“BLOODY RECIPROCITY”

When international law is not respected and impunity is the rule for some, the Talion law prevails

 

By Charles H. Slim

Some fifty years ago, Europe had become the scene of violent street crimes and others not so public that they remained a mystery to public opinion and even to local authorities. It was a clandestine struggle that took place in a particular geopolitical context. Thus sticky bombs in a car or in an apartment, executions with silenced pistols, or point-blank killings on a street in broad daylight became a common way of settling issues between Tel Aviv and the PLO.

For years, the Mossad had been able to carry out this type of action, relying on the state structure provided by Israel and the complicities that it wove with the governments of Western countries (especially the European ones), which it kept subject to blame for the Holocaust. In this way, Tel Aviv and its followers argued that the PLO was an organization that committed terrorist acts against Israeli interests and for that, Israel would use the same methods that, incidentally, were not unknown to it.

It was thus that Israel carried out many covert actions that were technically terrorist attacks that were never prosecuted in court in part, due to the support of its local “Sayan” networks and the political impunity that it enjoys for its connections with the estate public and politicians of the states where he attacked without ruling out bribery and extortion as other recruitment methods.

His covert actions in Iraq were memorable for their vileness and brutality. The unsuccessful attempts to assassinate Saddam Hussein long before the 1991 Gulf War was a part of history Tel Aviv would like to forget, losing several men among its failures. But this did not prevent him from conspiring continuously and with the support of Zionist organizations in the US Congress to instigate military intervention. It is even known that Mossad advisers after the invasion of Iraq in 2003 participated in the torture sessions of men and women in the “Black Rooms” installed in the concentration camps run by the Americans.

In the same vein, when the murders and disappearances of Iraqi scientists began to gain prominence, especially those dedicated to the area of ​​nuclear development, many did not hesitate to point their finger at Israel. And they were certainly not wrong. With the collaboration of the Americans (particularly with the Counterinsurgency programs of General David Petreaus and the then Director of Intelligence and Special Operations General Michael T. Flynn) and taking advantage of the state of chaos, precisely established by the invaders, the assassin teams Mossad members were able to penetrate Baghdad without difficulty and do their dirty work unimpeded.

Tel Aviv and in particular the Zionist circle headed by Benjamin Netanyahu believed that they could do the same in Iran and succeed. For this, they have deployed for years a huge battery of measures and actions with the intention of discrediting it in the face of global public opinion and then progressively destabilizing it internally in an attempt to recreate a situation similar to that of its Arab neighbor.

Since Ayatollah Rulloha Khomeini and his Islamic revolution came to power in 1979, Israel was exposed in what it had really done when it “selflessly” aided the puppet regime of Sha Reza Palevi. Prisons where torture and harassment against dissidents were practiced, supervised by Mossad, were some of the marks that were exposed. Since that time, Tehran has been a direct opponent of Israeli expansionist policies that target Palestinian Arabs (regardless of whether they are Christian or Muslim).

The same with Syria, which has been an unconditional of the Palestinian cause, which is why Tel Aviv, with the cooperation of the Jewish-American Lobbies and other private organizations operating in the hemisphere, has done everything possible to destabilize its internal politics.

When the attacks occurred in Buenos Aires in 1992 and 1994, Tel Aviv and Argentine Zionist circles (without the slightest proof of this) did not take long to direct their accusations against the PLO and indirectly against Syria and later when those arguments lost credibility and They were not supported by concrete evidence, they directed their complaints against Iran and the Lebanese “Party of God” Hesbollah. Despite all the staged stories (from obsequent media and journalists) and a justice conditioned by undeniable external pressures, during these years around Iran's participation in these acts, there is not an single evidence that supports it.

Currently upset by the help it gives Syria in the fight against CIA assets (Daesh and Kurdish mercenaries) and its own mercenaries disguised as “rebels” operating in Quneitra and Golan Highs, Tel Aviv had been conspiring and attacking the republic Syrian Arab in various ways such as air strikes, with missiles, infiltrations and terrorist attacks, provision of weapons, explosives and financial aid to Arab mercenaries provided by Saudi Arabia who operate under the label of "Al Qaeda", "Al Nusra ”And other subsidiaries.

