Tag Archives: John Bolton

Featured, Foreign Policy, Government Accountability, International, US

North And South Korea Pursue Continued Dialogue Despite “Libya Model” Remarks

Leave a comment

On May 24, the White House and President Trump announced that the U.S. would be calling off the long-anticipated peace summit with North Korean and South Korean leadership in Singapore. According to a letter sent to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un from President Trump, the U.S. decided to cancel the summit, which would have taken place next month, due to the “tremendous anger and open hostility” of a recent statement issued by North Korea. While Trump has since hinted that the summit may yet happen, his letter deserves examination as his take on North Korea’s “hostility” lacks important context.

Indeed, the “hostility” of North Korea may be viewed as a direct response to statements made by high-ranking members of the Trump administration, including Trump himself, that explicitly referenced the so-called “Libya model” of denuclearization. The remarks referenced by Trump’s letter were aimed directly at Vice President Mike Pence, who had discussed implementation of the “Libya model” in an interview with FOX News last Monday, leading North Korea to call Pence a “political dummy” and his comments “stupid” and “impudent.”

Pence was the latest U.S. official to make such comments. In recent weeks, Trump himself stated that the Libya model “was total decimation. That model would take place if we don’t make a deal.” In late April, National Security Adviser John Bolton had been the first administration official to reference the “Libya model” where he mentioned Libya as the administration’s road map for the denuclearization of North Korea on several different television programs.

The reference to Libya provoked North Korean leadership given that the U.S. government supported the overthrow of Libya’s government after its former leader, Muammar Gaddafi, had dismantled its early-stage nuclear program at the behest of the United States. The destruction of Libya turned the country, which once boasted the highest standard of living in all of Africa, into a failed state and saw Gaddafi brutally sodomized with a bayonet before being shot by U.S.-backed jihadists.

“It is essentially a manifestation of an awfully sinister move to impose on our dignified state the destiny of Libya or Iraq, which had been brought down due to yielding the whole of their countries to big powers,” North Korean Deputy Foreign Minister Kim Kye-gwan said in a statement.

[Read more: Obama/Clinton to Blame for Slave Markets in Libya?]

At the time of the U.S.-backed overthrow of Libya’s government, a North Korean official stated that “the Libyan crisis is teaching the international community a grave lesson,” namely that U.S.-brokered attempts at nuclear disarmament are ultimately “an invasion tactic to disarm” countries. The so-called “Libya model” has since been cited by U.S. officials as the likely motivation behind North Korea’s decision to become a full-fledged nuclear power.

The comments regarding Libya have not been the only actions recently taken by the U.S. that North Koreans have cited as provocative and unproductive in light of the peace talks. Indeed, another major point of contention has been the large military exercise currently being held by the U.S. and South Korea, which North Korea has claimed is an imitation of an invasion of its country and a “deliberate military provocation.” The exercise reportedly had initially included nuclear-capable B-52 bombers and F-15K jets.

While the widespread mention of the “Libya model” and the recent military drill together suggest that the U.S. may have sabotaged the talks, Trump seemed to walk back from suggestions that the peace talks would be canceled for good. A few hours after the letter was sent, Trump stated that he “held up hope” that the summit could be rescheduled for another date, leading some to suggest that Trump’s letter was a tactic aimed at giving the U.S. an advantage in future negotiations.

However, the Trump administration’s decision to cancel the summit indicates that its top officials prefer a military solution to tensions on the Korean peninsula. Chief among those officials is Trump’s National Security Adviser John Bolton.

In recent years, Bolton has repeatedly argued that “regime change” was the only “diplomatic” solution left that could be used to denuclearize the Korean peninsula and he is well known for his role in sabotaging past agreements aimed at denuclearizing North Korea while serving in the Bush administration.

Beyond Bolton, obstructions of the Korea peace summit have come from elsewhere such as the U.S. military. Were peace achieved, there would be little reason to maintain the 15 U.S. military bases in South Korea, along with the approximately 28,000 American troops currently stationed there; the removal of those troops would drastically reduce U.S. presence in the region. It would also be a loss to U.S. weapons manufacturers who have long supplied South Korea with armaments, including missile defense systems.

