Connect with us

Americas

US Economic Sanctions at the Tipping Point

Published

on

The ever-expanding use of US sanctions to regulate the conduct of foreign companies trading in foreign markets has alienated US trading partners and could ultimately unleash a wave of counter-retaliation by foreign governments.  Although US politicians and the US media see these sanctions as lawful regulatory instruments rather than weapons of war, they involve a modern form of gunboat diplomacy using coercion rather than legal process to obtain foreign cooperation.  US trading partners thus far have found no effective response, but that may soon change, and in ways that will badly damage US interests and erode US power.

At some point, in the absence of US self-restraint, the tables will turn and foreign government adoption of their own coercive measures will create enormous challenges for US and global business.  The risk is not only or even largely to the primacy of the US dollar in world trade but rather the ability of US-based and multinational companies to access major markets whose governments at some point will no longer tolerate US encroachment on their sovereignty.

US sanctions programs seek to achieve US foreign policy and political objectives, often without regard to whether other countries share those objectives.  For example, when President Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018, he said the deal was non-binding on him because it was signed by President Obama.  The fact that the European powers, China and Russia also had signed it, the UN Security Council had endorsed it, and Iran had not violated it did not deter the Trump Administration from re-imposing and expanding all of the previously waived US sanctions.  Under these coercive measures, the Administration has designated or threatened to designate foreign companies as US sanctions targets for engaging in entirely foreign business with Iran that has no connection to the United States.

The US sanctions rules have always applied differently to foreign companies than to US-based and US-owned companies. Since 1995, the so-called primary sanctions against Iran have prohibited the involvement of US persons in nearly all types of Iran-related business.  In more recent years, the US government has required even non-US companies to obey the primary sanctions whenever their transactions involve US persons, the US financial system or US-origin goods.  However, the US government has no law enforcement jurisdiction over transactions by non-US companies that do not involve any such US elements.

Critics of US sanctions policy often focus on the enormous fines imposed on foreign companies, particularly banks, for violating the primary sanctions, and the risk that such aggressive enforcement tactics will cause a foreign flight from US dollar-based trade and payments.  Although that risk is real, the fines relate only to activity within US law enforcement jurisdiction and leave foreign companies free to choose whether to continue transacting with US sanctions targets without involving any US elements and therefore with violating US law.

To overcome this jurisdictional hurdle, when the US government decided, beginning in 2010, that it wanted to deter certain types of entirely non-US business with Iran, it did so by labeling such business as “sanctionable” under so-called secondary sanctions that authorized the designation of foreign companies engaged in such non-US business as US sanctions targets.  During the Obama Administration, the secondary sanctions on Iran generally worked in parallel with European and UN sanctions against Iran’s nuclear proliferation drive, culminating in the multilateral negotiation of the Iran nuclear deal.  To strike that deal, the Obama Administration waived the secondary sanctions on Iran, while leaving most of the primary sanctions in place.

As a result of the Trump Administration’s restoration and expansion of the secondary sanctions on Iran and use of similar extraterritorial sanctions measures against a wide range of other targets, US sanctions policy now conflicts with European and global norms to an unprecedented degree.  Instead of respecting the sovereign right of our trading partners to decide how and with whom their companies cantransact from within their own territory and in their own currency, the US Treasury and State Departments dictate to foreign companies a complex series of sanctions red lines, entirely outside US jurisdiction. 

It matters not whether the sanctionable activity involves the US dollar or any other US elements because the US Treasury and State Departments do not need a US jurisdictional hook to put a foreign company on a US sanctions blacklist.  Instead, crossing a red line into sanctionable activity can trigger a US sanctions designation of the offending company, prohibiting their involvement in any business that involves US persons or other US elements.  Foreign purchases of Venezuelan crude oil, foreign participation in Russian pipeline projects and foreign transactions with literally thousands of persons blacklisted by the US government under a range of sanctions programs, even if unrelated to Iran (or Syria or North Korea),could all trigger a boycott of a foreign company by the US Government, without any need to tie the sanctionable activity to the United States.

Unlike the primary sanctions, which operate within the same legal structure as other US administrative and criminal laws, the secondary sanctions provide Treasury and State nearly complete freedom to strike preemptively against their foreign targets.  Although the target can attempt after-the-fact to demonstrate that they did not infringe any sanctions or negotiate a resolution, that process can take years, by which time the US blacklisting often has already put the target out of business. 

The impact of a US sanctions designation is supremely powerful because it not only terminates the target’s access to the US economy and US financial system, but also imposes a secondary boycott designed to force foreign firms to choose between business with the target or business with the US.  Following the designation, any foreign company that transacts with the blacklisted person, and thereby provides “material assistance” to them, could itself be blacklisted in turn, even if the alleged material assistance has no connection to the United States.  Thus, banks and many other companies globally will refuse any new business with, and run in the other direction from, anyone that US Treasury, through its Office of Foreign Assets Control, has put on the so-called Specially Designated Nationals list. Once blacklisted, the US sanctions target finds itself persona non grata not only in the United States, but most of the world.

