“EFECTISMO GEOPOLITICO”

¿Qué efecto tendrá la charada mediática montada por los liberales anglófilos contra el presidente Maduro en vísperas de la Cumbre de la CELAC?

 

Por Charles H. Slim

No ha sido una novedad que la militancia pro-estadounidense de la política argentina, tomara curso de acción contra algunos de los principales referentes latinoamericanos que llegarán al país en el marco de la cumbre de la CELAC. Haciendo uso de una batería argumentativa calcada del Departamento de Estado norteamericano, sectores opositores de Juntos por el Cambio (en particular el PRO) y ONG´s ideológicamente cercanas a su posición lanzaron una campaña mediática, en particular contra la llegada del presidente venezolano Nicolás Maduro Moros orientada a demostrar su obsecuencia con el “líder de la democracia”.

¿Cuál es el verdadero motivo que hay detrás de estas operaciones? Claramente, el intento de escarmentar a una revolución que no se ha dejado cooptar. Recordemos que fue el presidente y fundador de la Revolución Bolivariana Hugo César Chávez quien se planto de frente y sin dobleces contra las arbitrariedades estadounidenses y la de su aliado Israel, en momentos que todo el arco político (entre ellos los liberales republicanos argentos) de la región guardaba silencio. Maduro continuo esa política y fruto de ello Venezuela viene siendo objeto de los más variados intentos de desestabilización con los cuales colaboran desde adentro, personajes como Juan Guaildo y Cia.

En este último sentido no hay que olvidar que Venezuela viene siendo comercialmente sancionada y bloqueada por Washington en el marco de una guerra económica ilegal (dado que no hay bases legales para esas facultades) tal como lo han intentado hacer con Rusia y China.

Bajo la misma táctica de usar los derechos humanos y la comisión de supuestos delitos de lesa humanidad, este sector de la política argentina -ideológicamente ligada al occidente anglosajón- trataría de lograr la detención del presidente Nicolás Maduro intentando dar un golpe de efecto geopolítico que obviamente, agradaría a Washington.

A la vista de los incautos y de ciudadanos que poco saben de la actualidad política, este sector del liberalismo político (que agrupa anglófilos y sionistas) se preocupa por la violación de los derechos humanos invocando la “universalidad” de dichos crímenes para intentar que un juez federal ordene la detención de Maduro apenas toque Ezeiza. Como saben que ello no prosperaría, la inefable ex ministra de seguridad Patricia Bullrich (muy cercana a Tel Aviv y Washington) pedirá a la DEA (que puso un precio a la cabeza de Maduro) que intervenga para agregar a toda la batería de acusaciones, la de narcotráfico.

La pregunta que debe hacerse la gente de a pie es ¿Qué legitimidad tiene la DEA para operar en otra jurisdicción? El intento de validar la extraterritorialidad solo funciona con los demás países pero, no con EEUU y sus socios israelíes, una inteligencia no muy democrática!

A pesar de la grandilocuencia y la puntillosa cobertura de los medios adeptos a esos polos de poder global, el margen para esa maniobra es muy escaza. Además, estos mismos ya vienen de un fallido intento de criminalizar a Venezuela con aquel aparatoso y vergonzante asunto del avión de CANVIASA que -discurso islamófobo mediante- dejó al descubierto cómo el sionismo local y obviamente la embajada de EEUU en Buenos Aires (bajo una cobertura mediática insultante) movilizaron todas las argucias judiciales posibles para intentar apresar a sus tripulantes iraníes y confiscar el avión. Aquello fue una gran estafa que prontamente los medios guardaron bajo la alfombra y que hoy ni mencionan.

Por otra parte, Maduro no puede esperar que el gobierno argentino lo proteja y mucho menos uno con total ausencia de autoridad como el actual. Cualquier promesa de Alberto Fernández es tan poco fiable como la nada misma. Queda claro que su seguridad evaluará como se halla el terreno y recién allí resolverá si viaja a Buenos Aires.

Esta supuesta preocupación por las aberraciones humanitarias es claramente selectiva. Cuando uno de los criminales más prolíficos como Benjamín Netanyahu, quien dirige un estado con un prontuario de violaciones y crímenes asombroso vino en 2017 a visitar a su amigo Mauricio Macri, ninguno de estos cacareadores dijo nada e incluso, se alejaron lo más posible de los medios para no comprometerse ante posibles cuestionamientos ante tal visita.  Por el contrario y fuera de la vista del público, los agentes israelíes (muchos de los cuales tienen las manos ensangrentadas) tomaron posesión de parte de la ciudad y valiéndose de las fuerzas locales, protegieron al visitante.

