VN rapport: de VS geeft ISIS de ruimte in door VS illegaal bezet gebied in Syrië.....

Door te zorgen dat IS zich nog in een paar kleine stukken van Syrië kan handhaven, denkt de VS zich een legitimatie te kunnen verschaffen voor haar illegale aanwezigheid in Syrië......

De VS bombardeert IS zogenaamd, maar geeft al een paar dagen van te voren aan waar het gaat bombarderen, zodat IS geen verliezen lijdt....... Dezelfde tactiek gebruikte de VS voor het

voet aan de grond zetten in Syrië en voordat de Russen de democratisch gekozen regering van Syrië te hulp schoot tegen de smerige en barbaarse terreur die IS en andere, door westerse media en politici 'gematigde rebellen' genoemde, terreurgroepen uitoefenden op haar bevolking....... 

Ook in Irak heeft de VS meermaals gebieden gebombardeerd waar letterlijk geen hond aanwezig was (woestijngebied)....... Er zijn zelfs een flink aantal getuigen die hebben gezien dat de VS terreurgroep IS bevoorraadde in Irak.... Voorts heeft de VS meerdere keren IS troepen een vrijgeleide gegeven vanuit Irak en hen begeleid naar Syrisch grondgebied, zodat ze daar het zo door de VS gehate Syrische bewind* konden bestrijden (en ach de mensen die door IS werden gemarteld, verkracht en vermoord, niets meer of minder dan bijkomende schade 'voor het goede doel, moet je maar denken....')....

Toen Rusland begin oktober 2015 Syrië te hulp schoot, werden IS en andere terreurgroepen als Al Qaida Syrië (o.a. al-Nusra), naast de succesvolle strijd tegen deze groepen door de Koerden in Syrië, voor het eerst goed bestreden en bereikten de Russen in een paar maanden tijd meer dan de VS in meer dan een jaar tijd had 'gepresteerd....'**

Het is meer dan duidelijk dat de VS troepen wil behouden in Syrië, niet alleen om Syrië op te kunnen delen en zo de macht van het wettige Syrische bewind te breken, maar ook voor een eventuele aanval op Iran......... (Syrië grenst ook aan Iran)

De plekken waar IS zich nog ophoudt liggen in door de VS beheerst gebied en niet zelden grijpt de VS in als het reguliere Syrische leger IS aanvalt...... De VS heeft zelfs dorpen gebombardeerd die trouw waren aan de door hen gekozen Syrische regering en weigerden doorgang te verlenen aan de door de VS gesteunde terroristen ('rebellen') groepen van o.a. de Qasad militie, bestaande uit strijders die voorheen voor IS terreur uitoefenden op de Syrische bevolking........

Lees het volgende artikel van Whitney Webb over de VN rapportage, eerder geplaatst op MintPress News en ga eens na hoe vaak je de laatste jaren werd belazerd door de reguliere media..... Zie ook de link onder dat artikel naar een keihard gelogen stuk van Remco Anderson in de Volkskrant uit oktober 2015........

ISIS Given ‘Breathing Space’ in US-Occupied Areas of Syria: UN Report

August 15, 2018 at 9:57 pm

Written by Whitney Webb

By maintaining an ISIS pocket in the territory it occupies, the U.S. can continue to justify its illegal presence in the country for the long-term, ultimately substituting Iran for ISIS as its new regional boogeyman.

(MPN Op-ed) — A recent report from the UN Security Council’s Sanctions Monitoring Team has found that many of the places in Syria where the terror group Daesh (ISIS) continues to operate, recuperate and extract oil for profit are in areas of the country occupied by the United States.

According to the report’s executive summary:

“Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), having been defeated militarily in Iraq and most of the Syrian Arab Republic during 2017, rallied in early 2018 [owing to] a loss of momentum by forces fighting it in the east of the Syrian Arab Republic, which prolonged access by ISIL to resources and gave it breathing space to prepare for the next phase of its evolution into a global covert network.”