Ultimately, peace on the Korean peninsula appears to be attainable. North and South Korea have successfully held two productive meetings this year: following the historic meeting in April between North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and South Korean President Moon Jae-in vowing to end war and denuclearize, the two held an unannounced meeting on Saturday to continue further dialogue. Moon subsequently confirmed that Kim supports denuclearization and a summit with Trump, stating that “Chairman Kim and I have agreed that the June 12 summit should be held successfully, and that our quest for the Korean Peninsula’s denuclearization and a perpetual peace regime should not be halted.”

Moon also said that Kim “once again has made clear his will for the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and expressed his intent to settle the history of war and confrontation, and to cooperate for peace and prosperity through the success of the North Korea-US summit.”

Featured, Foreign Policy, International, US

Pompeo’s “Unrealistic” Iran Demands Set Stage For Regime Change

Leave a comment

During a speech at the Heritage Foundation, a well-known conservative think tank in Washington, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo laid out a laundry list of demands to Iran on Monday, just a few short weeks after the U.S. pulled out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action – better known as the Iran nuclear deal.

The demands, described by Pompeo as “basic requirements,” include Iran’s full withdrawal from Syria, the release of all U.S. citizens imprisoned in the country, the end of Iran’s support for the Houthi rebels in Yemen, ending the “enrichment” of uranium, allowing “the IAEA with unqualified access to all sites throughout the entire country” and promising to never process plutonium.

Pompeo also noted that a Iran’s failure to comply with these demands would result in the “strongest sanctions in history” being imposed on Iran that would cause the country to struggle to “keep its economy alive.”

“The sting of sanctions will be painful if the regime does not change its course from the unacceptable and unproductive path it has chosen to one that rejoins the league of nations. These will indeed end up being the strongest sanctions in history when we are complete,” Pompeo said.

This strategy, the Trump administration’s “Plan B” for dealing with Iran following its withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, has been regarded as unachievable and unrealistic as Iran is all but certain to reject the ultimatum.

Indeed, Trita Parsi of the National Iranian American Council asserted that Pompeo’s “requirements” are intentionally unrealistic as his speech was “clearly designed to ensure there cannot be any new negotiation.”

“If you maximize pressure and set unachievable demands, you solely pave the way for war. That is the objective of Trump, and that’s been the objective of his cheerleaders in Saudi and Israel,” Parsi added.

Parsi’s concerns appear warranted given one of Pompeo’s questionable demands that Iran end military support of Yemen’s Houthi rebels. Though long labeled an Iran “proxy” by the corporate media, the Houthis are a movement unique to Yemen that share a religious identity with Iran and little more.

Thomas Juneau, a former analyst for Canada’s Department of National Defence, wrote in the Washington Post that “Tehran’s support for the Houthis is limited, and its influence in Yemen is marginal. It is simply inaccurate to claim that the Houthis are Iranian proxies.” He further stated that Iran’s assistance “remains limited and far from sufficient to make more than a marginal difference to the balance of forces in Yemen, a country awash with weapons.”

Even the U.S. State Department has acknowledged that the Houthis have not been not armed by Iran but are instead largely armed by purchases from the black market and the Yemeni military. Furthermore, the Saudi blockade of Yemen ensures that support from Iran, were it to be offered, would not even be able to make it into the Houthi-controlled portion of the country.

Given his “wildly unrealistic” list of policy demands, Pompeo’s speech has largely been regarded as further evidence that the Trump administration has adopted a “regime change” policy towards Iran. This has been expected for some time, as news broke last week that National Security Adviser John Bolton had been circulating a plan throughout the National Security Council that calls for making regime change an explicit part of the administration’s Iran policy.

Pompeo, as well as Bolton, have long been advocates for regime change in Iran, as have other powerful figures closely connected to the Trump administration such as former mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani who now serves as one of Trump’s lawyers.