Es por estas notorias contradicciones y las reveladas complicidades ideológicas que vemos en quienes se venden como la “civilidad” y protectores de la “democracia”, que hoy estamos ante una encrucijada histórica que excede a la justicia argentina y a sus meros asuntos periféricos.

El problema aquí es bien claro y se refiere a quien controla la justicia para sus fines políticos. Lo que antes se dirimía en acciones bélicas a cielo abierto o guerras secretas entre agencias de inteligencia hoy se ha llevado a los estrados de la justicia donde estos mismos actores trataran de validar sus argumentos buscando los mismos fines, eliminar al contendiente pero sin sacarle la vida.

Este problema ya es global y no solo de la Argentina. Lamentablemente la esperanza de una instancia internacional neutral e imparcial hace tiempo que ha caído en saco roto. Hasta ahora hemos visto como el Tribunal Internacional de la ONU y la Corte Penal Internacional se han convertido en meros operadores de los intereses de Washington y Bruselas, procesando con mucha diligencia a nacionalistas y opositores africanos pero dilatando sin término el llamado a declarar a criminales de fuste que administran aparatos represivos de estados con incontables crímenes en su haber. En este sentido se espera que el Tribunal Internacional resuelva lo solicitado el 30 de diciembre del 2022 sobre la ocupación israelí sobre Palestina.

Desde el escándalo del ex fiscal Moreno Ocampo en la invasión a Libia en 2011 (apoyando a la OTAN) hasta las últimas informaciones sobre el asunto de las cementeras francesas “Lafarge” en las que las pesquisas judiciales solo llegaron a imponer una multa por haber apoyado al “ISIS” sin ahondar en las incumbencias que tuvo París, el DGSE y el mismo Francois Hollande (sin mencionar a EEUU y socios árabes) en toda aquella actividad, hace cuando menos poco creíble que la justicia de esta instancia tenga un ápice de credibilidad.  

A la luz de todas estas inconsecuencias, pocas son las posibilidades de que este sector anglófilo capitalino logre su propósito, máxime cuando el único sustento que tienen para impulsar estas acciones son algunos casos que (como ya lo han hecho contra Irán, Iraq, Siria, Rusia etc,etc) son magnificados por los medios, los mismos que deberían también ir a entrevistar a las familias de aquellos que fueron torturados y asesinados por los gobiernos que estos sectores tienen estrecha relación y que de llegar al gobierno, revitalizaran para el espanto de quienes realmente saben lo que es la violación de los derechos humanos.  

Para quienes con justa razón desconfíen de estos argumentos la invitación es clara: “La verdad esta ahí afuera, salga a buscarla”. 

 

 

“COVERING TRACES”

Why is there a serious risk that Zelensky will be taken out of the picture in Ukraine, and not by Russia?

Por Sidney Hey

When I was a child my grandfather used to scare me with tales of ghosts and intrigue and once told me that whoever makes a pact with the devil will pay with his soul. The experience I gained during my service life put it in my face that what my grandfather used to tell me as children's stories were rather, analogies of reality so as not to ruin your life.

In contemporary politics, especially in the last thirty years, examples of this have become part of history. The most important events in geopolitics have taken place in the course of this period, each of them marking the path towards the crossroads where we are today.

As soon as the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, the United States and its NATO partners began to modify but not cancel their agenda. John Major was undoubtedly aware, not of everything but of the essentials. It was never in Washington's plans to dissolve NATO. With the implosion of the USSR in 1991, plans to consolidate unipolar hegemony began to wane from the very day on 11 September 1991 when George H. Bush declared before Congress the beginning of the "New World Order".