While the text itself doesn’t explicitly state who controls these areas of Syrian territory, maps of eastern Syria make it clear that the pockets of Daesh within U.S.-controlled territory have remained unchanged in size since November 2017 while the Daesh pockets in the Syrian government-controlled portion of eastern Syria have shrunk considerably since last November.

A map of the territory held by ISIS (grey) at the Syrian-Iraqi border in the U.S. controlled zone north of the Euphrates (yellow). April 24, 2018. Source | Syria Live Map

Furthermore, the UN report states that the areas where Daesh has rallied since the year began are located in “pockets of territory in the Syrian Arab Republic on the Iraqi border” where the group has mounted “attacks, including across the border into Iraq.” Again, area maps clearly show that the Daesh-controlled areas in only the U.S.-occupied portion of eastern Syria are along the Syria-Iraq border.

Notably, in the sliver of Daesh-controlled land between U.S. and Syrian government-controlled areas in the border city of Abu Kamal, when the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) has tried to attack Daesh positions in the area this year, they have been targeted by U.S. coalition airstrikes. U.S. coalition airstrikes have also attacked Syrian civilian villages in the government-controlled portion of Abu Kamal. Survivors of that attack claimed that their villages had been targeted for refusing the entry of the U.S.-backed opposition militias — such as the Qasad militia, which is largely composed of former Daesh fighters.

U.S. coalition airstrikes targeting the SAA in Abu Kamal and elsewhere in eastern Syria have also been the key cause of the “loss of momentum” of forces fighting Daesh that was cited in the UN report, as Syrian forces have declined to advance deep into U.S.-held territory in order to pursue Daesh after being bombed numerous times. In addition, the U.S.’ own bombing campaign against Daesh can hardly be called effective given that the U.S., along with their military proxy the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), frequently announce on social media when and where they will be bombing Daesh in eastern Syria days in advance.

Zana Amed@zana_med

#DeirEzzor - After a short surveillance tour by Gen. Funk, Gen. Jarrard and #SDF commander in Middle Euphrates River Valley heval Çiya yesterday, operation to liberate #Hajin to start today in the evening.#JazeeraStorm

1:17 PM - Jul 13, 2018

• 6
• See Zana Amed's other Tweets

Beyond eastern Syria, the report also notes that another Daesh-infested area of concern is also located farther south in the area around the al-Tanf military base, which has been occupied by the United States since 2016. The UN report raises concerns about the Rukban refugee camp, which lies within the so-called “deconfliction” zone that the U.S. has imposed on a 55-kilometer radius around al-Tanf.

The report states:

“The densely populated Rukban camp in southern Syrian Arab Republic contains some 80,000 internally displaced persons, including families of ISIL fighters, a situation which Member States fear might generate new ISIL cells.”

As with other Daesh-held areas under U.S. “protection,” the U.S. has attacked the SAA for attempting to enter the U.S.’ unilaterally-imposed “deconfliction” zone in an effort to attack Daesh militants.

Washington’s Daesh-Dependent Long-Game

The evidence that the U.S. presence in Syria is actually helping to strengthen Daesh flies in the face of the Pentagon’s justification for the U.S.’ occupation of northeastern Syria as being necessary because the Syrian government is not strong enough to defeat Daesh on its own.

However, as the recent UN report reveals, the Pentagon’s portrayal does not appear to be the reality of the situation.

As MintPress has noted in the past, this finding is hardly surprising given that the Defense Intelligence Agency report from 2012 revealed that the U.S. willingly allowed Daesh to be formed in order to destabilize the Syrian government and partition Syria through foreign military intervention. Since then, the U.S. has adapted its justifications for its presence in Syria, particularly after the failure of Daesh and foreign-funded opposition groups to depose the current government of Syria.

By maintaining a Daesh pocket in the territory it occupies, the U.S. can continue to justify its illegal presence in the country for the long-term. Indeed, just last month, the Trump administration made it clear that the U.S. military plans to stay in Syria for the long haul, substituting Iran for Daesh as its new regional boogeyman.