Last November 27, Israel once again carried out one of its typical clandestine operations without expecting any retaliation. The assassination of Fakhrizadeh was a new provocation that Tehran would not leave unanswered and just as it did with the US after the assassination of Qassem Soleimani in early January, it sent a strong and clear response. Let us remember that when the CIA (with the complicity of Mossad) assassinated the Iranian general and eight other people who accompanied him when leaving the Baghdad airport, some time later a successful Taliban coup in Afghanistan ended the life of Michael D'Andrea alias “Dark Prince”, a prolific assassin who became the chief of operations for the CIA in that area and who would have had part in the execution of the terrorist attack in Baghdad. The fact left the heads of the Agency with their mouths open, or at least that led the press to believe. At that time the entire CIA was shaken and the US State Department had to publicly moderate its threats.

According to some sources, the assassination operation of the Iranian scientist had not been authorized and it would have been only a whim of the Netanyahu-Cohen duo who would have ordered this operation on their own. Likewise, this could well be just a rumor to try to excuse the state of Israel from its responsibilities before another of its terrorist acts.

On December 3, in the middle of an avenue southeast of Tel Aviv, Fahmi Hinavi, one of the Mossad's superior operations officers, who was mobilizing in his private car, was riddled with a precise burst of machine gun that hit him square in the trunk and upper body. The attackers quickly exited the highway and were lost in the dead of night. The Israeli media did not draw quick conclusions, although several unofficial sources suggested that this had been one of several attacks against other Israeli agents in Tel Aviv, carried out in a coordinated way by an Iranian command that after the coup, vanished into thin air.

Fahmi Hinavi's case could not be covered up because of the public thoroughfare where he was killed. Even and according to some versions they would have spoken of the participation of a car that approached Hinavi's at a time when he was stopped at the traffic light and it was there that he became a static target for his executors. This senior intelligence officer would have been one of the mentors and planners of the assassination of the Iranian scientist, with which his death is surrounded by a particular circumstance. The data is not minor and this has aroused terror among the Zionists and their settlers who, accustomed to going unpunished for their crimes, are now scared of their own shadow. After this, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Mossad chief Yossi Cohen have made no statements beyond the usual nonsensical arguments.

Tehran neither confirms nor denies and certainly has no interest in confirming its participation, but it is true that it is a coup of satisfaction for its government after the aggression of November 27 last. Also, it could very well have been an adjustment of the same agency seeking to erase its traces

 

 

“PUÑALADA CONTRA IRAN”

El ataque terrorista contra un destacado científico iraní reedita ante la opinión pública la táctica del terrorismo israelí

 

Por Ali Al Najafi

Una mañana rutinaria más en la vida del científico iraní Mohsen Fajrizadeh, un nombre que para el común no signifique nada o al menos no para la opinión pública occidental. Hombre de familia, profesor de física en la Universidad “Iman Hussein” de Teherán era un experto en el campo del desarrollo nuclear y desde hace años estaba trabajando para proporcionar a su país de la legítima potencialidad de éste tipo de energía para el uso civil y militar.  Pero para otros intereses foráneos que buscan detener el desarrollo iraní, Fajrizadeh era una amenaza para su hegemonía geopolítica en la región y un serio obstáculo para la continuidad de los planes expansionistas y por ello, debía ser eliminado.

Unos años antes, los autores materiales de estos mismos conspiradores habían fracasado en el intento pero no sucedió lo mismo con otros de sus colegas quienes fueron brutalmente asesinados.  Algo similar vimos en Iraq durante la ocupación angloestadounidense, cuando científicos iraquíes fueron sistemáticamente asesinados por misteriosos autores aunque los iraquíes, no dudaban en señalar a “escuadrones de la muerte” dirigidos entre otros por israelíes.

Como era de esperar la prensa occidental y en especial la anglosajona trato estos hechos muy por encima tratando de tapar las implicancias políticas y geopolíticas que rodearon estos atentados terroristas. En esos momentos las circunstancias para ejecutar aquellos atentados no podían ser más propicias ya que, Iraq bajo el control de los EEUU fue una plataforma de ingreso para otros enemigos de Irán. Fue así que por aquel entonces la inteligencia y el Ministerio del Interior iraní pudo determinar que había habido un financiamiento y reclutamiento de pistoleros locales contratados por el "Mossad" israelí con la necesaria implicancia de la CIA.