In that plan, Washington had already begun a cleansing of the shelves of collaborators and regimes that for a time were useful to its plans. In 1989, CIA asset Manuel Noriega was removed from the presidency of Panama by his old friend and recruiter George Bush Senior in an invasion. Noriega was conveniently removed from the scene and silenced from the affairs he shared with Bush

In 1990, the Bush administration itself launched a deception operation in the Persian Gulf aimed at ending the partnership with Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime. To this end, the CIA, with the help of the Saudis, would manipulate the border dispute with Kuwait over control of the “Al Rumailah” oil wells by pushing Hussein (making him believe that the US would not intervene) into executing the invasion of Kuwait. The result was the landing of Americans on the Arabian Peninsula and the weakening of his long-time collaborator, Saddam Hussein. The implementation of trade sanctions was only a sinister strategy to weaken Iraq and, when the time came, to finish it off. It was only after the 2003 invasion that Washington managed to remove him from the scene and along with him, all the dirty business in which the US was involved.

Similar fates befell the likes of Osama Bin Laden, Abu Muzab Al Zarqawi, Aiman Al Zawahiri and the so-called “prince of the believers” agent Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi.

All these examples are relevant to the fate of the current puppet of the Anglo-Saxon West, the Ukrainian Volodymyr Zelensky.

All those who were seduced by Washington's policies and CIA solutions ended badly. It is not only the above examples that bear witness to this. In Latin America, the military dictatorships that were instigated and supported by Langley all ended in total disrepute and in some cases, their commanders were brought to justice. In these cases the CIA was removed from its responsibilities (in the framework of Operation Condor) simply because the new civilian governments and their politicians did not want to complicate their existence and to some extent owed their access to power to the State Department.

A year ago, Ukrainian President Zelensky changed all his electoral promises for a peaceful settlement of the Donbass by one hundred and eighty degrees to become the most obedient and stubborn supporter of an all-out war against his people and against Russia. Nothing new under the sun in the behaviour of an ambitious politician, but in this case who convinced him to launch Kiev into an all-out war?  It seems that researcher and writer Finian Cunningham has hit the nail on the head with the real causes of this change.

The CIA chief's visit to Zelensky himself a few weeks before the start of the Russian operations was crucial in changing those promises. According to an interesting article on the Strategic-Culture.com website, Burns' visit focused on warning Zelensky that he could be assassinated, but not by Russia. It was a persuasive visit in which Burns made an offer that Zelensky could not refuse. No one knows what Burns brought to illustrate that persuasion, but it is clear that it was necessary to meet his host in person to get the message across.

Western media have tried to argue that Burns travelled to warn Zelensky that he could be killed by Russia, but the facts do not support this speculation. If that had been the case, they would have been killed long ago. What the head of the CIA was telling him was that if he went off the rails, they themselves would finish him off, and their reputation for doing so precedes them. Zelensky was (if you like) convinced to play Washington's game that you can't walk away from.

As we know, it is not Zelensky who gives orders and designs state policy in Kiev. There is a military leadership that is tightly controlled by the Americans and the British that is the real administration of what is left of the country. It is this same structure, with the no longer secret help of NATO, that carries out the strategy and tactical deployment of Ukrainian troops. In this context, Zelensky is only a public relations face and nothing more, leaving the rest of the officials as mere cogs to be replaced at the regime's discretion.

Burns' warning has already been exemplified in reality. Any dissent to the costs the war is inflicting on Ukrainians is quickly suppressed and the slightest whisper of talks with Russia is eliminated. Arrests, deaths and disappearances among officials of the same regime document this. Communications and the internet are under total NATO control, so that the content and information of its citizens is under close scrutiny as to what they can express. All this, supported and controlled by the Anglo-Saxon "democracies".

One of the latest episodes revealing this was the alleged plane crash in which 14 members of Zelensky's government died, including his interior minister Denis Monastyrsky, who had been questioning the very raids being carried out in Kiev and other cities to arrest alleged Russian “sympathisers”. In these extra-judicial raids, squads are taking part, including right-wing extremists from “Pradvi Sektor” among others.

These raids are supposed to be judicially sanctioned. It is also not credible that there is any jurisdictional control over these acts, since in addition to martial law, these judges cannot step out of the mould without consequences. This whole mechanism of terror is well known to the CIA and its special groups, which operated with impunity and with the same objectives in Baghdad throughout the occupation.

The lightning visit to Kiev by Burns himself just 24 hours ago seems to be a reminder of that other meeting perhaps, warning that there are indications that Zelensky intends to throw in the towel.

