![](https://www.soonerpolitics.org/uploads/1/6/2/2/16224166/ron-paul-lecture-thin-600-fade_orig.png)
![](https://www.soonerpolitics.org/uploads/1/6/2/2/16224166/909268956_orig.gif)
GOP Civil War? With DeSantis And Trump, Realists Take Both Top Slots
Click on the headline to read the full story from Ron Paul Institute
![]() ![]() GOP Civil War? With DeSantis And Trump, Realists Take Both Top Slots Click on the headline to read the full story from Ron Paul Institute
0 Comments
![]() ![]() ![]() As world tensions heighten over Ukraine, some fear this crisis might grow into a great geopolitical catastrophe. Certainly it could. But few recognize there is an even greater matter of conflict brewing between the US and Russia. It could quickly outpace the already-dangerous Ukraine war. Consider the following statement about the war: "This is not about Ukraine at all, but the world order." Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said that, referencing the war. Oxford University professor Peter Frankopan in The Spectator for March 4, 2023 cited that statement by Lavrov. It was made a month after the invasion. Now it has become a point that's been virtually lost in the subsequent mish-mash of conflicting news reports on every side of the still ongoing Ukraine conflict. Lavrov's "world order" term equates to an issue that many refer to as American hegemony. To understand where the "world order" issue might take us, let's first look at the already immediate dangers of the Ukraine conflict. Often we are reminded that Vladimir Putin famously alleged that the demise of the Soviet Union was "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [20th] century." NBC News reported it back in April 2005. Now it can be debated whether Putin has initiated a great geopolitical catastrophe of his own by invading Ukraine in February 2022. There is obvious irony in that thought. History will ultimately judge whether the Ukraine war will grow to be the greatest tragedy of the 21st century. Meanwhile, there is a practical reason to believe that the Ukraine conflict could even take on a much greater proportion than that. If you take a serious look at the ultimate risk involved, you can see a distinct a possibility that the Ukraine conflict could become the greatest geopolitical catastrophe ever seen. The risk is that high if the war extends into a long war and to a direct nuclear conflict between the United States and Russia. A resulting nuclear catastrophe could lead to an insurmountable disruption of world civilization. I'll show how that's a quantifiable risk. In a game of Russian roulette there is also a risk. There is a finite chance that you could kill yourself. It is improbable though. The odds from one pull of the trigger are against it. But who among us would bet on the improbable and pick up a revolver and take the chance? Why not? After all, the odds of survival are in your favor. But there is something else involved. The additional factor here is of course one of risk/benefit. If you could somehow avert a worse and certain fate by agreeing to a trigger pull in Russian roulette, the risk might be worth it. The benefit would outweigh the risk. Otherwise it would be a foolish move. Now we are actually facing a game of Russian roulette in Ukraine. That's not just an off-the-cuff allegation. It's the product of a scientific risk analysis conducted by Dr. Martin Hellman. He is Adjunct Senior Fellow for Nuclear Risk Analysis at the Federation of American Scientists. Hellman's been involved in scientific analysis of this issue going back at least 15 years. Dr. Hellman now scientifically estimates: "So long as the war in Ukraine drags on, we are playing Russian roulette with the whole world about once a year." Mathematically the odds of catastrophe are about 17 percent. In addition to Hellman's position with FAS, he is also a Professor Emeritus at Stanford University and winner of the million dollar ACM Turing Award, said to be the Nobel Prize for computing. Given the risk explained by Hellman, is there an offsetting benefit? Is there anything that makes that nuclear risk acceptable? A recent Rand report titled "Avoiding a Long War" suggests there is not. The gist of the report is roughly, (1) the war to protect and recover Ukrainian territories is supporting extreme tensions between nuclear superpowers, (2) the war has no direct and tangible benefit for Americans, and (3) priority should be given to ceasing hostilities over sending more weaponry. That hardly seems offsetting to pulling the revolver's trigger once each year every year while the war rages on. But despite the absence of a practical benefit, a February 6, 2023 Gallup pole reports, "Americans Still Stand by Ukraine," Republicans 53 percent, Democrats 81 percent. "Ending the war quickly, even if it allows Russia to keep territory?" That gets only minority support. Republicans 41 percent, Democrats 18 percent. But where's the benefit for Americans? I can't identify one, at least not for the general public. It could be that it is beneficial for others. Hellman's conclusion suggests it's more likely you'll experience a nuclear catastrophe in the next year than the odds that your house will burn down. Yet homeowners readily buy fire insurance while caring or knowing little of the greater nuclear risk and indeed they mostly advocate taking that risk. So here is a paradox: If there is no apparent benefit for Americans, why do they so heartily support fueling the fire of war by sending over more and bigger weaponry? Russia's unjustified aggression against Ukraine is clear. It is also clear there is no positive correlation between sending more weapons and reducing the Ukrainian deaths and destruction. Indeed it is having an opposite effect. What explains all this? It was already last November that General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, indicated that he couldn't foresee a military victory in Ukraine by anybody. Somehow America's public doesn't believe that. How could that be? Is it media influence? My observation of our media is that the mainstream message is