How the United States Regime "Justifies" the Theft of Syrias Oil by Eric Zuesse!
(2019-10-30 at 22:36:59 )

How the United States Regime "Justifies" the Theft of Syrias Oil by Eric Zuesse

On October 26th, the New York Times headlined "Keep the Oil": President Trump Revives Charged Slogan for New Syria Troop Mission" and opened by saying that "in recent days, Mr. Trump has settled on Syrias oil reserves as a new rationale for appearing to reverse course and deploy hundreds of additional troops to the war-ravaged country."

They closed with a statement from Bruce Riedel, retired from the Central Intelligence Agency: "Let us say he does do it," Mr. Riedel said. "Let us say we establish the precedent that we are in the Middle East to take the oil. The symbolism is really bad."

The propaganda-value of a "news"-report is concentrated in its opening, and especially in what the "reporter" (fulfilling the intentions of his editors) selected to be at the very end (such as Mr. Riedels statement). However, is what is wrong with taking Syrias oil actually the "symbolism," as Mr. Riedel said, or is it instead the theft - the reality (and why did the NYT pretend that it is the latter)?

Nowhere did that NYT article use the word "theft," or anything like it, but that is the actual issue here - not mere "symbolism".

President Trump had been so lambasted by the Democratic Partys "news"-media (such as the NYT) and by all the rest of the neoconservative "news"-media (the Republican ones), for his trying to withdraw forces from Mr. Obamas regime-change war against Syria, he has now switched to trying to "justify" continuation of the United States of Americas invasion-occupation of Syria by his promising to steal the oil there - but the "news"-media almost never use that term ("theft"), or anything like it, to describe what he is promising to do, because they themselves have been propagandizing the United States of American people to oppose withdrawal from Syria, which would mean ending Mr. Obamas invasion-occupation of Syria.

Both the Republican and the Democratic Parties, and their "news"-media, have been full-bore "Assad must step-down."

None of Americas "news"-media had stated, either, that Americas invasions-occupations of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria, have all been disasters (though they all were), and that all of them have been and are defeats for America (though they all were that, on all of Americas leaders lies about "protecting human rights", and about "bringing democracy", and about what would have been producing improved lives - instead of producing continued bloodshed - for the residents in the countries that we had invaded and occupied).

It is all lies, nothing but that; and any "news"-media which operate this way will find themselves increasingly trapped in their lies, like the politicians themselves are.

The only way "out", for any of them (including for Trump, and for both the Republican and the Democratic press) is yet more lies - and all of these lies are cover-ups, by the press and by the politicians.

(This is why they are torturing Julian Assange to death: he has seriously challenged that ongoing deceit, in which they all participate.)

Unless the public stop the media from doing it - by cancelling their subscriptions, and otherwise demonetizing the ones who have been doing it - the lies, and deceits, and invasions, and destructive United States national expenditures of tens of trillions of dollars (being paid to corporations such as Lockheed Martin, and not only to our soldiers) will continue.

This enormous counterproductive expenditure will drain Americas abilities to fund health care, education, etc. It is bringing the United States economy down, and not merely bringing America to an ethically lower and lower point.

The more that Americas leaders try to continue expanding the United States American empire, the more that they will both embarrass, and weaken, America. This is real. It is no propaganda, at all. It is "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

On October 24th, USA Today headlined "Pentagon planning to send tanks, armored vehicles to Syrian oil fields", and reported that "The Pentagon is preparing to send tanks and armored vehicles to Syrian oil fields, according to a United States official - a stunning reversal of President Trumps decision to withdraw United States forces from the war-torn country after he declared victory over ISIS."

Those oil fields do not belong to the United States, but to Syrias Government, and their operation is vital to funding Syrias reconstruction, which the United States regime is determined to prevent; but USA Todays "news"-report says nothing about any of that.

The United States Government is trying to steal Syrias oil fields - but this USA Today article says nothing about that, either.

