Tuesday, December 31, 2013

May 2014 Become A New Year of Enlightenment and Successful Efforts for Peace On Earth!

May everyone see his or her possibility to contribute to this wishful thinking in the year ahead, so that together we will eventually become strong enough to implement the noble  project 'peace by peace'.
The first piece of  peace begins in the minds and hearts of people. Therefore let us be prepared to stretch out our hand to those who have been  denigrated and labelled as enemies for us. Enemy images can be and must be shred. Reality must be looked at afresh without preconceptions.
Let us celebrate unity for the most nobel causes on earth:  Solidarity for a modest but good life. NO to war propaganda and arms expenditures. Let us  defy the distortation of language and  the renaming of  violent aggression as "humanitarian intervention" or "responsibility to protect".  ONE HUNDRED YEARS are enough! We want no more wars, no more power over other nations, no more of exploiting the natural riches of others for free. May there be peace on earth and may it be furthered by us.

Monday, December 30, 2013

The Mainstream Now Admits that the Syrian Rebels Have Chemical Weapons

News | 31.12.2013 | 06:53
Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh wrote an extensive investigative piece last week featured in the London Review of Books, which details the Obama administration’s “cherry-picking” of intelligence related to the August 21 Damascus chemical attack. “Whose sarin?” was originally intended for the Washington Post, but neither the Post nor Hersh’s usual New Yorker Magazine published it – presumably because its allegations and conclusions are too explosive and embarrassing for those already heavily invested in the accepted narrative of D.C. official sources. Read the following bombshell revelation from the first paragraph:
Most significant, he [Obama] failed to acknowledge something known to the US intelligence community: that the Syrian army is not the only party in the country’s civil war with access to sarin, the nerve agent that a UN study concluded – without assessing responsibility – had been used in the rocket attack. In the months before the attack, the American intelligence agencies produced a series of highly classified reports, culminating in a formal Operations Order – a planning document that precedes a ground invasion – citing evidence that the al-Nusra Front, a jihadi group affiliated with al-Qaida, had mastered the mechanics of creating sarin and was capable of manufacturing it in quantity. When the attack occurred al-Nusra should have been a suspect, but the administration cherry-picked intelligence to justify a strike against Assad.
Hersh goes on to detail an intelligence community revolt, involving high-level officers, against the administration claim that only the Assad regime could have been responsible for the August 21 incident. Hersh has extensive intelligence and military contacts based on his decades long career covering war going back to Vietnam (it was Hersh that exposed the My Lai Massacre). His reporting of intelligence community push-back begins with the following:
But in recent interviews with intelligence and military officers and consultants past and present, I found intense concern, and on occasion anger, over what was repeatedly seen as the deliberate manipulation of intelligence. One high-level intelligence officer, in an email to a colleague, called the administration’s assurances of Assad’s responsibility a ‘ruse’. The attack ‘was not the result of the current regime’, he wrote.
In mid-November, Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer who writes on foreign and defense affairs for The American Conservative first broke the story of a threatened mass resignation by top intelligence analysts over Syria chemical weapons claims. “Quitting Over Syria,” while written by an insider who keeps extensive intel community contacts, got no exposure in major network news, failing to reach the mass of Americans. Giraldi’s reporting was consistent with Hersh’s recent revelations:
With all evidence considered, the intelligence community found itself with numerous skeptics in the ranks, leading to sharp exchanges with the Director of Central Intelligence John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. A number of analysts threatened to resign as a group if their strong dissent was not noted in any report released to the public, forcing both Brennan and Clapper to back down. This led to the White House issuing its own assessment, completely divorcing the process from any direct connection to the intelligence community. The spectacle of CIA Director George Tenet sitting behind Secretary of State Colin Powell in the United Nations, providing him with credibility as Powell told a series of half-truths, would not be repeated.
The American public had no knowledge of this internal conflict and dissent within the intelligence community while it was happening, and few know of it today.
More surprising is that while the ongoing UN investigation was center stage throughout September, the final UN findings on chemical weapons usage in Syria were published this last Thursday (12/12), yet received little focus in major American media reporting or analysis. While major media has perhaps “moved on” – the UN report contains some damning information related to the rebels and chem weapons: “The United Nations Mission remains deeply concerned that chemical weapons were used in the ongoing conflict between the parties in the Syrian Arabic Republic, which has added yet another dimension to the continued suffering of the Syrian people,” the report says [emphasis LR's].
The report states that chemical weapons were “probably used” at five sites in Syria during the two-and-a-half year long conflict. Most significant is that at two sites, the victims were Syrian government soldiers, and at another, the victims were regime soldiers and civilians (for initial BBC reporting go here). While the purpose of the investigation was not to establish the culprit in each attack, the report identifies the victims in three out of the five incidents as regime soldiers. This is a tacit UN admission that the rebels possess and have used chemical weapons.
Even the generally pro-rebel and very establishment New York Times had to admit the following on Thursday:
Chemical weapons were used repeatedly in the Syria conflict this year, not only in a well-documented Aug. 21 attack near Damascus but also in four other instances, including two subsequent attacks that targeted soldiers, the United Nations said in a report released Thursday.
And concerning the first reported usage of chemical weapons in the entirety of the Syrian conflict, the NYT admits that Syrian soldiers were on the receiving end:
The report said the panel had corroborated “credible allegations” that chemical weapons were used in the first reported attack — a March 19 episode involving soldiers and civilians in Khan al-Assal in the country’s north.
For those that did their homework while questions of Syria chemical attacks were the hot topic in August and September, credible allegations of rebel chemical weapons are nothing new. Last May, Carla Del Ponte, a top UN human rights investigator and former UN Chief Prosecutor and veteran International Criminal Court prosecutor - was the first to accuse the rebels using Sarin gas against regime forces and civilians (see herehere, and here). Del Ponte’s assertions, based upon her information gathering team on the ground, caused a row in Europe, but it seems the only major American outlet to cover the story was the LA Times. During a Swiss-Italian TV interview, she was convinced enough to be very blunt in her assessment, saying, “I was a little bit stupefied by the first indication of the use of nerve gas by the opposition.”
Revelations of the deep divide within the U.S. intelligence community over the August 21 chemical attack and Obama’s push for intervention, along with the just release UN report confirming that CW were used against regime troops in the majority of attack sites, should get common sense Americans questioning everything they were ever told by establishment sources concerning chemical weapons and Syria.