highly emotionalized. Certainly it is easy to have compassion for the unforgivable fate of the Ukrainians. But concluding that more war, more killing, and more destruction will change that just isn't rational. Instead, the media message I've seen largely plays upon abstract concepts such as preserving Ukraine's democracy, and helping her people to stay free. Mainstream media portray those abstractions with emotionality, and that catches on with audiences -- and it spreads. How could that happen? Recently I saw a book by a retired Canadian clinical psychologist, Dr. Bruce Hutchison, that seems to hit this squarely on the head. It's titled Emotions Don't Think: Emotional Contagion in a Time of Turmoil. And that's exactly how I perceive what's happening vis-a-vis Ukraine. But the emotions connected to the Ukraine war are to a great extent negative emotions. They allow people to accept and support the current risk of a nuclear confrontation -- without the consequences of that risk even registering with them. Hutchison calls the propagation of such emotions "toxic emotional contagion." He says they typically involve the emotions of fear and hate. Lamentably, rational thoughts are not spreading about future carnage and destruction from a continuing war or of its futility. Instead, Americans have been swept away with apparently politically engineered emotions, and that sadly is permitting more carnage and destruction. "Emotions don't think," as Hutchison puts it. "When President Biden made a secret trip Monday to Ukraine marking the anniversary of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, he declared that the United States is going to back Ukraine as long as it takes." That's what NPR reported on February 20, 2023. So, it's more war and emotion, less thinking ahead. But, still, what about Putin's ominous but oft-quoted statement that the loss of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of its century? Isn't that a real threat of territorial expansion? That quote seems usually to be cited exactly for the purpose of arousing toxic emotions: fears of a territorially adventuresome Putin. It invokes images that are almost archetypical in the minds of many -- that of Hitler's march across Europe and the old domino theory of the Vietnam era. They can elicit a scary emotion that can be contagious. However, less often seen is Putin's remark, "Anyone who doesn't regret the passing of the Soviet Union has no heart. Anyone who wants it restored has no brains" That was reported in the New York Times on February 20, 2000. The remark sort of kills the implied scary emotion of the other Putin quote. But now what about the potentially larger issue, the challenge to American dominance in the world? Whether you call it "world order" or "American hegemony," Russia is not alone in its dissatisfaction with that status quo. So now what about Frankopan's citation from Lavrov? "This is not about Ukraine at all, but the world order" More recent statements seem to affirm: that is Russia's bottom-line objective: --"Russia's upcoming new foreign policy concept will focus on terminating the West's monopoly in international affairs, the country's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Wednesday." February 16, 2023, Xinhua --"The Russian president said his country is opposed to the emergence of a unipolar world that revolves around Washington's interests." February 20, 2023, RT Given all that, hasn't the US been lured into spending well over $100 billion on the wrong issue, Ukraine? Couldn't international unease over America's strong international role emerge as a far greater problem, indeed the main concern? Why would our government be pouring so many resources into Ukraine when it is not the prime issue? Frankopan has an answer: "In its most blunt terms, the war has served as a moment of one of the greatest transfers of wealth in history..." He even names names: "There have been big winners, such as shareholders in the five oil giants -- BP, Shell, Exxon, Chevron, and Total Energies -- who reported combined profits of $200 billion last year. The fossil fuel-producing states of OPEC also had eye-watering revenues, reaching $850 billion last year. But the price rise of LNG has meant countries such as Pakistan and Bangladesh have suffered blackouts, which in turn cut productivity. This has paved the way for social unrest and political volatility -- as well as increasing a global sense of resentment towards the West." The above doesn't even account for other big winners, the large US defense contractors with their huge profits. All together, the Ukraine war has been a bonanza for an elite few. But not for the average American that must pay the taxes and bear the debt for all the related appropriations enacted by Congress and signed by the president. Doesn't that bonanza for elites create vested interests in politically protecting the supportive legislation? And wouldn't that involve paying large fees to lobbyists who cater to the needs of politicians, including contributions to campaign funds and supporting pet interests of politicians? Who's going to want to pull back on our lavish support for Ukraine? Given the momentum of the tragic and senseless Ukraine war it is hard to foresee anything changing to favor the common good. The matter is largely out of our hands. And doesn't that leave us all like lemmings heading for the proverbial cliff? Ukraine: The Greatest Geopolitical Catastrophe of the...? Click on the headline to read the full story from Ron Paul Institute ![]() ![]() ![]() Marina in Rostock, Germany. (Beauwell, CC0, Wikimedia Commons) Back in 2000, the television series “Andromeda” premiered, based upon unused material from Gene Roddenberry, the creator of the Star Trek series and franchise. The plot is premised on the notion of a spaceship, “Andromeda,” frozen in time, which is given the opportunity to reverse the clock and undo history. The series ran five years. Fast forward to the present. History has dealt a tough hand to the administration of US President Joe Biden, who openly confessed his intent to “bring an end” to