Jerusalem is not the Capital of Israel nor are Zionists Real Jews: Part One


New Era World News and Global Intelligence Report. This article could easily be entitled: Is President Trump a Dispensational Zionist or just Theologically Illiterate?

PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS UNLEASHED an international and global sunami with his recent declaration that Jerusalem is the capital city of Israel. Every nation on earth (including the Vatican) except the United States and Israel has been opposed to the idea ever since Zionist nationalists cooperated with the British government to repopulate Palestine with Jewish immigrants in the wake of World War I. Prior to post-war British involvement, Jewish immigrants had already been returning to the Levant during the nineteenth century.  Unlike later Zionist inspired and British supported immigrants, these earlier settlers came for religious motives; they were Orthodox Jews devoted to the Torah.  They were not nationalist zealots willing to forcibly remove indigenous Muslim and Christian Arabs from their millennial homeland, nor were they part of the political-eschatological maneuver engineered by Zionist adepts, men and women who are experts at pretending to be Jews but are not (Rev 3:9; Rev 2:9). Consequently, it should not be surprising that an increasing number of authentic Orthodox Jews are voicing their opposition to Zionist occupation of the Levant.

l

https://youtu.be/zA5is7IcEqA

More Detailed Versions: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMQ9C6vni0w) and (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awCOSRg-gks)

According to scholars writing for the Middle East Research Project:

“Most of them (pre-Zionist Jewish settlers) observed traditional, orthodox religious practices. Many spent their time studying religious texts and depended on the charity of world Jewry for survival. Their attachment to the land was religious rather than national, and they were not involved in—or supportive of—the Zionist movement that began in Europe and was brought to Palestine by immigrants”.

In the first decades of the twentieth century Britain and France (assisted by the United States and what would later become Saudi Arabia) cooperated to defeat the Ottoman Empire and Germany in World War I. “By the end of 1916, the French had spent 1.25 million gold francs in subsidizing the (Arab) revolt. (against the Ottoman Empire)” Likewise, “by September 1918, the British were spending £220,000/month to subsidize the revolt.”  Britain promised their Hashemite (Arab) allies that following the war they would help the Arabs establish an independent state under indigenous rule in land carved from the defeated Ottoman Empire. Unfortunately for the Arabs, British authorities were simultaneously colluding with Zionist illusionists. Despite Arab hopes, by 1917, the same year the Mother of God appeared at Fatima, the British government inspired by its Foreign Minister, Lord Arthur Balfour, issued the “Balfour Declaration” thereby proclaiming its determined intent to establish a  “Jewish national home in Palestine.”

Successful establishment of a nationalist Zionist project in the Levant required the cooperation of French adepts who complemented Balfour’s efforts by concluding the so-called “Sykes-Picot Agreement”.  According to this agreement, former Ottoman controlled territories in the Levant were to be monitored by British and French forces who were to act as peace ministers in the newly manufactured Jewish and Arab enclaves.  This agreement was immediately confirmed by the League of Nations. Britain obtained what was referred to as a “mandate” (the legal instrument that contained the internationally agreed-upon terms for administering the territory on behalf of the League of Nations) over what is today

  • Jordan
  • Iraq and
  • Israel including the Gaza Strip and the West Bank of the Jordan River.

France, on the other hand, received the mandate over

  • Syria (an ancient Christian region) including the Golan Heights  and
  • Lebanon (having a Christian majority)

.

Image result for british mandate

.

Britain decided that the land west of the Jordan would be referred to as Palestine, and the area east of the ancient river would be referred to as “Transjordan”, which constituted three-fourths of the territory included in the Mandate to be ruled as per agreement by a Hashemite prince (Hashemite and Saud families vied for power throughout the region). Thus, King Faysal’s brother, Abdallah (Arab leader who assisted British against Ottoman Turks in WWI), became ruler of Transjordan – Faysal became King of Iraq after being defeated in Syria. The Sauds would consolidate power south to the Arabian Sea.

Despite assurances to its Hashemite allies to establish an independent Arab State, British authorities appeared to be more interested in the Zionist project, even if it meant disrupting the indigenous Palestinian population that had resided there for nearly two thousand years.

Naturally, Arab Palestinians insisted upon self-rule in Palestine as they enjoyed in Transjordan, so too did the newly arriving Zionists in Palestine; nonetheless, although the Palestinians whose ancestors had lived upon and cultivated the land since the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, although these same Palestinians had the stronger claim to self-rule, their claims were prejudicially ignored. Arabs living in Palestine therefore opposed the British Mandate because it thwarted their aspirations for self-rule. They understood that “the last thing the Zionists really wanted was that all the inhabitants of Palestine should have an equal say in running the country.”

Chaim Weizmann (Zionist leader and first president of Israel) had convinced Winston Churchill that representative government in Palestine (equal voting among Arabs and Jews) would have meant the end of the Jewish hopes for a National Home in Palestine. Thus, Churchill could be heard saying,

“The present form of (autocratic) government will continue (in Palestine) for many years. Step by step we shall develop representative institutions leading to full self-government, but our children’s children will have passed away before that is accomplished.” (David Hirst, “The Gun and the Olive Branch).

Jean Jacques Rousseau expressed a similar political astuteness over a century earlier. Although he seemed an advocate of representative government, no such government could exist in France until through annihilation, demographics favored a new secular elite and through education the people had been primned to vote the “correct” way.

Locating Jews on land previously belonging for centuries and millennia to Palestinians (Christians and Muslims) was probably not a good idea. Cognizant of this fact, British authorities were careful to name the area “Palestine” not “Israel”.  The more populous indigenous farmers of Palestine were poor and defenseless peasants. Nonetheless, Zionist settlers had the support of international Jewish organizations and of the British government. Consequently, the land was plagued with continual but lopsided conflict, conflict that favored Zionist settlers to the detriment of native Palestinians.

The League of Nations Mandate created so much trouble for the British that following World War II they asked the region be transferred to the newly established United Nations. Thus, before the League of Nations mandate terminated in 1948 the United Nations had already adopted Resolution 181 (November  29, 1947), which dealt with the future of Palestine. It envisaged the creation of separate Jewish and Arab states in Palestine, with Jerusalem being transferred to UN trusteeship.  British-Zionist forces operating within the UN did not wait long to implement their vision; on the last day of the League Mandate, they decided that Palestine (not including Transjordan) should be further divided to better represent the interest of both parties, i.e, Jews and Arabs. They therefore proclaimed their intent to create two States one Jewish, the other Arab. At this time the Jews, who owned roughly six percent of the land in Palestine, were bequeathed nearly 55% of the land, a massive increase from the British mandate.

This ideological imbalance in favor of the Jews was waged against the Palestinians from the beginning. Despite the fact that Palestinians outnumbered Jews nearly 2-1, the UN delegated the latter over half of the available land.  However, in recognition of their spiritual patrimonies, the UN was quick to re-affirm the League of Nations mandate that Jerusalem remain an International City a holy site sacred to Muslims, Jews and Christians. Jerusalem was therefore declared as an “International City”. It has been recognized by every nation on earth including the Vatican and the United States ever since, that is until President Trump made his recent announcement.

The recognition of Jerusalem as an international city was more than a gesture; it is an international spiritual, religious and political necessity. Nonetheless, it was not enough to keep temporal peace. Because their Christian and Muslim ancestors had labored for centuries to cultivate their land and make it fruitful, because militant Zionists had no legal right to these lands and rested their case on some specious outdated and already fulfilled prophecies, and because Christians and Muslims Arabs outnumber Zionists nearly 2-1, the Palestinians were understandably distraught with the UN plan. UN backed British-Zionists had crafted a plan that permitted unwelcome Jewish foreigners to dispossess rightful owners of land that had been in Christian and Muslim hands for centuries, a plan that made Christians vagabonds in their own homeland, a plan that justified property confiscation by religious zealots backed by international dollars and British military power, by a plan lacking all moral support, justified by Social-Darwinism, by a supposedly outdated Law of the Jungle: “might makes right”, because of these things, the Palestinians rightfully felt persecuted. But that was only the beginning – the newly arriving Zionists would not respect the boundaries designated by the United Nations.

ASIDE: The bond between Israel and England is deeply etched in English lore, in its music and cultural mores. If anyone doubts the British resolve to back the Zionists, the link between Zionism and British Masonry (the architects of King Solomon’s earthly temple), let him consider the unofficial British National Anthem, esp 1:01 and 2:08-2:28 in the musical video below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKRHWT6xdEU

.

Thus, within days of the UN partition, fighting broke out. Jewish nationalists backed by International Zionist Organizations, British support, and modern weaponry supplied through Czechoslovakia, simply out gunned their poorly equipped and under-trained peasant opponents. Not only did the Zionists occupy territories assigned to them by the UN, they continued an offensive assault throughout the West Bank claiming unprotected or poorly protected territories beyond established UN borders and thereafter claimed to legally incorporate them (despite their being in violation of International law) as part of Israel.  It was not until then (1948-49) that Egypt, Iraq, Syria, and Jordan (all but Egypt under French and British influence) responded militarily in an unsuccessful attempt to rescue Arabs from Zionist seizure and control.

Palestine had been home to both Christians and Muslims for nearly two thousand years. Thus, the nomenclature “Arab” should not be misconstrued to mean Muslim; it means both Muslim and Christian peoples of Arab descent.  Palestine is the land where Christ preached the eternal Gospel, where He suffered and died; it is the site where death was defeated: “O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting” (1 Cor 15:55)?  It is the land in which Christ established His everlasting Kingdom, the New Israel. Thus, when Zionist nationalists lashed out against Palestinians in the name of God, they were (and are) spilling Christian blood, while Dispensational Protestant Preachers, who forge unbreakable bonds between America and England, spin out an odd sort of eschatology calling for ever more money to be sent to support Israel against Christians.

.

https://youtu.be/n9FVLFILVig

Political-Zionist Cooperation: John Hagee Evangelical Pastor Crying for Military and Financial Support of Israel says Jewish people don’t need Christ.

As a result of Zionist intransigence, the Palestinian state planned by the UN never materialized and no one stood up against this flagrant violation of International Law. Instead, in the aftermath of the 1947 onslaught, Palestine was again divided, this time into three parts, each governed by a different authority designated by a boundary referred to as the “Green Line’. Israel expanded, grabbing nearly 20% of the land designated for the Palestinians; they now occupied nearly 80% of the entire land of Palestine despite substantial numeric inferiority. According to the UN’s 1947 partition plan, Jerusalem was to be an international city. However, the 1949 UN sponsored armistice cut the city in two; Jordan was assigned East Jerusalem (including the old walled city home of major Christian, Jewish, and Muslim religious sites), the West Bank or “Hill Country”  abutting the Jordan River and extending westward into the craggy regions of Palestine. Egypt assumed control of Gaza Strip. The Golan Heights remained in Syrian hands.

