Showing posts with label invasion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label invasion. Show all posts

Thursday, 2 August 2018

It may have been his efforts to stop invasion of Qatar that got Til;erson fired

SAUDI ARABIA PLANNED TO INVADE QATAR LAST SUMMER. REX TILLERSON’S EFFORTS TO STOP IT MAY HAVE COST HIM HIS JOB.

Alex Emmons



1 August, 2018


THIRTEEN HOURS BEFORE Secretary of State Rex Tillerson learned from the presidential Twitter feed that he was being fired, he did something that President Donald Trump had been unwilling to do. Following a phone call with his British counterpart, Tillerson condemned a deadly nerve agent attack in the U.K., saying that he had “full confidence in the U.K.’s investigation and its assessment that Russia was likely responsible.”
  
White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders had called the attack “reckless, indiscriminate, and irresponsible,” but stopped short of blaming Russia, leading numerous media outlets to speculate that Tillerson was fired for criticizing Russia.

But in the months that followed his departure, press reports strongly suggested that the countries lobbying hardest for Tillerson’s removal were Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, both of which were frustrated by Tillerson’s attempts to mediate and end their blockade of Qatar. One report in the New York Times even suggested that the UAE ambassador to Washington knew that Tillerson would be forced out three months before he was fired in March.

The Intercept has learned of a previously unreported episode that stoked the UAE and Saudi Arabia’s anger at Tillerson and that may have played a key role in his removal. In the summer of 2017, several months before the Gulf allies started pushing for his ouster, Tillerson intervened to stop a secret Saudi-led, UAE-backed plan to invade and essentially conquer Qatar, according to one current member of the U.S. intelligence community and two former State Department officials, all of whom declined to be named, citing the sensitivity of the matter.
In the days and weeks after Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, and Bahrain cut diplomatic ties with Qatar and closed down their land, sea, and air borders with the country, Tillerson made a series of phone calls urging Saudi officials not to take military action against the country. The flurry of calls in June 2017 has been reported, but State Department and press accounts at the time described them as part of a broad-strokes effort to resolve tensions in the Gulf, not as an attempt by Tillerson to avert a Saudi-led military operation.
Tillerson made a series of phone calls urging Saudi officials not to take military action against Qatar.

In the calls, Tillerson, who dealt extensively with the Qatari government as the CEO of Exxon Mobil, urged Saudi King Salman, then-Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir not to attack Qatar or otherwise escalate hostilities, the sources told The Intercept. Tillerson also encouraged Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to call his counterparts in Saudi Arabia to explain the dangers of such an invasion. Al Udeid Air Base near Doha, Qatar’s capital city, is the forward headquarters of U.S. Central Command and home to some 10,000 American troops.

Pressure from Tillerson caused Mohammed bin Salman, the de facto ruler of the country, to back down, concerned that the invasion would damage Saudi Arabia’s long-term relationship with the U.S. But Tillerson’s intervention enraged Mohammed bin Zayed, the crown prince of Abu Dhabi and effective ruler of that country, according to the U.S. intelligence official and a source close to the Emirati royal family, who declined to be identified, citing concerns about his safety.
Later that June, Mohammed bin Salman would be named crown prince, leapfrogging over his cousin to become next in line for the throne after his elderly father. His ascension signaled his growing influence over the kingdom’s affairs.
Qatari intelligence agents working inside Saudi Arabia discovered the plan in the early summer of 2017, according to the U.S. intelligence official. Tillerson acted after the Qatari government notified him and the U.S. embassy in Doha. Several months later, intelligence reporting by the U.S. and U.K. confirmed the existence of the plan.

The plan, which was largely devised by the Saudi and UAE crown princes and was likely some weeks away from being implemented, involved Saudi ground troops crossing the land border into Qatar, and, with military support from the UAE, advancing roughly 70 miles toward Doha. Circumventing the U.S. air base, Saudi forces would then seize the capital.
On June 20, State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert told reportersthat Tillerson had “more than 20 calls and meetings with Gulf and other regional and intermediate actors,” including three phone calls and two meetings with Jubeir. “The more time goes by, the more doubt is raised about the actions taken by Saudi Arabia and the UAE,” she said.

