sábado, 5 de octubre de 2019



“NOT EXPLAINABLE
EXPLANATION”
Attempts to prove Iran's authorship in attacks on Saudi refineries have caused more confusion than clarity. Who really were the executors of this attack?


By Dany Smith & Ali Al Najafi
When the high military command of the Saudi kingdom held a press conference inside the facilities of the ARAMCO oil refinery, a senior Saudi official described what happened while exposing the remains of allegedly Iranian missiles lying on the ground to the press. But those remains had some signs that did not correspond to the story. Some accredited foreign journalists did not hesitate to point out some of these curiosities and then they began the technical explanations of why some of these arguments, which, without fitting with what they wanted to explain, caused that official to strive to give a little credibility to that version coming to seem his explanation more to a stand-up comedian by Woody Allen than the revelation of real events.

The kingdom's defense official, General Tarik Al Maliki, was trying to give a reasonable explanation of how Iran was able to launch such a precise and destructive US missile attack. Some came to watch with admiration as this official made a huge effort to make fit these inconsistencies warned by the curious journalists, while some American advisers camouflaged among those present took note of the situation.

It was all a charade. The Saudis themselves were not convinced that Iran had been the author of the attack, much less, that the missiles and drones used were launched from their territory. For now and not to lose the thread of the accusations, they preferred to hold the Yemenis responsible by launching brutal retaliatory bombings that killed an unspecified number of civilians. It was clear that attacking Yemen was much more feasible and less risky than attacking Iran. Everything responded to a clear need of the US State Department and Secretary Mike Pompeo himself to have “evidence” -or at least an appearance of them- to publicly blame the Islamic Republic and its “evil Ayatollah regime.”
US Patriot in Saudi Arabia

It was the same media pantomime that the United States and its allies have been around for decades around the Islamic Republic.
But if this attack had actually been launched from Iranian territory, what happened to all the air and anti-missile surveillance systems deployed in the region and in particular with the 88 expensive “Patriot” systems acquired by Saudi Arabia? From Washington this question has only returned a deafening silence which calls for reflection on what has really happened. The Saudis themselves wonder, have we been fooled by our American friends? When in reality what they should say is “Have they deceived us again?”

US E-A3 Sentry over Persian Gulf

Few (to say no one) it is believed that CENTCOM has been overlooked that a drone fleet and several intermediate-range missiles have been fired from a region as guarded as the Iranian border. The periodic aerial surveillance of E-A3 “Sentry” aircraft based in Saudi Arabia makes it even more doubtful to believe. To this we must not forget the continuous activity of naval electronic surveillance and intelligence carried out by the task forces (with their Aegis Systems) that are operating within the waters of the Gulf. There is a clear intention behind these signals to hide something else.
For the Russian specialists these systems failed “because they do not meet the declared characteristics”, which translated into common language, “these systems do not serve what they say they serve.”

If the American version is taken seriously, the generals in the Pentagon and the entire military missile systems industry would have to review the products they have in service since, if their early warning radars and anti-missile systems “MIM-104 Patriot” They failed to detect and even less tear down these unsophisticated attack vectors, it shows that they have sold the rusty scrap to the Saudis. It is clear that blaming technical failures is a recurring shortcut to excuse yourself from curious situations like this, but not in the prevailing circumstances it is frankly credible. Some other sheikh would have commented in the halls of the Palace “Bayt Al Saud” “Will we be reimbursed what we paid for these craps?”
Smoke come from ARAMCO installations

There is behind the production of these weapons systems a large mega corporate business (1500 to 2000 million dollars) that involves the US Department of Defense and private companies such as “Raytheon” that are concessioned to provide defensive systems to countries that have decided enter NATO or as in the case of Saudi Arabia, to protect US oil investments.

