Is the U.S. military under the Trump administration about to forcibly create regime change in Venezuela?
For months I have been saying that would not happen but now, all signs seem to be pointing to this reality. Will the U.S. claim, just like we did in Libya, that a humanitarian crisis is underway and that a military intervention is the only way to protect the people of Venezuela?
I’ll explain in this reality check you won’t get anywhere else.
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.”
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.
Washington, D.C. – Former Congressman Ron Paul has strongly argued following the alleged chemical gas attack blamed on the Syrian government that it makes no logical sense for Assad to order a gas attack, and has called the accusations a telltale sign of a false flag attack meant to provide justification for the U.S. military to maintain a presence in Syria.
“An incident will occur and somebody will get blamed and it’s usually a false flag,” said Paul.
“Right now, recently, it’s all been in Syria, ‘Assad did it! Assad did it!’” explained the former congressman. “No proof at all.”
“The way the people that perpetuate these false flags [sic] say that Assad is gassing his own people, at the same time, he’s winning the war and the people are flocking back in to go to the territories that he has returned to the government of Syria,” explained Paul. “But, nevertheless, he’s out there gassing his own people, which makes no sense whatsoever and fewer and fewer people are believing this.”
Paul, who founded the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity in 2013 after leaving the U.S. House, presented his analysis via the Ron Paul Liberty Report, describing how foreign policy goals related to Saudi Arabia and Iran, and Russia, as well as the influence of neoconservatives, oil interests, and the military-industrial complex play into the current paradigm we see playing out in Syria.
During an appearance on RT, Paul further elaborated. “This whole idea that all of a sudden Assad’s gassing his own people, I think, is total nonsense,” Paul said, pointing out that “over and over again” the US has claimed the Syrian or Russian government has been complicit in previous gas attacks in Syria – and the alleged poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in London — but “nothing panned out.” Or as Paul put it, one “fake news” story after another.
The libertarian icon then reasoned that the rush to condemn the Syrian government without evidence is meant to provide a justification for those wanting the US to remain in Syria and topple the Syrian government in hopes of installing a more western-friendly regime that is not within Russia or Iran’s sphere of influence.
Paul argued that, while it provides little to no strategic benefit for Assad to gas his own people, it would greatly benefit those that are pushing for regime change – especially after Trump recently said he would like to remove U.S. troops from Syria.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hcOxFAp-nx4
Washington, D.C.— Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, announced on Wednesday that he would oppose President Trump’s nominees to head the State Department and CIA, potentially impeding their path to Senate confirmation.
“I will oppose both Pompeo’s nomination and Haspel’s nomination,” Paul said.
Senator Paul Press Conference on Secretary of State and CIA Nominations https://t.co/kQmxft8YI6
— Rand Paul (@RandPaul) March 14, 2018
Trump announced the firing of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on Tuesday, and nominated CIA Director Mike Pompeo, an aggressive foreign policy hawk, to serve as his new Secretary of State – while nominating Gina Haspel, the CIA’s deputy director, to serve as the new head of the CIA after Pompeo moves to the State Department.
Paul said he was “perplexed” how Trump could nominate Pompeo given his support for regime change in Iraq as well as support and advocacy for regime change in Iran. The libertarian leaning Republican senator said Pompeo’s support of regime change contradicts the skepticism Trump expressed on the campaign trail toward foreign interventions and regime change.
“It perplexes me that he is now nominating someone for secretary of State who has advocated and pushed for regime change in Iran,” Paul said.
Director Pompeo has not learned the lessons of regime change and wants regime change in Iran.
— Rand Paul (@RandPaul) March 14, 2018
Haspel, who oversaw the U.S. torture program at a secret CIA prison and later destroyed the recorded evidence, is a lighting rod for controversy given her intimate participation in the torture of individuals suspected by the US of being connected to terrorism. Paul noted his opposition for Haspel’s nomination due to her role in the Bush-era CIA torture program at black site prisons.
“My opposition to her is over her direct participation in interrogation and her gleeful enjoyment of someone being tortured,” said Paul.
“I find it just amazing that anyone would consider having this woman as the head of the CIA,” Paul said. “Certainly, there is a career officer at the CIA who did not directly participate in waterboarding that we can nominate,” he continued. “Rewarding someone who was in charge of something so heinous is a really big mistake.”
