by the Zionist settler-racists, and a program aimed at the heart of the Bill of Rights in America to stifle any criticism of this brutal little racist state and its war on Palestinian women and children (along with shooting, killing, and maiming activists, medics, and journalists). 

Of course, Donald Trump is a dupe for fanatical Zionists determined to expel all Arabs and non-Jewish goyim from its half-pint country established on mass graves and the bloody remains of terror attacks (the King David Hotel, Deir Yassin, Lydda, al-Dawayima, Qibya, and many others). 

Trump’s brain is not his own. It is owned by his orthodox Jewish son-in-law and his converted wife. The president’s obsessively self-referential brain is influenced by Sheldon Adelson (he gave Trump over $100 million during the campaign) and his wife Miriam (who wants a “Book of Trump” inserted in the Old Testament), in addition to other Jewish mega-donors, and a groundswell of enthusiastic support among orthodox Jewish voters.

Thus it is hardly a surprise the neocon’s neocon, David Wurmser, is a puppet master driving USG foreign policy in the Middle East. He has the chops, the experience, the appetite for dispossessing and arranging the murder of Palestinians, Iranians, Syrians, and Lebanese. 

Another Day in the Empire

Eventful Days…Drone Ban Over Va. Gun Rally, Richmond…Military GPS Jamming Exercise Over S. E. US

GPS JAMMING EXPECTED IN SOUTHEAST DURING MILITARY EXERCISE

GPS reception may be unavailable or unreliable over a large portion of the southeastern states and the Caribbean during offshore military exercises scheduled between January 16 and 24.

Graphic depicting area of GPS interference testing. Courtesy of the FAA.

Graphic depicting area of GPS interference testing. Courtesy of the FAA.

The FAA has posted a flight advisory for the exercises that will require jamming of GPS signals for periods of several hours each day of the event. Navigation guidance, ADS-B, and other services associated with GPS could be affected for up to 400 nautical miles at Flight Level 400, down to a radius of 180 nm at 50 feet above the ground.

The flight advisory encourages pilots to report any GPS anomalies they encounter. Reports may be submitted using this online form.AOPA reported on a similar event in the southeastern United States in 2019.

AOPA is aware of hundreds of reports of interference to aircraft during events around the country for which notices to airmen were issued, and we consider the risks to GA aircraft highly concerning.

In one example, an aircraft lost navigation capability and did not regain it until after landing. Other reports have highlighted aircraft veering off course and heading toward active military airspace—and the wide range of reports makes it clear that interference affects aircraft differently. In some cases, recovery from signal interference may not occur until well after the aircraft exits the jammed area.

In a January 2019 AOPA survey, more than 64 percent of 1,239 pilots who responded noted concern about the impact of interference on their use of GPS and ADS-B.

AOPA continues to advocate for officials to place more focus on efforts to address the well-documented safety concerns raised by such events.

 

Dan Namowitz Associate Editor Web has been writing for AOPA in a variety of capacities since 1991. He has been a flight instructor since 1990 and is a 30-year AOPA member.

 

Drones banned over Richmond area during gun-rallies and counter-rallies

NOTAM Number : FDC 0/4707
Issue Date : January 17, 2020 at 1407 UTC
Type : Security
Plain Language text is not available for this NOTAM. The traditional NOTAM text is given below:

