Will America Accept Its Defeat in Syria? Challenge Russia and China?

Russia introduced China to Syria during the war when the Chinese navy arrived in the Mediterranean and reached the shores of Tartous and Lattakia to send a message to America and its allies that the monolithic dominance of the world was over.

There are thousands of Chinese jihadists who fought with ISIS and al-Qaeda and Beijing was concerned, willing to see all these killed in Syria. Cooperation between the Chinese and the Syrian intelligence services was established. Damascus has a unique and a very rich bank of information about foreign fighters many countries in the world would like to have access to, since over 80 nationalities of foreign fighters were allowed into Syria in a failed attempt to topple the regime and establish an Islamic State.

But Washington is still trying to protect its position, refusing to give up on the crown of world domination it has enjoyed for over a decade and it is ready to fight against the “axis opposing the US” using other means outside Syria. The US establishment and its allies are expelling Russian diplomats and imposing sanctions on China and Iran. The US defeat in Syria is obviously very painful.

What Washington is pretending to ignore is that the world no longer believes in the US’s military muscles and that there are two potential countries, less arrogant and willing to create alliances rather than bullying weaker countries: Russia and China. These are gathering more allies against the US axis.

The US is still living in the era of 1991 when the Soviet Union collapsed. Its strong decline continued until the arrival of President Vladimir Putin to power in 2000. Washington realised there is a new person at the Kremlin in the castle of the Tsars with a determined intention to restore the lost glory. Russia had only nuclear weapons at that time and nothing else but the will was strong for the Russian bear to wakeup from its hibernation.

Putin did not declare war on America but extended his hand and tried to build friendship or at least not enmity. But Washington saw in Moscow the potentiality to recover in a couple of decades and worked on slowing down the process or interrupting it if possible. This is why the US started to pull to its side many countries of the ex-Soviet Union which have declared independence and include these in NATO and in the European Union surrounding Russia.

China, which includes cheap labor and can clone any commercial or military technology, like Russia has perceived America’s fear of its rapid economic development and wealth. Thus, the Chinese-Russian rapprochement was mainly created by the aggressive US policy towards the two countries, and this mainly because the American concentrate exclusively on military muscle when dealing with the World.

Washington has focused its naval control over the South China Sea and the Straits of Malacca, bringing back memories of its military presence during the Second World War with the attempt to tighten its pressure on Beijing. The US is aware of their naval superiority and know that China needs the sea for its commerce and for its supply of energy.

China started to protect itself by setting up the Eurasian political and economic Shanghai Cooperation Organisation in June 2001 with the goal also to focus on economic initiatives, increase military and counter terrorism cooperation with intelligence sharing. This Cooperation includes about half of the World’s total population and the states (including five nuclear states) of China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Iran, India and Pakistan – and rejected Washington’s and Tokyo’s request to be observers only.

China has gone to the countries affected by US policy to establish a rapprochement. Further, it established the “string of Pearls” of states and islands for marine protection and encircled India, Japan and other American allies. The Indian Ocean sees the passage of 60% of the trade in oil from the Middle East, making the Straits of Malacca indispensable for China to protect. Therefore Beijing established relationships with Malaysia, Singapore, Myanmar, Coco islands, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and a presence in the African coast in Sudan and Kenya.

Moreover, China revived the world’s oldest overland trade route of the Han Dynasty called “the Silk Road”. The modern Chinese Silk Road will provided a link to Beijing with the world for trade expected worth one trillion dollars (for 900 separate projects). The Silk Road reaches 11 cities in Europe and others in Africa by railway and pipeline and is expected to bring together seven Asian countries under the slogan “One Belt, One Way”. It will offer gas and trade to China and will cover 70% of the planet’s population.

China is also part of the BRICS Group, which was established in 2009 and includes Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, which account for about 40 percent of world production.

And last but not least, in 2013, China presented the Asian World Bank (AIIB) that was set up to strike America at the core and bring together 57 countries – including several European states – but excluding the United States and Japan, its staunch ally.

The Asian International Bank – with $100 billion – aims to get rid of American financial control over the world’s economy. Washington considered this move as provocative, aiming at finding alternatives to its control of the world’s economy and financial that the United States has controlled for decades without any rival.

With its superficial but continuous sanctions, Washington believes it is capable of preventing the Eurasia Union (which begins from the Atlantic Ocean to the Indian Ocean, including six large states containing 3/4 of the world’s energy), to trouble Russia and to bother China.

Moreover, the US was thinking of creating a “Middle Eastern NATO” to counter the “Shiite crescent” and the “Iranian threat”. This idea was destroyed following the Saudi Arabia disastrous war on Yemen  and because Middle Eastern countries are unable to unite politically, economically or militarily.

While the US is fighting and losing in Syria, most countries that rejected American hegemony are gathering together in one way or another. There is cooperation between these countries – as we saw above –  to get rid of Washington’s dominance, arrogance and destructive foreign policy.

The US believes in changing regimes and directly – or through proxies – to occupy or control countries and impose a heavy protection fee to avoid toppling Middle Eastern monarchies (like Saudi Arabia as Donald Trump said himself). The US establishment is also manipulating youth and exploiting it under the title “Freedom activists” to guide them towards failing states, allowing extremists (Libya and both Syria and Iraq) to just get away with it).

America is deploying missiles everywhere where its military bases are deployed all over the world and has never thought of using its energy and power to support the economy and peace. It is only focused  on controlling states and the sources of energy regardless of the consequences, because there is no accountability for its doing.

Failure is everywhere: Washington’s plan failed- as General Wesley Clark, retired 4-star U.S. Army general, Supreme Allied Commander of NATO during the 1999 War on Yugoslavia said – to occupy seven countries (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan), and its failure in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria because it underestimated the reaction to its foreign policy.

However, it has largely succeeded in planting hate among the Muslim population, turning the objective of al-Qaeda (its goal to target the far enemy, i.e. the US) and replaced it with ISIS (the goal is to target the near enemy, i.e. minorities and other Muslims), reviving an animosity between Muslims that is 1400 years old. Today the majority of the western population believes the war in the Middle East is “between Muslims. Let them kill each other…who cares?”.

While the United States is selling for $110 billions weapons to Saudi Arabia to kill more Yemenis and threaten its neighbours (Qatar, Syria and Iran),  Russia has signed 10 year contracts with China worth 600 billion dollars, and with Iran worth 400 billion dollars. Also, China has signed contracts with Iran worth 400 billion dollars. These contracts are aimed at economic cooperation, energy exchange; they promise an advanced economic future for these countries away from US dominance.

The US believes it can corner Russia, China and Iran: Russia has a 7,000 kilometre border with China, Iran is not Iraq and Syria is not Afghanistan. In Syria, the destiny of a world to be ruled by unilateralism is over. The world is heading toward pluralism.

The question remains: Is Washington prepared to accept its defeat and acknowledge that it has lost control of the world and pull out of Syria?