the Nord Stream pipeline system which delivered Russian natural gas to Europe through four pipelines (Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2, consisting of two pipelines each). Since then, the Biden White House was compelled to deny the president’s stated intent after an explosive report by Pulitzer-Prize winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh detailed damning information which, if true (and there is no reason to suspect it’s not) casts the responsibility for a series of underwater explosions that took place on Sept. 26, 2022, on Biden himself. Hersh’s report was ignored by the mainstream media in the United States, with neither The New York Times, for whom Seymour Hersh wrote on national security issues for many years, nor The Washington Post even hinting that the greatest living investigative journalist had broken a blockbuster story. Enter the “Andromeda” — not the spaceship of the eponymous television series, but rather a Bavaria C50 15-meter (49-foot) yacht based out of the German Baltic port city of Rostock. On March 7 — nearly a month after Hersh self-published his article on Substack — a team of German reporters from the ARD capital studio, Kontraste, Südwestrundfunk (SWR) and Die Zeit collaboratively reported that they had uncovered the existence of “the boat that was allegedly used for the secret operation.” The boat was “a yacht rented from a company based in Poland, apparently owned by two Ukrainians.” According to the story, “the secret operation at sea was carried out by a team of six people.” The name of the yacht was “The Andromeda.” According to the German reporting, the team — five men, consisting of a ship captain, two primary divers, two supporting divers and a female doctor — used the Andromeda to transport the team, along with the explosives used to destroy the pipelines, to the scene of the crime. The boat was returned to Rostock in “an uncleaned condition,” allowing German law enforcement officials, who carried out a search of the vessel between Jan. 8-11, to detect “traces of explosives” on a table in the ship’s cabin. The same day the German reporting on the new Nord Stream attack narrative broke, The New York Times ran a front-page story entitled “Intelligence Suggests Pro-Ukrainian Group Sabotaged Pipelines, US Officials Say.” For the first time, The New York Times referred to Hersh’s reporting, writing, “Last month, the investigative journalist Seymour Hersh published an article on the newsletter platform Substack concluding that the United States carried out the operation at the direction of Mr. Biden,” before closing with “US officials say Mr. Biden and his top aides did not authorize a mission to destroy the Nord Stream pipelines, and they say there was no US involvement.” ![]() As if echoing the Biden White House denials, The New York Times led off with this: New intelligence reporting amounts to the first significant known lead about who was responsible for the attack on the Nord Stream pipelines that carried natural gas from Russia to Europe (emphasis added.)The New York Times, it seems, was more than happy about proceeding with its own anonymous intelligence sources, while dismissing Hersh’s. The problem with both the German reporting and that of The New York Times (whose source was clearly referring to the same data reported by the German reporters) is that the Andromeda narrative doesn’t hold water. Take, for instance, the Tom Clancy-like tale of derring-do that has four allegedly Ukraine-affiliated divers defy physiology by conducting dives that would require the use of a decompression chamber for them to survive an ascent of 240 feet (the depth of the Nord Stream pipelines that were destroyed). A rule of thumb is that decompression takes approximately one day per 100 feet of seawater plus a day. This means that the team of divers would have required three days of decompression per dive. But to decompress, one needs a decompression chamber. For a dive involving two divers, the Andromeda would have to have been outfitted with either a two-person Class A decompression chamber, or two single-person Class B chambers, as well as the number of large oxygen bottles needed to operate these chambers over time. A simple examination of the interior cabin space of the Bavarian C50 yacht would quickly dispossess one of any notion that either option was viable. Simply put — no decompression chamber, no dive, no story. ‘Traces’ of High Explosives There is another aspect of the story to probe. According to the German reporting, law enforcement officials detected “traces” of high explosives on the tables in the cabin of the Andromeda. According to the Swedish Prosecution Authority, in a statement released on Nov. 19, 2022, Swedish investigators discovered “traces of explosives on several of the foreign objects that were found” at the site of the explosions. These explosives, according to a Nov. 22, 2022, report issued by Nord Stream AG, the Swiss-based parent company that owned the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines, produced “technogenic [i.e., “of or pertaining to a process or substance created by human technology”] craters with a depth of 3 to 5 meters” separated “by a distance of about 248 meters.” “The section of the pipe between the craters is destroyed, the radius of pipe fragments dispersion is at least 250 meters,” the report noted. In a report to the United Nations, both Denmark and Sweden said that the damage done to the Nord Stream pipelines was caused by blasts equivalent to the power of “several hundred kilograms of explosive.” It should be noted that underwater pipelines like those used in Nord Stream are designed to withstand proximal explosions from devices up to several hundred kilograms in size. Indeed, in locations such as the Baltic Sea, where unexploded military ordnance from multiple world wars abounds, the threat of a drifting device striking a pipeline and detonating is quite real. Computer modeling shows that a 600-kilogram high explosive charge detonated approximately 5 meters from a 34mm-thick steel pipeline filled