A spokesperson for the State Department told The Intercept last week that “throughout the dispute, all parties have explicitly committed to not resort to violence or military action.” Tillerson, reached through a personal assistant, did not respond to interview requests.

Pentagon spokesperson Lt. Cmdr. Rebecca Rebarich told The Intercept that although Mattis meets regularly with the secretary of state, the “details and frequency of those meetings are confidential.”

“The Department of Defense has made clear that the persistent Gulf rift puts at risk mutual regional security priorities and has encouraged all parties seek resolution,” Rebarich said. “It is critical that the [Gulf Cooperation Council] recovers its cohesion as the proud Gulf nations return to mutual support through a peaceful resolution that provides for enhanced regional stability and prosperity.”

Spokespeople for the Saudi and UAE embassies did not respond to multiple requests for comment. A spokesperson for the Qatari embassy in D.C. also did not respond to interview requests from The Intercept. None of the information in this story was provided by Qatari government officials or the country’s paid public relations consultants.

THE INVASION PLAN raises questions about interventionist tendencies on the part of two of the U.S.’s closest allies and largest weapons clients. In recent years, both countries have demonstrated a willingness to use military force to reshape politics in the Gulf, intervening in Bahrain to suppress an Arab Spring uprising in 2011 and waging a three-year, U.S.-backed war that has devastated Yemen.

Robert Malley, president and CEO of Crisis Group and a former top Middle East adviser to President Barack Obama, said that since the summer of 2017, Qatari officials have consistently told him that their country had been threatened with invasion.

“There is little doubt that senior Qatari officials with whom I spoke were convinced — or at least acted as if they were convinced — that Saudi Arabia and the UAE had been planning a military attack on their country that was halted as a result of U.S. intervention,” Malley told The Intercept.

Tillerson’s attempts to de-escalate the conflict in the Gulf diverged from the signals sent by the White House. Trump offered a full-throated public endorsement of the blockade, tweeting that “perhaps this will be the beginning of the end to the horror of terrorism.” As Tillerson called on the Gulf countries to lift their embargo, Trump told reporters that “the nation of Qatar, unfortunately, has historically been a funder of terrorism at a very high level.”

According to one news report, Tillerson was frustrated with the White House for undercutting him, and his aides suspected that the line in Trump’s prepared Rose Garden remarks had been written by UAE Ambassador Yousef Al Otaiba, a powerful D.C. player who maintained “almost constant phone and email contact” with Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, according to Politico.
“Senior Qatari officials with whom I spoke were convinced — or at least acted as if they were convinced — that Saudi Arabia and the UAE had been planning a military attack on their country.”

At the time, Kushner was personally handling much of the administration’s diplomacy with the Gulf states, and the leaders of Saudi Arabia and the UAE were choosing to go through him instead of the U.S. defense or intelligence establishments. Kushner communicated directly with the crown princes of Saudi Arabia and the UAE using the encrypted messaging service WhatsApp.


Some Gulf watchers speculate that the incentive for the planned invasion may have been partly financial. Saudi Arabia’s “cradle to grave” welfare system relies on high oil prices, which plummeted in 2014 and have not fully recovered. Since the current king came to power in 2015, the country has spent more than a third of its $737 billion in reserves, and last year, the Saudi economy entered a painful recession. In response, the government has looked for ways to raise money, including by selling shares in the state-owned oil company, Saudi Aramco.


“It’s unsustainable,” said Bruce Riedel, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute and 30-year CIA officer, in a lecture last November. “In the three years since [King Salman] ascended to the throne, one third of Saudi Arabia’s reserves have already been spent. You don’t need to have an MBA from the Wharton school to figure out what that means six years from now.”

