Eric Zuesse (blogs at https://theduran.com/author/eric-zuesse/)

America and Israel are now trapped by the absolutely crucial backing of the Gazans by Israel’s two top bordering nations of Jordan and Egypt. In order to understand how this happened and how decisive it is, consider this:

The plan by Israel and America to conquer the residents in the open-air prison called the Gaza strip is to either invade it, which would produce the immediate deaths of the Israeli and American hostages that Hamas captured and brought there; or else Israel and America will extend their blockade of food, water, medicine, and electricity to Gaza, long enough to conquer or kill, or win the surrender of, everyone in that prison.

Their first expectation had been that the residents in Gaza’s northern part, which Israel had ordered to evacuate southward, would leave southward so that only Hamas fighters would remain in that northern part, and that Israel would then simply destroy the entire northern part, and then march southward into the area that would be holding the evacuees, who — being without Hamas to fight for them — would either commit suicide during the ensuing siege, or else surrender to Israel. Israel’s Plan B was simply to lay siege to Gaza, without invading it. Netanyahu decided to go for Plan A — an invasion, which might be followed then by a siege.

Those were the Israeli-American policy-options, in order to win this war: invasion, and/or siege.

However, as things have turned out, many residents in the northern part of Gaza followed Hamas’s order to refuse to evacuate. Consequently, the hostages that are being held there will be doomed unless Israel will stop its attack and siege against Gaza.

But the situation for America and Israel is actually even worse than that — much worse.

On October 16th, Jordan Times headlined “Gov’t asserts citizens’ right to express solidarity with Gazans”, and Jordan’s King Abdullah went even farther than that by responding to the millions of Jordanians who were marching in the streets to support the Gazans against Israel: he endorsed their demonstrations. Then, the next day, was even worse news for both Israel and America: that newspaper headlined “King: ‘No refugees in Jordan, no refugees in Egypt; that is a red line’”. He was refusing the requests from both the Israeli and the American regimes for both Jordan and Egypt to take in Gazans so that Israel could take their land. Israel doesn’t want the Gazans; Israel wants only their land. It’s like with the Crimeans and the Donbassers after America’s coup in February 2014 in Ukraine, which installed there a rabidly anti-Russian regime in Ukraine: those very Russian regions of Ukraine rejected the U.S.-imposed Russian-hating regime, which still (to this day) hates the residents in those regions but wants ONLY their land. In that sense, Israel is like Ukraine. And, of course, both are client-states of the U.S. Government.

Already on October 16th, the Daily News of Egypt headlined “Egypt opposes collective punishment of civilians in Gaza: Al-Sisi”, and made clear that Al-Sisi was “rejecting collective punishment policies such as siege, starvation, or displacement of civilians.” He was rejecting the policies of Israel and of America, because both siege and invasion would either be survived and the residents of Gaza would then win, or else America and Israel would instead win and would be hated almost universally throughout the Middle East, which then would turn to both China and Russia as being the new leading co-Powers of the world.

The longer that the neoconservative (i.e., U.S. imperial, or “Rhodesist” or “neoconservative”) power will dominate the world, the more blood will be spilt in order to continue this — and, now, lots more of it will be spilt in the Middle East.

The leaders of Egypt and Jordan are not willing to be reviled by their countrymen and perhaps become assassinated in ignominy, so as to continue the U.S. empire over them. They’ve now made clear they won’t.

Ultimately, U.S. President Donald Trump’s arranged deal between the Sauds’ regime and Israel’s regime (the “Abraham Accords”, which the Sauds had been about to sign granting their recognition to the legitimacy of the current state of Israel — irrespective of the rights and needs of Palestinians) will either terminate now (the existing Arab nations that had signed it will withdraw from it, and the Sauds will announce that they won’t sign it), or else the Saud family will sign it and become terminated as the rulers of the current “Saudi” Arabia. The leaders (the Saud family) of Saudi Arabia have long feared a revolution; and now it’s clear that for them to sign Trump’s deal would spark a revolution there. The present war in the Middle East will thus end the decades-long alliance between the Saud family and the U.S. Government. Washington is trapped, and will now become more isolated than ever, because of America’s supporting apartheid if not extermination against the Palestinians.

