Category: Iran
Trump Warns DPRK with ‘Fire and Fury’
| August 8, 2017 | 8:35 pm | Donald Trump, DPRK, Iran, political struggle, Russia | No comments

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Trump-Warns-DPRK-with-Fire-and-Fury-20170808-0035.html

Trump Warns DPRK with ‘Fire and Fury’

  • Trump cautioned "North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States" during his 17-day "working vacation."

    Trump cautioned “North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States” during his 17-day “working vacation.” | Photo: Reuters

Published 8 August 2017 (2 hours 58 minutes ago)

Trump cautioned “North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States.”

U.S. President Donald Trump has warned the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, DPRK, with “fire and fury” if the country continues to threaten the United States.

RELATED:
DPRK Calls New UN Sanctions ‘Infringement on Sovereignty’

Trump cautioned “North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States” during his 17-day “working vacation” at his golf club in Bedminster, N.J.

Trump said the North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un has “been very threatening beyond a normal state” and “will be met with fire and fury and frankly power, the likes of which this world has never seen before.”

The comment follows a Washington Post’s report that stated that DPRK has successfully created a miniaturized nuclear war head, “crossing a key threshold on the path to becoming a full-fledged nuclear power.”

Trump’s threatening comments, however, have been rebuffed by Republicans. Senator McCain said Tump’s posture could accelerate a “serious confrontation” with DPRK.

“I take exceptions to the president’s comments because you got to be sure that you do what you say you’re going to do. In other words, the old walk softly but carry a stick, Teddy Roosevelt’s saying, which I think is something that should’ve applied because all it’s going to do is bring us closer to a serious confrontation. I think this is very, very, very serious,” he told a local Arizona radio.

RELATED:
DPRK Responds to Travel Ban: Invites US Citizens to ‘See Reality with their own Eyes’

The intimidated DPRK’s neighbors, in the meanwhile, are preparing their own line of defense.

Itsunori Onodera, Japan’s new defense minister, said Friday,”North Korea’s missile launches have escalated tensions, both in terms of quality and quantity.”

“I would like to study if our current missile defense is sufficient,” Onodera added.

According to New York Times, a military policy review published by the Japanese government on Tuesday is also focussing on the threat from North Korea. Some of the over 12 missile tests by the DPRK this year splashed into waters close to Japan.

“North Korea’s development of ballistic missiles and its nuclear program are becoming increasingly real and imminent problems for the Asia-Pacific region including Japan, as well as the rest of the world,” the government in Tokyo said in its annual defense white paper, the New York Times reported.

South Korea too is working to build its monitoring and striking abilities, along with the radars and remote-controlled reconnaissance planes to track and neutralize North Korean missiles in pre-emptive attacks.

The U.S. has over 37,500 troops on the imposed border between north and south Korea, which was one country before the U.S. war on the peninsula from 1950-1954 that left the people of Korea divided. The U.S. and South Korean armed forces also conduct war games off the coast of the region on a regular basis.

A Pentagon study released in May bemoaned the “fraying” and “collapsing” U.S. Empire, recounting how competing powers Russia and China, along with others like Iran and North Korea, have played a major role in removing the U.S. from its position of global “pre-eminence” and that the U.S. “can no longer count on the unassailable position of dominance, supremacy, or pre-eminence it enjoyed for the 20-plus years after the fall of the Soviet Union.”

When is the World Going to Impose Sanctions on America?
| July 31, 2017 | 7:13 pm | Analysis, Cuba, DPRK, Fidel Castro, Imperialism, Iran, Russia | No comments

US flag

When is the World Going to Impose Sanctions on America?

CC0 / Pixabay

Opinion

Get short URL
John Wight
2857951053
https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201707271055924535-sanctions-us-justice/

Only when we are living in a world in which sanctions are imposed ‘on’ the United States rather than ‘by’ the United States will we know justice reigns.

The decision taken by the US Congress to “punish Russia” for alleged meddling in the US elections with the maintenance of existing sanctions has been followed by a bill to weaken the ability of President Trump to “weaken sanctions on Russia,” thus presenting a direct challenge to the President’s authority. The bill was passed in the House of Representatives by an overwhelming majority and at time of writing awaits a hearing in the Senate, which along with the House makes up the US Congress. The legislation also includes new sanctions against not only Russia but also Iran and North Korea, thus maintaining the pattern of waging economic war against states which refuse to accept that Washington’s writ should run wherever it decides whenever it decides.