Wahhabism, an Anti-Islamic Ideology

"Wahhabism is an anti-Islamic ideology invented by the Brits in early days of Al Saud in Arabia and used to distort the image of Islam and to kill Muslims and all enemies of Great Britain in the name of God. There’s no worse than impoverishing whole communities then using their uneducated youth as killing machines in the name of a religion, something the Brits were best at in each country they invaded, the US empire with the anti-US elite ruling them has inherited this technique from the Brits and played it overtly with lots of propaganda and glare against its enemies everywhere it deemed ‘rich’. Divide and Conquer is the mean, brainwashed youths are the tools in the name of G.O.D. (Gold, Oil and Drugs). What you are about to watch is horrible, gross, and un-thought of just 3 years ago in Syria, but it’s what the Syrians with their super heroic army and other armed forces are facing on daily basis (if you don’t see the play button just click on the image): The above clip as it clearly states was taken by the terrorists after invading Al Kindi Hospital in north of Aleppo, the hospital which was once the pride of cancer treatment in the region. SAA soldiers protecting the hospital refused to defect or surrender, they fought to the last man standing, they’re the men of Syria. These enemies of Islam, Wahhabi soldiers of the anti-Christ with their financiers: the US, UK and other western taxpaying citizens"Source: Syrianews

A Peaceful New Year is Possible!

!m Meer der Gewalt nicht die Orientierung verlieren - die Schwäche des Imperialismus erkennen und entsprechend handeln!

Friedenspolitische Gedanken zum  nahenden Jubiläumsjahr 2014

Der 2001  vom US-Imperialismus ausgerufene  "Krieg gegen den Terror" hat  im neuen Jahrtausend vorerst  zur weltweiten Ausdehnung  der Kriegszone geführt.  Die  jedes menschliche Maß überschreitende Brutalisierung seiner Methoden  ist aber nur ein weiteres Vorzeichen  seines heraufdämmernden Endes. Der "tönerne Koloss" USA ist längst ins Wanken geraten. Auch seine westlichen Verbündeten werden  auf Grund ihres  eigenen Siechtums den Sturz des Hegemons am Ende nicht aufhalten können.

 Sein die Welt noch  fest umspannendes, dicht gefügtes Netzwerk von Militärbasen kann  den sehenden Blick schon lange nicht mehr  über die  Schwächen des imperialen Machtgefüges  hinwegtäuschen. Die jüngste  Aufdeckung  des in jeden Winkel blickenden  NSA-Spähprogramms durch  den Ex- Geheimdienstexperten Edward Snowden demonstriert einen weiteren  zentralen Aspekt seiner  Verletzlichkeit. Die atemberaubenden Aufrüstungs- und elektronischen Überwachungsprogramme haben das  Land der scheinbar  unbegrenzten Möglichkeiten finanziell  und moralisch in den Ruin getrieben.  Daran vermag auch der nobelpreisgekrönte schwarze Rechtsprofessor Obama trotz all seiner Klugheit und Redegewandtheit nichts mehr zu ändern.  Noch können  privat und über Mittler finanzierte Söldnerheere  ganze Landstriche verwüsten. Im Nahen Osten kämpft  gar die angeblich christlichste Nation  mit Hilfe gedungener   Mörder für Demokratie und Menschenrecht.  Sie zerstört damit  an der Wiege des Christentums  die Grundlagen  seiner Existenz.  Die schrankenlosen, jedes Rechtsverständnis sprengenden Brutalo-Methoden gegen das  multiethnische syrische Volk etwa  können bei alledem schier unfassbaren Folgeleid nur mühsam noch die Machtlosigkeit  der westlichen 'Führungsnation' verhüllen.

Obwohl es noch immer den Anschein hat, als könnten die Vereinigten Staaten im Bunde mit Europa der Welt ihren Willen aufzwingen, so sind der imperialen Machtpolitik im zurückliegenden Jahr doch  deutlich Grenzen auferlegt worden. Europa ist nicht in der Lage die Lücke ausreichend zu füllen.

Zwar mag "Europas Elite  sich rüsten, um Krieg auch dann kollektiv führen zu können, wenn es in keinem einzelnen EU-Mitgliedsland dafür eine Mehrheit gibt"  wie es DIE WELT-Online  schon am 16. 09.  2007 * zu wissen vorgab. Das Blatt muss aber  im selben Atemzug mit Bedauern feststellen, dass  "Die EU-Staaten zusammen  weniger als halb so viel für Verteidigung ausgeben als die USA", wenngleich sie damit laut WELT immer noch "dreimal so viel ausgeben wie China, viermal so viel wie Russland und sechsmal so viel wie Japan und  rein zahlenmäßig mehr Soldaten in Uniform  haben als jede andere Macht der Erde, einschließlich China."

Auch auf Grund der nicht zu kittenden inneren Uneinigkeit ist Europa nicht in der Lage, die imperiale Lücke zu füllen, die die Schwäche der Vereinigten Staaten perspektivisch reißen wird.

In beinahe  ganz Lateinamerika sind den US-Jankees die Felle  schon weggeschwommen. Gegenüber  Syrien und dem Iran ist es dem Koloss  bis heute,  trotz aller Brachialgewalt nicht gelungen,  seine Regime-Change-Absichten zu verwirklichen. In Afghanistan, im Irak, in Libyen hat der Noch-Hegemon die einheimischen Strukturen nachhaltig zerstört und chaotische Zustände geschaffen. Ähnliches geschieht gegenwärtig im Jemen, in Pakistan und in Teilen Afrikas auch  mit Hilfe europäischer "Partner".  Gewinne aber  erzielten dabei nur  an die Rüstungsfirmen gekoppelten Bereiche. Diese hängen wiederum am Tropf des US-Haushaltes, der eben  allmählich versiegt.  Die Gaukler-Methoden, die ihn bis Dato am Laufen hielten, sind allerdings endlich. Das moralische Kapital, das die US-Politik auf ihrem Kriegspfad zertrümmert  hat, ist  der westlichen  Führungsmacht  schon jetzt unwiederbringlich verloren. Die Snowden-Affaire hat  das Siegel gesetzt.

Der Verbündete  in der bisher noch blühenden Türkei ist durch Massenproteste und Erdogans Korruptionsskandale  ebenfalls ins Wanken geraten. Die Ukraine tanzt nicht mehr uneingeschränkt nach der westlichen Pfeife.