Elijah J. Magnier is a Senior Political Risk Analyst with over 32 years’ experience covering Europe & the Middle East. Acquiring in-depth experience, robust contacts and political knowledge in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan and Syria. Specialized in political assessments, strategic planning and thorough insight in political networks.

Proof read by: Maurice Brasher

The original source of this article is EJMagnier

Copyright © Elijah J. Magnier, EJMagnier, 2018

From Global Research

Why petro-yuan may become biggest game-changer of all time in capital markets

The historic launch of the long-awaited trading of Chinese crude futures this week has stirred up a heated debate among analysts as to whether the new commodity product will prosper or flop.

Some market analysts expressed doubts over the success of the petro-yuan, citing Beijing’s yearning for total control over trading as one of the key reasons for a potential bust. “The government has been eager to encourage liquidity and paper trading, but of course the issue with paper trading is speculative trading that the government wants to keep at bay,” Michal Meidan, an analyst at energy market consultancy Energy Aspects, told Bloomberg prior to the launch.

Meanwhile, the high costs of oil storage for delivery into the Shanghai Futures Exchange may scare potential investors away from the new contracts, according to industry analysts. “Storage plays a crucial role in linking cash and futures markets. Many speculators, such as proprietary traders and hedge funds, may be scared away,” said Jian Yang, a research director at the JP Morgan Center for Commodities in the University of Colorado Denver, as quoted by the agency.

However, China's yuan-backed oil futures managed to make a strong debut on Monday with overnight trade volumes initially outstripping transactions of internationally recognized benchmark Brent. Some 62,500 contracts reportedly changed hands during the first session, as domestic and international oil investors joined the trading.

The impressive start gives deeper cause for optimism about the newcomer with some analysts qualifying oil futures denominated in China’s currency as a game-changer in the world of financial trading. “This is the single biggest change in capital markets, maybe of all time,” said Hayden Briscoe, APAC head of fixed income at UBS Asset Management, as quoted by Reuters.

According to the analyst, the move to trade oil in yuan will diminish the role of the greenback in global financial markets. If market participants, including US corporations, opt to trade yuan-backed contracts, this could easily strengthen the Chinese currency and, at the same time, weaken the dollar.

“This helps cement the exchange’s viability and challenges the petro-dollar system, in which oil deals are executed in dollars. This would decrease demand for the greenback and boost US inflation,” Briscoe said.

With crude oil becoming a great chunk of modern international commerce, the potential impact of the new product on oil market dynamics and on global monetary and financial systems could be correspondingly great.

copy from RT

Prime Minister's San Jose speech to malign India and project himself

SAN JOSE — In a veiled attack on the corruption during UPA regime and a barb at the Congress President's son-in-law Robert Vadra, Prime Minister Narendra Modi today deprecated the culture of graft in the country and said he has provided graft-free governance.
He said corruption during the previous government's time had triggered anger among people.
"In our country it doesn't take much for allegations to come up against politicians... Someone made 50 crores, someone's son made 250 crores, (someone's) daughter made 500 crores, (someone's) damaad (son-in-law) made 1000 crores..." he said addressing the Indian community at the packed SAP Centre in San Jose, California.
Switching on to a question answer mode, he asked the audience "Is the country not disappointed?"
The people replied "yes".
"Is there not anger against corruption," he asked.
"Yes," people shouted.
Mod then asked, "I am standing before you. Tell me if there is any allegation against me."
"No," people shouted. He then told the crowd that he is giving every minute of his life in the service of the nation and he would live and die for the country.
While Modi's reference to sons and daughters of politicians being corrupt is seen as a reference to culture of corruption in the country, the reference to son-in-law is seen as a barb at alleged land deals entered into by Vadra with the some state governments.
Modi also said that the 21st century is India's century and attributed the sudden change in India's fortune to the commitment, strength and pledge of the 125 crore people of the country.
"For some time now, people are saying that the 21st century is India's century," Modi thundered in an address to a strong crowd of 18,500 Indian-Americans.
 Modi said that in the past 16 months, world's perception about India has changed dramatically. The world is looking at India with a new vision and aspiration. He attributed this change to the commitment, strength and pledge of the 125 crore people of the country. Modi said he is confident of India's success because 65 per cent of the population of the country are of less than 35 years 800 million.

Julian Assange: 'Western Civilization Has Produced a God, the God of Mass Surveillance'

Seung-yoon Lee, CEO and Co-founder of Byline, recently conducted an exclusive three-hour interview with Julian Assange in the Embassy of Ecuador in London. The interview will be serialized in three parts over the next month.
In part one, Assange talks about how we now live in surveillance society, if Facebook and Google are spying on us and how on earth WikiLeaks out-smarted the United States to rescue Edward Snowden from Hong Kong. 

Seung-Yoon Lee (SY): You recently wrote in the New York Times that "not only do we live in a surveillance state but in a surveillance society." Can you explain what you mean by this?
JA: We've increasingly become accepting of the surveillance that exists at all levels of society. It's hard to escape from that in any traditional way. But I think there are ways to escape. On one hand, we are taking into ourselves the notion that there should be various form of surveillance of individuals -- that we can be surveilled. At the level of national security, this is still fresh. Other national intelligence agencies engage in bulk Internet monitoring. But over time, there will arise an acceptance that this is simply how society is -- as has already arisen with other forms of surveillance. At that point, society develops a type of self-censorship, with the knowledge that surveillance exists -- a self-censorship that is even expressed when people communicate with each other privately. There are examples of this in history, when everyone believes that the person they are talking to is not trustworthy or the communications medium is not trustworthy. That was the situation in East Germany, not because of mass electronics surveillance, but because up to 10 percent of people were at some stage of their lives informants for the state. A double language evolved where no one was saying what they really meant. And conformity was produced because of this low-level fear.

How Trade Agreements Amount to a Secret Corporate Takeover

  Joseph E. Stiglitz  Professor at Columbia University and a Nobel Laureate in Economics