Despite the fact that Israel was referred to as a “state” no such designation was afforded the increasingly marginalized Palestinian Christians and Muslims.

Although no one manifestly assented  to the idea that “might makes right”; it was certainly the determining principle in this early act of Israeli aggression. Despite UN Resolutions to the contrary, lands seized from nearly 700,000 fleeing Palestinian civilians were never returned to their rightful occupants who were forced by Jewish immigrants to become fleeing refugees thereby affirming the accusation of hypocrisy hurled by Jesus at the Jews (Matt 7: 1-6).

“The first UN General Assembly Resolution—Number 194— affirming the right of Palestinians to return to their homes and property, was passed on December 11, 1948. It has been repassed no less than twenty-eight times since that first date. Whereas the moral and political right of a person to return to his place of uninterrupted residence is acknowledged everywhere, Israel has negated the possibility of return… [and] systematically and juridically made it impossible, on any grounds whatever, for the Arab Palestinian to return, be compensated for his property, or live in Israel as a citizen equal before the law with a Jewish Israeli” The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict, pg 12).

Article 11 expressly “Resolves”:

 that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible

Zionists did not like being made refugees but had (and continue to have) little problem making others suffer the same plight. Lord Balfour had little problem dealing with charges of hypocrisy. According to him,

In Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country…The four powers are committed to Zionism and Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long tradition, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desire and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land.” (Edward Said, “The Question of Palestine” pg. 16”).

.

Image result for "west bank" map

Furthermore,

“No British officers, consulted by the Commissioners, believed that the Zionist program could be carried out except by force of arms” (If America Knew).

Zionist leaders in Israel have been imbued with perverse ideas; they have relentlessly and illegally displaced Syrian and Palestinian people from the Golan Heights, West Bank and Gaza. As early as 1921, Dr. Eder, a Member of the British Zionist Commission, made known that from the beginning:

“The Zionists made no secret of their intentions, for  a member of the Zionist Commission, boldly told the Court of Inquiry, ‘there can be only one National Home in Palestine (not the promised two states), and that a Jewish one, and no equality in the partnership between Jews and Arabs, but a Jewish preponderance as soon as the numbers of the race are sufficiently increased.’ He then asked that only Jews should be allowed to bear arms” (The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict, pg 7).

Even David Ben-Gurion, founder of the State of Israel and its first Prime Minister, following an attempted Palestinian revolt recognized the hypocrisy of Zionism, what today we might call “Fake news”:

“…in our political argument abroad, we minimize Arab opposition to us,’ but he urged, ‘let us not ignore the truth among ourselves.’ The truth was that ‘politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves… The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country, while we are still outside’.”

The British commitment to Zionism, even under false pretenses was clearly recognized by American intellect Noam Chomsky who reported that,

“The revolt was crushed by the British, with considerable brutality” (The Fateful Triangle, pg 98).

In the aftermath, Mahatma Gandhi declared that although the Zionists claimed that God had for-ordained their military conquest of Palestine,

“A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They (the Zionists) can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs… As it is, they are co-sharers with the British in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them. I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regard as an unacceptable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds” (Virtual Jewish Library).

Echoing Ben-Gurion, Menahem Begin, founder of Likud and the sixth Prime Minister of Israel (before the creation of the state of Israel, the leader of the Zionist militant group Irgun), Begin eching Gurion informs us

“…how ‘in Jerusalem, as elsewhere, we were the first to pass from the defensive to the offensive…Arabs began to flee in terror…The Israelis now allege that the Palestine war began with the entry of the Arab armies into Palestine after 15 May 1948. But that was the second phase of the war; they overlook the massacres, expulsions and dispossessions which took place prior to that date (committed by the Zionists) and which necessitated Arab states’ intervention” (The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict, pg 10).

Fake News is not something new; it has been operative for quite a while. Jordan’s King Abdullah let the cat out of the bag when he informed Western sources that the Palestinians never stood a chance; their forces he said were “ill equipped and lacked any central command to coordinate their efforts”. Moreover, he promised the British and the Israelis that

“His troops, the Arab Legion, the only real fighting force among the Arab armies, would avoid fighting with Jewish settlements. Yet Western historians record this as the moment when the young state of Israel fought off “the overwhelming hordes’ of five Arab countries. In reality, the Israeli offensive against the Palestinians intensified” (If America Knew).

Concluding Part One, it may be stated that following the self-admitted 1947-48 Israeli aggression, Israel again showed its hypocrisy by refusing to concede to the Palestinians what it declared as a right for itself:

“Palestinians were trying to save by negotiations what they had lost in the war—a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Israel, however… Israel [preferred] tenuous armistice agreements to a definite peace that would involve territorial concessions and the repatriation of even a token number of refugees. The refusal to recognize the Palestinians’ right to self-determination and statehood proved over the years to be the main source of the turbulence, violence, and bloodshed that came to pass” (Israeli author, Simha Flapan, “The Birth Of Israel).

Vatican response to President Trump’s decree on Jerusalem:

.

https://youtu.be/YBDP6nixR9I

 

Short of Israel becoming a Christian State (something New Era is closer to forecasting), President Trump’s unilateral move is more than misguided; it is politically anti-peace and theologically anti-Christian.

Part Two Continued




Remembering 9-11: What is the True US Strategy in Afghanistan?


 (New Era World News)

AFGHANISTAN FELL UNDER Soviet control from 1978 until 1989 when the Communists withdrew. From 1978 onward the Soviet Union backed a secular Socialist government known as the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (DRA). In 1979 the DRA requested the Soviet Union to send forces into the country to assist them against indigenous forces headed by warlords known as the mujahideen. For ten years thereafter the Soviets engaged in war against these Islamic jihadists. During this time, radical Sunni Islamists from other countries, including Al Qaeda and its leader, leader Osama Ben Laden (Saudi Arabia), came to the assistance of the Mujahideen in which effort they were aided by the United States.

Following the importation of Osama Ben Laden, economic and military assistance as well as radical Islamic forces from around the globe began to funnel into Afghanistan with significant support coming from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.  Although the Soviets continued to support the DRA after their withdrawal in 1989, much of Afghanistan fell to the US backed Mujahideen who overthrew the DRA’s last president, Mohammad Najibullah in 1992. Thereafter, the Mujahideen fought among themselves and eventually morphed into what is now known as the Taliban, the force that sheltered Al Qaeda and the radical Sunni Muslims that planned terrorist attacks from their safe abode inside Afghanistan, including what many believe to be the planned attack against the United States known as 9-11.

Triggered by the 9-11 attacks of 2001, the United States has been militarily involved in Afghanistan against the Taliban for seventeen years, the longest war in American History. Yet according to Senator John McCain, not only is victory elusive, the US is losing the war:

 “We have no strategy. And we are losing. When you’re not winning, you’re losing. And the ANA, the Afghan National Army, is taking unacceptable losses” (CBS News July 2017).

At its peak (2010-2011) the United States deployed approximately 100,000 troops in Afghanistan. Then President Obama made the decision to begin withdraw. Although the Afghan mission was formally halted in December of 2014, eight thousand plus US troops remain stationed there to assist a NATO coalition (approximately five thousand troops) to train indigenous security personnel collectively referred to as the “Afghan National Defense and Security Forces”, which are currently engaged in joint-offensive military operations to combat terrorism throughout the country.
l
For decades multiple terrorist organizations, headed by the Taliban (see Note below), have disrupted political, social, and economic activity in the region. As noted above, prior to US involvement post 9-11, Soviet Communist troops dealt unsuccessfully with the Afghan mujahideen who, backed by the United States, forced the Soviets to retire (1989) from the exhausting confrontation ironically leaving the battle to the Americans who likewise later withdrew (2014), thereby handing the conflict to NATO and the American backed secular Afghan government and its “Afghan National Defense and Security Forces”. This government has also proved unable to handle the proliferating problem, a problem that now includes additional Islamic State (ISIL-Daesh) terrorists, who, together with the Taliban, control roughly a third of Afghanistan, at least as much as they previously controlled prior to the military engagement of the United States and its allies in November of 2001.
 l
 l
President Trump Addresses the Taliban
l
During a recent August, 2017 presidential address to the nation, President Trump reminded viewers that a previous early withdraw from Iraq cost America the war in that country. The lack of US troops permitted the uncontested, or poorly contested, ascendancy of the Islamic State, which has increased its zone of terror from western Iraq to Syria and to the east as well. Consequently, the president announced his firm resolve to beef up America’s involvement to end the conflict in Afghanistan by means of devastating force to be inflicted by American troops:

“We will fight to win. From now on, victory will have a clear definition: Attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing al Qaeda, preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan, and stopping mass terror attacks against America before they emerge” (CNN).

Although the Pentagon had previously (June, 2017) announced a deployment of up to 3,900 new troops to Afghanistan, that announcement cannot be taken as authoritative since the president announced in his August address that the numbers would remain unspecified to maintain the element of surprise necessary to conduct a successful campaign:

“America’s enemies must never know our plans or believe they can wait us out” (PBS News).

l

Will the President be Able to Institute a New Foreign Policy?

During his National Address (as well as during his presidential campaign), President Trump insisted that under his leadership the United States is embarking on a new foreign policy path: The US, he said, will no longer be involved in wars for the sake of nation building, but rather for peace and stability. Echoing the president, Secretary of State Tillerson specified that the United States would advance “peace talks” with the Taliban and allied terrorists without “preconditions.”  In other words, negotiations, so it seems, should be open to input from all concerned parties without any foreign agenda to be imposed.

Unfortunately, the president’s policy involves overt threats to neighboring Pakistan, a nation that has harbored Taliban insurgents seeking asylum by crossing the mountainous Afghan border into its equally mountainous regions, which have historically served as an incubator for terrorists threatening Afghanistan.  Rather than leaving this adroit diplomatic maneuver to the Chinese (deeply desirous for peace in the region) who have recently courted economic-political favor with the Pakistani government via  the New Silk Road Initiative (an economic boon for Pakistan), the president’s American bravado got the best of him thereby forcing him into a foreign policy faux pas, which will need correcting. If not corrected, relationships with Pakistan will continue to deteriorate driving them into further Chinese and Russian alliance.

Mr. Trump would do well to adhere to his campaign plan to cooperate with Russia and China to end terrorism rather than trying to do it solo or with NATO but without Russia and China or by flying in the face of Sino-Russo objections. Unfortunately, it behooves Neocon warhawks and their liberal allies in the United States to continue painting Russia as the bad guy when, in fact, a cooperative venture would do much to stabilize the war-torn region and advance global peace.

The world is groping for peace and the United States (apparently contrary to the wishes of its elected president) continues to make maneuvers that promise more and greater conflict. Recently (July 13, 2017), Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the President of Germany, visited German troops stationed in Afghanistan to whom he communicated Germany’s continued resolve to maintain its military presence in Afghanistan alongside the United States and other NATO allies; Steinmeier however, is looking for peace. Like President Trump as well as Russian and Chinese diplomats (and political leaders throughout Eastern Europe and elsewhere), Steinmeier seems to think that future peace entails the respect of national sovereignty and the curtailing of globalism, nation building or any form of neo-colonialism.”

