It started out as a fermented, weekend rage.  “When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history.”  The words continue, in hurried fury. “You may scapegoat Andy McCabe but you will not destroy America… America will triumph over you.”

Such sentence structures suggest the meditative irritations of a left-leaning reader questioning of the ill-leaning ways of the US Republic.  But they come, in fact, from former CIA director John O. Brennan, furious at the ouster of deputy director of the FBI.

McCabe’s removal, instigated by Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Friday night, had been crude, taking place a mere few hours before his retirement.  This had a certain Trumpian malice, disrupting the prospect that McCabe might be able to collect his full pension accrual.

Voices of sympathy, however, varied.  These are testy times for various factions in Washington.  Remarks from House Intelligence Committee Ranking member Adam Schiff (D-Calif), despite generally being in default disagreement with the GOP, were cool, claiming that the sacking “may have been justified”.  That said, there was “no way for us to know at this point, but even though it may have been justified, it can also be tainted.”

Kentucky’s Senator Rand Paul saw it differently.  Given that relevant material had come from the inspector general’s office, objectivity was unimpeachable.  “They basically have said that McCabe lacked classified documents.  That’s illegal, but then he also lied about leaking classified documents.”

Brennan’s hollow outrage, being from a former CIA director, leaves a certain flavour.  It is worth noting that such frothing indignation came from the same individual whose tenure saw a generous, keen deployment of drone warfare which did not make exceptions of women, children and US citizens.

As Reid Cherlin would note in interviewing Brennan in 2013, even “though you and I are probably never going to join Al Qaeda or hang out with militants in Yemen, our government definitely thinks it could kill you if it thought you had joined up with Al Qaeda or were hanging out with militants in Yemen.”

Former US ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, in turn, will happily defend Brennan’s “angry (& eloquent) voice” even in the absence of any eloquence whatsoever.  (Power’s enthused defence says much about the interventionist, blood curdling nature of US power in its liberal guise.)

Anne Marie Slaughter, former State Department policy planning director, was very much of the Power mould: “[A] world in which, in the end, you can target individuals rather than having to invade countries is probably better.”

To that end, it is worth noting the jagged inconsistencies in the views of those nominally progressive types who found voices of influence during the Obama era.  They, for instance, saw no venality in embracing certain blood-letting programs of empire.  Death was necessary; killing was required.  Now, before them, stands Donald Trump, a monster of such proportion he has made them forget hypocrisy and inconsistency.

The relationship of the US progressive fold with the Republic’s more secret and unsavoury organs has been, at times, a confused one.  Norman Mailer, supposedly one of its more grizzled members, penned a 1,310 page tome on the CIA which attempted, in various ways, to understand this monster of destabilisation. That same man had insisted, on the occasion of his 50^th birthday in 1973, to call for the creation of a “people’s CIA”.  Democracy, he argued then, was threatened by this insidious organisation, this “huge mysterious social organism… an evil force in American life”.

Not so on his visit to the organisation’s headquarters in 1992.  Harlot’s Ghost had made its mark.  He was greeted by 500 officials who, according to the New York Times, gave him a standing ovation.  He had occasion to emit murmurings that gave even a few CIA officers moments of astonishment.

“Wet jobs” – those involving murder and assassination – were, for this tested scribe, permissible.  Why not, for instance, do in Iraq’s then leader, Saddam Hussein? “It really shocked me when he said that,” came the alarmed words of one befuddled officer.  “We’ve been so conditioned to the fact that such operations are wrong, that they’re illegal.”  Prophetically enough, this same sentiment would find its way into the righteous callings of such self-professed socialists as Christopher Hitchens, whose enthusiastic calling for the destabilisation and overthrow of the Saddam regime yielded the most bitter of harvests.

A person who has more than squinted at the nature of such abuses from the CIA has been the libertarian Senator Paul.  “This man had the power,” snorted Paul of Brennan, “to search every American’s records without a warrant.  What’s disgraceful is attacking the Bill of Rights and the freedom of every American.”

Rand Paul’s irate response to Brennan’s Saturday effusion builds on his filibuster during Brennan’s confirmations for CIA director in 2013. The lengthy session afforded him an opportunity to seek answers on what had become a notorious aerial targeting program that did not exempt US citizens.  For 13 straight hours, he held the floor, admittedly falling short of Strong Thurmond’s seemingly untouchable record.  “Has America the beautiful,” he rued, “become Alice’s Wonderland? … Only in Alice’s Wonderland would you sentence someone to death before trying him.”

There is little doubt that Trump’s caging of FBI investigative efforts and attempts to circumvent it are part of a broader struggle in Washington politics.  Liberals, in their own version of Wonderland, find themselves the defending the rougher side of the deep state paladins.

To reduce wealth inequality without diminishing the economic performance of a country, a policy package of bequest taxes and land value taxes could be the optimal solution. Such a policy package would, in fact, have a strong advantage over corporate taxation, a new study published in the journal International Tax and Public Finance finds. It is the first analysis to include the so far neglected factor of land for tackling wealth inequality.

Land is of great interest for studying inequality as climate change might increase land prices and thereby affect housing costs. The cost increase could be countered by smart taxes that would at the same time reduce overall inequality in a country, and hence possibly help to reduce tensions in society that are amplified by populism.

“Climate change will likely make land more expensive. Either, unmitigated global warming caused by fossil fuel emissions will expose land to the risk of droughts and floods,” said lead author Max Franks from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). “Or, if decision-makers choose to mitigate climate change, land will be used for biomass plantations and wind parks and the like. In either case, land will become scarcer and thus more expensive – and land speculation by investors will drive up housing prices even further.”

Narrowing the gap between rich and poor is one of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.

“In our study, we have therefore investigated how the issue of rising land prices could be addressed. Governments have considerable freedom in reducing wealth inequality without sacrificing economic performance, we find,” explained Franks. “The result of our rather complicated conceptual calculations is quite simple: it would make sense to introduce a policy package of land value taxes and bequest taxes – also allowing to reduce corporate taxes or the value-added tax along the way.”

Taxing land triggers investment

A land value tax would have two main effects. First, it would be an incentive for investing money in productive capital, for instance in industry, whereas investing in land, and in particular land grabbing, would be less profitable. The rise in productive capital investment would hence directly increase economic output.

Second, land value taxes – which are only based on the unimproved value of land, disregarding the value of buildings – would prompt a more efficient use of land. Leaving land vacant would, due to land value taxation, result in the owner losing money; therefore, building apartments, for example, to generate income from rents, becomes more attractive. This could even help to mitigate housing shortages.

“The conceptual study shows how governments can help everyone to attain his or her fair share of the pie without shrinking it”, said Franks. For this purpose, the authors compare taxes on capital income, bequests, and the value of land.

“Surprisingly, land was ignored in economic studies of wealth inequality since the 1960s, though we have seen enormous increases in the value of land. So in our study, we include this crucial factor for wealth development and distribution,” Franks added.

Bequest taxes help to reduce inequality, yet additional regulation is needed

The study is based on a consensus in the economic literature that bequest dynamics are a major determinant of the distribution of wealth. Hence, taxing bequests would redistribute wealth. Yet, if only an additional tax on bequests was introduced, it could also harm future economic output since it could discourage households from saving. A reduction of saving on a national scale, however, would mean that banks have less funds available to pass on to businesses as loans – ultimately reducing national investments.

To counteract that tendency, a bequest tax has to be combined with a land value tax, which makes investment in land less lucrative and ensures that savings are directed towards productive investments. A further possible measure to stimulate the economy would be a moderate corporate tax cut offset by the additional public revenues from taxing bequests and land.

“However, additional regulation would be needed to distribute the tax burden fairly. In particular, many middle-class households have a high share of land in their asset portfolio since they own a house and only comparably little financial wealth. To avoid a further tax burden on the middle class, a land value tax allowance could be established,” added co-author David Klenert from the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC). “Moreover, regulation would be needed to make sure that landlords do not pass all of the land value tax costs on to their tenants. Still, despite the complexity of both the side-effects of the taxes and the policies needed to limit them, our conclusions are robust.”

Countering the rise of inequality also means countering populism

“Interestingly, our analysis finds the greatest positive effects for economic output and wealth inequality reduction if the tax proceeds are used for transfers to the young generations who invest it into better education, found a family, or start a business,” added Ottmar Edenhofer, co-author of the study; he is chief economist of PIK and director of the MCC. “Smart taxing of bequests and land can, thus, help to reduce both intra- and inter-generational wealth inequality.”

“We see a widening gap between rich and poor in many societies, an increase in the volumes of bequests, and a strong increase in land value,” said Edenhofer. “If policy makers take the sustainable development goals of poverty eradication, inclusive growth, inequality reduction, and sustainable cities seriously, they will need a balanced strategy. This becomes even more important in times when populists exploit middle-class fears and societal tensions. Public finance is an important means to get to the root of the problem.”

It is well accepted all over the world that during the last one decade or so, the world economy has been largely driven by the industrial and economic growth in China, which is more than any other individual country. China’s share of world output has gone up from 6.3% in 1996 to 17.8% in 2016.

China is the world’s 3rd largest country after Russia and Canada. China is only 15% of the global economy but contributes 25 to 30% to global growth. China’s installed capacity and production of steel, aluminium, coal, power and most of the chemical products have increased by leaps and bounds in the last ten years. China is the largest single consuming country in the world for chemicals. It’s share in the global chemical consumption is now around – 30%.

Of the global annual production of around 58 million tonne of aluminium, China’s share is around 32 million tonne. Chinese manufacturers continue to augment production capacities in the North-Western provinces at lower cost. This is expected to increase global aluminium supply in the coming years.

Steel production in the world is dominated by China and followed by Japan. China’s crude steel production is around 790 million tonne per annum, which is around 52% of the world crude steel production.

Reflecting China’s growing focus on the production of higher-value goods, the output of computers, telecommunications equipment and other electronics rose 12.1 percent on year.

Such steep increase in capacity and production with regard to several products inevitably resulted in China aggressively seeking export market to find outlet for the products, as the installed capacity and production growth has been much higher than the domestic demand growth for the products.

In the process, China’s thrust on export have created problems for the other countries, as Chinese prices have been much less than the price quoted by producers in other countries, leading to fall in production or industrial plant closures in several countries including the USA and India.

For example, production of citric acid in China which was 6,00,000 tonne in 2003 climbed to 15,00,000 tonne in 2016. China now exports citric acid to more than 100 countries. As a result of export penetration by China, several citric acid plants have closed in number of countries. China now supplies 60% of the global demand for citric acid.

China has been repeatedly accused by several countries of artificially keeping the price of the Chinese products low to compete in the world market, by providing soft cushions for the Chinese industries by way of concessions , unsustainable state subsidized production practices, soft loans etc. Also, Chinese industries have been criticized for not observing the required environmental norms and violating the safety issues for the sake of boosting the capacity build up and production.

However, in the last few years, China has realized the need to ensure the optimal performance of industry, by imposing strict environmental rules and stipulating norms for consumption of raw material and utility and enforcing closure of unviable units. Several units have also been forced to shift from unsafe location to industrial parks. China could take such corrective steps boldly, since it has built so much of over capacity, with the units operating at low capacity utilization level in the last few years. and therefore, closure of some capacities do not really result in significant loss to overall production.

According to a survey of a basket of 16 chemicals studied by the European Union of Chamber of Commerce of China, as many as eleven face low capacity utilisation issues in China.

While the growth rate in China has slowed in 2017 compared to 2016, these growth rates remain higher than in any other country in the world.

China’s vulnerability to global trade war

China’s total debt has been building up in the economy during the last several years to support growth. China’s debt surpassed 300% of GDP in 2017.

The People’s Bank of China has enabled the buildup of debt with “huge lending” to commercial banks. Debt-fueled consumer demand accounted for 71% of China’s economic growth in the first three quarters of 2016. China’s economic growth is being held up through extremely high credit generation, that is not sustainable for long without substantial damage to the economy and financial system

In such difficult scenario, China’s product offerings have to shift from mid to high end in the value chain based on innovation driven development to remain globally competitive without price slashing in the coming years. China has to upgrade its manufacturing sector and take market share from high tech countries such as Japan, South Korea,USA and Europe for higher end products. Obviously, to achieve such requirements, China’s export market has to be sustained and it’s global market penetration has to be enhanced.

In such scenario, any fall in Chinese export due to trade war can cause huge setback to China’s plans and strategies.

China’s compulsive need for export

Overcapacity in industrial enterprises is the biggest problem that China is facing today

China now has far more capacity than it – or for that matter, the world – needs. In some cases, over capacity exist to the level of 30% of domestic need.

Over capacity has been built up not only by domestic private Chinese companies but also by foreign companies, who target both Chinese and global market.

The overcapacity problem has been exacerbated in recent times by the clear slowdown of China’s economy. Particularly, impactfull is the slowdown in infrastructure projects and in the real estate sectors. Over capacity in the manufacturing sector could take far longer to be sorted out, especially given the state of the global economy

To tackle such conditions and avoid an impending crisis, China faces compulsive need to boost export, as its domestic demand cannot absorb the production at higher capacity utilisation level that are needed to sustain the economy.

Trade attack by USA

US President Trump announced at least $50 billion worth of annual tariffs and other penalties on China, due to what US terms as “China’s theft of technology and trade secrets”, which US administration officials say has robbed American companies of billions of dollars in revenue and killed thousands of jobs.

The measures of US government are targeted at imported Chinese goods in as many as 100 categories — hitting everything from shoes and clothing to consumer electronics — and will impose restrictions on Chinese investments in the United States..

President Trump says that he has instructed the Treasury Department to pursue restrictions on certain types of Chinese investments to counter China’s ambitious industrial policy, which aims to dominate cutting-edge sectors like artificial intelligence and mobile technology.