If the Saudis had succeeded in seizing Doha, they would potentially have been able to gain access to the country’s $320 billion sovereign wealthfund. In November of last year, months after the plan collapsed, the Saudi crown prince rounded up and detained dozens of his relatives in the Ritz-Carlton Riyadh, forcing them to sign over billions in privately held assets. The government justified the detentions as a corruption crackdown, but it allowed the state to recoup billions in assets for government use.

Beginning in the fall of 2017, the crown princes in Riyadh and Abu Dhabi began lobbying the White House for Tillerson’s removal, according to the source close to the Emirati royal family and another source who is close to the Saudi royal family.



None of the current or former officials interviewed by The Intercept had direct insight into why Trump decided to fire Tillerson. But one source told The Intercept that the timing — a week before the Saudi crown prince arrived for a much-publicized visit to Washington — was significant. During that visit, MBS, as the crown prince is known, was set to discuss the Qatar crisis and future arms sales with the administration.

Four of the sources interviewed by The Intercept also pointed to an ongoing campaign by the UAE to try to provoke Qatar into escalating the crisis. Qatar has continued to complain about violations of its airspace by UAE aircraft, detailing its accusations in a letter to the U.N. earlier this year.

The UAE’s harassment of Qatar also includes crude public insults lodged by UAE leadership against the Qatari royal family. The jibes frequently emanate from the verified Twitter account of Hamad al Mazrouei, a high-level Emirati intelligence official and righthand man to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed. Mazrouei’s account frequently tweets sexually suggestive content directed at Mozah bint Nasser, the mother of the emir of Qatar. Just last week, Mazrouei tweeted a video of a man and woman – with Mazrouei and Sheikha Mozah’s faces photoshopped onto their bodies – doing a raunchy bump-and-grind.

The content and audacity of Mazrouei’s tweets have led to speculation in Qatari media that the account is actually controlled by the crown prince of Abu Dhabi himself.



Sunday, 10 January 2016

Where is Gaddafi's gold?

U.S, France Looted Oil & Gold from Libya




The U.S. Department of State has published new emails of Hillary Clinton, referring to the motives of the international intervention in Libya. The reasons for invading the country in the documents name their large gold and oil reserves, as well as the extension of French influence in the North African region.



The U.S. State Department has published a series of emails that reveal the volume of gold reserves of Gaddafi. According to the documents, the reserves are so great that they could become the basis for creating a pan-African currency, which, in turn, could compete with the dollar in the region.

Also, the reasons for intervention were identified as the major oil reserves of Libya and the strengthening of French influence in North Africa. However, in 2011, Western leaders welcomed the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime as a democratic step. "Long live Benghazi, long live Libya, long live the friendship between France and Libya!", - said French President Nicolas Sarkozy."You showed the world that you can overthrow the dictator and have chosen freedom!" - said the Prime Minister of Great Britain David Cameron, speaking to the Libyan people."The people of Libya got rid of a dictator. Now it has a chance," claimed the Vice-President of USA Joe Biden

In the past five years, the violence and chaos in Libya has not stopped. In the background of this, "Islamic State" is gaining momentum in the country and has captured new territory. In January 2016, dozens of people were killed as a result of terrorist.

Previously, "Islamic State" had claimed responsibility for the attack on a training camp in Zliten. According to the correspondent of the newspaperThe Jerusalem Post Ariel Ben Solomon, from the outset it was obvious that intervention in Libya would lead to negative consequences for the country.

"The email to Clinton is confirmed by the results of studies that began to appear after the invasion of Libya, organized by France with U.S. support. Major oil reserves of the country were the main reason for intervention. Dictators lead many African countries, but the West is in no hurry to intervene in each of them. 

The Obama administration from the beginning was guided by rather naive misconceptions on the actions that needed to be taken to resolve the situation in Libya after the war," said RT political analyst Ariel Ben Solomon.

Gaddafi gold-for-oil, dollar-doom plans behind Libya 'mission'?


May 5, 2011

More speculation has been raised on the reasons for NATO's intervention in Libya. As RT's Laura Emmett reports, the organisation may have been trying to prevent Gaddafi from burying the American buck.




