Featured image: Humvees are stored inside the Frigaard Cave in central Norway. The cave is one of six caves that are part of the Marine Corps Prepositioning Program-Norway, which supports the equipping of Marine Expeditionary Brigade consisting of 15,000 Marines and with supplies for up to 30 days. (U.S.

Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Marcin Platek)

US Militarization of Scandinavia: Less Than a Year After First US Base in Norway, a Second One in the Offing

Terje Maloy| Global Research | Oct. 13, 2017

In these days, when the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), it might be worth having a look at what the Norwegian military actually is up to.

In January 2017, the first US Marine Corps base in Norway became operational. It is located in Værnes, in the middle of this long rugged country. The base agreement is notionally on a ‘temporary rotating basis’. Norwegian politicians, with a straight face, insists the 330 Marines are always approved only for six months at the time, even though US budget documents clearly show that the Marine Corps routinely budget for this base several years ahead.

Now there are rumours of the establishment of a second US Marine Corps base, this time several hundred kilometres closer to the Russian border. The location mentioned  is Setermoen, a major hub for the Norwegian forces. The Ministry of Defence have as usual issued a denial, but it is confirmed that general Robert Neller, supreme commander of the US Marine Corps, was shown round the garrison area last week. The timeframe mentioned is a rather hurried stationing sometimes in 2018. The budget document also mentions building of hangars. Værnes is indeed next to an airport, but the use of  ‘location TBD’, could indicate the planning of a third base, possibly Evenes airport, close to Setermoen.

Since NATO was founded in 1949, the country has to some degree followed a policy of caution. Norway will not “conclude any agreement with other states which imposes obligations on Norway to open up bases for foreign powers’ forces in Norwegian territory, as long as Norway is not attacked or threatened with attacks”, as the policy was formulated. It lasted the entire cold war, but with the new base in January 2017, things have changed.

Full integration in the US/NATO military machine

The old concept was essentially a straightforward one – the Norwegian army would be responsible for the defence of Norway. In the last few years, and  in the planning for the coming ones, this concept is scrapped. A new concept, of close integration and intermeshing with foreign armies, is replacing it. This is a trend in many European  armies.

For example, the Norwegian army has a unit stationed  in Lithuania, and contingents with the NATO-rapid reaction force. As a replacement, foreign troops will be stationed in Norway. There is talk of joint headquarters in the NATO framework As a result, the budget for the Home Guards will be slashed. Several top military leaders have complained that such priorities will hollow out the core duty of territorial defence.

Another example are the choices made in purchasing  new equipment.

Source: Midt i fleisen

Norway buys a new generation of maritime patrol planes

Just a few years ago the purchase of 5 P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol planes was dismissed as to expensive. It would take away money from other areas. It is an advanced plane, and not many countries in the world, especially small ones, see the need for it. Purchasers so far are fairly large military forces like Australia, UK and India.

A steady stream of lobbying from one top US official after another seems to have opened  the wallet. Some indirect opposition has come from the defence forces themselves. The chief of the Norwegian army has earlier declared that if the land forces did not receive more funding, one would require allied troops on Norwegian soil. Of course, Norway has a rather large military budget. It is not the level of funding, but the priorities, like this extravagant plane purchase and the F-35, that  forces the hand.

P-8A Poseidon is equipped with torpedoes that can be dropped from  great height. The plane has advanced manoeuvrable rockets, and  is able to work together with the US drone MQ-4C Triton. It is a anti-submarine plane, designed for the task of chasing down Russian  submarines filled with nuclear missiles able to hit US cities.

The purchase of the planes is officially priced at 9.8 billion NOK (1.2 billion USD). The real price is much higher, but would to some degree be offset by US subsidies.

There is plenty of historical precedent for this arrangement. During the cold war, Norwegian military intelligence was in effect a subsidiary of the US. Even as late as 1992, approximately 50 percent of  Norwegian military intelligence staff worked on US funded projects. And what sort of  projects are these?