with gas would not compromise the structural integrity of the pipeline. ![]() A piece of Nord Stream pipe on public display in Kotka, Finland in 2017. (Vuo, CC BY-SA 4.0, Wikimedia Commons) At the location of the explosions, the Nord Stream pipelines consisted of 26.8 mm steel pipes with an addition 33.2 mm of concrete coating, for a total thickness of 60 mm. The weight of a single pipe section was over 11 tons. In short, a standard high-explosive charge of several hundred kilograms would not be sufficient to cause the destruction that occurred on the Nord Stream pipeline. Enter Hersh, who reported that the explosives used were “shaped charges.” With a shaped charge, the energy of the explosion is focused in one direction, usually by creating a concave shape in the explosive that is then lined with a metal sheet, so that it usually achieves an armor- and/or concrete-penetrating effect. Without getting too technical, the design of an underwater shaped charge that would be sufficient to penetrate concrete-lined steel pipe at a depth of 240 feet is not common knowledge. The charge would have to be prepared by qualified explosives experts and ideally tested prior to being employed operationally to validate the design and functionality of the device. These are not tasks undertaken by a small ad hoc team of Ukrainian underwater saboteurs, but rather state-sponsored actors with access to military grade explosives and testing facilities. Strike two for the German reporting. But the most glaring deficiency in the German reporting deals with the detection of “trace explosive” onboard the Andromeda. This information would identify the precise explosive used. Moreover, when compared and contrasted with the “trace explosive” found by the Swedes at the location of the Nord Stream attacks, it could provide a clear linkage between the Andromeda and the attacks. But Sweden has sealed the files of its investigation into the Nord Stream attack on national security grounds, meaning that it will not cooperate with Germany to see if the explosive traces found at the scene of the Nord Stream crime match those onboard the Andromeda. The obvious reason behind this decision: because the two traces won’t match. One — the Swedish sample — points to the culprit. The other — the Andromeda sample — is evidence of a cover up. Strike three, and you’re out. The German government’s crude effort to manufacture an alternative narrative regarding who attacked the Nord Stream pipeline fails the smell test — in short, it stinks. The holes in this story are such that even the most gifted screenwriters could not turn this Andromeda tale of changing history into something remotely believable. In short, Gene Roddenberry would not be impressed. Moreover, the fact that the US intelligence community was quick to leak information about the German investigation to The New York Times appears to be de facto evidence of US complicity in this cover up. And the reason for this cover up is quite clear: the Germans and Americans both fear the reporting being done by Hersh. Reprinted with author's permission from Consortium News. The Nord Stream-Andromeda Cover Up Click on the headline to read the full story from Ron Paul Institute ![]() ![]() ![]() For years, members of Congress have asked for access to suspicious activity reports (SARs) related to the Biden family’s foreign business deals. Those efforts were cut off by the Biden Administration and the Democratically controlled houses of Congress. Even after the GOP took over the House, however, the Treasury Department continued to refuse to turn over the SARs. While the GOP had to threaten hearings with Treasury officials, the department has finally relented. It now appears that time is up for Hunter Biden on the SARs fight and it could finally answer a number of questions over the alleged influence peddling of the Biden family. It may also put pressure on the Delaware US Attorney David Weiss, who is looking into possible criminal conduct by Hunter Biden. I previously wrote about how few people in Washington are eager to expose the influence peddling by the Biden family. Influence peddling is the cottage industry of Washington. However, even by the corrupt standards of this city, the Bidens took influence peddling to an unprecedented level in raking in millions from foreign interests, including some with alleged ties to foreign intelligence. The least eager group to see these transactions may be the media, which not only buried the Hunter Biden story but has shown remarkable disinterest in these allegations. Indeed, this alleged influence peddling could not have occurred without the assurance that the media had the back of the Bidens. Imagine what the media would have done with even one of these deals with foreign political or influence figures if a Trump child was the recipient. The genius of the Biden influence peddling operation was to make the media an early and active participant. They became invested in the denial over two years of belittling or dismissing the story. The SARs are relevant to the scope of the alleged influence peddling. It could also supply added evidence of possible criminal charges over tax crimes as well as unlawful work as a foreign agent. There are also possible allegations of evading financial rules, false statements, and even money laundering. Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R., Ky) has objected that the Biden Administration changed rules governing access to these reports that stood for more than 20 years. Comer has also subpoenaed Bank of America for financial records of three of Hunter Biden’s business associates. That effort was also opposed by Democratic members. these inquiries will cover 14 years of deals and transactions. Comer this morning revealed that the first SARs report shows money going from China to “three” Biden family members including one not previously discussed as a recipient of such money. It is not clear what these SARs will reveal, but the effort to prevent any congressional investigation is striking. This investigation goes to an alleged corrupt effort to sell influence. Many Democrats and legal experts have objected that influence peddling is not a crime. However, it is corrupt and squarely within the oversight authority of Congress. Indeed, if it is not a matter for criminal charges, such congressional action may be the only way to force accountability for corrupt efforts to sell influence and access. We will now have access to hard data on the dates, amounts, senders, and recipients of money transfers. That will reduce the speculation over the alleged influence peddling efforts and allow for a fuller understanding of what occurred in the Biden family business. Reprinted with permission from JonathanTurley.org. Time’s Up: Treasury Finally Agrees to Turn Over Hunter Biden Transaction Reports Click on the headline to read the full story from Ron Paul Institute ![]() ![]() Biden's Bank Bailout Isn't Fooling Anyone Click on the headline to read the full story from Ron Paul Institute ![]() ![]() ![]() The agreement announced on Friday in Beijing regarding the normalisation of diplomatic relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran and the reopening of their embassies is a historic event. It goes way beyond an issue of Saudi-Iranian relations. China’s mediation signifies that we are witnessing a profound shift of the tectonic plates in the geopolitics of the 21st century. The joint statement issued on Friday in Beijing begins by saying that the Saudi-Iranian agreement was reached “in response to the noble initiative of President Xi Jinping.” The dramatic beginning goes on to state that Saudi Arabia and Iran have expressed their “appreciation and gratitude” to Xi Jinping and the Chinese government “for hosting and sponsoring the talks, and the efforts it placed towards its success.” The joint communique also mentioned Iraq and Oman for fostering the Saudi-Iranian dialogue during 2021-2022. But the salience is that the United States, which has been traditionally the dominant power in West Asian politics for close to eight decades, is nowhere in the picture. Yet, this is about the reconciliation between the two biggest regional powers in the Persian Gulf region. The US retrenchment denotes a colossal breakdown of American diplomacy. It will remain a black mark in President Biden’s foreign policy legacy. But Biden must take the blame for it. Such a cataclysmic failure is largely to be traced to his fervour to impose his neoconservative dogmas as an adjunct of America’s military might and Biden’s own frequent insistence that the fate of humankind hinges on the outcome of a cosmic struggle between democracy and autocracy. China has shown that Biden’s hyperbole is delusional and it grates against realities. If Biden’s moralistic, ill-considered rhetoric alienated Saudi Arabia, his attempts to suppress Iran met with stubborn resistance from Tehran. And, in the final analysis, Biden literally drove both Riyadh and Tehran to search for countervailing forces that would help them to push back his oppressive, overbearing attitude. The US’ humiliating exclusion from the centre stage of West Asian politics constitutes a “Suez moment” for the superpower, comparable to the crisis experienced by the UK in 1956, which obliged the British to sense that their imperial project had reached a dead end and the old way of doing things—whipping weaker nations into line as ostensible obligations of global leadership —was no longer going to work and would only lead to disastrous reckoning. The stunning part here is the sheer brain power and intellectual resources and ‘soft power’ that China has brought into play to outwit the US. The US has at least 30 military bases in West Asia — five in Saudi Arabia alone — but it has lost the mantle of leadership. Come to think of it, Saudi Arabia, Iran and China made their landmark announcement on the very same day Xi Jinping got elected for a third term as president. What we are seeing is a new China under the leadership of Xi Jinping trotting over the high knoll. Yet, it is adopting a self-effacing posture claiming no laurels for itself. There is no sign of the ‘Middle Kingdom syndrome,’ which the US propagandists had warned against. On the contrary, for the world audience — especially countries like India or Vietnam, Turkey, Brazil or South Africa — China has presented a salutary example of how a democratised multipolar world can work in future — how it is possible to anchor big power diplomacy on consensual, conciliatory politics, trade and interdependence and advance a ‘win-win’ outcome. Implicit in this is another huge message: China as a factor of global balance and stability. It is not only Asia-Pacific and West Asia who are watching. The audience also includes Africa and Latin America — in fact, the entire non-Western world that forms the big majority of world community who are known as the Global South. What the pandemic and the Ukraine crisis have brought to the surface is the latent geopolitical reality accruing through decades that the Global South rejects the policies of neo-mercantalism pursued by the West in the garb of ‘liberal internationalism.’ The West is pursuing a hierarchical international order. None other than the EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell blurted this out in an unguarded moment recently with a touch of racist overtone when he said from a public platform that ‘Europe Is a garden. The rest of the world Is a jungle, and the jungle could Invade the garden.’ Tomorrow, China could as well be challenging the US hegemony over the Western Hemisphere. The recent paper by the Chinese Foreign Ministry titled ‘US Hegemony and Its Perils’ tells us that Beijing will no longer be on the defensive. Meanwhile, a realignment of forces on the world stage is taking place with China and Russia on one side and the US on the other. Doesn’t it convey a big message that on the very eve of the historic announcement in Beijing on Friday, the Saudi Arabian foreign minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud landed suddenly in Moscow on a ‘working visit’ and went into a huddle with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov who was visibly delighted? (here, here and here ) Of course, we will never know what role Moscow would have played behind the scenes in coordination with Beijing to build bridges between Riyadh and Tehran. All we know is that Russia and China actively coordinate their foreign policy moves. Interestingly, on March 6, President Putin had a telephone conversation with Iran’s President Ebrahim Raisi. Audacity of hope To be sure, the geopolitics of West Asia will never be the same again. Realistically, the first sparrow of spring has appeared but the ice was melted for only three or four rods from the shore. Nonetheless, the sun’s rays give hope, signalling warmer days to come. Conceivably, Riyadh won’t have any truck further with the diabolical plots hatched in Washington and Tel Aviv to create an anti-Iran alliance in West Asia. Nor is it in the realms of possibility that Saudi Arabia will be party to any US-Israeli attacks on Iran. This badly isolates Israel in the region and renders the US toothless. In substantive terms, it scatters the Biden administration’s feverish efforts lately to cajole Riyadh to join Abraham Accords. However, significantly, a commentary in Global Times noted somewhat audaciously that the Saudi-Iranian deal “set a positive example for other regional hotspot issues, such as the easing and settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And in the future, China could play an important role in building a bridge for countries to solve long-standing thorny issues in the Middle East just as what it did this time.” Indeed, the joint communique issued in Beijing says, “The three countries [Saudi Arabia, Iran and China] expressed their keenness to exert all efforts towards enhancing regional and international peace and security.” Can China pull a rabbit out of the hat? Time will tell. For the present, though, the Saudi-Iranian rapprochement will certainly have positive fallouts on the efforts toward a negotiated settlement in Yemen and Syria as well as on the political situation in Lebanon. The joint communique emphasises that Saudi Arabia and Iran intend to revive the 1998 General Agreement for Cooperation in the Fields of Economy, Trade, Investment, Technology, Science, Culture, Sports, and Youth. All in all, the Biden administration’s maximum pressure strategy toward Iran has crashed and the West’s sanctions against Iran are being rendered ineffectual. The US’ policy options on Iran have shrunk. Iran gains strategic depth to negotiate with the US. The cutting edge of the US sanctions lies in the restrictions on Iran’s oil trade and access to western banks. It is entirely conceivable that a backlash is about to begin as Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia — three top oil/gas producing countries start accelerating their search for payment mechanisms bypassing the American dollar. China is already discussing such an arrangement with Saudi Arabia and Iran. China-Russia trade and economic transactions try to shun American dollar for payments. It is well understood that any significant erosion in the status of the dollar as ‘world currency’ will not only spell doom for the American economy but will cripple the US’ capacity to wage ‘forever wars’ abroad and impose its global hegemony. The bottom line is that the reconciliation between Saudi Arabia and Iran is also a precursor to their induction as BRICS members in a near future. To be sure, there is a Russian-Chinese understanding already on this score. The BRICS membership for Saudi Arabia and Iran will radically reset the power dynamic in the international system. Reprinted with permission from Indian Punchline. China steps up, a new era has dawned in world politics Click on the headline to read the full story from Ron Paul Institute ![]() ![]() Peacemaker China Makes History In Middle East Click on the headline to read the full story from Ron Paul Institute ![]() ![]() ![]() I often joke that I survived Washington because I had low expectations, but last week’s hearing of the House Weaponization of the Federal Government subcommittee would have tested the lowest of my low expectations. The purpose of the subcommittee is to look into the politicization of US government agencies and its effect on our civil liberties. But last week’s inaugural hearing of the committee was not at all a good look for the Democrats, who brought nothing but insults for the witnesses. Things got off on the wrong foot very quickly, as Democrat committee Members seemed less interested in what witnesses Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger had to say than in attacking the messengers. Ranking Committee Member Stacey E. Plaskett, a Democrat from the Virgin Islands, began by calling Taibbi a “so-called journalist” who poses a “direct threat” to people who disagree with the work he has done on the “Twitter Files.” Taibbi, who to the likely dismay of the Democrats on the subcommittee is hardly a right-wing Republican, corrected Plaskett’s smear, pointing out to her that, "I'm not a so-called journalist. I've won the National Magazine Award, the I.F. Stone Award for Independent Journalism, and I've written 10 books including four New York Times bestsellers." In addition, Taibbi pointed out that most of his journalism career was spent at Rolling Stone Magazine, which is hardly a conservative political outlet. The Democrat decision to make this hearing a partisan political issue and attack the journalists who brought us the truth about secret US government censorship-by-proxy of Americans who hold views unacceptable to government elites is extremely unfortunate. The Democrat decision to attack honest liberals like Taibbi for bringing us the truth is baffling. Taibbi and Shellenberger and the other journalists involved in exposing government malfeasance in the Twitter Files have done a great service to all Americans concerned about the collusion between government and corporations to silence speech that the government does not like. Matt Taibbi posted his statement to the subcommittee as another episode in the “Twitter Files” series