Finally, given the adverse circumstances on the battlefield that (as the Pentagon has already warned) compromise US and Atlanticist partners' investment and involvement, it is quite possible that when it all falls apart Zelensky will be killed by a lone gunman (or one of his bodyguards), a car bomb in one of his transfers or blown up where he is by a supposed Russian missile strike. The rest will be done by the Anglo-Saxon media.

 

“MASKING”

In the slapping game Who will bleed first?

 

By Sir Charlattam

It was back in 2005 when an open-air market in Sadr City, Baghdad was targeted by a car bomb that the Western media blamed on the “Al Qaeda-Iraq” hoax. Almost simultaneously, but on the other side of the city, a Sunni mosque was shot at by alleged Shiite extremists, for US media such as CNN and FOX NEWS the preferred perpetrators were followers of Moqtadr Al Sadr, thus setting up the argument of terrorism and sectarian warfare.

All this was going on under the noses of the Anglo-American occupiers and the Iraqis themselves suspected that they were behind this sinister game. Time would prove them right.

The same strategy (with the complicity of the Saudis and Emiratis) would be replicated in Libya, then in Syria and with a complex plot, re-established in Iraq (with the participation of Turkey) with the pseudo-Islamic farce of the “Islamic State” in 2014. It was all part of a hybrid war ploy in which terrorism was the main tactic.

The terrorist actions of the CIA -called sabotage- and its partners inside Russia that Washington has tried to justify under the cover of the Russian Special Operation launched on 24 February 2022 were already planned in advance demonstrating the premeditation in generating such acts.

The alleged revelations of the investigator Jack Murphy, in which he claims to be the mastermind behind these acts, had overlooked the fact that these plans had been under consideration since before 2014 and were only authorised by President Barack Obama in 2017.

This gives another dimension to what the Anglo-American media call sabotage and highlights the immorality and inconsistency with which Washington manipulated not only its citizens but the whole world with its military interventions under the pretext of the so-called “fight against terrorism”.

Obviously the legal advisors of the State Department and the CIA, with the invaluable help of the Media Corporation try to disassociate these criminal actions with the term terrorism, but despite these attempts, the use of reasoning and common sense, no citizen anywhere in this world believes that there is any difference since the results are so obvious.

According to Murphy the agency's “agents” were not American and only since 2017 (after Obama's pre-emptive authorisation) started planting explosives in different buildings and industrial targets in Russia and Belarus. In doing so, it removes from the scene (and from criminal responsibility) the governments that passed through the White House, authorisers of the launch and execution of attacks that would not only destroy building infrastructure, but would cause the death of many people.

But if we look at the time span in which this entire network of attackers was assembled, their entry, cover and stay inside these countries was financed, the reception of the explosives, hiding them in secret hideouts and moving them to place them in the targets, the numbers do not add up.

It is also suspicious to claim that no US citizens have been involved. Perhaps the opposite is true.

As we well know, Russian troops launched the operations on 24 February last year, so the justification for the CIA's (US) implementation of terrorist actions against targets inside two sovereign nations like Russia and Belarus would not have existed up to that point. If we give any credence to Murphy's version and validate terrorism as another NATO tactic, the degree of American reaction was staggering. Still, why did the US mount such a network of attackers if it was not a party to the conflict? Don't forget that it was a guarantor of the Minsk agreements. A small detail that neither Washington nor Murphy could answer.

If Obama's 2017 “forecast” is to be believed, the numbers don't add up. The alleged Slavic associates who made up the attack network within the Russian Federation did not come out of the air or show up at a CIA recruiting office (like in those stupid Hollywood movies) or were recruited at European universities, especially in Britain, France or Germany. Suppose they did, how long did it take to recruit them?

Perhaps if, as Murphy says, the CIA used another agency in a regional country to infiltrate Russian society, i.e. professional manpower, the problems of how to get hold of the explosives, move them, access the designated sites to blow them up and mine them remain unexplained. If we buy that story for a minute and accept that how did they determine that the explosives they planted so far in advance would not be discovered by security or their mechanism jammed by the passage of time?

This tactic works if there is a well-determined and predicted time to set off the explosives. This was seen in the attack on the Dinamo stadium in Grozny in May 2004 where the then pro-Russian leader Aimad Kadyrov and several of his aides were killed by the explosion of a bomb placed in the concrete structure built earlier. Chechen separatists who were supported by MI6 had placed explosives inside the structure and then filled it with cement.

