The US State Dept has finally released its official history of the CIA’s overthrow of the Iranian government in 1953. They managed to avoid mentioning it in 1989 when they first published their book on that period. And it only took them 25 years to rectify the situation. I look forward to reading it.
150 people died in the Kabul truck bomb last week. It gets a tiny fraction of the coverage of Manchester or London Bridge. Not to mention Facebook outrage.
Kind of embarrassing, but until recently I had no idea how much of the world’s economy is based on coal from QLD. For example – Queensland exports half the world’s coking coal which is used to make steel. HALF! That means 50% of the world’s steel is manufactured with QLD coal. For the last year I’ve been working with a client who are coal mining consultants in QLD. They’ve been giving me an education. Mining – mostly coal, coal seam gas and bauxite with some oil shale and natural gas – makes up about 9% of the QLD economy. Meanwhile the cost of solar is dropping exponentially. I have to wonder what’s going to happen to the QLD economy over the next 20 years when coal becomes a dirty word and people are using solar-generated electricity to make steel instead.
A study by the Sunlight Foundation found that, between 2007 and 2012, 200 of America’s most politically active corporations spent a combined $5.8 billion on federal lobbying and campaign contributions. What they gave pales compared to what those same corporations got: $4.4 trillion (with a T) in federal business and support.
I wasn’t aware of Paul Craig Roberts before watching this video, but he was apparently an Assistant Treasury Secretary under Reagan and was associate editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal.
He makes a lot of sense on this video, talking about the nuclear deal with Iran.
I’m impressed that the Obama administration managed to pull of this deal (not that’s it’s finalised yet, but it sounds promising) which will throw a massive spanner into the neocon war machine, but of course it’s ridiculous that Iran needs to agree to a deal like this in the first place. Even according to Mossad, Iran does not have a bomb, and hasn’t been trying to build one. They are signatories to the NPT. They haven’t invaded another country since Xerxes in 400BCE.
Israel, on the other hand, have an estimated 100 – 200 nukes, is currently trying to convince the US to bomb Iran and has been illegally occupying parts of Palestine since 1967. They should be the one trying to lift sanctions, not Iran.
Just to recap: In 1953, the CIA overthrew the democratically-elected government of Iran over an oil dispute. They lied about doing so until the 90s. They then re-installed the Shah and supported his oppressive regime until he was finally overthrown in 1979. The US immediately launched a proxy war against the people of Iran via their puppet in Iraq, Saddam Hussein. As soon as that episode was over, the US threw harsh economic sanctions on the people of Iran which have continued to this day.
Anyway… Watch the video.
RT has a panel comparing the differing U.S. positions on Ukraine and Yemen. Both had democratically-elected governments deposed by rebels. In Ukraine, the US backs the rebels and criticizes Russia for supporting the deposed government. In Yemen, they are backing the deposed government and supporting the Saudi-lead attacks on the rebels.
Other analysis I found interesting:
All of this serves to continue to underline, for the X-thousandth time, the cornerstone operating principle of the United States: We can do anything, and places we want to conquer can do nothing (the principle of any unreasonable person or group with a lust for power over others).
Part of this principle involves ignoring that, while the Saudis are “desperate to portray this [their invasion of Yemen] as a counter to Iran”, and that is supposed to be the excuse for the aggression (legally, excuses for aggression are irrelevant and to be ignored), Russia would not be allowed to use “countering the US/NATO expansion” as a reason for supporting Ukrainian anti-coup democrats. That would be violating the US principle: you are not allowed to counter the terrorism of the US or its collaborators, such as the freedom-loving Saudi “royal” dictatorship. Thus Russian can have no involvement with eastern Ukrainian democrats, while the US can organize a terrorist army to destroy Syria, as it continues to do.
Trademark Jaw-Dropping US Hypocrisy On Display re Saudi Aggression vs. Russian “Aggression”, Countercurrents.org
And this:
For all the talk of protecting state sovereignty, and ensuring regional stability and security, it is clear that different rules apply to different situations. The American endorsement of Saudi actions in Yemen must necessarily be counterposed against Saudi and American attempts to dislodge the Assad regime in Syria, as well as the opprobrium directed towards Russian intervention in Ukraine. While this should not be taken as sufficient reason to support either Assad or Russia, it is equally important to recognize how there is more than a whiff of cynicism around the platitudes currently being mouthed to justify the Saudi military campaign. As always, the conflict is one that is about politics rather than principle, with yet more lives being lost in the pursuit of imperial interests and regional hegemony; another pointless, unnecessary war fought by ‘powers’ that pay for it with the blood of those who have played no role in creating it.
Where angels fear to tread, The Nation
Good luck trying to find much comparison between the U.S.’ position on Yemen and Ukraine in most of the mainstream media this week. Let me know if you find anything.