and it may have been the most disturbing release to date. In this release Taibbi documented what he calls the “Censorship-Industrial Complex.” This is the collusion not only between government and big tech to censor “wrong” views, but also those parts of the so-called “non-governmental” sector that are directly funded by government. This “NGO” sector, it turns out, has been a key tool in the US government’s efforts to censor Americans who fail to toe the US government line on everything from Covid to Ukraine. The “non-government” organizations such as the National Endowment for Democracy, the Atlantic Council’s DFRLab, the Alliance for Securing Democracy and dozens more pose as simply good citizens concerned about disinformation while in fact they are mostly or completely funded by the US government to do the US government’s bidding. Taibbi calls this the “absolute fusion of state, corporate, and civil society organizations,” but there is another word for it: fascism. And that is where we are headed in the United States unless all of us – conservatives, libertarians, liberals, and progressives - wake up and fight for the restoration of the First Amendment. House Democrats Attack Messengers in ‘Politicization of Government’ Hearing Click on the headline to read the full story from Ron Paul Institute ![]() ![]() ![]() Let’s take a look at USAID, the United States Agency for International Development. The first thing to know: the agency is run out of the State Department. Its pubic relations cover is to provide “international development.” This is code for fomenting regime change and undermining elected governments not on-script with the neoliberal agenda. Second point: USAID is basically a cutout for CIA activity. David H. Price, in his “Cold War Anthology: The CIA, the Pentagon, and the Growth of Dual Use Anthropology,” documents how “activists” working for USAID pass on information of use to the CIA. Moreover, according to former USAID director, John Gilligan, the agency “served as a sort of graduate school for CIA agents,” and “many AID offices were infiltrated from top to bottom with CIA people.” Gilligan added “the idea was to plant operatives in every kind of activity we had overseas; government, volunteer, religious, every kind.” Third: USAID’s Office of Public Safety (OPS) was shut down in 1974 after James Abourezk, a senator from South Carolina, disclosed OPS was involved in training Latin American police to torture activists. The public cover for OPS was to end corruption and promote professionalism. In reality, it was a CIA proxy. (See “Teaching Torture: The Death and Legacy of Dan Mitrione,” Brett Wilkins, Antiwar.com, August 11, 2020.) Four: in 2021, USAID funded (to the tune of $39 million) Ecohealth Alliance, a group studying emerging viruses. President Trump shut down the operation after it was revealed it collaborated with the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Ecohealth Alliance funded “gain of function” experiments. Five: information on the shady and illegal behavior of USAID briefly emerged when it was discovered the agency had established a fake social media platform in Cuba. “Supposedly concerned with public health and civics, its operatives actively targeted likely dissidents,” Wired reported in 2015. Today [August 4, 2014], the Associated Press broke a story that USAID backed a program in Cuba that brought Latin American youth to the island in an alleged effort to stir up political dissent. The youngsters from Costa Rica, Venezuela, and Peru traveled to Cuba posing as tourists or health workers leading HIV prevention workshops, but with the real goal of grooming opposition activists. (See “With HIV regime-change ruse in Cuba, another black eye for USAID,” Whitney Eulich, The Christian Science Monitor.)Six: according to the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, an “extraordinary leaked document gives a glimpse of the breadth and complexity of the US government’s plan to interfere in Nicaragua’s internal affairs up to and after its presidential election in 2021.” USAID put out a call for contractors interested in subverting Nicaragua following its 2021 election. The latest escalation in intervention began under the Obama presidency and continued under Trump, although the motivation probably has more to do with the US administration’s ongoing concerns about the success of the Ortega government’s development model since it returned to power in 2007 and began a decade of renewed social investment.Seven: in 1966, USAID established the Office of Population. The first director was Reimert Thorolf Ravenholt. “He would hold the post until 1979, using it to create a global empire of interlocking population control organizations operating with billion-dollar budgets to suppress the existence of people considered undesirable by the US Department of State,” writes Robert Zurbin for The New Atlantis. (Emphasis added.) “Ravenholt also had no compunction about buying up huge quantities of unproven, unapproved, defective, or banned contraceptive drugs and intrauterine devices (IUDs) and distributing them for use by his population control movement subcontractors on millions of unsuspecting Third World women, many of whom suffered or died in consequence.” Eight: USAID is at the forefront of numerous color revolutions. “Wherever a coup d’etat, a colored revolution or a regime change favorable to US interests occurs, USAID and its flow of dollars is there,” writes Eva Golinger, a Venezuelan-American lawyer, writer, and journalist. (See “Colored Revolutions: A New Form of Regime Change, Made in USA,” posted at WikiLeaks.) The recipe is always the same. Student and youth movements lead the way with a fresh face, attracting others to join in as though it were the fashion, the cool thing to do. There's always a logo, a color, a marketing strategy. In Serbia, the group OTPOR, which led the overthrow of Slobodan Milosevic, hit the streets with t-shirts, posters and flags boasting a fist in black and white, their symbol of resistance. In Ukraine, the logo remained the same, but the color