Earlier this month, Giuliani openly stated that Trump and his administration were “committed” to bringing regime change to Iran during a speech to the Mujahedeen Khalq (MEK), a “cult-like” group of Iranian exiles that was listed as a “Foreign Terrorist Organization” by the U.S. until 2012 for its use of terror tactics that have resulted in the deaths of both Iranians and Americans. During his recent speech to the group, Giuliani led a chant of “regime change,” underscoring the desired result of the MEK and its contacts in Washington.

Bolton also recently spoke to the MEK during a gathering of the group in France last year. In that speech, Bolton told members and supporters of the group: “The declared policy of the United States should be the overthrow of the mullahs’ regime in Tehran. […] The behavior and the objectives of the regime are not going to change and, therefore, the only solution is to change the regime itself. […] And that’s why, before 2019, we here will celebrate in Tehran!”

Pompeo’s recent speech seems to be an indication that Bolton, with help from other like-minded officials in the Trump administration, is seeking to fulfill his regime change promise sooner rather than later.

Foreign Policy, International, Politics

Disputed Report Claims Mattis Told Trump to Ask Congress Before Syria Strikes

Leave a comment

Trump administration officials are reportedly saying that U.S. Secretary of Defense Jim “Mad Dog” Mattis attempted to convince President Donald Trump to seek congressional approval before carrying out strikes on Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s regime following a chemical weapons attack that some administration officials allege were carried out by Assad’s forces.

According to unnamed “military and administration” sources cited by The New York Times, President Trump allegedly rejected Mattis’ advice regarding congressional approval, preferring instead to carry out a rapid show of force to punctuate his tough talk against the Assad regime. However, New York Times sources claim that Sec. Mattis, who warned that an escalation with Syrian-allied Russia could spark a wider war, successfully convinced Trump to limit the strikes to three, two-minute low-profile 105 missile midnight strikes on suspected chemical weapons production facilities, in an effort to save face while avoiding casualties to Russian troops embedded with Syrian forces.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkQODKjDVws

The Hill notes that White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Sec. Mattis denied the report.

“Reports that Secretary Mattis urged the president to seek congressional approval before last week’s strikes in Syria are categorically false. As Secretary Mattis explained to Congress in yesterday’s all-member briefs, the president appropriately ordered the strikes under his constitutional authorities,” Press Secretary Sanders claimed in a statement.

“I have no idea where that story came from. I found nothing in it that I could recall from my own last week’s activities,” Sec. Mattis said as he addressed reporters following a meeting with Qatar’s defense minister.

The New York Times report also claimed that newly-hired national security adviser John Bolton has weakened Mattis’ influence over President Trump.

“Until this month, Mr. Mattis had a buffer at the White House in the former national security adviser, Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, who often deferred to the defense secretary, a retired four-star Marine general. The arrival of Mr. Trump’s new national security adviser, John R. Bolton, means that buffer is gone,” wrote New York Times reporter Helene Cooper.

She added, “Administration and congressional officials said the hawkish Mr. Bolton is not expected to defer to the defense secretary; already, neoconservative members of the Republican foreign policy establishment have started to air concerns that Mr. Mattis is ceding strategic territory to Iran and Russia in Syria.”

[Related: Russia Accuses UK of Masterminding Chemical Weapons Attack in Syria]

In a Monday congressional hearing over the strikes, Sec. Mattis defended Trump’s strikes after-the-fact by claiming a rationale for them that foreign policy analyst Benjamin Haas at the New York University School of Law publication Just Security said “loosely resembled self-defense.”

“We have forces in the field, as you know, in Syria, and the use of chemical weapons in Syria is not something that we should assume that, well, because he didn’t use them on us this time, he wouldn’t use them on us next time…Protection of our forces—I don’t think we have to wait until they’re under chemical attack when the weapons are used in the same theater we’re operating in,” Mattis said to members of Congress.

Just Security’s Haas claimed that Mattis’ rationale for a Constitutional basis for the strikes was “profoundly flawed” because the U.S. has no evidence that Assad is planning an imminent chemical weapons attack on U.S. troops located in the theater.