The announcement comes hard on the heels of Mr. Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum imports and are aimed at combating a flood of cheap metals into the United States, including Chinese steel.

What about vulnerability of USA and other countries?

In China, 31% of the ownership of industrial and production enterprises is by foreign companies and 21% is owned by state owned enterprises and the remaining 48% by domestic private sector.

Billions of dollars are being invested by foreign companies in China year after year.

Almost every major multinational company in the world have investment in China. For example, BASF, multi national giant, has invested approximately €6 billion and above €8 billion with partners in China during the last 20 years.

Clearly, entry into the Chinese market is a high priority for foreign companies, in order to participate in this major growth region. Foreign companies remain optimistic about the prospects and opportunities in the Chinese market and continue to invest in the country.One strategy the foreign companies are adopting is in the building of local manufacturing facilities in China.

Any fall in economy or trade of China will adversely impact the performance and profit of foreign companies operating in China, most of which are multinational companies based in USA, Japan, South Korea, Western Europe and Middle East region. In view of their huge investment in China, any problems faced by them in China will directly and indirectly impact the economy of the developed countries where these multinational companies are based.

US President Trump believes that the imposition of tariffs will safeguard American jobs, but many economists say the impact of price increases for users of steel and aluminium, such as the auto and oil industries, will destroy more jobs in USA than curbs on imports create. Further, the effect of the China tariffs imposed by USA would have a bigger impact on United States consumers, who are heavy purchasers of electronics, clothing and other Chinese products.

China has argued that both USA and China benefit from the flow of Chinese money into the United States.

Why US thinks trade war necessary?

Though US President claims that US has imposed steep tariff on Chinese goods to protect US economy., this may not be entirely true. It has to be noted that he has not imposed similar tariffs on other European countries and India so far, though these regions also have substantial share in US imports. Obviously, the focus of US is on hurting China.

China, in recent years, has shown expansionist tendency with its aggressive postures in South China sea, Senkaku island , threatening India with border war and claiming India’s Arunachal Pradesh as its own and several other claims. China’s aggressive take over of Tibet is a classic example of China’s territorial expansion targets.

Last year, military spending in China was budgeted to increase by 7 percent, to 1.044 trillion yuan ($164.60 billion) about one-quarter of the proposed U.S. defence spending for the year, which is obviously to support China’s war like posture towards it’s neighbors.

Apart from territorial expansion ambition, China has also been focusing on economic domination of the world. It has considerably penetrated into the economy of weaker neighbors such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Mauritius, Myanmar and others.

Key infrastructure projects across Asia, Africa And Europe under Belt and Road (BRI), are aimed at extending China’s global influence on the basis of its economic prowess. BRI is interwoven with official efforts to export Chinese rail, hydropower and other technology and steel, aluminum and other industrial goods. Around $1.8 trillion of infrastructure investments across Asia, Africa and the Middle East include Chinese money or other involvement.

Obviously, the USA and several other countries are concerned about China’s aggressive approach and are of the view that China has to be checked to avoid it becoming an aggressive super power, perhaps, even stronger than USA.

While military warfare with China is ruled out, the only option left for USA is to impose check and control on China by starting a trade war.

Can China afford trade war ?

China says that it does not want a trade war with the United States but it will defend its interests, if US would choose to launch a trade war.

However, it is extremely doubtful as to whether China can sustain a trade war, since Chinese economy will virtually collapse if the export of Chinese products would be considerably curbed.

It remains to be seen as to what would be President Trump’s further strategies and whether US would ask its allies also to join in the trade war against China. While the allies may not go to the full extent in supporting USA, nevertheless, they are watching with sustained interest the moves of President Trump and perhaps, want US President to succeed.

In March 2018, two Islamophobia-related developments that were local and unfolded in different regions took an international dimension by sparking concerns among Muslims globally. These developments also risk fueling existing or potential communal tensions that governments and community leaders in multicultural countries are working hard to prevent. Of course, news channels and social media have a role in globalising such local but distressing developments. Malicious actors from both ends of the hate spectrum – Islamists and Islamophobes – could seize upon these developments to perpetuate fear, distrust, and instigate acts of violence and terrorism.

Asia – Anti-Muslim Violence in Sri Lanka

In Asia, Sri Lanka imposed a state of emergency from 6 – 18 March 2018 and blocked access to social media due to an outbreak of communal violence in which Sinhalese Buddhist extremist groups had targeted Muslim neighbourhoods around the town of Kandy. The scale of violence was unprecedented and this was the first time that the Sri Lankan government imposed a state of emergency after lifting the last one in 2011 following the end of the civil war.

The outbreak marked an escalation of ethnoreligious divide that has been festering in Sri Lanka over the recent years since the Sinhalese Buddhist extremist groups rose to influence. These groups have grown bolder given the government’s inaction on quelling violence and prosecuting those responsible for organising it. The siege mentality that the Sri Lankan national identity – Sinhalese Buddhist – is under threat from the Muslim minority remains unchecked and in September 2017 had embolden the groups to storm a United Nations shelter for Rohingya refugees near Colombo.

There is a risk of the communal violence in Sri Lanka being perceived as an extension of the persecution of Muslims by Buddhists in the Rakhine state of Myanmar. Buddhist extremist groups in Sri Lanka have reportedly relied on the same methods that were used to spread hatred against Muslims in Myanmar. Islamophobia – that Muslims are terrorists – is exploited in extremist narratives to justify why Muslims are a threat. Misinformation – such as Muslims using underhanded means to enrich themselves economically and undermine the Buddhist population – perpetuates the siege mentality among the Buddhist majority.

The parallel between anti-Muslim violence in Sri Lanka and Myanmar is hardly surprising as Buddhist extremist groups from both countries since 2014 have had exchanges and vowed to unite against what they perceived as the threat of Islamist terrorism. Wiranthu, a radical anti-Rohingya monk from Myanmar, addressed Sri Lankan Buddhist groups at a convention in Colombo in September 2014. Buddhist nationalism is the political force that drives these Buddhist extremist groups and dissuades governments from clamping down on them. The situation in Sri Lanka, if it remains volatile, could draw the attention of Islamist terrorist groups the same way they were drawn to the Rohingya crisis.

Europe – Anti-Muslim Narratives in United Kingdom (UK)

In Europe, several cities in the UK reported that anonymous letters titled “Punish a Muslim Day” were distributed via mail to people and shared online. The letters are an incitement of violence – scheduled for 3 April 2018 – against Muslims in the UK hence creating fear and concerns over safety among both Muslims and non-Muslims. The fact that this development has resulted in the Police investigating it as a possible hate crime and several Members of Parliament (MPs) condemning it demonstrates that communities in the UK are largely united against ethnoreligious divide and communal violence. The Muslim community, as a counter-narrative, responded by creating a “Love a Muslim Day” letter to promote kindness and harmony among people of different faiths.

The letters, which incites violence against Muslims, are hardly surprising given the current sociopolitical climate in Europe (and North America), which are seeing more incidents of xenophobia and Islamophobia – a surge in right-wing extremism. Islamophobia is becoming increasingly mainstream in political discourse there. Islamophobes, as a form of misinformation, are blaming Muslims not only for terrorist attacks but also – as stated in the letters – for “overrunning White-majority countries” and undermining democracy. The implications to communal peace and national security are perturbing, as Europol had stated in its Terrorism Situation and Trend Report (2017) that attacks by right-wing extremists have been on the rise. Of concern, Islamist terrorist groups could seize upon the repercussions – from acts of right-wing extremism – in their narratives to radicalise disaffected Muslims and justify terrorist attacks.

Islamophobia and Islamism – Mutually Reinforcing Threats

The existence of Islamophobia in religious nationalism (e.g., Buddhist nationalism) in Asia and right-wing extremism in Europe is a problem that risks adding to the list of Muslim grievances that sustain the drive of Islamist terrorist groups across the globe. While Islamist terrorism was born partly out of the rejection of colonialism, modernity and its evils, Islamophobia could proliferate feelings of vicarious victimhood and disenfranchisement among Muslims worldwide. Islamist terrorist groups could exploit these feelings on the backdrop of the Muslim Ummah identity to perpetuate their jihadist ideology hence sustaining the various paths to radicalisation.

This problem also exemplifies how the poisonous mix of misinformation, social media, racial and religious politics could divide a nation and the communities within by creating a vicious cycle of hate and violence. Non-Muslims would feel that their way of life is under threat hence fueling religious nationalism and right-wing extremism. Conversely, Muslims would feel that they are being increasingly marginalised hence may turn inward and distance themselves from the larger society. With globalisation and social media, the implications would be felt in countries and cities with multicultural populations.

The Fight against Hatred

While this problem is complex and requires a whole-of-society and global approach for solutions, the Muslim community worldwide on its part could take the lead in certain efforts. It could be more of enhancing current efforts rather than creating new efforts in countering Islamophobia.

First, mainstream Muslim organisations should continue engaging Muslims in understanding Islam amid contemporary issues such as socioeconomic pressures, misinformation, finding identity and purpose, and regional issues. This effort should aim not only to help inoculate Muslims against jihadist ideology but also to help them make sense of and deal with other forms of extremism – such as religious nationalism and right-wing extremism. The Muslims’ response to other forms of extremism should be one that espouses peace rather than reinforces hatred.

Second, mainstream Muslim organisations should continue reaching out to reliable media and grassroots channels, and other religious organisations to assert the narrative that the Muslim identity is compatible with the national identity; that Muslims are an integral part of society. Concurrently, it is important that these channels and other religious organisations help to portray the Muslim community as one of society’s source of strength rather than as a community at risk. Society as a whole must recognise that Islamophobia spreads hatred that afflicts not only Muslims but also the entire humanity.

*Muhammad Faizal bin Abdul Rahman is a Research Fellow with the Homeland Defence Programme at the Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS), a unit of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

Innovative music research is underway at The University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA). The university’s music marketing coordinator and his undergraduate students are using geographic information system (GIS) technology to map the scale and scope of the live music scene in San Antonio.

Stan Renard, in the UTSA Department of Music, has developed an app to capture, store, analyze, manage and present music-centric geographic data for San Antonio. The app gives a visual representation of San Antonio’s music venues, studios and production companies, and how and where the city’s music industry is growing.

Renard and his undergraduate research assistants mapped more than 300 venues, nearly 30 music festivals, more than 250 music businesses (record studios/production companies) and more than 100 music-related non-profit organizations. In addition, Renard was able to show how the music scene and alcohol sales are correlated. This research was funded by a $3,000 grant from the Music Entertainment & Industry Educators Association (MEIEA).

The UTSA researchers point out that District 1, which includes downtown San Antonio, has the most concentration of music venues, music industry non-profits and music businesses. Additionally, they observed the San Antonio music industry is growing especially in Districts 8 and 9 with more music venues and live music festivals showing up along I-10 and US Highway 281.

“I hope this data will be used by city leaders and music professionals to develop programs and initiatives to spur more growth for the music scene citywide,” Renard said.

Renard will present his team’s findings at the MEIEA Summit in Los Angeles on March 24, 2018.

Prior to this study, Renard and his students developed a music industry impact study along with Music Canada LLC. It was commissioned by San Antonio Sound Garden, funded by the City of San Antonio, and released in November 2017.

The study provided an inventory of recording studios, live music venues, music training and education and included recommendations to promote the music industry in San Antonio.

Soon after that study’s release, the Texas Music Office, a division in the Office of the Governor, announced San Antonio as a “Music Friendly Community”.

“San Antonio’s music industry is seeing tremendous growth and a lot of musicians, many from Austin, are seizing the opportunities here,” said Renard. “We are also seeing more tech-related music start-ups popping up in San Antonio.”

Renard and his Music Marketing students are taking advantage of the opportunity to network with those music professionals at this year’s Music Biz Day on April 7, 2018 at the UTSA Downtown Campus.

Music Biz Day is considered the largest university-held music expo nation of its kind in the nation. The expo brings industry professionals, musicians, and students together for a unique networking and collaborating experience.

“In UTSA’s Music Marketing program, we are training our music students to adapt to the changing landscape and provide great networking opportunities for them to thrive in a variety of roles in the music industry,” said Renard.

Polls show that over 125 million adults in our country already favor full Medicare for all, with free choice of doctor and hospital without stifling networks. I say ‘already’ because, as of yet, there is no major national campaign underway showing that an ‘everybody in, nobody out’ system of health insurance costs less, with better outcomes, is simpler, without maddeningly inscrutable or fraudulent bills, co-pays, deductibles and additional trap doors set by a bunch of greedy corporations. The campaigns that exist today are receiving too little on-the-ground assistance for such a widely-supported issue.

A super-majority of only 535 members of Congress—Senators and Representatives—can make that decision. The bill—H.R. 676, the ‘Expanded & Improved Medicare for All Act’—is now supported by 121 House Democrats—two thirds of all the Democrats in the House of Representatives. So that’s a good start.

H.R. 676 has been referred to several, regular, Committees of the House whose Chairs are all Republican corporatists. So there have been no public hearings. The bill, not surprisingly, is not moving at all.

Millions of Americans have had the bitter experience of denials of health care, staggering bills, pay-or-die drug prices and even loved ones dying because they couldn’t afford health insurance (about 35,000 a year based on Harvard Medical School experts). So, in the next month, imagine what would happen, if just ten million of the 125 million who support full Medicare for all wrote, telephoned or emailed their two Senators and Representative demanding action and a written response by their lawmakers (who don’t pay postage).

Just ten million Americans making the least difficult effort—perhaps ending with a demand for a town meeting back home to educate the negative solons—would strike the Congressional Dome like a thunderbolt. Are there a dozen leaders among you up for launching such an electrifying internet mobilization?