Economic sanctions are not the benign instrument that some might assume. On the contrary, they are tantamount to an act of war, a means by which economic might is wielded as club to bludgeon ‘recalcitrant’ nations and states into submission. And though sanctions may not evoke the same sense of potency of cruise missiles, they kill just the same. The experience of the Iraqi people leaves no doubt of it.

Between 1990 and 2003 sanctions on Iraq, imposed by the UN, are estimated to have been directly responsible for the deaths of 2 million people, half a million of them children according to Unicef. Multilateral sanctions were imposed on the country in response to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in August 1990. Under UN Security Council Resolution 661 it was mandated that UN-member states should prevent all imports originating in Iraq and Iraqi-occupied Kuwait, business activity between nationals of member states and Iraq, and should undertake an embargo of funds or “economic resources” to Iraq or Iraqi-occupied Kuwait, except for medical or humanitarian purposes.

As journalist John Pilger wrote in a March 2000 article:

“Under economic sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council almost 10 years ago, Iraq is denied equipment and expertise to clean up its contaminated battlefields, as Kuwait was cleaned up. At the same time, the Sanctions Committee in New York, dominated by the Americans and British, has blocked or delayed a range of vital equipment, chemotherapy drugs and even painkillers. ‘For us doctors,’ said Dr Al-Ali, ‘it is like torture. We see children die from the kind of cancers from which, given the right treatment, there is a good recovery rate.’ Three children died while I was there.”

The sanctions imposed on Iraq were so draconian and sustained that two UN Humanitarian Coordinators in Iraq, Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck, resigned in protest. Yet even with the evidence of the role of the sanctions in killing half a million Iraqi children, Washington remained unrepentant. The by now infamous words of former UN Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in 1996, when in response to a question during an interview about the infanticide that was taking place as a result of the sanctions she said “the price is worth it,” exposed the barbarity that lies behind the mask of Western civilization.

The fact the sanctions were only lifted from Iraq after the devastating war unleashed on the country by the US and its UK ally in 2003 had killed countless more children tells its own story.

Cuba has suffered under the iron heel of US economic sanctions and embargo longer than any other country on the planet. A raft of economic sanctions were originally imposed on the island in 1960 by the Eisenhower administration after the Cuban revolution of the previous year succeeded in toppling the US-supported dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista, after which US corporations and businesses that had been operating without restraint in Cuba were expropriated and nationalized.

Miniature flags representing Cuba and the United States are displayed on the dash of an American classic car in Havana, Cuba.
© AP Photo/ Franklin Reyes, File
Miniature flags representing Cuba and the United States are displayed on the dash of an American classic car in Havana, Cuba.

Relations between Havana and Washington turned even more sour two years later when Fidel Castro defied Washington in forging close ties with the Soviet Union. In response, the Kennedy administration imposed complete economic sanctions, which have remained more or less in place over succeeding decades.

As French journalist Salim Lamrani pointed out in a 2016 interview on the history of US sanctions against Cuba:

“The sanctions are anachronistic because they date back to the Cold War. They are cruel because they affect the most vulnerable categories of the Cuban people, not the leaders. Finally, they are ineffective to the extent that the initial goal of overthrowing the Cuban Revolution has clearly failed.”

Most cogently, Lamrani makes the point that “Rather than isolating Cuba internationally, these sanctions have instead isolated the United States.”

The sanctions imposed by the US and its European allies/vassals on Russia, meanwhile, have been justified as a response to ‘Russian aggression’ in eastern Ukraine, along with reunification of of Crimea with Russia in 2014. As I have written previously, this is a false and tendentious rendering of what has occurred in Ukraine and why.

But regardless of the whys and wherefores, the idea that the largest country in Europe with the second most powerful military in the world, whose economy is stable and built on solid foundations, could ever be brought to its knees by economic sanctions is so preposterous it is laughable.

However the mendacity and arrogance behind Washington’s history of imposing economic sanctions against other states is certainly no laughing matter, not when we consider the ineffable human suffering they have caused and continue to cause.

Moreover, a history of subverting, destabilizing, and destroying one country after another is all the evidence needed to label the US a country so drunk with power and a corresponding sense of exceptionalism that the rest of the world would be more than justified in uniting to impose sanctions on it. In fact, given the brutal history of US imperialism the world needs to as a matter of necessity.