United States of American troops are invaders of Syria, unlike Russian troops, who are defenders of Syria, and who had been invited into Syria by Syrias Government (the only government Syria has) in order to help defend Syrias sovereignty, over Syrias own land, including its oil wells, against the United States-and-allied invasion.

All of that vital context is missing from this deceptive report.

That report said "Now, Russian troops, which are in Syria to bolster the regime of Bashar al-Assad, and Turkish forces, are operating in the region previously patrolled by United States and Kurdish forces."

It is saying that, whereas the region had been "patrolled" - instead of invaded and now occupied - by United States and Kurdish forces, "Russian troops .. and Turkish forces .. are in Syria to bolster the regime of Bashar al-Assad," though his "regime" is actually the only legitimate Government of Syria.

But the United States regime claims the right to force Mr. Assad to be overthrown.

This report stated that "The deployment of armor is aimed at Russia and Syria, not ISIS, said Nicholas Heras, an expert on Syria with the Center for a New American Security. .. "Pure and simple," he said, "the Pentagon is making contingencies for a big fight with Russia for Syrias oil." But Russia is not trying to seize Syrias oil - the United States regime is doing that, actually. Russian forces are in Syria only in order to assist Syria to defend its oil, and its land.

If the United States regime will go into World War III so as to steal Syrias oil, then the likelihood of Russias letting this theft happen is slight: that would be Russias capitulation without a fight, and Russia has never given any indication it would do such a thing.

(And Russian media DO refer to this as being "theft"; they are not trying to hide the fact.

Russia already is fighting the United States regime in Syria. And on October 26th, Russias Sputnik News headlined "The Russian military described the United States scheme as nothing less than international state banditism," and reported that, "According to Russian intelligence, the illegal United States-supervised extraction of Syrian oil was being carried out by "leading American corporations" and private military contractors, with United States special forces and air power used for protection.

Mr. Konashenkov said the estimated monthly revenue of this "private enterprise" was over $30 million.")

This is the territory of Syria, which is a Russian ally. The thief here is clearly the United States regime, not Syria, and not Russia.

It is no one else than the United States regime that is aiming to steal Syrias oil by sending in tanks. Nowhere does the USA Today article even so much as hint that this is the case.

An October 21st Wall Street Journal article reported the United States Governments theft of Syrias oil, but it was instead headlined with the misleading, more innocuous, and less attention-grabbing "Trump Calls for Defense, Use of Syrian Oil Fields" - nothing about any "theft" - and it opened with the seemingly United States-or-Syria defense-related statement (as if United States troops were in Syria as defenders, instead of as attackers and thieves) that "President Trump said he is planning to keep a small number of troops in northeast Syria to protect the oil fields there and suggested that an American company might help the Syrian Kurds develop the oil for export."

However, since when does a thief break into your residence in order to "protect" anything?

And since when does such a thief have a right to sell your property, or to determine what people (such as "the Syrian Kurds") will sell it?

Was that article news, or was it instead propaganda?

It certainly misrepresents. What it reports, is reported as if this thieving operation were only being contemplated, and would be new, but the thieving is actually nothing new - it is an already-existing, and longstanding, coordinated and international operation, by the United States regime and its allies, as will here be documented.

Americas mainstream media now (such as in USA Today, WSJ, and NYT) are normalizing this theft. This normalization is being done by their propaganda, which now is for a Republican Government, but formerly was for a Democratic Government. Previously, Democrats had done the same hiding of the regimes evil, when their Democratic President Barack Obama was the person who was perpetrating it.

This theft - and the normalization of it - are actually bipartisan, and longstanding. When the "news" presents false historical context, it lies; it is propaganda, and that is what the United States of American nations mainstream "news"-media now are.

They are deceptive garbage, regime-propaganda.

On October 20th, Republican United States Senator Lindsey Graham, and Republican Maria Bartiromo of Fox News "Sunday Morning Futures," discussed the Republican Trumps plan to steal Syrias oil, and they both agreed that it might turn out to be an excellent policy.