NEW YORK - The United States and the world are engaged in a great debate about new trade agreements. Such pacts used to be called "free-trade agreements"; in fact, they were managed trade agreements, tailored to corporate interests, largely in the US and the European Union. Today, such deals are more often referred to as "partnerships,"as in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). But they are not partnerships of equals: the US effectively dictates the terms. Fortunately, America's "partners" are becoming increasingly resistant.
It is not hard to see why. These agreements go well beyond trade, governing investment and intellectual property as well, imposing fundamental changes to countries' legal, judicial, and regulatory frameworks, without input or accountability through democratic institutions.
Perhaps the most invidious - and most dishonest - part of such agreements concerns investor protection. Of course, investors have to be protected against the risk that rogue governments will seize their property. But that is not what these provisions are about. There have been very few expropriations in recent decades, and investors who want to protect themselves can buy insurance from the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, a World Bank affiliate (the US and other governments provide similar insurance). Nonetheless, the US is demanding such provisions in the TPP, even though many of its "partners" have property protections and judicial systems that are as good as its own.
The real intent of these provisions is to impede health, environmental, safety, and, yes, even financial regulations meant to protect America's own economy and citizens. Companies can sue governments for full compensation for any reduction in their future expected profits resulting from regulatory changes.
This is not just a theoretical possibility. Philip Morris is suing Uruguay and Australia for requiring warning labels on cigarettes. Admittedly, both countries went a little further than the US, mandating the inclusion of graphic images showing the consequences of cigarette smoking.
The labeling is working. It is discouraging smoking. So now Philip Morris is demanding to be compensated for lost profits.
In the future, if we discover that some other product causes health problems (think of asbestos), rather than facing lawsuits for the costs imposed on us, the manufacturer could sue governments for restraining them from killing more people. The same thing could happen if our governments impose more stringent regulations to protect us from the impact of greenhouse-gas emissions.
When I chaired President Bill Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers, anti-environmentalists tried to enact a similar provision, called "regulatory takings." They knew that once enacted, regulations would be brought to a halt, simply because government could not afford to pay the compensation. Fortunately, we succeeded in beating back the initiative, both in the courts and in the US Congress.
But now the same groups are attempting an end run around democratic processes by inserting such provisions in trade bills, the contents of which are being kept largely secret from the public (but not from the corporations that are pushing for them). It is only from leaks, and from talking to government officials who seem more committed to democratic processes, that we know what is happening.
Fundamental to America's system of government is an impartial public judiciary, with legal standards built up over the decades, based on principles of transparency, precedent, and the opportunity to appeal unfavorable decisions. All of this is being set aside, as the new agreements call for private, non-transparent, and very expensive arbitration. Moreover, this arrangement is often rife with conflicts of interest; for example, arbitrators may be a "judge" in one case and an advocate in a related case.
The proceedings are so expensive that Uruguay has had to turn to Michael Bloomberg and other wealthy Americans committed to health to defend itself against Philip Morris. And, though corporations can bring suit, others cannot. If there is a violation of other commitments - on labor and environmental standards, for example - citizens, unions, and civil-society groups have no recourse.
If there ever was a one-sided dispute-resolution mechanism that violates basic principles, this is it. That is why I joined leading US legal experts, including from Harvard, Yale, and Berkeley, in writing a letter to President Barack Obama explaining how damaging to our system of justice these agreements are.
American supporters of such agreements point out that the US has been sued only a few times so far, and has not lost a case. Corporations, however, are just learning how to use these agreements to their advantage.
And high-priced corporate lawyers in the US, Europe, and Japan will likely outmatch the underpaid government lawyers attempting to defend the public interest. Worse still, corporations in advanced countries can create subsidiaries in member countries through which to invest back home, and then sue, giving them a new channel to bloc regulations.
If there were a need for better property protection, and if this private, expensive dispute-resolution mechanism were superior to a public judiciary, we should be changing the law not just for well-heeled foreign companies, but also for our own citizens and small businesses. But there has been no suggestion that this is the case.
Rules and regulations determine the kind of economy and society in which people live. They affect relative bargaining power, with important implications for inequality, a growing problem around the world. The question is whether we should allow rich corporations to use provisions hidden in so-called trade agreements to dictate how we will live in the twenty-first century. I hope citizens in the US, Europe, and the Pacific answer with a resounding no.
 huffingtonpost

The Iran Nuke Deal subject to US congressional review

 

WASHINGTON -- After several months of wrangling between the White House and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), a controversial bill to increase Congress’ involvement in the Iran nuclear talks passed the committee Tuesday on a unanimous vote of 19-0. In a dramatic change from its stance only hours before the vote, the White House indicated that the president would not veto the legislation.
The bill’s apparent success is the result of last-minute negotiated changes to the text, which were hammered out by Corker and the committee's new ranking member, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), on Monday night into Tuesday morning.
According to Corker, the revised text was posted just minutes before the committee markup, which had been postponed 30 minutes to allow for last-minute discussions.

These efforts may have rescued the bill, which previously faced a veto threat from President Barack Obama and looked to be several votes short of the 67 needed from the full Senate to override a veto.
In its post-markup form, the legislation still requires the president to submit for congressional review the final nuclear agreement reached between Iran, the U.S. and its five negotiating partners. The bill also maintains the prohibition on the president's waiving congressionally enacted sanctions against Iran during the review period.
However, the review period in the measure has been shortened from 60 days to an initial 30 days. If, at the end of the 30 days, Congress were to pass a bill on sanctions relief and send it to the president, an additional 12 days would be automatically added to the review period. This could be another 10 days of review if the president vetoed the resulting sanctions bill.
The international nuclear negotiators currently face a deadline of June 30 to reach a final agreement. Under the new bill, the congressional review period would automatically return to 60 days if the negotiators ran late and concluded an agreement after June 9.
One of the key results of Corker and Cardin's efforts was the abandonment of a clause that would have required the White House to certify to Congress that Iran was not supporting terror in order to provide sanctions relief. The White House viewed requirements that were not specifically related to Iran’s nuclear program as a deliberate poison pill, and it lobbied hard to get the clause scrapped. While the president must still provide a series of reports to Congress detailing Iran’s support for terror globally, that would no longer be tied to implementation of aspects of the nuclear agreement.
Removal of the certification clause was a major requirement for Democrats, although Republicans accepted it grudgingly. During the committee markup, Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) reintroduced the terrorism certification language as his own amendment to the modified bill.
Corker indicated that he would not support the amendment, making it impossible for it to pass along a party-line vote. After the markup, Corker and Cardin told reporters that Barrasso's move had been planned, with Barrasso aware that his amendment would not be allowed to pass.
“We all knew in advance that that was going to happen,” said Corker, who has been supportive of the terrorism reporting requirement. “We felt like that was a way for our members to express themselves appropriately."
Corker did, however, convince other members of his party to hold off on presenting amendments that would have almost certainly removed Democratic support for the bill.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who planned to introduce an amendment that would have required the president to certify to Congress that Iran recognizes the state of Israel, settled for language asserting that the nuclear agreement would not compromise U.S. support for Israel’s right to exist.
Similarly, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) agreed to hold off on his proposed amendment to treat any nuclear agreement with Iran as a treaty, which would require a two-thirds vote of approval from the Senate before it could be implemented.
Johnson made his disappointment with his party’s concessions clear. “It is a very limited role, it is a role with very little teeth,” he said of the modified oversight bill. “It is a far cry from advice and consent.”
Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), at the request of Corker, agreed to withdraw an amendment to provide compensation for American victims of the 1979 Iran hostage crisis from fees collected for violations of Iran sanctions.
While some Republicans were disappointed with the watered-down bill, Democrats on the committee were resoundingly impressed with the outcome of Tuesday’s markup.
“I believe this bill has been changed from a point in which I do not support it to a point in which I can,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who was one of the most steadfast opponents to the original bill. In the days before the markup, Boxer filed 18 amendments to the legislation. One of her amendments proposed striking the entire text of the Corker bill and replacing it with her own Iran oversight act.
“I believe the former bill would have disrupted and upended the ongoing negotiations between Iran and the P5+1. I believe that this bill will not do this,” Boxer said, voicing her support for the new text.
The unanimous bipartisan support for the legislation came as a surprise even to Cardin, who was constantly in touch with other committee Democrats in the days leading up to the vote. “No, I did not expect a 19-0 vote. I feel thrilled by that,” he told reporters.
“I think that really reflects the fact that we really did it right on the manager’s package,” Cardin continued, referring to the deal struck between him and Corker.
Perhaps more surprising than the unanimous vote was the White House’s apparent approval of the modified bill.
"The president would be willing to sign the proposed compromise that is working its way through the committee today," White House press secretary Josh Earnest said during Tuesday’s press briefing, just before the vote.
According to Corker, Secretary of State John Kerry had pushed back against the legislation as late as 11:30 a.m. Tuesday, when he presented a classified briefing on the Iran nuclear talks to members of the Senate.
Even Senate Democrats who were in contact with the White House over the upcoming committee vote seemed unaware that the Obama administration was prepared to drop its strong opposition to the bill.
“It is my hope that with the amendment and markup process today, they will reconsider, but I have no clear expectation of that,” Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) told reporters Tuesday morning. “No one has said to me, we won’t veto this if we get this, this and this. That’s not a conversation I’ve had.”
Coons was one of several Democrats who favored congressional oversight of the Iran deal but was hesitant to vote for the original bill. Tuesday’s modifications included language similar to amendments he had proposed last week.
With Obama evidently withdrawing his opposition, Corker's bill is almost certain to become law. Several Republicans took the White House’s reversal as recognition of the weakness of its stance.
“The White House came to the deal when they saw the numbers of people, the growing support that was here,” Corker said.
Cardin, who has been in close contact with the White House over the past 10 days, declined to comment on Corker’s assertion. “I was always trying to get them to the position where they would feel comfortable and allow this bill to go forward. That was my goal from day one,” he said.
To House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), it was the Senate Republicans, not the White House, who capitulated under pressure. “We told the Senate this is going nowhere, that we are going to sustain the president's veto,” she said on Tuesday. “I don't know if that had an impact on what the Senate had to do. But they certainly produced a bill that would be more palatable to our members.”