Norway as an important part of nuclear war

The main thing to keep in mind is the immense strategic usefulness of Norway in a war against Russia. On the Kola peninsula, just a few miles from the border, are the home bases of the Russian Northern Fleet, with its many strategic submarines. For geographical reasons – ice-free harbours – this peninsula is where the main Russian fleet units are, and has to be, based. A bit like Crimea, only much more sensitive.

Several invaluable services in this SIGNIT-cooperation are provided the Globus II/III radar complexes, in the town of Vardø. This is nominally a Norwegian project, but funded by the US and supervised by the US Air Force Space Command. Since Globus III will be able to track space objects as small as a baseball, it is – as usual with official denials – a part of the US ABM-system. Other radar and SIGNINT-stations, including on officially demilitarized Svalbard, are of high military interest. But they are not there only to keep an eye on any Russian activity.

Since this area provides the shortest flight path to Moscow, US ballistic missile submarines are  stationed in the Norwegian Sea. To research possible problems with launches, the Andøya  rocket test base was established in 1962, again with heavy US subsidies. (As anyone who has ever been there would know, the island is a really windswept place, and would be an unlikely place  to place a rocket firing range for any other reasons). One of its missions was to supply telemetric data, since the trajectory and atmospheric conditions for these scientific rockets are virtually identical to the Trident ballistic missiles that would be fired from these submarines. One could also use these test rockets to gauge how the USSR missile warning system would respond.

Over the years, the northern parts of Norway  has been home to many SIGNINT projects. As often as not, the information gathered was not shared with Norway.

All (sensor)eyes on the main target: The Russian nuclear submarine bases on the Kola peninsula

Apart from SIGNINT, Norway has recently found itself in the position of having a more aggressive military posture. Three new F-35 Lighting from Lockheed-Martin are scheduled to be in service by November, the first of 52 of these planes. Barely usable for traditional interception, these planes are designed to carry missiles and precision bombs to target deep inside enemy territory.

Similar upgrades of sea based missiles systems have the same capabilities, to knock out enemy bases from a long distance. As part of an area based missile defence system, in case of a first strike on Russian nuclear assets, these ships might be able to eliminate any remaining Russian missile launchers that manage to survive.

This is tacitly admitted (presented as a response to a Russian invasion) in the Norwegian military’s own strategy documents (leaked draft version 3.1.2.4), where they acknowledge that for the Russians, the northernmost part of Norway “would appear to be an open corridor for attacks with planes and cruise missiles”, the very systems that are being purchased.

The US have put lots of effort into researching how to knock out these bases. They are buried deep underground, in a geologically very hard type of rock. In the 1990’s, after the end of the cold war, the US Nuclear Defence Agency, responsible for researching new nuclear weapons, did several test explosions in an abandoned  mine shaft just a few kilometres from  the Russian border. The purpose of the tests was to see what sort of (nuclear) strikes would be required to penetrate this type of rock.

Conclusion

So in case of a conflict, one could find the ridiculous situation that the bulk of Norwegian forces are stationed far away, whilst home territory becomes a playground for the US Marine Corps. These units might have their own objectives apart from territorial defence.

At the same time, the deep integration into US nuclear war systems will make Norwegian participation inevitable; antisubmarine-planes chasing Russian nuclear strategic submarines; radars being vital to any nuclear strike or ABM-systems; F35 and advanced missiles that only are good for hitting Russian bases. In a tense situation where both Russia and the US are upgrading their Arctic capabilities, one can question the wisdom of insisting on being such an eager part of the encirclement of Russia, in what is obviously a drive for war.


Terje Maloy is a Norwegian/Australian blogger and translator. This article is Creative Commons for non-commercial purposes.

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Terje Maloy, Global Research, 2017

What Did Washington Achieve in its Six Year War on Syria?

Ron Paul | October 2, 2017

Now that the defeat of ISIS in Syria appears imminent, with the Syrian army clearing out some of the last ISIS strongholds in the east, Washington’s interventionists are searching for new excuses to maintain the illegal US military presence in the country. Their original rationale for intervention has long been exposed as another lie.