This show was headlined "Sen. Lindsey Graham: I am increasingly optimistic we can have historic solutions in Syria." It was a remarkably bold defense of the United States Governments - and of its allies - thefts from Syria.

Already, the United States Government had said that it will not pay even a cent in order to provide restitution for the estimated $388 billion in damages to Syria from the invasion of Syria by the United States and by its allies such as Al Qaeda and the Sauds, but this show presented an endorsement by those two Republicans, backing the Republican United States Presidents plan to steal Syrias oil, which goes beyond merely supporting zero restitution to the invaded country.

No mention was being made, by them, on this "news"-medium, that (as will be documented here) those thefts by the United States Government, and by its allies, have, in fact, been going on ever since the invasions of Syria by them and their proxies (or "agents" - such as Al Qaeda) had started in 2012.

No mention was made by them that this was the policy of Democratic President Barack Obama and that it is merely being continued further by Donald Trump.

To the exact contrary: President Trump was being praised by these propagandists for starting this program, and, so, their praise was not just evil; it was actually entirely false.

Right before the interview, Ms Bartiromo had been pretending to be a critical non-partisan journalist instead of the propagandist that she is, and so she stated that "my biggest issue here is the strength of Iran [as if Iran had ever invaded or even threatened to invade the United States, and as if President Trumps anti-Iran policies are not sufficiently stringent, or maybe even are vastly too stringent, or maybe even are altogether unjustified]. And I feel like the administration had the Iranians on their heels and ruining the economy through sanctions, through this pressure campaign. And now we give up and leave Syria." The Senator disagreed with her make-pretend criticism of the Republican President, and he said that, instead,

The big thing for me is the oil fields. President Trump is thinking outside the box. I was so impressed with his thinking about the oil.

Not only are we going to deny the oil fields falling into Iranian hands. I believe we are on the verge of a joint venture between us and the Syrian Democratic Forces, who helped destroy ISIS and keep them destroyed, to modernize the oil fields and make sure they get the revenue, not the Iranians, not Assad. ..

That is why what President Trump is proposing in Syria, a joint venture dealing with the southern oil fields in Syria, between our allies, the Kurds and the Arabs who helped us destroy ISIS, is a historic change that could pay dividends for the region.

And, quite frankly, we could generate revenue to pay for our commitment in Syria. .. I am increasingly optimistic that we can have some historic solutions in Syria that have eluded us for years, if we play our cards right.

Ms Bartiromo replied "Wow. .. You actually do see a way forward after you have spoken with the president on his plan to secure those oil fields."

This theft is pushed by all of the United States mainstream media, and Trump knows that he will need at least some degree of support from them if he is to be able to win re-election.

This is the reason why he keeps contradicting himself - trying to appeal to the "No More War" crowd, while still drawing donations from the "military-industrial complex" or owners of Americas "defense" contractors. (There is a lot of crossover between the controlling owners of those firms and the controlling owners of the "news"-media - and of the "non-profit" foundations.)

The United States of Americas major "news" media have always buried the truth about this long-ongoing theft.

And not only was the theft of Syrias oil the policy of Democratic United States President Barack Obama, but it was participated in by his coalition, which included both EU heads-of-state and Arab heads-of-state, and this policy began in 2011.

Here is how it, in fact, developed:

On 28 November 2012, Syria News headlined "Emir of Qatar & Prime Minister of Turkey Steal Syrian Oil Machinery in Broad Daylight" and accompanied it by video of the alleged event.

(At that time, Qatar and Turkey were allies of the United States arming the "rebels" in Syria to overthrow Syrias Government; so, they were part of Americas broader operation, and were also profiting from it.)

But that video is no longer active. A subsequent description of that video was posted under the headline "Emir of Qatar & Prime Minister of Turkey Steal Syrian Oil Excavators - No Translation". Another posting of the video online has lasted from 6 October 2013 to the present time, under the headline "Emir of Qatar & Prime Minister of Turkey Steal Syrian Oil Excavators - BiffiSyrien", where it still can be viewed.