US Helped Build ISIS – Provide Weapons from U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya

Photo: Hillary Clinton with the “Libyan rebels”.

During an appearance on Fox News, General Thomas McInerney acknowledged that the United States “helped build ISIS” as a result of the group obtaining weapons from the Benghazi consulate in Libya which was attacked by jihadists in September 2012.

Asked what he thought of the idea of arming so-called “moderate” Syrian rebels after FSA militants kidnapped UN peacekeepers in the Golan Heights, McInerney said the policy had been a failure.

“We backed I believe in some cases, some of the wrong people and not in the right part of the Free Syrian Army and that’s a little confusing to people, so I’ve always maintained….that we were backing the wrong types.”

Then made reference to a Bret Baier Fox News special set to air on Friday which will, “show some of those weapons from Benghazi ended up in the hands of ISIS – so we helped build ISIS,” said

In May last year, Senator Rand Paul was one of the first to speculate that the truth behind Benghazi was linked to an illicit arms smuggling program that saw weapons being trafficked to terrorists in Syria as part of the United States’ proxy war against the Assad regime.

“I’ve actually always suspected that, although I have no evidence, that maybe we were facilitating arms leaving Libya going through Turkey into Syria,” Paul told CNN, adding that he “never….quite understood the cover-up — if it was intentional or incompetence”.

At the same time it emerged that the U.S. State Department had hired an Al-Qaeda offshoot organization, the February 17th Martyrs Brigade, to “defend” the Benghazi Mission months before the attack.

Senator Paul was vindicated less than three months later when it emerged that the CIA had been subjecting its operatives to monthly polygraph tests in an effort to keep a lid on details of the arms smuggling operation being leaked.

CNN subsequently reported that dozens of CIA agents were on the ground in Benghazi during the attack and that the polygraph tests were mandated in order to prevent operatives from talking to Congress or the media about a program that revolved around “secretly helping to move surface-to-air missiles out of Libya, through Turkey, and into the hands of Syrian rebels.” Key Syrian rebel leaders later defected to join ISIS.

In addition to ISIS obtaining weapons from Benghazi, many members of the group were also trained by the United States at a secret base in Jordan in 2012.

Aaron Klein was told by Jordanian officials that, “dozens of future ISIS members were trained at the time as part of covert aid to the insurgents targeting the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Syria.”

As we have previously documented, many of the United States’ biggest allies in the region, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey and Qatar, have all bankrolled and armed ISIS militants.

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor at large of Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com.

Source GlobalResearch

Hillary Clinton may be the First Female President of America

 

Hillary Clinton: Everyday Americans need a champion

Former US secretary of state announces 2016 White House bid to become the first female president of the country.

Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has declared that she is running for president in 2016, seeking to become the first female to occupy the seat that her husband Bill Clinton held for eight years, and setting up what could be the most expensive campaign in history.
Clinton made the announcement on Sunday in a video published on her website, saying "the deck is still stacked in favour of those at the top" as she sought to highlight the theme of economic inequality.
It is the second time that Clinton has run for presidency.

On Saturday, President Barack Obama, who defeated her in the 2008 Democratic nomination, said Clinton "would be an excellent president".
"She was an outstanding secretary of state. She is my friend. I think she would be an excellent president," Obama said from Panama, where he attended the Summit of the Americas and held a historic meeting with the Cuban leader Raul Castro.
With her first candidacy in 2008, Clinton made history as the first ever spouse of an American president to seek the highest elective office in the US.
In the biography section of her website, Clinton, a Democrat, talked about her bipartisan record as senator, crossing party lines to work with Republicans, who now control the US Congress.
But during her husband's presidency from 1993 to 2001, both Clintons repeatedly clashed with the Republicans, who tried to remove the 42nd president from office. She became a lightning-rod for Republican criticism, from her handling of the Clinton administration's failed healthcare reform to the investigations into their private lives.
$2.5bn campaign
Although a native of Chicago, Clinton has set up her campaign headquarters in New York, where she served as senator after her husband left office.
Clinton is expected to make her first campaign stop in the US state of Iowa, which will hold the first nominating process in early 2016.
Clinton is not the only high-profile US politician in the running for president. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, son of the 41st US President George HW Bush and brother of another former president, George W Bush is also expected to declare his candidacy for the Republican Party.
Not long after Clinton announced her bid on Sunday night, Jeb Bush responded on Twitter, saying: "We must do better than Hillary."