It is hard to believe that Washington continues to promote these defensive systems as “the best anti-aircraft systems in the world”, not if -by the words of Pompeo himself- they have such unforgivable failures. If this rude incident showed that the expensive system sold to the Saudis did not even see the attack coming, it sounds like a bad joke that Mike Pompeo alleges that “even the best anti-aircraft system in the world sometimes fails”. Such expensive protection is effective or it is not. And it is clear that with this, it is very debatable that he is the best in the world. Undoubtedly, rumors about suggestions to the royal house to replace these systems with the Russian “S-400” missile systems, has unleashed concerns among the US military.

However, no one in the region - except Israel - swallows the version of an Iranian attack. The Saudis doubt it very much, the Emiratis do not swallow it and the Qataris reject it flat. Even the same Russian premier Vladimir Putin has pointed out that “there is no evidence that Iran was behind these attacks on Saudi refineries.” In addition to contradicting the account of the US Department of State and the accusations of Donald Trump himself, it makes us reflect on where the launches were made and who was really behind. At the height of the circumstances and with all the records that have been recorded, many of us believe that this has been a “Black Operation” most carried out by a special unit interested in seeking the Casus Belli.

The feasibility to simulate an attack from Iran exists and is available in the field of events, but they are uncomfortable for the West. And the main scenario to realize this attack is in the convulsed territory of its neighbor. In recent months, social protests have been increasing and street violence has become peculiarly fierce in southern Iraq. Convenient chance? Since the invasion, all calamities have been possible. Iraq remains under US control and in the south of the country (from where the operation could have been executed) the British influence through its intelligence could have facilitated the preparation and execution of this attack.

jueves, 3 de octubre de 2019



“IMPEACHMENT EN MARCHA
¿Ha llegado el final de la Carrera política de Donald Trump y de ser así, a quiénes beneficia?

Por Charles H. Slim

“No hagan esto peor de lo que ya es”, sentenció la presidente de la Cámara de Representantes la demócrata Nancy Pelosi en momentos que logró el acuerdo para impulsar el juicio político al presidente Donald Trump. Sus insultos y acostumbrados mensajes de Twitter no lo ayudan en nada. La torpeza de Trump de haber realizado una llamada para mantener una conversación impertinente realizando sugerencias poco apropiadas con el premier ucraniano le está pasando cuentas y sus rivales ya comenzaron a explotar su oportunidad para ayudar a desbancarlo de la Casa Blanca.

El escándalo arrecia en los cenáculos de la política doméstica norteamericana y los resentidos sectores demócratas conducidos por la senadora Hillary Clinton están de parabienes y no se detendrán hasta ver la cabeza de Trump en una bandeja. Los antecedentes de Clinton la preceden por lo que esos deseos no son una exageración. Todos los argumentos constitucionales están a disposición de la oposición y bajo el eslogan “el presidente debe rendir cuentas, ya que nadie está por encima de la ley”, la presidente de la Cámara de Representantes Nancy Pelosi le da un marco de legalidad espectacular a su petición de juicio político que no es más que un linchamiento político.

¿Pero que demuestra este escándalo? En primer término ello demuestra al mundo que la pretendida “mejor democracia del mundo” no lo es tanto. Los engranajes de su compleja y laberíntica estructura estatal funcionan cuando hay determinados intereses involucrados y no en todos los casos.  Segundo, es que lejos del supuesto respeto a las libertades civiles y la siempre negada invasión a la intimidad, la sorpresiva denuncia administrativa que involucra al mismo presidente,  ha demostrado que siempre hay alguien (y no necesariamente un robot) que escucha todo lo que dices y lo usará en tu contra cuando ello lo amerite y sea del interés al gobierno federal. Quizá los expertos y los responsables de la NSA o del servicio secreto de la Casa Blanca pretendan llamarlo “protocolo de seguridad” pero ¿Por qué no funcionó en la misma forma y con la misma celeridad con la administración Bush-Cheney?