By Whitney Webb / Creative Commons / MintPress News / Report a typo

==================================

*   De VS is o.a. pissig over de weigering van Syrië om gas- en oliepijpleidingen op haar grondgebied toe te staan, pijpleidingen o.a. vanuit de Verenigde Arabische Emiraten (VAE) richting Turkije en EU.

** Zie: 'Russische en Iraanse hulp voor regime drijft rebellen Syrië in het nauw', een Volkskrant artikel uit 2015 waarin 'journalist' Remco Anderson keihard liegt dat Rusland vanaf het begin alleen de zogenaamde gematigde oppositie bestreed en IS met rust liet........ Terwijl de Volkskrant niet één keer commentaar had op de wel heel 'vreemde tactiek van de VS', zoals die bijvoorbeeld te zien was voor de periode dat Rusland het Syrische volk te hulp schoot.......

Zie ook: 
''De jacht op het kwade', hersenspoeling over de oorlog in Syrië op Canvas'

'Groot-Brittannië stopt steun aan 'gematigde rebellen' en zelfs media spreken van terroristen i.p.v. 'rebellen'

VS bezig met voorbereiding van een 'door Syrië' gepleegde gifgasaanval, ofwel de volgende VS false flag operatie

Information Clearing House bracht gisteren een artikel waarin min of meer wordt aangekondigd dat de 'gematigde rebellen' aan de kant van de VS, een gifgasaanval voorbereiden met chlorine. Een grote hoeveelheid, 20 ton chlorine en ontstekers zijn geleverd aan de terreurgroep in al-Tanf.

De bedoeling is om dit gif te gebruiken tegen een dichtbevolkt gebied, waarna de White Helmets (ofwel Al Qaida Syrië) en de hysterische westerse reguliere media met beelden van de slachtoffers de wereld zullen overspoelen ('uiteraard' met zoveel mogelijk kinderen) en de mededeling dat de reguliere Syrische troepen deze aanval hebben uitgevoerd..... Een 'false flag operatie' noemt men een dergelijke 'werkwijze.....'

Ongelofelijk maar waar: alle gifgasaanvallen tot nu toe tijdens de illegale oorlog tegen het Syrische bewind, werden door de westerse media en het overgrote deel van de westerse politici toegewezen aan aan het Syrische bewind..... Dit blijft men volhouden, ondanks dat na onderzoek keer op keer blijkt dat de schuld bij de door het westen aangeduide en gesteunde 'gematigde rebellen' (lees: moordenaars, verkrachters, martelbeulen en.... gebruikers van gifgasaanvallen!)........

Gezien de uitlatingen van o.a. VS ambassadeur bij de VN, hare leeghoofdige kwaadaardigheid Nikki Haley en de uiterst agressieve Trump administratie, zal bij een 'volgende' gifgasaanval 'van het reguliere Syrische leger, of de Russen', de VS ingrijpen en zal Damascus, inclusief het paleis van Assad worden gebombardeerd.......

Haley durfde daar zelfs aan toe te voegen dat men geen rekening zal houden met de aanwezige Russen in Damascus......

Intussen heeft Rusland aangegeven dat het niet zal toezien hoe Damascus of haar onderdanen worden gebombardeerd en heeft beloofd terug te zullen slaan.........

Echter gezien de geschiedenis van het gedrag vertoond door VS coalitie in deze illegale oorlog tegen Syrië, zal er geen rekening worden gehouden met de woorden van de Russische minister van buitenlandse zaken Lavrov en de stafchef van het Russische leger Gerasimov....... Ofwel een oorlog tussen de VS en Rusland is bijna niet te voorkomen.....

US Planning a Terrorist False Flag Chemical Attack in Syria: Russia Says It Will Respond

By Federico Pieraccini

March 20, 2018 "Information Clearing House" -  Events in Syria increasingly resemble a direct confrontation between major powers rather than a proxy war. Lavrov’s words, delivered a few days ago, reveal the critical phase of international relations the world is going through, with a potentially devastating conflict ready to ignite in the Middle East region.