That sets up a potential Clinton-Bush matchup and a repeat of the 1992 elections, when the elderly President Bush lost to Bill Clinton, then a governor of the small southern US state of Arkansas.
According to a New York Times report, Clinton and her allies are trying to raise as much as $2.5bn to finance her campaign. The eventual Republican candidate is also expected to match that amount.
In anticipation of her announcement, the Republican Party posted on its website a 31-second video questioning Clinton's candidacy, from her role in the deadly US consulate attack in Benghazi to her decision to delete a large cache of emails from her time as the US top diplomat.
While Clinton tries to steer her campaign mostly on domestic issues, it is likely that her foreign policy record as the secretary of state during Obama's first four years, would be put under scrutiny.
In an interview with Al Jazeera, Ibrahim Sharqieh, foreign policy fellow at Brookings Doha Center, said that as secretary of state, Clinton "lacked serious commitment" in resolving many of the issues affecting the Middle East, particularly the ongoing Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Given her record, Sharqieh said that he is "not very optimistic that she is going to make a difference on US foreign policy towards the Middle East".
He said that Clinton "failed miserably" in putting pressure on Israel and the government of Benjamin Netanyahu to address the Palestine issue.
However, he said that he expects Clinton to be more "hawkish" than President Obama, whom he called as "the most passive American president in decades" on Middle East issues.

Source: Al Jazeera

"My message to people is that the Cold War is over." Obama and Castro herald 'turning point' in US-Cuba ties

 

The presidents of the US and Cuba have met in Panama City, marking a potential turning point in US relations with Cuba and the region.
Barack Obama said after his meeting on Saturday with Raul Castro that the discussions had been "candid and fruitful", and that a strong majority of citizens in both Cuba and the US would back warmer relations.
"I think our ability to engage, to open up commerce and travel and people to people exchanges is ultimately going to be good for Cuban people," Obama said at the Summit of the Americas in Panama City.
"My message to people is that the Cold War is over."
Obama also said while relations would improve, that did not mean that there were not divisions between the two countries on sensitive issues such as human rights.
Castro had earlier told Obama that he was ready to discuss these issues, saying: "Everything can be on the table".
But Castro also cautioned that the two countries have "agreed to disagree" on some concerns.
"We are willing to discuss everything but we have to be patient," he said earlier
 

During a roundtable summit with other leaders of the American hemisphere earlier, Castro had praised Obama as "an honest man".
Castro said "every US president before him is to blame" for making Cuba suffer under the US blockade.
A normalisation of relations has seemed unthinkable to both Cubans and Americans for generations.
Al Jazeera's Latin America Editor Lucia Newman, reporting from Panama City, said Obama's comments did not mean that there were not divisions between the two countries.
She said Obama had not gone as far as announcing Cuba's removal from a US list of state sponsors of terrorism, as was widely expected, a move that would remove a major impediment in establishing diplomatic ties between Havana and Washington.
She quoted a seasoned political analyst with close contacts in both Washington and Havana as saying: "There must be something that the United States still wants that it is not getting, very likely related to access by US diplomats in Cuba to dissidents and other members of civil once embassies are opened,"
Our correspondent also said that Obama still had to deal with the US government embargo against Cuba and another thorny issue was Guantanamo Bay, the controversial US military prison which Cuba regarded as occupied territory.
Thawing of relations
Observers at the Summit of the Americas had still been surprised at the thawing of relations.
"Who would have guessed that of all people, President Raul Castro would sound almost conciliatory, almost like the new best friend of Barack Obama," they told Al Jazeera's Newman.
She said the meeting represented an important foreign policy achievement for Obama, who is set to end his presidency in less than two years, as well as for Castro, who is 83 and who has hinted at retiring in two years.
However, Rosa Maria Paya, a prominent Cuban dissident, told Al Jazeera that Obama had falled short in his support for "democracy advocates in Cuba".
"Obama has responded to Castro's demands, on the embargo and on wanting to take Cuba off the terrorist sponsor  list, very concrete things, but he is not so clear about the demands of the Cuban people," she said.
"His words words were symbolic, but I wanted to hear concrete demands, such as  stopping repression of opponents of the regime."

US will remove Cuba 'terror' status

Barack Obama, the US president, has signalled he will soon remove Cuba from the US list of state sponsors of terrorism, boosting hopes for improved ties as he prepares for what's billed as an historic encounter with Raul Castro, his Cuban counterpart.
Obama's attendance at Friday's Summit of the Americas in Panama comes amid a new diplomatic outreach to Cuba, which has not attended the regional conclave since 1994.
For the first time, the US did not object to Castro attending.
Hours before his arrival in Panama, Obama said the US State Department had finished its review of Cuba's presence on the list, a major stumbling block for efforts to mend US-Cuba ties.
Ben Cardin, a US senator and top Democrat on the Senate's foreign relations panel, confirmed that the agency had recommended removing Cuba from the list, all but ensuring action by the president within days.
The highly anticipated interaction with Castro will test the power of personal diplomacy as the two leaders attempt to move past the issues that have interfered with their attempt to relaunch diplomatic relations.
The US has long since stopped accusing Cuba of supporting terrorism, and Obama has hinted at his willingness to take Cuba off the list ever since he and Castro announced a thaw in relations in December.
Yet Obama has stopped short of the formal decision amid indications that the White House was reluctant to grant Cuba's request until other issues, such as restrictions on US diplomats in Havana, were resolved.
Cuba is one of just four countries still on the US list of countries accused of repeatedly supporting global terrorism. The others are Iran, Sudan and Syria.
"Victim of US aggression"
However, Latin American policy analyst Juan Carlos Hidalgo told Al Jazeera that negoations between the US and Cuba had been held in secret "so we don't know what's going to happen".
"It's been a riling point for Cuba for over half a century, and it has been presenting itself as a victim of US aggression but now, all of a sudden the US wants to be friends with you (Cuba)," Hidalgo said.
"If you look at statements from Castro over the past months, it looks like he is trying to raise the price tag by asking the US to return Guantanamo Bay or lift the sanctions in return for closer ties."
In January, Castro said that Cuba would not improve relations with the US unless it returned the controversial naval base and military prison to Cuba and lifted the five decades-old sanctions.
Al Jazeera's diplomatic editor James Bays, reporting from Panama, said this year's summit was historic because all of the countries in the Americas were present for the first time.
"The Summit of the Americas is held every two years and in some ways this year's is a coming of age," Bays said.
"A lot of attention will be on the relationship on those two countries."
Bays said a cloud on the horizon at the summit was Obama's issuing an executive order for sanctions against Venezuelan officials a month ago.
Bays said the order could be viewed by some countries as "a clumsy move"
Source Al Jazeera

Those predictions in the name of "Science" are more dangerous than astrology

 

 B.M. Hegde

Angelina Jolie had her ovaries removed recently, to counter a possible 50 per cent chance of getting cancer in that part of her body. A few years ago she had had her breasts removed for the same reason. Sooner than later she may have more of her organs removed, and possibly replaced by artificial ones!