Russland, China, Indien, Brasilien, Kuba, Venezuela und der Iran, die bevölkerungs- und landreichsten Staaten der Erde, das sind die Impulsgeber unserer Zeit. Das gilt völlig unabhängig davon, ob das in unseren Breiten Gefallen findet oder nicht. Daran können weder infiltrierte Terroristen, noch  aufmüpfige  Aufständische vom Schlage "Pussy Riot" oder FEMEN, noch andere mediale Verleumdungsstrategien etwas nachhaltig verändern.

Wer den Frieden oder auch nur Geschäfte machen will, muss sich mit jenen Ländern ins Benehmen setzen. Diplomatie, nicht Krieg ist das Gebot der Stunde. Und so  gehen am  heutigen Montag  in Genf die Gespräche mit dem Iran weiter.

Die Welt ist an einem Wendepunkt von der monopolaren zur multipolaren Weltordnung angekommen.

Das Kräfteparallelogramm hat sich zu Ungunsten des Imperiums verschoben. Die Kriegszone wird daher im Jubiläumsjahr 2014  kaum mehr ausgedehnt werden können. Friedenskräfte sollten daher Mut  fassen und sich auf die Hinterbeine machen.

Friedensarbeit beginnt im eigenen Lande. Aufklärung und Demontage von Feindbildern ist ihr vornehmster Auftrag. Ohne Feindbilder und  ohne den Blick auf die Wirklichkeit verzerrende Weltbilder sind kriegerische Vorgehensweisen gegen andere Nationen zu Hause nicht durchsetzbar.

Machen wir uns also voll Zuversicht an die Arbeit.

 Irene Eckert am 30. 12. 2013


Warum Europa das Zeug zur Weltmacht hat - Die Welt

www.welt.de › Politik

Sunday, December 29, 2013

Europe Goes Under - "The Time of Other Civilizations Has Come" Vladimir Nesterov


A Europe Without a Future

Vladimir NESTEROV | 29.12.2013 | 00:00

In summer of this year high spirits prevailed in Brussels. When Eurostat published its statistical report for the second quarter, it turned out that the economy of the Eurozone, despite the pessimistic expectations of experts, had grown. Not at all significantly, of course - by 0.3%, and that was mainly from a certain amount of economic recovery in Germany and France. The growth of the largest economies of Europe equaled 0.7% and 0.5% respectively, in annual terms.  It was predicted that Germany's GDP would increase by another 0.5% by the end of the year. Of course, the GDP of the Eurozone, pulled down by the «problem countries» of southern Europe, will still go down by the same 0.5%
Anyway, European Council President Herman Van Rompuy hastened to announce that «the low point of the financial crisis in Europe has passed», and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso proclaimed that «the EU is transitioning from a crisis policy to a growth policy». And all this was happening while experts were saying that it's too early to start rejoicing about the «growth». For example, Guntram Wolff, director of the analytical center Bruegel, stated at that time, «Growth figures in all of Europe are still way too small to manage to turn around the situation on the job market. Unemployment rates will remain high in southern Europe next year as well. It is going to be a while before we'll see any relief there... I think public investments are especially important in Germany, which has one of the lowest public investment quotas in the EU. It is surprising that in a country where borrowing money comes so cheap investments are so low. In Germany in particular there are a couple of shortfalls when it comes to public infrastructure. In some regions like the Ruhr region it's obvious that public investments are lagging behind.» 
However, neither Berlin nor Brussels has turned out to be prepared for such a turn of events. Of course, the ECB has tried to take some measures, for example, lowering the discount rate to 0.25%. However, Germany, which has the strongest economy in Europe, has not supported the ECB's initiative by increasing investments. Submitting to Berlin's will, other countries have done the same.
Seeing the financial policy of their governments, entrepreneurs also joined in the «cheap money» game. They started investing, but in real estate, not in the real sector. This happened in France, in Germany and in other countries.
A Sobering November
The summer optimism of Brussels officials had evaporated by late November. At the end of the third quarter, the Eurozone's economic growth turned out to be illusory - it was only 0.1% (!). That is, the crisis hasn't gone anywhere; it was only lying low in order to pop up again with new force. The third quarter refuted the commonly-held notion of a «two-speed Europe», according to which, while there is no growth in Southern Europe, there definitely is in the North. Nothing could be further from the truth; not a single country in the Eurozone can currently boast of significant growth. Even in Germany the growth of the GDP was ridiculously modest - 0.3%, or 1.3% in annual terms.  And they may not even end up with this 1.3%. The fact of the matter is that in September production had already started to decline. And the fourth quarter started extremely poorly; in October Germany's industrial production volume was 1.2% lower than in September. Production in the processing industry went down by 1.1%, manufacturing of capital goods decreased by 3%, and manufacturing of durable consumer goods decreased by 4.5%. 
«The German economy has not managed to make a good start to the fourth quarter. Businesses are still holding back with investment. This indicates a rather cautious outlook for investment activity in the coming months», said Commerzbank economist Ralph Solveen, commenting on recent events. 
In the end, everything comes down to the reduced purchasing power in Europe and in the rest of the world brought about by the crisis. For the German economy, which is focused on exports, hard times have come. It is worth noting that at the November China-EU summit in Beijing, neither the Germans nor the other Europeans, who are accustomed to criticize the Chinese government for «human rights violations», said a single word  on this topic. And this is understandable; whether or not the Germans like the way the Chinese do things, there is no other consumer of their products as large as China, and there is unlikely to be one.
Things are no better in the smaller countries of the Eurozone. Austria has managed to return to an insignificant amount of growth, 0.2%. The Netherlands compensated for a drop in the first half of the year, showing growth of 0.3%. Finland reached growth of 0.4%. There have been no noticeable changes for the better in «problem» Southern Europe, either. Growth in Spain is microscopic; Italy is not growing yet, and since the beginning of the crisis its GDP has shrunk by 25% (!). In Greece the decline is continuing as usual, albeit not as rapidly as before.
As for France, people there now believe that the «chronic patient» of Europe is no longer Greece, but their own country. A 0.1% reduction in the GDP caused a sort of national stress. After all, both Gaullist Nicolas Sarkozy and socialist Francois Hollande have continually reduced social expenses, raised existing taxes and introduced new ones. As a result, unemployment rose in the third quarter of this year; among young people, according to data for September, it has remained at the level of 25%.
Amid the economic problems in Europe, poverty is progressing rapidly. According to Eurostat sociologists, in 2012 124.5 million people were on the brink of poverty. The worst situation is in Bulgaria, where poverty and social isolation threaten half (!) of the population. Next after Bulgaria are Romania and Latvia, where 42% and 37% of residents are at risk of poverty, respectively. In Lithuania poverty threatens 33% of the population, in Poland 27.2%, and in Estonia 23.1%. Italy must be mentioned among such countries as well; although the percentage of poor people is not so large (29.2%), in absolute terms they come to 18.2 million people. The Italians make up the largest mass of poor people in Europe.
From Euroskepticism to Total Pessimism
The debt crisis which is already in its fifth year in Europe and the severe austerity measures which all European countries have had to introduce is causing a rise in Euroskepticism, not only on the periphery of Europe, but in relatively prosperous countries like Germany and Austria as well.
The results of a survey conducted in late August – early September 2013 by the French marketing firm IFOP show an abrupt increase in the number of Euroskeptics in the top four economies of the Eurozone: Germany, France, Italy and Spain. The main question they asked the Germans, French, Italians and Spaniards was whether they felt that membership in the European Union was advantageous to them. 37% of residents of the Pyrenees believe that membership in the EU only brings Spain problems (a year earlier 26% in Spain were Euroskeptics). In France the number of those who are dissatisfied with their country's membership in the European Union rose from 38% in 2012 to 43% at present. In Germany 44% of the population disapprove of membership in united Europe (a year ago 36% in Germany were Euroskeptics). The greatest number of Euroskeptics is in Italy, where 45% of citizens see no benefit in being part of the European Union...
Along with Euroskepticism, the souls of Old World residents are increasingly filled with pessimism. People are losing hope and faith in the future. According to data from the American Pew Research Center, which conducted a study on this topic in spring 2013, only 28% of Germans, 17% of the British, 14% of Italians and 9% of the French believe that their children will live better than previous generations. What is even more interesting is that pessimism in the West contrasts sharply with optimism in developing countries; 82% of the Chinese, 59% of Indians and 65% of Nigerians believe in a better future. 
Obviously those experts who believe that Europe is losing its former leading position as the locomotive of progress are right. The time of other civilizations has come.