An alarming warning by Sergei Lavrov and Chief of the Russian General Staff, Valery Gerasimov, was announced via the RT broadcaster and several Russian media. The content is explosive and deserving of the widest possible dissemination. Gerasimov claimed that Moscow had "reliable information that fighters are preparing to stage the use by government troops of chemical weapons against the civilian population." He alleged that the US intends to accuse Assad's troops of using chemical weapons against civilians, and then "carry out a bombing attack" on Damascus. Gerasimov warned that Russia would "take retaliatory measures" if the US targeted areas where its military are located in the Syrian capital. 

"Russian military advisers, representatives of the Center for Reconciliation and members of military police" are currently in the Syrian capital, Gerasimov said, adding that in the event that the lives of Russian military personnel are placed in danger, the Russian Armed Forces will respond with certain measure to both “missiles” and their “launchers”. A few hours earlier, Lavrov responded, "criticizing the remarks by the US envoy to the UN, Nikki Haley, about Washington’s readiness to “bomb Damascus and even the presidential palace of Bashar Assad, regardless [of the] presence of the Russian representatives there.” “It is an absolutely irresponsible statement,” the Russian top diplomat added.

The words of Gerasimov are even more dire, since he explains how the United States and its allies are preparing the ground to justify an attack on Syria. According to reports, terrorists stationed in Al-Tanf (an illegal US military base in Syria) received 20 tons of chlorine gas and detonators, disguised as cigarette packs, in order to attack in an area under the control of the terrorists that is densely inhabited by civilians. 

What would then happen is already obvious, with the White Helmets (AKA Al-Qaeda) and mainstream media ready to broadcast the images of the victims of the attack, tugging at the heartstrings of Western viewers otherwise unaware of the conspiracy being played out. Efforts to frame Russia have already reached the highest alert levels, with the false-flag poisoning of the Russian spy in the United Kingdom. It seems that there is a significant effort by the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Germany to provoke a military confrontation with Moscow. How else are we able to interpret threats from Macron to strike Damascus, together with his ominous advice to foreign journalists not to go to Damascus in the coming days and, for those already there, to leave the capital immediately? There has even been chatter within diplomatic circles that suggest that UN personnel are leaving Damascus. This could be psychological warfare, or it could be a prelude to war. With the stakes so high, we cannot afford to ignore any detail, even if it may be disinformation. The American attack seems imminent, with mounting signs of movements of American and Russian warships in the Mediterranean in attack formation.

Russian military representatives have reiterated that in the event of an attack, they will respond by hitting both the missiles launched as well as the ships from which the missiles were launched. Things are getting pretty dicey, and the risk of a direct confrontation between the United States and the Russian Federation are rising with every passing hour. The transfer of numerous US aircraft from Incirlik, Turkey, to Al-Azrak, Jordan, is another indication of preparations for an attack, since the forces moved to Jordan are close to the Al-Tanf base. The proposed strategy could involve an assault on the city of Daraa, for the purposes of securing the borders between Syria and Jordan and Syria and Israel.

The warnings raised by Lavrov and Gerasimov appear unprecedented, given that they detail a plan already set in course, evidently approved at the highest levels and aimed at provoking and justifying an attack on Syria; and attack that would encompass the Russian forces in Syria. Tensions continue to grow, following Russia’s shooting down of a drone by two surface-to-air missiles launched from its Hmeimim Air Base. Moscow has even deployed to the Mediterranean the Admiral Grigorovich-class frigate Admiral Essen and the Krivak II-class anti-submarine frigate Pytivyy. Both are prepared for anti-ship and anti-submarine operations. Sources claim that this deployment was planned some time ago and is part of a routine deployment of the Russian navy. But during such a delicate moment, it pays to focus on every detail. Without resorting to excessive alarmism, if Lavrov said that “the movements of the warships of the United States and its allies in the Mediterranean seem compatible with the strategy of using this chemical attack to justify an attack on the Syrian Arab army and government installations”, then it is reasonable to speculate on whether the Russian ships are moving in to the area to counter any provocations.