Not surprising if you believe these doctors, who could be called cancerologists. There is a 50 per cent chance of any human being contracting any disease. Does that warrant getting our organs removed to remain safe from cancer? If it is that easy, a lot more people will be coughing up money to get their organs removed. I remember my student-days when we used to advise parents to have their children’s tonsils, even appendix, removed lest they cause problems. Now we think that was foolish. Science has advanced by leaps and bounds.

With the latest science many conclusions could be drawn that seem to be true today.

The future is not there. It is yet to be born. The past is dead. The human body is not a machine put together by joining organs. It is a bundle of energy and a colony of 129 trillion human cells, each of which can have an independent existence in isolation. We also are home to ten times that number of germ cells at a ratio of 1:10. The human body works as one whole and not in bits and pieces.

Healing has to be Whole Person Healing (WPH). This is now scientifically accepted by the IOM in the U.S., thanks to Professor Rustum Roy’s efforts. Organs cannot be treated in isolation. In a dynamic system, prediction is impossible unless we know the total initial state of the organism. Writing in the British Medical Journal, Professor W.J. Firth, the physicist, shows how foolish it is for doctors to predict the unpredictable future of their patients. (BMJ 1991; 303: 1565)

Pray, how could anyone advise a patient to have her organs removed for fear of getting cancer there with 50:50 chances? That said, I must hasten to add that this is very sensible medical business. Cancer is a $1.72-trillion industry and growing by leaps and bounds.

The drugs are expensive and are not being tested properly. We have been able to conquer cancer. Money seems to be the only driving force in this business.

Scientists and rationalists condemn our poor astrologers for seeking to predict human future. I agree with them there. But the same people do not condemn this kind of quackery? Why are there such double standards? In fact, the latter is more dangerous as it is done in the name of “Science”.

What is science? I was sure Dolly would die a premature death due to old age diseases as she was created from her mother’s cell.

That happened. Eric Drexler, a young PhD from MIT, started a company, called, if I remember right, Furutistic Inc. He claimed to produce custom-built human beings without mother and father (self-replicating nanobots). He collected billions of dollars from venture capitalists.

His own teacher, the Nobel Laureate Richard Smalley, had to warn the world this is an impossibility. The company closed down, declaring Chapter 11! This is how one makes money through science.

All that is fine with our thinkers, but they are allergic to astrologers. Weather predictions do not come true correctly. Edward Lorenz then had a new hypothesis of the “Butterfly Effect”. In the human body which is non-linear and holistic things happen due to butterfly effect every minute. No one, not even the best scientist, can predict the human future using the present science.

Poor Angelina Jolie, she has been taken for a ride. At this rate what will be left of her body? I wonder how this business thrives in today’s world where the media should keep a watch. On the contrary, the media are helping them by advertising their work. Look at the news of Angelina’s ovaries. They make headline news all over the world. How her removed ovaries are making so much sense to the lay reader?

(Professor Hegde is a Padma Bhushan Awardee 2010, a cardiologist and former Vice-Chancellor of Manipal University. drbmhegde@gmail.com )

Source -The Hindu 

DEA 'Sex Scandal' is Not About Sex - It's About Corruption and Impunity in the War on Drugs

Recent revelations that DEA agents attended "sex parties" hosted by the very drug traffickers they were supposed to be fighting fell like a bombshell.
Despite the shocking headlines, though, this scandal isn't really about sex -- and it's much bigger than the DEA. At its core, this sordid tale is about the futility and corruption of prohibition -- told through the lens of a rogue agency that represents everything wrong with the war on drugs.
According to a Justice Department report, several DEA agents (some with top secret clearances) allegedly participated in multiple orgies with hired sex workers "funded by the local drug cartels." Some also received money, gifts and weapons from these traffickers. The parties occurred at the agents' "government-leased quarters", where laptops and other equipment were accessible -- raising "the possibility that DEA equipment and information also may have been compromised as a result of the agents' conduct."
This story made national news because it's the DEA. But drug traffickers dishing out favors to local, state and federal law enforcement happens every day, both inside and outside of the U.S.
Moreover, the DEA wasn't the only federal agency with personnel recently implicated in drug war-related crimes in Colombia. Though less widely reported, a much more serious allegation emerged that U.S. soldiers and military contractors sexually abused at least 54 women and girls between 2003 and 2007 while deployed as part of Plan Colombia -- the nearly $10-billion U.S. drug war military aid package.
Not one of the perpetrators has faced justice. Committed during drug war operations, these heinous acts should be treated as war crimes.
These are just the latest horrors that the U.S. drug war has unleashed on Latin America -- with the DEA often at the center. In 2012, for example, DEA agents participated in a raid in Honduras that left four innocent people murdered, including a teenager and two pregnant women.
For years the agency has been spying on governments in the region, often for political purposes not related to drugs -- prompting Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador to kick the DEA out of their countries. Latin American counties are increasingly rejecting drug prohibition, and each fresh episode of war crimes and human rights abuses strikes a major blow to the U.S.'s failed global drug policy.
Then there's the DEA's long history of heavy-handed and shady actions at home: its rejection of science and obstruction of research; its promotion of militarization; its no-knock raids and airline passenger searches; its use of NSA data to spy on U.S. residents and to systematically fabricate evidence; its dehumanizing detention practices; its widespread and controversial reliance on confidential informants; and its role in creating and maintaining a system of mass incarceration.
Just days after the Colombia scandal broke, news surfaced that a DEA and Secret Service agent stole or extorted hundreds of thousands of dollars in bitcoins while investigating the Silk Road online drug market.
DEA Administrator Michele Leonhart herself has been at the center of several scandals, including the House of Death scandal in which the DEA appears to have turned a blind eye to torture and murder in Ciudad Juarez, and the Andrew Chambers scandal, in which the DEA rehired a confidential informant with a history of lying.
All told, the picture that emerges is an out-of-control agency, run amok, literally in bed with organized crime, a perfect symbol for the corruption and impunity inherent in the war on drugs.
The DEA must immediately be reined in and held accountable -- a small but crucial step in ending the disastrous drug war at home and abroad.
Daniel Robelo is the research coordinator for the Drug Policy Alliance.
This post originally ran on the Drug Policy Alliance blog

The United States is supplying intelligence to the Saudi-led coalition now steps up arms for Saudi campaign in Yemen

 

The United States is supplying intelligence to the Saudi-led coalition bombing rebel positions in Yemen and will expedite arms supplies to the alliance, Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken has said.

Blinken told reporters in the Saudi capital Riyadh on Tuesday that Saudi Arabia was sending a "strong message to the Houthis and their allies that they cannot overrun Yemen by force".