De esta manera, si vamos siguiendo las migas podemos llegar ver quienes han estado interesados en dar este golpe criminal. A comienzos del año, el asesinato del general iraní Qassem Soleimani por órdenes de Trump constituyó un notorio Casus Belli que estuvo a punto de transformarse en una guerra abierta, pero los más prudentes del Pentágono lograron detener la escalada sin no obstante, recibir una respuesta contra sus bases en Iraq. Quien más se hubiese beneficiado con ese desenlace habría sido Israel quien –es de público conocimiento- usa a los EEUU, como un escudo de sus ambiciones en la región.

Pero ante la próxima salida de Trump de la Casa Blanca, Tel Aviv teme perder su oportunidad por terminar con el programa nuclear iraní y es posible que tenga implicancia en las revelaciones filtradas hace una semana sobre la intensión de Trump por lanzar un ataque sorpresa sobre las instalaciones nucleares iraníes ¿Este atentado ha sido parte de esos planes?

También existe otra posibilidad que no esta siendo considerada. Se sabe que Trump ha sido un sujeto indeseable y problemático para la elite política y financiera de EEUU –un Outsider- por lo cual, no sería nada descabellado que esta “operación” hubiera sido montada desde Washington  por sectores de la administración demócrata entrante con la intensión de cargarle las responsabilidades al mandatario saliente. No olvidemos que éste sector de la política norteamericana, también es leal a los deseos de Tel Aviv por lo cual desde hace décadas  viene conspirando para desestabilizar a la república Islámica y para ello ha entablado relaciones con sectores –no precisamente moderados- de la oposición iraní  e incluso, financiando y entrenando grupos terroristas como el “MAK” (Mujahedin Al Kalq) y a los grupos extremistas separatistas árabes de la región de “Ahwaz”.

Así es que, amigos, no se dejen impresionar por las promesas de campaña y discursillos dulces sobre pretender terminar con las “guerras interminables” y las colaboraciones con regímenes detestables como el saudita. No pierda de vista el embuste que fue la administración Obama ( de la cual Biden fue vice) que tras deslumbrantes promesas sobre política exterior y el respeto a los derechos humanos, muy pocas fueron realmente llevadas a la práctica siendo el artífice de las crisis en el mundo árabe y la continuación muy bien maquilladas de la estrategia del caos –creada por Rumsfeld/Cebrowski- con el monigote del “Estado Islámico”. Olvidelo, si usted se cree todo eso, no tardará mucho en verse desilucionado tan pronto Biden y su equipo ocupen la Casa Blanca.

La política islamofoba que activamente se viene desplegando sin tapujos desde el  2000, no es exclusiva de tal o cual presidente (republicano o demócrata) ni ha sido dirigida contra los “extremistas sunitas” (como se decía en épocas de Bush para manipular a los chiitas iraquies), sino que es parte de una ideología de odio racial inherente al estado profundo de la Unión. De ese modo, no tendrán reparo en llevar adelante cualquier clase de crimen que justifique sus objetivos.

Fue entonces que ese 27 de noviembre Mohsen Fajrizadeh salio de su casa en la localidad  de Absard al este de Teherán, abordó su automóvil blindado “Nissan” y  junto a los guardaespaldas -asignados por el Ministerio de Defensa iraní en previsión de lo que justamente le estaba por ocurrir-  se dirigió hacia la capital. El gobierno iraní ya tiene experiencia en amenazas y ataques terroristas de sus enemigos y es por ello que mantenía muy bien custodiado al cerebro de su programa nuclear. A pesar de las medidas adoptadas que posibilitaron repeler el ataque  que tras una frenética escaramuza eliminó a los atacantes, las heridas ocasionadas a Fajrizadeh fueron irrecuperables.

Pese al crimen abominable y condenable, occidente y sus medios corporativos trataron de restar importancia a este suceso.

Una vez más se puede advertir el relativismo odioso en la contemplación y atención mediática de un nuevo acto terrorista cometido contra la soberanía de Irán. De haber sucedido en un país de occidente y ni hablar si es EEUU o de Europa, habría habido un tembladeral mediático clamando por su brutalidad terrorista exigiendo la intervención de Naciones Unidas y la aplicación de sanciones ilimitadas y desproporcionadas contra los sospechosos.