In Steinmeier’s words to the troops, “I came to” Afghanistan to “speak with President Ghani about the steps that are needed and can be taken toward a serious and credible peace process in Afghanistan. My message to him today was”:

“The future of this country is not primarily in the hands of Germany, NATO or international donors. It is first and foremost in the hands of the Government of Afghanistan, and it hinges on the government’s efforts to unite this divided country. None of this will be possible without the acceptance of a central government in Kabul, without a political settlement with the various ethnic and religious groups, including the Taliban. That is part of the reality which we, but above all political leaders in Afghanistan, have to recognise. Your presence here cannot take the place of a political settlement. Your presence can only create both time and space for a political settlement, one that Afghans themselves must both desire and work out. Nothing more – but also nothing less” (Der Bundesprasident)

The German approach is inclusive, yet it leaves future decision making to the AFGHANS THEMSELVES, NOT TO SOME FOREIGN GLOBAL POWER OR INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION. This is the prefered position of President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin as well as that of Xi Jinping, President of China.  Unfortunately, Neocon Warhawks such as John McCain et al on the extreme right along with their army of liberal counterparts on the extreme left are committed to preserving an antedated status quo which views the United States as the world’s policeman and as God’s viceroy on earth entrusted with a “Manifest Destiny” to spread outdated eighteenth century liberal economic, political and anti-Christian cultural ideas around the globe.
 l
They hope thereby to make the world safe for liberal democracy via the global deployment of increasingly confused American troops who are beginning to wonder who the “good guy” really is and what exactly they are fighting for. CNN, President Trump’s favorite “Fake News outlet, has gone as far as asserting that Russia is supplying weapons to the Taliban, its sworn enemy in Afghanistan. The Russian response: “prove it” – “there is no evidence”.  According to Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

“We paid attention to the lampoon of the American CNN television channel about alleged supplies of weapons to the Afghan Taliban by Russia.”

l

“It is hardly possible to seriously perceive video materials in which old small arms are demonstrated, the origin of which is impossible to establish. The weapons are not stamped by the manufacturer and serial numbers are defaced. In addition, the weapons shown are typical. As is known, such samples were produced not only in Russia, but also in other countries, including Eastern Europe, from where in the early 2000s, Americans massively imported them to Afghanistan.”

l

“Recently, the Taliban attacked the base of the Afghan National Security Forces in Helmand province, using American armored vehicles “Humvee”. What conclusion can be drawn based on this information using the logic of CNN?”

l

“As we have repeatedly stated, the accusations of a number of Western and some echoing Afghan mass media regarding alleged support from the Russian Federation by the militants of the Taliban movement are unfounded. To date, neither the Afghan authorities nor the command of the US and NATO contingents in the IRA have provided evidence that would confirm these speculations.

Thus, regardless of how liberal media outlets are portraying Russian resistance to US troop deployment in Afghanistan, the truth is that Russia is delighted by America’s presence in Afghanistan, which has long been a training ground for terrorists such as Daesh, ISIL et al that threaten Russia and are therefore considered terrorists groups by the Russian government. In short, the United States, if it is doing what it is reported to be doing, is fighting against Russia’s enemies in Afghanistan and thereby assisting Putin to secure his own borders.
l
However, since the debacle in Syria, Russian diplomats have little trust for American initiatives. While in Syria, war-hawks like Senator McCain portrayed the conflict as a war against terrorists when in fact it became public knowledge that the Americans were stealthily aiding and abetting the terrorists in service of the liberal ideological and economic interests of ruling profiteers contrary to the Russians who were engaged in a real battle with the real terrorists.  Because Russia supports America’s war on terrorism close to its borders in Afghanistan, it is a natural ally in the fight.
 l
The Russians however, due to their growing mistrust of America’s intentions, are proceeding cautiously, interpreting American intervention with a grain of salt. Therefore, Alexander Grushko, the Russian envoy to NATO recently stated that his country fears that Afghanistan is becoming a hornet’s nest for terrorists of all sorts, implying that he is unsure of America’s intentions: Will American involvement curtail or exacerbate the challenge of terrorism to global peace and Russian security? Grushko indicated to reporters gathered in Brussels that Moscow hopes NATO will provide full information as to just “how the Alliance is planning to conduct future operations in Afghanistan.”
There is a serious threat of Afghanistan turning into a safe haven for terrorists as, unfortunately, the hold of the Islamic State [referring to Daesh, a terrorist group banned in Russia] is not weakening.”
Grushko’s concern is confirmed by reports that America’s efforts against terrorists in Afghanistan are starting to sound a bit like reports that previously came out of Syria.  According to the New York Times and the BBC, a US airstrike on a compound in Helmand province, Afghanistan, resulted in deaths to friendly Afghan forces (forces opposed to and fighting against terrorists throughout Afghanistan):
During a US-supported (Afghan security) operation, aerial fires resulted in the deaths of the friendly Afghan forces who were gathered in a compound.”
This widely reported fact engenders several provocative questions to be followed in upcoming weeks: Will future reports change under President Trump? Will the US assist Russian brokered efforts to bring world peace and thus be a peace-maker itself? or will President Trump succumb to tiresome Neocon voices in favor of ongoing conflict in the name of liberal ideology, personal interests, and veiled chicanery leading to ever more conflict and profitable war?
l
________________________
NOTE
:
l

Both the Taliban and Al Qaeda are radical Sunni Muslims committed to Jihad and theocratic government; both are opposed to the influence of Western culture and the secular governments put in place by Western leaders.  

From 1996 to 2001, the Taliban enforced strict Sharia law over most of Afghanistan prior to the US invasion in 2001. The United States assisted the Taliban with Stinger missiles and an array of military supplies in the 1980s, when these terrorists were combatting the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. 

During their 1996 to 2001 rule, the Taliban Mujahideen interfered with UN humanitarian shipments to famished men, women, and children, massacred Afghan civilians, scorched fertile land and destroyed thousands of homes. The Taliban was opposed by the Northern Alliance spearheaded by Russia, Iran, Turkey and India and then later used by the United States to defeat the Tsliban and install its own compliant government, a puppet state amenable to secular liberal interests.

The Taliban consists of militants drawn primarily from Afghanistan itself. It is an indigenous nationalistic movement in favor of an Islamic government and opposed to the Western backed secular state in Afghanistan.

The Taliban is therefore a legitimate stake-holder having a legitimate claim to some share in a future Afghani government.

Al-Qaeda, on the other hand, consists primarily of educated Arabs, a few Afghans and a healthy contingent of Egyptians. Al-Qaeda was formed by an Arab, Osama Bin Laden, to spread global Jihad against liberal forces supported by the United States in favor of its ally, Israel. The Taliban invited Ben laden to Afghanistan where they sheltered him as he planned terrorist attacks.

 




US Forces Facing Russian Troops in Syria, Will they Cooperate to Defeat ISIS?


(New Era World News)

DURING HIS PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN Donald Trump gave many signs indicating a possible rapprochement with Russia in order to forward the war against terrorism. Since his election, political observers have been watching carefully to assess movements relative to this implicit commitment.  As the data roles in, it is now possible to make some preliminary remarks based on actions taken by the new president during his first sixty days in office. Before doing so, it is helpful to review a New Era Forecast issued a month ago (February, 21).

FORECAST:

“The United States and Russia will continue down a path of rapprochement but not without significant interference, which can be expected from all ends of the political and social-cultural spectrum. Constant, well orchestrated, and confusing series of events can be expected as agents from both the left and right proceed to push confrontation with Russia to a boiling point. Nonetheless, in the long run, the shadow government will fail as it has consistently failed and been out maneuvered in its foreign policy initiatives for the past decade – we have no discernible reason to believe that this chain of events will cease unfolding. The shadow-government is being opposed by more than Mr. Trump.

l

The real question is what will Mr. Trump do? Will he continue down the road of his immediate predecessors, or be bold enough to set America on a new course?

Following that forecast, it was stated that if the new president continued with the foreign policy of the Bush and Obama administrations (as he appears to be doing), if he pursued the same path as his predecessors (a path favored by Neocon War Hawks and Liberal Globalists), American Foreign Policy would continue its downward slide and America would continue suffering one foreign policy embarrassment after another while earning the ire of other nations around the globe. President Obama was never able to disengage from war or to defeat ISIS; Trump however, has vowed to obliterate them, implicitly with Russian cooperation. It is this cooperation, above all else, that makes him an enemy of the Neocons (even though they are for the most part Republicans) and their Liberal allies deeply imbedded in ruling establishment.

The Trump Team is facing stiff opposition not only from an entrenched bureaucracy but from die hard members of the armed service committee and intelligence community who still view Russia through the lens of Soviet Communism or who are so committed to global liberalism that Russia (whom they realize is increasingly becoming a Christian nation-state, a purveyor of traditional family values, and an avowedly anti-liberal global power) must be stopped. Thus, if Trump plans to improve relations with Russia, he will be vehemently opposed by those who continue to insist upon the ideological export of liberal (economic and moral) American values, those who view themselves as patriots whose sacred duty is to confront the nefarious Russian Bear whose commitment to national sovereignty and Christianity is a threat to their global hegemony and the advancement of their Liberal Global Agenda.

l

https://youtu.be/wLinzSIcIac

l

Therefore, it was also stated,

“If Mr. Trump moves too quickly, he will not be able to withstand the tumultuous tsunami that is being gathered for a melancholy day of release; he must first cultivate relationships among international leaders (something he has done too little of) who have a very different view of America and American Foreign Policy than that being fed to him by Neocon war-hawks such as Sen. John McCain”, a man who keeps discrediting himself by accusing anyone opposed to his myopic interventionist military policy as “working for Vladimir Putin”, even if the others he assails are US Senators themselves.

l

https://youtu.be/bcuB42e2eCM

l

Finally, it was also stated in February that

“It is not time for fisticuffs, so yes, Newera tends to believe that Mr. Trump has came out with a (foreign policy) rope a dope in Round One, at least partially so. If he is able to eventually pound ISIS into oblivion with Russian cooperation, he will build up a tidal wall of good-will and support composed of many international components that spell peace, a peace woven into a wall that will be able to withstand any Tsunami the Deep State can bellow in his direction.”

However, it was warned:

If President Trump collapses before the bellowing winds and succumbs to the mounting global pressures of liberalism, if he fails to deliver on his campaign promises and follows the lead of Neocon war-hawks  like Sen. John McCain, New Era foresees an abject failure on the horizon and the ultimate collapse of American Foreign Policy and the waning of American influence.”

Unfortunately, Mr. Trump appears to be following the foreign policy of the Neocon and Liberal establishment. Consequently, the honeymoon given him by foreign nations is coming to an end. They have waited to see if he would deliver on his promises to treat all nations fairly, to cooperate with Russia to defeat terrorism and to start a new page in American history battling liberalism and seeking an Era of Peace. Apparently, he will do none of these things and continue the foreign policy of his predecessor built on the back of American military might.