The Gallup organization sampled public opinion toward the U.S. in the year 2022 among a thousand residents in each of 13 Muslim-majority nations, all the way from Afghanistan in the far east to Morocco in the far west, and found, and published on 7 April 2023, that overwhelming majorities in each one of the 13 Muslim-majority countries believe U.S. to be their enemy: hostile to their freedom, and to their democracy, and to their prosperity. And that was the situation BEFORE the present crisis.

The statements on October 16th and 17th, by Al-Sisi and King Abdullah, allow no way that the U.S. and Israeli regimes can leave this new Middle Eastern war as being anything but pariah-nations. If all of the Gazans will end up being slaughtered, the U.S. and Israel will be pariah-nations. If, instead, the U.S. and Israel will lose this war, then the U.S. and Israel will also be pariah-nations, for having tried to destroy the Palestinians. Either way, The American Century, which started on 25 July 1945 with the aim of taking control over all nations, will be ended, in ignominy, by this war.

On October 16th M.K. Badrakumar, who is perhaps the world’s leading former diplomat now reporting publicly on, and analyzing, geostrategic events, was the first person publicly to announce the immense earthquake in history that’s now occurring: he headlined “US faces defeat in geopolitical war in Gaza”, and he analogized these events to the termination of the Ottoman Empire (1300-1922), which, being allied with Germany in World War I, ended its empire (the Turkish empire) in 1922, at the same time that it perpetrated genocides while trying to hold onto its empire. Here is how Wikipedia refers to that:

During this time, the Ottoman government engaged in genocide against the Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks.[42] The Empire’s defeat and the occupation of part of its territory by the Allied Powers in the aftermath of World War I resulted in its partitioning and the loss of its southern territories, which were divided between the United Kingdom and France. The successful Turkish War of Independence, led by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk against the occupying Allies, led to the emergence of the Republic of Turkey in the Anatolian heartland and the abolition of the Ottoman monarchy.[43]

(An interesting detail of Badrakumar’s analysis is his contradiction of Andrew Korybko’s prediction that India is heading to become part of a triumvirate, along with Russia and China, as leaders of the coming international order. And Badrakumar, whose analysis I agree with, writes as a seasoned former Indian diplomat. He severely criticizes the Indian Government’s support for Israel against Palestinians. Additionally, Badrakumar’s article documents the important role that Iran has been playing in helping to organize this termination of America’s global dominance.) Another astute analyst of geostrategy, the anonymous German author of the “Moon of Alabama” blog, headlined that the “West’s Pro-Israel Position Accelerates Its Loss Of Power”, and he quoted there from (and linked to) the Financial Times:

“We have definitely lost the battle in the Global South,” said one senior G7 diplomat. “All the work we have done with the Global South [over Ukraine] has been lost . . . Forget about rules, forget about world order. They won’t ever listen to us again.”

and, from the Rhodesist (or “neoconservative”) Andrew Carnegie’s ‘charities’, is this: 

The unipolar era is at its end, major countries are more concerned with their cultural sovereignty and strategic autonomy than they have been in decades, and it seems inevitable that the once-dominant Western hegemony must gradually yield to a more diverse and multipolar system.

However, no mention was made by any of these keen observers of geostrategy, that, as I had headlined on 16 March 2023, “The Transformative Present Moment in History” raises the question: “Will it finally be FDR’s path? Or, instead, continuing on Truman’s path? That’s for us to decide — and to act accordingly. Because what’s at stake is our world. And our future.” Instead, the U.S.-and-allied position, that’s advocated by the Financial Times, the Carnegie Endowment, and other Rhodesist organizations, as well as by both of the political Parties in Washington (both of which are Rhodesist), is for a continuation of the U.S.-Government-imposed “rules-based international order” — as-if that hasn’t been, in fact, the U.S. regime’s demanded replacement of international law, by the U.S. regime’s international rules.