In fact, the pressure on foreign companies to respect US sanctions red lines and avoid any sanctionable activity is often greatest within their own financial services community.  Before providing a large loan or underwriting securities, in any currency, for Asian or European companies, the participating banks typically will require an undertaking from the borrower or issuer not to engage in any sanctionable activity, as defined by the US government.  Even Chinese companies that prefer to list their shares on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, rather than in New York, still need to address their US secondary sanctions risks as part of the listing process. 

The extraordinary deterrent effect of the US secondary sanctions contrasts with the historic failure of the Arab League’s long-running secondary boycott of Israel to deter companies in the United States and third countries from Israeli business.  This difference is easily explained.  First, companies that needed to choose between business with Israel or the countries that boycott Israel often have seen Israel as the greener pasture.  Second, the US and many other leading countries prohibited their nationals from supporting the Arab League secondary boycott.  As explained by the US Office of Antiboycott Compliance, the US antiboycott rules “have the effect of preventing US firms from being used to implement foreign policies of other nations which run counter to US policy.”

The hypocrisy of prohibiting US companies from complying with other countries’ secondary boycotts while threatening to boycott foreign companies for dealing, entirely outside US jurisdiction –with US embargoed countries and/or Specially Designated Nationals– is not the issue here.  Hypocrisy in foreign policy is nothing new. Historic international law principles and constraints also have not deterred the expansion in US secondary sanctions.  Instead, before either Congress or the Executive Branch will lose their voracious appetite for secondary sanctions, the cost-benefit analysis of these measures in economic and thus political terms will have to change in Washington.

In the current political environment, this change will occur only when foreign countries with sufficient market power impose sufficient counter-measures to make the US reconsider its approach.  Thus far, US trading partners, particularly in the EU, have relied primarily on their own version of the US antiboycott rules to threaten their nationals with domestic legal action if they comply with US secondary sanctions.  But these counter-measures have failed, for two principal reasons. 

First, most multinational companies, particularly in Europe, have no interest in tempting fate by crossing a US sanctions red line. In contrast, they know the domestic antiboycott laws to which they are subject, even if enforced, which they rarely are, would not have anything like the nuclear impact of a US sanctions designation. The EU’s blocking regulation in particular is widely viewed as no more than a political statement.  Second, many EU and other foreign companies to which these local antiboycott rules apply can typically justify their withdrawal from and avoidance of Iran, Cuba and other targets of unilateral US sanctions for business reasons, without expressly acknowledging they have done so in response to a US secondary boycott.

In the military realm, to deter a nuclear strike against them or their allies, the world’s major powers have developed their own nuclear deterrents. The strategy of mutually assured destruction has withstood the test of time.  Because it has proven to work, the same logic will ultimately prevail in the world of sanctions, led by China.

Last year, China announced that it would create its own “Unreliable Entity List” to punish firms whose actions were harmful to China’s national interests.  Although China has not yet put any companies on this list, it presumably would do so if OFAC puts a major Chinese company on the Specially Designated Nationals list and seeks to compel foreign as well as US companies to sever their ties with that Chinese company. Alternatively, China could find other ways to retaliate in kind, with the aim of restricting US access to China’s market sufficiently to match the harmful impact of US secondary sanctions on Chinese firms.

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.  If the retaliatory threat is both credible and commensurate in scope with the sanctions threatened by the US government, the US will have as much to lose as to gain by imposing a secondary boycott.  For this reason, the US has yet to impose a secondary boycott on any major Chinese company.  Instead, even under President Trump, the actions taken against Chinese companies generally seek to restrict their access to US markets and US technology under US trade, investment and export control laws; i.e., various forms of primary boycott. 

In such cases, the US requires foreign companies to exclude all or some US elements from their dealings with the Chinese target company, but does not threaten them with retaliation for their entirely non-US business with that Chinese company.  With the exception of some smaller Chinese companies that the US has listed as Specially Designated Nationals, the US Treasury and State Departments have not threatened to blacklist foreign companies for entirely non-US business with any leading Chinese company.  Moving in that direction against China would appear certain to trigger swift retaliation and thus mutually assured economic damage.

In contrast, the US Congress has enacted, and President Trump has implemented, a broad range of secondary sanctions against Russia intended to deter foreign companies from entirely non-US dealings with targeted Russian persons, companies and energy projects.  Although not comparable in either scope or extent of actual use to the US secondary sanctions against Iran, the ones on Russia have succeeded in deterring a range of foreign investment in and foreign business with Russia that the previously-imposed US and EU primary sanctions had failed to accomplish.