As Fidel Castro said, “The United States tyrannizes and pillages the globalized world with its political, economic, technological, and military might.”

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.

US Lawmaker Opposes Russia Sanctions Citing Cooperation on Syria
| July 27, 2017 | 7:57 pm | DPRK, Iran, Russia, Syria | No comments

https://sputniknews.com/politics/201707271055914402-usa-lawmaker-opposes-sanctions/

Russian and U.S. flags

US Lawmaker Opposes Russia Sanctions Citing Cooperation on Syria

© Sputnik/ Sergey Pyatakov
Politics

Get short URL
8120361

Congressman John Duncan says that new US Sanctions against Russia should be rejected because Moscow is helping the United States battle Daesh.

WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — New US Sanctions against Russia should be rejected because Moscow is helping the United States battle the Islamic State terror group (Daesh or ISIS) in addition to assistance in maintaining a ceasefire in Syria, Congressman John Duncan told RIA Novosti.

“I recently voted against a bill to increase the sanctions already in place against Russia and Iran,” Duncan said on Wednesday. “The increased sanctions against Russia were based on alleged meddling in our presidential election. However, if they did, it was totally ineffective, and Russia has aided us recently in the fight against ISIS and reaching a cease fire in Syria.”

The congressman said he also thought it was unwise to expand sanctions on Iran after the US State Department twice verified that the Islamic Republic has complied with the terms of an international nuclear agreement.

“I just did not think we should slap them in the face when they are doing what we wanted them to do,” Duncan said.

Likewise, the lawmaker said he thought sanctions on North Korea would do nothing to hurt the ruling elite in Pyongyang, while the measures would almost certainly hurt impoverished North Koreans.

“Overall, though I think we should stop trying to rule the whole world. We are $20 trillion in debt, and we have enough problems at home,” Duncan said.

Duncan was one of just three lawmakers in the US House of Representatives who on Tuesday voted against a bill to sanction Russia, Iran and North Korea and limit President Donald Trump’s ability to lift restrictions on Moscow.

Another 419 lawmakers voted in favor of the legislation, which will now be passed onto the Senate for a vote before being sent to Trump for final approval.

Empire of Whiners
| July 24, 2017 | 8:51 pm | Analysis, China, DPRK, Iran, political struggle, Russia | No comments
People walk amongst US national flags erected by students and staff from Pepperdine University as they pay their respects to honor the victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York, at their campus in Malibu, California

Empire of Whiners

© AFP 2017/ Mark RALSTON
Columnists

Get short URL
Pepe Escobar
53793381
https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201707231055804730-empire-whiners-pepe-escobar/

As a new report by the Army War College tracks the loss of “US primacy” around the world, it prescribes more of the same; propaganda, surveillance and war.

It’s public knowledge that from the point of view of the Pentagon, the United States faces five existential threats: Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and terrorism, in that order. Way beyond rhetoric, all Pentagon actions should be understood and analyzed under this framework.

Now global public opinion may have access to an even more intriguing document; a new study by the Army War College titled  At Our Own Peril: DoD Risk Assessment in a Post-Primacy World. Readers are actively encouraged to download it and study the fine print.Researcher Nafeez Ahmed has proposed some helpful decoding of this “post-primacy” predicament, that took virtually ten months to be put together.

The intellectual firepower concerned involved all sections of the Pentagon scattered around the world, as well as the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the National Intelligence Council, and proverbial neocon-heavy think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the RAND Corporation, and the Institute for the Study of War.

All that for what? To enounce the obvious – that the US has lost its “primacy”; and to propose more of the same, as in Orwellian surveillance; “strategic manipulation of perceptions”, a.k.a. propaganda; and a “wider and more flexible” military, as in more wars.

If this is the best US military “intelligence” can come up with, peer competitors Russia and China might as well grab a gin and tonic and relax by the pool.

Oh you damn revisionists

The study is a classic piece of myopic Exceptionalism – which might at least allow for some entertaining value if presented with some rhetorical flourish.

Russia and China are duly described as “revisionist forces” (doesn’t that sound like Mao in the 1950s?) which should be prevented from pursuing their own legitimate national interests. Why? Because that represents a threat that undermines US hegemony.