Remember that President Obama initially involved the US military in Iraq and Syria to “prevent genocide” of the Yazidis and promised the operation would not drift into US “boots on the ground.” That was three years ago and the US military became steadily more involved while Congress continued to dodge its Constitutional obligations. The US even built military bases in Syria despite having no permission to do so! Imagine if Syria started building military bases here in the US against our wishes.

After six years of war the Syrian government has nearly defeated ISIS and al-Qaeda and the US-backed “moderates” turned out to be either Islamist extremists or Kurdish soldiers for hire. According to a recent report, the US has shipped two billion dollars worth of weapons to fighters in Syria via eastern Europe. Much of these weapons ended up in the hands of ISIS directly, or indirectly through “moderates” taking their weapons with them while joining ISIS or al-Qaeda.

“Assad must go,” proclaimed President Obama back in 2011, as he claimed that the Syrian leader was committing genocide against his own people and that regime change was the only way to save Syrians. Then earlier this year, when eastern Aleppo was about to be liberated by the Syrian government, the neocons warned that Assad would move in and kill all the inhabitants. They warned that the population of eastern Aleppo would flee from the Syrian army. But something very different happened. According to the UN’s International Organization for Migration, 600,000 refugees returned to Syria by August. Half of the returnees went back to Aleppo, where we were told Assad was waiting to kill them.

What happened? The neocons and “humanitarian interventionists” lied. Just as they lied about Libya, Iraq, and so on.

While it was mostly ignored by the mainstream media, just this week a Christian was elected speaker of the Syrian parliament. The new speaker is a 58-year-old Orthodox Christian law graduate and member of President Assad’s Baath party.

How many Christians does our “ally” Saudi Arabia have in its parliament? Oh I forgot, Saudi Arabia has no elected parliament.

Why does it seem that US policy in the Middle East always hurts Christians the most? In Iraq, Christians suffered disproportionately from the 2003 US invasion. In fact there are hardly any Christians left. Why aren’t more US Christian groups demanding that the US get out of the Middle East?

The US is not about to leave on its own. With ISIS all but defeated in Syria, many in Washington are calling for the US military to continue its illegal occupation of parts of the country to protect against Iranian influence! Of course before the US military actions in Iraq and Syria there was far less Iranian influence in the region! So US foreign interventionism is producing new problems that can only be solved by more US interventionism? The military industrial complex could not have dreamed of a better scheme to rob the American people while enriching themselves!

What have we achieved in Syria? Nothing good.


Originally posted at Ron Paul Institute

 

US Officials Are Literally Offended Because South Korea Doesn’t Want War with the North

  James Holbrooks | Anti-Media | September 29, 2017

 On Thursday, The Korea Timesreported that back in July, when President Moon Jae-inproposed that South Korea conduct talks with the North, the United States was offended. The revelation comes by way of comments from one of the South Korean leader’s envoys while he was speaking at a ceremony.

“The U.S. was deeply disgruntled by Seoul’s offer for military talks,” said Moon Chung-in, special advisor for unification and national security affairs. “U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson lodged a complaint to Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-wha in harsh tones.”

At the time, Moon-Jae in was an incoming president and tensions with North Korea weren’t nearly as strained as they are currently.From CNN on July 17:

“South Korea’s new government is making overtures to the North, proposing military talks at the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) that separates the two rivals.

“In an attempt to defuse rising tensions on the Korean Peninsula, South Korea’s Defense Ministry has proposed talks between representatives of the two countries’ militaries on July 21 at Tongil-gak on the North Korean side of Panmunjom, the so-called truce village in the DMZ.”

On Thursday, the South Korean president, who was also at the ceremony, reiterated his position that communication between the two neighbors on the Korean Peninsula is the key to de-escalating the situation.

“Military dialogue should be resumed urgently to ease tensions between the two countries,” Moonsaid, according to The Korea Times.