World leaders have been looking on and refraining from imminent action while holding things in suspension waiting to see what Trump would do. They are no longer waiting; instead, global trends are reverting back to where they were before Trump took office, the international movement against liberalism has recommenced.  As forecast, the United States will either cooperate with this movement and be a purveyor of peace or it will suffer continued embarrassment. New Era holds to this forecast with the caveat that the United States might be pulled into the peace initiative in spite of its current bravado bolstered by an enormous military buildup. President Trump has not decreased but has already increased the military budget by $54 billion and is beefing up the American military presence around the globe to the ire of China, Russia, Turkey and many third world nations. The remainder of this article is concerned with US  foreign policy in the Middle East and how it is alienating Turkey and leading to a surprise tete a tete between US and Russian forces NOW within a grenades distance of each other on the battlefield of North-Central Syria where THEY ARE BOTH BATTLING ISIS-ISIL-ISLAMIC STATE AT THE SAME TIME AND IN THE SAME PLACE. This unexpected rubbing of shoulders in Syria offers a glimmer of hope that might signify the beginning of an ongoing cooperation. Don’t hold your breath however, Sen. John Mccain happens to be in the mix:

McCain “made a secret trip to a Kurdish-held region in northern Syria last weekend to speak with US military officials, rebel fighters, and leaders in the region.”

On Wednesday, (March 23) Julie Tarallo, a McCain spokesperson confirmed the mission, with the following TWEET

C5TLAHuVMAEiTVF

What is Happening in Syria and How it Might Affect Relationships with Russia and Turkey

President Obama alienated Turkey with his ongoing support of the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG), whom the Turks view as an ally of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which operates in Turkey and is designated by Ankara as a terrorist organization. President Trump is headed down the same road. Foreign Policy Magazine notices the trend.  On March 21 they pointed out that warhawks and top US commanders regard the YPG as “the only viable option for ousting the Islamic State [Daesh].”  If the YPG represents the only viable solution, clearly Washington has ruled out cooperation with Russia, the most obvious solution.

Following its own initiative, an initiative ostensibly calculated to Make America Look Great Again, the Pentagon is deploying 1,000 troops to assist the Syrian Defense Forces (SDF) to battle the Deash in Raqqa. The SDF, is a Kurdish dominated militia established in 2015 and sponsored by the United States to help establish a Kurdish enclave in Northern Syria. The SDF is composed primarily of Kurds fighting under their own banner of People’s Protection Units (YPG). More specifically, it might be said that the YPG is a Kurdish dominated militia, which is fighting alongside the American backed SDF who are opposed to radical Islamic terrorists and also to the Russian-backed Syrian government of Bashar al Assad. Currently the SDF is planning to engage in an all-out assault on Raqqa, the capital and stronghold of ISIS-ISIL or the Islamic State. According to The Foreign Policy Group (FP)

“Even as the Trump administration weighs its options, the U.S. military is ramping up for the assault, drawing up plans to deploy up to 1,000 more American soldiers to Syria in support of the YPG and allied forces, known collectively as the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which have advanced mere miles from the city (of Raqqa). Pentagon officials assess that the roughly 27,000 Kurds in the 50,000-strong SDF are the more effective, experienced fighters.

The New York Times (March 15) corroborated this report by FP:

The U.S. military has drawn up early plans that would deploy up to 1,000 more troops into northern Syria in the coming weeks, expanding the American presence in the country ahead of the offensive on the Islamic State’s de facto capital of Raqqa.”

l

“The deployment…would potentially double the number of U.S. forces in Syria and increase the potential for direct U.S. combat involvement in a conflict that has been characterized by confusion and competing priorities among disparate forces.”

The plan to deploy 1,000 more troops is meant to bolster a previous deployment of United States Marines already ordered by President Trump. On March 9, the Guardian reported on the deployment of several hundred US Marines to Syria:

“A few hundred marines with heavy artillery have been deployed to Syria in preparation for the fight to oust Islamic State from its self-declared headquarters of Raqqa, a senior US official said on Wednesday.”

l

“The marines moving into Syria are positioning howitzers to be ready to help local Syrian forces, said the official, who was not authorised to discuss the deployment publicly.

There are already approximately 500 U.S. Special Operations forces in Syria operating alongside the SDF.  The are complemented by an additional 250 Army Rangers and 200 US Marines. The additional 1,000 U.S. troops will most likely be part of the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit that are part of a

“… flotilla of ships loaded with 2,200 Marines that is now steaming toward the region – and the U.S. Army’s 82nd Airborne Division, of which 2,500 recently arrived in Kuwait.”

Regarding this deployment, Turkish Prime Minister, Binali Yildirim cautioned US leaders:

“If  (Washington) insists on carrying on this operation with terror organizations (Kurds whom the Turks consider as terrorists and public enemy number one), our relations will be harmed — that is clear.”

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu
Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yilidrim
 l

Prime Minister Yilidrim’s statement is especially meaningful in the context of the Astana Meetings previously hosted by Russia, Iran and Turkey (in Astana, Kazakhstan), which have resulted in a  military coalition consisting of Turkey, Russia, and Iran, already operating in Syria where they are acting as a peacekeeping force.  Rather than joining the peace initiative, the US continues following its own foreign policy thereby driving Turkey further away from Washington.  In fact, this latest US maneuver, might also compromise US relationships with the United Nations, which is beneficiary of Russian efforts at Astana: The Russian, Turks and Iranians provided the military backbone which brought the contending parties to the UN sponsored meeting of diplomats in Geneva (Feb 2017).

The cooperating powers all agreed to the territorial integrity and national sovereignty of the Syrian nation, implying that they will uphold the right of Syria as a sovereign nation, a nation entitled to determine for itself who its leaders will be and who will be invited to fight alongside it against common enemies.

“The delegations of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Russian Federation and the Republic of Turkey, in line with the Joint Statement of their Foreign Ministers made in Moscow, on December 20, 2016 and the UN Security Council resolution 2336…”reaffirm their commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic as a multi-ethnic, multi-religious, non-sectarian and democratic state.”

Sergey Lavrov, Foreign Minister of Russia emphasized this point:

The talks in Astana are “an important contribution to… a comprehensive political settlement in Syria which will continue in wider activities in Geneva.”

The prospect of ongoing US support of Kurds, esp. in Northern Syria, is seen in Ankara as a threat to Turkish security, a threat seemingly ignore by Donald Trump, a threat that drives Turkey deeper into a meaningful coalition with Russia.

To make the scenario extremely interesting, Russia is also backing the Kurds also to the ire of Turkey who is simultaneously fighting side by side with Russia as agreed to by the Astana Accords. The whole complicated situation is growing ever more complex. Turkey has been assisting Syrian Government forces (Assad’ forces backed by Russia) as they move toward Manbij a city held by US backed Kurds; therefore the US has deployed troops there to oppose a Turkish offensive. As reported by the New York Times :

“In recent weeks, U.S. Army Rangers have been sent to the city of Manbij west of Raqqa (in NW Syria) to deter Russian, Turkish and Syrian opposition forces all operating in the area, while a Marine artillery battery recently deployed near Raqqa (70 miles SW) has already come under fire, according to a defense official with direct knowledge of their operations.”

It is interesting that Syrian forces supported by the Syrian government engaged in warfare with Islamic terrorists in their own country are referred to as “opposition forces“. Opposition to whom, to the United States? If the Russian-Turkish backed Syrian army is fighting ISIS (Islamic State) and is called the “opposition‘, who is the United States fighting?

Turkey finds itself in a quandary, it is assisting Russia who is supporting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. At the same time, it is a NATO member and thus a US ally.  The United States has been backing rebel forces against Assad and supposedly, at the same time, also fighting Islamic terrorists such as ISIS and Daesh whom the Russians and Turks are also fighting. Turkey has indicated that it would commit ground troops to help US backed forces topple Raqqa but that eventuality is contingent upon US relinquishing its support of the Kurds (YPG) whom the Russians are also supporting.

Moreover, as a result of the Russian brokered Astana Accords, Syrian rebels, that is those that are Syrian and not Islamic terrorists imported from throughout the Middle East,  Syrian rebels who were opposed to Assad are now working with the Assad government to oust radical Islamic terrorists, which means if the terrorists are defeated there are virtually no indigenous forces of any considerable size left opposing the Syrian government; who will the United States support then? That is who will the United States support in Syria once ISIS or the Islamic State is defeated? Ostensibly, the Kurds will have the backing of both the United States and Russia, the preferred diplomatic position for both countries vis a vis Turkey. That is, it is better for the United States to have strained relations with Turkey over the Kurds if Russia also has strained relations with the Turks and for the same reason! Turkey will just have to get use to it – the US and Russia are apparently headed down a course leading to some type of cooperative agreement even if it is happening willy nilly.

The unexpected might be occurring, viz., Russia and the US are being pulled together by supporting the Kurds in Syria albeit at risk of exacerbating relations with Turkey.  Sarah El Deeb is one of the few to recognize the unexpected.  As reported in the Chicago Tribune:

Ankara (that is, Turkey) has effectively unified Russia and the U.S. in the goal of limiting Turkish expansion in the north (North Syria where the Kurds live). Syrian experts say Ankara has lost influence to realize its aim of pushing the Kurdish forces back to the east of Manbij across the Euphrates. Moreover, Washington is pushing ahead with partnering with the Kurdish-led forces in the planned attack on Raqqa, despite Turkish opposition.”

According to Ragip Soylu a reporter for New Turkey, Turkey’s efforts to disrupt the US-Kurd alliance

“…has been tossed away as the Russian military and U.S. Special Forces moved last week in Syria’s Manbij to prevent Turkish-backed Syrian opposition forces from attacking the city,”

Russia has taken an unexpected stance on Manbij, instead of advancing on the city, THEY ARE WORKING TO PREVENT any further Syrian-Turkish advance deeply desired by the Turks. They are now involved in the mutual defeat of ISIS. At the moment they, the United States and Russia, are involved in planning an assault on ISIS in Raqqa and mutual support of the Kurds; the latter to the chagrin of the Turks

Complex as it is to discern, the future is perhaps beginning in Manbij and Raqqa, as U.S. Lt. Gen. Stephen Townsend, of the anti-ISIS coalition has said:

All the forces acting in Syria have converged within hand-grenade range of one another. We encourage all forces to remain focused on the counter-ISIS fight and concentrate their efforts on defeating ISIS and not toward other objectives that may cause the coalition to divert energy and resources away from Raqqa.”