Saturday, December 28, 2013

"In Early 2011 Syria had Nil Public Debt" SyriaNews

Syria, the Country with the Fastest Growing Rate of Nillionaires

Syria, the Country with the Fastest Growing Rate of Nillionaires
By no meaning and no intention at all this post is meant to be funny or near funny, this is one of the biggest man-inflicted tragedies of our current times and sponsored by a host of leading nations on the planet, what we are living now is an example of where a group of criminal minds join forces together to destroy a sovereign nation, not for anything, just for the thirst for blood. Prior to the fake ‘Arab Spring Revolution’ in Syria, Syrian citizens were enjoying a comfortable life to some extent in spite of the harsh sanctions imposed on the whole nation by the western orchestra of clown leaders, claiming to be humanitarians, and just to punish this small but proud nation for standing up against Israel and refusing to sign a humiliating peace pact with the Zionist racist entity. Later on, the ‘revolution’ sponsored by the west and imposed using tens of thousands of imported anti-Islamic radical Wahhabi mercenary terrorists and suicide bombers, everything went downwards for the Syrian people, from an aspiring nation living in enviable security, to a dwindling nation living in fear and with a large portion of its people joining the NC, Nillionaires Club. You must have knew that in early 2011 Syria had nil public debt, unlike the prosperous USA which lies under an astronomical burden, or like bankrupt countries in the EU. You should have known that the Syrians used to pay about 1/5th of the cost of all essentials of what ...Read More »

Talks between Iran and Six-Nation Group to Continue!

International Nuclear Talks With Iran to Resume Soon

News | 28.12.2013 | 13:44
Iran and a group of six nations will resume negotiations on the Islamic Republic’s controversial nuclear program next week, a European official said Friday.
A spokeswoman for EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, who led previous talks with Iran, said “technical experts will meet with Iran in Geneva on December 30.”
Iran’s deputy foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said the aim of the talks would be to lay down a plan of implementing previously reached agreements.
Iran and the six-nation group – the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany – have agreed on a set of temporary measures to limit the Islamic Republic’s nuclear activities pending a broader agreement.
Tehran agreed to temporarily suspend its nuclear research in exchange for lifting crippling international sanctions. The deal also stipulates that international observers will monitor nuclear sites in the country.
But the parties still have to work out a permanent agreement that would alleviate Western fears about Iran’s nuclear program being a facade to build an atomic bomb.

White House Called for Closer Cooperation with Russia

Obama Backs Deeper Ties Under US-Russian Commission

News | 28.12.2013 | 13:42
The White House on Friday called for closer cooperation with Russia on issues such as arms control, counterterrorism and trade under the auspices of a bilateral presidential commission launched four years ago.
US President Barack Obama “encourages the commission’s working groups to deepen and expand their engagement with Russia in order to remove barriers to trade and investment, increase security, and ensure that advances in science and innovation continue,” White House spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said in a statement.
The statement came as Washington and Moscow issued a joint report Friday on the US-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission, an initiative created in 2009 by Obama and then Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to facilitate high-level talks on a broad range of issues.
The report, which praised the efforts of the two countries to “strengthen and expand cooperation,” covers the period from May 2012 to December 2013 that has seen a deterioration in US-Russian ties, primarily over human rights issues.
In the report, however, officials focused on areas they described as fertile for collaboration, including military-technical cooperation and counterterrorism in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing in April, which US authorities say was carried out by two brothers with ties to Russia’s mainly Muslim North Caucasus region.
“In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing, our nations have redoubled our counterterrorism and law enforcement efforts,” the report states.
The two countries said the commission’s 21 working groups in the coming year plan to “intensify creative efforts and develop projects to further expand the benefits of cooperation in the US-Russia relationship.”
Moscow and Washington have butted heads over Russia’s human rights records and what the Kremlin sees as US interference in its internal affairs over the past 18 months.
Last year the Kremlin halted the Russia-based operations of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which has funded Russian non-governmental organizations and which Russian President Vladimir Putin has accused of meddling in the country’s politics.
The United States last December enacted the Magnitsky Act, a law introducing visa and travel sanctions on Russian citizens deemed by Washington to be complicit in human rights abuses. The law infuriated Moscow, which responded in part by banning Americans from adopting Russian children.
The joint report issued Friday includes a photograph of a Russian-built MI-17 helicopter used by Afghan forces.
The photograph appears to be illustrative of US-Russian cooperation on defense and security issues, as the Pentagon has bought dozens of these aircraft from Russia for use by Afghan national forces in deals worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
Several US lawmakers say that by purchasing Russian military hardware, the Pentagon is effectively subsidizing Syrian President Bashar Assad, an ally of Moscow, in his war against armed rebel groups backed by Washington.
Russia has insisted that it is fulfilling existing contracts by providing arms to Assad’s forces, and that the deliveries are legal under international law.
RIA Novosti