Not to be confused with other lesser health insurance bills, mostly in the Senate, H.R. 676 is the real thing. It covers ‘all individuals in the U.S. with free health care that includes all medically necessary care, such as primary care and prevention, dietary and nutritional therapies, dental services, and vision care.’ No more premiums, co-pays or gaping deductibles.

How does H.R. 676 pay for all these services? Five ways:
” (1) from existing sources of government revenues for health care, (2) by increasing personal income taxes on the top 5% of income earners, (3) by instituting a progressive excise tax on payroll and self-employment income, (4) by instituting a tax on unearned income (such as on capital gains), and (5) by instituting a tax on stock and bond transactions. Amounts that would have been appropriated for federal public health care programs, including Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (SHIP), are transferred and appropriated to carry out this bill.”

Presently, all Canadians are covered at an average per capita cost half of what Americans—insured and uninsured—are having to spend for health care. The system proposed in H.R. 676 is similar to Canadian Medicare. It includes public funding and free choice of private delivery of health care. It also has provisions for better record keeping, prevention and quality control. There is even transition retraining for all those clerical and administrative jobs that would not be necessary after displacement of the present bloated, wasteful, redundant health care sub-economy.

What would happen to the giant health insurance companies such as Aetna and United Healthcare? They would be prohibited from selling insurance that duplicates the benefits provided under H.R. 676. They could only sell benefits that are not deemed ‘medically necessary,’ such as certain cosmetic surgery operations.

Rep. Keith Ellison (Dem.-Minn.), the deputy chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), is officially the lead House Democrat on the bill, which indicates that the DNC may be getting a little more interested in endorsing such legislation.

Meanwhile, Rep. Ellison is talking it up everywhere he travels. He says:
“One of the consistent applause lines we’re all hearing is: ‘We need Medicare for all.” There’s a lot of folks who feel that it’s time for us to organize around that. It’s a better policy, at a better price. People in labor, people all over the country, they’re going to be driving the public conversation, raising the dialogue about this….What some people think is a really important progressive position is just what the rest of the industrialized world does.”

Medicare for all is what the Pentagon does. It is what President Harry Truman wanted from Congress back in the nineteen forties!! It is time.

So will the first ten million Americans step up and be counted by sending messages directly to their Senators and Representatives in the month of April? The amount of time required to send a letter, an email or a telephone call is so brief that activated citizens could be called the modern “Minutemen” for universal health insurance. Just think of all the tasks you do every day that take far more time, like trying to figure out bills, denials, exclusions, from this basic human right.

Go to SinglePayerAction.org to get the details, the motivation and the groups with which to connect. The Congressional telephone switchboard is 202-224-3121. Make sure to give your legislators your name and contacts; they’ll take the call or letter more seriously.

The firing of H.R. McMaster and naming of John Bolton as national security advisor marks a critical juncture in the Trump presidency. The president has now rid himself of almost all the figures who might reasonably be called pragmatic conservatives; those who previously restrained him from his worst impulses. With Tillerson, McMaster and Gary Cohn out, replaced by true believers in the nationalist-populist cause like Pompeo, Bolton and Kudlow, the Trump presidency is now stripped down to a pure, distilled version. Just like neoconservatives once demanded, “let Reagan be Reagan,” now Trump can be truly his own (crazy) man.

He can fire Robert Mueller (and I hope he does–more on this below). He can bomb North Korea and Iran. Or give the Israelis the green light to attack the latter. He can build bigger and ‘better’ nuclear weapons. He an put ever more lethal, expensive weapons systems in the hands of his generals. He can ship some of them off to his Wahabi pals to kill more Yemenis and Syrians, and possibly Iranians. He can turn his back on European allies and even meet with Vlad to cheer old times and new adventures.

Anyone reading might wonder where all this contrarianness comes from.  Cynical? Yes.  Dangerous? Yes.  Unreasonable? No.  There is, in my opinion, only one way to destroy Trump: let him do his worst.  Let him run the Constitution ragged.  Let him revile trusted institutions like the FBI and justice system.  Let him fire the only bulwarks between him and chaos (Mueller).  Let him impose draconian tariffs and bring on a trade war with China.  Bring the nation and the economy to brink of disaster.  The closer we come the better.

To be clear (and to paraphrase Winston Churchill, Bibi’s favorite warmonger): this is not the end, not even the beginning of the end.  But perhaps it is the end of the beginning leading eventually to Trump’s fall.

Some reading this will say: what’s to stop him from bringing down the temple as Samson did to the Philistines?  Certainly not the Republicans, who seem to be either lapping up his performance; or standing back with mouth agape at how quickly one person could do so much damage to an entire country.  If Trump does fire Mueller, a few of them have warned that it would be an impeachable offense.  Well, we’ll see how true to their word they are.  The republic, thankfully, doesn’t depend on the GOP to save it.

In 2018, we will have a mid-term election.  The worse Trump does, the more damage he inflicts, the worse the outcome for Republicans.   But, I hear you say, what guarantee is there that Democrats will do much better?  Agreed.  The Democratic Party is a fragmented mess.  The corporatists control many of the levers of power.  The hostility they offer toward the populists is unremitting.  This guarantees a Party that has no compelling vision other than gaining power and keeping it (without having any platform that would resonate with any large cross section of Americans, as Bernie Sanders does).  Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi are Exhibits A and B in this regard.

But even if Democrats are given control of one or both Houses of Congress, at least they can exercise a strong brake on Trump’s worst impulses.  That offers an opportunity to Sanders or another populist presidential candidate to win the presidency in 2020.  If instead, the Democrats offer another milquetoast candidate like Clinton who excites no one, then they will have only themselves to blame.  But at least it won’t be Trump.

If Trump is impeached (unlikely) or drubbed in the 2020 election, I predict that by 2021 there won’t be a single American who will admit having voted for him.  He will fade into the dustbin of history, to quote John Brennan’s memorable phrase.  The question will be, how lasting the damage to the country his presidency will have been.  There will undoubtedly be long-term damage.  Even the worst, most incompetent presidents leave a legacy that impacts policy and governance for those that follow.  My hope is that the next president will quickly undo almost every policy Trump put in place, leaving his presidency like a nightmare from which we seek to awaken.

An addendum on Bolton: it occurs to me that his new role in the Trump White House will pose some of the same conflicts of interest which Flynn faced, and which caused him to run afoul of the special counsel.  Bolton has numerous financial and lobbying interests he’s pursued while out of office (and perhaps even when he was in office).  Who has he taken money from and what did he do for the money he earned.  Let’s analyze his financial disclosure forms closely.  Either what’s in them or what’s omitted from them could make or break this guy.

As an aside: I’m pleased to see that Bolton’s book, Surrender is Not an Option is for sale in hardcover on Amazon for 25¢.  That’s right, $.25!!

Israel: May the Worst Man Win

I feel the same way about Israel.  Once upon a time, I rooted for Labor to win enough mandates to form a governing coalition.  It seemed the sane alternative to Likud.  I don’t feel that way now.  Labor hasn’t a hope in hell of winning anything.  It’s a spent force.  Nor do I want the relatively sane Rivlin-Begin faction of Likud to triumph (no danger of that since it’s been ousted from power anyway).  Best to have the worst prime minister possible.  Avigdor Lieberman?  Sure.  Naftali Bennett?  You bet.  Annexation and ethnic cleansing? Bring it on.  If it was feasible I’d like Moshe Feiglin or Yehudah Glick to run the state.  The worse the better.

It will take a major catastrophe to bring the world to its senses and persuade the powers that be that they must intervene before the madmen take over the asylum and blow it sky-high.  Sad to say, that such a catastrophe may involve a massacre.  It may involve a disastrous war in which thousands die.  But in a nation run by sociopaths, it will take a disaster to provoke action.

Most human beings when faced by a psychopath would rather look away than intervene.  It’s easier that way.  That’s what constitutes the world’s response to Israeli aggression and brutalism.  Why get involved?  But once something like a Srebrenica happens in the Middle East, there will be no more looking the other way.  So, though it seems totally contrarian to say so, I want the worst leaders and the worst decisions from Israel’s political-military echelon.  And we likely will get them.  That’s what’s so sad…

This article was published at Tikun Olam.

During an interview on 2/28/18 with, the Iranian journalist, Fariba Pajooh, a friend of many of us, Professor Noam Chomsky, emphasized the imminence of a devastating Israel-Hezbollah war in Lebanon. He explained that: “There is a significant likelihood that real hostilities will break up between Israel and Hezbollah, which will probably mean the invasion of Lebanon by Israel. Israel will bombard Lebanon, which will mean the destruction of Lebanon. Israel is committed to their Dahiya doctrine, as they call it, which means they will go to war against any provocation. And it could just blow up the Iranian installations which are not too far from the Israeli border. Israel won’t allow anything near its borders. So, I think that is a very volatile and dangerous situation.”

Since first meeting Professor Chomsky in his MIT office nearly four decades ago while I was a student of his friend Professor Jerome Cohen at Harvard Law Schools, East Asia Legal Studies Center, studying the Chinese (Mao Tse Tung’s Cultural Revolution) “Legal system”, I have followed Professor Chomsky work and his activities as a US foreign policy critic, historian, social critic and political activist. Like many of us I would normally no sooner second-guess Noam Chomsky’s Middle East foreign policy analyses than I would the late Stephen Hawking’s theories about our Universe.

But geostrategic calculations are unfolding fast in Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Israel and the region and quite recent events suggest to this observer that a Hezbollah-Israel war is not on the horizon. A war between Hezbollah and Israel may be inevitable but based on this observer’s analysis it is not imminent. Focusing on recent developments in Syria and Lebanon offers scant evidence that either Israel, Hezbollah or Iran are interested in starting another war. There are several reasons for this stalemate including, but not limited to the factors noted below.

In the coming year, but more likely well beyond, Hezbollah and its sponsors in Tehran will be shackled fighting in Syria. A major war with Israel is extremely risky for them. Despite be able to inflict serious damage on Israel; such a war would ignite a fierce Israeli response that could decimate Hezbollah and Iranian forces and bases in Syria and undermine Iran’s regional goals. Iran theocratic leadership is cautious and its unlikely that it would take that risk.

Even frequent Israeli bombings over the past few years have not elicited much of a Hezbollah, Iran or Syrian response. For example, all still deny the 2007 Israeli attack on a nuclear reactor being built in Deir ez-Zor a decade ago. The reason being their inability to react militarily without risking destruction of their forces.

Iran can no longer afford to risk Israel destroying Hezbollah which serves Tehran in many ways. If Israel were to bomb Iran’s nuclear weapons sites, Iran could order Hezbollah to do its utmost to damage Israel. But today the chances of such an Israeli strike appear increasing remote, considered unnecessary given the global focus on Iran’s potential nuclear sites. In addition, Hezbollah has become a key part of the new Iranian empire in the region, fighting in Syria and training Shi‘a militias alongside Iran’s Revolutionary Guards. So Hezbollah is needed by Iran even more today than was previously the case.

Iran and Hezbollah also are keenly aware that Israel has been developing its military capabilities since 2006 and readying itself for the next war. And Israel knows the same about Hezbollah. For Israel, victory means Hezbollah’s complete destruction. Therefore, Israel won’t rush into a war that Hezbollah might survive.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah is stretched thin in more than three countries, and a war with Israel could jeopardize Hezbollah’s and Iran’s recent gains in Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq. Meanwhile, Israel will continue its targeted attacks on Hezbollah’s weapons convoys and depots with impunity. Hezbollah will not confront Israel from south Lebanon unless Tehran orders it to or it has achieved its goals in in Syria and that will take a long time, if ever, to achieve.

Meanwhile, as Hanin Ghaddar has explained, Israel knows well that in a future war with Hezbollah that it could face as many of its 150,000 rockets—compared to the 33,000 Hezbollah had in 2006. Writes Ghaddar, “Hezbollah, with Iran’s help has built missile factories in Lebanon and Syria, meaning they have guidance systems that will cause serious damage to Israeli population centers. In addition, Hezbollah is now part of an army of 200,000 Shi‘a fighters from Lebanon, Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, under the command of the Quds Force of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards. An Israeli war with Hezbollah, therefore, could mean a war with Iran’s foreign legion.”

There are some current factors that could increase the prospects for a future Hezbollah-Israel war, but not immediately.

Given that rebels in Syria are in many areas currently on the defensive, and even though ISIS is staging comebacks and the war is widely predicted to last for several more years, Iran and Hezbollah are using the chaos to make whatever gains possible toward establishing prominence in Syria and Lebanon with respect to taking over the economy, military and security agencies. This campaign, as noted above, includes increased documentation of Iran’s financing of arms and missile factories in Lebanon and incorporating Hezbollah more deeply into its “Regional Foreign Legion.”

Another relevant and growing factor is that for many in the region, the Trump Administration leadership vacuum is creating evermore pressure on US allies in the region with some contemplating taking matters into their own hands to replace the current desultory White House initiatives. Russia is filling this vacuum, which is stoking anxieties among the UK and EU as well as others. Absent focused U.S. leadership, Israel may strike out on its own to prevent Hezbollah from becoming the preeminent military force to its north

Also building pressure and skittishness along the southern Lebanese border is the fact that Israel is building a 7-meter-high wall border along a line demarcated by the United Nations in 2000, when Israel ended its 18-year occupation of southern Lebanon. Israel claims that the wall is needed to prevent Hezbollah attacks like the one that ignited the 2006 war, which claimed 1,200 Lebanese lives and more than 60 Israeli lives. Hezbollah has threatened military action if Israel begins constructing the wall. Tensions are rising according to UNIFIL which has 40,000 troops watching the border.