FDC 0/4707 ZDC PART 1 OF 3 VA..AIRSPACE RICHMOND, VA..TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS. JANUARY 20, 2020 LOCAL. PURSUANT TO 49 USC 40103(B)(3), THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA) CLASSIFIES THE AIRSPACE DEFINED IN THIS NOTAM AS ‘NATIONAL DEFENSE AIRSPACE’. ANY PERSON WHO KNOWINGLY OR WILLFULLY VIOLATES THE RULES CONCERNING OPERATIONS IN THIS AIRSPACE MAY BE SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CRIMINAL PENALTIES UNDER 49 USC 46307. PILOTS WHO DO NOT ADHERE TO THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES MAY BE INTERCEPTED, DETAINED AND INTERVIEWED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT/SECURITY PERSONNEL. PURSUANT TO TITLE 14 CFR SECTION 99.7, SPECIAL SECURITY INSTRUCTIONS (SSI), ALL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM (UAS) FLIGHT OPERATIONS ARE PROHIBITED WITHIN AN AREA DEFINED AS 2NM RADIUS OF 373217N0772604W (RIC300005.9) SFC-2000FT AGL EFFECTIVE 2001201200 UTC (0700 LOCAL 01/20/20) UNTIL 2001210001 UTC (1901 LOCAL 01/20/20). EXCEPT AS SPECIFIED BELOW: A. UAS OPERATIONS AUTHORIZED WITHIN THE DEFINED SSI AIRSPACE IF IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE 2001201200-2001210001 END PART 1 OF 3 FDC 0/4707 ZDC PART 2 OF 3 VA..AIRSPACE RICHMOND, VA..TEMPORARY FLIGHT REQUIREMENTS LISTED BELOW: 1) UAS FLIGHT OPERATION CONDUCTED IN DIRECT SUPPORT OF AN ACTIVE NATIONAL DEFENSE, HOMELAND SECURITY, LAW ENFORCEMENT, FIREFIGHTING, SEARCH AND RESCUE, OR DISASTER RESPONSE MISSION. 2) THE UAS FLIGHT OPERATION MUST COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER APPLICABLE FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS. B. UAS OPERATORS WHO DO NOT COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE AIRSPACE RESTRICTIONS ARE WARNED THAT PURSUANT TO 10 U.S.C. SECTION 130I AND 6 U.S.C. SECTION 124N, THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD), THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS) OR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ) MAY TAKE SECURITY ACTION THAT RESULTS IN THE INTERFERENCE, DISRUPTION, SEIZURE, DAMAGING, OR DESTRUCTION OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT DEEMED TO POSE A CREDIBLE SAFETY OR SECURITY THREAT TO PROTECTED PERSONNEL, FACILITIES, OR 2001201200-2001210001 END PART 2 OF 3 FDC 0/4707 ZDC PART 3 OF 3 VA..AIRSPACE RICHMOND, VA..TEMPORARY FLIGHT ASSETS. C. FAA RECOMMENDS THAT ALL AIRCRAFT OPERATORS CHECK NOTAMS FREQUENTLY FOR POSSIBLE CHANGES TO THIS TFR PRIOR TO OPERATIONS WITHIN THIS REGION. D. THE SYSTEM OPERATIONS SUPPORT CENTER (SOSC), IS THE POINT OF CONTACT AND COORDINATION FACILITY FOR ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS NOTAM AND ARE AVAILABLE DAILY FROM 0700-2300 EASTERN, PHONE 202-267-8276. 2001201200-2001210001 END PART 3 OF 3

Other Information: Top
ARTCC: ZDC – Washington Center
Authority: Title 14 CFR section 99.7

Were 139 US Soldiers Killed In Iranian Airstrikes?

SOURCE

[IS THIS DOCUMENT REAL?  WERE 139 US SOLDIERS KILLED IN IRANIAN AIRSTRIKE AT AIN AL ASSAD?]

THE SAKER: “THE ANGLOZIONIST EMPIRE VS IRAN”

Written by The Saker; Originally appeared at his blog

First, since we have more reliable data about what happened, let me recap a few key points to being:

    1. It is has now become pretty clear that Iran took several steps to make sure that the US would know when and where the strike would happen. Specifically, Iran warned the Iraqi government and the Swiss diplomats who represent US interests in Iran.
    2. Yet, at the same time, Iran issued the strongest threat it could possibly issue: it told the US that *any* counter-strike aimed at Iran would result in a strong Iranian attack on Israel.
    3. The US quite clearly took the decision not to retaliate and to “forget” Trump’s promise to strike at 54 Iranian targets.  I want to stress here that this was the correct decision under these circumstances.
    4. It also appears that the Iranians were able to somehow retrofit some kind of terminal guidance capability on missiles which originally lacked it.
    5. The level or precision of the strikes was absolutely superb and quite amazing.
    6. Trump declared that Iran decided to step down and that the US had prevailed.  This notion is, of course, prima facie ridiculous, but not for folks getting their news from the corporate media.
    7. The Iranians declared that this specific strike was now over, but immediately added that this was only a first measure and that other would follow.