In other words, the US is not focused on toppling the Assad government (at least not now and possibly not again in the future). The mission is for once clear: defeat ISIS. This is something both the Americans and Russians can agree upon. The Russian are not looking for war between its allies, Turkey and Syria, versus the US forces in Manbij or Raqqa. Turkish and Syrian troops moving toward Manbij were halted due to a deal brokered by Russia that established a “buffer zone” between the Kurds and advancing Turk-Syrian forces. This zone is intended to protect the Kurds in Manbij and to keep Russian backed Syrian and Turkish troops out of conflict with the United States, esp. since they are all, as US General Townsend has stated: “within hand-grenade range of one another.”

Unfortunately, Turkey has not honored the zone:

“On Thursday, Syrian government media said Turkish shelling killed a number of its troops. Kurdish officials said Turkish advances continued even despite the buffer zone.”

Turkey, long a backer of terrorism throughout the Middle East, is now suffering a bout of what appears to be irremediable consternation. Since the United States and Russia are now face to face in Syria, since the United States and Russia are both supporting the Kurds in Syria, since the United States and Russia are both fighting ISIS in Syria simultaneously and at the same exact location, it will be difficult for Turkey to play anymore deceptive games designed to advance its own agenda and keep the two superpowers apart. The Turks however have at least three allies in this game, viz., the US Neocons, global liberals, and Israeli Zionists who will do anything to hinder real peace by keeping the two apart!

Nonetheless, will the United States begin to coordinate efforts with Russia to

(1) Protect Manbij, a city held by US backed Kurdish-led forces thereby increasing tensions with Turkey but lessening them with Russia (for the US that is)?

l
(2) Somehow pacify or restrain Turkey – something much easier if they cooperate – thereby bringing Turk dreams for a renewed Ottoman Empire or at least an Arab World under Turk domination to naught and as a result bring Turkey’s leaders to their senses?

l
(3) Defeat ISIS in a mutual effort to “bomb the shit out of them” as Trump promised during his campaign – Raqqa represents the possibility of fulfilling a campaign promise and of moving towards normalizing relations with Russia, although in a very unexpected way as explained above.

Or will the US act to salvage its relations with Turkey thereby lessening support for the Kurds and increasing tensions with Russia? Quite possibly Turkey will have to make a choice, that is, to seek a deeper alliance with the United States or Russia; either way, it will have to come to grips with the Kurds whom neither is likely to abandon. The only player in the region with more to lose than Turkey, is Israel (Saudi Arabia also stands to lose, but not as much as Israel) who has benefited from the enormous pounding its enemies have given to each other over these years – Israel benefits by continued conflict – it does not want peace between the US and Russia nor mutual-agreement over Syria and the Kurds. It remains to be seen what Israel will do in this situation; it has already violated Syrian airspace this past week.

“The Syrian military said the Israeli strikes had targeted a military installation near Palymyra (in Syria).”

l

“The incident was highly unusual in that it also saw the Israeli military break its customary silence over raids in Syria to release a statement to admit that its aircraft had been targeted while operating there.”

l

“Overnight, March 17, IAF aircrafts [sic] targeted several targets in Syria,” said the statement.”

The United States might not be fighting Syria at the moment but Israel is apparently trying to keep Syrian ally Iran from sending weapons to Hezbollah stationed on the Syrian side of the Golan Heights.  Israel is not averse to violating international law to carry out its objectives, nor was Turkey who is now paying a price for its transgressions. Is Israel about to learn a similar lesson or will they influence the Trump administration to keep up war on Syria once ISIS is obliterated?

“Brig Gen Nitzan Nuriel, a former director of counter-terrorism in the Israeli prime minister’s bureau, said conflict with Hezbollah was inevitable as the group sought ever more advanced anti-aircraft missiles, heavy rockets and tactical weapons, but he believed Assad had seriously misread the situation.”

l

“Assad has not read the map correctly,” he said. “He believes it is only a question of weeks or months before he can declare a full victory and is looking to the next stage. I believe he is mistaken and that clashes in Syria will stay with us for the next three to six years.”

l

“Discussing Russia’s role in Syria, he added more controversially: “Russia got the messages it needs to receive from Israel.” That was, he said: “Israel will not allow anyone, including Russia to get in the way of implementing our military mission.”

Although Israel favors continued conflict, as long as its enemies are killing each other and as long as Syria is potentially neutralized along with its ally Iran, although Israel favors such things, New Era is forecasting eventual peace – if the US and Russia actually cooperate to defeat ISIS – which means something will have to give in Israel, perhaps something significant.




Israeli-Russian Relations Tested Over Syria as US and Russian Backed Forces Near Each Other


(New Era World News)

AT THE END OF FRIDAY’S ARTICLE, “Are United States and Russia Headed for Cooperation Despite Neocon-Liberal Objections?“, it was concluded that, “The only player in the region with more to lose than Turkey, is Israel…who has benefited from the enormous pounding its enemies have given to each other over recent years – Israel benefits by continued conflict – it does not want peace between the US and Russia nor mutual-agreement over Syria and the Kurds. It remains to be seen what Israel will do in response to possible US-Russian cooperation in the battle over ISIS about to unfold in Raqqa (Syria); will they fight each other or cooperate? Chances are high that they will cooperate, but signs are being genratd that indicate that they might not.  Nonetheless, the question remains, “How will Israel respond to unexpected cooperation?”  If events that occurred earlier last week are any indication, the Israelis do not like what is unfolding, they have already violated Syrian airspace and fired missiles in Syria just a few days ago. In response, the Syrian military said that

“The Israeli strikes had targeted a military installation near Palymyra (in Syria).”

l

“The incident was highly unusual in that it also saw the Israeli military break its customary silence over raids in Syria to release a statement to admit that its aircraft had been targeted while operating there.”

l

“Overnight, March 17, IAF aircrafts [sic] targeted several targets in Syria”, ‘said the statement.'”

The United States might not be fighting against Syria at the moment but Israeli operations in Syria indicate that the Zionists are apparently engaged in operations against them as well as their ally, Iran who is legally transiting weapons across Syria to Hezbollah soldiers stationed on the Syrian side of the Golan Heights, at least, that is the Israeli version of the story. Professor Eyal Zisser, a Syrian expert who teaches at Tel Aviv University in Israel, discussed an agreement made between Vladimir Putin and PM Netanyahu (June 7, 2015) in which the Russians supposedly gave their word that military equipment being transferred from Iran to Hezbollah is solely for purposes of waging war against ISIS; it would not therefore, be employed in any type of attack on Israel.

Thus, according to the Syrian accounts, Israel targeted Syrian military positions combating ISIS (not weapons being shipped to Hezbollah). Either way, Israel violated international law and the right of Syria to national sovereignty. Do weapons used against Syria transited through Turkey permit Syria to violate Turkish airspace and bomb Turkish infra-structure?  The airspace of sovereign nation is supposedly protected by international law.

“According to the set principles governing international law, a state has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the sky above its territory. Without permission, it is absolutely forbidden for foreign military planes to enter the territorial airspace of other states.”

Therefore, the Syrian Foreign Ministry drafted a complaint to the UN in which they stated

l“Syria calls on the UN Secretary General and the President of the UNSC to condemn this blatant Israeli aggression, to force Israel to stop supporting terrorism in Syria, to implement all UNSC resolutions on counter-terrorism, including resolution No. 2253, to withdraw from the whole occupied Syrian Golan to the line of June 4th, 1967, and to implement resolution No. 497 for 1981”

Israel has its own interpretation of events to justify its action: Iran is transferring weapons to Hezbollah to be used against israel. Here is a taste of Israeli justification from its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who stated that Israel would continue to act militantly to prevent transfer of advanced weapons to Hezbollah:

“Our policy is very consistent: when we identify attempts to transfer advanced weapons to Hezbollah, and we have the intelligence and operational feasibility – we work to prevent this.”

This is an open admission, what appears to be a braggadocio admission, followed by a dose of strained logic:

That’s how it’s been and that’s how it will be, we have determination, and the proof is that we are acting, and everyone has to take this into account,” he added.

In other words, the morality of the act is to judged by the fact that Israel can get away with it, “the proof is we are acting” and “everyone has to take this into account.” This is not a reasonable or moral justification; it is nothing more than a “might makes right” argument, the rule of the jungle that governs animal interaction; it can only be hoped that this is not how Zionists view gentiles?

“Then they brought Jesus from Caiaphas to the praetorium. It was morning. And they (the Jews) themselves did not enter the praetorium, in order not to be defiled.”

This type if justification might have worked in the past, but more and more people are waking up to the dignity of the human person (all persons); this is a rational that people seeking peace and a two-state solution are growing tired of – being a citizen of Israel does not give anyone any type of hyper-human-status that empowers them to trample on the rights of others.

If this is really representative of Netanyahu’s logic, the Israeli PM is acting hypocritical. Israel would not permit foreign jets to invade their airspace and then annihilate targets without a media blitz fired around the globe amid a veritable storm of moral objections. The PM has just opened the doors to Syrian and Iranian jets flying into to Israel to obliterate what they perceive to be security threats to be used on targets in their own countries or that of their allies.

Apparently, Israel is not averse to violating international law to carry out its objectives, nor was Turkey who is now paying a price for its transgressions. Is Israel about to learn a similar lesson or will they influence the Trump administration to keep up war on Syria once ISIS is obliterated?

“Brig Gen Nitzan Nuriel, a former Director of Counter-Terrorism in the Israeli Prime Minister’s Bureau, said conflict with Hezbollah was inevitable as the group sought ever more advanced anti-aircraft missiles, heavy rockets and tactical weapons, but he believed Assad had seriously misread the situation.”

l

“Assad has not read the map correctly,” he said. “He believes it is only a question of weeks or months before he can declare a full victory and is looking to the next stage. I believe he is mistaken and that clashes in Syria will stay with us for the next three to six years.”

l

“Discussing Russia’s role in Syria, he added more controversially: “Russia got the messages it needs to receive from Israel.” That was, he said: “Israel will not allow anyone, including Russia to get in the way of implementing our military mission.”

This is a former Israeli Brigadier General’s perspective, but others are interpreting and reporting it differently. In fact, after the Israeli attack, the Russian government almost immediately summoned Gary Koren, the Israeli Ambassador, and requested an explanation – something they have not done following previous Israeli violations in Syria). Rather than smooth things over for the Israeli side, Avigdor Lieberman, Israeli Defense Minister, following the Netanyahu line, exacerbated them:

 “The next time the Syrians use their air defence systems against our planes we will destroy them without the slightest hesitation.”

As if to say that Israel has a right to annihilate targets in other countries, but these countries somehow act wrongly if they defend themselves as if the Zionists were some type of privleged people and the and the rest of the world is made up of outcasts. Israel has run into a Western nation that will not follow its script. Russia, apparently, will not allow itself be pushed around by the playground bully or be intimidated by empty chutzpah. Contrary to PM Netanyahu and Brig. Gen. Nitzan Nuriel, Dr. Bashar al-Jaafari, Syrian Ambassador to the United Nations, stated that

Putin sent a clear message,” he said. “The fact is that the Israeli ambassador (to Russia) was summoned for a conversation… and was told categorically that this game is over.”