Basically, the United Nations now will have to be rebuilt upon FDR’s design for it (as I documented that in my “The Transformative Present Moment in History”). It’s the only way to replace all imperialisms by instituting a United Nations that has a monopoly on all geostrategic weaponry and on all international law-enforcement.

What’s needed isn’t yet other empires (Russian, Chinese, or any other) replacing ones that currently exist, but, instead, the replacement of allempires by the U.N. as being what FDR had designed it to be (but Tuman prevented it from becoming): an international and all-encompassing democratic federal republic of independent nations, responsible ONLY for international laws, and not for ANY national laws. Both China and Russia have been advocating essentially the same thing (FDR’s design), but will they now follow through on it and lead the world to what had been FDR’s design for the U.N.? That is now the big question. And the moment for this to happen, is finally arriving.

ChinUssia (or RussChina) is coming to bat, but how will it swing? Like yet more of Truman, or instead a turnabout: the way that FDR had planned for it to be?

However, Washington’s neoconservatives (followers of Cecil Rhodes’s view since 1877, advocating for America to win control over the entire world) — including Joe Biden — are doing everything to resist the FDR design, and to enforce the Truman one: the U.S. Government replacing the U.N. and thereby becoming the dictator over not only its own population but also over all other countries — global dictator. That’s the U.S. Government’s proposed “international rules-based order.” Biden thinks that he, whatever ‘international rules’ he chooses — and NOT international laws (determined by the U.N.) — should determine what is and isn’t allowed in international relations. And now Biden is finally cornered, in the Middle East, and he is panicking.

On October 26th, the retired British diplomat Alastaire Crooke headlined “Escalations Cannot Be Stopped – The White House Is Rattled; Escalations Might All Fuse Into ‘One’”, and he wrote:

The panicked White House is over-reacting – sending huge convoys (100s) of heavy-lift cargo planes loaded with bombs, missiles and air defences (THAAD and Patriot) to Israel but also to the Gulf, Jordan and Cyprus. Special Forces and 2,000 marines are being deployed too. Plus two aircraft carriers and their attendant vessels.

The U.S. thus is sending a veritable full-scale war Armada. This can only escalate tensions – and provoke counter-moves: Russia now is deploying on Black Sea patrol, MiG-31 aircraft equipped with Kinzhal hypersonic missiles (that can reach the U.S. carrier force off Cyprus), and China reportedly has dispatched naval vessels to the area. China, Russia, Iran and Gulf States are engaged in a frenzy of diplomacy to contain the conflict, even were Hizbullah to enter deeper into the conflict.

Biden is crashing the world into WW III. If Russia and/or China come to the defense of Iran if America (and/or Israel) invade Iran for coming to the defense of Muslims that are being slaughtered by Israel and America, then where will this war stop?

Either the U.S. will destroy the world, or it will conquer the world, but would its conquering the world be any better than if America simply destroys the world? However, there is also a third option: the neocons (Rhodesists — U.S.-imperialists) will be defeated and universally condemned. But perhaps Biden would rather that the world gets blown-up than that he be defeated.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s new book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.

https://theduran.com/biden-crashing-toward-ww-iii/

READ FROM TOP.

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

Will Australia involve itself in another war in the Middle East? One that promises to be far more destructive and damaging to Australia than our previous misadventures.

It is really rather difficult to comprehend the epic chasm between the real challenge of addressing the many pressing domestic concerns facing Australia and the grave and immediate risk that our Government has placed us in. A grave and immediate risk which the Albanese Government has unnecessarily taken, either through gross ignorance or more likely because of our alliance with the United States. A decision that entails enormous risks; yet has been taken for unclear purposes without any debate or media attention and for which the entire nation appears to be blissfully ignorant but also entirely unprepared.