Next, I want to share a few interesting photos with you.

First, here is a photo of the base following the strikes sent to me by a friend:

The Saker: "The AngloZionist Empire vs Iran"

Click to see the full-size image

Here is what my friend added: The key idea is really simple and understandable for anybody who has thought about statistics (even in an everyday context). In number terms, it’s almost like rolling a dice and getting a 6 three times in a row, because the probability of rolling a 6 with an ideal dice is 16.67% (and the probability to roll 3 sixes in a row is less than 1%) as opposed to roughly 18% probability for a hit on a building within the map area in the CNN screenshot (if we assume the missiles to be unguided within this area). To be even more precise, the probability for hitting 3 *different* buildings 3 times in a row is actually even slightly lower than 0.62%, as one would have to substract the area being hit from the total area covered by buildings (I ignored that for simplicity). A less than 1% probability for a one-off event like this means that it is really highly UNlikely – to use the British Skripal case expression in its inverted state – to have happened randomly, as we assumed in our hypothesis. Which means that the missiles were, indeed, guided, and guided very accurately, striking targets of less than ~50m size with a high degree of reliability (in this particular area 3/3, in others probably 1/1 as in the runway case, etc). Perhaps, some of them, not covered by the satellite images, missed the target, but it does not substantially change the high degree of accuracy that potential Iranian opponents within reach of these missiles will have to assume from now on.  The people most interested in this were probably the Israelis, as they are probably the main potential target for this type of missile in the case of a future escalation.

Please note that neither my friend nor I are professional imagery analysts and that this is just something my friend shared with me in a private email and which I now want to share with you.

If any professional imagery analyst could either confirm/refute my friend’s conclusions, I would be most grateful.

Next, I want to share with you the following image which shows Iranian IRGC General Ali Amir Hajizadeh reviews results of recent Iranian missile strikes on Ain al-Assad airbase in Iraq during a press conference:

The Saker: "The AngloZionist Empire vs Iran"

Click to see the full-size image

Clearly, the Iranians are very proud of their capability to conduct true precision strikes with an accuracy every bit as good as any Russian and/or US missile.

Finally, check out this image of the Iranian general making a press conference in front of a very interesting row of flags:

The Saker: "The AngloZionist Empire vs Iran"

Click to see the full-size image

These flags include the following: The Iranian flag, the IRGC flag, the flag of IRGC’s Aerospace Force, the flag of the Lebanese Hezbollah, the Yemeni Houthi Ansarullah flag, the flag of the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Units (PMU), the Palestinian Hamas, the Afghan Liwa Fatemiyoun and the Pakistani Liwa Zainebiyoun

I find this very interesting: when Trump (or any other US politician) makes a solemn pronouncement, he typically has a number of aides, advisors, generals, Congressmen or Senators, etc.  This is supposed the show the determination, resolve and unity of Uncle Shmuel, especially when Uncle Shmuel does something illegal or immoral.

The Iranian show of unity does not show more Iranians, they show the unity of all the forces in the Middle-East who have now officially united and whose goal is clear and very official: kick Uncle Shmuel out of the Middle-East.

You tell me which you find more impressive!

Next, the issue of casualties.  Frankly, and while this is only my best guess, I do not believe the Iranian official casualty figures.  Why?  Well, first the Iranians did not try to maximize casualties (more about that option below), and they informed the US by several back-channels.  But even if they had not, while the performance of the Patriot missile is pretty awful, the US does have a lot of top of the line technical intelligence means which would allow them to first detect the launch of the missiles from Iran and then to calculate their ballistic trajectory.  As far as I know, now I might be wrong here, Iranian missiles do not have terminal maneuvering capability (which is different from terminal guidance).  I can’t image why US commanders could not announce a incoming missile alert and then get all the local personnel into shelters.  Again, I might be missing something, so if any reader can correct me, I would be grateful.

So what happened, really?