On Friday, in its announcement of the president’s upcoming trip to Asia, the Trump administration said a top priority during his visit will be convincing leaders that the U.S. strategy against the regime of Kim Jong-un is the correct one. From the White Housepress release:

“The President’s engagements will strengthen the international resolve to confront the North Korean threat and ensure the complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.”

The U.S. strategy, as anyone following the situation can attest, issanctions. The United States believes the right amount of economic pressure will eventually force Kim to abandon his nuclear program.

Little commentary has been made by the mainstream media about how these economic strikes are affecting the average citizens of North Korea, but the New York Times touched on that aspect Friday. From thearticle:

“North Korea said on Friday that American-led international sanctions were causing ‘colossal’ damages in the impoverished country, but added that it would be foolish for Washington to think the sanctions would stop the country’s nuclear weapons programs.

“North Korean officials recently set up a committee to investigate the damages that the sanctions have caused on the country’s economy and the well-being of the population. The committee’s work was designed to draw international sympathy by highlighting the sufferings of North Korean children, women and elderly people, analysts said.”

The statement, issued by the Sanctions Damages Investigation Committee andpublished by the state-run Korean Central News Agency, goes on to call the U.S.-led sanctions “a brutal criminal act that indiscriminately infringes upon the right to existence of the peaceful civilians.”

The committee further states the “colossal” amount of damage to people’s livelihoods is “beyond anyone’s calculation.”

Trump Slams US and Saudi Foreign Policy in Fiery UN Speech

ANTIMEDIA | Sept. 20, 2017

(ANTIMEDIA Op-ed) In a bold move, President Trump condemned the violent, oppressive behavior and policies of the U.S. and its allies while speaking at the U.N. this week.

He described the decline of “a wealthy country, with a rich history and culture, into an economically depleted rogue state whose chief exports are violence, bloodshed, and chaos.”

His description accurately fits the United States, which has devolved from a country with high-minded (if not fully realized) ideals, courageous struggles for human and civil rights, and a strong sense of independence into a nationalistic, militant nation with a fledgling economy and an increasingly impoverished population whose government has spent its wealth arming radical extremists and waging endless war. The U.S. government has sowed chaos around the world over the years, from Iran to Iraq to Libya to Chile and Guatemala, spilling the blood of countless innocents as it plays geopolitical chess to favor its own hegemonic interests.

Sad!

Trump also called out the despicable behavior of U.S. allies, blasting entities that use their oil profits to support “terrorists that kill innocent Muslims.” He asserted that such wealth is used to “fuel Yemen’s civil war, and undermine peace throughout the entire Middle East,” an apt description of the Saudi Arabian Kingdom.

We cannot let a murderous regime continue these destabilizing activities…,” he bravely said.

Further, apparently condemning the behavior of both the U.S. and its allies, Trump warned that evildoers “must stop supporting terrorists, begin serving [their] own people, and respect the sovereign rights of [their] neighbors.

It is easy to make the case that the Saudis themselves are engaging in terrorism by directly targeting civilians in Yemen for a political purpose.

During his speech at the U.N., Trump described all of the behavior displayed by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia — but he wasn’t talking about either. In all of the excerpts listed above, he was unironically talking about Iran, condemning the admittedly repressive regime for the exact same crimes the U.S. government and its allies commit.

The U.S. is responsible both for war crimes and for arming radical Islamists — who Trump loves to condemn — from the mujahideen in the 1980s to “moderate” (read: al-Qaeda-affiliated) rebels in Syria. The U.S. and its allies have grotesquely violated the “sovereign rights” of countries around the world for decades, and the Saudis are actively violating the rights of their neighbor, Yemen, using American-made weapons to maintain power for their murderous regime while they destabilize the region.The Saudis have been documented supporting ISIS and using their oil profits to export radical ideologies while beheadingflogging, and attempting to crucify political dissidents at home (candidate Trump condemned the Saudis’ alleged support for terrorism before selling them billions of dollars in arms as president; he also criticized their human rights record while before he rose to power).