In addition, Lebanon last month approved a joint bid by Italian, French and Russian oil companies to explore off its coast for oil and gas. Israel claims a portion of the waters, but the competing claims are aggravating tensions between the countries. Hezbollah has also threatened to attack Israeli platforms in the Mediterranean extracting natural gas.

The Gaza Strip is restive and could ignite into a war at any time. With the increase in rocket attacks from Hamas and Israeli retaliatory strikes after Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital late last year, another Israeli military distraction with Hamas could be seen by Hezbollah as a favorable opportunity to strike Israel from the north.

Another potential wild card are recent reports that Hamas, Iran and Hezbollah have formed an alliance in consultation with Russia and China to scuttle the White House Middle East ‘peace plan’ “by all means.” Hamas sources in the Gaza Strip, on 3/22/2018, advised the London-based Al Hayat newspaper that the discussions between the three parties — Hamas, Iran and Hezbollah have gone a long way on this matter” and are based on the belief that Trump’s plan, which he has described as the “deal of the century,” was the “most dangerous” in the history of the Israeli-Arab conflict. It was not immediately clear what type of military pushback effort the three claim they would mount to the US proposal, or what this latest development augurs.

A serious miscalculation is the most likely trigger to ignite another Israel-Hezbollah war in Lebanon should it happen. But over the past few years both Hezbollah and Israel have issued statements following a relatively moderate escalation expressing threats. But these ‘warnings’ are understood by both sides as a message that no escalation of a limited military incident with happen anytime soon.

Both sides appear to be working in concert in a sense, to avoid a new extremely risky war for the foreseeable future. And this serves the decimated civilian population of the region.

How to mitigate the negative effects of globalization on Europe’s economy is at the heart of the opinion on the EU trade package drawn up by Micaela Fanelli, mayor of Riccia in the province of Campobasso. Local and regional representatives adopted the opinion during the plenary session of the European Committee of the Regions (CoR) on March 23, in Brussels.

International trade has fostered growth and promoted competitiveness both within and outside the EU. However, not everyone benefits to the same extent, putting some severe strain on some local economies and communities. To have local and regional authorities on board they must be included from the beginning. Territorial impact assessments can be a powerful tool in identifying and quantifying the possible impact of a given trade deal on European regions before the start of negotiations.

“The problems encountered with the CETA negotiations, where the Wallonian parliament raised severe concerns about the agreement, shows that more has to be done to ensure an adequate and timely involvement of regional and local authorities in the assessment of EU international trade deals, so that critical situations can be prevented and responsibilities shared better,” said CoR president Karl-Heinz Lambertz.

“EU Trade policy has to ensure that globalization has positive economic, social, territorial and environmental effects for people and businesses in Europe and beyond. To reach this goal any further step in trade liberation should imply territorial impact assessments, which will facilitate more sound, informed, transparent and evidence-based decisions regarding the content of the deal. It will also enable a more tailor-made support for the concerned regions to anticipate and manage the impact,” said Micaela Fanelli, mayor of Riccia in the province of Campobasso.

The rapporteur underlined the key role of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) to support those bearing negative consequences of the opening to a global market but also reiterates the CoR’s call to improve the way it operates.

“We need complement the EGF with a preventive arm, increase its budget to at least EUR 500 million per year, integrate it into the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) and allow more flexibility in order to respond to the specific needs of regions and territories. We also need to improve synergies with the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) ,” said Fanelli.

The rapporteur further welcomed the principle of EU-wide screening for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) for reasons of security and public order, but calls for clearer criteria and more legal certainty when such screening is necessary at EU level. She also stressed that the planned multilateral investment court (MIC) – to overcome the problems encountered with the current investor-to-state dispute settlement – should not bypass domestic legal systems or local government decisions defending the rights of private investors.

By Catherine Stupp

(EurActiv) — The EU is unlikely to secure permanent exemption from US steel and aluminium tariffs by the time President Trump’s stopgap reprieve from the measures expires on 1 May, Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker said Friday.

EU heads of state said at a European Council summit on Friday (23 March) that Trump’s decision to give the bloc a temporary exemption was unacceptable.

“It seems to me highly impossible to cover all issues we have to discuss with our American partners from now to 1 May. And we are asking for permanent exemption,” Juncker told reporters at the end of the two-day summit.

His comments echoed the leaders’ official conclusions from Friday’s meeting, which said that the European Council “calls for that exemption to be made permanent” and “regrets the decision by the United States to impose import tariffs on steel and aluminium”.

The EU conclusions were published several hours after the Trump administration released an official declaration detailing its last-minute exemptions from the tariffs early Friday morning. The document states that exemptions will run out on 1 May unless “satisfactory alternative means” are agreed by then, and apply to the European Union and other countries including Canada, Mexico and Australia.

The tariffs went into effect on Friday. EU leaders were scheduled to issue a response to the measures on Thursday evening but postponed their discussion on trade because they wanted to wait for the Trump administration to publish an official confirmation of the exemptions.

Juncker predicted that an agreement within the next five weeks would be a “not very realistic one given the broad issues we have to discuss”.

Other EU leaders also expressed frustration with the short period for negotiations.

Trump’s temporary exemption was like “putting a gun to our head”, Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel said at the start of Friday’s meeting.

But Juncker underscored one positive aspect to Trump’s decision: he said the US president had been persuaded to grant the exemption because EU member states had stuck together in negotiations.

Trump “recognises the EU is an entity, cannot be divided in 28 parts. That’s the good part,” Juncker said.

The Commission is responsible for negotiating trade deals on behalf of all EU member states. Trump’s statements earlier in his term suggested that he was unfamiliar with the bloc’s trade rules. He reportedly asked German Chancellor Angela Merkel about a bilateral agreement between the US and Germany.

Juncker attributed the US exemption to meetings between EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström and Trump administration officials earlier this week. Malmstöm met with US Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross and Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer in Washington earlier this week.

One result of those meetings was an agreement to set up an EU-US working group to resolve trade concerns.

In a tweet on Friday morning, Malmström called the tariffs a “highly unfortunate unilateral action” but said it was “good that the EU is exempt for the time being”.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel also praised Malmström negotiating efforts. In a joint press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron, meant as a display of unity, both leaders said talks with the US should continue, and that they hoped to secure a permanent exemption from the tariffs.

“We don’t want to enter into a spiral where at the end of the road we all lose,” Merkel said.

Macron called the US’ “very temporary exemption” from the tariffs “not satisfactory enough”.

Asked whether the EU should make concessions to Trump in negotiations over extending the tariff exemption, Macron warned that the US should not box the Europeans into a corner.

“We discuss everything with a country that is a friend and complies with WTO rules, but we talk about nothing in principle with a gun pointed at our head,” the French president told reporters.

“We are not willing to be weak vis-a-vis any country, any sector where we are being put a timeframe of a couple of weeks,” he said. “Europe will not waiver.”

Trump had lashed out at the EU on Thursday for what he described as restrictions on American firms’ market access in Europe.

“They have barriers that — they can trade with us but we can’t trade with them. They’re very strong barriers. They have very high tariffs. We don’t. It’s just not fair,” Trump said at a White House press conference.

Macron said that the US tariffs are the “wrong answer to a real problem”, referring to China’s steel and aluminium overcapacity.

“We Europeans and Americans need to work united rather than one against another,” he said.

By Sinisa Jakov Marusic

Facebook users from Macedonia spread fake news to try to swing the outcome of a tight US Senate race in Alabama, Mark Zuckerberg has told the ‘New York Times’.

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg told The New York Times on Thursday that Macedonia had become involved in the spread of fake news.

Discussing the scandal involving British data analytics firm Cambridge Analytica obtaining access to more than 50 million Facebook users’ data in 2014, he said:

“We deployed some new A.I. tools to identify fake accounts and false news, and we found a significant number of Macedonian accounts that were trying to spread false news.”

He told the newspaper that Facebook was “able to eliminate those” accounts, however.

Zuckerberg did not go into more details about the content of the fake news from Macedonian users, but said they concerned attempts to skew the result of a tight Senate race in the state of Alabama.

The December 12 elections in the southern US state saw a close race between Democrat Doug Jones and Republican Roy Moore.

Jones went on to win, becoming the first Democrat to win a US Senate race in the state in 25 years.

The race also drew attention due to the slew of fake news surrounding the campaign, much of which centred on falsely accusating black voters in the state of election fraud. Black voters in the US normally vote Democrat.

Other fake items attacked women who had accused Moore of harassment and assaults when he was a county prosecutor in the late 1970s and 1980s, which he denied.

This is not the first time that Macedonia has found itself in the spotlight related to the spread of fake news on social media.

In 2016, the central town of Veles became infamous for the lucrative online ventures of some of its younger inhabitants, who used the US presidential election to earn money by promoting fake or misleading news in support of Donald Trump.

(Civil.Ge) — The Parliament of Georgia has voted down today the legislative proposal which was to set mandatory quotas for women to help increase their representation in the Parliament and Sakrebulos (municipality councils).

The bill, which was elaborated by a coalition of local and international organizations, and submitted to the Parliament with 37 000 signatures, was endorsed by three parliamentary committees last autumn. The initiative was also supported by civil society groups, as well as foreign diplomats accredited in Tbilisi.

The proposal was endorsed by Prime Minister Giorgi Kvirikashvili as well. In his statement yesterday, PM Kvirikashvili said the quotas bill would be “an important measure” for increasing women’s political engagement, and would “significantly improve the political processes and the quality of democracy in Georgia.”

Parliament Speaker Irakli Kobakhidze spoke in favor of the bill at today’s plenary sitting, saying more women in the Parliament would mean “stronger Parliament, stronger constitutional system, and stronger democracy.”

Some ruling party lawmakers were not convinced, however. MP Dimitri Khundadze, for instance, said today that “reserved seats” would be “an insult for ladies, since they have all the resources to enter the Parliament when they are politically ready.” “I think, the primary criteria for the Parliament should be intelligence and experience,” he added.

Another ruling party lawmaker, Gedevan Popkhadze, echoed Dimitri Khundadze’s sentiments, saying the Parliament needed more “qualified” professionals, “irrespective of whether they are men or women.” “The list should not be divided into men’s and women’s; such an approach is not right as it may never end,” Popkhadze said.

As a result, the bill obtained 66 votes, falling ten votes short of the required 76. Fourteen ruling party lawmakers voted against the bill. MPs from the United National Movement, the European Georgia and the Alliance of Patriots did not attend the voting.

Speaking after the voting procedure, Parliament Speaker Irakli Kobakhidze said the ruling party lawmakers had “failed to reach consensus,” citing “differences on certain details.” The Speaker, however, noted that these differences would be talked out, and an amended text would be resubmitted to the Parliament the following week. “The principle will remain the same – to ensure at least 25% representation in the next convocation, and 1/3 in 2024.”

The bill envisaged the introduction of the so called “zipper” system, where male and female candidates would appear alternately on party lists of candidates for parliamentary and municipal elections, increasing the number of women legislators to at least 38 in the next Parliament. According to the same bill, if a parliamentarian’s or Sakrebulo member’s mandate was terminated earlier than the end of his/her term, the next candidate of the same sex would take a seat in replacement.

For the greater part of a decade the US, the UK and the EU have been carrying out a campaign to undermine and overthrow the Russia government and in particular to oust President Putin. Fundamental issues are at stake including the real possibility of a nuclear war.

The most recent western propaganda campaign and one of the most virulent is the charge launched by the UK regime of Prime Minister Theresa May. The Brits have claimed that Russian secret agents conspired to poison a former Russian double-agent and his daughter in England , threatening the sovereignty and safety of the British people. No evidence has ever been presented. Instead the UK expelled Russian diplomats and demands harsher sanctions, to increase tensions. The UK and its US and EU patrons are moving toward a break in relations and a military build-up.

A number of fundamental questions arise regarding the origins and growing intensity of this anti-Russian animus.

Why do the Western regimes now feel Russia is a greater threat then in the past? Do they believe Russia is more vulnerable to Western threats or attacks? Why do the Western military leaders seek to undermine Russia’s defenses? Do the US economic elites believe it is possible to provoke an economic crisis and the demise of President Putin’s government? What is the strategic goal of Western policymakers? Why has the UK regime taken the lead in the anti-Russian crusade via the fake toxin accusations at this time?

This paper is directed at providing key elements to address these questions.

The Historical Context for Western Aggression

Several fundamental historical factors dating back to the 1990’s account for the current surge in Western hostility to Russia.

First and foremost, during the 1990’s the US degraded Russia, reducing it to a vassal state, and imposing itself as a unipolar state.

Secondly, Western elites pillaged the Russian economy, seizing and laundering hundreds of billions of dollars. Wall Street and City of London banks and overseas tax havens were the main beneficiaries

Thirdly, the US seized and took control of the Russian electoral process, and secured the fraudulent “election” of Yeltsin.

Fourthly, the West degraded Russia’s military and scientific institutions and advanced their armed forces to Russia’s borders.

Fifthly, the West insured that Russia was unable to support its allies and independent governments throughout Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America. Russia was unable to aid its allies in the Ukraine, Cuba, North Korea, Libya etc.

With the collapse of the Yeltsin regime and the election of PresidentPutin, Russia regained its sovereignty, its economy recovered, its armed forces and scientific institutes were rebuilt and strengthened. Poverty was sharply reduced and Western backed gangster capitalists were constrained, jailed or fled mostly to the UK and the US.

Russia’s historic recovery under President Putin and its gradual international influence shattered US pretense to rule over unipolar world. Russia’s recovery and control of its economic resources lessened US dominance, especially of its oil and gas fields.

As Russia consolidated its sovereignty and advanced economically, socially, politically and militarily, the West increased its hostility in an effort to roll-back Russia to the Dark Ages of the 1990’s.

The US launched numerous coups and military intervention and fraudulent elections to surround and isolate Russia . The Ukraine, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen and Russian allies in Central Asia were targeted. NATO military bases proliferated.