Here are a few of my current working hypotheses:

1) BOTH the USA and Iran don’t want a fullscale war.  But for VERY different reasons:

  • The US probably understands that it cannot win a war against Iran
  • The Iranians definitely understand that while the US cannot “win”, it most definitely can kill Iranians by the thousands and inflict immense damage upon the Iranian society

2) What just took place was the single most dangerous moment since 14 April 2018 when Russia and the US came very, very close to a full-scale war.  In the current situation, the US and Iran also came very, very close to a full scale war.  The only reason I rank this latest crisis lower than the April 14th is that in one case we risked a planetary nuclear war whereas in this case we “only” risked a regional war which, by the way, could have seen nukes used by the US and Israel.

3) There STILL is a risk of full-scale war between the US and Iran, however, and barring a major unforeseen event, I will lower it now down from 80% to a much more tolerable 50%.  Why 50%?  Because Israel and the Israel Lobby will continue to push for a US attack on Iran and because while I trust the Iranians to keep their anti-US operations right below the threshold of “plausible deniability”, I cannot be sure that all Iranian allies will show similar restraint.  Finally, the chances of an Israeli false flag as still sky high.

4) I expect anti-US operations to continue and even expand throughout the Middle-East.  I don’t expect that these operations will be executed from Iran and I don’t expect Iranian forces to be involved, at least not officially.  The Iranians know that the US has lost every single counter-insurgency war it was involved in and they know that their best chance is now to engage in all forms of asymmetrical operations.

Finally, I want to spell out what we could call the new Iranian threat.

We have to assume that Iran now has terminal guidance capability on many (most?) of its ballistic and cruise missiles and that they can destroy one specific building amongst many more buildings.  Now, remember the Iranian reply that it had 35 US bases within missile range?  Now imagine this first one:

  • Iran fires 10-12 missile on each and every one of the 35 US bases listed and targets barracks, fuel and ammo dumps, key command posts, etc.  How many casualties do you think that such a strike would result in?

Next, let’s try the same thing with Israel:

  • Iran fires 2-3 missiles but carefully aims them as Israeli air force bases, personnel barracks, industrial sites (including chemical and nuclear sites, not even necessarily military ones! Dimona anybody?), the Knesset or even Bibi’s personal residence.  Can you imagine the panic in Israel?

How about the KSA?

  • Iran fires a large amount of missiles aimed at *truly* crippling the Saudi oil installations, National Guard barracks, airfields, etc.  We already know what the Houthis could do with their very limited resources.  Just imagine what Iran could do to the KSA (or the UAE and Kuwait) if it wanted to!

I think that the bottom line is clear: Iran can inflict unacceptable damage upon any party attacking it.  Furthermore, and unlike having “a few” nukes, Iran has hundreds (or even thousands) of cruise missile and ballistic missiles, and you can bet that they are well distributed and well protected,as shown by this short video released by the IRGC and posted by the FARS news agency:

and that means that a disarming first strike against Iran is not possible.

There are two basic ways to respond to an attack: denial and punishment.  In the first case, you have the means to deny your enemy his attack, this is what happened with the Syrians intercepted almost all the cruise missiles fired by the US.  Punishment is when you cannot prevent an enemy attack, but you do have the means to inflict unacceptable damage in retaliation.

The key notion here is “unacceptable damage”.

What do you think constitutes “unacceptable damage” to the (terminally hedonistic) Israelis?

What do you think would be “unacceptable damage” to the KSA, or the world markets (especially oil)?

What about “unacceptable damage” in terms of losses for CENTCOM?

And, finally, what do you think “unacceptable damage” means to the Iranians?

There is such a huge asymmetry in how the parties to this conflict see “unacceptable damage” that is largely compensates for the asymmetry in force.  Yes, sure, the US+Israel are more powerful than Iran (well, not Israel really, but Israel hiding behind the back of the US forces) but Iran is far more capable of absorbing devastating attacks than either the US or Israel.

Finally, in my last post I offered a definition of what constitutes success or failure for Iran: “anything which makes it easier for the US to remain in the Middle-East is a victory for the Empire and anything which makes it harder for the US to remain in the Middle-East is a victory for the rest of the planet.

At this point my personal opinion is that the way the Iranians conducted their first anti-Empire operation is nothing short of brilliant: they achieved a truly phenomenal result with very little means and, most importantly, without forcing the Empire to counter-attack.