By no later than 12 December 2012, United States President Barack Obama made the decision to hire Al Qaeda in Syria (called "Al Nusra") to train and lead almost all of Americas proxy-forces on the ground in Syria to overthrow Syrias Government.

(Kurds were assigned to be Americas lead proxy-forces in far northeastern Syria.) (Obama was so determined to protect Al Qaeda in Syria as to sabotage on 17 September 2016 his own Secretary of State, John Kerrys, just-signed Syrian ceasefire agreement with Russia, because that agreement allowed not only ISIS, but also Al Qaeda forces, to continue to be bombed in Syria by Russia. Obama was protecting Al Qaeda in Syria.)

On 22 April 2013, the AP headlined "EU lifts Syria oil embargo to bolster rebels" and reported that

The European Union on Monday lifted its oil embargo on Syria to provide more economic support to the forces fighting to oust President Bashar Assads regime. The decision will allow for crude exports from rebel-held territory. .. The oil exports could open an important revenue stream for Syrias opposition. ..

While Syria was never one of the worlds major oil exporters, the sector was a pillar of Syrias economy until the uprising, with the country producing about 380,000 barrels a day and exports - almost exclusively to Europe - bringing in more than $3 billion in 2010.

Oil revenues provided around a quarter of the funds for the national budget. Being able to take advantage of the countrys oil resources will help the Syrian uprising "big time," said Osama Kadi, a senior member of the Syrian opposition.

On 27 April 2013, the New York Times headlined "Islamist Rebels Create Dilemma on Syria Policy" and reported that

Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of. .. The religious agenda of the combatants sets them apart from many civilian activists, protesters and aid workers who had hoped the uprising would create a civil, democratic Syria.

.. Of most concern to the United States is the Nusra Front, whose leader recently confirmed that the group cooperated with Al Qaeda in Iraq and pledged fealty to Al Qaedas top leader, Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Ladens longtime deputy. Nusra has claimed responsibility for a number of suicide bombings and is the group of choice for the foreign jihadis pouring into Syria.

Another prominent group, Ahrar al-Sham, shares much of Nusras extremist ideology but is made up mostly of Syrians..

In the oil-rich provinces of Deir al-Zour and Hasaka, Nusra fighters have seized government oil fields, putting some under the control of tribal militias and running others themselves.

"They are the strongest military force in the area," said the commander of a rebel brigade in Hasaka reached via Skype. "We can not deny it."..

"We all want an Islamic state and we want Shariah to be applied," said Maawiya Hassan Agha, a rebel activist reached by Skype in the northern village of Sarmeen. He said a countrys laws should flow from its peoples beliefs and compared Syrians calling for Islamic law with the French banning Muslim women from wearing face veils.

On 1 May 2013, TIME bannered "Syrias Opposition Hopes to Win the War by Selling Oil" and reported that

Without an embargo, European companies can now legally begin importing barrels of oil directly from rebel groups, which have seized several oil fields in recent months, mostly around the eastern area of Deir Ezzor. That would provide the opposition with its first reliable source of income since the revolt erupted in Feb. 2011, and in theory hasten the downfall of Bashar Assads regime, by giving rebels the means to run skeletal local governments and consolidate their control.

On 15 June 2013, Global Research headlined "Former French Foreign Minister: The War against Syria was Planned Two years before "The Arab Spring" and Gearoid O Colmain reported that

In an interview with the French TV station LCP, former French minister for Foreign Affairs Roland Dumas said:

"I am going to tell you something. I was in England two years before the violence in Syria [in other words, in 2009] on other business. I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria.

This was in Britain not in America. Britain was organizing an invasion of rebels into Syria. They even asked me, although I was no longer minister for foreign affairs, if I would like to participate.

Naturally, I refused, I said I am French, that does not interest me."

Dumas attributed it to Israel, not to the United States, nor to the Sauds (who actually had always been the Central Intelligence Agencys choice to appoint the leaders of Syria), and he did not even so much as mention either of those, except to say that "this will enable it [Israel] to replace the United States as a global hegemon" (which is a crackpot idea).