Thursday, December 26, 2013

US President Promises to Veto any Sanctions Imposed Against Iran, But Blocks Iran's Participation at Geneva II - Why?

  Nikolai BOBKIN

Why Barack Obama Does not Want Iran to Take Part in Geneva-2 Conference

Barack Obama summed up the results of the year at a White House conference. Talking about foreign policy he did not omit Iran. The President made a promise to veto any sanctions imposed against this country by Congress. At that the Washington’s refusal to see Iran as a Geneva-2 conference participant sounds rather insulting for Tehran. The administration attempts to hinder the process of imposing sanctions against Iran in the Senate have led nowhere. 26 senators supported the motion, including 13 Democrats and 13 Republicans... Being an interested party, Iran is watching closely the bickering between the White House and Congress... 


Conclusion:"...The shift to negotiations with Iran, the refusal to bomb Syria … are ... indications that Washington is less inclined to launch more large-scale military intervention and more receptive to the public opinion constraints on the exercise of imperial power."

full text


Following the Vietnam War, US imperial intervention passed through several phases:  In the immediate aftermath, the US government faced a humiliating military defeat at the hands of the Vietnamese liberation forces and was under pressure from an American public sick and tired of war. Imperial military interventions, domestic espionage against opponents and usual practice of fomenting coups d’état (regime change)  declined.
Slowly, under President Gerald Ford and, especially President ‘Jimmy’ Carter, an imperial revival emerged in the form of clandestine support for armed surrogates in Southern Africa – Angola, Mozambique, Guinea Bissau— and neo-liberal military dictatorships in Latin America.  The first large-scale imperial intervention was launched during the second half of the Carter Presidency.
It involved massive support for the Islamist uprising against the secular government of Afghanistan and a mercenary jihadist invasion sponsored by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the US (1979).  This was followed by direct US invasions in Grenada (1983) under President Reagan; Panama (1989) and Iraq (1991) under President Bush Sr. and Yugoslavia (1995 and 1999) under President Clinton.
In the beginning, the imperial revival involved low cost wars of brief duration with few casualties.  As a result there were very few voices of dissent, far diminished from the massive anti-war, anti-imperial movements of the early 1970’s.
The restoration of direct US imperial interventions, unhindered by Congressional and popular opposition, was gradual in the period 1973-1990.  It started to accelerate in the 1990’s and then really took off after September 11, 2001.
The imperial military and ideological apparatus for direct intervention was firmly in place by 2000.  It led to a prolonged series of wars in multiple geographical locations, involving long-term, large-scale commitments of economic resources, and military personnel and was completely unhampered by congressional or large-scale public opposition – at least in the beginning.
The ‘objectives’ of these serial wars were defined by their principal Zionist and militarist architects as the following:
(1) destroying regimes and states (as well as their military, police and civil governing bureaucracies) which had opposed Israel’s annexation of Palestine;
(2) deposing regimes which promoted independent nationalist policies, opposing or threatening the Gulf puppet monarchist regimes and supporting anti-imperialist, secular or nationalist-Islamic movements around the world.
Blinded by their imperial hubris (or naked racism) neither the Zionists nor the civilian militarists within the US Administrations  anticipated prolonged national resistance from the targeted countries, the regrouping of armed opposition and the spread of violent attacks (including terrorism) to the imperial countries.
Having utterly destroyed the Afghan and Iraqi state structures, as well as the regime in power, and having devastated the economy as well as any central military or police capacity, the imperial state was faced with endless armed civilian ethno-religious and tribal resistance (including suicide bombings), mounting US troop casualties and spiraling costs to the domestic economy without any “exit strategy”.
The imperial powers were unable to set up a stable and loyal client regime, backed by a unified state apparatus with a monopoly of force and violence, after having deliberately shredded these structures (police, bureaucracy, civil service, etc) during the invasion and early occupation.
The creation of this “political vacuum” was never a problem for the Zionists embedded in the US Administrations since  their ultimate goal was to devastate Israel ’s enemies .  As a result of the US invasions, the regional power of Israel was greatly enhanced without the loss of a single Israeli soldier or shekel.
The Zionists within the Bush Administration successfully blamed the ensuing problems of the occupation, especially the growing armed resistance, on their ‘militarist’ colleagues and the Pentagon ‘Brass’. ‘Mission Accomplished’, the Bush Administration Zionists left the government , moving on to lucrative careers in the private financial sector.
Under President Obama, a new ‘cast’ of embedded Zionists have emerged to target Iran and prepare the US for a new war on Israel ’s behalf.  However, by the end of the first decade of the 21stcentury, when Barak Obama was elected president, the political, economic and military situation had changed.  The contrast in circumstances  between the  earlyBush (Jr.) years and the current administration is striking.
The 20-year period (1980-2000) before the launching of the ‘serial war’ agenda was characterized by short, inexpensive, low-casualty wars in Grenada , Panama and Yugoslavia , and a proxy war in Afghanistan . Israeli invasions and attacks against Lebanon, the occupied West Bank and Syria .
One major US war of short duration and limited casualties against Iraq (the First Gulf War).  The First Gulf War succeeded in weakening the government of Saddam Hussein, fragmenting the country via ‘no fly zones’,  establishing a Kurdish client ‘state’ in the north  while ‘policing’ was left to the remnants of the Iraqi state – all without having to occupy the country.
Meanwhile, the US economy was relatively stable and trade deficits were manageable.  The real economic crisis was still to come. Military expenditures appeared under control.  US public opinion, initially hostile to the First Gulf War was “pacified” by its short duration and the withdrawal of US troops.
Iraq remained under aerial surveillance with frequent US bombing and missile strikes whenever the government attempted to regain control of the north.  During this period, Israel was forced to fight its own wars and maintain an expensive occupation of southern Lebanon – losing its own soldiers.