Has the US-Iran war really begun?  Yes, I think so.  In fact, it began in 1979, but now it has reached a qualitatively new level.  The outcome of that war is absolutely evident to me.  The cost, however, is not.

This have relatively cooled down, but that is an illusion and we should most definitely not take our eyes of the situation in the Middle-East: expect the initiation of asymmetrical anti-US operations very soon.

FRAGMENTATION IN THE AXIS OF RESISTANCE LED TO SOLEIMANI’S DEATH

FRAGMENTATION IN THE AXIS OF RESISTANCE LED TO SOLEIMANI’S DEATH

ELIJAH J. MAGNIER

ENgskxrWkAEsns7

By Elijah J. Magnier: @ejmalrai

It was not the US decision to fire missiles against the IRGC commander Brigadier General Qassem Soleimani that killed the Iranian officer and his companions in Baghdad. Yes, of course, the order that was given to launch missiles from the two drones (which destroyed the two cars carrying Sardar Soleimani and his companion the Iraqi commander in al-Hashd al-Shaabi Jamal Jaafar Al-Tamimi aka Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes and burned their bodies in the vehicle) came from US command and control. However, the reason President Donald Trump made this decision derives from the weakness of the “axis of resistance”, which has completely retreated from the level of performance that Iran believed it was capable of after decades of work to strengthen this “axis”.

A close companion of Major General Qassim Soleimani, to whom he spoke hours before boarding the plane that took him from Damascus to Baghdad, told me: “The nobleman died. Palestine above all has lost Hajj Qassem (Soleimani). He was the “King” of the Axis of the Resistance and its leader. He was assassinated and this is exactly what he was hoping to reach in this life (Martyrdom). However, this axis will live and will not die. No doubt, the Axis of the Resistance needs to review its policy and regenerate itself to correct its path. This was what Hajj Qassim was complaining about and planning to work on and strategizing about in his last hours. ”

The US struck Iran at the heart of its pride by killing Major General Soleimani. But the “axis of the Resistance” killed him before that. This is how:

When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu assassinated the deputy head of the Military Council (the highest authority in the Lebanese Hezbollah, which is headed by its Secretary-General, Hassan Nasrallah), Hajj Imad Mughniyah in Damascus, Syria, Hezbollah could not avenge him until today.

When Trump gave Netanyahu Jerusalem as the “capital of Israel”, the “Axis of the Resistance” did not move except by holding television symposia and conferences verbally rejecting the decision.

When President Trump offered the occupied Syrian Golan Heights to Israel and the “Axis of Resistance” did not react, the US President Donald Trump and his team understood that they were opposed by no effective deterrent. The inaction of the Resistance axis emboldened Trump to do what he wants.

ENh0unwXYAYGWVE

And when Israel bombed hundreds of Syrian and Iranian targets in Syria, the “Axis of the Resistance” justified its lack of retaliation by the typical sentence: “We do not want to be dragged along by the timing of the engagement imposed by the enemy,” as a senior official in this axis told me.

In Iraq shortly before his death, Major General Soleimani was complaining about the weakening of the Iraqi ranks within this “Axis of the Resistance”, represented by the Al-Bina’ (Construction) Alliance and other groups close to this alliance like Al-Hikma of Ammar al-Hakim and Haidar al-Abadi, formerly close to Iran, that have gone over to the US side.

In Iraq, Major General Soleimani was very patient and never lost his temper. He was trying to reconcile the Iraqis, both his allies and those who had chosen the US camp and disagreed with him. He used to hug those who shouted at him to lower tensions and continue dialogue to avoid spoiling the meeting. Anyone who raised his voice during discussions soon found that it was Soleimani who calmed everyone down.

Hajj Qassem Soleimani was unable to reach a consensus on the new Prime Minister’s name among those he deemed to be allies in the same coalition. He asked Iraqi leaders to select the names and went through all of these asking questions about the acceptability of these names to the political groups, to the Marjaiya, to protestors in the street and whether the suggested names were not provocative or challenging to the US. Notwithstanding the animosity between Iran and the US, Soleimani encouraged the selection of a personality that would not be boycotted by the US. Soleimani believed the US capable of damaging Iraq and understood the importance of maintaining a good relationship with the US for the stability of the country.