Although Russia has threatened to retaliate in kind, its economy is far smaller than China’s.  In 2015, when Russia put 60 US politicians on its version of a sanctions list in response to the initial wave of US sanctions against Russia, the late Senator John McCain quipped “I guess this means my spring break in Siberia is off, my Gazprom stock is lost and my secret bank account in Moscow is frozen.”A tooth for an eye has never provided an effective deterrent.

Apart from China’s credible defensive capability, it also has the ability to play offense.  If the US can retaliate against foreign companies for their entirely non-US dealings with US sanctions targets, what is to stop China from doing the same to US and other non-Chinese companies in response to their dealings with Taiwan or other future targets of Chinese sanctions?  What is to stop India from imposing a secondary boycott on Pakistan or Turkey on Cyprus?  The US can use its antiboycott law to prohibit US companies from cooperating, but only at the cost of losing their business with the boycotting country.

In sum, relying on secondary boycotts to achieve US policy objectives is dangerous not only because it invites retaliation but also because it invites imitation. The US therefore should use them cautiously rather than capriciously, recognizing that at some point the balance will tip and the costs might quickly begin to outstrip the perceived benefits. 

In particular, how much longer will the EU tolerate US insistence that EU companies abandon entirely non-US business with US sanctions targets before the EU adopts its own version of China’s Unreliable Entity List and directs EU companies to resist US pressure?  Like China, EU counter-retaliation could be both credible and commensurate in terms of the costs imposed on US interests.  EU self-restraint to date reflects its preference for rules-based diplomacy, but when that enables the US to encroach European sovereignty with impunity, even the EU at some point, if pushed too hard, will have to respond in kind.

If and when we reach the tipping point, what the world sees as US sanctions bullying will be met with a jab in America’s eye by a major US trading partner rather than foreign subservience.  Various potential scenarios come to mind.  Let’s assume a new and potentially more rational leadership takes the helm in North Korea, and South Korea as well as China quickly offer trade and investment even before any major and verifiable concessions by Pyongyang.  Let’s further assume the US, backed by Japan, rejects any such premature concessions and threatens to use its existing secondary sanctions against North Korea to blacklist any South Korea or Chinese company that supports their own government’s strategy of economic engagement.  When the foreign policy and domestic political stakes are that high, resistance to US secondary sanctions not only by China but also South Korea becomes inevitable, creating enormous risk of miscalculation, counter-retaliation and destabilizing after-shocks.

The effectiveness of US secondary boycotts to date appears to have created a misplaced confidence in Washington that ever-expanding use will not diminish their effectiveness or harm US interests.  Rather than continue along the current path, inciting US trade partners to copy our own tactics to our detriment as well as theirs, the US should develop a more restrained and strategic approach to preserve the usefulness of sanctions.  Coordinating US sanctions policies with America’s closest allies rather than trampling on their sovereignty would be a helpful starting point.

A US Sanctions Specialist, and partner at international law firm Clifford Chance, George Kleinfeld has 30+ years of experience in the fields of international economic regulation and foreign trade controls. He advises leading financial institutions, industrial enterprises, trading companies and global investors on US sanctions issues and compliance with US sanctions laws and regulations. He has participated in a wide range of US sanctions investigations and enforcement actions as well as designing compliance programs and providing compliance training and risk analyses for multinational corporations and financial institutions in Europe, the Middle East, Australia, Asia and the Americas. George also advises on compliance with US export controls and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and has obtained scores of national security clearances for foreign acquisitions of strategic US business assets from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). The opinions within this commentary are his own and not that of his firm.

Continue Reading
Comments

Americas

U.S. Climate Policy Could Break the Ice with Russia

Published

on

Photo: Fiona Paton/ flickr

“In the midst of every crisis, lies great opportunity” — Albert Einstein

Within the climate crisis lies strategic opportunity for the United States. Climate change offers the chance to earn back the good will of allies, to prepare American cities for an urgently needed increase in immigration, and to reinvent U.S.-led institutions that have gone stale. Perhaps most of all, foreign policymakers should remain cognizant of how climate action can help the U.S. navigate relations with the other great powers.

As a recent report from the Center for a New American Security details, synergy between China and Russia is more problematic for U.S. interests than the sum of the challenges that each nation poses individually. Similarly, a recent Atlantic Council publication observed that “allowing Russia to drift fully into China’s strategic embrace over the last decade will go down as the single greatest geostrategic error.” Chinese and Russian interests do currently align on defense, economics, and the degradation of the U.S.-designed world order, but the nature of their alignment does not constitute an alliance.

In characterizing the relationship, this distinction is paramount. For as long as China and Russia remain merely convenient partners, rather than ideologically kindred allies, it is possible to keep these neighbors at arm’s length. To this end, the U.S. must reorient its approach to Russia. It is the Russian perception that world politics are rigged to benefit the U.S. at Russia’s expense that has prompted its support for China.