Russia’s economy was targeted : sanctions were directed at its imports and exports. President Putin was subject to a virulent Western media propaganda campaign. US NGO’s funded opposition parties and politicians.

The US-EU rollback campaign failed.

The encirclement campaign failed.

The Ukraine fragmented – Russia allies took control of the East; Crimean voted for unification with Russia. Syria joined with Russia to defeat armed US vassals. Russia turned to China’s multi-lateral trade, transport and financial networks.

As the entire US unipolar fantasy dissolved it provoked deep resentment, animosity and a systematic counter-attack. The US’s costly and failed war on terror became a dress rehearsal for the economic and ideological war against the Kremlin ..Russia’s historical recovery and defeat of Western rollback intensified the ideological and economic war.

The UK poison plot was concocted to heighten economic tensions and prepare the western public for heightened military confrontations.

Russia is not a threat to the West: it is recovering its sovereignty in order to further a multi-polar world. President Putin is not an “aggressor” but he refuses to allow Russia to return to vassalage.

President Putin is immensely popular in Russia and hated by the US precisely because he is the opposition of Yeltsin – he has created a flourishing economy; he resists sanctions and defends Russia’s borders and allies.

Conclusion

In a summary response to the opening questions.

1) The Western regimes recognize that Russia is a threat to their global dominance; they know that Russia is no threat to invade the EU, North America or their vassals.

2) Western regimes believe they can topple Russia via economic warfare including sanctions. In fact Russia has become more self-reliant and has diversified its trading partners, especially China, and even includes Saudi Arabia and other Western allies.

The Western propaganda campaign has failed to turn Russian voters against Putin. In the March 19, 2018 Presidential election voter participation increased to 67% ..Vladimir Putin secured a record 77% majority. President Putin is politically stronger than ever.

Russia’s display of advanced nuclear and other advanced weaponry has had a major deterrent effect especially among US military leaders, making it clear that Russia is not vulnerable to attack.

The UK has attempted to unify and gain importance with the EU and the US via the launch of its anti-Russia toxic conspiracy. Prime Minister May has failed. Brexit will force the UK to break with the EU.

President Trump will not replace the EU as a substitute trading partner. While the EU and Washington may back the UK crusade against Russia they will pursue their own trade agenda; which do not include the UK.

In a word, the UK, the EU and the US are ganging-up on Russia, for diverse historic and contemporary reasons. The UK exploitation of the anti-Russian conspiracy is a temporary ploy to join the gang but will not change its inevitable global decline and the break-up of the UK.

Russia will remain a global power. It will continue under the leadership of President Putin .The Western powers will divide and bugger their neighbors – and decide it is their better judgment to accept and work within a multi-polar world.

The Brexit and Trump vote demonstrates a drastic incongruity with Marx’s prediction of a “proletariat revolution” that would “destroy all previous insecurities for, and insurance of, individual property”. However, he stands corrected in the notion that the bourgeoisie “creates a world in its own image” through the inevitable expansion of capitalism globally. This is essentially the argument of this paper. Firstly, this paper discusses the points in which Marx is proven right – creation and expansion of a world market and periodical commercial crises that “threaten the existence of bourgeois property [and society]”– which this paper argues as factors that provide some explanation for the Brexit and Trump vote. Secondly, it concentrates on the concept of “populist nationalism” that Marx had failed to acknowledge in his conception of a proletariat revolution. Finally, this paper concludes by shedding light on Marx’s concept of “false consciousness” based on the model of “social totality” to reconcile Marx’s failure.

Trump my (B)Exit

Creation and expansion of a world market

Marx argues that capitalism is cosmopolitan in nature due to its constant need of an expanding market for its products. The bourgeoisie, who are the rulers of a capitalist society, achieve this market expansion by rapidly improving all instruments of production and facilitating means of communication that eventually force nations and populations to “adopt bourgeois mode of production”.

This has been the exact trajectory of modern capitalist society with rapid expansion of bourgeois ideology through establishments such as the World Trade Organisation, International Monetary Fund and the World Bank that promote neoliberal policies, such as market deregulation, exchange rate management and free trade, making what Marx calls “nations of peasants”, i.e. developing nations dependent on “nations of bourgeois”, i.e. developed nations.

This cosmopolitan nature of capitalism that allows cross border economic activity between nations in distinct stages of development brings about “economic insecurity” amongst the working class, i.e. the proletariat, who do not own the means of production as the bourgeois do, are regarded as a commodity and are therefore exposed to market competition and fluctuation. Brexit and Trump vote can be understood to an extent through this framework of economic insecurity faced by the proletariat in both the UK and the US due to expansion of a world market. Brexit voters were those “without jobs or retired”. A report by NatCen (2016) shows that 59% of Leave voters belonged to the working class, i.e. the proletariat, and 84% of those who voted to Leave believe that the economy will be better off after Brexit.

Similarly, Trump voters were America’s “industrial working class” which included low-waged unskilled workers, poorer white populations, the long-term unemployed and households dependent on shrinking social benefits. Both set of voters were “economic losers” of the world market and their votes gave them “political victories over the economic winners for the first time since the WWII”.

Periodical commercial crises that threaten bourgeois society

The capitalist system is periodically hit by commercial crises that result in an “epidemic of overproduction” which threatens the existence of bourgeois society. The 2008 financial crisis is a recent example of a commercial crisis faced by capitalist society that threatened its existence. Bourgeois institutions such as large multinational banks produced debt that threatened bourgeois property and society as well as the proletariat.

While proletariat jobs were lost, and their communities drowned in debt created by these bourgeois institutions, the institutions themselves were rewarded for their greed and failure by the bourgeois state through expensive bail outs, the cost of which was incurred by proletariat taxpayers in the UK and the US. British banks received a staggering 850 billion pounds from the government with the eventual cost to taxpayers not yet known. The US government on the other hand committed 16.8 trillion dollars towards the bailout with 4.6 trillion already paid out.

Furthermore, Marx argues that the bourgeoisie overcome these periodical crises by “the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones”. The fact that the bourgeois mode of production continues to conquest new markets and exploit old ones regardless of the 2008 financial crisis, that indebted the proletariat drastically and cushioned the failure of the bourgeoisie, proves Marx right. Brexit and Trump can be understood as the collective frustration of an economically dispossessed proletariat of both nations who have put their foot down as a class against “free-market fundamentalism” promoted by the bourgeoisie. Thus, there appears a “national struggle [in the US and the UK] between classes” and since “every class struggle is a political struggle” the phenomena of Brexit and Trump has emerged.

The above analysis of Marx’s arguments regarding creation and expansion of a world market and periodical economic crises demonstrate that these were factors that played a key role in the Brexit and Trump vote. An expanding world market spread the bourgeois ideology worldwide and created a capitalist society which produced economic losers (Brexit and Trump voters) that were exploited by the economic winners (the professional elite of the UK and the US).

In terms of economic crises, Marx was proven right in predicting that they would occur, i.e. the 2008 financial crisis, as well as be overcome through further exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie and its institution, i.e. the bailout and its cost that was incurred by the proletariat.

While these factors explain why the Brexit and Trump vote occurred, they do not fully encapsulate the nuances in both phenomena. Although it seems that the status quo of capitalist society has been shaken due to the Brexit and Trump vote, it is nowhere close to the proletariat revolution that Marx had predicted.

Nationalism – Pop my Rock and Rock my Pop

The “revolutionary class”, which is the proletariat, was to “alter the system of class rule”. However, what has occurred due to both phenomena is a political revolution which only changed the form of government while keeping the bourgeois society intact. This is because Marx failed to acknowledge the crucial factor and powerful rhetoric of populist nationalism.

Critics of Marx argue that he underestimated the bourgeois state which he believed would “wither away in its internal dimension, i.e. vis-à-vis society”. An example of this underestimation of the state is nationalism – an ideology that has “persistently proved itself superior to class loyalties as a means of mobilising mass support, amongst oppressed and oppressor alike”. Nationalism played a pivotal role in the vote for Brexit and Trump – with Leave voters rejecting the branding of “cosmopolitan, creative and united Britain as a part of a happy vision of globalization” in favour of “cultural cohesion” and “old fashioned notion of sovereignty” and Trump supporters favouring national sovereignty and tradition over cosmopolitanism and modernisation.

The similarities between reasons supported by both set of voters is uncanny and distinctly demonstrates how nationalism is an extremely powerful ideology that can override class allegiances and sway the proletariat, who are the losers of an expanding world market, to make emotive decisions based on national solidarity that achieve little in dismantling the bourgeois state and society.

In the luminary work ‘Future of Europe’, Prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic recognises that:

“The over-financialization and hyper-deregulations of the global(-ized) markets has brought the low-waged Chinese (peasant converted into a) worker into the spotlight of industrialized nations. … That’s how the world’s last cosmopolitan – Europe departed from the world of work, and that’s why the Continent today cannot orient itself (both needed to identify a challenge, as well as to calibrate and jointly redefine the EU path). To orient, one need to center itself: Without left and right, there is no center, right?!”

Another dimension to the ideology of nationalism that is pertinent to the Brexit and Trump vote is the concept of populism. Populism is defined as a “political movement that emphasizes the interests, cultural traits, and spontaneous feelings of the common people, as opposed to those of a privileged elite”. Populist movements inherently carry an “anti-elitist” tone as they pit common people against the privileged elite and are often led by “strong and charismatic leaders”.

Furthermore, populists promote their agenda as the “will of the majority”, i.e. democracy, and it is so in a “majoritarian sense” as although they justify their agenda as the “embodiment of the people”, they exclude the disadvantaged minority, i.e. racial and economical, along with the privileged. Thus, populist movements do not necessarily align along economic terms but tend to be “antagonistic to cultural, linguistic, religious and racial minorities”. In sum, the ‘common people’ for populists are homogenous in cultural and economic terms and therefore populist movements include as much as they exclude.

Populist nationalism, a factor that has emerged within the Brexit and Trump phenomena, then is a populist movement based on sentiments of the people who subscribe to the ideology of British or American nationalism, while vehemently excluding the privileged minority who have benefitted from an expanding world market as well as the disadvantaged minority such as immigrants and other racial minorities.

Furthermore, anti-elite sentiments can be seen in both the Brexit and Trump vote. The Leave campaigners were mobilised largely against the political and economic elites (privileged elite) who were seemingly uncaring about those that had been “bypassed by globalization” and Trump similarly aggravated working-class America against the “out-of-touch elite”, of which he is very much a part of.

Moreover, exclusion of immigrants (the disadvantaged minority) and extreme xenophobia was largely seen in these populist movements that brought about Brexit and Trump. Brexit vote was a vote rejecting foreigners which included economic migrants as well as refugees. Trump’s entire campaign was xenophobic in predating people of colour, people from Muslim and Hispanic backgrounds who were American citizens and refugees. Lastly, while the Leave campaign did not have a charismatic leader behind which the movement grew, it was already brewing on Euroscepticism advanced by the UK Independence Party that led to the referendum and working-class America had Trump who championed racist rhetoric as means to his political end.

Thus, nationalism and populism played a massive role in the vote for Brexit and Trump. Nationalism essentially flourished because working class Britain and America felt threatened by international forces (world market) and populism thrived because the same people felt betrayed by political and economic elites. Rather than a proletariat revolution that would destroy bourgeois property and society, the vote for Brexit and Trump was a political revolution carried out by the proletariat of both nations that changed the form of government while failing to dismantle the system of class rule due to a surge in populist nationalism.

Cyclical or Cynical?

The failure of a proletariat revolution can be accounted to the state of false consciousness which disables the proletariat from seeing the “deep structures of exploitation”. Such a state exists because the base of the social totality model, where relations of production reside, express the political and ideological relations in the superstructure, leading to a social totality that is run by the capitalist ideology of the bourgeoisie. Although the Brexit and Trump vote was a result of the proletariat acknowledging its exploitation by the bourgeois society, it was not because they recognised the real exploitation of their means of production but because they recognised with the strong bourgeois ideology of populist nationalism under a state of false consciousness.

Hence, the Brexit and Trump vote did little to change the status quo – governments were changed but bourgeois society survived. Thus, Marx was proven right in conceptualising an expanding world market and periodical economic crises, two factors which explain the Brexit and Trump vote to a certain extent, however, proven wrong in undermining the power of bourgeois ideologies, such as the one of nationalist populism, which would hamper the occurrence of a proletariat revolution due to the proletariat being in a state of false consciousness.

*Ananya Bordoloi is a Malaysia based researcher in the fields of international relations, global governance and human rights. Author has previously worked with Amnesty International in research and data collection capacity, and for a publishing company as a pre-editor.

By Sondoss Al Asaad*

Recently, a mounting risk of conflict between Hezbollah and the Zionist enemy, on the northern border with Syria and Lebanon, has given fresh impetus against the axis of resistance by the tri-alliance rhetoric; i.e. the Zionists, the Saudis and the American. Various political and military analysts have concluded that a conflict with the Lebanese resistance; Hezbollah- a key ally fighting against the Takfiris; along with Iran and the Syrian regime, is becoming increasingly likely.

In November 2017, Lebanon’s army Chief Commander General Joseph Aoun said, “Troops should be ready to thwart any attempt to exploit the current circumstances for stirring strife as the exceptional political situation that Lebanon is going through requires you to exercise the highest levels of awareness.” The Zionists frequently threats that Lebanon could be subjected to a huge aerial bombardment in the opening days of a campaign with civilian casualties highly probable. Benjamin Netanyahu, the Zionist prime minister, has threatened that his hostile forces would intervene rather than allowing the resistance to establish its position on the Northern borders.