Though his interpretation was ridiculous, his allegation that in 2009 "top British officials .. confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria" is a factual matter, which is either true or false.

(Back in 2009, there is actual evidence that Americans President Barack Obama was aiming to overthrow Mr. Assad. Furthermore, Obamas team started by no later than 23 June 2011 to plan both the coup in Ukraine which succeeded and the coup in Syria, which failed. And as the great investigative journalist Gareth Porter reported on 5 January 2017, "In August 2011, national security officials began urging Mr. Obama to call on Mr. Assad to step down," but at that time "He was not willing to go along with anything except small arms," until Central Intelligence Agency Director David Petraeus - who soon thereafter became a member of the Bilderberg group - persuaded him to go all-out in arming the "rebels".

Furthermore, "when Obama was making crucial Syria policy decisions in September 2011," his advisors assumed that both Russia and Iran would stay out of the matter and just just let the United States and the Sauds take-over Syria.

President Obama respected his advisors. And, then, Porter headlined on 22 June 2017, "How America Armed Terrorists in Syria". So: this theft-operation was extensively armed by the United States regime, and funded by the Sauds.)

In any case, the EU was certainly helping ISIS and other such groups to steal Syrias oil, so as to help fund their overthrow-Assad operation. So, the participation also of United Kingdom was likely, even if not, at that time, proven.

On 14 October 2015, the Financial Times headlined "Isis Inc: how oil fuels the jihadi terrorists" and reported that "Selling crude is Isis biggest single source of revenue. .. While al-Qaeda, the global terrorist network, depended on donations from wealthy foreign sponsors, Isis has derived its financial strength from its status as monopoly producer of an essential commodity consumed in vast quantities throughout the area it controls."

(In other words, when TIME, on 1 May 2013, bannered "Syrias Opposition Hopes to Win the War by Selling Oil" and said "That would provide the opposition with its first reliable source of income since the revolt erupted in Feb. 2011," the "opposition" being referred to there was actually ISIS, not Al Qaeda. The EU was buying its black-market oil from ISIS.)

On 1 December 2015, another great investigative journalist, Nafeez Ahmed, bannered "Western firms primed to cash in on Syrias oil and gas frontier" and he reported:

United States, British, French, Israeli and other energy interests could be prime beneficiaries of military operations in Iraq and Syria designed to rollback the power of the "Islamic State" (ISIS) and, potentially, the Bashar al-Assad regime.

A study for a global oil services company backed by the French government and linked to Britain’s Tory-led administration, published during the height of the Arab Spring, hailed the significant “hydrocarbon potential” of Syria’s offshore resources.

The 2011 study was printed in GeoArabia, a petroleum industry journal published by a Bahrain-based consultancy, GulfPetroLink, which is sponsored by some of the worlds biggest oil companies, including Chevron, ExxonMobil, Saudi Aramco, Shell, Total, and BP. GeoArabias content has no open subscription system and is exclusively distributed to transnational energy corporations, corporate sponsors and related organisations, as well as some universities.

On 28 August 2018, Abdel Bari Atwan, one of the Middle Easts most respected journalists, headlined "Carrots and Sticks" and reported that

Damascus has been inundated with secret offers in recent weeks as part of a carrot-and-stick policy, two of which are particularly significant.

The first, reported on Tuesday by the pro-Hezbollah Lebanese daily al-Akhbar and the semi-official Iranian Fars news agency, was conveyed by a senior United States military officer accompanied by representatives of various intelligence agencies. They flew to Damascus on a private UAE jet, and were met by the head of the National Security Bureau Gen. Ali Mamlouk, intelligence chief Gen. Deeb Zaitoun, and deputy army chief-of-staff Gen. Muwaffaq Masoud.

Their meeting lasted four hours. The Americans reportedly offered to withdraw all United States forces from Syria in exchange for Damascus complying with three demands: to pull Iranian forces out of areas of southern Syria adjoining Israel; to guarantee United States oil companies a share of Syrias oil east of the Euphrates; and to hand over all information about terrorist groups and their members in Syria.