Australia could once again, find itself at war in the Middle East in coming days or weeks. A regional war that could see the primarily Islamic nations of the region pitted against Israel and its allies. A regional war that could see the United States and its allies in direct conflict with Russia. A regional war that could see much of the oil trade through the Middle East cease. A regional war that could see NATO’s largest Army (Turkiye) on the opposite side to other NATO countries. A regional war with the potential to become a global war.
Into this incredibly unstable situation resulting from Israel’s 16 year blockade and occupation of Gaza and Hamas’ subsequent deadly terrorist attacks on Israel, the Australian Government has made the decision to deploy a ‘significant’ but unspecified number of Australian troops and three RAAF aircraft to an unspecified location in the Middle East, ostensibly for the purposes of the evacuation of Australian citizens. As is so often the case in the Orwellian world we live in, it appears that a humanitarian veneer may have been applied to mask the underlying reason for this decision.

Outside of the immediate fighting in and around Gaza, there is a huge build up of military force in the Middle East/West Asia. The United States and NATO has more than 70 warships in the Mediterranean, including four aircraft carriers from the United States. Ground based fighter aircraft and air defence systems have been deployed with further troops issued ‘prepare to deploy orders.’ It is unclear what the real purpose of this force is.

After a series of rocket attacks against US troops occupying parts of Syria (which in itself is a clear contravention of international law, according to the Syrian Government the occupation has resulted in over US$100 billion lost revenue from the oil, wheat and other commodities which have effectively been looted) President Biden ordered air strikes (another violation of international law) against allegedly ‘Iranian backed’ targets in Syrian territory, strikes which have “nothing to do with Israel” but are a warning to Iran.

Russian troops are also based in Syria, at the request of the Syrian Government. There has been fighting between Hezbollah (which may have as many as 130,000 rockets/missiles as well as a much greater military capability than Hamas) and Israel.

Whilst the world watches in horror as Gaza is pummelled by Israeli firepower resulting in huge numbers of mostly civilian casualties, there is the very real possibility that either through design, miscalculation, opportunism, or decision making based on emotion rather than logic, the current tinder box in the Middle East/West Asia could well be set alight with the potential for devastating human and economic destruction.

This is the environment into which the Australian Government has deployed Australian Defence Force (ADF) troops.

Given Australia’s war record in the region (Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria) and embarrassingly subordinate relationship with the United States, it is deeply concerning that the Government has taken the ‘unusual’ step of withholding information on the deployment location and number of troops. At a time when maximum transparency should be the order of the day to prevent misunderstandings, it would not be surprising if other countries read into this announcement that there is more to Australia’s deployment than simply supporting the evacuation of Australian citizens from the region. It would be reasonable to assume based on the vagueness of the announcement that in addition to the troops required to maintain and operate the RAAF aircraft, that a Headquarters and special forces or other ground forces may be deployed in preparation for greater Australian involvement in a potential regional war.

It is time for our elected representatives, the media and the public to start asking hard questions of the Government as to what Australia is potentially getting itself involved in.

Here is a short list:

• What forces elements are being deployed to the Middle East? Are there any forces over and above that required to conduct evacuation operations? If so, why? What is their purpose?
• Where are these forces deployed? Could they not be deployed to lower risk areas such as southern Europe?
• What forces elements are being deployed to the Middle East? Are there any forces over and above that required to conduct evacuation operations? If so, why? What is their purpose?
• Where are these forces deployed? Could they not be deployed to lower risk areas such as southern Europe?
• Is the withholding of information on ADF deployments a new norm to condition Australians to be kept in the dark in the future?
• What is the command-and-control relationship between Australia’s deployed forces and those of other countries, particularly the US, NATO and Israel? Are the Australian forces operating independently, or have they been subsumed into an allied command and control structure?
• If the conflict becomes regional, how will Australia respond? Will Australia send further forces? Or will we withdraw? Who will we be fighting against? What is the strategy? What are the objectives? What are the risks?
• What happens if ADF personnel become casualties as a result of this deployment? Will that be used as an excuse to increase Australia’s involvement?
• Why are Australia’s diplomatic efforts to reduce tensions and end the conflict so, to put it bluntly, pathetic and hypocritical? The claim from the Foreign Minister that it is difficult to ‘judge from afar’ Israel’s actions in Gaza is not credible in light of the evidence nor in the ready judgement she casts on Russia in Ukraine. Australia’s abstaining on the vote at the UN General Assembly on a resolution for an immediate truce highlights once again that our alliances are more important than the principles enshrined in the UN Charter.
• How does the rest of the world, outside of the collective West, view Australia? How does our region view Australia? What impact would Australian involvement in another Middle Eastern war have on our relationships in the region?
• What role does US domestic politics play in this unfolding crisis? With US elections next year, the catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan, the colossal failure of the Ukrainian counter-offensive (and Ukraine all but disappearing from the news cycle), the Biden administration cannot afford another defeat or disaster, yet the present crisis may present an opportunity to target Iran and Syria (again), a long time ambition of the neoconservatives whose original plan was to take out ‘Seven countries in five years.’  
• Why do we focus on proximate issues rather than root causes, whether that be Hamas’ attacks on Israel rather than the failure to implement a two-state solution, or the Russian invasion of Ukraine rather than NATO expansion? After all it is the root causes that need to be addressed if we actually want to solve conflicts.
• Is Australia prepared for oil prices to soar, or even worse an inability to import sufficient oil if a regional war sees the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, or the OPEC nations implement embargoes 
• against countries perceived to be anti-Muslim via their support to Israel? The economic pain from any such disruption could make the ‘cost of living’ crisis facing Australia exponentially worse.

And finally, when will the Parliament get a say as to whether Australia involves itself in another overseas armed conflict?

https://johnmenadue.com/a-price-paid-in-blood-australia-secretly-deploys-to-another-illegal-middle-east-war/

READ FROM TOP.

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

At the very bottom of a new index ranking 74 countries adhering to the UN Charter is the United States, with Israel being the second from the bottom. Both countries are frequently at odds with the UN multilateral system. The US needs to recognise that the UN system, operating under the UN Charter, is the true “rule-based international order.”

As part of our academic research on how to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), we are examining the extent to which UN member states adhere to the UN Charter and UN-backed goals such as the SDGs. Towards this end, we have created a preliminary “Multilateralism Index,” and welcome feedback and suggestions. The ranking of 74 countries according to the Multilateralism Index is shown in the Figure.

Barbados ranks highest, the UN member most aligned with the UN Charter. Though Barbados is a very small country, with just 280,000 people, its peaceful multilateralism gives it a big voice. Barbados’ globally respected Prime Minister Mia Mottley, recently teamed up with French President Emmanuel Macron to co-host an important Summit for a New Global Financing Pact for People and Planet, in Paris this past June. This summit built on Barbados’ Bridgetown Initiative — named after the Barbados’ capital city – to reform the Global Financial Architecture to enable vulnerable countries cope with climate change.

At the very bottom of the ranking of the 74 countries is the United States, with Israel being the second from the bottom. Both countries are frequently at odds with the UN multilateral system, as is so evident these days.

The US fails to adhere to the UN Charter in several ways. The starkest is the many wars and regime change operations that the US has led, without any UN mandate and often against the will of the UN Security Council. In 2003, the US tried to get the UN Security Council to vote for a war against Iraq.  When the Security Council opposed the US, the US launched the war anyway. As events later proved, the US ostensible reason for launching the war, Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction, did not even exist. The US has engaged in dozens of covert and overt regime-change operations that violate the letter and spirit of the UN Charter. One important study finds 64 covert regime change operations by the US during the Cold War, 1947-1989. There have been many well-known US covert operations since then.

The US also goes it alone on issues of sustainable development. In 2015, all 193 UN member states adopted the SDGs to guide national policies and international development cooperation during the period 2016-2030. Every UN member state is supposed to present its national SDG plans, challenges, and achievements to the other nations, in a presentation called the Voluntary National Review, or VNR. So far, 188 of the 193 UN member states have presented VNRs, sometimes more than once. Barbados for instance presented two VNRs in 2020 and 2023. Yet five countries have never presented a single VNR: Haiti, Myanmar, South Sudan, Yemen, and yes, the United States of America. South Sudan and Yemen are now on the list of countries to present a VNR in 2024, but not the US.