El escenario elegido por los atacantes demuestra una buena planificación, inteligencia  y la prueba de una apoyatura logística aceitada para el golpe. Agregado a eso la modalidad del ataque revela características peculiares y que no pueden pasarse por alto. Al parecer a la altura de una ruta que atraviesa un extenso paraje rural con algunas construcciones aisladas y pocos pobladores, los atacantes montaron una emboscada aprovechando un tramo recto con muy buena visibilidad, con el sol de frente que encandilaba al conductor del automóvil de  Fajrizadeh y con flancos totalmente descubiertos. Coincidiendo con algunos testimonios que hablaron de haber escuchado una explosión precedida de un profuso tiroteo, evidenció que los atacantes habrían utilizado una trampa explosiva improvisada detonada a distancia para impactar al vehículo, pero sin éxito. 

Estos dispositivos se vieron mucho durante la ocupación de Iraq y fueron utilizados con mucho éxito contra los vehículos acorazados norteamericanos y británicos que circulaban por carreteras y calles de Bagdad. Los norteamericanos bautizaron a estas trampas como IED “Improvised Explosive Device” y a causa de ello debieron rediseñar sus “Humvee” y solicitar al Pentágono nuevos vehículos blindados tácticos medianos como los “Cougar” y  los BAE “Caimán” lo cuales teóricamente  eran a prueba de estas trampas.

El uso de esta táctica fue repetidamente copiada por grupos de mercenarios reclutados por la inteligencia militar estadounidense, británica y la CIA con la intensión de crear bajas entre la población civil que llevara a minar la confianza y retirar su apoyo a la resistencia contra la ocupación.

En el caso de este atentado, se sabe que Israel ordena ataques criminales contra objetivos dentro de otros países bajo el rótulo de “asesinatos selectivos” (un eufemismo para terrorismo) que ha pretendido legitimar como parte del derecho de defensa, una aberración legal que además de ser compartida por Washington –quien desde el 2001 la practica de forma continua- no ha logrado ser frenada por Naciones Unidas. Este tipo de acciones claramente premeditadas e ilegitimas encuadran perfectamente en el concepto de “agresión” que se prevé en el Capitulo VII de la Carta Orgánica y que con tanta insidia la organización y el Consejo de Seguridad ha aplicado en otros casos.

En el caso de éste atentado, vemos reunidos todos los elementos que conforman una agresión que debiera llevar a que el foro y las instancias judiciales internacionales lo traten de forma enérgica y decidida a los fines de tomar una determinación seria sino quieren seguir perdiendo la poca credibilidad que les queda.

Al mismo tiempo, este crimen se inscribe en una acción con planes de extender la inestabilidad y la inseguridad dentro de una nación soberana. Por lo pronto será determinante la recolección de elementos en el sitio, las pesquisas para determinar el origen de los atacantes que lleven a un resultado de las investigaciones del Ministerio de seguridad iraní.

Pero la emboscada fue defectuosa. Ante el fracaso de darle de lleno con la explosión al paso, los atacantes como forma de intentar rematarlo en el interior abrieron fuego contra el vehículo de Mohsen Fajrizadeh como forma de asegurar el objetivo. Por los restos desperdigados en el lugar y las evidencias levantadas, los atacantes además de estar muy bien entrenados usaron municiones especiales (perforantes).

Son dudas, quienes se restregan las manos con este crimen se hallan en Tel Aviv y creen que han dado un golpe certero al proyecto de desarrollo científico de Irán. Lo malo para ellos es que no han podido cubrir los rastros y eso los pone en el centro de la opinión pública. Igualmente y al mismo tiempo, va quedando más claro quien es el agresor y el ejecutor de brutales acciones terroristas y cómo ello llevara a medio termino a nuevas espirales de violencia en la región.

 

 

“UNDERCOVER AFFAIRS”

 

Trying to hide the behind the scenes of a murky event disguised as an accident. How long can the fate of the crew of the ARA San Juan be hidden?

By Sir Charlattam

Winter is approaching the northern hemisphere and the afternoons are getting shorter, colder and with the restrictions due to the Coronavirus, there are few chances to make an interesting appointment, at least not in what is merely recreational. But undoubtedly this is not for the intrigue and that is why the flow of information and transcendent on topics of interest of what happens here and there in other parts of the globe has not stopped.