The second offer was revealed by Lebanese Hezbollah MP Nawwaf al-Mousawi in a discussion programme on the Lebanese TV channel al-Mayadeen, at which I was also a panellist. He said that Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad Bin-Salman sent an envoy to Mr. Assad offering to support him remaining president for life and provide generous Saudi support for Syrias reconstruction in exchange for him severing ties with Iran and Hezbollah.

Both offers were categorically turned down by the Syrian leadership.

The American delegation was told that its troops in Syria were occupying forces which would be treated as such, that Syria could not abandon its strategic allies, and that issues such as United States participation in the oil industry and exchanging intelligence could be discussed once political relations were re-established.

On 2 September 2018, the German intelligence analyst who blogs anonymously as "Moon of Alabama" headlined "Syria Sitrep - United States To Stay To Create Quagmires" and he reported:

The claim that the United States is there to fight ISIS is a lie. ISIS is still active in two places in Syria. Both are under United States control. ..

The United States is not fighting ISIS in Syria.

It is building semi-permanent bases, trains a large proxy force, and controls Syrias oilfields. Its aim is still regime change, the same aim it had when it launched the war on Syria seven and a half years ago. To achieve that it will continue to sow as much chaos as possible.

As Central Intelligence Agency and Pentagon mouthpiece David Ignatius wrote this week:

"[T]he administration has stopped the dithering and indecision of the past 18 months and signaled that the United States has enduring interests in Syria, beyond killing Islamic State terrorists - and that it is not planning to withdraw its Special Operations forces from northeastern Syria anytime soon.

"Right now, our job is to help create quagmires [for Russia and the Syrian regime] until we get what we want," says one administration official, explaining the effort to resist an Idlib onslaught. This approach involves reassuring the three key United States allies on Syrias border - Israel, Turkey and Jordan - of continued American involvement."

But what seems ultimately to endure is: Steal the oil.

On 26 February 2019 the Syrian National News Agency reported that Syrias Government accused the United States Government of having stolen from ISIS so much gold that ISIS had received as payment for oil that ISIS had stolen from Syria, so that the United States Federal Reserve was enriched by at least 40 tons of gold. The accusation is that this black-marketed oil produced that gold for the United States Government, and purchased "safe passage for the terrorists."

So: President Trump, and Fox News, and United States Senators, etc., are planning to continue the operation that Democratic United States President Barack Obama, and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and the United States CIA, and Britains MI6, and the rest of the United States regime and its allies, were trying to do even before the "Arab Spring" began.

As I have previously reported, Barack Obama, even when he came into office in 2009, was aiming to take control of Syria, for it to become ruled by agents of the Saud family, and he started planning the "revolution" in Syria by no later than 23 June 2011.

So: the faker Donald Trump is really just old hat, nothing at all new. He is just trying to do what Barack Obama was trying to do, but using different tactics to do it.

And, so, what is the "justification" for this theft? It is Americas alliances:

BARTIROMO: Why are we sending troops to Saudi Arabia then?

GRAHAM: Well, because Saudi Arabia is an ally and Iran is an enemy.

And Iran is the biggest state sponsor of terrorism on the planet. ..

The official position of the United States Government is that Iran is the top state sponsor of terrorism and that the Sauds (whom in diplomatic cables and other internal communications the United States regime acknowledge to be the biggest financial backer of Al Qaeda) is not even a state sponsor of terrorism, at all, but is instead a United States "ally".

So: that is how they "justify" it. They "justify" it by the rest of the gang - the very same gang that the United States regime itself leads.

Their "justification", of themselves, is empty.

It is only propaganda, for fools to believe. Nothing more, than that.

On Friday, October 26th, the Washington Post headlined "Trump decided to leave troops in Syria after conversations about oil, officials say", and - like all of the regimes stenographic reporting of the regimes "news" - reported the regimes more official "explanation", which was: "Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper confirmed on Friday that troops would remain in eastern Syria to prevent the oil fields from being retaken by the Islamic State."