There are two fundamental flaws in the reasoning of US policy-makers and the US military establishment. They are convinced that an American demonstration of strength (involving a large number of cruise missile launched against Syria through a significant involvement of aircraft carriers as well as bombers) would stun Russia into passivity. Furthermore, US military generals are convinced that Syria and Russia do not have the ability to defend themselves for an extended period of time. They seem to be fooling themselves with their own propaganda. As their Israeli colleagues have already learned, such an assumption is mistaken. While the idea that a high level of firepower would meet with some kind of success, the possibility of a response from Syrian and Russian forces remains. And this possibility seems not to have been given sufficient weight by the US and her allies.

How would the American military and the Trump presidency react to a US warship being sunk by anti-ship missiles? It would only serve to demonstrate how vulnerable American naval forces are when confronted with such advanced weapons. It would represent a tremendous shock for the US military, possibly the biggest shock since the end of WWII. What would Trump and the generals in charge do? 

They would respond with further bombardment of Russian forces, leaving themselves open to a devastating Russian response. The conflict could escalate within the space of a few minutes, leading to a situation where there could be no possible winners.

The normal reasoning I employ when considering total annihilation is placed to one side when US special forces deliver 20 tons of chlorine gas to Al Qaeda terrorists in Syria order to execute a false flag for the purposes of blaming Damascus and Moscow. If we connect this event to what is currently happening in the United Kingdom, and the hysteria in the United States surrounding alleged Russian hacking during the American elections, we can understand just how much international relations have deteriorated. This situation is reminiscent of Ukraine in 2015. Ukrainian forces suffered repeated defeats at the hands of the Donbass resistance, being contained in the thousands in different “cauldrons. Within NATO headquarters in Brussels during that time, there were open discussion over sending a contingent to support Ukrainian troops. The plan, however, was never realized, given the possibility of direct confrontation in Ukraine between the Russian Federation and NATO.

In recent months, the possibility of a war on the Korean Peninsula has also been evoked and perhaps simultaneously averted by the unpredictable consequences for both Seoul and the American forces in the region.

In Syria, the approach of Washington and its diplomatic and military emissaries seems more reckless and less tied to a chain of command where the buck stops at the American president. It seems that the US deep state in Syria has a greater and more hidden control over American forces, sabotaging every agreement made between Moscow and Washington. We saw this during the Obama presidency, where the US Air Force bombed government troops in Deir ez-Zor only a few hours after a ceasefire had been reached between Lavrov and Secretary of State Kerry.

The grave circumstance about which we write seem to be without precedent, seeming as they do to lead towards a direct confrontation between nuclear-armed powers. Alas, in such circumstances, we can only hope for the best but prepare for the worst; we can only wait to read on the mainstream media notifications of the latest chemical attack in Syria. We can only hope that there is someone in Washington retaining enough sense to factor in the devastating consequences of an attack on Damascus and the Russian forces in the region.

Never before has the region been on the verge of such an explosion as in the next few hours -- as a result of the typically reckless actions of the United States.

Federico Pieraccini : Independent freelance writer specialized in international affairs, conflicts, politics and strategies.

This article was originally published by "Strategic Culture Foundation" -
==============================

Zie ook: 'Oost-Ghouta >> 'gematigde rebellen' schieten op vluchtende burgers, aldus VN....... Aandacht in Nederlandse media nul komma nada....' (waar me het nog meeviel dat deze media niet hebben gemeld dat Syrische troepen op de vluchtelingen schoten, zoals in Oost-Aleppo gebeurde, waarover je rustig kan zeggen dat dit een false flag operatie was)

        en: 'VS agressie in Syrië voorzien van een vooropgezet plan.......'

        en: 'Rusland voorspelde 'de gifgasaanval' in Oost-Ghouta en de reactie daarop van de VS.....'

        en: 'Rusland beschuldigd GB van het regisseren gifgasaanval Douma en zegt daar bewijzen voor te hebben'

        en: 'In Douma vond geen gifgasaanval plaats aldus gelauwerd journalist Robert Fisk.....'

        en: 'OPCW team in Douma stelt dat Syrië en Rusland niets hebben veranderd dan wel verwijderd op de plaats van de 'gisfgasaanval''

        en: 'The Guardian met propaganda over Syrië, die zo uit Orwells 1984 zou kunnen komen......'