Soleimani was shocked by the dissension among Iraqi Shia and believed that the “axis of resistance” needed a new vision as it was faltering. In the final hours before his death, Major General Soleimani was ruminating on the profound antagonisms between Iraqis of the same camp.

When the Iraqi street began to move against the government, the line rejecting American hegemony was fragmented because it was part of the authority that ruled and governed Iraq. To make matters worse, Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr directed his arrows against his partners in government, as though the street demonstrations did not target him, the politician controlling the largest number of Iraqi deputies, ministers and state officials, who had participated in the government for more than ten years.

LqOFXBkZ.jpg-medium

Major General Soleimani admonished Moqtada Al-Sadr for his stances, which contributed to undermining the Iraqi ranks because the Sadrist leader did not offer an alternative solution or practical project other than the chaos. Moqtada has his own men, the feared Saraya al-Salam, present in the street.

When US Defense Secretary Mark Esper called Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi on December 28 and informed him of America’s intentions of hitting Iraqi security targets inside Iraq, including the PMU, Soleimani was very disappointed by Abdul-Mahdi’s failure to effectively oppose Esper. Abdul-Mahdi merely told Esper that the proposed US action was dangerous. Soleimani knew that the US would not have hit Iraqi targets had Abdul-Mahdi dared to oppose the US decision. The targeted areas were a common Iranian-Iraqi operational stage to monitor and control ISIS movements on the borders with Syria and Iraq. The US would have reversed its decision had the Iraqi Prime Minister threatened the US with retaliation in the event that Iraqi forces were bombed and killed. After all, the US had no legal right to attack any objective in Iraq without the agreement of the Iraqi government. This decision was the moment when Iraq has lost its sovereignty and the US took control of the country.

This effective US control is another reason why President Trump gave the green light to kill Major General Soleimani. The Iraqi front had demonstrated its weakness and also, it was necessary to select a strong Iraqi leader with the guts to stand to the US arrogance and unlawful actions.

ENhXiSdWkAEtjhC

Iran has never controlled Iraq, as most analysts mistakenly believe and speculate. For years, the US has worked hard in the corridors of the Iraqi political leadership lobby for its own interests. The most energetic of its agents was US Presidential envoy Brett McGurk, who clearly realised the difficulties of navigating inside Iraqi leaders’ corridors during the search for a prime minister of Iraq before the appointment of Adel Abdel Mahdi, the selection of President Barham Saleh and other governments in the past. Major General Soleimani and McGurk shared an understanding of these difficulties. Both understood the nature of the Iraqi political quagmire.

Soleimani did not give orders to fire missiles at US bases or attack the US Embassy. If it was in his hands to destroy them with accurate missiles and to remove the entire embassy from its place without repercussions, he would not have hesitated. But the Iraqis have their own opinions, methods, modus operandi and selection of targets and missile calibres; they never relied on Soleimani for such decisions.

Iranian involvement in Iraqi affairs was never welcomed by the Marjaiya in Najaf, even if it agreed to receive Soleimani on a few occasions. They clashed over the reelection of Nuri al-Maliki, Soleimani’s preferred candidate, to the point that the Marjaiya wrote a letter making its refusal of al-Maliki explicit. This led to the selection of Abadi as prime minister.

Soleimani’s views contradicted the perception of the Marjaiya, that had to write a clear message, firstly, to reject the re-election of Nori al-Maliki to a third session, despite Soleimani’s insistence.

PHOTO-2020-01-05-13-06-52

All of the above is related to the stage that followed the 2011 departure of US forces from Iraq under President Obama. Prior to that, Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis was the link between the Iraqis and Iran: he had the decision-making power, the vision, the support of various groups, and effectively served as the representative of Soleimani, who did not interfere in the details. These Iraqi groups met with Soleimani often in Iran; Soleimani rarely travelled to Iraq during the period of heavy US military presence.

Soleimani, although he was the leader of the “Axis of the Resistance”, was sometimes called “the king” in some circles because his name evokes Solomon. According to sources within the “Axis of the Resistance”, he “never dictated his own policy but left a margin of movement and decision to all leaders of the axis without exception. Therefore, he was considered the link between this axis and the supreme leader Sayyed Ali Khamenei. Soleimani was able to contact Sayyed Khamenei at any time and directly without mediation. The Leader of the revolution considered Soleimani as his son.