This is just more of the same: it is just citing "ISIS" as being the "enemy", instead of citing "Syria" as being that.

They are asserting that they can steal Syrias oil so as to prevent ISIS from stealing it. First, ISIS and other United States allies stole it; and, then, the United States seized ISIS gold from those sales; and, now, the United States will be stealing Syrias oil directly.

Similarly, in 2002 and 2003, the United States regime, and its stenographic press, kept shifting their "explanation" as to why Iraq had to be immediately invaded.

United States of Americans believed it then, and they believe it now.

The United States of American public never learn.

This is now 17 years later. There has been no change, except in whom the occupant of the White House is.

But fortunately, this time, there is Russia that perhaps can say no to this plan.

Only time will tell if it will. And, if it does, then will President Trump pull his nuclear trigger - an invasion of Russia, WW III, an aggression against the other superpower?

I doubt it, but it could happen.

To overestimate the greed and the stupidity of the international Deep State is hard to do. These billionaires did not get to be billionaires by being intelligent or being good - cunning and ruthless, yes, but that is very different.

After all, the announced highest aspiration of Jeff Bezos, who owns the Washington Post, is to send a trillion people out into space, "getting humanity established in the solar system". Even conquering the world would not be enough to satisfy some of these individuals.

On 20 August 2018, Russias RT News headlined "Secret directive bans United Nations agencies from helping rebuild Syria until political transition - Lavrov" and reported that Russias Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, said that the Executive branch of the United Nations, the UN Secretariat, had issued in October 2017 a "secret directive" (violating two resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly - the United Nations Legislature), and that this secret directive ordered United Nations agencies to do nothing to help rebuild Syria unless the United States first had approved of a new person to replace Syrias existing President, and unless that person had already become installed to lead Syria.

According to the anti-Russian Haaretz newspaper in anti-Russian Israel, on 31 August 2018,

One country that is likely going to stay out of the infighting over the reconstruction process is the United States. The Trump administration has no clear policy on the "day after" in Syria, except for one principle: No American money will be spent on it.

The American ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, made that point clear at a speech she gave on Tuesday in Washington,D.C., explaining that Russia and the Assad regime "own" Syria now.

"You broke it, you own it," Ms Haley said at a summit organized by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies [an organization that zionist Jews had set up in the United States]. ..

Ken Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, expressed a similar view, writing in the British newspaper The Independent: "Long before any talk of providing reconstruction assistance for Syria, which in any event would require lifting separate targeted sanctions, European governments should call out Russias complicity in Syrias war crimes and vigorously press the Kremlin to end these atrocities and stop underwriting Syrias repression."

It was the deployment of the Russian air force three years ago that tilted the scales of the war in favor of Mr. Assad, who at that time controlled only a quarter of the countrys territory. Even today, Russia maintains its military presence in Syria to ensure the regimes upper hand.

This is similar to the policy of imperial Rome toward Carthage - a resisting city-state - in 146 BC, when the Emperor ordered the resisting city-state destroyed at the end of the final, the Third, Punic War, except that, in the present instance, the imperial ruler is (on and off, depending on his whim of the day) quitting his efforts to conquer that land, and is instead (but this being consistent) commanding his agencies never to assist to restore Syria, unless and until it finally will surrender to the empire.

In that sense, Syria may be considered to be todays Carthage. (Another difference is that Syria, unlike Carthage at that time, is no expansionist - or "imperialist" - power.)

So: Donald Trump, Lindsey Graham, Maria Bartiromo, Barack Obama, the United States Congress, Human Rights Watch, the United Nations, and the other agents and agencies of the United States empire, are in an imperial tradition that goes back thousands of years, if not longer.

However, though Syria is an ally of Iran, and of Russia; and so the United States regime want regime-change there, Donald Trump might have reached the limit of his regime-change aspirations when on 10 September 2019 he finally fired John Bolton, who (along with his predecessors) had failed against Iran, failed against Venezuela, failed against Russia, and failed against China.