Featured, Foreign Policy, Government Accountability, International, US

Trump: “Major Decision” on Syria “By The End of Today”

Leave a comment

Washington, D.C. – While speaking to reporters, President Trump said on Monday that he will make a “major decision” regarding a U.S. response to alleged chemical weapons use by the Syrian government in Douma, East Ghouta, in the next 24-48 hours. Trump went on to specify that the decision will be made “very quickly,” likely “by the end of today,” and that “nothing is off the table.”

Trump stated at the cabinet meeting:

We are studying that situation extremely closely.  We are meeting with our military and everybody else, and we’ll be making some major decisions over the next 24 to 48 hours.  We are very concerned when a thing like that can happen.  This is about humanity.  We’re talking about humanity.  And it can’t be allowed to happen.

So we’ll be looking at that barbaric act and studying what’s going on. We’re trying to get people in there. As you know, it’s been surrounded. So it’s very hard to get people in because not only has it been hit, it’s been surrounded. And if they’re innocent, why aren’t they allowing people to go in and prove? Because as you know, they’re claiming they didn’t make the attack.

So if it’s Russia, if it’s Syria, if it’s Iran, if it’s all of them together, we’ll figure it out and we’ll know the answers quite soon. So we’re looking at that very, very strongly and very seriously.

On Sunday, Trump wrote on Twitter that there would be a “big price to pay” for the alleged attack and called President Bashar al-Assad an “animal.” Trump’s comments echo those of U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis, who told a reporter when asked about potential military strikes in Syria that he “would not rule out anything right now.”

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/982966315467116544

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/982967389028569088

Both Syria and Russia have denied involvement in the alleged chemical attack. The Russian Foreign Ministry stated on April 9:

False information is being planted about the alleged use of chlorine and other toxic agents by the Syrian government forces. The latest fake news about a chemical attack on Douma was reported yesterday. These reports are again referenced to the notorious White Helmets, which have been proved more than once to be working hand in glove with the terrorists, as well as to other pseudo-humanitarian organisations headquartered in the UK and the US.

As Truth in Media reported on weeks ago, Russia warned of an impending chemical attack by anti-government forces based upon intelligence reports:

Russia’s Chief of the General Staff of Armed Forces, Valery Gerasimov, warned on Tuesday that Syrian rebels are preparing to utilize chemical weapons— to be blamed on the Syrian government— as a justification for U.S. strikes on Damascus, and cautioned that “in the event of a threat to our military servicemen’s lives, Russia’s Armed Forces will take retaliatory measures to target both the missiles and their delivery vehicles.”

According to Gerasimov, the U.S. plans to accuse the Syrian government of using chemical weapons, thus justifying a potential attack on Syrian government facilities in the Syrian capital of Damascus.

Gerasimov noted that Russia has intelligence which indicates preparations are underway to stage the use of chemical weapons against civilians, stating that the United States plans to “furnish the so-called ‘evidence’ of the alleged mass civilian deaths through the fault of the Syrian government and the Russian leadership supporting it.”

Allegations of a government sponsored chemical attack in in Syria on Saturday comes as pro-government forces concluded an operation to liberate the region from Islamic militants that had taken control of vast swaths of the country, and only days after Trump publicly stated his intention to get U.S. troops out of Syria.

This entire incident rings similar to what happened in February, when Rex Tillerson blamed Russia for a “chemical attack” alleged to have been undertaken by the Syrian government, only to later admit he didn’t actually know who did it. Trump’s language used last April in response to an alleged chemical attack blamed on Assad’s forces in Idlib province — followed by the U.S. launching Tomahawk cruise missile strikes on Syria—was also similar to his response to this recent chemical weapons incident.

Following the reports of a chemical attack, Israel targeted a Syrian airbase with missiles in Homs on Sunday night, according to the Associated Press; that attack reportedly killed 14 people. NBC News confirmed the report, noting that the U.S. had been made aware of the pending strikes before they were launched.

In a statement released on Monday, the U.S. State Department claimed that victims of the alleged attack in Douma showed symptoms of nerve agent exposure, and called on Syria and Russia to open the area to international monitors, according to RT. Additionally, Monday marks the first day on the job for Trump’s new national security advisor John Bolton. Bolton, a former Bush-era ambassador to the UN, is a renowned proponent of increased U.S. military adventurism in the Middle East.