Laughably, in his speech he bragged about the U.S.’ success in battling ISIS in Syria, completely ignoring Iranian-backed militias’ contributions to defeating the terror group while actually respecting Syria’s sovereignty (Iran is an ally of the Syrian government whereas the U.S. does not have official authorization to be there).

Further, Trump’s own administration has admitted Iran is complying with the nuclear deal Trump vehemently condemns. “No nation on Earth has an interest in seeing this band of criminals arm itself with nuclear weapons and missiles,” he said at the U.N.

He bemoaned the possibility of other countries like Iran and North Korea having nuclear weapons while his own war criminal government holds one of the largest caches of nukes in the world and is the only country to have ever intentionally used them on civilian populations.

Even worse, Trump’s claims about Iran’s undemocratic government may be true, but this modern reality did not come about absent American influence. The Iranian regime is repressive. It does support terror groups like Hezbollah (though Hezbollah is far less globally influential than ISIS, which, again, the Saudis have been exposed for fostering and funding). Iran’s government is no friend to freedom, but how did Iran get to this point?

Might it have something to do with, yet again, the U.S. government’s own flagrant disrespect for the sovereignty of other nations? Its own proliferation of bloodshed and chaos? Is toppling Iran’s democratically elected government for the sake of oil profits in 1953 — installing the ousted leader with an autocratic shah — supposed to qualify as ‘respecting sovereign rights’? Is the world supposed to pretend that over two decades of such an oppressive, American-installed monarch were entirely unrelated to the reactionary Iranian revolution that broke out against that ruler in 1979 and the political conditions that have developed since?

As the president grandstands to the world, boasting of American compassion and spewing American exceptionalism while condemning his enemies for the exact same behavior of the empire he now rules over, it is clear the emperor has no clothes.

  Originally posted at ANTI-MEDIA

 


 


Widget not in any sidebars

Shifting The Blame: How US Made Iran Responsible For 9/11

 

 Eric Zuesse | May 29, 2017 

 

The official U.S. government line is that Iran is the main country responsible for the 9/11 attacks in America. On 9 March 2016, a U.S. civil court ruled that Iran must pay to some victims of the 9/11 attacks $10.5 billion in fines, and the Obama Administration had no comment, so the U.S. press ignored the verdict almost totally. But this verdict was the only official U.S. court ruling thus far about state-sponsorship of the 9/11 attacks, 16 years after the event. It was therefore huge news on 9 March 2016 — it created a precedent, for the U.S. government to allege that Iran had caused the 9/11 attacks and is consequently ‘the number one terrorist state’ (as Israelis have long claimed). But it received very little coverage at the time.



The event’s significance was the precedent that this verdict set, but most of the ‘news’media simply didn’t report this important precedent: it was the first official U.S. governmental conclusion alleging that Iran had, in effect, ‘invaded’ America, on 11 September 2001; and, yet, even now, no one is saying that Iran invaded the U.S. on 9/11, because the U.S. government isn’t yet trying to prepare the public to support an invasion of Iran by American forces. Still, this precedent could become the start for such preparation, if neither of America’s Iran-hating ‘allies’, Israel and/or Saudi Arabia, can be induced to invade.

President Trump, on May 20th, advanced toward the possibility of invading Iran, a long way, when he announced a record-shattering $350 billion sale of U.S.-made weapons to Saudi Arabia, and the White House said “This package of defense equipment and services support the long-term security of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf region in the face of Iranian threats”. The symbolism here was that Saudi Arabia is America’s ally, and that Iran is America’s enemy. The stage is set, in case a U.S. President will want to take that stage.

President Trump, on 5 February 2017, was asked in a Super Bowl television interview, what his policies would be regarding Iran, and he answered (video here, transcript here): “They have total disregard for our country. They are the number one terrorist state”. (When he was running for the U.S. Presidency, in 2016, he had spoken only about Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia’s role on the World Trade Center and the attack. That’s very serious stuff. It’s sort of nice to know who your friends are and perhaps who your enemies are». But now that he was the U.S. President, and his biggest initial American jobs achievement — already in the works during his Presidency’s start — would be an all-time record high $350 billion sale of U.S.-made weapons to the Sauds, Trump as President has been mentioning the Sauds only as ‘allies’, no longer as supporters of terrorism.)