The issue of the submarine “ARA San Juan” that reminded us of a similar episode that occurred in August 2000 with the Russian “Kursk”, not only because of the tragedy itself, but also because of some circumstantial elements in which it occurred and one of they went, ours were there. Due to the information that has been arriving from Buenos Aires, there is much interest in closing the judicial investigations on the causes and responsibilities.

Beyond the Argentine publications that were talking about the prosecution of former President Mauricio Macri, his Defense Minister Oscar Aguad and his Navy staff for a possible cover-up (and espionage on family members) in the unclear matter of the submarine "ARA San Juan" that -according to the media account- disappeared on November 15, 2017 in the midst of circumstances never clarified and “reappeared” on November 17, 2018 in the same mysterious way in which it was said that he was not found .

It was inevitable, someone had to take responsibility and it was not us or the Americans. From what I was able to find out, the naval intelligence (Naval Intelligence Division) was aware of the movements of the Argentines and there was a special interest at that time not to be observed. A top secret event was taking place west of the submarine's route and its stealthy approach was a fatal mistake. The truth was that what happened to the submarine was part of that event and its sinking testified to the success of what was being rehearsed. Although Buenos Aires was not aware of it, they did learn the same day about the fate of its 44 men.

I don't think I need to say that we use the South Atlantic as a naval training ground not only for our navy but for NATO. We are sure that the Argentine military knows this very well, but its politicians are much more concerned with nonsense than with high national security issues. The same politicians like Macri and those who currently govern are conditioned by the Foreign Office, that is, they will not ask annoying questions and will attend to a saying such as “do not move beyond where they do not see you”, you know.

From the beginning, several very suspicious elements present in the area that day had been raised. The official version and when I say “official” I mean the one that the Argentine government and the media that make up the arc of propagators of truth adjusted to a certain interest, acted a masquerade to make public opinion believe that the submarine was simply He had vanished without his being able to launch any call for help. It is true that the state of your fleet is deplorable but we knew that the submarine had a good communications system.

From that moment on, events raged in a dizzying and even overactive way. Those who first volunteered and mobilized a search and rescue squad were none other than the “Royal Marines” (jollies) based in “Mount Pleasant” in the occupied Falkland Islands. The Macri government, following the masquerade, accepted this supposed aid based on the “solidarity of the sea” but that in reality was destined to nothing less than to have close control -with NID observers- and total control of the Argentine naval operations that were being carried out taking place at Cape Horn.

 

Why did the “jollies” arrive in such a hurry to the mainland? One of the reasons for such haste was the Russian offer of search and rescue technical assistance that would later arrive with the ship “Yantar”. Russian involvement in the South Atlantic was a nightmare come true for the Foreign Office. The implications on what happened with the submarine endangered the security of the submarine cable facilities that carry information from Mount Pleasant to Brussels, which interconnect with the Chilean bases in Magallanes and all NATO stations around the globe. At that point and as has been revealed, the naval command and subsequently the Minister of Defense and President Macri himself learned of the disaster through one of the most unusual but available means for an emergency: THE WHATSAPP from a cell phone on the submarine. What did those desperate calls communicate before the submarine went down? From there, other questions begin to be asked. Was it a structural failure of the ship or was it the result of an attack?

Although the formulation of these questions seems untrue, they put the Argentine government in serious trouble and a mistake in trying to argue an unconvincing story that covered up what had really happened could trigger an international incident. And if not, why was the event covered up and its 44 crew members abandoned?

Earlier audios and even internal reports from the Argentine Navy were leaked that gave an account of a very different version of what the government had. Apparently the surface units that came to the point from where the calls had been made had nothing to do and even the presence of oil and fuel in the water had been reported, attesting that the submarine had gone to the bottom. The audio of a report from one of the ships that attended the rescue had even been published by some capital media, making comments that seemed to describe the result of an attack. Of course, the government and the Navy categorically denied it, that audio disappeared and that track was never dealt with again.

Remember that on board the submarine its crew members had their cell phones and one of them was activated long before this event from where they wrote some text messages commenting that they were being followed by British and Chilean ships.What were the reasons for this surveillance? What could a small outdated diesel-powered submarine do that posed no threat if left to explore? This is a part of the “official” version in Argentina that does not want to be touched.