Russia’s national interests are rooted in the desire for respect. With this in mind, Russia could pull back from synergy with China if a better opportunity to advance these interests presented itself. Ultimately, the ability of the U.S. to offer a mutually acceptable alternative will hinge on two related factors: the Arctic and NATO. Critically, the issue of climate change is central to both of these factors.

In the Arctic, rapid warming removes barriers to resource exploitation, shipping activity, and great power competition. This has drawn many non-Arctic states to the region. Yet, even with China inserting itself as a “Near-Arctic State,” Russia has expressed the need for a hierarchy of regional influence in which the interests of Arctic states are prioritized over non-Arctic states. On this, American and Russian interests align.

Russian distrust of the U.S. complicates matters, however. Arctic military assertiveness from Russia is evidence of its sensitivity to the NATO alliance. In response, U.S. military branches have been releasing strategies for Arctic-specific forward defense. Such militarism is not conducive to improving relations, securing sovereign influence, or addressing climate change. 

In order to limit undue Chinese influence in the region and stabilize its relations with Russia by securing a multilateral agreement that formalizes an Arctic hierarchy, the U.S. will need to alter its foreign policy so that Russia perceives it to be a viable partner. The alteration should be sufficient for reducing friction with Russia’s core interests, but not so extreme that liberal values or American security are put in jeopardy. Such transactional considerations should include fashioning a new climate-positive role for the U.S. in NATO. After all, the permanent physical presence of roughly 76,000 U.S. troops on the European continent not only irks Russia, but this posture is also expensive, carbon-intensive, and perhaps not even the most effective approach to conflict deterrence. 

Indeed, research has shown that rapid deployment of new forces is significantly more likely to stymie aggression. This suggests that the U.S. should reduce its troop levels in Europe by at least 75 percent while bolstering rapid deployment readiness. This would allow the U.S. to simultaneously reduce its military’s fuel demand and greenhouse gas emissions, earn the good will necessary for stronger diplomacy with Russia, and still honor its security commitment to NATO in the event of a crisis. Moreover, the U.S. could then reinvest the potential savings into both Arctic sustainability and NATO’s capacity to manage climate insecurity.

Through the establishment of a bounded Arctic order and the greening of American leadership in NATO, the U.S. can dispel Sino-Russian synergy in the region and help maintain balance between the great powers. Specifically, these actions would both politically distance China from Russia and give the Kremlin substantial reason to begin feeling more optimistic about its relations with the West. To be sure, similar measures will be necessary in other regions to fully assure balance. However, the Arctic is a natural place for the U.S. to begin this endeavor. Usefully, the themes of climate mitigation and adaptation provide a blueprint for what countering Sino-Russian synergy elsewhere ought to generally entail.

Continue Reading

Americas

Overcoming The Tragedy of Plural Mother Tongue Denial in America

Published

on

Sunday morning , February 21, I was in the  Bangladesh High Commission  in Port Louis, Mauritius.Google reminds us”Bangladesh, to the east of India on the Bay of Bengal, is a South Asian country marked by lush greenery and many waterways. Its Padma (Ganges), Meghna and Jamuna rivers create fertile plains, and travel by boat is common. On the southern coast, the Sundarbans, an enormous mangrove forest shared with Eastern India, is home to the royal Bengal tiger.” 

This  justice and peace oriented mighty  South Asian  country of nearly 162,000,000 citizens, is also renowned for  successfully advocating for what is now  the United Nations recognized   annual February 21 Martyrs’ Day & International Mother Language  Day celebrated today in many countries around the world. It is the reason why…Namely ,when last week  my great friend , Her Excellency Rezina Ahmed , the High Commissioner for Bangladesh in Mauritius , requested I be one of the three judges for their youth essay competition for this day’s celebration focused on the meaning of this critically important day in their country and for the world in understanding the imperatives of mother tongue in human identity,dignity, openness, and achievements such as in education access and attainment. I gladly  reorganized my  overly hectic schedule to participate. 

We devalue, belittle, degrade, and dehumanize others and therefore ourselves as human beings when we deny them the human right  to  learn, express, and just daily be in their native ,that is mother tongue.We create and sustain discrimination, havoc ,and discord in societies and communities and institutions within them when we deny, marginalize, and exclude plural mother tongues and just stress and require in such an unGodly way,a hegemonic dominating one. When we create societies which fail to make room for the respectful and empowering expansion of languages spoken in a nation by its citizens and those populations veying for citizenship, we are sowing seeds for troubles easily avoided if government and civil society leaders recognize and welcome language newcomers rather than being xenopphobic , racist, ethnocentric ,and otherwise hostile towards them.This is especially the case when those of different mother tongues from the original one are positively contributing to the human resources, workforces, and cultural needs of  a nation and  when their diverse  speakers are  upright law abiding citizens in their families , communities, and larger society and world.

