George Soros gave Ivanka's husband's business a $250 million credit line in 2015 per WSJ. Soros is also an investor in Jared's business.
Tuesday, May 28, 2019
Day after Trump says no more troops to Mid East, Pentagon orders more troops to Mid East in addition to 60,000+ already there-The Atlantic…(It’s now clear Pres. Trump is a coward, complete opposite of Candidate Trump, and that he can't or won’t save us from the US military dictatorship perpetrating global mass murder and starvation)
“The new deployment is a small fraction of the tens of thousands of troops already there. [Why are 60,000-80,000 troops there when they’re desperately needed on the US southern border?] But it’s designed to send a signal to Iran.”
On Friday the Pentagon announced that it would send 1,500 troops to the region in what officials described as a “force protection” measure [where are troops at US border as a “force protection” measure?]
because of what they’ve called increased Iranian threats, including to
American troops. [Why are “American troops” there to being with?] The United States currently has thousands of troops in Iraq and Syria, in many cases in close proximity to Iranian-backed militias [who
were invited there as an ally], with whom they’ve maintained a de facto
truce as both focused on [appearing to be] fighting ISIS.Speaking to reporters on Friday, Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Katie Wheelbarger said that the new troops would not be going to Iraq and Syria, but would augment the U.S. presence in the region. The U.S. currently maintains between 60,000 and 80,000 troops, both at sea and on land bases, in the Middle East. The extra troops, Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan said in a statement, are a “prudent defensive measure and intended to reduce the possibility of future hostilities.”At the briefing Friday, Vice Admiral Michael Gilday, the director of the Joint Staff, for the first time attributed recent attacks on foreign oil tankers to the Iranians, and confirmed earlier media reportsthat U.S. officials were concerned when they observed what they said were Iranian missiles being moved on small boats.The Defense Department made the announcement just a day after President Trump, while declaring Iran “a very dangerous player” and “a nation of terror,” said he did not think such a deployment would be needed. “I don’t think we’re going to need them, I really don’t,” he said,
though he said he’d send troops if necessary. And so he will,
notwithstanding his oft-repeated desire to avoid war and his vocal
distaste for foreign entanglements. Just Thursday he remarked of the Middle East, “I don’t think we ever should have been there, okay? I inherited this mess.”
Yet he has also twice launched strikes against the Syrian regime in
response to chemical-weapons attacks, reinforced the United States
position in Afghanistan, and continued drone strikes against militants in Somalia and Yemen.”…[Ed. note: Since Trump’s words are obviously meaningless, why not write some articles urging him to resign for being useless(continuing): “With
the[alleged] territorial defeat of ISIS, which has coincided with the
Trump administration’s escalating economic-pressure campaign against the
Islamic Republic [of Iran? There are multiple “Islamic Republics.”],
the incentives for cooperation between the U.S. and Iranian-backed
proxies in the Middle East appear to be fraying. Earlier this month, National Security Adviser John Bolton, citing unspecified intelligence of Iranian threats, announced that the U.S. would send a carrier strike group to the region. The Pentagon followed that up with an announcement that it would send antimissile batteries—though these were only a partial replacement of military assets withdrawn from the region weeks before. On Friday, Gilday cited “multiple credible reports” that he said showed Iranian proxy groups planning to attack U.S. forces. [“US forces?” Why are “US forces” sitting there to begin with when they’re desperately needed on the US border? Answer: Because the US is a failed state, defined as one which can’t or won’t defend its borders.]
