Jean Shaoul & Chris Marsden

The veto by Russia and China of a United Nations Security Council resolution will not halt ongoing preparations for Western-backed intervention against Syria. The discussion on the resolution was a political manoeuvre from the outset, designed either to force Moscow and Beijing into agreeing to a UN cover for a Libya-style operation against the regime of President Bashar al-Assad, or justify a predetermined alternative route to regime-change.

This goal has nothing to do with the humanitarian posturing of the US, France, the UK and the various despots that make up the Arab League. The aim is to install a pro-Western government dominated by Sunni forces close to the Gulf States, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, thus further isolating Iran, the main ally of the current Syrian regime.

Iran is seen as the only regional obstacle to total US hegemony over the oil-rich Middle East and Caspian Basin. Eliminating the Assad regime and weakening Tehran would also serve to push Russia and China out of their remaining bases of influence.

The US, Britain and France sought to use a demand from the Arab League, supposedly based upon the report of its observer mission to Syria, to condemn the crackdown by the Assad regime and call for Assad to hand over power to his deputy in preparation for a new government that would include the opposition. According to the proposed resolution, this would be followed by new elections.

The invocation of the League’s mission was thoroughly dishonest. The observers had found that the violence was abating and that the Syrian government was complying with most of the Arab League’s requirements. They had called for an extension of their mission in Syria. The response of Saudi Arabia was to end its participation while the Emir of Qatar went on CNN to call for Arab military intervention.

Qatar assumed the role of Arab League chair by paying off the Palestinian Authority, whose turn it was to hold the post, with $400 million in aid. It used its position to suppress the observers’ report, demand that Assad quit, and call off the mission. It then forwarded the “recommendation” that Assad step aside to the UN.

More »

Stephen Lendman
February 06, 2012

Lendman's "Russia and China Veto Syria Resolution" and "Security Council Showdown on Syria" have been included in this post. - Editor

Washington's longstanding policy is regime change in Iran and Syria. At issue is replacing independent regimes with client ones and securing unchallenged control of valued Middle East resources.

On February 4, Russia and China vetoed a largely one-sided anti-Assad resolution. A previous article called him more victim than villain. Yet he's falsely blamed for months of externally generated violence.

In fact, he confronted a Western-backed armed insurgency replicating the Libya model. By so doing he acted responsibly against a heavily armed insurrection.

Imagine a similar scenario in America. Local police, National Guard forces, and Pentagon troops would confront it violently. Combined, they'd way exceed Assad's response.

Mass killing would follow. Western media scoundrels would approve. In contrast, the New York Times calls Syria's self-defense state-sponsored "butchery."

Its position substitutes disinformation for truth and full disclosure. They're scrupulously avoided to misinform, misrepresent and betray readers. It's longstanding major media policy. The Times featured it longer than others.

More »

Gilad Atzmon

The Quaker Seminary and America face the exact same dilemma.

On January 12TH at a Martin Luther King Birthday Concert I joined the NYC Meeting House Orchestra to perform a set of my music. The event was the annual fundraiser for a local homeless shelter and it took place at the auditorium of the Friends Seminary, an elite Quaker private school in Lower Manhattan. The cause was obviously worthy and fully consistent with Quaker values, the house was packed and the concert was a smashing success.

Apparently, some Zionist parents were devastated by my invitation. A few days before the concert, I learned that an Israeli parent was mounting pressure on the Seminary’s management and a day or two before the concert, notorious ethnic cleansing enthusiast Alan Dershowitz joined in. As he himself proudly admits, he relentlessly threatened and harassed the school and its administration.

According to Dershowitz who along the years has gained for himself quite a reputation as a compulsive liar and a plagiarist, the Friends Seminary has now acknowledged that it ‘was wrong to invite’ me. And also according to Dershowitz, the Quaker Seminar promised to invite representatives of the notorious racist Jewish Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and Dershowitz himself to address the students about the “dangers of the sort of anti-Semitic hatred spewed by Atzmon.”

So what’s going on here? Is this a desperate attempt by Dershowitz to be funny? After all, how is it possible that a Quaker institute would invite Jewish supremacists to lecture on tolerance towards one group only? Why would a Quaker institute give a platform to an ADL that is interested in the ‘defence’ of one people only? And why would a Quaker institute give a platform to Alan Dershowitz who is advocating the ‘Case of Israel‘ at the expense of the indigenous people of Palestine?

I have never come across a single humanist who supported either warmonger Dershowitz or the Zionist ADL so it would be indeed interesting to see a Quaker institute leading such an unusual move.

More »

Stephen Lendman

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md. speaking
at the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington.

In 2007, former Senators Howard Baker, Tom Daschle, Bob Dole, and George Mitchell established their Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) imperial project front group.

Among other issues addressed, warmaking's prioritized. Its board of directors include:

● Norman Augustine, former Lockheed Martin chairman and CEO;
● General Charles Wald, USAF (ret.);
● John Rowe, Exelon chairman and CEO, the nation's largest proliferator of dangerous nuclear power plants;
● Frances Fragos Townsend, Baker Botts partner; James Baker's a senior partner;
● former FAA head Jane Garvey, BPC chairperson;
● former National Commission on Energy Policy (NCEP) head Jason Grumet, BPC president;
● Walter Isaacson, president and CEO of the right leaning, pro-corporate Aspen Institute; formerly he was CNN chairman/CEO and Time managing editor; and
● former Senators Charles Robb and John Danforth, as well as five former senators and General James L. Jones (ret.), former Supreme Allied Commander Europe and National Security Advisor, serving as senior fellows.

BPC's new report, released February 1, is titled "Meeting the Challenge: Stopping the Clock on Iran's Nuclear Development."

Previous Iran reports included:

● "Meeting the Challenge: US Policy Toward Iranian Nuclear Development" (September 19, 2008);
● "Meeting the Challenge: Time is Running Out" (September 15, 2009);
● "Meeting the Challenge: When Times Runs Out" (June 23, 2010); and
● "Iran's Nuclear Program: Status and Breakout Timing" (September 12, 2011).

They all urged a robust US response "to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability" even though BPC and Obama officials know Tehran's development is entirely peaceful, commercial, and legal according to Nuclear Non-Proliferating Treaty provisions.

Signed on July 1, 1968, NPT became effective March 5, 1970. Notably, Iran was one of its first signatories in 1968. It permits uranium enrichment for peaceful, commercial purposes.

More »