The intrigue-loving MI6 boys and their yellow loudspeakers on the MI5 payroll would have liked to put the rumour that they had infiltrators in the SVR and the FSB, but even the inventor of that story would not buy it. Cold War experiences of such exploits ended in terrible failures and a lot of headaches for the Foreign Office.

Playing dirty with Arabs and Islamists went on for a while. Today we see them trying to forget the “Islamic State” (Daesh) issue and the members who are now imprisoned. But to do so with the Russian Federation is quite another matter and that is playing with fire. As the RAND Corporation's reports to bureaucrats in Washington and, why not, in London have already warned, it is only a matter of time before they return kindnesses in their respective territories or even in Europe.

 

 

“EL POSICIONAMIENTO”

Una vez más surge la oportunidad para que la Argentina piense con sentido estratégico y comience a trabajar para encontrar su lugar en la geopolítica global ¿Unilateralismo anglosajón o Multilateralismo?

 

Por Javier B. Dal

Apenas culminó el 2022 los políticos argentinos, tanto de la oposición como del gobierno del “Frente de Todos”, dieron inicio a la carrera electoral para las elecciones que se llevarán a cabo en el mes de octubre con lo cual los ciudadanos argentinos verán más que nunca, la ausencia, la desatención y mucho menos la resolución de los problemas de fondo de un país a la deriva.

Argentina no escapa a la dinámica global. No era necesaria la guerra en Ucrania para que el país se encontrara afectado por una inflación con vistas a escalar a una hiper, para los argentinos es una cuestión cíclica de la cual su clase dirigente es en gran parte responsable. El mundo se sacude con los temblores de una posible y próxima recesión global desatada por las sanciones ilegales contra Rusia impuestas por La Casa Blanca con la ineludible participación del sistema financiero occidental. Igualmente, su clase política hace como que no ve lo que sucede afuera de sus fronteras y sigue moviendo al estado de acuerdo a sus oportunos y pasajeros intereses. Para ello, mantener distraído y conforme al electorado los medios son especialistas en proveer ese servicio. Así, para ellos la democracia ha sido sinónimo de demagogia, inconstancia y libertinaje con las consecuencias que hoy quedan a la vista.

En resumen, el concepto de “democracia” que se subsume de este marco es uno meramente declamativo y nada sustancial.

El resultado de ello ha sido la de crear una generación de personas que viven del subsidio estatal y el clientelismo sin mover un dedo para ganarse el sustento y para peor, bajo la creencia (desde un sistema educativo anacrónico y tóxicamente agremiado) de que el estado es un proveedor de meros derechos sin existir contraprestaciones ni obligaciones.

Con esto se ha creado una nación débil, de meros habitantes pusilánimes y sin valores, apoyada sobre pilares de barro y como tales ante el primer aguacero se desharán sin remedio.

Para disfrazar esta calamidad, de la que hoy vienen a caer en cuentas, constantemente anteponen la palabra “democracia” (especialmente con películas como 1985) con la cual tratan de investirse de un poco de legitimidad y así escapar a las críticas, la indignación social y los arrebatos de violencia que parte de la población guarda en su interior ¿Qué cambios podría traer las próximas elecciones con los mismos gandules y estafadores de siempre?

No hay que ser un corredor de bolsa en “Wall Street” o un economista norteamericano para decir que “Argentina tiene el culo vendido”. Prácticamente sin una moneda (con una devaluación del 90% de su valor) lo que menos les importa es el desarrollo para la viabilidad del país. Eso se comprueba con solo ver como “todos” los representantes del arco político antes de que se lleve adelante una elección, van a Washington y a New York para explicar sus planes. Si lo vemos desde esta visión pareciera que no hay solución para los argentinos quienes deberán seguir engañándose con elecciones circulares que no les dará un gobierno soberano y realmente interesado en desbancar el Status Quo que la mantiene sojuzgada.  

Si lo vemos desde otro ángulo, es la posibilidad de que emerja una nueva concepción política despegada de los intereses y del falso paradigma angloestadounidense que los medios (gran conglomerado de negocios) disfrazan con el nombre de “democracia”. Aunque esto es muy difícil en este país de conformistas, las circunstancias globales podrían ayudar a que germinen los primeros brotes aún a riesgo de ser pisoteados por los lustrosos zapatos de los demócratas pro-estadounidenses y de sus entusiastas colegas anglófilos que militan en la derecha liberal argenta.