Jaafari also stated that “Syria will no longer sit by while Israel blatantly attacks its forces“; implying that the response will be greatly amplified if an Israeli attack occurs again.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, however, took a more pragmatic and realistic approach that moves beyond rhetoric to make decisions based upon actions.  After stating that Russia expects Israel to honor agreements made between Putin and Netanyahu during the latter’s state visit to Moscow earlier this month, he stated that Russia

“…will judge (Israel) not by their statements, but by their actions, to what extent our Israeli partners are sticking to these agreements.”

If these type of actions continue, a Russian response can be expected. In this regard, Syrian President Bashar Assad told visiting Russian legislators that Syria is depending on Russia to avert further Israeli attacks and to help Damascus avoid a “full-blown conflict with Tel Aviv”.  This does not appear to be something Syria desires and which it is trying to avoid, nor is it something desired by Russia.

At the June 7 meeting (discussed above) between Netanyahu and Putin, host Vladimir Putin concluded:

 “Russia and Israel can take pride in our high level of partnership, fruitful cooperation and far-reaching business contacts”

According to the Jerusalem Post,

“Since then, that partnership has continued to grow, but the looming crisis in Syria threatens to upset this dance.”

If the Israelis keep their word and discontinue bombing runs in Syria, the risk of confrontation with Russia will be minimized and most likely become non-existent (at least at this time). What the Jerusalem Post is referring to is the current situation in Syria where both US and Russian troops and their allies are all within a grenade’s distance of each other, each wanting to defeat ISIS, which is now isolated in its Syrian capital, Raqqa.  The offensive against this city is slated to begin in a few days; at this moment it is unclear how Russian and American forces will interact in this crucial campaign. Israel is a staunch US ally but has also entered into serious negotiations and agreements with Russia, will they risk their recent gains?

The entire scenario discussed above is contingent upon US and Russian cooperation or conflict in Syria. Will they cooperate to defeat ISIS at Raqqa and to craft a mutual-plan to support the Kurds in Northern Syria and Iraq?  If they fail to do so, if the United States or Russia have other plans in Syria, plans that would exacerbate rather than ameliorate American-Russian relations, the entire situation changes from a possible peace scenario to one of increased conflict, as will be discussed tomorrow.




US Special Forces Facing Russian Troops in Syria, Will they Cooperate to Defeat ISIS?


(New Era World News)

DURING HIS PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN Donald Trump gave many signs indicating a possible rapprochement with Russia in order to forward the war against terrorism. Since his election, political observers have been watching carefully to assess movements relative to this implicit commitment.  As the data roles in, it is now possible to make some preliminary remarks based on actions taken by the new president during his first sixty days in office. Before doing so, it is helpful to review a New Era Forecast issued a month ago (February, 21).

FORECAST:

“The United States and Russia will continue down a path of rapprochement but not without significant interference, which can be expected from all ends of the political and social-cultural spectrum. Constant, well orchestrated, and confusing series of events can be expected as agents from both the left and right proceed to push confrontation with Russia to a boiling point. Nonetheless, in the long run, the shadow government will fail as it has consistently failed and been out maneuvered in its foreign policy initiatives for the past decade – we have no discernible reason to believe that this chain of events will cease unfolding. The shadow-government is being opposed by more than Mr. Trump.

l

The real question is what will Mr. Trump do? Will he continue down the road of his immediate predecessors, or be bold enough to set America on a new course?

Following that forecast, it was stated that if the new president continued with the foreign policy of the Bush and Obama administrations (as he appears to be doing), if he pursued the same path as his predecessors (a path favored by Neocon War Hawks and Liberal Globalists), American Foreign Policy would continue its downward slide and America would continue suffering one foreign policy embarrassment after another while earning the ire of other nations around the globe. President Obama was never able to disengage from war or to defeat ISIS; Trump however, has vowed to obliterate them, implicitly with Russian cooperation. It is this cooperation, above all else, that makes him an enemy of the Neocons (even though they are for the most part Republicans) and their Liberal allies deeply imbedded in ruling establishment.

The Trump Team is facing stiff opposition not only from an entrenched bureaucracy but from die hard members of the armed service committee and intelligence community who still view Russia through the lens of Soviet Communism or who are so committed to global liberalism that Russia (whom they realize is increasingly becoming a Christian nation-state, a purveyor of traditional family values, and an avowedly anti-liberal global power) must be stopped. Thus, if Trump plans to improve relations with Russia, he will be vehemently opposed by those who continue to insist upon the ideological export of liberal (economic and moral) American values, those who view themselves as patriots whose sacred duty is to confront the nefarious Russian Bear whose commitment to national sovereignty and Christianity is a threat to their global hegemony and the advancement of their Liberal Global Agenda.

l

https://youtu.be/wLinzSIcIac

l

Therefore, it was also stated,

“If Mr. Trump moves too quickly, he will not be able to withstand the tumultuous tsunami that is being gathered for a melancholy day of release; he must first cultivate relationships among international leaders (something he has done too little of) who have a very different view of America and American Foreign Policy than that being fed to him by Neocon war-hawks such as Sen. John McCain”, a man who keeps discrediting himself by accusing anyone opposed to his myopic interventionist military policy as “working for Vladimir Putin”, even if the others he assails are US Senators themselves.

l

https://youtu.be/bcuB42e2eCM

l

Finally, it was also stated in February that

“It is not time for fisticuffs, so yes, Newera tends to believe that Mr. Trump has came out with a (foreign policy) rope a dope in Round One, at least partially so. If he is able to eventually pound ISIS into oblivion with Russian cooperation, he will build up a tidal wall of good-will and support composed of many international components that spell peace, a peace woven into a wall that will be able to withstand any Tsunami the Deep State can bellow in his direction.”

However, it was warned:

If President Trump collapses before the bellowing winds and succumbs to the mounting global pressures of liberalism, if he fails to deliver on his campaign promises and follows the lead of Neocon war-hawks  like Sen. John McCain, New Era foresees an abject failure on the horizon and the ultimate collapse of American Foreign Policy and the waning of American influence.”

Unfortunately, Mr. Trump appears to be following the foreign policy of the Neocon and Liberal establishment. Consequently, the honeymoon given him by foreign nations is coming to an end. They have waited to see if he would deliver on his promises to treat all nations fairly, to cooperate with Russia to defeat terrorism and to start a new page in American history battling liberalism and seeking an Era of Peace. Apparently, he will do none of these things and continue the foreign policy of his predecessor built on the back of American military might.

World leaders have been looking on and refraining from imminent action while holding things in suspension waiting to see what Trump would do. They are no longer waiting; instead, global trends are reverting back to where they were before Trump took office, the international movement against liberalism has recommenced.  As forecast, the United States will either cooperate with this movement and be a purveyor of peace or it will suffer continued embarrassment. New Era holds to this forecast with the caveat that the United States might be pulled into the peace initiative in spite of its current bravado bolstered by an enormous military buildup. President Trump has not decreased but has already increased the military budget by $54 billion and is beefing up the American military presence around the globe to the ire of China, Russia, Turkey and many third world nations. The remainder of this article is concerned with US  foreign policy in the Middle East and how it is alienating Turkey and leading to a surprise tete a tete between US and Russian forces NOW within a grenades distance of each other on the battlefield of North-Central Syria where THEY ARE BOTH BATTLING ISIS-ISIL-ISLAMIC STATE AT THE SAME TIME AND IN THE SAME PLACE. This unexpected rubbing of shoulders in Syria offers a glimmer of hope that might signify the beginning of an ongoing cooperation. Don’t hold your breath however, Sen. John Mccain happens to be in the mix:

McCain “made a secret trip to a Kurdish-held region in northern Syria last weekend to speak with US military officials, rebel fighters, and leaders in the region.”

On Wednesday, (March 23) Julie Tarallo, a McCain spokesperson confirmed the mission, with the following TWEET

C5TLAHuVMAEiTVF

What is Happening in Syria and How it Might Affect Relationships with Russia and Turkey

President Obama alienated Turkey with his ongoing support of the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG), whom the Turks view as an ally of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which operates in Turkey and is designated by Ankara as a terrorist organization. President Trump is headed down the same road. Foreign Policy Magazine notices the trend.  On March 21 they pointed out that warhawks and top US commanders regard the YPG as “the only viable option for ousting the Islamic State [Daesh].”  If the YPG represents the only viable solution, clearly Washington has ruled out cooperation with Russia, the most obvious solution.

Following its own initiative, an initiative ostensibly calculated to Make America Look Great Again, the Pentagon is deploying 1,000 troops to assist the Syrian Defense Forces (SDF) to battle the Deash in Raqqa. The SDF, is a Kurdish dominated militia established in 2015 and sponsored by the United States to help establish a Kurdish enclave in Northern Syria. The SDF is composed primarily of Kurds fighting under their own banner of People’s Protection Units (YPG). More specifically, it might be said that the YPG is a Kurdish dominated militia, which is fighting alongside the American backed SDF who are opposed to radical Islamic terrorists and also to the Russian-backed Syrian government of Bashar al Assad. Currently the SDF is planning to engage in an all-out assault on Raqqa, the capital and stronghold of ISIS-ISIL or the Islamic State. According to The Foreign Policy Group (FP)

“Even as the Trump administration weighs its options, the U.S. military is ramping up for the assault, drawing up plans to deploy up to 1,000 more American soldiers to Syria in support of the YPG and allied forces, known collectively as the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which have advanced mere miles from the city (of Raqqa). Pentagon officials assess that the roughly 27,000 Kurds in the 50,000-strong SDF are the more effective, experienced fighters.

The New York Times (March 15) corroborated this report by FP:

The U.S. military has drawn up early plans that would deploy up to 1,000 more troops into northern Syria in the coming weeks, expanding the American presence in the country ahead of the offensive on the Islamic State’s de facto capital of Raqqa.”

l

“The deployment…would potentially double the number of U.S. forces in Syria and increase the potential for direct U.S. combat involvement in a conflict that has been characterized by confusion and competing priorities among disparate forces.”

The plan to deploy 1,000 more troops is meant to bolster a previous deployment of United States Marines already ordered by President Trump. On March 9, the Guardian reported on the deployment of several hundred US Marines to Syria:

“A few hundred marines with heavy artillery have been deployed to Syria in preparation for the fight to oust Islamic State from its self-declared headquarters of Raqqa, a senior US official said on Wednesday.”

l

“The marines moving into Syria are positioning howitzers to be ready to help local Syrian forces, said the official, who was not authorised to discuss the deployment publicly.

There are already approximately 500 U.S. Special Operations forces in Syria operating alongside the SDF.  The are complemented by an additional 250 Army Rangers and 200 US Marines. The additional 1,000 U.S. troops will most likely be part of the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit that are part of a

“… flotilla of ships loaded with 2,200 Marines that is now steaming toward the region – and the U.S. Army’s 82nd Airborne Division, of which 2,500 recently arrived in Kuwait.”