By the second decade of the 21st century everything had changed.  The US was bogged down in a prolonged thirteen year war and occupation in Afghanistan with little hope for a stable client regime in Kabul.  The seven-year war against Iraq (Second Gulf War) with the massive occupation, armed civilian insurgency and the resurgence of ethno-religious conflict resulted in casualties and a crippling growth in US military expenditures.
Budget and trade deficits expanded exponentially while the US share of the world market declined. China displaced the US as the principle trading partner in Latin America, Asia and Africa.  A series of new ‘low intensity’ wars were launched in Somalia , Yemen and Pakistan which show no prospect of ending the drain on the military and the US Treasury.
The vast majority of the US public has experienced a decline in living standards and now believes the cost of overseas wars are a significant factor contributing to their relative impoverishment and insecurity.  The multi-trillion-dollar bailout of the Wall Street banks during the economic crash of 2008-09 has eroded public support for the financial elite as well as the militarist-Zionist elite, which continue to push for more imperial wars.
The capacity of the US imperial elite to launch new wars on Israel ’s behalf has been greatly undermined since the economic crash of 2008-09.  The gap between the rulers and ruled has widened.  Domestic economic issues, not the threat of external terrorists, have become the central concern.  The public sees the Middle East as a region of unending costly wars – with no benefit to the domestic economy.
Asia has become the center of trade, growth, investment and a major source of US jobs.  While Washington continues to ignore the citizens’ views, accumulated grievances are beginning to have an impact.
A Pew Research report, released in late 2013, confirms the wide gap between elite and public opinion.  The Pew Foundation is an establishment polling operation, which presents its questions in a way that avoids the larger political questions.
Nevertheless, the responses presented in the report are significant:  By a vast margin (52% to 38%) the public agree that the US “should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own”.
This represents a major increase in public opposition to armed US imperialist intervention and the 52% response in 2013 contrasts sharply with 30% polled 2002.
A companion poll of elite policy advisors,  members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), highlights the gap between the US public and the ruling class.   The elite are described by the Pew Report as having a ‘decidedly internationalist (imperialist-interventionist) outlook’.
The American public clearly distinguishes between ‘trade’ and ‘globalization’ (imperialism.):  81% of the public favor ‘trade’ as a source of job creation while 73% oppose ‘globalization’ which they see as  US companies relocating jobs overseas to low wage regions.
The US public rejects imperial economic expansion and wars for the harm done to the domestic economy, middle and working class income and job security.
The members of the Council on Foreign Relations, in contrast, are overwhelmingly in favor of ‘globalization’ (and imperial interventions).  While 81% of the public believe the principle goal of US foreign policy should be the protection of American jobs, only 29% of the CFR rate US jobs as a priority.
The elite is conscious of the growing gap in interests, values and priorities between the public and the imperial state; they know that endless costly wars have led to a mass rejection of new imperial wars and a growing demand for domestic job programs.
This gap between the imperial policy elite and the majority of the public is one of the leading factors now influencing US foreign policy.  Together with the general discredit of the Congress (only 9% favorable), the public’s rejection of President Obama’s militarist foreign policy has seriously weakened the empire’s capacity to begin new large-scale ground wars at multiple sites.
Meanwhile, Israel ( Washington ’s foreign patron), the Gulf State clients and European and Japanese allies have been pushing the US to intervene and confront ‘their adversaries’.
To this end, Israel and the Zionist Power Configuration within the US government have been undermining peace negotiations between the US and Iran .  Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf monarchies, as well as Turkey are urging the US to attack Syria .  The French had successfully pushed the US into a war against the Gaddafi government in Libya and have their sights on their former colony in Syria .
The US has given only limited backing to the French military intervention in Mali and the Central African Republic .
The US public is aware that none of Washington’s ‘militarist’ patrons, clients and allies has paid such a high price in terms of blood and treasure as the US in the recent wars.  The Saudi, Israeli and French “publics” have not experienced the socio-economic dislocations confronting the US public.
For these ‘allied’ regimes, the cheapest way to resolve their own regional conflicts and promote their own ambitions is to convince, coerce or pressure the US to “exercise its global leadership”.
Washington ’s imperial policymakers, by background, history, ideology and past experience, are sensitive to these appeals – especially those from the Israelis.  But they also recognize the growing “intervention fatigue” among the American public, the CFR’s euphemism  for  rising anti-imperialist feelings among the American  majority, which is saying ‘no’ to further imperial military interventions.
Faced with choice of acting as an unfettered imperial power with global interests  and facing rising domestic discontent, Washington has been forced to revise its foreign policy and strategies.  It is adopting a more nuanced approach, one less vulnerable to external pressures and manipulations.
Imperial Foreign Policy in a Time of Domestic Constraints and External Pressures
US empire builders, with increasingly limited military options and declining domestic support, have begun to (1) prioritize their choice of places of engagement, (2) diversify their diplomatic, political and economic instruments of coercion and (3) limit large-scale, long-term military intervention to regions where US strategic interests are involved.
Washington is not shedding its militarist polices by any means, but it is looking for ways to avoid costly long-term wars which further undermine the domestic economy and intensify domestic political opposition.
In order to decipher US imperial policy in this new context, it is useful to first (1) identify the regions of conflict, (2) estimate the significance of these countries and conflicts to the empire and, (3) analyze the particular interventions and their impact on US empire building.  Our purpose is to show how the interplay between domestic and external countervailing pressures affects imperial policy.