Pero el mundo desde el 22 de febrero 2022 ha cambiado y seguirá haciéndolo de forma progresiva. La guerra en Europa está tomando otras dimensiones y Washington (que pretende sostener su hegemonismo) con sus aliados de la OTAN lejos de querer un final apuestan por seguir alimentando la guerra (algo que reporta fabulosas ganancias). Mientras Rusia trata de acabar con la amenaza de un régimen ultraderechista en Kiev -puesto por la CIA tras el golpe de estado en febrero de 2014- que persigue y asesina a los ucranianos de habla rusa, el occidente anglosajón invierte billones de dólares en sostener y alimentar al “integrismo eslavo” liderados por un cómico de TV ¿Qué piensan los políticos argentinos de este asunto? Ninguno piensa, solo se ajustan a línea política que circunstancialmente baje de La Casa Blanca, así de simple.

En la Argentina los políticos no aspiran a ser visionarios, o representar los intereses de la población, menos a conquistar el camino de la verdad y mucho menos aún a proyectar al país en el futuro con planificaciones estratégicas. Su única aspiración es la de ser funcionarios a sueldo (con todas las ventajas y vicios asequibles que él pueda pagar) y como tales a no pensar en nada solo, “funcionar”.

Pero que sucedería si se diera vuelta la tortilla y Rusia con los estados que apuestan por el multilateralismo logran frenar esa locura que está arruinando la economía europea y ciertamente la de los mismos estadounidenses ¿A dónde se situaran la cúpula de cleptómanos y estafadores que gobiernan en Buenos Aires?

Que no queden dudas de que sea cual fuere el grupo o partido que logre imponerse en las elecciones hará lo que Washington, la UE, el FMI, los foros como Davos y el G-7 le digan. Hay una realidad detrás del poder en la Argentina que es tan difícil de aceptar, que pocos quieren verla y ella se refiere a que en realidad hace tiempo que no existe una nación y su estado es como un gran edificio lujoso por fuera pero hueco y derruido por dentro.

Sin un cambio radical en la mentalidad de las nuevas generaciones no habrá emerger de ninguna fuerza que realmente desbanque a la estafa que representa el amañado sistema político de la partidocracia argentina que al igual que su modelo estadounidense, solo es una gran caja recaudadora y empresa de negocios del cual se sirve la tan nombrada “casta política”.

 

 

 

“ANOTHER DEADLY DECEPTION”

How long will Americans and international justice continue to tolerate being used by the shenanigans of their federal government to cover up the dirty dealings and deceptions of the state of Israel?

 

By Sidney Hey

It was the winter of 2018 and things could not have been more auspicious for Israel. Netanyahu had succeeded in 2017 in getting Donald Trump to hand over Jerusalem as Israel's capital on a plate, and at the same time he was threatening to involve the US in Syria, so it was necessary to take advantage of this as much as possible. This was the understanding of the heads of Mossad intelligence and Israeli military intelligence at an allegedly secret meeting in a private flat in Haifa. The plan was very ambitious and dangerous, but if successful they could kill two birds with one stone.

Trump is a good “goy” but his petulant character made him an unpredictable jerk, very dangerous to Israel's interests. His continued plan to demilitarise various points around the globe where US troops were stationed, especially in the Middle East and specifically in Syria (despite the “Shayrat” bombing in April 2017) was causing consternation in Tel Aviv because if that happened, things would get complicated for Israel and of course for all its partners on the payroll.

The stalemate over the Iranian nuclear development issue was driving Netanyahu and his supporters crazy and they were constantly calling their US contacts to press the issue in Congress. Hysteria was gripping the more extremists who were even pushing for a direct attack on Natanz. The criminal attempts by Mossad and military intelligence (Lakam) to create fake Iranian attacks against oil tankers in the Persian Gulf (in June 2019), degrade Iran's technological capability (with assassinations, limpet bombs and cyberattacks) were not yielding the expected results and to make matters worse, Iran was gaining more political influence in the whole region.

To this, the dismantling of the fomenting sectarian confrontation created around alleged Sunni extremists against Shiites, Israel was running out of counter-fires to distract the international community from its brutal occupation of Palestine.