As an American whose ancestral mother tongues  were stripped away in the brutality of African slavery  and in the genocidal treatment of indigenous peoples, this day then has deep sentimental value to me.We need to recognize this day in an America deeply troubled by  too long devalued, ignored, and ridiculed plural  mother tongue realities coupled with contempoary rapid growth of mother tongue plurality as we become each day statistically Non-White and not just English speaking. 

In doing so we must confess first from colonial day one to now,America has always been a plural mother tongue state with English being the hegemonic language of the dominant.Our tradition of disregarding and devaluing Americans whose first language is other than English has been the historical roots of  political and economic inequalities, massive wastes of human talents, and the epidemic psychological traumas of millions of tens of millions of Americans stripped of their right to be heard and respected in their mother tongues and of those suffering from their dominant English superiority  complexes which eats away at their own humanity as they dehumanize Non-English speakers.

Spainish mother tongues signs are being  become seen  increasingly in American stores and other consumer and employing insitutions as  more a measure of the growing national size and  economic value of Spainish speaking peoples than needed humane and human  respect for Americans whose native tongue is not English.Trump’s easy fueling of anti-Spainish speaking people sentiment and practices, be they immigrants or not; even in native  English speaking Non-White populations such as African Americans and Asian Americans, was due to the iron grip of English only hegemony which continues to persist  in too many American systems, sectors, communities, and institutions, making English as Second language programs in primary through graduate schools marginal  or nonexistent in too many states with no plural mother tongue federal policy designed and well enforced in sight. It has led to disgraceful  public attacks against Spanish  speakers with more implicit  demeaning attacks against others who don’t speak English  especially when they are and more importantly look like they have Non-European  ancestry. Such bigoted English only idelogies , stereotypes, and actions are  unbecoming for any  democratic nation claiming to be a beacon of exceptional global goodwill.Our American tendency to ignore our historical and contemporary plural mother tongue character and to allow it to be a  disruptive and destabilizing political football adds fire to the view of our allies and foes around the world that our long  exceptional bright star global status is sliding downward on a banna peeling.

Thus, as  we move from the nightmare of the four year Trump era even though Trumpism is an anti-plural mother tongue ideology to be around for awhile, let us take advantage of this Biden-Harris glimmer of sunlight to promote the meaning of this day, to hold it high in opposition to the nightmare we are leaving behind as we grapple and become the open dignified America not back but the kind of emerging  open America we must become and remain..from now on.

Continue Reading

Americas

Secretly, Biden’s Foreign Policies Are Trump’s Foreign Policies

Published

on

Though U.S. President Joe Biden is publicly critical of Donald Trump’s foreign policies, he’s continuing almost all of them and is changing only minor ones. The changes are almost entirely in rhetoric, not in policies, as will be documented here.

A good example of this entirely rhetorical ‘difference’ is described in a February 19th article from Reuters, “Drawing contrast with Trump, Biden promises U.S. allies a partnership that’s not transactional”. Biden’s policy, to “promote democracy over autocracies,” condemns Trump’s polices as having been “transactional” instead of based on “values.” But, actually, America’s invasions, and coups, and economic sanctions, during the past few decades, have been ‘justified’ by condemning the U.S. regime’s target-nations (Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine before America’s 2014 coup there — and now Ukraine is ‘our ally’) as not being “democratic,” and as not adhering to ‘human rights’, as if the U.S. regime itself were an authentic democracy, or were unquestionably better on human rights than the targets against which its aggressions are directed — none of which is true

If America were a democracy, then why does it have a higher percentage of its residents in prisons than does any other nation on the planet? And they’re almost all poor people, who couldn’t even afford a good lawyer. That’s ‘equal rights’? America is a country of equal rights? And it provides equal opportunity there, if your father went to prison? (Many ex-cons in America aren’t even allowed to vote. And their job-prospects, with a prison record or empty years shown on a CV, are permanently reduced.) Biden condemned “Trump, who angered allies by breaking off global accords and threatening to end defense assistance unless they toed his line. ‘Our partnerships have endured and grown through the years because they are rooted in the richness of our shared democratic values. They’re not transactional’ [he said].” Liberal hogwash — purely arrogant lies, by the U.S. regime, so that it can continue to perpetrate aggression against its target-nations, while appearing, to suckers, to be a ‘kinder and gentler nation’.