        en: 'De OPCW inspecteurs en hun werk in Douma n.a.v. 'gifgasaanval...''

        en: ''False flag terror' bestaat wel degelijk: bekentenissen en feiten over heel smerige zaken..........'

        en: 'Oost-Ghouta: MSM leugens ofwel het zoveelste geval van 'fake news' lekt weg uit uit de massamedia'

        en: 'VS: oud-geheime dienst medewerkers en inlichtingen veteranen waarschuwen Trump en de wereld voor een oorlog met Iran........'

        en: 'Wereld Oorlog III: is deze nog te ontwijken?'

Trumps buitenlandbeleid heeft de wereld naar de rand van WOIII gebracht.......

Volkomen terecht waarschuwt Darius Shahtahmasebi de wereld voor het gevaar van het 'buitenlandbeleid' dat de Trump administratie voert.

Met veel voorbeelden geeft Shahtahmasebi aan dat de VS ons op de rand van Wereldoorlog III heeft gebracht en er niet veel voor nodig is om deze oorlog daadwerkelijk te laten losbarsten......

Waar blijven de demonstraties tegen het terreurbeleid van de VS, die ons steeds dichter bij WOIII brengen???

Verdere woorden overbodig, lees en oordeel zelf:

How Donald Trump’s Policies Have Brought Us to the Brink of World War 3

February 20, 2018 at 11:55 

Written by Darius Shahtahmasebi

(ANTIMEDIA Op-ed) — On February 7, 2018, the U.S.-led coalition in Syria conducted air and artillery strikes against what were believed to be pro-government forces in response to an “unprovoked attack” launched by these pro-regime troops. Not long after, reports began emerging that significant numbers of Russian personnel were included in the over 100 dead and wounded. While Russia denied this at first, eventually, the accepted version of events on both sides was that there were some Russian nationals who did lose their lives in Syria. These Russians are arguably mercenaries and contractors, not official troops.

This is not the first time the U.S.-led coalition has struck pro-government forces in Syria. Aside from Donald Trump’s grandiose strike on a Syrian airbase in April of last year, U.S. forces also conducted multiple strikes against Syrian and Iranian-backed forces as these factions began to encircle the American military’s presence at a base in al-Tanf.

Donald Trump has famously relaxed the Obama-era restrictions on calling in airstrikes, meaning commanders on the battlefield can call in airstrikes at their disposal without any oversight. Previously, an airstrike could not be launched on a whim and was required to go through certain protocols before it could be delivered. Now, even associated forces can call in American airstrikes on the battlefield. The most infamous example of this is when Iraqi commanders called in a U.S. strike that ended up killing well over 200 civilians in a single bombardment.

Barely a week after Trump’s Syria strike in April, the U.S. military dropped a $450,000 bomb in Afghanistan dubbed the “Mother of all bombs” (MOAB). It soon transpired that the decision to drop the bomb was not made by Trump himself as commander-in-chief but by Gen. John Nicholson, commander of the U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

It’s time to ask yourself: Are you comfortable with commanders on the battlefield calling in airstrikes even if those airstrikes could potentially kill personnel on the ground belonging to another nuclear power?

Last Tuesday, Wisconsin Democrat Mark Pocan told the Nation that “Congress has never authorized force against Syrian, Turkish, Yemeni Houthi, Russian, Iranian, or North Korean forces. Yet reportedly, a secret administration memo may claim the legal justification to do just that: attack Syrian, North Korean, and other forces without any congressional authorization.” [emphasis added]

According to Lawfare, a lawsuit required the government to reveal a list of documents relating to the April Syria strike, but not the actual documents themselves. The court-ordered directions forced the government to reveal that the seven-page secret memo Pocan was referring to was drafted up by administration lawyers on April 6, 2017, just before Trump’s infamous strike. The government’s declarations revealed that only a few of the words on one of the memo’s pages are classified, and they are related to facts, not legalities. Still, the administration refuses to disclose the memo to the public, claiming the document is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.

“I am also concerned that this legal justification may now become precedent for additional executive unilateral military action, including this week’s U.S. airstrikes in Syria against pro-Assad forces or even an extremely risky ‘bloody nose’ strike against North Korea,” Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va) said last week.

In early February, the Pentagon released its much anticipated 2018 Nuclear Posture Review. From the Washington Post’s Katrina vanden Heuvel’s assessment:

“The review reaffirms the United States is ready to use nuclear weapons first in an alarmingly wide range of scenarios. It remains ‘the policy of the United States to retain some ambiguity regarding the precise circumstances’ that might lead to a nuclear response. The United States reserves the right to unleash nuclear weapons first in ‘extreme circumstances’ to defend the ‘vital interests’ not only of the United States but also of its ‘allies and partners’ — a total of some 30 countries. ‘Extreme circumstances,’ the review states explicitly, include ‘significant non-nuclear attacks,’ including conventional attacks on ‘allied or partner civilian population or infrastructure.’ The United States also maintains a ‘portion of its nuclear forces’ on daily alert, with the option of launching those forces ‘promptly.’ [emphasis added]

The U.S. has an active stockpile of at least 4,000 nuclear weapons, rivaled only by Russia. According to the Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), a “limited” regional exchange of nuclear weapons could force one billion people to the point of starvation, and a week-long “regional” encounter could kill far more than died during World War II.

As Albert Einstein famously said, “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”

Heuvel correctly summarized the current nuclear strategy:

“In sum, the United States is building a new generation of nuclear weapons and delivery systems, will deploy more usable nuclear weapons in ‘forward’ areas, remains committed to possible ‘first use’ of nuclear weapons even against non-nuclear attacks in defense of 30 countries, retains missiles on active alert ready to launch, is skeptical of the possibility of any progress in arms control and is hostile to the global movement to make nuclear weapons illegal. All this as tensions with Russia and China rise, relations with North Korea remain literally explosive, and the nuclear deal with Iran stays under constant assault from the president.”

One thing we do know is that the U.S. is openly considering nuclear strikes in response to cyber-attacks, which could be conducted by anyone from lone-wolf hackers to Iran, North Korea, Russia, or China. We also know that the Trump administration has been weighing a “limited” strike on North Korea for some time now, even as North and South Korea pursue a peaceful dialogue of their own. Even now, the U.S. continues to position nuclear-capable B-52 and B-2 bombers around the Korean peninsula. The B-2 is the most advanced bomber in the United States air force, capable of dropping the military department’s biggest bomb, which weighs in at around 14,000 kilograms.

This is a recipe for disaster. Donald Trump isn’t bringing the troops home and focusing on “making America great again.” According to the Department of Defense, American troop deployments to the Middle East had increased 33 percent by the end of last year.

It’s time for both sides of the political coin to confront their delusions and face reality. Donald Trump is by far the most hawkish, trigger-happy president to have ever been sworn into office, which is no easy feat considering his predecessors. His policies are leading the United States down a dangerous path that could see a miscalculated strike on Syria, Russia, Iran, North Korea, or even China — whether by mistake or by design. Considering that strikes have already been underway in Syria against the Syrian government and its allies, including Russia, these policies are likely to lead to something far more explosive down the line.

Creative Commons / Anti-Media / Report a typo

=============================

PS: heb een bericht over de situatie in het Syrische Ghouta in voorbereiding. Ghouta waar de enorme westerse hysterie en hypocrisie in de reguliere media weer eens heeft toegeslagen, dit gesteund door het grootste deel van de westerse politici, terwijl men weet dat de moordenaars, verkrachters en martelbeulen van Al Qaida, al-Nusra (in feite 'Al Qaida Syrië') en als het even kan de White Helmets tekeer gaan tegen de bevolking....... Waar is de kritiek op terreurgroep Al Qaida gebleven?? Alle berichten over 'de slachting' in Ghouta komen dan ook van die terreurgroepen en van Al Qaida's White Helmets, met door hen geregisseerde video's en hoorspelen....... Bij deze (op 25 februari 2018): 'Oost-Ghouta, wat je niet wordt verteld'