At a conference of the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, on 21 March 2018, War Minister Avigdor Lieberman commented that the possibility of conflict is breaking out. He said that the Zionist soldiers may have to operate deep in Lebanese territory and manoeuvre on the ground on the battlefield if war breaks out, warning about Hezbollah’s attempts to arm itself with precision missiles produced in Lebanon. Lieberman also suggested in October, that the Lebanese military could also be considered an enemy combatant as it had become an integral part of Hezbollah’s network.  He stated, “Israeli leaders will want to take care not to find themselves backed into a premature confrontation by the manoeuvres of their allies who sit in Riyadh.”

The Syrian conflict has reached a very advanced phase as Damascus, Moscow, Tehran and Hezbollah have proven to be more politically and militarily harmonious than at any time. Indeed, the Islamic Republic of Iran primarily funds resistance movements that aim at dismantling the Zionist illegal entity and its tools, i.e. Takfiri terrorist groups. Unequivocally, the Zionists recognise that Hezbollah has emerged from the Syrian war as a battle-hardened and the most resilient military actor in the Arab region, with highly trained fighters and reservists. Further, its missiles system has been heavily resupplied, in spite of dozens of airstrikes on its convoys and depots.

Amid these threats, the Saudi dirty conspiracies against the Resistance axis has revealed its reckless and heinous policy regarding Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen. The military commentator of the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, Amos Harel reported, “If Saudi Arabia is deliberately stoking the flames between the sides [Israel and Hezbollah], this becomes a tangible danger.” Additionally, the former US ambassador to the Zionist entity Dan Shapiro warned, “It is plausible that the Saudis are trying to create the context for a different means of contesting Iran in Lebanon – an Israeli-Hezbollah war.”

Due to the Saudi massive failure in Yemen and the resistance’s great victories, Riyadh has shifted its focus on Lebanon. In one of his influential speeches, the Secretary-General of Hezbollah, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has urged the Saudis to find realistic goals regarding Lebanon. He mocked the Saudi coward threats to eradicate the resistance through encouraging Israel to wage the war. Sayyed Nasrallah has asserted that any future conflict could take place inside the occupied Palestinian territory. He said, “There will be no place that is out of reach of the rockets of the resistance.”

Besides, the possibility that an offensive against Syria and Lebanon might take place would be a direct result of Washington’s failure to oust the brave Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Their idiot plan was the fragmentation of Syria, Lebanon and other Arab states into smaller units. In the meantime, the Saudis continue their devastating war on Yemen, backed by Trump’s administration, which is also negotiating an arms deal worth billions to take an aggressive stance towards Hezbollah, the Syrian regime and Iran. Further, the Zionists have expanded their illegal settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories, at unprecedented levels.

Israel, Saudi Arabia and the U.S. essential objective is eliminating the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah alliance. In addition, they aim to re-establish themselves as the hegemonic power in the Middle East, with absolute control over the natural resources including oil, gas and water. They understand that defeating Hezbollah would be unmanageable; therefore, they are scarcely exerting effort to reduce the resistance military capabilities with the possibility that the U.S. troops may coordinate targets with the Zionist War Forces and join the war through Syria.

Saudi Arabia dreams to remain a vassal state with unconventional political leverage over its neighbours. However, if it foolishly decides to wage an attack against Iran, the tyrant rulers of Bani Saud will inevitably collapse [Bani Saud as the Arabic use of ‘Al’ is an honourable title of a legitimate dynasty, such as the household of Prophet Mohammad (PBU’em); Al-Hashem]. Earlier this year, the Saudis have abruptly cut economical aids to the Lebanese government merely because it had refused to condemn ‘attacks’ on the Saudi embassy in Tehran. Indeed, the Saudis spearheaded efforts to get the Persian Gulf states and the Arab League to designate Hezbollah a terrorist organization.

The brutal conspiracy against Syria has so far resulted in nearly half a million dead, six million internally displaced, and over five million refugees, an overwhelming percentage of whom have now spent years in neighbouring countries. The event of 10 February 2018 underscored the resistance axis military capabilities, as when the Syrian antiaircraft fire downed an Israeli F-16, the first Zionist fighter to be shot down in decades. Hezbollah has greatly enhanced its deterrence capabilities and fighting skills, for this reason, the Zionists would only fight a war to weaken Hezbollah, which is seemingly feasible.

Obviously, the war is predictable but inevitably, it is not going to be imminent. The enemy is aware that Hezbollah is part of the Quds Force of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards; an army of 200,000 fighters from Lebanon, Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Further, Hezbollah has gained advanced weapons and experienced fighters and has access to 150,000 rockets; compared to the 33,000 in 2006. In addition, the resistance has stockpiled quality weapons and has built factories that can convert rockets to missiles, which could seriously make any war very costly.

It is worthy to mention that Hezbollah keenly understands that the Zionist enemy is not the same as it was in 2006. The Zionists’ so-called ‘Iron Dome’ air defence network is more sophisticated. This too means that the efficiency of the resistance rockets is questionable and need to be more advanced. Besides, the sectarian rifts and political conflicts in the region would make it difficult for the resistance masses to seek refuge in other countries, particularly Syria, whenever a war would kick off. During the previous wars, nearly 1 million Lebanese fled the country. Meanwhile, Lebanon hosts 2 million Syrian refugees, giving the country the highest per capita refugee count in the world, according to a New York Times report. An influx of additional refugees would be quite serious as the current regional status-quo is problematic.

Hezbollah has grown considerably stronger since the 2006 Second Lebanon hostile War. Following the battle of Qusayr, in Syria, the resistance has changed its strategies from insurgency to counterinsurgency in order to weaken the Saudi backed terrorists. Per its doctrine and as Sayyed Nasrallah frequently maintains, “As long as there is a missile that is fired from Lebanon and targets the Zionists, as long as there is one fighter who fires his rifle, as long as there is someone who plants a bomb against the Israelis.”

For their part, the Zionists have made it clear that their intentions are to hit the resistance “in the most muscular way possible.” The enemy seeks to invade the Lebanese territories in order to damage its political and military infrastructure, which is by no means unprecedented. Historically speaking, the aggressive invasion of southern Lebanon, in 1982; aimed at demolishing the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), provides a complete failure and had transformed it into a regular army. During the Lebanese civil war, the PLO established a visible force that fielded heavy weaponry and artillery; however, its forces lacked the mobility that Hezbollah has demonstrated in the subsequent four decades.

In frustration at Hezbollah’s victorious during the 1980s, the Zionist enemy lashed out against the resistance twice. In 1993’s ‘Operation Accountability’ and 1996’s ‘Operation Grapes of Wrath’, the enemy attacked Lebanon with an overwhelming air and artillery power. These aggressive wars wrought considerable damage; however, they barely harmed the resistance. The resistance’s heroic elusiveness ensured that the Zionist enemy made no battlefield gains, and Hezbollah continued to fire Katyusha rockets until the thorough victory on 25 May 2000.

In 2006, the enemy Air Forces struck at Hezbollah headquarters and command facilities and bombed Lebanese infrastructure to force the Lebanese government to pressure the resistance into returning their detained soldiers. Three minutes after a missile struck the Zionist naval vessel INS Hanit, which was patrolling off the coast of Beirut, on 14 July 2006, Sayyed Nasrallah announced, “The surprises which I promised you will begin now. Right now, in the midst of the sea, facing Beirut, the Israeli military warship, which aggressed against our infrastructure and against the houses of the people and civilians. Watch it burn. It will sink and with it dozens of Israeli Zionist soldiers.”

The 1982 invasion aimed at eliminating the PLO; however, it has resulted in the establishment of Hezbollah. Therefore, the reckless Zionists, Americans and Saudi mercenaries should expect that any coming aggression would equivocally bear similar advanced fruit. Hezbollah, after 2006 experience, has been stockpiling hundreds of thousands of rockets, missiles, and mortars capable of reaching not just border areas but deep into the enemy’s terrains. The resistance arsenal includes hundreds of ballistic missiles capable of carrying chemical warheads as well as substantial conventional explosives.

The resistance would unquestionably hit Tel Aviv’s military bases and airports. Sayyed Nasrallah has stressed that the resistance fighters would be reinforced by hundreds of thousands of fighters from Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. The numbers of missiles, including anti-ship cruise missiles, would dwarf previous Hezbollah salvos and, including upgraded versions of the ubiquitous Scud, could be launched from deep within Lebanon at targets deep within the Zionist occupied territories. The enemy may clearly face attacks launched from the Syrian part of the Golan Heights, which it has not faced since the 1973 war.

However, we should admit that the Zionists are preparing to wage this new war in a more deliberate and calculated manner, in contrast to previous decades when war decisions were a disproportionate response and collective punishment, more whimsical and hardly ever planned for in an educated manner. As far as the Zionists are concerned, their fundamental objective is that Hezbollah will be eliminated forever; just as the resistance aims at eliminating the Zionist occupation and liberating the occupied territories. For this reason, the enemies are precisely studying and postponing the war as any coming conflict may jeopardise the Zionist and American dreams in the region. On the other hand, meanwhile, Hezbollah is seemingly interested in establishing the great victory against the Saudi backed terrorist in Syria.

Clearly, the Zionist objectives are undermining Hezbollah’s war paradigm and reducing the Iranian influence, which is explicitly impossible because of the Russian presence in the region. The enemy’s infrastructure is not resilient to even a limited missile attack from Hezbollah. The next war will immensely affect the Zionist economy will shrink within a short-time period, which may cause long-term devastating damage to the enemy’s reputation as a key player in the global economy.

Hezbollah is a deeply rooted Lebanese political movement that has significant support in the country. It has gradually become Lebanon’s strongest political and military force, possessing veto power in Lebanon’s cabinet and playing the decisive role in getting President Michel Aoun elected. As Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has long reminded its enemies that the resistance’s supporters will standstill and fight for their country. In case of an urgent incident on the borders, both sides will regard it as a game-changing or an equation breaking. The Zionist foe would not be able to collectively bear the dislocation resulting from the resistance’s land, sea and air strikes, whether it is going to be entitled as the ‘Third Lebanon War’ or the ‘First Israeli-Iranian War.’

The U.S. policymakers have long declared their intention to resolve resistance movements. In contrast to Obama’s, Trump’s administration considers Iran the main strategic enemy in the region and has already signal led that it will pursue a more aggressive and confrontational policy and that there will be an unprecedented American support for Israel in any conflict, no matter how such a war is conducted. The Zionists, U.S. and Saudi Arabia might intervene expeditiously and intelligently to address the root causes of conflict against Hezbollah and the Iranian targets.

The reckless Zionist-desired Saudi Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman appears willing to take up the fight. This Saudi Zionist boy has persistently asserted that Saudi Arabia’s modernisation requires an embrace of “moderate Islam,” i.e. an American Islam. As far as bin Salman is concerned, Iran is a major threat and the only way to surpass the dispute in the Middle East is through openly normalising harmonious ties with the Zionist enemy. Military analysts have assessed that the Palestinian resistance would likewise partake in the confrontation. Along with Hezbollah, the duo major Palestinian resistance organisations; Hamas and the Islamic Jihad movement, funded and backed by Iran, are estimated to have thousands of fighters, significant stockpiles of rockets, mortar shells, and attack tunnels, some of which reach the occupied terrains and others that are designed for warfare inside the coastal enclave.

About the author:
*Sondoss Al Asaad is a Lebanese freelance journalist, political analyst and translator; based in Beirut, Lebanon. Al Asaad writes on issues of the Arabs and Muslims world, with special focus on the Bahraini uprising.

Source:
This article was published by Modern Diplomacy

On March 23, 2018 the Embassy of Nicaragua in Washington reported that Managua has experienced a significant growth of revenues from national mining sector.

According to the leadership of HEMCO, a subsidiary of Colombia’s mining company of MINEROS, their plant in Nicaragua has generated in 2017 over US$135 million in revenue, 21.1 percent more than the amount registered in 2016. According to representatives of MINEROS; “in 2017 the Gold production in Nicaragua has experienced an extraordinary performance as a result it has served well to alleviate the tightening of mining production in Colombia.”

Furthermore, Japanese business leaders have their eyes on Nicaragua; logistics and shipping companies are increasing their presence in Central America. Mr. Aaron Guerrero, a regional representative of Japan’s One Line shipping company, announced the intention of his firm to begin its operations in Nicaragua this year. In a press conference Guerrero stated: “we are glad to be in Nicaragua. Japan’s One Line is the sixth largest shipping company in the world and has a network of partners in more than 100 countries offering expedited, modern and high-quality service.”

As of March 2018, the Nueva Guinea Municipality located in Southern Caribbean Autonomous Region (RACS), will have a biogas energy production program that will ensure a full supply of electricity and water pumping for its residents and local businesses. In a press conference, Nicaraguan officials announced that: “the new biogas energy system will ensure electricity, water pumping and bio fertilizers to improve production of Robusta coffee and pineapple. This project is expected to lower production costs by more than US$ 32,000 per year.”

Corporate Social Responsibility has garnered a special attention among major international corporations operating in Nicaragua. In this context, Nestlé Nicaragua is contributing with all its knowledge, research outcomes and human potential towards improving the nutritional levels and wellbeing of youth and children in Nicaragua.

In March 2018, Nestlé signed a strategic cooperation agreement with the local Zamora Terán Foundation that will focus on the development of programs focused on “Learning how to eat well”. The objective of Nestlé Nicaragua program is to strengthen the national nutrition education level of Nicaragua’s kids, youth, students and teenagers.

Moreover, Nestlé Nicaragua is financing this project with US$10,000.00, in addition to providing its valuable experience in nutrition, cutting edge expertise in health and well being among youth and students in general. Nestlé’s funding will further support the following imperative components including: pedagogical training in schools, learning progress and outcomes, evaluation and technological innovation.