No caben dudas de que las comunicaciones que tuvieron George Bush y su vice Dick Cheney con personeros iraquíes como Yalad Alawi, Nouri Al Maliki o el títere afgano Yamil Karsai o incluso, las comunicaciones realizadas con funcionarios propios tan abyectos como el Secretario de Estado Donald Rumsfeld, sus controvertidos Secretarios de Justicia John Ashcroft y Alberto Gonzáles o el jefe de la CIA Richard Tenet, deben estar llenas de entretelones escabrosos vinculados a la “lucha contra el terrorismo” que justificaba la violación sistemática de los derechos humanos de los habitantes de varios lugares del globo ¿Fueron grabadas esas conversaciones?: ¿O acaso estos funcionarios de la Casa Blanca estaban mejor asesorados al momento de abrir la boca por una línea telefónica?

Es algo bastante sospechoso o al menos curioso ver como se inicia esto. 
Hace meses atrás se hizo público la filtración de una fuente interna dentro de la misma Casa Blanca que hablaba de estar trabajando para socavar la administración, una especie de “insurgencia palaciega”. Todo ello acompañado de una campaña político-mediática argumentada sobre la supuesta injerencia rusa en las elecciones que le dieron el triunfo a Trump, iniciando una novela que los medios angloestadounidenses venden como el “Russia-gate”, una tontería que incluso el mismo Vladimir Putin usa para hacer chistes públicamente (https://actualidad.rt.com/ ).

El 25 de julio pasado Trump hace una llamada a Kiev para tener una conversación con su par Volosymyr Zelensky, el tema parece intrascendente hasta que en una parte de esa conversación el presidente estadounidense le solicita al mandatario ucraniano que investigue las actividades del hijo de John Biden en Ucrania. Alguien del otro lado de la línea dijo “Te tengo” y el resto es historia.

Desde el punto de vista de política interior, el hecho no deja de ser más grave que muchas otras inconstitucionalidades cometidas durante 18 años por el propio estado federal contra sus ciudadanos y de otras partes del mundo. Pero, en este caso, hay fuertes intereses oscuros por desbancar cuanto antes a un mandatario muy incómodo y renegado a los lineamientos del Establishment. Está claro que para dicho propósito, todo está disponible y es sacrificable en aras de este objetivo, incluso y de ser necesario, tirando a la basura el poco crédito político de los EEUU ante la opinión pública.

Y es que el supuesto pedido de Trump a Zelensky de que investigue las actividades de su rival John Biden en Ucrania según la sagás inteligencia de Pelosi implicaría la intervención de una potencia extranjera en asuntos internos de la Unión.  Bajo este cargo a Trump le cabría la destitución por el no menor cargo de “traición” lo que implicaría una salida deshonrosa y escandalosa.
Nancy Pelosi

Esto a su vez no lleva a cuestionarnos ¿Quién estaba escuchando la conversación y quién realizo la denuncia?  Ante todo, la cuestión debería ser ¿Es legal escuchar las conversaciones del mismo presidente? Esto da lugar para un largo debate constitucional que pone en evidencia que las garantías y las libertades en los EEUU parecen solo existir en los papeles. 

No olvidemos como hace unas semanas atrás se desató un escándalo por la instalación de los dispositivos de escucha montados por el Mossad israelí en edificios clave en todo Washington incluyendo a la misma Casa Blanca. Al momento no se sabe con precisión como se está procesando esto y es seguro que los responsables de montar esta red (incluyendo al mismo Netanyahu), estén frenando las investigaciones correspondientes.

Sobre esto último no queda claro cuál era el propósito de esta red de escucha. Se podría especular que Tel Aviv podría estar seriamente preocupado por los problemas internos que está pasando su benefactor  o quizá, sea un participe en las intrigas de la oposición demócrata que aspira a ganar las próximas elecciones.

Si el mismo presidente es escrutado en lo que habla telefónicamente con otro mandatario ¿Quién puede imaginarse hasta dónde es violentada la intimidad de los simples ciudadanos no ya estadounidenses, sino del globo? 
Ante ello los estadounidenses entran en cuentas de que están mucho más que desnudos ante su gobierno.