Readers of the study should desist from finding any concrete evidence that both Russia and China pose a serious threat to US national security. They should rely on US corporate media, which blares all these “threats” 24/7.It gets curioser and curioser when it comes to Iran and North Korea – both also demonized non-stop by media and US Think Tankland. The problem is not that they pose a nuclear threat; the problem is they are obstacles to the smooth expansion of the “US-led order.”

In parallel, what really irks US military intel are “murkier, less obvious forms of state-based aggression”. As in the “threat” represented by Sputnik and RT, for instance.

“Facts”, any real facts that challenge the legitimacy of the hegemon are considered by the study as a major driver of US decline. OK, the Pentagon does not do irony, so don’t expect any expert to acknowledge that these real facts simultaneously unmask the Empire’s actions and debunk its rhetoric.

The study’s circular logic is a hostage of – what else – imperial logic; US military power is essentially depicted as a key tool to coerce and force other nations into following the Empire’s diktats.

Which leads those “experts” to bomb the concept of defense to smithereens — and turn it into offense; the Empire always reserves itself the right to go heavy metal when it pleases. If any actor questions this sovereign imperial right – for instance, North Korea launching a missile or China creating facts on the South China Sea – this becomes a threat, and it must be eliminated.Even progressive US analysts still don’t get why, after a short 70 years of hegemony, American geopolitical primacy in Eurasia is at an end. As much as the internal war between Trump and the deep state may be accelerating the process, this is still all about the post-9/11 world.

The adventures of the War Party – from Afghanistan and Iraq to Libya and Syria; the US government’s astonishing, unpayable debt; the steady erosion of the petrodollar; the inexorable march of Eurasia integration – reflected in US military obsession with the three key vectors, China, Russia and Iran.

These are only some of the factors involved.Beijing and Moscow don’t need to be reminded by studies like this of the real game – as in US proxy wars deployed from Ukraine to the South China Sea with the ultimate target of disrupting the 21st century’s top story; Eurasia connectivity.

Same for Tehran, which identifies very well the multiple machinations, instrumentalizing the GCC petrodollar gang, aimed at perpetuating a Sunni-Shi’ite fratricidal war.

Which brings us to “the next war” insistently monopolizing the rumor mill in the Beltway. Were the US government foolish enough to provoke a war against Iran, that would be due to the Exceptionalism mindset; an economy where endless war is the only tool to boost GDP and pay off debts; deep state hegemony; and the eternal Return of the (Neocon) Living Dead inside Think Tankland, the CIA and the Pentagon itself.

“Post-primacy”? You ain’t seen nothing yet.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.

US-hatched Iran coup of 1953 reveals true colors of ‘indispensable nation’

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/394331-mossadeq-us-iranian-coup/

John Wight
John Wight has written for newspapers and websites across the world, including the Independent, Morning Star, Huffington Post, Counterpunch, London Progressive Journal, and Foreign Policy Journal. He is also a regular commentator on RT and BBC Radio. John is currently working on a book exploring the role of the West in the Arab Spring. You can follow him on Twitter @JohnWight1
US-hatched Iran coup of 1953 reveals true colors of 'indispensable nation'

The recent release of a tranche of declassified CIA documents, including memos covering the period, are a timely reminder not only of the staggering mendacity of both countries in asserting the right to lecture the world about democracy and human rights, but the extent to which they have wrought so much damage and devastation throughout their respective histories.

Operation Ajax, the name by which the sordid plan to undermine and topple Muhammad Mossadeq’s government is known, was undertaken in response to Mossadeq’s decision to nationalize Iran’s oil resources with a view to husbanding the revenue for the benefit of the Iranian people, rather than allow it to continue to be sucked out of the country by the then British state-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) – forerunner of today’s global oil conglomerate BP.

Britain had been in control of Iran’s oil since 1908 when the country was known as Persia. London set up AIOC specifically with the development and exploitation of this energy bonanza in mind. The UK government taking over a controlling share of the concession that had been granted to English mining entrepreneur William Knox D’Arcy by Persia’s monarchy in 1901. It came at a point when Britain’s large navy was shifting from coal to oil-powered engines, thus making a secure oil supply of critical strategic and military importance for a country whose empire covered almost a quarter of the planet’s land surface.