According to Mr. Salvador Pimentel, general manager of Nestlé Nicaragua, “[his] team is very proud to sign this memorandum of understanding that will directly benefit the kids of Nicaragua, the project has begun in two major public schools of the country: José Benito Escobar High School in Matagalpa and Corazón de Jesús High School in Managua.”

On March 13, 2018, La PRENSA, a prestigious Nicaraguan newspaper reported that Cargill is contributing with US$20,000.00 worth of educational packages being donated to public schools across Nicaragua. There will be 26 schools located in Ticuantepe, Tipitapa, Masaya, Nindirí, Chinandega and Chichigalpa that will receive six thousand educational packages to be distributed to students and kindergarten program kids in elementary schools, there will also be included educational materials for 250 professors and teachers.

Cargill’s initiative begun four years ago and it is part of a nationwide Project focused on “Feeding the Future”. This initiative aspires to cause a positive impact in the educational centers and population of Nicaragua, especially in those areas where Cargill is operating. These didactical packages and pertinent materials will be distributed by over 500 volunteers of Cargill, in the rural and urban sites of Nicaragua.

According to Mr. Gilberto Guzmán, General Manager of Cargill Nicaragua: “in addition to the A Initiative of classes with Cargill, the company is currently investing on the training of professors on methodological guides for the appropriate food and beverage consumption as well as improving the nutritional state of affairs across the central American nation.”

Cargill is committed to strengthen the presence of family farming and gardening, improving education infrastructure in public schools across the country. President Daniel Ortega’s leadership has brought concrete results in Nicaragua’s economic growth, infrastructure improvement and in the context of globalized presence of his country’s products and services.

Whether it’s North Korea or Russia outsmarting “western naïfs,” the continued interpretation of realist, geopolitical foreign policy moves showing weakness and magnanimity that is never reciprocated; and has landed the United States (US) and other powers who signed the P5 + 1 agreement in a major bind.

Former President Obama wanted a world without nuclear weapons and the 2015 nuclear weapons agreement with Iran had the intention of rolling back their nuclear program and setting up a stringent compliance program.

However good intentioned Obama’s policies were they haven’t stopped Iran from continuing to make aggressive moves that violate the spirit of the agreement and taking advantage of concessions that has Ayatollah Khamenei, Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and the Quds Force more dangerous than ever.

These Iranian entities now have a “Shia crescent,” that is fortified with Iranian generals, Shia militias and Hezbollah enforcing the new Middle East.

The architect and face of Tehran’s Middle East ambitions – and newfound global clout is General Qassem Soleimani – who US officials credit with thousands of American soldiers deaths. It’s uncertain if General Soleimani controls Iran’s cyber attacks on the west, but the US Justice Department in late March charged:

“Nine Iranians and an Iranian company for attempting to hack into hundreds of universities worldwide, dozens of companies, and parts of the U.S. government, on behalf of Tehran’s government.” The Justice Department described the attacks, “as one of the largest state-sponsored hacks ever prosecuted.”

Here’s what decades of Iranian aggression, western appeasement and believing Iran will integrate into the world community has wrought. Iran went all-in saving Assad against democracy-seeking rebels in Syria and according to Foreign Affairs:

“Roughly 400,000 people have been killed, 5.5 million have fled Syria, and 6 million are internally displaced. The UN estimates 13 million Syrians need humanitarian assistance.”

The Iran nuclear deal was supposed to curb these hegemonic behaviors and lead to economic integration; instead an Iranian airline under US sanctions violated the nuclear agreement by, “ferrying weapons and fighters into Syria repeatedly and bought U.S.-made jet engines and parts through Turkish front companies, investigators said in a mid-February recent government filing.”

And Syria is only getting worse when intelligence has surfaced that US officials are now monitoring regional reports, that with Iranian assistance,

“North Korea has neared completion of the construction of an underground military base located near Qardaha in Syria, the hometown of President Assad, that could be used for advanced weaponry and nuclear-related work.”

Moreover, Syrian news outlet, Zaman Al Wasi has reported, “according to satellite images and a military source the underground facility has been under construction since the beginning of the Syrian revolution in March 2011.” The U.S. State Department has monitored and condemned North Korea providing Assad with chemical weapons while knowing Iran is the main supporter along with their proxy, Hezbollah of the Syrian regime.

Realist, geopolitical moves then infer the recent Trump-Netanyahu meeting wasn’t about working towards Israeli-Palestinian peace or a solution to Syria; instead it was “how to show a common front versus Iran.” These are only some of the issues with Iran that has made President Trump want to completely change or scrap the 2015 nuclear deal entirely. Israel and the U.S. are also attempting to come up with a cogent, proportional response to Iran’s recent threats against Israel, Tel Aviv and Netanyahu along with Iran’s lethal, ballistic missile program.

The bone-chilling scenario is where Israel backs up there “never again,” slogan over the Holocaust and decides to use nuclear weaponry as a first strike option against Iran. Never again, means never again; and “the epicenter of genocidal, Jew-hatred,” unfortunately begins in Iran.

Unfortunately, it was west led by the former U.S. administration that erupted these troubles through cutting off crippling sanctions for engagement at all costs. From knowing and allowing Osama bin Laden, his family and close associates safe haven and passage in and out of Iran to, “the Obama administration hobbling a covert initiative (by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency) that tracked Hezbollah’s web of criminal activities, allowing millions of dollars to fall into the hands of Iran-backed militias,” according to a Politico report.

Further, an effort by former President Obama to bury Iran-sanctioned Hezbollah activities was the desire for a historic, post-presidential legacy that a nuclear deal with Iran would produce. The former administration also paid Iran $1.7 billion to release five Americans held by Iran, and the regime was allowed to do this without any repercussions. Even worse, according to The Washington Times, the U.S. government discovered the money ended up, “with Hezbollah, and the Quds Force, which has an extensive history of state-sponsored terrorism, and Houthi rebels in Yemen fighting the Saudi monarchy and government.”

Energy though is where western officials have some of their greatest concerns. The US, Britain, France and Germany are working to amend the Iran deal over worries that Iranian recalcitrant actions will drive up oil prices. Trump nominating hawkish, Iran skeptic John Bolton, as his new National Security Advisor doesn’t bode well for lower energy prices. Nor does Iran’s “elaborate oil sanction-skirting scheme,” help alleviate fears that Iran is using their oil and natural gas reserves as a weapon the way Russia weaponized, state-run, oil company Rosneft. Bloomberg did an extensive story on Iran skirting oil sanctions here.

Returning to Hezbollah, Iran and Israel – Hezbollah Secretary General, Hassan Nasrallah in a televised address in late February warned Israel about its claim to a oil and gas field off the southern coast of Lebanon called Block 9. Nasrallah said, “Hezbollah could disable Israel’s offshore oil installations within hours.” With oil and natural gas being the backbone of world and Middle Eastern economies this type of inflammatory rhetoric has caused Israel to warn Lebanon, Iran, Hezbollah and international oil and gas companies from participating in any tenders that doesn’t recognize Israel’s maritime rights and territorial waters. Hezbollah activists in Lebanon are now fanning the flames over these disputed oil and gas sites that could cause another war to break out between Hezbollah and Israel and spike oil and gas prices to levels not seen since 2014 when $100 a barrel oil was the norm.

But whom do you believe about Iran actions since before and after the nuclear deal? On one side is Vali Nasr, Dean Advanced International Studies at John Hopkins University who writes:

“Iran’s willingness to engage with the US over its nuclear program showed it is driven by hardheaded calculations of national interest, not a desire to spread its Islamic Revolution abroad.”

Or Mohammed al-Sulami, a Saudi columnist who has a PhD in Iranian studies who disagrees with Dean Nasr by writing, “that exporting Iran’s revolution is a pleasant euphemism for regional chaos.” What we know is that the battlefields of Syria, Iraq, Yemen, parts of Saudi Arabia, and Hezbollah’s influence in the global drug trade and illicit weaponry sales, Iran is the central figure.

Without understanding Iran’s regime type, history, hegemonic ideology or human nature the geopolitically shrewd Iranians – unless confronted – will eventually split apart the Middle East. Iran could be welcomed into the world community and flourish immediately with its young, literate and highly educated population – instead they choose authoritarian rule cloaked in religion – all in the name of stability that does nothing to loosen their iron-fisted governance. Iran will never change until their Islamic regime goes down into the dustbin of history. Here’s sincerely hoping it doesn’t come to total war between the US, NATO, Iran, Israel, Middle Eastern Sunni nations and all parties interested in the outcome.

*Todd Royal, M.P.P. is the Managing Partner for Energy development, Oil & Gas, and Renewables for Ascendance Strategies, a global threat assessment and political consulting firm that is based in Los Angeles, California

On March 23, President Trump reluctantly signed the Omnibus spending bill, noting that while the military will receive much needed funds, there is still too much wasteful spending.

For example, last month his budget proposal called for the National Endowment for the Arts to “begin shutting down.” He authorized $29 million for the agency. But the Congress rejected his proposal and wound up awarding it $152.8 million.

The NEA, as we have pointed out, is still awarding grants to groups that promote anti-Christian fare. Knowing that the Congress does not take this matter seriously, we have called upon President Trump to name a morally responsible person to chair the NEA; the current chairman’s tenure is up in June.

If the NEA is going to continue to receive funding, at least it should be led by someone who will not tolerate offering grants to those who delight in mocking Christianity. We hope President Trump moves on this matter soon and chooses the right person for this job.

By Jonathan Power*

Like it not we find that we’re having to get used to the paradoxes, contradictions and confusions of the Trump era.

None is more apparent than his attack on the landmark Iran de-nuclearisation agreement, fashioned by the Obama Administration and the Iranian government. President Donald Trump wants to unwind it, even though it has the 100 percent support of the UN Security Council which in an unanimous vote enshrined the agreement in international law.

At the same time he is trying to lure the North Koreans into a de-nuclearization policy, at the least into a nuclear freeze to stop it developing its rocket science any further, so that it’s incapable of hitting the U.S. with a nuclear-tipped missile. But, given Iran, why should the North Koreans go along with such a deal?

Why should it make such a deal when it knows there is a chance that the U.S. might renege on this at a future date, as Trump wants to do with Iran?

The Western politicians and pundits seem to have no historic memory – of when the U.S. reneged or slowed down on the implementation of previous agreements.

President Bill Clinton fashioned a superb agreement, only to be left in the lurch by a Republican-dominated Congress that effectively undermined the deal by refusing to implement the commitment to end sanctions and to liberalize trade. If the Republicans hadn’t sabotaged that deal it is likely that North Korea would have no nuclear bombs today and would be happily warming itself on electricity from a safe light-water nuclear reactor that Clinton organized to be constructed – and now remains half built, a sad testimonial to what might have been.

If Trump wants a deal with the North he will have to shelve his onslaught on Iran. He will have to stop his demonizing of the country and his drive to get the Arab countries to arm more and stand up to it. He has just consummated a large arms deal with Saudi Arabia meant for this purpose.

The Arab countries are in a mess. Egypt is under the hammer of a vicious dictator, Syria is ablaze, Iraq is on its back following the US/UK invasion, Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf states have provoked a serious crisis with Qatar, and Saudi Arabia is killing thousands of innocents in Yemen. Only Jordan remains reasonably normal. Is the effort to demonize Iran an attempt to re-build a false unity among the broken-backed Arabs by backing Iran into a corner?

Ironically, in the time of President Jimmy Carter, an attempt was made to bolster the regime of the Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, to make sure Iran could militarily – as a proxy of the U.S. – dominate the Gulf. Indeed it helped it get going on its nuclear bomb research.

The Islamic revolution changed all that. The U.S. felt beholden to the deposed Shah, giving him refuge in the U.S. Iran became a fundamentalist theocracy, a rallying place for those of a militant tendency, whether they be Shi’ite or Sunni. Their first item of business was to see the Shah returned to Iran for a trial that would have encompassed everything from corruption to the abuse of human rights. Instead of this, the U.S. and many of its European partners chose to go nose to nose, magnifying every disagreement.

Then Saddam Hussein led Iraq into an eight-year war of attrition against Iran that was finally mediated to a standstill by the UN, leaving neither country a victor. The U.S. under President Ronald Reagan had provided Iraq with arms and the fruits of its aerial reconnaissance. Most of the West turned a blind eye to Saddam’s use of chemical weapons – which Iran refused to use. The war, fought on Iranian territory, consumed tens of thousands of innocent lives.

One way of paying back was for Iran to fund fundamentalist militia, in particular Hezbollah, that would use its armed strength to try to undermine Israel, make Lebanon more militant and to aid the Palestinians. Later, other Iranian-backed militia entered war-torn Iraq and fought against the American occupiers. Iran itself fought against Al-Qaeda. Later still, its militia came to the aid of the Syrian dictator, Bashar al-Hassad.

All this Iranian activity is understandable although not agreeable. But this is what can happen when the U.S. and its allies back a country into a corner.

The de-nuclearization deal could have been a step to slowing Iran’s military forays, but Trump’s animosity is forestalling that possibility.

For the next three months the issue is: Can Trump learn from the history of American mistakes? For now, he continues to deal destructively with Iran on the one side while he attempts to deal constructively with North Korea on the other, unaware of the contradiction.

How can he reassure North Korea that a deal they sign won’t be broken? That is the question.

*Note: For 17 years Jonathan Power was a foreign affairs columnist and commentator for the International Herald Tribune – and a member of the Independent Commission on Disarmament, chaired by the prime minister of Sweden, Olof Palme. He forwarded this and his previous Viewpoints for publication in IDN-INPS.