"As part of that effort, we have expedited weapons deliveries, we have increased our intelligence sharing, and we have established a joint coordination planning cell in the Saudi operation centre," Blinken said. 

At the Pentagon in Washington, Colonel Steve Warren, spokesperson, said the US was looking to deliver munitions to its allies, including by accelerating pre-existing orders.
"It's a combination of pre-existing orders made by our partner nations and some new requirements as they expend munitions," Warren said, asked about Blinken's remarks.

The Houthi rebels swept into the Yemeni capital Sanaa in September and have since tried to expand their control across the country. In February, they placed President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi under house arrest before he fled to his power base in the southern city of Aden and then to Saudi Arabia. 

Yemen's humanitarian crisis worsens as aid delayed.

Blinken's comments came hours after the International Committee of the Red Cross flew medical personnel for the first time into Yemen amid delays that have worsened the humanitarian situation in Aden.

Fierce fighting between militias loyal to Hadi and and the Houthis has been raging in the port city for days.
Russia has presented a draft resolution at the UN Security Council seeking "humanitarian pauses" in the air strikes against the rebels.
'Catastrophic' situation 
The Red Cross warned on Tuesday of a "catastrophic" situation in Aden, as the rebels and their allies made a new push on a port in the central Mualla district of the city but were forced back by Hadi loyalists, witnesses said.
Naval forces of the Saudi-led coalition, which launched air strikes on March 26 in support of Hadi's beleaguered government, shelled rebel positions across the city, witnesses added.
Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the UN, Abdullah al-Mouallimi told Al Jazeera that the Houthis were responsible for civilian casualties.
"We have a situation where Houti militia are operating from heavily populated areas...most of the casualties that we know are happening in civilian areas that are being shelled by the Houthis and their allies. As far as we are concerned we are doing everything possible to make sure medical supplies are being delivered," he said
More than a 100,000 people have fled their homes after the Saudi-led coalition launched air strikes in Yemen, according to UNICEF, the UN agency responsible for children welfare.
A spokesman from the agency, Rajat Madhok, told Al Jazeera that most of those who have been displaced are women and children.
"Most displacements have taken place from and within al-Dhale, Abyan, Amran, Saada, Hajja. The displaced persons are mostly being hosted with relatives," Madhok said.

In a statement published on Tuesday, UNICEF said 74 children caught up in fighting had been killed and another 44 maimed since March 26.
"These are conservative figures and UNICEF believes that the total number of children killed is much higher," the statement read.
The agency's Yemen representative, Julien Harneis, said children were paying an "intolerable" price, and said more needed to be done to protect them.
"These children should be immediately afforded special respect and protection by all parties to the conflict, in line with international humanitarian law," Harneis said.
Source Al jazeera

Saudi Arabia and Israel oppose Iran nuclear deal, BUT WHY ?

 

Iran, the United States and five other world powers have sealed a breakthrough framework agreement outlining limits on Iran's nuclear programme, despite attempts by Israel and Saudi Arabia to thwart the deal. Al Jazeera spoke with four analysts about why Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries, along with Israel, are upset about the agreement. 

Mansour al-Bogami, Saudi researcher

A nuclear deal with Tehran, from the Saudi perspective, means two things: Iran will have the ability to improve its economic standing, and the capability to create a nuclear weapon - since the deal will only take effect for a relatively short period of time, 15 years, and will not destroy Iran's technical capabilities to maintain a nuclear programme. Both results would strengthen Iran and its allies in the region.

The Saudis believe that trimming Iran's regional influence would increase the chances of a better nuclear deal in the future.

This context of an increasing Iranian influence that thrives on weak central governments and sectarian instability - as seen in Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen - is what ISIL capitalises on in its recruitment drive, according to the Saudi view.

The immediate Saudi reaction to the deal will likely include attempts to revive the dual structure of the regional order: Saudi versus Iran, which existed until the Arab uprisings in 2011 led to the formation of a third camp comprised of Turkey, Qatar and the Muslim Brotherhood. This camp and Saudi Arabia both exhausted their resources while competing for regional influence, ultimately benefiting Iran.

An indicator of the return to the old regional order is the Saudi-led coalition against the Houthi rebels in Yemen. This military campaign has two goals: neutralising non-state actors, which means strengthening the central government, and combating sectarian-inspired conflicts and regional instability.

Saudi's new rulers wish to transform the political equation from a balance between the state and non-state actors into a balance between a government and an opposition, both from within the state's framework. In such a situation, both Iran and ISIL would become much less effective.The Saudis believe that trimming Iran's regional influence would increase the chances of a better nuclear deal in the future, as there may always be modifications and alterations to the deal signed this week.

In the medium as well as the long run, Saudi officials have said their country would work to acquire deterrent capabilities, which means developing its own nuclear programme. There is a strong chance that Saudi Arabia will seek new alliances, given the decline of US influence and the unreliability of American assurances - and Saudi Arabia, instead of the Americans, would become the first line of defence against its enemies.

Indeed, Saudi is undertaking a process of realigning the geopolitical map of the Middle East - but the time that this process will take remains to be seen.

Nasser Ahmed Bin Ghaith, United Arab Emirates researcher

There are mixed reactions in the Gulf towards the Iranian nuclear deal. Those who support a deal - any deal - argue it would prevent the region from sliding into a destructive nuclear arms race that would deplete everybody. But others say the deal will have a number of negative consequences for the Gulf. 

The secretive nature of the talks made many uncomfortable about the outcome, as did the absence of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members. Wisdom has it that if you do not have enough cards on the negotiating table, you may not get everything you want, but if you are not even present, you will certainly get nothing.

A compromise between negotiating parties would stipulate mutual concessions, and the question remains: Beyond the lifting of economic sanctions, what would Iran want in return for ending its nuclear programme?

In Geneva, everybody concerned was present except for the Gulf states, which would be directly impacted by any kind of agreement in their backyard.  

Additionally, any deal between Iran and the US would likely not be favourable to the GCC states. A compromise between negotiating parties would stipulate mutual concessions, and the question remains: Beyond the lifting of economic sanctions, what would Iran want in return for ending its nuclear programme?

The US surely does not want to see a more powerful Iranian hegemony in the region, but at the same time, it does not appear to mind some kind of Iranian influence in the region. Iran has been seeking to reclaim its previous role as the region's police.

It is clear that a western recognition of Iranian regional influence would come at the expense of the Gulf states, given that they are the weakest link in the regional chain of influence. In the post-deal reality, there would be three regional powers: Iran, Turkey and Israel.