Las denuncias de Snowden nunca fueron un embuste o una exageración de un traidor como lo señalaron los “Halcones” neoconservadores de Washington. Por el contrario, por ser muy reales fue perseguido y debió huir para refugiarse en Rusia al ser condenado a muerte.

Esto al mismo tiempo, ha impulsado los reclamos de asociaciones civiles y sectores políticos en EEUU para que se levanten las restricciones que se habían venido imponiendo al conocimiento público de las llamadas y la preservación de las comunicaciones y reuniones realizadas por el presidente con mandatarios extranjeros en la Casa Blanca (https://nsarchive.gwu.edu ).

La denuncia de esta sugerencia provino de un “informante” de inteligencia anónimo que realizó una meticulosa y extensiva “queja” administrativa ante el Inspector General de la Comunidad de Inteligencia (https://intelligence.house.gov ), un organismo desconocido por la mayoría de los estadounidenses y que compone la interminable telaraña de agencias y departamentos federales de inteligencia que florecieron al amparo de los nada claros ataques del 11 de septiembre de 2001 y del insondable financiamiento autorizado por George W. Bush y su administración.

En este sentido y bajo el amparo de la supuesta violación a la Seguridad Nacional y con ello a la Constitución, los demócratas y en particular la presidente de la Cámara de Representantes Nancy Pelosi y con la complacencia de Hillary Clinton pueden llegar a lograr que Donald Trump y toda su administración (al menos una parte sustancial) sea desalojada de La Casa Blanca y entonces ¿Quién puede llegar a tomar su lugar? O para el caso de que Trump sobreviva como candidato a las elecciones del 2020 ¿Servirá este escándalo para deshacer cualquier posibilidad de que Trump sea reelecto?

martes, 1 de octubre de 2019


“CREATING INSECURITY”
How will neoconservatives and their Zionist allies push the Trump Administration to create instability in the Persian Gulf as a door to aggression against Iran?

By Charles H. Slim
None of the movements that the US has made in the Middle East has been improvised. Each and every one of them has been planned at least thirty years in advance and in each of them the interest of Tel Aviv has been involved. An excuse was needed and suddenly there was one adjusted to the needs of the moment; all very convenient! The plans to destabilize Syria come from 1983 in full administration of Ronald Reagan and the dismantling of Iraq undoubtedly became apparent from the moment that the Islamic revolution occurred in Iran in 1979 (in the middle of the Jimmy Carter administration). Simply, the "Establishment" of Washington never had a sincere and transparent policy with Arab and Islamic governments and those who believed them in their good auspices fell under a stab. Contemporary history accounts for it.

The US was never an impartial third party in the Arab-Israeli conflict, although this had already been denounced since the early 1980s, when, while mediating to carry out the Camp David agreements, it sent substantial military and economic aid to Israel. Even their actions (naval bombardment of Syrian facilities) against Lebanon in 1983 were more aimed at improving the situation of Israelis in the region than responding to Washington's exclusive interests. At that time some clueless in the Pentagon were questioning: What are we doing there?

If it is true that this was a response to the blasting of the Marines barracks in Beirut that forced the American withdrawal, but it was certainly not the only excuse. Although Secretary of State Cyrus Vance made sincere efforts to establish true ties for a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, other dark currents moved in the opposite direction below the same White House that were led by the malicious security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski.

For Vance, that was like paddling against the current and his efforts to solve a regional problem that maintained instability without a continuity solution and that really worried Jimmy Carter, seemed to fall into nothingness. The truth was that everything Carter had done Reagan and his "Falcons" threw it away.

Those actions justified by the then Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger caused many civilian casualties but the control of the press and the ideological loyalty of the companies that made it up, ensured - as expected - silence or in the worst case the contempt and the relativization of those consequences.