According to sources, in Syria, Soleimani “never hesitated to jump inside a truck, ride an ordinary car, take the first helicopter, or travel on a transport or cargo plane as needed. He did not take any security precautions but used his phone (which he called a companion spy) freely because he believed that when the decision came to assassinate him, he would follow his destiny.  He looked forward to becoming a martyr because he had already lived long.”

Was the leader of the “resistance axis” managing and running it?

ENhVh1pWsAA9rPJ

Sayyed Ali Khamenei told Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah: “You are an Arab and the Arabs accept you more than they accept Iran”. Sayyed Nasrallah directed and managed the axis of Lebanon, Syria and Yemen and had an important role in Iraq. Hajj Soleimani was the liaison between the axis of the resistance and Iran and he was the financial and logistical officer. According to my source, “He was a friend of all leaders and officials of all ranks. He was humble and looked after everyone he had to deal with”.

The “Axis of Resistance” indirectly allowed the killing of Qassem Soleimani. If Israel and the US could know Sayyed Nasrallah’s whereabouts, they would not hesitate a moment to assassinate him. They may be aware: the reaction may be limited to burning flags and holding conferences and manifesting in front of an embassy. Of course, this kind of reaction does not deter President Trump who wants to be re-elected with the support of Israel and US public opinion. He wants to present himself as a warrior and determined leader who loves battle and killing.

Iran invested 40 years building the “Axis of the Resistance”. It cannot remain idle, faced with the assassination of the Leader of this axis. Would a suitable price be the US exit from Iraq and condemnation in the Security Council? Would that, together with withdrawal from the nuclear deal, be enough for Iran to avenge its General? Will the ensuing battle be confined to the Iraqi stage? Will it be used for the victory of certain Iraqi political players?

The assassination of its leader represents the supreme test for the Axis of Resistance. All sides, friend and foe, are awaiting its response.

Proofread by  C.G.B. and Maurice Brasher

6 IDF or USAF F-35s Were Reportedly On Iran’s Border at Time of Ukrainian Jet Shoot-Down

6 F-35 jets were reportedly on Iran’s borders at time of plane crash: Russia

US Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) (L) talks with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) during a rally with fellow Democrats before voting on H.R. 1, or the People Act, on the East Steps of the US Capitol on March 08, 2019 in Washington, DC. (AFP photo)

Acting Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov gives a press conference, in Moscow, Russia, on January 17, 2020. (Photo by AFP)

Acting Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov says there is unverified information that at least six American F-35 jets were “in the Iranian border area” at the time when Iran accidentally downed Ukraine International Airlines flight PS752 last week.

“This information has yet to be verified, but I’d like to underline the edginess that always accompanies such situations,” he said on Friday.

Lavrov stressed that it was important to understand the context of the incident, which occurred as Iran was on very high alert after retaliating against Washington’s assassination of Lieutenant General Qassem Soleimani.

“There is information that the Iranians were expecting another attack from the United States after the strike but did not know what form it might take,” Lavrov said.

The Russian foreign minister added that he was not trying to excuse anyone for the incident.

On January 8, the Ukrainian plane crashed minutes after take-off near the capital, Tehran, while en route to Kiev. The incident led to the death of all of the 176 people on board, most of whom were Iranians.

Iran initially attributed the crash to technical failure but ultimately announced that the plane had been brought down by a missile fired due to “human error” after conducting further investigations.

‘Very serious red flag’

Speaking on Friday, the Russian foreign minister also said that the tragic downing of the Ukrainian plane served as a “very serious red flag” that signaled a need to “start working on de-escalation and not on constant threats.”

“An increase in tensions between Iran and the US will not help settle any single crisis in the region, if only because the tensions will be increasing,” he said.

Lavrov added that Washington’s “unprecedented” assassination of Soleimani “undermined and put into question all imaginable norms of international law.”

According to Iraqi officials, Soleimani had been invited to Iraq as a formal guest of the Iraqi government when he was targeted by a US drone strike at Baghdad International Airport.