The hypocrisy of that is understood by all of America’s allies — all leaders of the empire’s vassal-nations. They know that many of those allied leaders are, themselves, even more tyrannical than America’s leaders are. For example, on February 16th, the BBC bannered “Princess Latifa: ‘Hostage’ ordeal of Dubai ruler’s daughter revealed”, and reported: “The daughter of Dubai’s ruler who tried to flee the country in 2018 later sent secret video messages to friends accusing her father of holding her ‘hostage’ as she feared for her life. In footage shared with BBC Panorama, Princess Latifa Al Maktoum says commandos drugged her as she fled by boat and flew her back to detention.” Will Biden therefore dump its UAE vassal-nation, for this “problem,” which goes all the way back to the year 2000 and has never yet caused the U.S. regime to drop any ‘ally’?

Another of ‘democratic’ America’s vassal leaders, the one who controls Saudi Arabia, had perpetrated the 2 October 2018 luring into Istanbul’s Saudi Consulate of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi (who feared for his life even as he entered there) where he was immediately dismembered and chopped-up by the team of Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman al-Saud, and thus was placed on public display how above-the-law Saudi Arabia’s Government really is. The five execution-team-members, whom the Crown Prince had reason to believe might testify against him if released, were sentenced to death. So, anyone who would be hired for such an operation in the future would be a fool to trust that employer. The only real insiders in such a regime are at the very top. ‘Honor among thieves’ doesn’t exist at that high a level. Finally, on 9 September 2019, Turkey’s Daily Sabah newspaper bannered “Saudi hit squad’s gruesome conversations during Khashoggi’s murder revealed”, and reported that

The recordings, which took place before the murder between Sept. 28 and Oct. 2, 2018, reveal in detail the plans and preparations made between the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul and the Riyadh administration.

On Sept. 28, when Khashoggi came to the Saudi Consulate for papers to marry his fiancee Hatice Cengiz, Ahmed Abdullah al-Muzaini, who worked as Saudi Arabia’s intelligence station chief at the kingdom’s consulate in Istanbul, informed Riyadh with an emergency code that Khashoggi had arrived at the consulate. Khashoggi’s return to the consulate on Oct. 2 was also informed to Riyadh.

On the same day at 7:08 p.m., Saudi Consul Otaibi held a phone call with an official from the office of Saud al-Qahtani, a close aide of Crown Prince Mohammed.

During the conversation, the murder of Khashoggi was called [in order to code so as to hide what was going on, in case Turkish intelligence were listening-in] “a private matter” and “a top-secret mission.” The official told the Saudi consul that “the head of state security called me. They have a mission. They want one of your officials from your delegation to deal with a private matter. They want someone from your protocol… for a private, top-secret mission. He can even get permission if necessary.”

These statements are proof that the murder of Khashoggi was not done without the consent of the Saudi crown prince.

And Israel’s Netanyahu isn’t leading a racist apartheid theocratic nation? And Saudi Arabia’s monarch and his son Mohammed bin Salman al-Saud aren’t also leading a pro-jihadist regime, and America’s Government don’t know this?

Not “transactional”? It’s actually just replacing Trump’s transactionalism by Biden’s more hypocritical type.

And the hypocrisy here goes beyond the “not transactional” lie. On February 18th, Reuters headlined “U.S. says ready for talks with Iran over nuclear deal” and this propaganda reported that:

Washington would respond positively to any European Union invitation to talks among Iran and the six major powers who negotiated the original agreement: Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States.

“We are ready to show up if such a meeting were to take place,” the official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity, after a senior EU official said he was prepared to convene such a meeting among the parties to the deal.

But it’s just a nothingburger.

Though Russia supported an unconditional restoration of the Iran deal, because only the U.S. had broken it and quit it, the U.S. ‘allies’ backed the aggressor-nation (the U.S. regime), “during a video meeting with his British, French and German counterparts gathered in Paris,” as Biden’s Secretary of State Antony Blinken (who has supported every U.S. invasion including the 2003 invasion of Iraq) led them: 

“Secretary Blinken reiterated that … if Iran comes back into strict compliance with its commitments under the JCPOA, the United States will do the same and is prepared to engage in discussions with Iran toward that end,” a joint statement from the four nations said.

America broke it first, but Iran must return to it first — according to America (which broke it first). Only idiots would accept such wacky ‘reasoning’. But Joe Biden’s Administration appeals only to such idiots. And yet America’s liberals deride Trump for Trump’s stupidity, and for the stupidity of his followers. Truth, and progressivism (which opposes all lies, conservative or liberal), have virtually no representation in today’s American politics. Progressives are marginalized here.

Also on February 18th, the Moon of Alabama blogger bannered “Why Is Biden Creating Himself An Iran Quagmire?” and he wrote that the U.S. side were not only demanding that Iran cancel its own departure from the Iran deal (which cancellation had followed after the U.S. had already abandoned the deal) before the U.S. and its gang would return to the negotiating table to restore the Iran deal, but that in addition the U.S. and its ‘allies’ would demand that Iran restrict its missile program — which hadn’t even been included in the Iran deal — before the U.S. and its allies would negotiate a return to the Iran deal. In other words: Iran would have to make concessions first — though only the U.S. had actually broken the deal — and the U.S. and its ‘allies’ still wouldn’t negotiate unless and until Iran would first agree to reduce its missile-forces (which weren’t part of the Iran deal). Furthermore, already, a law recently passed in Iran’s Parliament requires Iran’s Government to bring an end to the IAEA inspections, starting on February 23rd; so, Iran’s Government wouldn’t be allowed to back down to the U.S. regime’s demands, even if Iran’s President were stupid enough to want to do so.