We have been hearing that the “investigators” and the lawyers of the crew members' relatives try to blame the Macri government for having sent the old submarine on a naval espionage mission, but they do not specify what the precise objectives of that mission were. Furthermore, it is highly doubtful that the apparatus was fit for a task like that. When I started talking to an old friend from S.B.S. and that just a few years ago he retired from active service, when I asked him if he believed that a submarine like this could have any degree of success for espionage tasks against the British fleet in the Malvinas, his answer was simple, brief and forceful: “No way ”.

The Argentine submariners had tested their capabilities not only in the 1982 war but also in several joint UNITAS exercises with the US Navy in which they were discreetly present, attachés of His Majesty's naval intelligence, showing that with few resources and great cunning could compete with the greats. But those were exercises. Many officers of the American fleet were humiliated to such an extent that insults such as “what the hell were you looking at Cunt or “asshole” could be heard over the intercoms. Certainly very hilarious.

If we accept that hypothesis, we would have to talk about a mission destined to fail or even to swallow the bait of a counterintelligence operation of our boys. But certainly that would not be a sufficient reason to attack the submarine. With only harassment and persecution maneuvers it would have been more than enough for them to run to the continent. The Royal Navy officers would also put their necks on the edge since such an unnecessary act would be unforgivable unless, it had been the only remedy. And then where did the hypothesis of an implosion come from? And if that was the cause, what originated it?

Look, for a similar effect to take place, the submarine must have broken its immersion capacity and by pressure caused a crushing of the walls, causing the entire structure to jump, but for this, there must have been a reason why it sank so fast. The quickest way I know of for such a process is to disable the ship or an impact so powerful that it would not have given the crew a chance to close the compartments. Whatever it was, it rendered the ship totally defenseless and could also boast, instantly eliminated the crew.

For it to have collapsed as one of the factors of that implosion, there must have been an immediate cause such as a collapse in the structure, the hole in the hull due to an impact being the most common and known, I must also say that no it's the only one.

Here too the researchers cannot explain the cause of that supposed implosion. If there was an implosion, why did the underwater microphones of the Vienna-based Commission for Comprehensive Control and Nuclear Tests record two explosions in the acoustic sonar of the Atlantic? If there were two of them, one would have been the impact of a weapon and the other the implosion when it sank.

So what could Argentines have discovered that cost them their lives? Perhaps the most disturbing question of this -and one that the Argentine and British governments do not want to answer- is where are the bodies of the 44? The convenient intervention of the oceanographic vessel “Ocean Infinity” was another pillar element to close the lie with this alleged find. And if the Argentine government knew from the first moment the fate of the submarine and that of these public servants, supposedly dead by the implosion of the hull that should have been reasoned, why did not a body come out?

 

 

 

 

 

 

“A HAUNTING CLUE”

Trump had planned to attack Iran before leaving the White House with the intention of remaining in power. With this revelation, what other things will he have done under his position? Could it be that several cases were not filed or were they deleted? The truth is out there

By Charles H. Slim

A cornered man can do anything to escape, but what could one do who, in addition to being desperate, was a psychopath with delusions of grandeur? This is what many of us have been wondering about Trump if he were to lose reelection.

With what has been seen since the beginning of the year until Trump ended up assimilating that he will have to move his butt out of the White House, suffering his deepest selfish fiber. It is clear that such a character could be a highly destabilizing and dangerous element highlighted by impulses aimed at creating problems that, with the intention of undermining the governance of Biden & Cia, end up sinking the US further.

Donald Trump is like a capricious child who, unhappy at not having what he wants, can end up destroying it so that no one can enjoy it. This is how he has managed his administration but he has not done it alone. For executive orders to be carried out and other decisions that imply an authorization that were signed, many are involved in putting them into effect. Do you think that the order to assassinate the Iranian General Soleimani and eight other people who accompanied him, is a light and unplanned decision? All that closed circle of obsequious, far from advising the impetuous president prudence, encouraged him to carry out this type of measures since they surely believed that they could push him to open new war fronts to which he had refused.