None other than Britain’s future prime minister Winston Churchill affirmed the importance of control over Persia’s oil, when he wrote, “Fortune brought us a prize from fairyland beyond our wildest dreams. Mastery itself was the prize of the venture.” Note here the colonial grandeur of Churchill’s sentiments – a turgid celebration of the opportunity for enrichment that was so unabashed it would make a low-rent mafia hood blush.

The record shows that throughout the AIOC’s presence and operations in Persia (the country became Iran in 1935), Tehran received a derisory percentage of the huge revenue garnered from the oil extracted from its territory. This triggered a rise in national consciousness over Iran’s independence and dignity vis-à-vis the colonial and imperialist powers, and lifted Mossadeq into the office of prime minister in 1951.

Soon after coming to power, he nationalized Iran’s oil and confiscated the assets of the AIOC. In a speech explaining his motives, Mossadeq said, “Our long years of negotiations with foreign countries…have yielded no results thus far. With the oil revenues, we could meet our entire budget and combat poverty, disease, and backwardness among our people. Another important consideration is that by the elimination of the power of the British company, we would also eliminate corruption and intrigue, by means of which the internal affairs of our country have been influenced. Once this tutelage has ceased, Iran will have achieved its economic and political independence.”

Britain responded by making it impossible for Iran to sell its newly nationalized oil on the world market. However, this wasn’t enough and, having persuaded the Americans that Iran was ‘in danger’ of turning communist – given the popularity of the country’s Tudeh (Communist) Party – a plan to remove Mossadeq was hatched with the CIA playing the lead role.

In London, the plan was signed off by the aforementioned Winston Churchill, now Britain’s prime minister. Meanwhile, in Washington, Dwight D Eisenhower was the man in the White House who authorized the notorious Dulles brothers, Allen and John Foster, to proceed with Operation Ajax.

When Mossadeq got wind of the plan, he closed the British Embassy in Tehran and expelled its staff. He also discovered the country’s monarch, the Shah, was in cahoots with the plan and forced him to flee the country. However, by now the CIA had succeeded in bribing various army and police officers, along with key journalists and clerics, and members of the Iranian parliament, who helped to whip up an anti-Mossadeq atmosphere in the country, accusing him of being a communist, thus playing to the religiosity of a large sector of the Iranian population.

On August 19, 1953, Mossadeq was arrested along with thousands of his supporters. Upon his arrest, the Shah returned from exile to become Washington’s placeman, ruling the country with extreme brutality and corruption until he was ousted in the Iranian Revolution of 1979.

It is impossible while contemplating this despicable episode not to be filled with indignation at the hypocrisy and contemptible violation of Iran’s sovereignty and independence.

Compounding the sense of injustice is the knowledge that it is just one of many such crimes committed against governments and countries around the world in a pattern of international banditry, subversion and aggression against sovereign states which has continued all the way up to the present day under successive administrations. It proves that instead of the ‘indispensable nation’ the US arrogantly considers itself, we are dealing with a country that has long evinced the characteristics of a rogue state.

Ultimately, then, no region has suffered more at the hands of US imperialism than the Middle East. Indeed it is still suffering to this day, with Iran currently in the crosshairs of the same Washington establishment for daring to assert its independence, dignity and resistance to hegemony.

As for Muhammad Mossadeq, he goes down in history as a leader with the courage to defy the empire. His legacy lives on in the obdurate refusal of the Iranian people to submit to Washington’s writ in our time.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

What’s Behind US Statement on Damascus’ ‘Plans of Chemical Attack’
| June 27, 2017 | 8:36 pm | Donald Trump, Iran, Russia, Syria | No comments

Anti-war protesters shout slogans against US President Donald Trump during a demonstration in front of the Trump Tower in New York on April 7, 2017, to protest the US air strike in Syria

© AFP 2017/ Jewel SAMAD

Get short URL
https://sputniknews.com/politics/201706271055023744-syria-us-chemical-weapons/

While the White House claims that Damascus is preparing for a “new chemical attack,” referring to the Idlib incident of April 4, American investigative journalist Seymour M. Hersh insists that the US military on the ground in Syria were aware that the alleged gas strike never took place.

A lot of controversy is surrounding the White House’s recent statement regarding the “possibility” of Damascus launching “yet another” chemical attack against its civilians.

“The United States has identified potential preparations for another chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime… The activities are similar to preparations the regime made before its April 4, 2017 chemical weapons attack,” White House spokesperson Sean Spicer said Tuesday.