Instead of the gangster — the U.S. regime — apologizing for what it had done, it tries to fool its own and allied publics into believing that Iran — and not the U.S. gang — were the criminals here. The blatancy of America’s being a regime instead of a democracy is obvious (after all, America stole Iran in 1953 and has been trying to grab it back ever since Iran finally broke away in 1979), and Biden’s pretense to being in a better category than Trump is based on lies that only fools could believe.

And then there’s Syria. 

On January 23rd, Zero Hedge — linking to reliable online sources — headlined “A Large US Military Convoy Rolled Into Syria On 1st Day Of Biden Presidency”. Not only is the new U.S. President Joe Biden intensifying America’s invasion of Syria, but he is preparing to increase the theft of oil that his predecessor Trump began in Syria after Trump’s predecessor Obama had begun America’s attempted conquest of Syria in 2012.

Among the sources which were linked to, in that news-report, is Syrian National News Agency (SANA), which — in the past — has proven to have been truthful, about the war, far more often than standard U.S. and other anti-Syrian ‘journalism’ has been shown to have been. SANA reported, on January 21st (Biden’s first day as U.S. President) that:

The so-called US-led international coalition has sent weapons and logistical materials to its illegitimate bases in Hasaka countryside.

Local sources told SANA that a convoy consisted of 40 trucks loaded with weapons and logistical materials, affiliated to the so-called international coalition have entered in Hasaka countryside via al-Walid illegitimate border crossing with north of Iraq, to reinforce illegitimate bases in the area. 

Over the past few days, helicopters affiliated to the so-called international coalition have transported logistical equipment and heavy military vehicles to Koniko [Conoco] oil field in northeastern Deir Ezzor countryside, after turning it into military base to reinforce its presence and loot the Syrian resources.

That oil field had been heavily contested during 2016 between Syria’s Government (which owns it) and ISIS, until U.S. President Barack Obama bombed Syria’s troops who were protecting it, and immediately ISIS forces moved in, and took it over (as was Obama’s intention). That oil facility promptly became the chief source of income for ISIS’s Syrian operation, to overthrow Syria’s Government.

On 30 April 2017, I had bannered “How Obama & Erdogan Moved ISIS from Iraq to Syria, to Weaken Assad”, and explained:

Chris Tomson of Al Masdar News headlined on Monday May 1st, “Syrian Army tank takes direct hit from ISIS guided missile in Deir Ezzor”[on Sunday, April 30th] and reported that, “Currently, government forces are less than 1500 meters from linking up Deir Ezzor city to its airbase,” which would be an essential link-up in order for the Syrian government to begin to restore control over the largest city in eastern Syria. Here will be the account of how U.S. President Barack Obama handed that city over to ISIS by means of two key actions, so as to weaken Assad’s government.

Today, Der Zor, or Deir Ezzor, Syria’s major oil center, is controlled by ISIS or Daesh, but Obama’s warplanes bombed the Syrian government troops there on 17 September 2016 and thereby ended the then 5-day-old ceasefire that John Kerry had spent months putting together with Sergei Lavrov [Russia’s Foreign Minister], and thus Obama effectively ended all peace negotiations with Russia regarding Syria. Then, when U.S. and Turkish forces attacked ISIS in Mosul Iraq, an escape-path was intentionally left by them for those ISIS jihadists to travel west to Der Zor, so that they could not only take over the oil wells there, but do major damage to the Syrian government’s army forces in that key city, after Obama had bombed there on September 17th. Consequently, Erdogan and Obama were now using ISIS in Mosul as a means for reinforcing ISIS in Syria, in such a way as to provide oil-income to ISIS and also to directly weaken Assad’s government.

Obama never told anyone that he favored ISIS and all jihadists over Assad’s government, but he showed it clearly and consistently by his actions

12 August 2012 U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency warning[whose original can be seen here] that the Obama Administration’s strategy might drive ISIS from Mosul in Iraq to Der Zor in Syria, has actually been carried out as a plan instead of a warning — a plan to weaken and ultimately oust Syria’s non-sectarian President Bashar al-Assad and replace him with a Sunni Sharia-law regime (one led by jihadists). The 2012 DIA warning had called this scenario an “unraveling,” but Obama and the U.S. Congress actually chose it, so as to set the incoming President Trump up with an opportunity to replace Assad’s government by one that the Sauds and their U.S.-made weapons will control.