Pentagon officials have characterized the new deployments as aimed at force protection and deterrence-essentially, defensive moves. The administration’s critics, and particularly Democrats in Congress who have been briefed on the intelligence, don’t buy this explanation;
they have repeatedly cited the risks of provoking Iran into a possible
[multi-billion dollar US taxpayer funded] military confrontation.“I’m
gravely concerned that we’ve got folks who are encouraging or tolerating his bumbling forward into a major deployment into the Middle East
without a clear strategy,” the Democratic senator Chris Coons said in a
television interview earlier this week. A spokesman for Coons, who was
briefed on the intelligence about Iranian threats earlier this week,
told me in an email that he hadn’t seen much from the administration
that he hadn’t seen in news reports.Administration allies such as
[completely useless neocon] Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas,
have voiced more alarm about what the intelligence shows. “There can be
no doubt that we’ve seen serious, credible, and increased reporting of
threats from Iran across the Middle East—whether [from] their own forces like the Revolutionary Guard corps or through their proxies like the rebel groups they support in places like Yemen, or paramilitary forces in Iraq,” he told Fox News.”…[Ed. note:
Who gives a damn what neocon, sell out US Senators say on Fox News? US
military should all return to the US and in any case have no business
whatsoever being posted in Yemen or Iraq. The US has a wide open 2000
mile southern border and all we hear about is so-and-so might get close to the 80,000 US “troops” in the Middle East.](continuing): “Speaking to reporters on Thursday, Shanahan insisted: “Our job is deterrence. This is not about [yet another multi-billion dollar bombing scam] war. We have a mission there in the Middle East: Freedom of navigation; counterterrorism in Syria [A massive lie–US creates and finances terrorism in Syria], and Iraq [who invited the US into Iraq?]; defeating al-Qaeda in Yemen [Another massive lie. US partners with Al Qaeda in the Middle East]; and the security of Israel and Jordan. [“Security?” What “security” do you provide in the US on the US border?] Wheelbarger and Gilday said repeatedly on Friday that the U.S. does not seek a military conflict with Iran. “It’s right to do all we can to ensure protection for U.S. forces. [“Protection for US forces?” Uninvited US “forces” are meddling in a foreign country and on top of that US taxpayers have to pay billions extra so no one will step on the toes of US “forces” occupying another country?] The one enemy actively attacking our forces, however, is ISIS”…[Ed. note: Please stop the lies. First, there are countless Islamic
terror groups endlessly splintering and re-emerging with different names
all over the Mid East and elsewhere. Second, to the various Islamic
terror groups and fighters the issue is Sunni vs Shia, not democracy vs dictatorship. Eg., Sunnis want a Sunni dictator. Third, the US openly partners with Islamic terror groups, is fine with terrorism. US will partner with anyone, it’s only interested in endless unwinnable wars funded by enslaved US taxpayers.]
(continuing): “–including a suicide attack in Syria last week. Iran has not attacked U.S. forces since 2011,” a former senior administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the issue, told The Atlantic.
[Did the “official” mention US 2010 Stuxnet attack on Iran, effectively
bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities?] “The aim should be to keep it that
way, through a combination of deterrence and diplomacy. There does not seem to be much if any of the latter.”
The numbers announced Friday would not be sufficient to invade and occupy Iran, a proposition that, according to a New York Times report, would take vastly more than even a high-end proposal of 120,000troops at one point apparently under discussion at the Pentagon. (Trump later called that number inaccurate and said that “if we did that, we’d send a hell of a lot more troops than that.” [Pathetic. Trump obviously has no say in the matter]).
As tensions have escalated, Iran has made threats of its own—including to increase its uranium enrichment. Speaking to reporters on background Friday morning, a senior administration official characterized the threats as an attempt to blackmail the Europeans, who have stayed in the Iran nuclear deal
along with Iran after the U.S. departure last May, in an effort to try
to get around American sanctions. [So what? The “senior administration
official” should get a life, or at least some hobbies.]Iran and the U.S.’s allies [when do US taxpayers get to be one of these US “allies” we’re always hearing about?] are already locked in a low-grade war of sorts
that’s playing out among their proxies and allies across the region
[“The region?” Meanwhile the US “region,” twists slowly, slowly in the
wind], so there is ample potential for existing confrontations to spiral even further.At the White House, there was notably no mention of a military solution. “If they are really interested in the well-being of the Iranian people, they have no viable path but come to the table, take the president’s offer of a negotiation,” the official said.
Top Iranian officials, including Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, have so far refused.“Pompeo makes sure that every time he talks about Iran, he insults me,” Zarif told Reuters. “Why should I even answer his phone call?” The administration official declined to say whether channels were open at lower levels—and the lack of any evident communication between the two foes has stoked worries that it will be difficult to de-escalate tensions. In the meantime, more troops are on the way.“
…………………… Added: Iran has long had just cause to attack the US as
reports warned after US Stuxnet cyber attack on Iran nuclear facilities
in 2010: CS Monitor, Dec. 2010, Dec. 2011, NY Times, June 2012. US should expect consequences: Stuxnet variant could attack the US, rendering it unable to protect itself said “little noticed” but “strongly worded” Dec. 2010 report from Congressional Research Service:
No comments:
Post a Comment