All of the information that’s known about Iran’s actual role in 9/11 is contained in the judge’s 22 December 2011 “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” in the civil court case, which the judge stated solely upon the basis of the research that the law firm for the suing American victims had set forth. Basically, what their case came down to is that some of the 9/11 hijackers had travelled through Iran prior to 9/11. Among those “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” were no allegations of evidence to prove that Iran had participated in the planning of the 9/11 attacks, nor of any Iranians paying any of the hijackers. However, one anti-government Iranian, named Mesbahi, referred to a flight simulator that maybe had been purchased from Iran, and he was alleged to have said that he “believes that the simulator was probably used to train the 9/11 hijacker pilots”. That’s all. For these things, the judge fined the Iranian government $10.5B, and told the suing victims to get the money any way they could (which might be not at all, since Iran mocked and rejected the verdict — but the precedent for ‘Iran caused 9/11’ was set).

What, then, was the reality of Iran and the 9/11 attacks? Even the civil suit’s claimants didn’t allege anything substantial for the period prior to 9/11, but what about the period since 9/11?

On 23 May 2013, FBI Agent Daniel A. Mehochko was honored by a U.S. military School of Advanced Military Studies, for “writing the best monograph in the AOASF [that school’s] program” and this 104-page study was titled “Iran’s Post 9/11 Grand Bargain: Missed Opportunity for Strategic Rapprochement Between Iran and the United States”. Its “Abstract” and “Conclusion” say:

The events of 9/11 … provided an unprecedented opportunity for a strategic rapprochement between the United States and Iran. After 9/11, Iran not only denounced the attacks and cooperated with the United States in Afghanistan, but also offered to negotiate a comprehensive resolution of differences with no preconditions.

The failure to recognize the impact of the 1953 coup on Iran’s collective identity, and subsequent policy decisions in support of the shah, only reinforced the view that the United States was the primary source of Persian humiliation. … The Bush neoconservatives, dominating the NSC policy formulation process, viewed Iran through the same lens they viewed al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Saddam Hussein. Americans have a short attention span: the administration responded to Iran through the context of 1979, yet few considered that most Iranians still viewed America through the events of 1953. Regime change was the wrong policy for Iran. The militarized foreign policy approach that the administration thought worked so well in Afghanistan and Iraq was not relevant to Iran. As the Bush administration was about to discover, one cannot apply a singular policy to the complexity of the Middle East. The Bush Doctrine did just that.

Trump is continuing George W. Bush’s policy.

Mehochko wrote, on page 52:

Iran’s response to 9/11 surprised many observers: spontaneous candlelight vigils in Tehran mourned the American dead, the mayors of Tehran and Isfahan sent condolence messages to the people of New York City, and Iranians observed a moment of silence before a national soccer match. The Iranian government issued a strong statement condemning the terrorist attacks, and President Khatami publicly expressed his «deep regret and sympathy with the victims». During his November visit to the UN General Assembly, Khatami went so far as to request permission to visit ground zero in order to offer prayers and light a candle for the victims.88

On page 55:

At the January 2002 Afghanistan Donors Conference in Tokyo, Iran pledged $540 million in assistance for the new Afghan government, compared to the $290 million committed by the United States. While in Tokyo, an Iranian representative approached Dobbins and expressed his desire to not only continue cooperation in Afghanistan, but work on other issues with the appropriate American officials. At this same conference, Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill received a similar message from the Iranian government. Both Dobbins and O’Neill reported Iran’s offers to Rice and Powell, but no reply was given to Iran. Later, during a March 2002 meeting in Geneva, the Iranian delegation met again with Dobbins, and offered military assistance to house and train up to 20,000 Afghan troops under the American led effort. Dobbins relayed this offer to the administration, but Powell deferred the issue to Rice, who deferred the issue to Rumsfeld. Days later, the issue was on the agenda for discussion at a NSC Principals Committee meeting. During the meeting, Dobbins relayed Iran’s offer, but Rumsfeld ignored the issue, and no one else seemed interested.