Conflicts which Engage US Empire Builders
There are at least eleven major or minor conflicts today engaging US empire builders to a greater or lesser extent.  A major premise of our approach is that US empire builders are more selective in their aggression, more conscious of the economic consequences, less reckless in their commitments and have a greater concern for domestic political impact.
Current conflicts of interest to Washington include those taking place in the Ukraine , Thailand , Honduras , China-Japan-South Korea, Iran-Gulf States/Israel, Syria , Venezuela , Palestine-Israel , Libya , Afghanistan and Egypt .
These conflicts can be classified according to whether they involve major or minor US interests and whether they involve major or minor allies or adversaries.  Among the conflicts where the US has strategic interests and which involve major actors, one would have to include the territorial and maritime dispute between Japan , South Korea and China .
On the surface the dispute appears to be over economically insignificant pile of rocks claimed by the Japanese as the Senkaku Islands and by the Chinese as the Diaoyu Islands .
In essence, the conflict involves the US plan to militarily encircle China by provoking its Japanese and Korean allies to confront the Chinese over the islands.  Washington ’s treaties with Japan will be used to come to the ‘aid’ of its most important ally in the region.
The US support of Japan ’s expansionist claims is part of a strategic shift in US policy from military commitments in the Middle East to military and economic pacts in Asia, which exclude and provoke China .
The Obama Regime has announced its ‘Pivot to Asia ’ in an attempt to deal with its largest economic competitor.  China , the second biggest economy in the world, has displaced the US as the principle trading partner in Latin America and Asia .  It is advancing rapidly as the principal investor in developing Africa ’s natural resources.
In response, the US has (1) openly backed Japan’s claims, (2) defied China’s strategic interests in the East China Sea by flying B52 bombers within China’s Air Defense Identification Zone and (3) encouraged South Korea to expand its ‘air defense’ zones to overlap with those of the Chinese.  History teaches us that inflexible assertions of dominance by established imperial powers against rising dynamic economies will lead to conflicts, and even disastrous wars.
Imperial advisers believe that US naval and air superiority and Chinese dependence on foreign trade give the US a strategic advantage in any armed confrontation.  Obama’s “Pivot to Asia” is clearly designed to encircle and degrade China ’s capacity to outcompete and displace the US from world markets.
Washington’s militarists, however, fail to take account of China’s strategic levers – especially the over two trillion dollars of US Treasury notes (debt) held by China, which, if dumped on the market, would lead to a major devaluation of the US currency, panic on Wall Street and a deeper economic depression.
China could respond to US military threats by (1) seizing the assets of the 500 biggest US MNCs located in the country which would crash the stock market and (2) cutting off the source for major supply chains, further disrupting the US and world economy.
Imperialist ambitions and resentment over the loss of markets, status, and supremacy is pushing Washington to raise the stakes and confront China .
Opposing the militarists, Washington ’s economic realists believe the USis too exposed and too dependent on credit, overseas earnings and financial revenues to engage in new military interventions in Asia, especially after the disastrous consequences of wars in the Middle East .
Current US policy reflects an ongoing struggle between the militarist imperialists and the defenders of imperial economic interests.  For the market-oriented policy advisers, it makes no sense to confront China , when mutual gains from rising trade and economic inter-dependence have proven far superior to any marginal territorial gains offshore.
These conflicting outlooks find expression in the alternating bellicose and conciliatory rhetoric of Vice President Biden during his December visit to Japan , China and South Korea .
The second area involving major actors and interests is the Persian Gulf, especially Israel – Iran – Saudi Arabia and the US .  Having gone through costly and disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and fully aware that US intelligence agencies have found no evidence of an Iran nuclear weapons program,  the Obama Administration is eager to reach an agreement with Iran.
Nevertheless, US strategists are pursuing an agreement that would: (1) weaken Iran ’s defense capability, (2) undermine Iranian support for popular revolts among Shiite populations living in the Gulf Monarchies, (3) isolate President Bashar Assad in Syria and (4) facilitate a long-term US presence in Afghanistan by destroying Al Qaeda operations throughout the region.
In addition a US – Iran agreement would lift the harsh economic sanctions  and (1) allow US oil companies to exploit Iran’s richest oil fields, (2) lower the cost of energy and (3) reduce US trade deficits.
A major stumbling block to any US-Iran agreement is from the well-entrenched Zionist strategists and advisers among policy-makers, especially in the Executive Branch, including such Department heads and Secretaries as Treasury Undersecretary (for ‘Terrorism’) David Cohen, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, US Trade Representative Michael Froman, ‘Special Adviser for the Persian Gulf’ Dennis Ross among others. (Whose interests are represented by those guys?)
An even greater obstacle to the agreement comes from the Zionist-controlled US Congress, which acts more on behalf of Israel ’s regional ambitions than for US interests.
Israel ’s megalomaniacal rulers seek military, political and economic supremacy throughout the Middle East (from Sinai to the Gulf) and have so far successfully used the US military to destroy and weaken its adversaries at no cost to Israeli soldiers or economy.
Israel has taken a direct hand in setting the terms, which the US will demand from Iran .  According to the Financial Times (12/8/13, p. 4),  “A team of senior Israeli officials led by Yossi Cohen, national security adviser, is due to visit Washington … to begin detailed discussions with the Obama Administration to use its influence in shaping  the negotiating agenda.”
Secretary of State John Kerry has already caved in to Israeli pressure stating, “We will be stepping up on enforcement (of existing sanctions) through the Treasury Department,” (FT 12/18/13, p. 4).
Israel and its top Zionist agent within the Obama Administration, Dennis Ross, are pushing for a joint Israeli-US “working group” to discuss tightening sanctions on Iran and punishing any government or business which tries to do business with Iran during the “interim agreement”, a position pursued by David Cohen and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew (FT 12/ 13/13).
Israel is behind the US demand that Iran convert its Arak Facilities from a heavy water into a light-water reactor and reduce its centrifuges by 95% from 19,000 to 1,000.
In other words, Israel dictates terms to the US negotiators that will effectively sabotage any possible agreement and put the US on a course toward another war for Israel .
Surprisingly, Israel ’s hardliners and its agents within the US Administration have an important and unlikely ally – Iran ’s Foreign Minister Mohammed Javid Zarif, the chief negotiator in Geneva , who has downplayed Iran ’s military capabilities and exaggerated US military capabilities and seems quite willing to dismantle Iran ’s peaceful nuclear program.
In justifying his far-reaching concessions and meager returns, Foreign Minister Zarif publicly declared that ‘the US could destroy the country’s ( Iran ’s) defense system with one bomb!” (FT, 12/10/13, p. 2)   Zarif, in effect, is preparing to sell out Iran ’s nuclear industry, in advance, without any objective consideration of Iran ’s military power or recognition of US strategic weaknesses.
Saudi Arabia’s rulers influence US policy through their contracts with the military – industrial complex – amounting to over $20 billion dollar arms purchase in 2013.
In addition, the Saudi Monarch has allowed the construction of US military bases on its territory and maintains close ties with Wall Street investment houses.  Saudi opposition to any US – Iran rapprochement arises from Riyadh ’s fear of Iranian influence over its oppressed Shia minority and Tehran ’s critique of the absolutist monarchy.
The positive gains, in terms of US strategic military and economic interests from an agreement with the liberal Iranian regime, are offset by the negative pressures from Saudi and Israeli-Zionists interests.  As a result, Washington ’s policy oscillates between peaceful, diplomatic overtures to Iran and bellicose threats to appease Israel and Saudi Arabia .
Washington is desperate to avoid being dragged into another “war for Israel ”, in order to secure its hegemony in the Persian Gulf region and avoid a major domestic political and economic crisis.
The Obama Administration has yet to exhibit the high degree of statesmanship necessary to restrain and neutralize the deeply embedded Zionist Power Configuration, within its ranks and in the Congress, which places Israeli interests over those of the US .