President Trumps most intensive regime-change effort has been against Iran (though Fox Maria Bartiromo thinks it is not enough).

On 5 July 2018, the excellent investigative journalist Sibel Edmonds headlined at her Newsbud site her 33-minute video "Breaking: Insiders Reveal Secret Deal to Topple Iran Government!" revealing (starting at 19:00) that ever since Donald Trump entered office in 2017, his Administration was planning to execute an operation not only to terminate the Iran deal and re-institute sanctions but to enforce sactions so stringently against any country that would continue trading with Iran, so as to strangle Irans economy and thus impose such misery upon the Iranian population so that they would welcome a military coup in order to end their (United States-imposed) misery.

This operation had a Plan A and a Plan B.

In Plan A, Irans generals who would participate in the coup would institute an "anti-American" "independent" government which would buy United States-made weapons from EU countries and thus not be viewed by Iranians as a United States-stooge regime (though becoming a United States stooge regime); the sanctions would be lifted, and Irans economy would be restored.

In Plan B, 3-3.5M Iranians would be killed by the bombing, and all of Irans generals would be among them.

Plan A would be Irans generals "standing up for the Iranian people", a "nationalistic" (instead of capitulationist) coup, to remove the "dictatorship".

Plan B would be a much bigger slaughter of Iranians. Edmonds said (27:30) the coup "would take place, I would say, in less than six months." (29:00)

"There is a large, powerful military faction that have said Yes [to Plan ]]. .. How sure of this am I? 100%."

But she was wrong in this prediction; she had not considered the bigger picture.

What is that? President Trump was getting too close to his own re-election campaign. And not enough Iranian generals could be corrupted to become traitors; the coup did not occur. Mr. Bolton, etc., had been too rosy in their predictions that the threats would be enough and that the patriotism of enough of Irans generals could just be bought off.

(Perhaps the corrupt Americans had expected Iranians to be as corrupt as they themselves were.)

Plan B was thus supposed to become imposed - an outright United States invasion of Iran. But what would this invasion have done to Donald Trumps re-election chances?

The Deep State had actually suckered him.

That is why Mr. Bolton (part of the Deep State) was fired.

And, so, now, Congress and the United States media are finally out for Donald Trumps scalp, because he would not follow through with the Deep States plan.

Maybe he will do it if he becomes re-elected, but they can not trust him; they want President Mike Pence.

That has become their new Plan B: impeachment in the House, and forced removal in the Senate. His intensified effort, now, to steal Syrias oil, is not enough to stop that.

The reason why Julian Assange, ever since 12 June 2012, has been under various forms of imprisonment - and now torture - without there having been any conviction for anything, and not even any trial being held in his case, is that the United States and its allied regimes need to keep their secrets, and therefore need to eliminate him.

To publishers, and to journalists, throughout the United States-and-allied world, his case is the ultimate warning of what each one of them could face.

This is how the real law actually operates, throughout the empire.

Mr. Assange is simply the personification of it, for everyone.

However, as might logically follow from this situation, the only country in the world where Mr. Assange - who is globally viewed more favorably than unfavorably - is widely despised, is the United States, where the handwriting against him is "on the wall," almost everywhere.

The United States of Americas "news"-media have been uniquely devoted to doing their job.

But, of course, authentic news-media perform a different job.

And Mr. Assanges case is the most effective possible warning to whatever authentic news-media might still exist within the United States empire.

To call this empire a "democracy" anywhere, insults that noble term.

Reprinted here from the "Strategic Culture Foundation" provides a platform for exclusive analysis, research and policy comment on Eurasian and global affairs. We are covering political, economic, social and security issues worldwide. Since 2005 our journal has published thousands of analytical briefs and commentaries with the unique perspective of independent contributors. SCF works to broaden and diversify expert discussion by focusing on hidden aspects of international politics and unconventional thinking. Benefiting from the expanding power of the Internet, we work to spread reliable information, critical thought and progressive ideas.