CBS News reports that Paul’s opposition to Haspel’s nomination could put her potential confirmation as head of the CIA in jeopardy if all 49 Democratic Senators voted against Haspel – with only one other Republican, aside from Paul, needing to vote no to block her nomination. Paul did not rule out a filibuster to prevent Pompeo from being confirmed.
During the fourth Democratic Debate Sunday night, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders criticized the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, while pledging his support for the proposed overthrow of Bashar al-Assad in Syria.
Sanders, a self-declared socialist, has been adamant in the past about the fact that he opposes—and did not vote for—the war in Iraq. During the latest debate, he said he believes the “disastrous war in Iraq” was responsible for creating a political vacuum that led to the rise of “groups like ISIS.”
[pull_quote_center]I think the vacuum was created by the disastrous war in Iraq, which I vigorously opposed. Not only did I vote against it, I helped lead the opposition. And what happened there is yes, it’s easy to get rid of a two-bit dictator like Saddam Hussein, but there wasn’t the kind of thought as to what happens the day after you get him and what kind of political vacuum occurs. And who rises up? Groups like ISIS.[/pull_quote_center]
Sanders went on to say that he supported President Obama’s plan to “bring American troops home,” and that he believes the United States’ job is to “train and provide military support for Muslim countries in the area who are prepared to take on ISIS.”
[RELATED: Obama Administration Ends $500 Million Syrian Rebel Training Program]
Democratic rival and former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton said she believes that if there is anyone to blame for the rise of ISIS, “it starts with the prime minister of Iraq,” and is only intensified by Syrian President Assad.
“It is amplified by Assad, who has waged one of the bloodiest, most terrible attacks on his own people: 250,000-plus dead, millions fleeing,” Clinton said. “Causing this vacuum that has been filled unfortunately, by terrorist groups, including ISIS.”
[RELATED: Reality Check: Proof U.S. Government Wanted ISIS To Emerge In Syria]
In response, Sanders said he agrees with “most of what she said,” and went on to add that he believes there is an “incredible quagmire of Syria, where it’s hard to know who’s fighting who and if you give arms to this guy, it may end up in ISIS’ hand the next day.”
Sanders said Clinton is “absolutely right” when saying, “Assad is a butcher of his own people.” However, he said that while “getting rid of Assad” is a priority, it comes second to “the destruction of ISIS.”
[pull_quote_center]I think in terms of our priorities in the region, our first priority must be the destruction of ISIS. Our second priority must be getting rid of Assad, through some political settlement, working with Iran, working with Russia. [/pull_quote_center]
Sanders has made similar comments about his support for overthrowing Assad in the past. In Oct. 2015, he said he supports President Obama’s effort to “combat the Islamic State in Syria while at the same time supporting those in Syria trying to overthrow the brutal dictatorship of Bashar Assad.”
For more election coverage, click here.
by Jason Ditz
During his visit to Moscow, Secretary of State John Kerry talked at length with Russian President Vladimir Putin, and came out of those talks with a shocking declaration that “the United States and its partners are not seeking regime change in Syria.”
The declaration is not only bizarre, in that many of America’s “partners” in Syria are rebel factions formed explicitly to oust the government, but because Kerry himself, as well as other high-ranking US officials, have been openly demanding unconditional regime change for several years now.
Kerry went into his Moscow visit saying Assad’s future would be a topic of discussion with Russian officials, which itself raised eyebrows since US officials have long insisted Assad has no future. Kerry doubled down on this, however, insisting that the US and Russia see Syria’s future fundamentally the same way.
Russian officials have been much more forthcoming about their specific view of Syria’s future than the US previously has, offering proposals for a settlement between Assad and secular rebels leading to the drafting of a new constitution and free elections. The US had previously been seen objecting to that plan on the grounds that it didn’t rule out Assad and other key government officials participating in future elections, with Russia has long maintained they don’t want to dictate who is allowed to run.
The US has previously had officials hint that their stance on Syria could change, but this is the first time such a high-profile official has openly renounced regime change. That it was Kerry is particularly noteworthy since Kerry led the failed 2013 effort to get Congress to approve of a US invasion to impose regime change there, repeatedly likening Assad to Hitler during the effort