Dropping no hint where such an idea could have come from, Spicer added that “if… Mr. Assad conducts another mass murder attack using chemical weapons he and his military will pay a heavy price.”

Meanwhile, BuzzFeed News drew attention to a peculiar detail related to the statement: “many officials across the Pentagon did not know what the White House was referring to until Tuesday morning.”

“Usually such statements are coordinated across the national security agencies and departments before they are released,” the media outlet highlighted, citing five US defense officials including one US Central Command official.

The media outlet added that the officials said that they had no idea where the potential chemical attack would come from, although the White House insisted that “that all relevant agencies, including State, DoD, CIA and ODNI,” were aware of the issue “from the beginning.”Amid the confusion sparked by the White House’s statement, US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley not only rushed to lambast the Assad government for “further attacks” but also pointed the finger at Russia and Iran.

“Any further attacks done to the people of Syria will be blamed on Assad, but also on Russia & Iran who support him killing his own people,” Haley tweeted.

Still, the problem is that there is no evidence that the April 4 chemical incident in the Khan Sheikhoun area of Idlib province was the Syrian Arab Army’s (SAA) “attack.”

Quite the contrary, according to Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist Seymour M. Hersh, the American military personnel on the ground in Syria were aware that the alleged chemical strike never took place.

The American investigative journalist shed new light on the incident providing Welt Am Sonntag newspaper with an alleged “chat protocol of a security advisor and an active American soldier on duty at a key base” in Syria concerning the alleged attack on Khan Sheikhoun.

“We KNOW that there was no chemical attack. The Syrians struck a weapons cache (a legitimate military target) and there was collateral damage. That’s it. They did not conduct any sort of a chemical attack,” the American soldier wrote.

“There has been a hidden agenda all along. This is about trying to ultimately go after Iran. What the people around Trump do not understand is that the Russians are not a paper tiger and that they have more robust military capability than we do,” the security adviser answered.The American personnel expressed concerns over potential retaliation on the part of Russia after the Trump administration authorized a Tomahawk strike on the Shayrat Airfield, used by the SAA to launch air attacks against Daesh (ISIS/ISIL) and Al-Nusra Front, on April 7.

“Russians are being extremely reasonable.  Despite what the news is reporting they are still trying to deconflict and coordinate the air campaign… They’re showing amazing restraint and been unbelievably calm.  They seem mostly interested in de-escalating everything.  They don’t want to lose our support in the help with destroying Isis,” the American soldier wrote on April 8.

The two military servicemen also raised the question whether President Trump had been familiar with the intelligence on the matter before he authorized the strike.

“What happened? Is it Trump ignoring the Intel and going to try to hit the Syrians? And that we’re pissing on the Russians?… You may not have seen Trump’s press conference yesterday. He’s bought into the media story without asking to see the Intel,” the security adviser underscored.

The body of a plane burned as a result of the US missile attack on an air base in Syria
© Sputnik/ Mikhail Voskresenskiy
The body of a plane burned as a result of the US missile attack on an air base in Syria

The White House statement prompts concerns whether the US is preparing for yet another strike against the SAA.

“In any case, it is Washington that looks very unsavory in this story: they either know about the upcoming attack and are not trying to prevent it, but knowingly put the uncomfortable Syrian leader in the wrong for that… Or the United States is preparing its own preemptive strike on Syrian troops and appeals to the topic that is already ‘famous’ on a global level and will definitely justify any preventive action,” Konstantin Kosachev, the chairman of the upper house of the Russian parliament’s international affairs committee, said.

Previously, the US-led coalition has conducted at least four attacks against the pro-Damascus forces in Syria including the Syrian Su-22 fighter bomber shot down by an American F18 Super Hornet on June 18.The reference to the Idlib chemical incident on the part of the White House evokes strong memories of Colin Powell’s UN speech ahead of the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq.

On April 4, the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces said the Syrian government had carried out a chemical weapons attack in the Khan Sheikhoun area of Idlib province.

For its part, Damascus denied any involvement in the incident referring to the fact that the SAA does not possess any chemical weapons as they had been destroyed by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). The incident was used by the United States as pretext for a missile strike against a Syrian military airbase on April 7.

64 Years Later, CIA Details Long-Hidden Role in Iran Coup
| June 25, 2017 | 9:24 am | Iran, political struggle | No comments