Page 59:

In October 2001, Flynt Leverett, Middle East expert for the Department of State’s Policy Planning Staff, was responsible for developing a strategy to address the offers of support from Syria, Libya, Iran, and other troublesome countries. Leverett’s proposal to Powell was basically a quid pro quo engagement: if these countries agree to expel terrorist groups and cease efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, the United States, in return, will normalize relations. In December, when this policy proposal came up for discussion at a NSC Deputies Committee meeting (chaired by Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley), Hadley, as well as the representatives from the vice president’s office and the OSD, rejected the idea.

Then, Mehochko stated: “The Pentagon was already exploring options for regime change in Tehran”. Furthermore: “Israel and Pakistan were also alarmed about the increased cooperation between Iran and the United States”.

On page 65, Mehochko quoted from President Bush’s State of the Union Address on 29 January 2002:

Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September 11th, but we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens. Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people’s hope for freedom. Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade…States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.

Clearly, the U.S. is set upon conquest. First, Afghanistan was invaded; then, Iraq; then, Libya; then, Syria — all of them destroyed (and radicalized — which the U.S. started in Afghanistan back in 1979). Perhaps Iran will be next. What is the point of anyone’s trusting a government like that?

Mehochko’s report ignored the fact that the Islamic world is split between Sunnis, led by Saudi Arabia, versus Shiites, led by Iran, and that the Sauds’ desire to exterminate all Shia goes back at least to the 1744 compact between Muhammad ibn Saud and Muhammad ibn Wahhab, which formed Saudi Arabia, in a compact of hate. Mehochko’s report ignores the crucial alliance between the U.S. and the Saud family. Mehochko ignores that the U.S. co-founded Al Qaeda along with the Sauds in 1979 in order to conquer Russia, which the American aristocracy hate, and conquer Iran, which the Saudi aristocracy hate. But compared to what most American officials and military and intelligence operatives and scholars write about Iran and the nations that are friendly toward it, Mehochko’s paper was remarkably honest, so it’s cited here.

The U.S. government has and hides massive reams of rock-solid evidence that leaders of the Saud family, which is the royal family who own all of Saudi Arabia, not only were the top funders of Al Qaeda and of the 9/11 attacks, but continued afterward being the world’s top funders of not only Al Qaeda but also of many of the other jihadist groups that accept and follow Al Qaeda’s leadership.

If Trump were sincere, then, he would instead publicly expose the fraud that U.S. foreign policy has been based upon, and he would expose the historical record, which proves that the U.S. should be protecting Iran and its allies from the Saudi-led fundamentalist-Sunni war against Iran and against all of the world except Sunni-allied Israel and except Sunni-ruled countries. Russia and China and India would then become also U.S. allies, and the possibility of a globe-annihilating nuclear world war, WW III, would immediately plunge. Hundreds of trillions of dollars that will otherwise be spent on preparations for WW III would then go instead toward constructive expenditures. But something prevents American Presidents from doing any such thing as that. Apparently, America’s long war to conquer Iran, Russia, and China, must go on, no matter what. The 9/11 attacks kicked it into high gear.

First, the U.S. punished Afghanistan for 9/11. Then, the U.S. punished Iraq for 9/11. Then, the U.S. court said that Iran somehow was the nation guilty for 9/11. Then, the U.S. President said that Iran is ‘the number one terrorist state’.

The stage is set. But after an intermission, what will the remaining acts be? Has the script been written for what is to come? Does anyone know how the play that started on 9/11 will end?

All that can be concluded from the evidence thus far is that the Sauds did 9/11 with inside-job cooperation from George W. Bush, and that afterward, a country uninvolved in it — Iraq — was invaded and destroyed, and another country uninvolved in it — Iran — has recently become fined for having caused it.

 

Eric Zuesse is an American writer and investigative historian who writes for the Strategic Culture Foundation, where this article first appeared.

 


Widget not in any sidebars