Hillary Clinton on Gaddafi: We came, we saw, he died






Newly disclosed emails show that Libya’s plan to create a gold-backed currency to compete with the euro and dollar was a motive for NATO’s intervention.


Tuesday, 19 March 2013

The invasion of Iraq - 10 years on

'United States of Amnesia': Iraq death toll mounts 10 years on


18 March, 2013

Iraq's about to mark 10 years since the U.S.-led invasion with 30 deaths from bomb attacks last week in Baghdad and 10 more on Sunday in the south.In 2003, Washington unleashed its 'shock and awe' air strikes aiming to rid the country of suspected weapons of mass destruction and topple Saddam Hussein. A decade later, arguments persist over whether anything was achieved.


Wednesday, 16 January 2013

French invasion of Mali

Terror Alert in France as Mali Invasion Escalates

Rebels Threaten Retaliation as France Eyes More Ground Troops





It was only a week ago that top French terror judge Marc Trevedic warned that his nation’s push for a war in Mali was making them a potential terrorism target. With France now invading Mali outright, that threat is becoming very real.

When the attacks began on Saturday, France had already stepped up its terror alert level. That level is being stepped up more today as a spokesman for one of the rebel factions has promised retaliation against France for its attacks in Gao.

France’s impromptu invasion started with only 500 troops on the ground and has relied mostly on air strikes against northern towns so far. Officials say that the troop level could quickly be increased to 2,500, and both Senegal and Niger have promised 500 troops apiece as well.

Mali’s Islamist rebels are made up of several different groups, and some have ties with al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). With a significant Malian minority living in France, the potential for recruitment of attackers is significant, particularly if the civilian toll continues to mount.


Mali crisis: France moves troops to the front line

French troops in Mali have been deployed to frontline areas in a bid to stop the advance of the Islamist insurgency. Meanwhile in the city of Gao, rebels reportedly cut telecommunications links to prevent residents from aiding the intervention force


French army soldiers stand on armoured vehicles as they leave Bamako and start their deployment to the north of Mali as part of the "Serval" operations on January 15, 2013 (AFP Photo / Eric Feferberg)
French army soldiers stand on armoured vehicles as they leave Bamako and start their deployment to the north of Mali as part of the "Serval" operations on January 15, 2013 (AFP Photo / Eric Feferberg)
RT,
16 January, 2013

Thousands of French and Malian troops in armored vehicles are headed to the north of the capital, towards Diabaly, a strategic city seized by the rebels the day before, witnesses said. French airstrikes forced the country's Islamist insurgency to seek shelter in deserted territories, but they are still controlling vast northern areas of the country, including the city of Gao – where residents claim all landlines and mobile phone communications have been cut.


“They cut communications. They accuse residents of giving information to the soldiers,” a local resident told AFP by satellite phone.

The engagement of ground troops comes after five days of heavy bombardment of rebel-controlled areas by the French Air Force and the announcement that the French government was increasing the number of troops on the ground from 800 to 2,500.

But experts feel that the latest intervention makes the participating states vulnerable on the domestic front.


“By launching this campaign, which the jihadi extremists will use to create a ‘holy war,’ this sets up the tension for more terrorist activity – and instead of terminating or containing this conflict in Mali, what the US and the French are doing is spreading it and endangering their own security,” Lawrence Freeman from the Intelligence Review Magazine, told RT.

The military chiefs of the neighboring West African states met in Bamako, the capital, to discuss the deployment of a UN-mandated 3,300-strong regional intervention force.

Although over a dozen countries have voiced support for the intervention in Mali, so far only France has boots on the ground. 

A number of African countries have promised to send troops into Mali, including Nigeria, Senegal, Burkina Faso, Niger and Guinea. Nigeria, the only country equipped to send soldiers into the conflict zone on short notice, has pledged 900 of its troops to aid the French. Nigerian Defense Ministry spokesperson Col. Mohammed Yerima said 190 soldiers would be deployed in Mali on Wednesday with hundreds more expected to arrive in the next few days.