Since ISIS was ousted by Iranian-backed Iraqi militias and invaluable Russian military assistance in Syria, the presence of Iranian elements within a few kilometres of the Golan Heights and Lebanese borders in Quneitra, Syria, was keeping not only the far-right politicians in Tel Aviv awake at night but also the religious Zionist extremists connected to AIPAC and the entire US pro-Israel lobby in which many of them, They are involved with the settlers in the real estate business of the settlements who were worried about the possibility of being hit not only from the north by the rockets of “Hesb'allah” and those of the Palestinian resistance “Hamas” in Gaza but also from the east by Iranian missiles.

The Americans had to be manipulated by convincing Trump that Iran posed an “imminent” threat to US troops in Iraq and so they chose Iraq as the softest country to mount a dirty operation against Tehran. This was yet another deception for Washington to swallow. Several rocket attacks on the Green Zone in Baghdad preceded the execution of the one intended to make it appear that pro-Iranian militias were behind it. The confusion in Iraq provided the best terrain for the operation. But it was a similar attack in December 2019 on a US base in Kirkuk that finally made the Americans itch. Israeli military intelligence assured Washington that Iraq's “Kataib Hesb'allah” group was behind the attacks, which was not true.

Not only did the leaders of “Kataib Hesb'allah” deny the accusation, but there were indications that they were pointing elsewhere. It was known that the Mossad has a headquarters operating in Kurdistan under the aegis of the Kurds from where attacks are launched both on Iraqi territory and in Syria and Iran. It was therefore more likely that the attack was mounted by the Israelis than by the Shiites in a hostile region.

Why was this particular group singled out? The main reason was linked to its close relationship with Iran during the Anglo-American occupation and especially with the head of “Al Quds” and “IRGC” commander General Qassem Soleimani, the central figure and true architect of the defeat of ISIS in 2017. Another reason was because of his open opposition to the collaborationist government in Baghdad occupied by a bland prime minister like Adil Abdul Mahdi who was then controlled by a double-faced and unscrupulous player like Mustafa Al Khadimi an old CIA employee in charge of the arch corrupt National Intelligence Service (in the service of both the CIA and Iran), it became imperative to remove him from the scene and that was why hanging a dead man on his “Kataib” rivals would be very easy and convenient. This factor was important for the CIA Drones to be able to operate and execute their plan without interference. As the saying goes, they used “Kataib Hesb'allah” as a scapegoat.

One of the questions we might ask is, did the CIA and the Pentagon take the Israeli bait? Possibly not, but as on other occasions, they turned a blind eye.

For the Israeli instigators the central objectives were: to revive distrust between Washington and Tehran; to force a redeployment of US troops especially in Syria; and to eliminate a dangerous mastermind of the Arab-Islamic resistance, and best of all, the Americans would do it.

Others who would see this as auspicious would be the Saudis who are the Arab counterpart of the anti-Iranian alliance between the US and Israel.

Soleimani, in addition to having been the architect of the expulsion of ISIS from Mosul, was a charismatic and very influential figure in the region who inspired the creation of other resistance groups in places as far away as Africa, where Tel Aviv is trying to win some friends with gifts and false promises. Therein lay their concern, but it was the convenience of Israeli intelligence officials to take such risks that prevailed. They would therefore (as they usually do) fabricate a credible excuse so that the US would, in a sense, be forced to respond.

To this end, Military Intelligence Directorate chief Tamir Hayman and his Mossad colleague Yossi Cohen agreed to prepare a report for Washington in which they would argue (with false evidence) that the attacks on the Green Zone in Baghdad and Kirkuk were the responsibility of the “pro-Iranian” militia. The rocket attacks were a central part of the plan's argument, and it was not difficult to reproduce them.

Convincing Donald Trump that Soleimani was behind it and planned to expand attacks against Americans in the region was the first step. Fabricating that the attacks would be repeated was the second, and making Trump believe that Tehran underestimated him as a mere loudmouth who would not dare to go further was undoubtedly the trigger for him to order Soleimani's assassination.

And so it was that Netanyahu managed to distance Washington from Tehran by adding this multiple assassination, in which the head of the Iraqi popular militia Abu Mahdi Al Muhandis and ten other men were also killed, to his long career of attacks induced by hoaxes and crimes. The only beneficiary of the attack executed on 3 January 2020 at the Baghdad airport exit was Israel, and all this at the cost of American, Iraqi and Iranian blood with which they lubricated the execution of this new crime.