changed to orange. In Georgia, it was a rose-colored fist, and in Venezuela, instead of the closed fist, the hands are open, in black and white, to add a little variety.Golinger adds, “The same agencies are always present, funding, training and advising: USAID, NED, IRI, NDI, Freedom House, AEI and ICNC.” The pattern is now being repeated on the streets of Tbilisi, Georgia. In 2020, according to NATO, USAID/Georgia launched a new Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) to guide its assistance to Georgia through 2025. Under the new strategy, USAID will strategically partner with Georgia on its journey to self-reliance [neoliberal servitude], helping advance its Euro-Atlantic integration [specifically targeting the Caucasus and Central Asia] and strengthen its resilience to malign influence [defined as diplomatic, economic, and security initiatives with the Russian Federation].The only difference this time is the neocon Vicky Nuland isn’t on the edge of the orchestrated demonstrations passing out cookies. Reprinted with permission from Kurt Nimmo on Geopolitics. Subscribe and support here. Short List of USAID Subversion Operations Click on the headline to read the full story from Ron Paul Institute ![]() ![]() ![]() Friday’s announcement that Iran and Saudi Arabia had restored bilateral ties for the first time in seven years marks a major geopolitical development in the Persian Gulf. As the region’s two main powerhouses, Tehran and Riyadh had found themselves supporting opposing sides in conflicts in both Syria and Yemen over the past decade, resulting in tensions that would culminate in the ending of diplomatic relations in January 2016, following the execution of Shia cleric Sheikh Nimr Al-Nimr by Saudi Arabia; seen as the dominant Sunni power in the Islamic world, with Iran regarded as the Shia equivalent. Thus, the restoring of diplomatic relations between both nations should lead to increased stability in a region beset by conflict over the past two decades. Reaching beyond west Asia, Friday’s announcement also signifies the establishment of a new multipolar world order, with China having brokered the deal between both countries. With Saudi Arabia being a key US-ally and trading partner in the region, this may also indicate that should Washington now feel that Riyadh is moving into Beijing’s sphere of influence, it may vie for regime-change in Saudi Arabia in a bid to maintain hegemony in west Asia. Indeed such an occurrence has a historical precedent. In July 1979, the-then US administration of Jimmy Carter would launch Operation Cyclone, a covert CIA programme which would see the arming, funding and training of Wahhabi militants known as the Mujahideen, who would then go on to wage war on the Socialist government of previously Western-friendly Afghanistan, which had come under Soviet influence following the 1978 Saur Revolution. Five months prior to the commencement of Operation Cyclone, Iran - also a former Western ally in the region - would come under the leadership of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, following the Islamic Revolution which saw the overthrow of the US and UK-backed Shah Pahlavi. A major threat to US hegemony in the region, the Iranian Revolution was a key factor in the White House’s decision to arm the Afghan Mujahideen, lest its influence be weakened even further in west Asia, as well as drawing the Soviet Union into a costly military misadventure. Should the United States now feel that Saudi Arabia is slipping away from its sphere of influence into China’s instead, and decides to pursue regime-change in response, one of the first steps it may take is a significant overhaul in corporate media coverage of Saudi Arabia’s brutal war on neighbouring Yemen. In March 2015, following the seizure of the capital Sana’a by the Ansar Allah movement, Riyadh would begin an air campaign in a bid to restore the government of Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi to power Using US and British-supplied bombs, and with military advisors on hand from both countries to assist in the selection of targets, Saudi Arabia has laid waste to the agricultural, medical and water infrastructure of Yemen over the past eight years, resulting in widespread starvation and the largest recorded Cholera outbreak in history in what is already the most impoverished country on the Arabian Peninsula. A situation exacerbated even further by a Saudi blockade preventing food and medical supplies from entering the country. Despite the brutality of the Saudi campaign, it has received scant coverage from the corporate media over the past eight years, owing to the lucrative arms trade between Riyadh and the West, as well as the use of Saudi Arabia as a bulwark against Iran in the region, with Tehran long being accused of providing military aid to Ansar Allah. Should the Chinese-brokered détente between Saudi Arabia and Iran now result in tensions between Washington and Riyadh however, and especially in a scenario where the Gulf Kingdom may decide to purchase weapons from China rather than the United States, a newfound concern for the situation in Yemen may arise amongst the western media, in a manner not dissimilar to their sudden coverage of the war in Ukraine following the Russian intervention last February, in spite of their miniscule coverage of the conflict during the previous eight years it had actually been taking place. Such coverage of Saudi war crimes in Yemen may pave the way for a colour revolution attempt in Riyadh with the intention of bringing a more US-aligned leadership to power. Indeed such an attempt is currently taking place in Iran, where the US has been supplying arms to the ‘Iranian opposition’ in a bid to install a client regime, and with officials from US-ally Israel already expressing their opposition to the Iran-Saudi deal, it may only be a matter of time before something similar occurs on the other side of the Persian Gulf. Support the author via Patreon. Will Regime-Change Now Come to Riyadh? Click on the headline to read the full story from Ron Paul Institute |
Ron Paul
|