Regarding this deployment, Turkish Prime Minister, Binali Yildirim cautioned US leaders:

“If  (Washington) insists on carrying on this operation with terror organizations (Kurds whom the Turks consider as terrorists and public enemy number one), our relations will be harmed — that is clear.”

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu
Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yilidrim
 l

Prime Minister Yilidrim’s statement is especially meaningful in the context of the Astana Meetings previously hosted by Russia, Iran and Turkey (in Astana, Kazakhstan), which have resulted in a  military coalition consisting of Turkey, Russia, and Iran, already operating in Syria where they are acting as a peacekeeping force.  Rather than joining the peace initiative, the US continues following its own foreign policy thereby driving Turkey further away from Washington.  In fact, this latest US maneuver, might also compromise US relationships with the United Nations, which is beneficiary of Russian efforts at Astana: The Russian, Turks and Iranians provided the military backbone which brought the contending parties to the UN sponsored meeting of diplomats in Geneva (Feb 2017).

The cooperating powers all agreed to the territorial integrity and national sovereignty of the Syrian nation, implying that they will uphold the right of Syria as a sovereign nation, a nation entitled to determine for itself who its leaders will be and who will be invited to fight alongside it against common enemies.

“The delegations of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Russian Federation and the Republic of Turkey, in line with the Joint Statement of their Foreign Ministers made in Moscow, on December 20, 2016 and the UN Security Council resolution 2336…”reaffirm their commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic as a multi-ethnic, multi-religious, non-sectarian and democratic state.”

Sergey Lavrov, Foreign Minister of Russia emphasized this point:

The talks in Astana are “an important contribution to… a comprehensive political settlement in Syria which will continue in wider activities in Geneva.”

The prospect of ongoing US support of Kurds, esp. in Northern Syria, is seen in Ankara as a threat to Turkish security, a threat seemingly ignore by Donald Trump, a threat that drives Turkey deeper into a meaningful coalition with Russia.

To make the scenario extremely interesting, Russia is also backing the Kurds also to the ire of Turkey who is simultaneously fighting side by side with Russia as agreed to by the Astana Accords. The whole complicated situation is growing ever more complex. Turkey has been assisting Syrian Government forces (Assad’ forces backed by Russia) as they move toward Manbij a city held by US backed Kurds; therefore the US has deployed troops there to oppose a Turkish offensive. As reported by the New York Times :

“In recent weeks, U.S. Army Rangers have been sent to the city of Manbij west of Raqqa (in NW Syria) to deter Russian, Turkish and Syrian opposition forces all operating in the area, while a Marine artillery battery recently deployed near Raqqa (70 miles SW) has already come under fire, according to a defense official with direct knowledge of their operations.”

It is interesting that Syrian forces supported by the Syrian government engaged in warfare with Islamic terrorists in their own country are referred to as “opposition forces“. Opposition to whom, to the United States? If the Russian-Turkish backed Syrian army is fighting ISIS (Islamic State) and is called the “opposition‘, who is the United States fighting?

Turkey finds itself in a quandary, it is assisting Russia who is supporting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. At the same time, it is a NATO member and thus a US ally.  The United States has been backing rebel forces against Assad and supposedly, at the same time, also fighting Islamic terrorists such as ISIS and Daesh whom the Russians and Turks are also fighting. Turkey has indicated that it would commit ground troops to help US backed forces topple Raqqa but that eventuality is contingent upon US relinquishing its support of the Kurds (YPG) whom the Russians are also supporting.

Moreover, as a result of the Russian brokered Astana Accords, Syrian rebels, that is those that are Syrian and not Islamic terrorists imported from throughout the Middle East,  Syrian rebels who were opposed to Assad are now working with the Assad government to oust radical Islamic terrorists, which means if the terrorists are defeated there are virtually no indigenous forces of any considerable size left opposing the Syrian government; who will the United States support then? That is who will the United States support in Syria once ISIS or the Islamic State is defeated? Ostensibly, the Kurds will have the backing of both the United States and Russia, the preferred diplomatic position for both countries vis a vis Turkey. That is, it is better for the United States to have strained relations with Turkey over the Kurds if Russia also has strained relations with the Turks and for the same reason! Turkey will just have to get use to it – the US and Russia are apparently headed down a course leading to some type of cooperative agreement even if it is happening willy nilly.

The unexpected might be occurring, viz., Russia and the US are being pulled together by supporting the Kurds in Syria albeit at risk of exacerbating relations with Turkey.  Sarah El Deeb is one of the few to recognize the unexpected.  As reported in the Chicago Tribune:

Ankara (that is, Turkey) has effectively unified Russia and the U.S. in the goal of limiting Turkish expansion in the north (North Syria where the Kurds live). Syrian experts say Ankara has lost influence to realize its aim of pushing the Kurdish forces back to the east of Manbij across the Euphrates. Moreover, Washington is pushing ahead with partnering with the Kurdish-led forces in the planned attack on Raqqa, despite Turkish opposition.”

According to Ragip Soylu a reporter for New Turkey, Turkey’s efforts to disrupt the US-Kurd alliance

“…has been tossed away as the Russian military and U.S. Special Forces moved last week in Syria’s Manbij to prevent Turkish-backed Syrian opposition forces from attacking the city,”

Russia has taken an unexpected stance on Manbij, instead of advancing on the city, THEY ARE WORKING TO PREVENT any further Syrian-Turkish advance deeply desired by the Turks. They are now involved in the mutual defeat of ISIS. At the moment they, the United States and Russia, are involved in planning an assault on ISIS in Raqqa and mutual support of the Kurds; the latter to the chagrin of the Turks

Complex as it is to discern, the future is perhaps beginning in Manbij and Raqqa, as U.S. Lt. Gen. Stephen Townsend, of the anti-ISIS coalition has said:

All the forces acting in Syria have converged within hand-grenade range of one another. We encourage all forces to remain focused on the counter-ISIS fight and concentrate their efforts on defeating ISIS and not toward other objectives that may cause the coalition to divert energy and resources away from Raqqa.”

In other words, the US is not focused on toppling the Assad government (at least not now and possibly not again in the future). The mission is for once clear: defeat ISIS. This is something both the Americans and Russians can agree upon. The Russian are not looking for war between its allies, Turkey and Syria, versus the US forces in Manbij or Raqqa. Turkish and Syrian troops moving toward Manbij were halted due to a deal brokered by Russia that established a “buffer zone” between the Kurds and advancing Turk-Syrian forces. This zone is intended to protect the Kurds in Manbij and to keep Russian backed Syrian and Turkish troops out of conflict with the United States, esp. since they are all, as US General Townsend has stated: “within hand-grenade range of one another.”

Unfortunately, Turkey has not honored the zone:

“On Thursday, Syrian government media said Turkish shelling killed a number of its troops. Kurdish officials said Turkish advances continued even despite the buffer zone.”

Turkey, long a backer of terrorism throughout the Middle East, is now suffering a bout of what appears to be irremediable consternation. Since the United States and Russia are now face to face in Syria, since the United States and Russia are both supporting the Kurds in Syria, since the United States and Russia are both fighting ISIS in Syria simultaneously and at the same exact location, it will be difficult for Turkey to play anymore deceptive games designed to advance its own agenda and keep the two superpowers apart. The Turks however have at least three allies in this game, viz., the US Neocons, global liberals, and Israeli Zionists who will do anything to hinder real peace by keeping the two apart!

Nonetheless, will the United States begin to coordinate efforts with Russia to

(1) Protect Manbij, a city held by US backed Kurdish-led forces thereby increasing tensions with Turkey but lessening them with Russia (for the US that is)?

l
(2) Somehow pacify or restrain Turkey – something much easier if they cooperate – thereby bringing Turk dreams for a renewed Ottoman Empire or at least an Arab World under Turk domination to naught and as a result bring Turkey’s leaders to their senses?

l
(3) Defeat ISIS in a mutual effort to “bomb the shit out of them” as Trump promised during his campaign – Raqqa represents the possibility of fulfilling a campaign promise and of moving towards normalizing relations with Russia, although in a very unexpected way as explained above.

Or will the US act to salvage its relations with Turkey thereby lessening support for the Kurds and increasing tensions with Russia? Quite possibly Turkey will have to make a choice, that is, to seek a deeper alliance with the United States or Russia; either way, it will have to come to grips with the Kurds whom neither is likely to abandon. The only player in the region with more to lose than Turkey, is Israel (Saudi Arabia also stands to lose, but not as much as Israel) who has benefited from the enormous pounding its enemies have given to each other over these years – Israel benefits by continued conflict – it does not want peace between the US and Russia nor mutual-agreement over Syria and the Kurds. It remains to be seen what Israel will do in this situation; it has already violated Syrian airspace this past week.

“The Syrian military said the Israeli strikes had targeted a military installation near Palymyra (in Syria).”

l

“The incident was highly unusual in that it also saw the Israeli military break its customary silence over raids in Syria to release a statement to admit that its aircraft had been targeted while operating there.”

l

“Overnight, March 17, IAF aircrafts [sic] targeted several targets in Syria,” said the statement.”

The United States might not be fighting Syria at the moment but Israel is apparently trying to keep Syrian ally Iran from sending weapons to Hezbollah stationed on the Syrian side of the Golan Heights.  Israel is not averse to violating international law to carry out its objectives, nor was Turkey who is now paying a price for its transgressions. Is Israel about to learn a similar lesson or will they influence the Trump administration to keep up war on Syria once ISIS is obliterated?

“Brig Gen Nitzan Nuriel, a former director of counter-terrorism in the Israeli prime minister’s bureau, said conflict with Hezbollah was inevitable as the group sought ever more advanced anti-aircraft missiles, heavy rockets and tactical weapons, but he believed Assad had seriously misread the situation.”

l

“Assad has not read the map correctly,” he said. “He believes it is only a question of weeks or months before he can declare a full victory and is looking to the next stage. I believe he is mistaken and that clashes in Syria will stay with us for the next three to six years.”

l

“Discussing Russia’s role in Syria, he added more controversially: “Russia got the messages it needs to receive from Israel.” That was, he said: “Israel will not allow anyone, including Russia to get in the way of implementing our military mission.”

Although Israel favors continued conflict, as long as its enemies are killing each other and as long as Syria is potentially neutralized along with its ally Iran, although Israel favors such things, New Era is forecasting eventual peace – if the US and Russia actually cooperate to defeat ISIS – which means something will have to give in Israel, perhaps something significant.




Liberals Gone Assad Still Here World Moves Toward Peace in Astana


.New Era World News

ON DECEMBER 30, PRIOR TO THE NEW YEAR, New Era reported that the Russian, Turkish, and Iranian foreign ministers gathered in Moscow to discuss the situation in Syria. As a result of the meeting, the three announced their willingness to facilitate future negotiations between Damascus and Syrian opposition groups.