Previously, Al Qaeda had been stealing Syria’s oil, and the EU was cooperating with the Obama regime in order to help sell into the EU nations. Syrian troops briefly grabbed it back, but Obama now forced Syria’s Army out and handed that oil-facility to ISIS, so that they could make money from it and continue the job of weakening Syria’s Government.

On 9 March 2019, three years into Trump’s Presidency, I headlined “Syria Accuses U.S. of Stealing 40+ Tons of Its Gold” that ISIS had accumulated from their foreign sales of Syria’s oil. However, now that U.S. President Trump knew that ISIS had been ‘earning’ that much money from selling that oil, he wanted to become the person who would be choosing whom would be funded by Syria’s oil. So, on 30 October 2019, I bannered “How the U.S. Regime ‘Justifies’ the Theft of Syria’s Oil” and reported that

On 26 Oct, the New York Times headlined “Keep the Oil’: Trump Revives Charged Slogan for New Syria Troop Mission” and opened by saying that “in recent days, Mr. Trump has settled on Syria’s oil reserves as a new rationale for appearing to reverse course and deploy hundreds of additional troops to the war-ravaged country.” They closed with a statement from Bruce Riedel, retired from the CIA: “‘Let’s say he does do it,’ Mr. Riedel said. ‘Let’s say we establish the precedent that we are in the Middle East to take the oil. The symbolism is really bad.’” The propaganda-value of a ‘news’-report is concentrated in its opening, and especially in what the ‘reporter’ (fulfilling the intentions of his editors) selected to be at the very end (such as Riedel’s statement). However, is what’s wrong with taking Syria’s oil actually the “symbolism,” as Riedel said, or is it instead the theft — the reality (and why did the NYT pretend that it’s the symbolism)? Nowhere did that NYT article use the word “theft,” or anything like it, but that is the actual issue here — not mere ‘symbolism’.

So, Biden will continue that operation, which Obama had started and Trump continued.

The goal is to hand to the Saud family control over Syria’s government. The Sauds are to select whom the rulers of Syrians will be. That has been the plan ever since the CIA’s second coup, which briefly overthrew Syria’s Government, in 1949. 

And then there’s Julian Assange, who has never been convicted of anything but is being drugged and held in a British maximum-security prison as the latest stage in his decade-long imprisonment-without-conviction for anything. A British judge dropped all charges against him and was keeping him in prison pending a decision by Joe Biden (via Merrick Garland) on whether or not to re-assert Donald Trump’s re-assertion of Barack Obama’s assertion that Assange had stolen (though he never stole) and made public U.S. Government secrets and should be extradited to the U.S. for what everyone expects to be a kangaroo court trial that would end in his execution for having done what Daniel Ellsberg had done in the Pentagon Papers case about the Vietnam War. The international hero, Assange, is to be ‘tried’ in a U.S. court. On February 12th, the New York Times bannered, “Biden Justice Dept. Asks British Court to Approve Extradition of Julian Assange”. Biden continues Trump’s continuation of Obama’s attempt to murder Julian Assange.

Ultimately, Biden’s foreign policies are putting Democratic Party lipstick onto the Republican Party’s pig. That’s his ‘change’, on U.S. foreign policies. 

Just like with Hitler, it’s all fakery, except that (like with Hitler) the evil which motivates it, and which threatens the entire world, is all too real. Whether the U.S. regime will go all the way to yet another World War in order to impose it everywhere (as Hitler aspired to do), is unknown. (Some experts think the signs point that way.) Hitler went that far, but lost his war. And his spirit (minus the anti-Semitism) then took over in Washington, but with ‘kinder’ rhetoric. The results in the nuclear Age would be that everyone would lose. The only way to stop that would be to stop Washington, but that’s a decision which only Washington’s vassal-nations would make — if they will.

And even on his domestic polices, Biden lies in order to serve the priorities of the billionaires who funded his way into the White House. For example, on February 20th, NPR headlined “FACT CHECK: Biden’s Comments On Loan Forgiveness And Elite Colleges” and proved that he was deceiving the public about that issue. He is as corrupt as they come. The stopping of the U.S. aristocracy will either come from abroad, or not at all. It won’t come internally from within the U.S., because the regime doesn’t allow its public to recognize that it’s a regime — an imperialistic aristocracy — instead of  a democracy. It’s more cunning than Hitler was. America’s aristocracy recognizes that in modern times, personification of their regime (in a monarch or other ‘divinely ordained’ individual or “Fuehrer”) produces only a fleeting dictatorship and one that is hard to keep in line or continue with a successor. In modern times, a ‘democratic’ dictatorship has more lasting power. So, that’s what we now have. The spirit of Hitler lives on, in America’s aristocracy.

Author’s note: first posted at Strategic Culture

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending