Search This Blog

Friday, June 30, 2017

Latest Venezuelan Opposition Coup Attempt Against Maduro Linked to DEA, CIA

More than 80 people miraculously avoided injury or death in a helicopter attack that targeted Venezuelan government buildings this week. The attack may have been part of an attempted coup supported by the U.S. as it seeks to topple Venezuela’s government to gain access to its massive oil reserves.
June 30, 2017 “Information Clearing House” – CARACAS– Opposition efforts to topple Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro’s government are rapidly heating up, as months upon months of opposition protests have failed to make the inroads desired by the more extremist elements of the opposition and their foreign backers, particularly the United States.
With the current regime still hanging on to power despite years of economic sabotage and the funneling of millions from the U.S. to right-wing Venezuelan opposition parties, those determined to see Maduro removed from power have now turned to more drastic, violent measures in order to spark a coup.
We’re revolutionizing the news industry, but we need your help! Click here to get started.
On Tuesday, one of the more dramatic incidents of the most recent phase of the Venezuelan crisis took place when a stolen police helicopter opened fire on the Supreme Court and the Interior Ministry. At the time the attack occurred – about 5 p.m. local time – there were an estimated 80 people still inside the Interior Ministry and the Supreme Court was in session. No deaths or injuries were reported, a fact that the Venezuelan government attributed to a quick response by national guard forces, who repelled the attacking helicopter before it could do more damage.
Maduro condemned the attack soon after it occurred, calling it a “terrorist attack” that “could have caused dozens of deaths.” Ernesto Villegas, Venezuela’s Communications and Information Minister, stated that the attack was intended to be part of an attempted coup led by extremist groups within the opposition, with full U.S. government support said to be behind them.
Villegas’ assertion that the U.S. was involved in this attack is not based on mere speculation. Pérez has been known to work for Miguel Rodríguez Torres, a former general and former minister of Venezuela’s Department of Interior Relations, Justice and Peace who is currently being investigated for his ties to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the CIA. The charges first surfaced when the Venezuelan news agency Últimas Noticias obtained an official DEA document that described Rodríguez Torres as a “key information provider” for the agency and recommended that he be secured as a protected source for the DEA and U.S. government. It also noted that 40 percent of his assets and wealth are held in the U.S. under his wife’s name.
The U.S. has long sought to oust the left-wing regime that was brought to power in Venezuela by Hugo Chávez in the late 1990s. Since Chávez’s election, the U.S. is believed to have spent between $50 to $60 million to strengthen the country’s right-wing opposition in the hope that they would win elections. Former U.S. President Barack Obama alone dedicated $5 million to “support political competition-building efforts” in Venezuela.
More recently, the U.S. Senate has been mulling over new legislation that would provide an additional $20 million for “democracy promotion” efforts in Venezuela. However, some of these efforts in the past have led to right-wing politicians and their affiliates paying protesters in cash to violently escalate opposition rallies.
Such rallies have turned increasingly violent in recent weeks, with three people burned alive by opposition protesters just in the last week. Journalists have also been targeted, with some being directly shot at and others threatened with being lynched or set aflame. Despite the violence, the Venezuelan opposition is likely to continue receiving funding from the U.S., which is eager to gain control of Venezuela’s oil reserves – the largest in the world – no matter the cost.
Whitney Webb is a MintPress contributor who has written for several news organizations in both English and Spanish; her stories have been featured on ZeroHedge, the Anti-Media, 21st Century Wire, and True Activist among others – she currently resides in Southern Chile.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.
Click for SpanishGermanDutchDanishFrench, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.

Israel reads the words of Nasrollah and the campaign discloses the allies «الإسرائيلي» يقرأ نصرالله والحملة تكشف الحلفاء

 Israel reads the words of Nasrollah and the campaign discloses the allies

Written by Nasser Kandil,
يونيو 30, 2017يونيو 30, 2017
The commentator who is known for his focus on the Arabs affairs in the “Walla ” site, Avi Issacharoff remarked that the series of the recent developments in the war between the Syrian army and the militants indicates that the relative comfort which Israel was interested from the northern front is getting reduced, in other words, the defeat of ISIS is foreshadowing of probable escalation in the north between Israel and the Syrian army and surely Hezbollah. Issacharoff added that what he called as the last years of the Syrian war have driven Hezbollah to restrict its resources and its capacities for a confrontation with Israel. But in the recent weeks it seemed that this behavior has been changed and the balance has become in favor of the soldiers of the President Bashar Al-Assad, Hezbollah, and Iran. The battles in Mosul in Iraq are getting closer from the end, and it is clear that Raqqa the capital of ISIS in Syria will be the next battle. The Syrian army has achieved notable successes as in Deir Al-Zour in the northern of Syria. Avi Issacharoff indicates that what he called as the different military militias whether those who support Al-Assad or the militants are racing in order to reach the areas from which ISIS withdraws, including the areas which worry Israel more than anything and worry its neighbor from the east Jordan, indicating in this context to the battles which are taking place in Daraa and in the Syrian Golan
While Avi Issacharoff was talking about reflective shells against Israel from time to time, he excluded that there is an intended Syrian shooting, considering that the main Israeli fear is not from sending mortar bombs, however “the most important threat” according to the description of Issacharoff and which its source is the approaching of the allies of the President Al-Assad from the borders with Jordan and the Occupied Palestine. He revealed that there is a coordination with Jordan, but he pointed out that that it is doubtful whether this coordination can prevent or stop what he called the forces supported by Iran specially Hezbollah and its allies of Pakistani, Iraqi, or Afghani origins from approaching the borders with the Israeli entity, adding that what he called as the axis of Hezbollah is progressing while ISIS in no longer exist in this region, concluding that informal Israeli behavior which says” we wish success to the two parties” has become less relevant to the reality after the important successes of one of the parties.
Avi Issacharoff concluded that “the reflection of these successes in Syria and Iraq can be seen and heard in the recent days in Lebanon through the enthusiastic declarations of the Secretary-General of Hezbollah Al Sayyed Hassan Nasrollah who has promised that in the next war with Israel, the airspaces will be open in front of thousands and maybe hundreds of thousands of fighters from all the Arab and the Islamic countries to participate.
Avi Issacharoff is the Middle East analyst for The Times of Israel. Many radio and TV shows host him as a commenter on the Middle East affairs, until 2012, he was the Palestinian and Arab affairs correspondent for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, moreover, he is a lecturer in the contemporary Palestinian history at Tel Aviv University, he got a bachelor degree with excellence from Ben-Gurion University in the sciences of the Middle East, and got MA from Tel Aviv University in the same subject. He is fluent in Arabic; he is considered the closest analyst to express the military and the security concern and put it to circulation before public opinion. He occupied the position cherished by the famous analyst Ze’ev Schiff until his departure in 2006. His two books which won Israeli awards are “The Seventh War” and “34 Days: Israel, Hezbollah, and the War in Lebanon” they are the most important references for reading the military and the strategic variables that surround Israel’s security.
When you read Issacharoff and listen to Al-Arabiya TV and when you re-read the Saudi campaign in the newspapers funded by Riyadh about the same subject, about what was called by Issacharoff as the echo of the major shifts which threaten the security of Israel entitled Hezbollah, through the words of Al Sayyed Hassan Nasrollah about opening the borders and the airspaces. And when Al Sayyed indicated in his speech to two major shifts that prove the threat, the position of the Popular Crowd and the status of Ansar Allah in the resistance axis, which means common axis with Hezbollah, because the two leaderships of the two teams issued a clear announcement to support Hezbollah in any forthcoming war, and surpassing the borders of the alliance in facing common dangers and the related fate. So after understanding all of that, we conclude that the campaign which targets Hezbollah and the words of Al Sayyed Nasrollah become understood as meeting a request or a decision which started as an Israeli and turned to be American and then it reached to Lebanon and we heard its echoes, but the words of the speech of Al Sayyed are clear, while according to them when the war takes place and if Israel makes an aggression, then there are no place for conditions because the issue becomes the sovereignty of Lebanon, as though, if the aggression occurs it will not affect the sovereignty, so the concern of the objectors is no longer to respond to the assault on sovereignty, but to restrict the confrontation with what does not disturb Israel or confuse it, or maybe it deters it under the pretext of sovereignty, so they volunteered to deter Hezbollah and that was their mission.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,
(Visited 5 times, 1 visits today)

«الإسرائيلي» يقرأ نصرالله والحملة تكشف الحلفاء

ناصر قنديل

يونيو 28, 2017

– ذكر معلّق الشؤون العربية في موقع «والاه»، آفي يساسخاروف، أن «سلسلة التطورات الأخيرة في الحرب بين الجيش السوري والمسلحين، تشير الى أن مساحة الراحة النسبية التي ملكتها «إسرائيل» على الجبهة الشمالية تتقلّص، وبعبارة أخرى، إن هزيمة «داعش» نفسها، قد تنبئ بتصعيد محتمل في الشمال بين «إسرائيل» وبين الجيش السوري وبالطبع حزب الله.» وأضاف يساسخاروف، أن ما أسماه «السنوات الأخيرة من الحرب السورية دفعت الى تقييد حزب الله بموارده وطاقته أمام مواجهة مع «إسرائيل»، لكن في الأسابيع الأخيرة بدا أن هذا التوجّه تبدّل والميزان يميل لصالح جنود الرئيس بشار الأسد، وحزب الله وإيران. فالمعارك في الموصل في العراق على وشك الانتهاء، ومن الواضح أن التالية ستكون الرقة، عاصمة «داعش» في سورية. حتى على حلبات أخرى فقد سجّل الجيش السوري نجاحات بارزة، مثل منطقة دير الزور شمال الدولة. ويشير آفي يساسخاروف الى أن ما أسماه «الميليشيات العسكرية المختلفة»، سواء المؤيدة للأسد أم المسلحون له، تتسابق الآن على المناطق التي ينسحب منها «داعش»، وبطبيعة الحال منها المنطقة التي تقلق «إسرائيل» أكثر من كل شيء وتقلق أيضًا جارتها من الشرق، الأردن، مشيراً في هذا السياق، إلى المعارك التي تجري في منطقة درعا وكذلك في الجولان السوري.

– وفيما تحدّث يساسخاروف عن وجود قذائف مرتدة نحو الجانب «الإسرائيلي» من حين الى آخر، استبعد أن يكون هنالك إطلاق نار سوري مقصود، معتبراً أنّ الخشية «الإسرائيلية» الأساسية ليست من انزلاق قذائف هاون، وإنما «التهديد الأكثر أهمية»، وفق وصف المعلق يساسخاروف، مصدره اقتراب حلفاء الرئيس الأسد الى الحدود مع الأردن، ومع فلسطين المحتلة، كاشفاً عن وجود تنسيق مع الأردن في هذا الموضوع، لكنه أشار الى أنه من المشكوك فيه إذا كان هذا التنسيق يمكنه أن يمنع أو يوقف اقتراب من أسماها القوات المدعومة من إيران، خصوصاً حزب الله وحلفاءه من القوات ذات الأصول الباكستانية، العراقية، أو الأفغانية الى الحدود مع الكيان «الإسرائيلي»، مضيفاً أنّ ما أسماه بـ«محور حزب الله» يتقدّم بينما تنظيم «داعش» غير موجود في هذه المنطقة، وخالصاً الى أنّ «السلوك الإسرائيلي غير الرسمي الذي يقول: «نتمنّى النجاح للطرفين» أصبح أقلّ ذي صلة بالواقع على ضوء النجاحات المهمة لأحد الأطراف».

– وختم آفي يساسخاروف الى أنّ «انعكاس هذه النجاحات في سورية والعراق يمكن أن نراها ونسمعها في الأيام الأخيرة في لبنان، من خلال التصريحات الحماسية لأمين عام حزب الله حسن نصرالله الذي تعهّد أنه في الحرب المقبلة مع «إسرائيل» ستفتح الأجواء «أمام آلاف، وربما مئات آلاف المقاتلين من الدول العربية والإسلامية كلها، الذين سيصلون للمشاركة فيها.»

– يساسخاروف للذين لا يعرفون الإسم هو محلل شؤون الشرق الأوسط في صحيفة «تايمز أوف إسرائيل»، كما وتستضيفه برامج إذاعية وتلفزيونية عدة كمعلّق على شؤون الشرق الاوسط. حتى عام 2012 شغل يساسخارف وظيفة مراسل الشؤون العربية في صحيفة «هارتس» بالإضافة الى كونه محاضراً في التاريخ الفلسطيني المعاصر في جامعة تل أبيب. تخرّج بامتياز من جامعة بن غوريون مع شهادة بكالوريوس في علوم الشرق الأوسط واستمرّ للحصول على ماجيستير امتياز من جامعة تل أبيب في هذا الموضوع. كما ويتكلم يساسخاروف العربية بطلاقة، ويعتبر المحلل الأقرب للتعبير عن هواجس الجهات العسكرية والأمنية وطرحها للتداول أمام الرأي العام، ويحتلّ المكانة التي احتكرها المحلل الشهير زئيف شيف حتى رحيله عام 2006. وكتابا يساسخاروف اللذان نالا جوائز «إسرائيلية»، هما: «كيف نربح الحرب القادمة»، و«33 يوماً من الحرب مع حزب الله»، يعتبران المرجعين الأهمّ لقراءة المتغيرات العسكرية والاستراتيجية المحيطة بأمن «إسرائيل».

– عندما تقرأ يساسخاروف وتسمع قناة «العربية» وتعيد قراءة الحملة السعودية في الصحف المموّلة من الرياض والموضوع واحد، ما أسماه يساسخاروف بصدى التحوّلات الكبرى التي تهدّد أمن «إسرائيل» وعنوانها حزب الله، والدليل عنده كلام السيد حسن نصرالله عن فتح الحدود والأجواء. وقد أشار السيد ممهّداً لكلامه لتحوّلين كبيرين يجعلان التهديد في مكانه، موقع الحشد الشعبي ومكانة أنصار الله، في محور المقاومة والقصد محور مشترك مع حزب الله، والتحوّلان حديثان لجهة ما صدر عن قيادتي الفريقين من إعلان واضح لعزمهما الوقوف مع حزب الله في أيّ حرب مقبلة، وتخطّي حدود التحالف في مواجهة مخاطر مشتركة ومصير مترابط الحلقات، عندما نفهم كلّ ذلك تصير الحملة التي تستهدف حزب الله وكلام السيد نصرالله مفهومة كتلبية لطلب وقرار بدأ «إسرائيلياً» وصار أميركياً وتعمّم ووصلت اصداؤه إلى لبنان. فبدأنا نسمع بعض الأصوات، بينما الكلام واضح في نص خطاب السيد، عندما تقع الحرب وإذا شنت «إسرائيل» عدواناً، فسقطت عندهم الاشتراطات وصارت القضية عندهم سيادة لبنان، كأن العدوان قد وقع ووقوعه لا يصيب السيادة، وصار هم المعترضين ليس ردّ الاعتداء على السيادة بل حصر المواجهة بما لا يزعج «إسرائيل» ويربكها أو ربما يردعها بذريعة السيادة، فتطوّعوا لردع حزب الله، وتلك هي مهمتهم.


(Visited 4٬948 times, 297 visits today)

Related

Ex-Saudi Crown Prince under House Arrest after Royal Reshuffling: Report

Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Nayef and Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman
The deposed crown prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Nayef, has reportedly been put under house arrest after the recent reshuffling in the country’s royal succession.
On Wednesday, the New York Times cited four current and former American officials and Saudis close to the royal family as saying on condition of anonymity that Mohammed bin Nayef has been barred from leaving the country and confined to his palace in the coastal city of Jeddah.
The guards at Mohammed bin Nayef’s palace in Jidda have reportedly been replaced by guards loyal to Mohammed bin Salman and Nayef has not been allowed to leave his palace since then, the report said.
On June 21, Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud issued a royal decree to replace Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef bin Abdulaziz Al Saud with his own son. According to the decree, the 31-year-old crown prince is also named deputy prime minister and shall maintain his post as defense minister.
The Saudi internal security services have apparently taken the measure in an attempt to limit any potential opposition for the new crown prince Mohammed bin Salman, the NY report said.
The new restrictions were imposed almost immediately after Mohammed bin Salman’s promotion, the report added.
This is while Saudi state news outlets have extensively tried to portray a smooth transition by repeatedly broadcasting a video showing Mohammed bin Salman kissing the hand of Mohammed bin Nayef, who wishes him well.
The Saudi Information Ministry officials could not immediately be reached for comment and it is unclear how long the restrictions will remain in place.
However, a senior Foreign Ministry official who spoke with the NY on the phone described the account as “baseless and false.”
A senior US official said the restriction show that the new crown prince does not tolerate “any opposition.” “He does not want any rear-guard action within the family. He wants a straight elevation without any dissent — not that MBN (Mohammed bin Nayef) was plotting anything anyway.”
American officials have not had any formal contact with Mohammed bin Nayef so far, but they are monitoring the situation closely, the official said.
The restrictions have also been imposed on Mohammed bin Nayef’s daughters, the report said. A married daughter was reportedly told to stay at home, but her husband and their children do not face that restriction.
The power struggle inside the House of Saud came to light earlier this year when the Saudi king began to overhaul the government and offered positions of influence to a number of family members.
Young Mohammed bin Salman was little known both at home and abroad before Salman became king in January 2015.
However, King Salman has significantly increased the powers of his favored son, with observers describing the prince as the real power behind his father’s throne.
As the defense minister, Mohammed bin Salman has faced strong international criticism for the bloody military campaign he launched against neighboring Yemen in 2015 amid rivalry with bin Nayef, the then crown prince and interior minister.
Mohammed bin Salman, according to analysts, appears to have orchestrated the Persian Gulf diplomatic crisis, which has seen a Saudi-led bloc of countries cut ties with Qatar and impose an economic siege on the country.
The diplomatic spat broke out days after a summit in Riyadh attended by US President Donald Trump, a staunch supporter of Saudi rulers and, in particular, Mohammed bin Salman.
Source: Websites
Related Videos
Related Articles

مصر نحو «كامب ديفيد» ثانية


اجتماع أمني و سري رفيع بالقاهرة بحضور إسرائيلي وسعودي والملفمستقبل غزة

د. وفيق إبراهيم

يونيو 30, 2017

انتظرت مصر طويلاً تنفيذ مشروع مارشال أميركي اقتصادي يضعها في خانة الدول المتقدّمة، حسب ما وعدها الأميركيون عشيّة توقيع مصر معاهدة «كامب ديفيد» مع «إسرائيل» في 1979. هذه المعاهدة التي أخرجتها من الصراع العربي «الإسرائيلي»، وأطاحت النظام العربي العام على هامشيّته وزعزعت استقرارها.

مصر اليوم تتّجه إلى كامب ديفيد جديد أخطر من سابقه، ويضعها في خدمة المشروع «الإسرائيلي» السعودي مع وعود بتقديمات اقتصادية تفكّ لها تعثّرها. ومجدّداً، تقع مصر ضحية الوعود الخيالية، ولا تكتفي بوقوعها ضحية مشروع مارشال كامب ديفيد الأولى، فها هي تندفع للسقوط في لعبة كامب ديفيد الثانية، وبعد 38 عاماً على توقيع المعاهدة الأولى التي لم تُفضِ إلّا إلى انهيار مصر ومعها العالم العربي.

اقتصادياً، يقبع خمسون في المئة من المصريين تحت خط الفقر، إلى جانب 25 في المئة من الفقراء.. أمّا الباقون فيتوّزعون بين أقليّة تنهب البلاد وتعينها طبقة وسطى لا تتجاوز 15 في المئة. ينعكس هذا التدهور الاقتصادي على الوضع الاجتماعي السياسي، فيصبح المصريون قابلين للانضواء ضمن أُطر معادية للنظام، كما يعمل قسم منهم في خدمة الأزمات الإقليمية.. فهل يمكن للأدوار الأميركية السعودية «الإسرائيلية» أن تغطي هذا الانهيار؟ أم أنّها ذاهبة مجدّداً للإدمان على مسكّنات لا قدرة لها على علاج فقرها البنيوي؟

تنقسم مصر إلى تيار يؤمن «بمصرنة» مصر ونأيها عن صراعات الإقليم، مقابل عروبة منهكة وأمميّة إخوانية مصابة بالإعياء والإحباط… فشل التيار الأول الذي أسّسه أنور السادات على أساس عزلة مصر،فخسر قيادة العالم العربي من دون أن يربح وضعاً اقتصادياً مريحاً، فيما انزوت العروبة في مربعات من المثقفين الذين يطلقون خطباً «موديل 1960» في القرن الحادي والعشرين، فيبدون فولكلوراً ممجوجاً.

أمّا التيار الأممي الإسلاموي، فأُصيب بضربة عسكرية من المشير السيسي أبعدته عن السلطة واعتقلت الرئيس مرسي الإخواني وزجّت به في غياهب السجن، بتأييد سعودي أميركي.

وهناك تيارات شعبية صغيرة تحاول التأثير على نزق النظام بواسطة التحركات الشعبية والإعلام، لكنّ القمع يدفعها إلى الانزواء… إلى جانب الحركات الصوفية المعتدلة التي تبدو حالياً كمن أُصيب بغيبوبة سياسية، سببها عدم تمركز هذه الحركات في بناء مركزي موحّد، ما أدّى إلى ضمور دورها واقتصاره على الابتهال والتواشيح الدينية.

أمّا الأزهر الشريف، فمقسوم بدوره بين أجنحة موالية للسلطة، وأخرى للسعودية الوهابية، وثالثة للإخوان إلى جانب قوى مستقلّة ليست بذات وزن. لذلك يتجاهل الأزهر الأوضاع الداخلية، رافضاً اتهام الإرهاب بالكفر ومصرّاً على أنّهم يرتكبون أخطاء. ويعتبر أنّ الصراع دائر بين مسلمين، فلا يضيع شيء لمصلحة «الفرنجة والكفار»، على حدّ تعبير شيوخه.

لذلك تستغلّ التنظيمات الإرهابية المشتقة من «القاعدة والإخوان» هذا التفكك لمهاجمة مراكز الجيش المصري وكنائس الأقباط في الصعيد والمحافظات الفلاحية وصحراء سيناء، وحتى المدن والعاصمة. واللافت أنّ الأقباط لا يعملون على أيّ مشروع سياسي تقسيمي قد يبرّر استهدافهم، ما يضع هذه الهجمات في خانة الأعمال الطائفية الصرفة المنسّقة مع «إسرائيل» وواشنطن.

هذا هو المشهد المصري اليوم… انهيار اقتصادي متدحرج يتقاطع مع تراجع هائل في الموارد السياحية والصناعية والزراعية… اضطرابات أمنية متواترة، وعدم استقرار سياسي مقابل علاقات عميقة بواشنطن و»تلّ أبيب».

ولمعالجة هذا التدهور المريع السياسي الاقتصادي الأمني، أعلنت مصر ولاءها للسعودية في قمّة الرياض بزعامة الرئيس الأميركي ترامب. وفي مبادرة لحسن النيّة، أعادت إليها جزيرتي تيران وصنافير في حركة لاقت استياءً مصرياً شعبياً لم يتمكّن حتى الآن من التعبير عن نفسه. كما انضمّت إلى المحور السعودي الإماراتي البحريني المطالب بعزل دولة قطر، وصولاً إلى حدود إلغاء النظام القطري.

ماذا تريد القاهرة من هذا التماهي مع السعودية؟

يبدو أنّها تذهب إلى كامب ديفيد جديد بخلفيّتين: تحسين وضعها الاقتصادي، وضرب الإخوان المسلمين المعتمدين على التحالف القطري التركي. أمّا في العمق، فيبدو أنّها تتأقلم مع مشروع أميركي جديد يبتدئ من الخليج ومصر و»إسرائيل» ليشمل لاحقاً دولاً عربية وإسلامية أخرى.

من ناحية الاقتصاد، تسأل جهات عليمة كيف يمكن للدولة المصرية أن تعتمد على بلاد تراجعت مداخيلها ستين في المئة دفعة واحدة بسبب انخفاض أسعار النفط؟

وكيف يمكن لها المراهنة على ضرب الإخوان المسلمين في قطر، وهم متجذّرون في مصر ويستفيدون من التعثّر السياسي والعسكري والاقتصادي لنظام الرئيس السيسي؟ كما أنّ لتركيا الصّلة الأكبر بالإخوان، وهي تدعمهم في اليمن ومصر وليبيا وتونس ولبنان وسورية والعراق وبلدان أخرى؟

أمّا عن الطموح المصري بضرب أوضاع الغاز في قطر للسماح للشركات الأجنبية بالاستثمار في استخراج الغاز المصري، فهذه عملية تحتاج إلى 15 عاماً كي تستفيد مصر من بيع مواردها الغازيّة.. فهل بوسع الوضع الداخلي المصري الانتظار؟ وإلّا الانفجار؟

مصر السيسي تطمح إلى مسكّنات خليجية وأميركية وأوروبية تعزّز من قابليّتها على انتظار الاستثمار في مواردها الغازيّة، وتعتقد أنّ ضرب الإخوان المسلمين من شأنه تعزيز قدراتها على الإنتاج الزراعي والصناعي والسياحي.

لكنّ الحقيقة أنّ الدولة المصرية ذاهبة للالتحاق بالمحور الأميركي السعودي «الإسرائيلي» في مواجهة إيران وروسيا في حركة تبعيّة قد تُفضي إلى أخطر من النتائج التي رست عليها معاهدة كامب ديفيد الأولى.

فهذا الاستلحاق لا يعني أبداً إمكان تحسّن الوضع الداخلي «للمحروسة» وشعبها، بقدر ما يرتبط بمشاريع القضاء على القضية الفلسطينية والمساعدة في دعم الدور السعودي الإرهابي في الخليج وسورية والعراق وأمكنة أخرى. فواشنطن طامحة إلى تأسيس تحالف شرق أوسطي تقوده السعودية بمعاونة مصرية «إسرائيلية»، ولاحقاً تركية.

فهل ينجح السيسي، حيث فشل السادات ومبارك ومرسي؟

لا شكّ في أنّ المصريين يتّسمون بصفة الصبر، إنّما مع التزامهم بحدود يليها عادة انفجار قد يطيح بالسيسي والإخوان، ويُعيد إلى مصر خطّ انفتاحها التاريخي على بلاد الشام على قاعدة أنّ تحسين أوضاعها رهن بتطوّرها الداخلي، وليس بالاستتباع للخارج الذي نال من هيبة أرض الكنانة.


(Visited 113 times, 113 visits today)

From the horse’s mouth– Syrian Rebels: ‘We Want Peace With Israel, Real Enemy Is Iran’


Breaking Israel News
A leading member of Syria’s political opposition said most Syrians view Iran as the real enemy and not Israel, adding that Israel could do more to help the Syrian people.
“We want peace with Israel, and today, among the opposition in Syria, most people understand that the enemy is Iran and not Israel, so there is a good chance that there will be peace in the future,” said Salim Hudaifa, a former Syrian military officer who serves as a political representative of the opposition’s Free Syrian Army, at the Eurasian Media Forum in Kazakhstan.
Hudaifa is a former intelligence officer who abandoned Syria’s military in the 1990s and eventually gained asylum in Denmark. During the Syrian Civil War, Hudaifa was recruited by the U.S. to head a program to train the Free Syrian Army, but the program was eventually abandoned by the U.S. Defense Department.
“Israel needs to do more and help the rebels. People here are disappointed [with Israel]. There are also quite a few who think that [the Israelis] are helping [Syrian President Bashar] Assad, because they see that the Israeli-Syrian border is quiet,” Hudaifa said during a forum attended by Israeli dignitaries such as Gilead Sher, the Jewish state’s former chief peace negotiator.
“I think [Israel] can be more proactive and help us,” added Hudaifa. “Regarding the treatment of the wounded in your hospitals, it certainly improved Israel’s image in the eyes of Syrians, but only in a limited way. The reason is that the Arab media does not report it.”
Israel is secretly supporting Syrian rebel groups along its border with Syria in the Golan Heights, providing rebels with funds, food, fuel and medical supplies, The Wall Street Journal reported last week.
While Israel has largely refrained from getting involved in the six-year-long civil war, it has periodically carried out airstrikes in Syria when its interests are threatened. These strikes have mainly been against the Lebanese terror group Hezbollah, which is significantly involved in supporting Assad’s regime in the conflict.

Russia-gate Is No Watergate or Iran-Contra

Many comparisons have been made between Russia-gate and the earlier scandals of Watergate and Iran-Contra, but the similarities are at best superficial, explains Robert Parry.
Russia-gate, the sprawling investigation into whether Russia meddled in last year’s U.S. election, is often compared to the two big political scandals of the latter half of the Twentieth Century, Watergate and Iran-Contra. Sometimes you even hear that Russia-gate is “bigger than Watergate.”
Yet what is perhaps most remarkable about those two Twentieth Century scandals is how little Official Washington really understands them – and how these earlier scandals significantly contrast, rather than compare, with what is unfolding now.
Although the historical record is still incomplete on Watergate and Iran-Contra, the available evidence indicates that both scandals originated in schemes by Republicans to draw foreign leaders into plots to undermine sitting Democratic presidents and thus pave the way for the elections of Richard Nixon in 1968 and Ronald Reagan in 1980.
As for Russia-gate, even if you accept that the Russian government hacked into Democratic emails and publicized them via WikiLeaks, there is still no evidence that Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with the Kremlin to do so. By contrast, in the origins of Watergate and Iran-Contra, it appears the Nixon and Reagan campaigns, respectively, were the instigators of schemes to enlist foreign governments in blocking a Vietnam peace deal in 1968 and negotiations to free 52 American hostages in Iran in 1980.
Though Watergate is associated directly with the 1972 campaign – when Nixon’s team of burglars was caught inside the Democratic National Committee offices in the Watergate building – Nixon’s formation of that team, known as the Plumbers, was driven by his fear that he could be exposed for sabotaging President Lyndon Johnson’s Vietnam peace talks in 1968 in order to secure the White House that year.
After Nixon’s narrow victory over Vice President Hubert Humphrey in the 1968 election, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover informed Nixon that Johnson had a secret file, complete with wiretapped phone calls, detailing the Nixon campaign’s backchannel messages to South Vietnamese officials convincing them to boycott Johnson’s Paris peace talks. Later, Nixon learned that this incriminating file had disappeared from the White House.
So, in 1971, after the leaking of the Pentagon Papers, which recounted the lies that had been used to justify the Vietnam War through 1967, Nixon fretted that the missing file about his peace-talk gambit in 1968 might surface, too, and would destroy him politically. Thus, he organized the Plumbers to find the file, even contemplating fire-bombing the Brookings Institution to enable a search of its safe where some aides thought the missing file might be found.
In other words, Watergate wasn’t simply a break-in at the Democratic National Committee on June 17, 1972, in pursuit of useful political intelligence and Nixon’s ensuing cover-up; the scandal had its origins in a far worse scandal, the derailing of peace talks that could have ended the Vietnam War years earlier and saved the lives of tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers and possibly more than 1 million Vietnamese.
Iran-Contra Parallels
Similarly, the Iran-Contra scandal exploded in 1986 with revelations that President Reagan had authorized secret arms sales to Iran with some of the profits going to fund the Nicaraguan Contra rebels, but the evidence now indicates that the connections between Reagan’s team and Iran’s revolutionary regime traced back to 1980 when emissaries from Reagan’s campaign worked to stymie President Jimmy Carter’s negotiations to free 52 American hostages then held in Iran.
According to multiple witnesses, including former Assistant Secretary of State for Middle Eastern Affairs Nicholas Veliotes, the pre-election contacts led to the opening of a weapons pipeline to Iran (via Israel), after Reagan was sworn in on Jan. 20, 1981, which was the precise moment when Iran finally released the American hostages after 444 days.
Some key players in the 1980 Reagan-Iran contacts reappeared four years later at the start of direct (again secret) U.S. arms shipments to Iran in 1985, which also involved Israeli middlemen. These key players included Iranian CIA operative Cyrus Hashemi, former CIA clandestine services chief Theodore Shackley, Reagan’s campaign chief and then-CIA Director William Casey, and former CIA Director and then-Vice President George H.W. Bush.
In other words, the Iran-Contra weapons shipments of 1985-86 appear to have been an outgrowth of the earlier shipments dating back to 1980 and continuing under Israeli auspices until the supply line was taken over more directly by the Reagan administration in 1985-86.
Thus, both the Watergate scandal in 1972 and the Iran-Contra Affair in 1986 could be viewed as “sequels” to the earlier machinations driven by Republican hunger to seize the enormous powers of the U.S. presidency. However, for decades, Official Washington has been hostile to these underlying explanations of how Watergate and Iran-Contra began.
For instance, The New York Times, the so-called “newspaper of record,” treated the accumulation of evidence regarding Nixon’s 1968 peace-talk gambit as nothing more than a “rumor” until earlier this year when a scholar, John A. Farrell, uncovered cryptic notes taken by Nixon’s aide H.R. Haldeman, which added another piece to the mosaic and left the Times little choice but to pronounce the historical reality finally real.
Grasping the Watergate Narrative
Still, the Times and other major news outlets have failed to factor this belated admission into the larger Watergate narrative. If you understand that Nixon did sabotage President Johnson’s Vietnam War peace talks and that Nixon was aware that Johnson’s file on what LBJ called Nixon’s “treason” had disappeared from the White House, the early “Watergate tapes” from 1971 suddenly make sense.
Nixon ordered White House chief of staff H.R. “Bob” Haldeman and National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger to locate the missing file but their search came up empty. Yet, some Nixon aides thought the file might be hidden at the Brookings Institution, a liberal think tank in Washington. So, in his desperate pursuit of the file, Nixon called for a break-in at Brookings, possibly even fire-bombing the building as a cover for his team of burglars to slip in amid the confusion and rifle the safe.
The old explanation that Nixon simply wanted to find some file related to Johnson’s 1968 pre-election Vietnam bombing halt never made sense given the extreme steps that Nixon was prepared to take.
The relevant portions of Nixon’s White House tapes include an entry on June 17, 1971, coincidentally one year to the day before the Watergate burglars were caught. Nixon summoned Haldeman and Kissinger to the Oval Office and pleaded with them again to locate the file.
“Do we have it?” Nixon asked Haldeman. “I’ve asked for it. You said you didn’t have it.”
Haldeman: “We can’t find it.”
Kissinger: “We have nothing here, Mr. President.”
Nixon: “Well, damn-it, I asked for that because I need it.”
Kissinger: “But Bob and I have been trying to put the damn thing together.”
Haldeman: “We have a basic history in constructing our own, but there is a file on it.”
Nixon: “Where?”
Haldeman: “[Presidential aide Tom Charles] Huston swears to God that there’s a file on it and it’s at Brookings.”
Nixon: “Bob? Bob? Now do you remember Huston’s plan [for White House-sponsored break-ins as part of domestic counter-intelligence operations]? Implement it.”
Kissinger: “Now Brookings has no right to have classified documents.”
Nixon: “I want it implemented. Goddamn-it, get in and get those files. Blow the safe and get it.”
Haldeman: “They may very well have cleaned them by now, but this thing, you need to “
Kissinger: “I wouldn’t be surprised if Brookings had the files.”
Haldeman: “My point is Johnson knows that those files are around. He doesn’t know for sure that we don’t have them around.”
But Johnson did know that the file was no longer at the White House because he had ordered his national security adviser, Walt Rostow, to remove it in the final days of Johnson’s presidency.
Forming the Burglars
On June 30, 1971, Nixon again berated Haldeman about the need to break into Brookings and “take it [the file] out.” Nixon suggested using former CIA officer E. Howard Hunt to conduct the Brookings break-in.
“You talk to Hunt,” Nixon told Haldeman. “I want the break-in. Hell, they do that. You’re to break into the place, rifle the files, and bring them in. Just go in and take it. Go in around 8:00 or 9:00 o’clock.”
Haldeman: “Make an inspection of the safe.”
Nixon: “That’s right. You go in to inspect the safe. I mean, clean it up.”
For reasons that remain unclear, it appears that the Brookings break-in never took place (nor did the fire-bombing), but Nixon’s desperation to locate Johnson’s peace-talk file was an important link in the chain of events that led to the creation of Nixon’s burglary unit under Hunt’s supervision. Hunt later oversaw the two Watergate break-ins in May and June of 1972.
While it’s possible that Nixon was still searching for the file about his Vietnam-peace sabotage when the ill-fated Watergate break-ins occurred a year later, it’s generally believed that the burglary was more broadly focused, seeking any information that might have an impact on Nixon’s re-election, either defensively or offensively.
However, if you think back on 1971 when the Vietnam War was tearing the country apart and massive antiwar demonstrations were descending on Washington, Nixon’s desperation to locate the missing file suddenly doesn’t seem quite so crazy. There would have been hell to pay if the public learned that Nixon had kept the war going to gain a political advantage in 1968.
Through 1972 – and the early days of the Watergate scandal – former President Johnson had stayed silent about Nixon’s sabotage of the Paris peace talks. But the ex-President became livid when – after Nixon’s reelection in 1972 – Nixon’s men sought to pressure Johnson into helping them shut down the Watergate investigation, in part, by noting that Johnson, too, had deployed wiretaps against Nixon’s 1968 campaign to obtain evidence about the peace-talk sabotage.
While it’s not clear whether Johnson would have finally spoken out, that threat to Nixon ended two days after Nixon’s second inaugural when on Jan. 22, 1973, Johnson died of a heart attack. However, unbeknownst to Nixon, Johnson had left the missing file, called “The X-Envelope,” in the care of Rostow, who – after Johnson’s death – gave the file to the LBJ presidential library in Austin, Texas, with instructions that it be kept under wraps for at least 50 years. (Rostow’s instructions were overturned in the 1990s, and I found the now largely declassified file at the library in 2012.)
So, with the “The X-Envelope” squirreled away for more than two decades at the LBJ library and with the big newspapers treating the early sketchy reports of Nixon’s peace-talk sabotage as only “rumors,” Watergate remained a scandal limited to the 1972 campaign.
Still, Nixon’s cover-up of his campaign’s role in the Watergate break-in produced enough clear-cut evidence of obstruction of justice and other offenses that Nixon was forced to resign on Aug. 9, 1974.
A Failed Investigation
The 1979-81 hostage confrontation with Iran was not nearly as devastating a crisis as the Vietnam War but America’s humiliation during the 444-day-long ordeal became a focus of the 1980 election, too, with the first anniversary of Iran’s seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran coincidentally falling on Election Day 1980.
President Carter’s failure to gain freedom for the 52 embassy personnel turned what had been a close race into a landslide for Ronald Reagan, with Republicans also gaining control of the U.S. Senate and ousting some of the most influential Democratic senators.
In 1984, Reagan won reelection in another landslide, but two years later ran afoul of the Iran-Contra scandal. Reagan’s secret arms sales to Iran and diversion of profits to the Contras “broke” in November 1986 but focused only on Reagan’s 1985-1986 arms sales and the diversion. Still, the scandal’s crimes included violations of the Arms Export Control Act and the so-called Boland Act’s prohibitions on arming the Contras as well as perjury and obstruction of justice. So there was the prospect of Reagan’s impeachment.
But – from the start of Iran-Contra – there was a strong pushback from Republicans who didn’t want to see another GOP president driven from office. There was also resistance to the scandal from many mainstream media executives who personally liked Reagan and feared a public backlash if the press played an aggressive role similar to Watergate.
And, moderate Democrats, such as Rep. Lee Hamilton of Indiana who co-chaired the congressional investigation, sought to tamp down the Iran-Contra fires and set up firebreaks to prevent the investigation from spreading to related crimes such as the Reagan administration’s protection of Contra cocaine traffickers.
“Ask about the cocaine,” pleaded one protester who was dragged from the Iran-Contra hearing room, as the congressional investigators averted their eyes from such unseemly matters, focusing instead on stilted lectures about the Congress’s constitutional prerogatives.
It was not until 1990-91 that it became clear that secret U.S.-approved arms shipments to Iran did not start in 1985 as the Iran-Contra narrative claimed but traced back to 1981 with Reagan’s approval of arms sales to Iran through Israel.
Reagan’s politically risky move of secretly arming Iran immediately after his inauguration and the hostage release was nearly exposed when one of the Israeli flights strayed into Soviet airspace on July 18, 1981, and crashed or was shot down.
In a PBS interview nearly a decade later, Nicholas Veliotes, Reagan’s assistant secretary of state for the Middle East, said he looked into the incident by talking to top administration officials.
“It was clear to me after my conversations with people on high that indeed we had agreed that the Israelis could transship to Iran some American-origin military equipment,” Veliotes said.
In checking out the Israeli flight, Veliotes came to believe that the Reagan camp’s dealings with Iran dated back to before the 1980 election. “It seems to have started in earnest in the period probably prior to the election of 1980, as the Israelis had identified who would become the new players in the national security area in the Reagan administration,” Veliotes said. “And I understand some contacts were made at that time.”
However, in 1981, Veliotes said, the State Department issued misleading press guidance to cover the administration’s tracks and the Washington media failed to follow up. Thus, the U.S.-Israeli arms pipeline to Iran stayed secret from the American people until November 1986 when — despite Reagan’s long-running insistence that he would never trade arms with a terrorist state like Iran — the operation was exposed.
When I re-interviewed Veliotes in 2012, he said he couldn’t recall who the “people on high” were who had described the informal clearance of the Israeli shipments of U.S.-manufactured weapons, but he indicated that “the new players” were the young neoconservatives who were working on the Reagan campaign, many of whom later joined the administration as senior political appointees.
Documents that I discovered at the Reagan presidential library revealed that Reagan’s neocons at the State Department, particularly Robert McFarlane and Paul Wolfowitz, initiated a policy review in 1981 to allow Israel to undertake secret military shipments to Iran.
McFarlane and Wolfowitz also maneuvered to put McFarlane in charge of U.S. relations toward Iran and to establish a clandestine U.S. back-channel to the Israeli government outside the knowledge of even senior U.S. government officials.
Another Failed Investigation
In 1991, faced with the accumulating evidence of a prequel to the Iran-Contra scandal, Congress grudgingly agreed to take a look at these so-called “October Surprise” allegations. But Republicans, then led by President George H.W. Bush and his White House team, mounted an aggressive cover-up to “spike” the story.
And, with the congressional inquiry largely in the hands again of Rep. Hamilton, the Democrats timidly folded their tent despite a growing body of evidence that the Reagan team was indeed guilty.
Much of that evidence flowed into the House Task Force in December 1992 when President George H.W. Bush had already been defeated for reelection and the Democrats were looking forward to their renewed control of Washington. So, instead of giving a careful review to the new evidence, the House Task Force ignored, disparaged or buried it.
The late-arriving material included sworn testimony on Dec. 18, 1992, from David Andelman, the biographer of French intelligence chief Alexandre deMarenches, describing how deMarenches had confided that he had helped arrange the Republican-Iranian contacts. Andelman, an ex-New York Times and CBS News correspondent, said that while he was working on deMarenches’s autobiography, the arch-conservative spymaster admitted arranging meetings between Republicans and Iranians about the hostage issue in the summer and fall of 1980, with one meeting held in Paris in October.
Andelman said deMarenches ordered that the secret meetings be kept out of his memoirs because the story could otherwise damage the reputations of his friends, William Casey and George H.W. Bush. Andelman’s testimony corroborated longstanding claims from a variety of international intelligence operatives about a Paris meeting involving Casey and Bush. But the Task Force report brushed this testimony aside, paradoxically terming it “credible” but then claiming it was “insufficiently probative.”
The Task Force’s report argued that Andelman could not “rule out the possibility that deMarenches had told him he was aware of and involved in the Casey meetings because he, deMarenches, could not risk telling his biographer he had no knowledge of these allegations.”
In the last weeks of the investigation, the House investigators also received a letter from former Iranian President Bani-Sadr detailing his behind-the-scenes struggle with Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and his son Ahmad over their secret dealings with the Reagan campaign. But the House investigators dismissed Bani-Sadr’s first-hand account as hearsay and thus also lacking “probative value.”
I later unearthed some of the evidence in unpublished Task Force files. However, in the meantime, Official Washington had dismissed the “October Surprise” and other Iran-Contra-connected scandals, like Contra drug trafficking, as conspiracy theories.
The Russian Report
Ironically, another piece of late-arriving evidence was a January 1993 report from a national security committee of the Russian parliament about the Kremlin’s intelligence data confirming that key Republicans, including George H.W. Bush and William Casey, had met with Iranian officials in Europe regarding the hostages during the 1980 campaign.
Hamilton had requested the Russian assistance before the U.S. election in 1992, but the report was not sent until there were only two weeks left in George H.W. Bush’s presidency.
Lawrence Barcella, who served as the Task Force chief counsel, later told me that so much incriminating evidence arrived late that he asked Hamilton to extend the inquiry for three months but that Hamilton said no (although Hamilton told me that he had no recollection of denying Barcella’s request).
The other fatal flaw of the House investigation was that it left much of the actual investigating up to President George H.W. Bush’s White House counsel’s office and the State Department, although Bush was one of the chief suspects and, in 1991-92, was running for re-election, a campaign that would have been derailed if the 1980 October Surprise allegations were confirmed.
The naivete of this decision was underscored years later when I located a memo at Bush’s presidential library stating that the State Department had informed the White House counsel’s office that Casey had traveled to Madrid in 1980, corroborating a key October Surprise allegation.
The confirmation of Casey’s trip was passed along by State Department legal adviser Edwin D. Williamson to Associate White House Counsel Chester Paul Beach Jr. in early November 1991, just as the October Surprise inquiry was taking shape, according to Beach’s “memorandum for record” dated Nov. 4, 1991.
Williamson said that among the State Department “material potentially relevant to the October Surprise allegations [was] a cable from the Madrid embassy indicating that Bill Casey was in town, for purposes unknown,” Beach noted.
Two days later, on Nov. 6, 1991, Beach’s boss, White House counsel C. Boyden Gray, arranged an inter-agency strategy session and explained the need to contain the congressional investigation into the October Surprise case. The explicit goal was to ensure the scandal would not hurt President Bush’s reelection hopes in 1992.
In 2013, when I interviewed Hamilton about the Beach memo, he lamented that the Madrid information had not been shared with his investigation, saying “you have to rely on people” in authority to comply with information requests.
“We found no evidence to confirm Casey’s trip to Madrid,” Hamilton told me. “We couldn’t show that. The [George H.W. Bush] White House did not notify us that he did make the trip. Should they have passed that on to us? They should have because they knew we were interested in that.”
Asked if knowledge that Casey had traveled to Madrid might have changed the Task Force’s dismissive October Surprise conclusion, Hamilton said yes, because the question of the Madrid trip was key to the task force’s investigation.
Not Moving the Needle
However, the Madrid trip revelation and other post-investigation disclosures failed to move the needle on Official Washington’s disdain for the October Surprise story.
The later disclosures included a 1993 interview in Tel Aviv in which former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir said he had read the 1991 book, October Surprise, by Carter’s former National Security Council aide Gary Sick, which made the case for believing that the Republicans had intervened in the 1980 hostage negotiations to disrupt Carter’s reelection.
With the topic raised, one interviewer asked, “What do you think? Was there an October Surprise?”
“Of course, it was,” Shamir responded without hesitation. “It was.”
And, there were other corroborating statements as well. In 1996, for instance, while former President Carter was meeting with Palestine Liberation Organization leader Arafat in Gaza City, Arafat tried to confess his role in the Republican maneuvering to block Carter’s Iran-hostage negotiations.
“There is something I want to tell you,” Arafat said, addressing Carter in the presence of historian Douglas Brinkley. “You should know that in 1980 the Republicans approached me with an arms deal [for the PLO] if I could arrange to keep the hostages in Iran until after the [U.S. presidential] election,” Arafat said, according to Brinkley’s article in the fall 1996 issue of Diplomatic Quarterly.
In 2013, after the movie “Argo” appeared regarding an early facet of the Iran-hostage crisis, former Iranian President Bani-Sadr elaborated on his account of Republican overtures to Iran in 1980 and how that secret initiative prevented release of the hostages.
In a Christian Science Monitor commentary, Bani-Sadr wrote, “Ayatollah Khomeini and Ronald Reagan had organized a clandestine negotiation which prevented the attempts by myself and then-U.S. President Jimmy Carter to free the hostages before the 1980 U.S. presidential election took place. The fact that they were not released tipped the results of the election in favor of Reagan.”
Then, Bani-Sadr added a new detail, that “two of my advisors, Hussein Navab Safavi and Sadr-al-Hefazi, were executed by Khomeini’s regime because they had become aware of this secret relationship between Khomeini, his son Ahmad, … and the Reagan administration.” [For more details on the October Surprise case, see Robert Parry’s Trick or Treason and America’s Stolen Narrative.]
Compare and Contrast
So how do Watergate and Iran-Contra compare and contrast with Russia-gate? One key difference is that in Watergate in 1972-73 and Iran-Contra in 1985-86, you had clear-cut crimes (even if you don’t want to believe the two “prequels” from 1968 and 1980, respectively).
In Watergate, five burglars were caught inside the DNC offices on June 17, 1972, as they sought to plant more bugs on Democratic phones. (An earlier break-in in May had installed two bugs, but one didn’t work.) Nixon then proceeded to mount a cover-up of his 1972 campaign’s role in funding the break-in and other abuses of power.
In Iran-Contra, Reagan secretly authorized weapons sales to Iran, which was then designated a terrorist state, without informing Congress, a violation of the Arms Export Control Act. He also kept Congress in the dark about his belated signing of a related intelligence “finding.” And the creation of slush funds to finance the Nicaraguan Contras represented an evasion of the U.S. Constitution.
There was also the attendant Iran-Contra cover-up mounted both by the Reagan White House and later the George H.W. Bush White House, which culminated in Bush’s Christmas Eve 1992 pardons of six Iran-Contra defendants as special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh was zeroing in on possible indictment of Bush for withholding evidence.
By contrast, Russia-gate has been a “scandal” in search of a specific crime. President Barack Obama’s intelligence chieftains have alleged – without presenting any clear evidence – that the Russian government hacked into the emails of the Democratic National Committee and of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta and released those emails via WikiLeaks and other Internet sites. (The Russians and WikiLeaks have both denied the accusations.)
The DNC emails revealed that senior Democrats did not maintain their required independence regarding the primaries by seeking to hurt Sen. Bernie Sanders and help Clinton. The Podesta emails pulled back the curtain on Clinton’s paid speeches to Wall Street banks and on pay-to-play features of the Clinton Foundation.
Hacking into personal computers is a crime, but the U.S. government has yet to bring any formal charges against specific individuals supposedly responsible for the hacking of the Democratic emails. There also has been no evidence that Donald Trump’s campaign colluded with Russians in the hacking.
Lacking any precise evidence of this cyber-crime or of a conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign, Obama’s Justice Department holdovers and now special prosecutor Robert Mueller have sought to build “process crimes,” around false statements to investigators and possible obstruction of justice.
Railroading Flynn
In the case of retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser, acting Attorney General Sally Yates used the archaic Logan Act of 1799 to create a predicate for the FBI to interrogate Flynn about a Dec. 29, 2016 conversation with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, i.e., after Trump’s election but before the Inauguration.
The Logan Act, which has never resulted in a prosecution in 218 years, was enacted during the period of the Alien and Sedition Acts to bar private citizens from negotiating on their own with foreign governments. It was never intended to apply to a national security adviser of an elected President, albeit before he was sworn in.
But it became the predicate for the FBI interrogation — and the FBI agents were armed with a transcript of the intercepted Kislyak-Flynn phone call so they could catch Flynn on any gaps in his recollection, which might have been made even hazier because he was on vacation in the Dominican Republic when Kislyak called.
Yates also concocted a bizarre argument that the discrepancies between Flynn’s account of the call and the transcript left him open to Russian blackmail although how that would work – since the Russians surely assumed that Kislyak’s calls would be monitored by U.S. intelligence and thus offered them no leverage with Flynn – was never explained.
Still, Flynn’s failure to recount the phone call precisely and the controversy stirred up around it became the basis for an obstruction of justice investigation of Flynn and led to President Trump’s firing Flynn on Feb. 13.
Trump may have thought that tossing Flynn overboard to the circling sharks would calm down the sharks but the blood in the water only excited them more. According to then-FBI Director James Comey, Trump talked to him one-on-one the next day, Feb. 14, and said, “‘I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”
Trump’s “hope” and the fact that he later fired Comey have reportedly led special prosecutor Mueller to look at a possible obstruction of justice case against Trump. In other words, Trump could be accused of obstructing what appears to have been a trumped-up case against Flynn.
Of course, there remains the possibility that evidence might surface of Trump or his campaign colluding with the Russians, but such evidence has so far not been presented. Or Mueller’s investigation might turn over some rock and reveal some unrelated crime, possibly financial wrongdoing by Trump or an associate.
(Something similar happened in the Republican investigation of the Sept. 11, 2012 Benghazi attack, a largely fruitless inquiry except that it revealed that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sent and received official emails over a private server, which Comey decried during last year’s campaign as “extremely careless” but not criminal.)
Curb the Enthusiasm
Another contrast between the earlier scandals (Watergate and Iran-Contra) and Russia-gate is the degree of enthusiasm and excitement that the U.S. mainstream media and congressional Democrats have shown today as opposed to 1972 and 1986.
Though The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein aggressively pursued the Watergate scandal, there was much less interest elsewhere in major news outlets until Nixon’s criminality became obvious in 1973. Many national Democrats, including DNC Chairman Bob Strauss, were extremely hesitant to pursue the scandal if not outright against it.
Similarly, although Brian Barger and I at The Associated Press were pursuing aspects of Iran-Contra since early 1985, the big newspapers and networks consistently gave the Reagan administration the benefit of the doubt – at least before the scandal finally burst into view in fall 1986 (when a Contra-supply plane crashed inside Nicaragua and a Lebanese newspaper revealed U.S. arms shipments to Iran).
For several months, there was a flurry of attention to the complex Iran-Contra scandal, but the big media still ignored evidence of a White House cover-up and soon lost interest in the difficult work of unraveling the convoluted networks for arms smuggling, money laundering and cocaine trafficking.
Congressional Democrats also shied away from a constitutional confrontation with the popular Reagan and his well-connected Vice President George H.W. Bush.
After moving from AP to Newsweek in early 1987, I learned that the senior executives at Newsweek, then part of The Washington Post Company, didn’t want “another Watergate”; they felt another such scandal was not “good for the country” and wanted Iran-Contra to go away as soon as possible. I was even told not to read the congressional Iran-Contra report when it was published in October 1987 (although I ignored that order and kept trying to keep my own investigation going in defiance of the wishes of the Newsweek brass until those repeated clashes led to my departure in June 1990).
So, perhaps the biggest similarity between Russia-gate and Watergate is that Richard Nixon and Donald Trump were both highly unpopular with the Washington establishment and thus had few influential defenders, while an important contrast with Iran-Contra was that Reagan and Bush were very well liked, especially among news executives such as Washington Post publisher Katharine Graham who, by all accounts, did not care for the uncouth Nixon. Today, the senior executives of The New York Times, The Washington Post and other major news outlets have made no secret of their disdain for the buffoonish Trump and their hostility toward Russian President Vladimir Putin.
In other words, what is driving Russia-gate – for both the mainstream news media and the Democrats – appears to be a political agenda, i.e., the desire to remove Trump from office while also ratcheting up a New Cold War with Russia, a priority for Washington’s neoconservatives and their liberal-interventionist sidekicks.
If this political drama were playing out in some other country, we would be talking about a “soft coup” in which the “oligarchy” or some other “deep state” force was using semi-constitutional means to engineer a disfavored leader’s removal.
Of course, since the ongoing campaign to remove Trump is happening in the United States, it must be presented as a principled pursuit of truth and a righteous application of the rule of law. But the comparisons to Watergate and Iran-Contra are a stretch.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).
This article was first published by Consortium News –
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.
Click for SpanishGermanDutchDanishFrench, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.