When China proved ineffective with trade measures and desperate attempts to stop its drive to spread beyond Asia, these same obscurantist sectors living off the war once again charged in to instigate the proud Trump. Does it seem very suggestive that a virus with a very strange structure appeared that is said to have originated in Wuhan China but that had spread a few months before in a military base in the United States? Who do you think has access to that kind of highly classified war material?

Remember how in times of the "cold war" there was talk of the "nuclear briefcase" that accompanied the president wherever he traveled and of the "key" that activated the strategic missile systems after a DEFCON warning in the case of a nuclear attack of the Soviet Union. For a few decades now, the use of chemical and biological agents has been a shouting secret that has been revealed in the humanity of the anonymous settlers and also of the American soldiers themselves in scenarios such as Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Yemen. And what? has the WHO or the United Nations done to denounce or investigate these atrocities against humanity?

The engineers of these repulsive weapons -including many university academics- designed and manufactured them precisely for their quiet and unobtrusive effect. If Trump was powerless for not being able to stop the Chinese with his trade sanctions and attending to his crazy personality while signing the agreement with Representative Liu Hue at the White House, why could he not have given the green light to a leak of that SARS- VOCs that they already had in their war laboratories? For Trump, playing dirty in business is common and if so, who advised him? Even a petulant like him can't get into certain dark areas of the state; for this they must guide it. Remember that an outbreak had already been detected in Fort Detrick, Maryland in June that was reported by the media and the outbreak in Wuhan was declared at the end of 2019.

As a disruptive agent of North American politics, Trump has represented a global phenomenon, the personification of a reaction to popular disgust towards the “families and political elites” who long ago left their representation work for that of business managers for their own sectors. For the domestic life of Americans Trump had a clear impact and unlike his opponents, he did not shake his hand to impose tax barriers to imports (for the benefit of his producers) and a tight control of subsidies for the unemployed, but at the same time the push for restrictive immigration policies such as the construction of a wall (similar to the Israeli one) on the border with Mexico and the brutal treatment of immigrants who dare to jump over it.

When the street riots for "Black Matter" took place, things had gotten out of control and as one of the solutions proposed by the president was to take the Armed Forces to the streets to simply crush the demonstrations, some ended up understanding the mentality of the President. Despite his cold suggestion, this did not come to fruition, but the National Guard had to take to the streets to appease the demanes and recover public spaces. The advisers and especially the Secretary of Defense Mark Espert (former Lt. Col. and Raython's deputy) trembled at this whim and were soon able to make sense of the consequences -not the humanity of the protesters- for the external public image.

As we know just a week ago, Espert was fired by Trump for not agreeing with the latest whims of the president, one of them, trying to launch a war against Iran.

The streets of Washington had been taken over by furious protesters who destroyed everything in their path, sowing panic in the government, leading Trump and his staff to take refuge in the bunker under the White House. Did Trump deserve this reaction? Recall that many suspected that "someone" was taking advantage of these events to destabilize the administration and force a possible early exit from the White House, but this did not return to victim Trump.

Beyond the existing racial problem -although many claim to deny it- and structural in the US, popular anger seemed to be more guided by an impotence product of a pandemic that had slowed down the development of their daily lives than pure indignation at the brutal death of an African American citizen at the hands of the police.

Ultimately, and after becoming aware of having been defeated in the elections, Trump seems to have wanted to play hard and with the backing of his staunch Zionist advisers (and no doubt with the support of Bibi), he plotted to launch a war against the Islamic Republic of Iran. Do not forget that during 2019 Tel Aviv with the secret cooperation of some Gulf monarchies tried to create a Casus belli incident against Iran by sabotaging the Japanese oil tankers. Despite the effort, the deception did not work. A few days later the US Navy tries to create another episode with an MQ-4 “Triton” spy drone.

Once again the deception failed and the attempt to justify aggressive action on Iran had to be suspended until further notice. As soon as some sectors began to expose the inconsistencies of the Pentagon and the State Department trying to accuse the Iranian Navy, Washington frozen the matter.

The revelation of Trump's plans was not accidental or guided by "democratic" good faith. Nothing of that. The new tenants of the White House have wanted to give the obnoxious blonde the coup de grace and discredit him before the international public opinion. It is true that Trump has been the mastermind of several crimes (including those not known in the media) using state terrorism. But make no mistake, Biden and his administration are no better guys, and you have no doubt that they will carry on even worse without the slightest contemplation.