From an economic perspective, any agreement between Iran and the West would certainly lead to the lifting of sanctions on Iranian oil exports that are estimated at between one and 1.5 million barrels a day.
This would further flood the already saturated oil market with cheap Iranian oil, bringing prices even further down. If this persisted, it would have adverse economic consequences on the Gulf states, which are already financially overstretched.
In light of these shifting realities, the Gulf Arab states may be wise to make a number of changes to preserve their long-term interests, including to abandon their military and security alliance with US in favour of their own joint military cooperation.
The Gulf states should also build strategic partnerships with the regional powers of Pakistan and Turkey, who share the Gulf nations' fears of Iranian ambitions in the region. Finally, the Gulf states would need to improve internal GCC relations; indeed, their cooperation in the Yemen air campaign has shown that these states can not only work together on regional threats and initiate major actions, but also have the potential to become a major regional player capable of countering US-backed Iranian hegemony.

Seif Da'na, sociology professor at the University of Wisconsin-Parkside

Only in the miniature Israeli world of the Game of Thrones - a world of imagination - might Iran, whose GDP is about two percent of that of the US, possibly constitute a threat to the most powerful empire in history.

In the real world, such a threat would not exist even if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu inflated the numbers of Iran's centrifuges 32 times, contradicted and ignored his own government's intelligence assessments, and used the hitherto common imperial tactic of psychopathologising Iran and Arab resistance leaders.
On March 29, Israel's Ynetnews reported that "Iran has tentatively agreed to limit centrifuges used to enrich uranium to 6,000 - or even less". Thus, applauding Netanyahu's magical 190,000 number in the US Congress must seem foolish today. Al Jazeera's publication of leaked "Spy Cables" also revealed that Israel's Mossad contradicted Netanyahu on Iran's nuclear programme.

Even dismantling Iran's civilian programme entirely does not satisfy Netanyahu's appetite; it is the Iranian 'policies', 'behaviour' and 'state' that he wants eliminated.

An Iranian nuclear bomb - one that belongs to the world of imagination, according to most experts - does not even constitute a threat to Israel, let alone the US. A newly released US document from a 1987 assessment of Israel's nuclear weapons capabilities by the US Pentagon stated that Israel was experimenting with coding, "which will enable them to make hydrogen bombs", described as "a thousand times more powerful than atom bombs".

That was the US assessment of Israel's programme 28 years ago. It is not surprising, then, that US President Barack Obama is not fooled by Netanyahu's absurd account.

A careful reading of Netanyahu's speech reveals that it is Iran's competitive regional status and rising power that concerns him the most, not the fantasy of an existential threat. It is the regional balance of power, not the bomb. Even dismantling Iran's civilian programme entirely does not satisfy Netanyahu's appetite; it is the Iranian "policies", "behaviour" and "state" that he wants eliminated.

According to experts with Israel's Institute for National Security Studies, the nuclear deal is dangerous because it could "widen the existing disputes between the Israeli government and the US administration". Israeli strategic experts argued in the most recent Hertzliya's Conference that the US is "the most important political and security asset that Israel has in the international sphere".

Neither Iran nor the US is interested in military confrontation and both have much to gain from an agreement. But since this deal will constitute a building block towards diplomatically resolving other regional conflicts involving Iran and the US, all sides have been negotiating with their eyes on the future.

For all forces involved, winning and losing are not etched in stone. Saudi Arabia and Israel can be either losers or winners. If they really do not want a bomb, they are winners. If they want Iran to stop being Iran - if they seek nothing less than Iran's destruction - they will definitely lose.

Jonathan Cook, journalist

The fear in Israel is that Iran's development of any nuclear technology will move it closer to becoming a nuclear threshold state, capable of developing a bomb at short notice should its interests be threatened.

Netanyahu has spoken endlessly of a supposed genocidal intent from Iran's Shia leaders, invoking imagery of an impending second Holocaust of the Jewish people. But the real problem for Israel is that a nuclear Iran endangers its decades-old strategy of establishing itself as an unrivalled military power in the Middle East. That status depends on Israel being able to threaten large states like Iran into submission, contain them militarily and prevent them from spreading their influence beyond their own borders.

Israel's monopoly on nuclear arms in the region - with an arsenal of as many as 200 warheads, entirely unmonitored by the international community - has secured its position as the region's hegemon. But all of that was placed in jeopardy by the Iran talks.

With a nuclear-armed Iran, Israel would also be severely limited in its ability to strike against Tehran's regional allies, including the Lebanese Hezbollah, possibly the single most formidable foe Israel faces.

Iran's leaders only need to look to neighbouring Iraq to draw conclusions about how important a nuclear deterrent is. Israel destroyed Baghdad's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981, and the US invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003.

A nuclear-armed Iran - or even one that was days or weeks from developing a bomb, with the facilities hidden deep underground - would be off-limits to any such serious military attack.

With a nuclear-armed Iran, Israel would also be severely limited in its ability to strike against Tehran's regional allies, including the Lebanese Hezbollah, possibly the single most formidable foe Israel faces.

Israel has been regularly targeting attempts by Iran and the crumbling Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad to transfer weapons to Hezbollah and to fortify their joint positions, including next to the Golan, against Sunni Islamist groups trying to overthrow Assad.

Effectively, Israel has been playing off the forces vying for power in Syria to keep them all exhausted by the fighting. Israeli air strikes in Syria designed to weaken Iranian influence - such as the one in January that killed a dozen senior Hezbollah and Iranian commanders - would be unthinkable if Tehran had a bomb. 

Israel would have to resign itself to the fact that having powerful military forces just across the border, united under the umbrella of an Iranian bomb, would be a match for Israel's own army. As a result, Israel would face its own Cold War in the Middle East, with the ultimate threat of mutually assured destruction should either side try to push unilateral measures too far.

But Israel's fears extend further. Until now, Israel has faced no serious competition over its strategic alliance with Washington, and especially the Pentagon. The special relationship is rooted in Israel's nuclear arsenal and the military might it wields in the Middle East as a consequence.

Israel's nuclear weapons, developed in the late 1960s over the White House's opposition, burrowed into the heart of the US security establishment. Israel exchanged its so-called "Sampson Option" - the threat of inflicting nuclear annihilation - for access to US intelligence, aid and arms programmes that provide it with an unchallengeable military edge.

But were Iran also to become a nuclear state, that special relationship might quickly erode. Washington policymakers would have to take into account not just Israel's strategic concerns, but Iran's too. In fact, given Iran's control over access to much of the Gulf's oil, an Iranian nuclear weapon might cement Tehran's position as Washington's most privileged partner in the region.

Rival military power centres in the Middle East would transform the White House and Pentagon's assessment of US strategic interests in the region. The consequences would likely be felt most acutely by Israel in its conflict with the Palestinians. While Iran would be able to intensify its support for Palestinian resistance groups such as Hamas or Islamic Jihad, Israel would have limited options for a response.

With the constant danger that tensions between Israel on the one side and Lebanese and Palestinian resistance movements on the other might escalate into a nuclear standoff with Iran, the US would have a much greater incentive to force Israel to solve its conflict with the Palestinians, something it resolutely opposed till now.

Source: Al Jazeera