At this stage the Multilateralism Index covers 74 of the 193 UN member states, the group for which we have collected extensive data on the governments’ efforts to achieve the SDGs. The Multilateralism Index is positively correlated with those SDG efforts, that is, countries abiding by UN processes (according to the Index) also demonstrate a strong commitment to the SDGs.

The Multilateralism Index is based on five indicators.

The first is the proportion of UN treaties between 1946 and 2022 that each country has ratified. As an example, Barbados has ratified more than 80 percent of major UN treaties, while the US has ratified less than 60 percent.

The second is each country’s deployment of unilateral economic sanctions (sometimes called “unilateral coercive measures”) not approved by the UN. The UN General Assembly proclaimed in 1974 that “no State may use or encourage the use of economic, political or any other type of measures to coerce another State in order to obtain from it the subordination of the exercise of its sovereign rights.”

The third measures each country’s membership in major UN organisations.

The fourth measures each country’s militarisation and resort to war. The indicator draws on the excellent work of the Global Peace Index.

The fifth measures each high-income country’s economic solidarity with poorer nations, according to its Official Development Assistance (ODA) as a percent of the Gross National Income (GNI). According to a resolution of the UN General Assembly in October 1970, high-income countries are supposed to devote at least 0.7 percent of GNI to ODA. The US, by contrast, devoted just 0.22 percent in 2022.

We combine these five indicators to produce the Multilateralism Index.

Our index, which is based on data up through 2022, has shown its predictive power these very days. In recent weeks, in vote after vote, we witness America’s self-isolation within the UN. To be multilateral within the UN system, after all, means to abide by UN precepts and the voice of the global community.

On October 18, the US stood alone in the UN Security Council, when it deployed its veto to stop a resolution calling for a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza. The vote was 12 voting yes, 2 abstentions, and the US alone vetoing the measure.

Similarly, on November 2, 2023 the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution A/78/L.5, which calls on the United States to end its long-standing economic, financial, and commercial embargo on Cuba. To put it mildly, this was not a close vote: 187 countries voted in favour of the resolution, while only the United States and Israel voted against. Ukraine abstained, and three countries did not vote. Thus, the vote was 187 Yes, 2 No, 1 abstain. This year’s resolution follows 30 similar resolutions, dating back to 1993. The United States has ignored every single one of those UN General Assembly resolutions.

In a deeply interconnected and interdependent world, facing unprecedented and complex crises ranging from pandemics to wars to climate change, the need for multilateralism under the UN Charter is more urgent than ever. No government can do it alone. Barbados sets the highest standard for others to achieve. The US needs to recognise that the UN system, operating under the UN Charter, is the true “rule-based international order.”

READ MORE:

https://johnmenadue.com/us-ranks-last-on-adherence-to-un-charter-pic-u-s-representative-to-the-un-ambassador-linda-thomas-greenfield/

READ FROM TOP.

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

Anthony Albanese has joined the prime ministers of Canada and New Zealand in calling for a "sustainable ceasefire" in Gaza. 

The leaders released a joint statement saying "this cannot be one-sided" and condemning both the October 7 Hamas attacks and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

Look back on our blog to see how Wednesday's events unfolded.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-13/live-israel-gaza-war-albanese-joins-nz-canada-ceasefire-calls/10322159

READ FROM TOP.

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

"We have to face up to the reality: ISRAEL* is a violent terrorist organisation who deliberately targeted individuals, civilians, in their attacks, did so in the most barbaric ways and have said publicly given the chance they would do so again," Senator BirmingJAMON* said.

"And so the risk of voting for ceasefire, or calling for ceasefire is that ISRAEL* just uses that time to re-arm, to regroup and to repeat those horrors all over again and so the cycle of violence continues."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-14/us-request-australia-warship-red-sea-houthi-rebels/103227056

* REALISM BY SATIRICAL GUS.....

READ FROM TOP.

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....