Russia has called on the United States to unconditionally abandon its plans for a strike against Syrian government forces and Damascus, Sergei Ryabkov stated, answering the journalist’s question. “We’ve warned and warned the US that these plans must be unconditionally refused. Any such unlawful use of force, similar to what happened almost a year ago at the Shairat air base, would be an act of aggression against a sovereign state, as defined by the relevant article of the UN Charter,” he said.

Sergei Ryabkov believes that if the situation in Syria and, in particular, Eastern Ghouta changes for the better, opponents to a peaceful resolution to the conflict could incite the international community by sabotaging this process, possibly by using chemical weapons. “The situation in Eastern Ghouta has changed radically for the better,” Sergei Ryabkov told reporters on Tuesday. He drew attention to the fact that tens of thousands of people had already left the danger zone. “All this, of course, infuriates, in the truest sense of the word, the opponents of the government in Damascus; they are looking for new pretexts for attacks on us and on Syria,” Ryabkov said. “In this situation, of course, any provocations are possible, and we need to be prepared. Provocations could include staging the use of chemical weapons by government troops,” Ryabkov said. The staged ‘chemical attacks’ will continue in Syria as Syrian troops advance, he added.

Earlier, US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley said that the US was prepared to act on the use of chemical weapons in Syria. According to him, the United States struck at the Shairat airbase, after a chemical attack in Syria’s Khan Sheikhoun on April 4, 2017, as the UN Security Council “was unable to take action.”

London still refuses to cooperate with Moscow in the investigation of the poisoning of the former Russian double-agent Sergei Skripal, which Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov has described as a massive provocation. “The British, acting with explicit malicious intent, have delivered some accusations. Once again, without backing them in any way with material evidence, with any kind of basis, rejecting cooperation, and, most outrageously, successively depriving us of consular access to Russian citizen Julia Skripal, who, as we understand, is in a critical state,” Ryabkov told reporters. “All this is nothing more than a large-scale, multi-layer provocation, which is being conducted via a whole series of unlawful methods,” the deputy head of the Russian Foreign Ministry added.

Moscow once again declared that neither Russia nor the USSR had a program for the development and production of chemical weapons under the conventional name “Novichok,” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov stressed.

Moscow has called on the OPCW to provide Russia with all information regarding its reasoning for responding positively to London’s request for the Skripal’s case, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov told reporters.

The OPCW experts arrived in the UK, where they would meet with the leadership of the military, scientific and technical laboratory in Porton Down and with the representatives of Scotland Yard to discuss the transfer process for testing the samples of the substance with which Skripal and his daughter were poisoned.

Earlier, UK Prime Minister Theresa May said that it was “highly likely” that Russia was responsible for the Salisbury incident and later announced a package of anti-Russia measures, including the expulsion of Russian diplomats from the country, and the suspension of bilateral contacts between London and Moscow.

The Russian Foreign Ministry denied all the allegations and requested the UK Foreign Office to allow a joint investigation into the case.

On March 17, Russia announced retaliatory measures against the United Kingdom, declaring 23 employees of the UK Embassy personae non gratae.

Reports of an upcoming escalation with the US are also circulating on social media.

US-led coalition is planning for an all in attack against the SAA very soon, the attack will be very large and aimed at capturing the border with Iraq and even possible positions near Homs-Damascus highway… almost full invasion like Iraq 2003

In late 2017, troops from the Syrian Army and other allied ground forces liberated parts of the eastern province of Deir ez-Zor, effectively reestablishing a land route stretching from Iran to Syria and Lebanon, where the formidable Hezbollah political party and militia is based. A Syrian analyst reported that a large-scale US military operation is set to be launched against the Syrian Army near the Syria-Iraq border “very soon.” “The US is planning a large attack against the Syrian Army very soon to capture Syria’s border with Iraq, especially near al-Tanf and perhaps even parts further inland,” the analyst told Sputnik, citing informed military sources stationed near the al-Tanf US military base.

This military operation would strengthen the US’ position in Syria and, depending on the scale of the attack, could result in US-backed forces seizing more oil fields in eastern and central Syria. US-backed militants already control around 70-80 percent of Syria’s proven oil reserves.

Perhaps more importantly, this escalation could sever the strategic Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon land route, which will not only diminish Iran’s ability to funnel funds and armaments to Hezbollah, but will also adversely affect Syria’s ability to trade with Iraq and Iran, and could complicate Syria’s post-war reconstruction plans.

Backed by the Russian Air Force (RuAF), the Syrian Army has made significant progress against hardline Islamist militants across the country, and is currently in the process of ousting militants from Damascus.

A military escalation by the US would undermine Syria’s sovereignty, and threaten the progress the Syrian Army has made in stabilizing many parts of the country.

The new phase of multilateral terror attacks and destabilization of Iraq marks the 15th anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq. As the country has been plagued by violence and instability for years, it’s not surprising that most Syrians are dreading the prospect of further US military involvement in Syria.

Provocations by US-trained militants groups using chemical weapons will serve as a pretext for the United States to attack Syria, and Moscow has seen corresponding preparatory moves, including the formation of naval strike groups, the Russian General Staff has said. “We note the evidence of preparation for possible attacks. Strike groups of naval carriers with cruise missiles are being formed in the Eastern part of the Mediterranean, in the Persian Gulf and in the Red Sea,” chief of the Main Operational Directorate of the Russian General Staff Col. Gen. Sergey Rudskoy said. He stressed that it is unclear, who the US wants to support in this case, Jabhat al-Nusra* terrorists or their allies terrorizing Eastern Ghouta.

According to Rudskoy, militants of the al-Nusra Front from Eastern Ghouta have recently intensified the shelling of Damascus; the army is now conducting operations to eliminate the terrorists. “Jabhat al-Nusra militants along with the White Helmets are preparing a staged chemical attack in the Alghabit and Kalbb Lusa communities situated 25 km (15 miles) to the North-West of Idlib. There are 20 chlorine containers in their possession,” said the Russian General Staff.

The General assured that such an incident would be widely broadcasted in foreign media. “In the area of the city of At-Tanf, American instructors have prepared several groups of militants to carry out provocations in the south of Syria,” said Rudskoy.

According to Rudskoy, the toxic agents have been delivered to southern Syria under the guise of a humanitarian aid convoy. Rudskoy noted that the provocations were also aimed at creating a pretext for US strikes against Syrian government.

Earlier, US Envoy to UN Nikky Haley threatened with Washington’s strike against Damascus in case the chemical weapons use in Syria.

The situation in Eastern Ghouta has been complicated over the past weeks, as terrorists continue to shell the area. On February 24, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2401 that urged all conflicting sides to immediately stop all hostilities and adhere to a humanitarian pause across Syria in order to ensure the safe delivery of humanitarian aid, as well as medical evacuation of those injured.

Russia also proposed an initiative of organizing a five-hour daily humanitarian pause to ensure humanitarian supplies and evacuations from the area.

Jabhat al-Nusra (also known as al-Nusra Front) is a terrorist group banned in Russia.

Meanwhile, Maria Zakharova, Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, calls the whole shenanigans out of Britain concerning the alleged spy-poisoning affair for what it is – a “grandiose provocation”. On a recent Russian TV debate show, 60 Minutes, the feisty and articulate Zakharova not only summed up the farce of the latest British propaganda stunt. She put it in the context of several other similar provocations, from allegations against Russia over Ukrainian aggression to the Olympics doping scandal. They are indeed all “grandiose provocations” that are hardly worth deliberating on. So baseless and fatuous are these claims leveled by Washington and London in particular. But the disturbing thing is this. These unhinged provocations keep mounting and multiplying to the point where they are becoming dangerous triggers for a war.

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s state of union address on March 1 revealed that, if push comes to shove, the USA and its NATO allies cannot realistically contemplate war. Russia’s new suite of hypersonic weapons disclosed by Putin gives Russia an invulnerable edge over would-be enemies.

Not just Russia, but the rest of the world too, can be relieved that Russian weaponry has reached such a high-level of development to evade American so-called missile defense systems. President Putin was very careful in his speech to emphasize that his country was not seeking to start a war, or threaten anyone. The Russian arsenal is strictly defensive. But, in an extreme situation, the force that Russia can unleash against a would-be enemy will be invulnerable and superior.

It was critically important that Putin unveiled the new Russian weapon systems at this juncture. It was needed in order to dispel any delusion among American leaders and their allies of prosecuting a preemptive war against Russia, which seems to be their reprehensible inclination. It should be clear even to intellectually challenged Western politicians that Russia’s new generation of weapons will inflict devastating consequences. So don’t even think about it.

It is clear that Moscow is not trying to intimidate anyone, despite what the Western propagandize about “Russian aggression” and “Soviet revanchism”. Following his landslide election victory at the weekend, Putin reiterated Moscow’s desire to pursue constructive partnerships with other foreign states.

However, what Russia is up against are some deeply delusional powers who are so filled with arrogance and hubris, and an irrational Russophobia, that it is imperative to have the decisive military power in order to keep these powers in check. Washington and its uppity imperialist sidekick in London are particularly dangerously deluded. The provocations emanating from those two seem to have no end.

Without providing any evidence, the British Foreign Minister Boris Johnson is a case study in arrogant ignorance. He accuses Russian leader Vladimir Putin of personally ordering the alleged poison-assassination of a disgraced former Russian spy living in Salisbury. He has the audacity to call Russia’s reasonable demands for demonstration of evidence and due legal process as “absurd” and a “haystack of lies”. Truly, dealing with such numbskulls must be so tiring.

Simultaneously, the Trump regime unveils new sanctions against Russia’s state security services claiming that Russia is carrying out “malicious cyberattacks” on US infrastructure. Again, no evidence is provided. The US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin simply referred to Britain’s outlandish claims of a poison-assassination plot as “evidence”.

In recent days, British and American media have reported their state security services warning of Russian cyberattacks on vital national infrastructure, including electricity grids, nuclear power stations, water delivery systems and aviation networks.

They are so arrogant; they don’t even sense the obligation to provide evidence. Their incorrigibly propagandized brains are programmed to not question, but to follow the script of irrational Russophobia and Islamophobia. Islamophobia bring all anti-Islamic forces together under the USA-Isreali leadership.

American and British politicians, aided and abetted by shameless media propaganda, have entered into a twilight zone of unreality with regard to Russia. The non-stop provocative slander against Russia is a sign of political psychosis in Washington and London. Unfortunately, other European states have shown susceptibility to the sickness, as can be seen this week with EU foreign ministers supporting Boris Johnson’s accusations against Moscow. It is London that must answer for its absurd, evidence-free allegations. It’s not Moscow that needs to abide by international law and norms. It’s London.

Unwilling to quit Syria and Mideast, the USA is reportedly continuing its military buildup in Syria. Local online news portal the Euphrates Post has published video evidence showing what appear to be two US Coalition Blackhawk helicopters consolidating the US presence in an oil-rich area in Deir ez-Zor province. According to the resource, a new US Coalition base is being built in the area east of the city of Mejadin, near al-Omar, Syria’s largest oil field. There has been an obvious trend for the Pentagon to create new facilities in and around Syria’s largest oil and gas fields. the US has no plans to leave Syria any time soon, and that their intervention has nothing to do with establishing order or fighting against terrorism.

Over the space of several years, the USA has deployed 25 military facilities in Syria, and are continuing to build new ones. In general, they try to act in such a way as to establish control of oil-rich areas and energy resources. At the same time, they don’t believe they should be accountable to anyone. According to Zhilin, the US’s role in Syria today is to subvert and destabilize the situation, via, for example, the creation of a new terrorist army to fight the Syrian military, or to stage a provocation in Eastern Ghouta using chlorine to allow US air power to strike against the Syrian army directly.

The USA and its coalition allies began a campaign of airstrikes against Daesh* in 2014, following it up by the deployment of US forces into Syrian-Kurdish areas as the terrorists’ so-called caliphate began to shrink. Damascus has criticized the US intervention, repeatedly pointing out that it was never invited into the country by the internationally recognized government of President Bashar Assad.

The reality being that should the deluded ones in Washington and London push their arrogance too far, they are no match for Russia’s ability to defend itself with superior military force. Russia has no need for bluff or bluster, unlike the Americans and British who are compensating for their own inadequacy and incompetence.

USA cannot win a war on its own it wins wars with NATO empowerment. . The Americans and Israelis rarely won a war in their history. They are only good for attacking weaker, defenseless countries.

Russia, on the other hand, is a bear that only a fool would push. And it was good the Russian bear bared its claws recently. Just to remind the arrogant deluded fools.

The US-led NATO fascist war with backing from every anti-Islamic nation on earth Israel, a few Arab nations, others, committed genocides of Muslims in millions. Recently, more than 44,000 people left Damascus’ suburbs of Eastern Ghouta through the humanitarian corridors. Col. Gen. Sergei Rudskoi said: “Today one can say that the situation in Eastern Ghouta has radically changed. Right now you are witnessing a humanitarian operation of a unique scale. Now 26,610 civilians left Eastern Ghouta through the humanitarian corridor, while the entire number of people, who’ve left Eastern Ghouta, has reached 44,639,” Rudskoi said. Rudskoy said that three UN humanitarian convoys had made it to Eastern Ghouta over the past week. The people in need have received 445 tons of food, essentials and medicines.

According to the latest reports, the Syrian troops have already liberated more than half of the area, which jihadists have controlled control since 2012. It is known that 10,000 to 12,000 militants are to be somewhere in the area.

Many countries kill Syrians as more and more anti-Islamic nations also join the party, drinking the blood of Syrians as they relish Islamic blood of Muslims starting form Afghanistan where the USA launched fascist-imperialist war under the pretext of Sept-11 hoax, engineered in USA by anti-Islamic forces with backing from Israel and Saudi Arabia- now the strategic partners against Islam and Palestine.

Worse, the USA is a country that has violated countless international laws to destroy the lives of millions of people by waging illegal wars around the planet.