As a result of the meeting, the Troika issued a document referred to by the New York Times as “The Moscow Declaration”. Among its eight articles, the “Declaration” states:

  • Iran, Russia and Turkey express their readiness to facilitate and become the guarantors of the prospective agreement being negotiated between the Syrian Government and the opposition. They invited all other countries with the influence on the situation on the ground to do the same.

Consequently, On December 30 the Assad government and the main Syrian opposition groups agreed to a nationwide cease-fire. Turkey’s Anadolu News Agency, reported that Russia and Turkey agreed to act jointly in order to guarantee implementation of the ceasefire agreement; they have been actively monitoring violations since that date.

The Russians, Iranians, and Turks decided to act without the United States. Under President Obama, the United States neocons suffered a humiliating defeat, an international debacle far from their vision for a New American Century – The US was being taken out of the game and placed on the bench by the Russians.

Russia (however) said the United States could join a fresh peace process once President-elect Donald Trump takes office on Jan. 20” (Reuters, Dec 30, 2016).

Russian Secretary of State Sergey Lavrov stressed these sentiments in a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin:

I would like to express the hope that as soon as the administration of Donald Trump takes office, they will also be able to join these efforts [to settle the Syrian crisis] so that we could jointly work in this direction”  (CNN News).

Russia has in fact extended an invitation to the Trump administration to send a representative to attend the talks in Astana.  Now that he is president, he will face opposition from neo-conservative and neo-liberal statesmen and from ranking officials in the Pentagon and intelligence community, men and women opposed to any cooperation with the Russians.

We will soon find out what the United States under President Trump is going to do – the Astana meeting began yesterday (January 23) in Kazakhstan as scheduled. It is the first time, since the conflict began six years ago, that high officials from the Syrian government have sat at a negotiating table with high officials representing the armed opposition to discuss cessation of a war that has claimed over 400,000 lives.

At the outset of the meeting (being held at the Rixos President Astana Hotel)  Iran, Turkey, and Russia welcomed the various delegates including representatives of the Syrian government and members of armed opposition groups opposed to the Syrian government.  The Syrian government is being represented by Bashar Jaafari (Syria’s Permanent Representative to the UN) who voiced extreme difficulty sitting down with countrymen who have helped ravage Syria supported by, an cooperating with, an overwhelming influx of foreign terrorists backed by an immense amount of foreign aid and assistance:

“This has been extremely painful for us to sit in the same room with other Syrians linked to foreign agendas and working for foreign powers.”

Delegates stressed the situation cannot be solved by military intervention.  Although the military is necessary to assure adherence to the cease-fire-peace initiative, the imbroglio must be revolved diplomatically, a process that will involve the United Nations.

There is no military solution to the Syrian conflict…it can only be solved through a political process based on the implementation of the UN Security Council resolution 2254 in its entirety.

The cooperating powers all agreed to the territorial integrity and national sovereignty of the Syrian nation, implying that they will uphold the right of Syria as a sovereign nation, a nation entitled to determine for itself who its leaders will be and who will be invited to fight alongside it against common enemies.

“The delegations of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Russian Federation and the Republic of Turkey, in line with the Joint Statement of their Foreign Ministers made in Moscow, on December 20, 2016 and the UN Security Council resolution 2336…”reaffirm their commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic as a multi-ethnic, multi-religious, non-sectarian and democratic state”

It appears as forecast in our earlier report that the Syrian High Negotiation Committee (HNC) the umbrella group for Syrian opposition groups has not been invited. The  “HNC is a Saudi-backed and formulated umbrella organization.” Given the fact that the HNC is headquartered in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, home of Sunni radicalism, of Shariah Law and Wahhabi and Salafist ultra-extremism led by Saud monarchs who rule their country with a tight fist, it seemed clear that they would not be invited. For centuries the Sauds have been locked in deadly combat with Shiite Iran and have been the prime supporters of jihad and terrorism in Syria.  It is hard to imagine a group supported by the Sauds involved in a peace process that will strengthen the hands of its enemies viz., Iran, Russia and Turkey. Moreover, the HNC, supported by Great Britain has insisted, that President Assad must be removed from office within six months of any transition. This is contrary to the Syrian initiated democratic process envisioned by the Russians and the Syrian people themselves who voted overwhelmingly in Assad’s favor in 2014.

Moreover, according to Aljazeera News

The HNC would reject any agreement struck by Russia and the US if it largely differed from the HNC’s terms.”

To bolster military operations to secure the cease-fire (in spite of opposition groups such as the HNC and other terrorists not invited to Astana), it was agreed yesterday (Jan 23) that (1) Iran will cooperate militarily with Turkey and Russia to assure the ceasefire and (2) that Syria’s indigenous opposition forces will be separated from the various terrorist organizations operating within the country (al-Nusra-ISIL-Daesh), organizations supported by Saudi Arabia and represented by the HNC.  The terrorist groups will be subject to the combined wrath of Iran, Russia and Turkey who reiterated their “determination to fight jointly against… them.”

This in itself is an extremely significant development.  In the past Saudi Arabia has brokered deals with Turkey to keep Iran in check; now, it appears that Turkey is switching allegiance. By Turkey now combining with Iran, it is Saudi Arabia that is checked and potentially threatened.  The Sauds are further feeling the heat due to Russia’s combining its forces with both The Turks and the Persians (Iran). Implicitly, Saudi Arabia is being warned. If tensions do not cease; it is highly likely that Saudi Arabia will find bombs dropping on the Arabian Peninsula and Trump might not be there to intervene, esp. if he is working with the Russians to bring peace to the Middle East.

It appears that the Astana meeting is intended to foster peace between the Assad government and Syrian opposition, that is with opposition from Syrian citizens (not imported terrorists) who have issues with the government. Once these issues are resolved, the UN can take up negotiations with the terrorists who are unruly even at a meeting.  In all likelihood, Syria is being united, internal grievances mollified and divisions healed before the Russians, Turks and Iranians begin pounding the terrorists into oblivion – as Trump has stated “I would bomb the shit out of ISIS”.

jyt

ghg

Before this can happen, bombing the “shit” out of ISIS, Assad wants to unify his country and mitigate any grievances to assure the full support of his countrymen in the war that is about to be unleashed on the terrorists unless the UN can somehow avoid the coming conflict, a conflict that will presumably involve the US aligning with the Russians, Turks, Iranians and Syrians against ISIL-Deash-al Nusra et al.

Tuesday’s meeting concluded with the three guarantors issuing a join-statement supporting the upcoming UN Geneva talks and the participation of Syrian opposition forces (not necessarily the terrorists) within them.

hjh
Meeting Concluded but Not Over

The January 23 meeting was open to the press.  Today, Jan 24, participants are meeting en banc behind closed doors to engage in further discussions between the Syrian government and opposition forces. Apparently, President Trump has been contacted and responded positively; it is reported that the United States has a representative there. According to Sputnik:

“Damascus delegation is set to speak first, followed by the armed opposition, Russia, Iran, Turkey, the United States and the United Nations.

Kairat Abdrakhmanov,  Foreign Minister of host Kazakastan, is optimistic:

“I am confident that the meeting in Astana will provide the necessary conditions allowing to find the acceptable solution of Syrian crisis for all the interested parties in the framework of Geneva process under the auspices of the UN and will be a significant step forward to peace and stability in Syria. I wish you successful and fruitful negations….Kazakhstan believes that the only correct way to resolve the situation in Syria should be negotiations based on mutual trust and understanding.”

Abdrakhmanov also stressed his wishes for a successful start that will lead to a breakthrough opening the way to the diplomatic side of things to occur in Geneva under UN auspices on February 8, 2017.

“We are providing you with the platform and the conditions to start negotiations… The next few days are very important,” the delegates he said “should use this opportunity to ensure a real breakthrough.”

The Astana round involves representatives of the armed opposition whereas the Geneva round will be a political process involving diplomats.  The Astana round is primarily a military round involving maintenance of the ceasefire that will prepare the way for the Geneva Round in February.  Highly significant is the role Russia s playing in cooperation with the UN. It is Russian military might in cooperation with Iran and Turkey that the UN is relying on to bring the contending parties to Geneva to engage in higher diplomatic talks.  In the past, meetings were attempted in Geneva but armed opposition groups refused to participate. Astana therefore represents a breakthrough, and if the talks proceed well (along with a successful ceasefire) there is hope for significant progress in Geneva.

As a result the Astana talks will focus primarily on military issues. Strategies and agreements intended to enhance the volatile ceasefire are expected to be the main issue on the agenda. These agreements, if reached, will pave the way for a political settlement of the Syrian crisis in Geneva. Sergey Lavrov, Foreign Minister of Russia emphasized this point:

The talks in Astana are “an important contribution to… a comprehensive political settlement in Syria which will continue in wider activities in Geneva in early February.”

However, if neocon war hawks respond like the liberal robotons taking to the streets in various US cities, if the war hawks are as un-accepting of Trump’s Russian initiatives or of Russia brokering a peace treaty while the US plays second fiddle, disruption or attempted disruption of the new administration can be expected. If the neocon response is anything like the liberal response, further unrest can be expected in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East. The fact that ISIL and Jadhat Fatah al Sham (al Nusra Front), who maintain control of large swathes of Syria’s oil fields, are not at the Astana meeting is indicative of a latent backlash waiting for Trump – these are forces who were, and have been, supported by neocons during the Obama administration. If Trump is unable to adroitly handle domestic opposition against Russia and Assad, opposition rising from war-hawks in his own party and from liberals on the left who will use the opportunity (who will do anything to put the new president in a quagmire) to disrupt his administration, the situation will grow worse, not better.

However, do not count the rising American majority out, the men and women who rose to put Trump in the White House. If the liberal neocon cohort has not learned its lesson, the same people who voted for Trump will themselves soon take to the streets in unprecedented numbers in support of their new president and of America’s new peace initiatives.  They are tired of war-mongering, of being lied to, of unpunished criminal acts, of disruption and constant belly-aching from hypocritical and spoiled extreme liberal leftists – they have simply had enough.  If things continue as usual, “same old-same old”, it can be expected that they will soon be heard from in a rising crescendo of support for peace and cooperation with Russia and other coopering nations throughout the world as the promised Era of Peace dawns upon humanity.

President Trump and the United States have an opportunity to work with Russia and the global community toward world peace. But to be successful they must resign themselves to the reality that the neocon-neoliberal vision for a new American Century must be modified.  The age of liberal global hegemony is coming to an end.  Increasingly, the nations of the world are opting for national sovereignty and a restoration of traditional family values as the Era of Peace promised at Fatima continues to dawn upon the nations.

The United States can either adjust and cooperate or continue suffering one foreign policy embarrassment after another. It is either cooperate for peace or, as concluded in the previous article, a continued fall into irrelevance, something the Americans are unaccustomed too. If this happens, due to lack of cooperation with Russia et al, the liberals and their neocon allies who help make it a reality will have something real to cry about.