The United States is aiding the combat mission with logistical support and intelligence-gathering assistance. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta reiterated on Tuesday that no American troops will be sent in Mali.


French Elite Special Operations soldiers drive through the town of Markala, about 275 km (171 miles) from the capital Bamako, January 15, 2013 (Reuters / Stringer)
French Elite Special Operations soldiers drive through the town of Markala, about 275 km (171 miles) from the capital Bamako, January 15, 2013 (Reuters / Stringer)


Malian people look at a French armoured vehicle as French soldiers leave Bamako and start their deployment to the north of Mali as part of the "Serval" operations on January 15, 2013  (AFP Photo / Eric Feferberg)
Malian people look at a French armoured vehicle as French soldiers leave Bamako and start their deployment to the north of Mali as part of the "Serval" operations on January 15, 2013 (AFP Photo / Eric Feferberg)


French army soldiers stand on Sagaie tank destroyer as they leave Bamako and start their deployment to the north of Mali as part of the "Serval" operations on January 15, 2013 (AFP Photo / Eric Feferberg)
French army soldiers stand on Sagaie tank destroyer as they leave Bamako and start their deployment to the north of Mali as part of the "Serval" operations on January 15, 2013 (AFP Photo / Eric Feferberg)



Background from RT


Saturday, 8 December 2012

Invasion of Syria



Western media claims Russia is about to change its mind about Syria and Assad. I will believe it when I see it. Twice bitten, once shy



Syria: Iraq 2.0, another false-flag invasion, rated XXX
The US and NATO are set to invade Syria, something many of us have been warning about for a while now. It has been obvious that they have been looking for a pretext and that pretext has already been injected into the public debate. That pretext: chemical weapons, revealed by Fox News and the Director of the CIA, the same two sources that brought us all of the Iraq invasion lies.

John Robles



Voice of Russia,
7 December, 2012



Sadly no matter how questionable or fabricated the pretext is, it appears that there is nothing we can do except sit back and watch the US and its surrogates invade and decimate yet another nation.


The whole Syrian scenario is right out of the Iraq-Afghanistan invasion playbook. We know that the US and its surrogates, including NATO, Sunni Arab partners and Israel, are all waiting for a pretext and preparing for an invasion of Syria and Iran. They want to invade for resources and pre-planned geopolitical goals, this is a given, the only problem is there has not been enough of a reason to, until now. 

Thanks to whom? Once again, Fox News.


Beginning with the events of 9-11, the catalyst for the Project for the New American Century’s plans for global military domination, up until today, we have seen the US run rampant all over the world invading, killing, droning, assassinating and over-turning governments at will.


It began with Afghanistan, a country that had no connection to 9-11. We now know they knew that and invaded anyway. It was their plan and they manipulated the media to bring it about. A plan spearheaded by Fox News, which also helped the neo-conservatives usurp the office of the US Presidency to install George Bush, the spread lies and disinformation connecting Afghanistan to 9-11 so the American people would sheepishly goose-step alongside those hungering for war.


Claims connecting Afghanistan to 9-11 were later found to be false but that has not mattered. An invasion is an invasion, it doesn’t matter to the US how many brown people they kill in Afghanistan on false claims. This act of aggressive war was a crime against humanity, but no one will ever be brought to justice and no one will ever dare to prosecute.


Iraq was not connected to 9-11 either, but the US tried to claim they were. Hussein never allowed al-Qaeda to operate in Iraq. That claim did not work, so the US cooked up the whole Yellowcake story, claiming Iraq was attempting to produce nuclear weapons. That was found to have been a lie too. Fox News was on the job there too. Then there was the 45-minute WMD lie. These lies were even presented to the United Nations and repeated over and over again by Fox News and US Officials. Even the Director of the CIA knowingly promoted a lie and was forced to resign. But apparently Americans have forgotten all of that.


Iraq was nothing but lies, Hussein’s only real crime was the fact that they day before the invasion he changed Iraqi oil trade and foreign hard currency reserves from the dollar to the Euro and was not as pliable as the US had wanted. Something few people have chosen to remember but a very key fact. Remember the weather balloon trailers and the Iraq chemical weapons lie? Fox News broadcast that so much that even when it was known to be a lie it was almost accepted truth.


The aggressive invasion of Iraq and the execution of its leaders was also a crime against humanity for which no one has had to answer for. Another war crime and crime against all civilized people all over the world is the “terror” prison at Guantanamo Bay Cuba. It is a place to keep and torture men who were defending their families and homes from foreign invaders who wanted nothing but to rape their countries of its resources and rob its people the right to self-determination.


The continued dronings and extra-judicial executions, the daily kill lists, the manipulation and over-throwing of governments, the list goes on and on. These are all war crimes and crimes against all of humanity, for which no one has yet been prosecuted and which no country is seemingly able to stop.


Then of course we had Muammar Gaddafi and all of the lies associated with the invasion and destruction of that country with thousands more dead at the hands of the US and its NATO lap dogs, another place where resources were needed and another leader who stopped trading oil in dollars.


Where did it all start? Yugoslavia and the invasion and genocide on the Serbs, also an invasion based on lies for which no has ever paid a price. Yugoslavia was the litmus test for the West and its “resource-and-geopolitical-plan” invasions. Had they been stopped there the world would be a different place today.


The United States has been usurped by madmen and lunatic killers bent on forcing the entire planet to its knees by force. Maybe those are strong words but that is the truth. Just like a brutal cop who murders and then places a cold gun in his dead victim’s hand, the US is rolling through the world like a cancer, killing and invading at will. They will invade Syria and Iran, and then like that cop, come up with the reason later, and like that cop they must be stopped.


We know, without a shadow of a doubt that the US will lie about and produce “evidence” of anything under the sun if it will allow them to carry out their military adventures. Then why should we be surprised by or believe anything they say now with regards to Syria, in particular the claim that President Bashar al-Assad has chemical weapons.


The US has long ago lost any and all credibility and needs to be locked in a padded cell and have all of its weapons removed forcibly before it kills any more people.


Unless one is suffering from loss of long term memory all of the above facts should be enough to cause alarm, and the hairs on the back of the neck to stand on end when a “news” outlet like Fox News, which has lied and lied again, tells the world Syria has chemical weapons. War lie, invasion to come.


When it comes to the lies on Syria, well they have been going on for years. We just learned that Egypt Air resumed flights into Damascus because they found out all of the reports of violence around the international airport were lies. The fact that slimy looking Leon Panetta, dressed in his thousand dollar mafia-thug suit, gets in front of a microphone trying to look all worried while having trouble making his eyes meet the reporters, as he states he is “concerned the regime might very well consider the use of chemical weapons,” just doesn’t get it. Where is the proof? That is what the international community should be asking, and if the US is lying, yet again, which I am sure it is, the world needs to seriously look at ways of disarming the most dangerous aggressor on the planet.


So as the US media attempts to plant the gun, US troops are being amassed on the Syrian border readying for an invasion of Syria, NATO agrees to “augment Turkey’s air-defences,” the invasion of Iran also appears to be closer. NATO has officially entered the Syrian crisis and even Germany has signed up for yet more mindless US led bloodshed.


Syria itself has denounced NATO’s actions and U.S. and German statements. UPI Asia reports that Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Miqdad said, "Syria stresses again, for the 10th, the 100th time, that if we had such (chemical) weapons, they would not be used against its people. We would not commit suicide."


Fox needs to do better than citing "unnamed senior officials" to allow the US to fulfill its dream of punishing President Assad. As U.S. President Barack Obama said that the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian authorities will serve as a "red line" which, if crossed, will be followed by the “punishment” of President Bashar al-Assad.



Is the world going to sit by as the out of control American killing machine comes up with yet another false pretext to invade yet another country, decimate its population and assassinate its leader? Is there anything the world can do? Sadly, it looks like the answer to that question is no. Should we do something? 

Absolutely, but it may be too late.



The views and opinions expressed here are my own. I can be reached at robles@ruvr.ru