Regional Conflicts:  Minor Interests and Major Actors
The Ukraine – European Union (EU) – Russian conflict involves minor US economic interests but potentially major military interests.  The US supports the EU’s policy of incorporating the Ukraine into its economic and trade system.  The EU will be the major beneficiary in the plunder of Ukraine ’s economy, penetrating its market and reaping mega financial returns.
The US is content to watch the EU play the major role in stoking Ukrainian civil unrest.  If and when Ukraine joins the EU, it will become another client regime subject to the dictates of the bankers and bureaucrats in Brussels , just like Spain , Greece , Portugal and Italy ).  The US is mainly interested in bringing the Ukraine into NATO as part of its policy of surrounding Russia .
Syria, like Libya , Mali , Central African Republic and Egypt , are of secondary interest for the US .  Washington has let the European Union, especially France, England and their allies, lead and direct military operations directly and through proxies.
The Obama Administration already faced intense “intervention fatigue” – widespread popular opposition to war – when it joined the EU in bombing Tripoli to rubble, but it refused to commit ground forces and left Libya a broken country without a viable economy, stable society or functioning state!
So much for ‘humanitarian intervention’!  Intervention in Syria has faced even greater domestic opposition from Congress and the US public – except for the Israeli and Saudi lobbies.
Obama was clearly not willing to act as ‘Al Qaeda’s Air Force’ by bombing Damascus and facilitating a jihadist takeover.  It chose diplomatic solution and accepted the Russian proposal to dismantle Syria ’s chemical weapons.  It appears to support a Geneva-based negotiated solution.  Another war, this time with Syria , would inflame US domestic discontent and further erode the economy, with no positive gain for US imperialism.
In fact, US military victory over Damascus would expand the territory of operation for Al Qaeda in Iraq and the Levant .  It was US public opinion that overcame the massive pro-Israel media barrage and pressure from the 52 Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations that had been actively pushing the Obama Administration into a ‘Syrian Quagmire’!
French President Francoise Hollande is the new face of imperial militarism and interventionism in Africa with its massive bombing in Libya and invasion and occupation in Mali and the Central African Republic .  The US is content to play a ‘supporting role’ to France .  It has no strategic involvement in Africa apart from its proxy wars in Somalia .
With public opinion strongly against any more major direct military intervention Washington has turned to military proxies for conflicts in ‘strategic’ and marginal countries and regions.  Even where significant imperial interests may be involved, Washington increasingly relies on local elites to act on its behalf in conflicts in countries as diverse as Yemen , Thailand , Honduras , Venezuela , Pakistan , Afghanistan and Egypt .
Sending drones and dispatching teams of Special Forces in clandestine operations have been the US Administration’s intervention of choice in Yemen , Somalia and Pakistan .  In Afghanistan, Special Forces combine with the US military, NATO troops and local client military proxies, as well as drones.
In Honduras, the US-backed military coup, which unleashed death squads with the killing of over 200 dissident activists in a two year period was followed by a fraudulent election which reclaimed ‘power’ for a US client regime.
In Venezuela , the US continues to finance opposition parties who support violent street mobs, the sabotage of public services like electricity, while relying on local business elites to hoard basic goods and inflate prices.  So far, these efforts to undermine the Venezuelan government have failed.

US Empire builders have relied on a wider variety of interventions than their predecessor under President George W. Bush.  They are much less prone to launch large-scale ground operations and more likely to turn to local client elites. They have shown a far greater sense of priorities in selecting targets for direct intervention.
Washington relies more on its imperial European allies, especially the French, to take the lead in Africa, without relinquishing its key interest in maintaining Egypt tightly under  US-Israeli control.   There is a shift in priority toward the Far East, especially the countries bordering China , like Japan and South Korea , as part of the long-term US strategy to encircle and limit China ’s economic expansion.
The US ‘Pivot to Asia ’, under the Obama Administration, is characterized by alternating economic negotiations with growing military encirclement.
 Controlling the Persian Gulf and undermining Iran continues to be a high priority for US Empire builders, but the costly and disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq under George W. Bush and its adverse domestic fallout, has led Washington to rely less on military confrontation with Tehran and more on economic sanctions, military encirclement and now diplomatic negotiations to secure collaboration from the new Rouhani regime.
 The principle strategic weakness in US empire building policy lies in the absence of domestic support.  There is a growing demand for better paying jobs to reverse the decline of US living standards and greater protection for social services and livelihoods.
The second strategic weakness is found in the incapacity of the US to create a viable economic “co-prosperity sphere”, which would win allies in Asia and Latin America .
The so-called “Pivot to Asia” is overly and overtly reliant on military(mostly naval) power, which functions in times of ‘territorial conflicts’ with China, but does not create stable, structural links with local productive elites – who rely on China for trade.
 In the end the most serious obstacle to effectively adapting US foreign policy to the current realities is the influential Israel-linked-Zionist Power Configuration embedded in the Congress, the Administration and the mass media.  Zionists are deeply committed to pushing the US into more wars for Israel .(??? whose interests are served, whom do these people represent? It is after all the big ones  who set the tone and not the tiny countries)
Nevertheless the shift to negotiations with Iran, the refusal to bomb Syria and the reluctance to get involved in the Ukraine are all indications that Washington is less inclined to launch more large-scale military intervention and more receptive to the public opinion constraints on the exercise of imperial power.
marks and remarks by blogger