In the same 1983, while the White House emissary Donald Rumsfeld visited Damascus, the CIA was already taking the first steps to destabilize the Syrian Arab Republic which, under the Hafez Al Assad government, represented one of the most dangerous rivals for stability From Israel. The same position was taken secretly with Iraq and plans to destabilize it accelerated with the 1990 crisis when Israel saw the golden opportunity to definitively overthrow the Arab country. Here too, Rumsfeld played the role of the White House emissary, bringing Saddam Hussein the promise of military aid to curb Iran.

From there, Iraq would have chemical weapons provided by American and European laboratories which it would use against Iranians and Kurds not only for possessing them but also, because the White House gave its approval. But when Hussein stopped being useful, they simply cooled relations.

Here Washington under the blind and despite the strong role he played with Saddam Hussein's government to try to end the Iranian revolution, he decided it was time to get rid of him and his potential in the region. Ronald Reagan's containment policy had expired. The USSR was no longer a strategic threat and therefore, the gigantic Iraqi army that strikes the clarification was not needed, it bothered Israel.

The crisis between Kuwait and Iraq in 1990 was no accident. That was followed closely by the Americans, so much so that the CIA manipulated the parties and made sure that the Jeddah talks failed. Next step, I manipulate the United Nations and after assuring the failure of any type of negotiation I create an “armed Coalition” that served to cover an interventionist military offensive made up of resolutions of the organism.


Plans to disrupt Syria had to be postponed and efforts centered on Iraq that after two catastrophic wars and its invasion in 2003 was reduced to a failed state. The plans for Syria were retaken by the massive agitation operation in North Africa in 2010 that culminated in the destruction of Libya, another feared enemy of Israel and an annoying cousin of the Gulf monarchs.

Today it is Iran's turn although it is true to mention it, attempts to disrupt it come from the very assumption of Ayatollah Khomeini. But the last ten years until this part the attempts have become more cruel and shameless, and the dirty hand of Israeli intelligence and its western colleagues has been proven in several of these events. The nuclear issue and the development of missiles were central to the excuses for establishing policies of political and economic destabilization, thereby skipping all known international legislation.

Although Tehran demonstrated its willingness to defuse the nuclear situation by signing a memorandum with President Barak Obama called "Joint Comprehensive Action Plan" JCPOA, Trump under the influence of the American Zionist Lobby that reports directly to Tel Aviv, I finish without consultation. It was the sign of the irreducible Israeli influence in the White House and its desperation to try to corner the Iranians so that they no longer have the inescapable political and military influence that hinders their expansionist ambitions in the region.

Iran has put an end to Washington's claims by demonstrating that the concerns they claim from there are not sincere since if they were sincerely concerned about nuclear proliferation in the region they have not taken a single measure against Israel's nuclear arsenal.


As it has been seen throughout the year, attempts to create a Casus Belli against Tehran that involved third countries fell into failures. The sabotages of oil tankers that tried to be enlightened to alleged attacks by the "Iranian Revolutionary Guard", despite the Anglo-Saxon media agitation, failed to move public opinion. The last attempt to recreate an incident that justified a US military intervention was the bombing of the ARAMCO refineries in Saudi Arabia that was initially awarded to the “Hutie” resistance in Yemen and then to a missile launch from Iranian territory. This served as an excuse for Washington to request the cooperation of its European and Arab allies to form a "Coalition" but without finding much enthusiasm and several refusals to participate.

And although the influences of Tel Aviv and Washington on the United Nations are undeniable, they could not avoid the firm opposition of the Russian Federation and China in the Security Council.

This led to the administration of Donald Trump trying a new strategy trying to use the United Nations Charter before an alleged "danger of navigation" through the Strait of Hormuz, forming a new naval Coalition - composed of some of its allies - called “Operation Sentinel” with the presumed purpose of providing security for navigation in the waters of the Persian Gulf that is nothing other than the veiled preparation of future hostile actions. This shows that beyond what types like John Bolton are no longer in the administration does not mean that the neoconservative and Zionist influence does not last on the White House agenda