The Syrian Crisis Escalates

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.

The murder of Syria seems to be a matter of indifference to the American public.

Syria, like most of the Middle East's nations targeted by Washington for "regime change" are scarred with wholesale destruction and death, the empire's sociopathic signature.


As I wrote two weeks ago, the Syrian crisis is only in its beginning stages. https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/04/17/crisis-beginning-stages/ The assault on Syrian military positions last night, apparently a US/Israeli operation, is evidence that the crisis continues to develop. https://www.timesofisrael.com/resonant-syria-strike-suggests-coordinated-us-israel-message-to-russia-and-iran/

There are four mutually reinforcing causes of the crisis:

(1) Israel’s ability to use the US government to eliminate foes in the Middle East that are obstacles to Israel’s expansion. Israel has Syria and Iran targeted, because the two governments supply the Lebanese militia Hezbollah, which has twice driven Israel out of Israel’s attempted occupation of southern Lebanon, whose water resources Israel covets.

(2) The neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony, which fits well with Israel’s Middle East agenda, a fit made even stronger by the strong neoconservative alliance with Israel.

(3) The US military/security complex’s need for justification for its massive budget and power.

(4) The inability of the Russian government to understand the first three reasons.

From the way the Russian government speaks, the Russians believe that Washington’s military actions in the Middle East for the past 17 years dating from the US invasion of Afghanistan, a still unresolved war, have to do with fighting terrorism. The Russians keep expressing the view that Russia and the US should join in a common effort to fight terrorism. Apparently, the Russian government does not understand that terrorism is Washington’s creation. The long wars with unfavorable outcomes that were the results of Washington’s invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq led to Washington recruiting and supplying terrorists to overthrow Libya and Syria. Clearly, Washington is not going to fight against the weapon it created with which to achieve its agenda.

The Russian government’s confusion about Washington’s relationship to terrorism is the fourth cause of the ongoing Syrian crisis. Washington was caught completely offguard in 2015 by Russia’s surprise intervention in Syria on the side of the Syrian government against Washington’s jihadist “rebels.” Russia was in complete control and could have ended the war in 2016. Instead, apparently hoping to appease Washington and show a reasonable face to Europe, the Russian government announced in March 2016 a premature victory and withdrawal. This mistake was repeated, and each time Russia made this mistake gave Washington opportunity to introduce its own troops and aircraft, to resupply and train its jihadist mercenaries, and to organize Israeli, Saudi, French, and British participation in the military assaults on Syria. Now the problem is that US troops are mixed in with the jihadist mercenaries, making it difficult for the Syrian/Russian alliance to clear Syrian territory of foreign invaders without killing Americans, something the Russians and Syrians have so far avoided doing. The Russian Foreign Minister, Lavrov, now accuses Washington of trying to partition Syria, but it was Russian indecisiveness that led to Syria’s partition.

The inability of the Russian government to comprehend the US/Israeli/neoconservative alliance and what this means for the Middle East, together with the indecisiveness of the Russian government about supplying Syria with the S-300 air defense system, has enabled the crisis to escalate with last night’s as of yet unclaimed attack on Syrian military positions with what appears to have been “bunker buster” bombs, an escalation.

The attacks last night killed Iranians, and the next attack might kill Russian military personnel. At some point the Russian government might tire of its humiliation, in which case Israeli and US aircraft will begin falling from the sky and attacks on “rebel” positions will claim US lives.

The Russian government’s inability to comprehend that peace is not the Israeli/American agenda and that neither in the US nor Israel is there any good will on which Russia can build an agreement to bring peace to Syria and the Middle East means the crisis will continue to build until war is upon us.

 


About the Author
  Paul Craig Roberts is a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. Roberts’ How the Economy Was Lost is now available from CounterPunch in electronic format. His latest book is The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.

 Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.




Parting shot—a word from the editors

The Best Definition of Donald Trump We Have Found

[premium_newsticker id=”211406″]

 




Sleepers Awake, We are Heading toward Imminent Disaster


MAKE SURE YOU CIRCULATE THESE MATERIALS! BREAKING THE EMPIRE'S PROPAGANDA MACHINE DEPENDS ON YOU.

April 10, 2018

Donald Trump is preparing to ignite the Middle East and move the world a big step closer to total war. There is a very good chance the corporate mainstream media, accomplices in massive war crimes, will be announcing “breaking news” this evening or night that the U.S., in conjunction with its evil twin Israel that bombed a Syrian air base 24 hours ago, has launched a massive attack on Syria “justified” by a false flag chemical attack on Saturday. That such an expanded and terribly dangerous escalation of the war against Syria, whose ultimate goal is Iran and Russia, should come as no surprise to anyone halfway sentient. Open source intelligence has been available for at least 6 weeks that the world is facing a momentous point of no return unless somehow, against all odds, sane voices miraculously intervene to stop this push for world war, which could very well end with nuclear war. But don’t count on it.

I am sick at heart at the thought of what is coming. When will we ever learn? What follows were warnings shouted out in the only places – alternative media sites devoted to truth – that care to prevent such carnage. Imagine your own continuing timeline, if you can bear to do so. Somehow, some way, we must find ways to awake those Americans asleep to the evils conjured up by their own government before it is too late. I really don’t know how, but can’t resign myself to giving up, for if I do, I give up on humanity, the “humanity” Trump says so glibly is at stake as he prepares to shed more blood.

February 21, 2018

The Trump and Netanyahu governments have a problem: How to start a greatly expanded Middle-Eastern war without having a justifiable reason for one.  No doubt they are working hard to solve this urgent problem.  If they can’t find a “justification” (which they can’t), they will have to create one (which they will).  Or perhaps they will find what they have already created.  Whatever the solution, we should feel confident that they are not sitting on their hands. History teaches those who care to learn that when aggressors place a gun on the wall in the first act of their play, it must go off in the final act.

These sinister players have signaled us quite clearly what they have in store.  All signs point toward an upcoming large-scale Israeli/U.S. attack on Lebanon and Syria, and all the sycophantic mainstream media are in the kitchen prepping for the feast.  Russia and Iran are the main course, with Lebanon and Syria, who will be devoured first, as the hors d’oeuvres.  As always, the media play along as if they don’t yet know what’s coming.  Everyone in the know knows what is, just not exactly when.  And the media wait with baited breath as they count down to the dramatic moment when they can report the incident that will compel the “innocent” to attack the “guilty.”

March 1, 2018

Last week I wrote that “all signs point toward an upcoming large-scale Israeli/U.S. attack on Lebanon and Syria, and all the sycophantic mainstream media are in the kitchen prepping for the feast.  Russia and Iran are the main course, with Lebanon and Syria, who will be devoured first, as the hors d’oeuvres.”  Those signs are growing more numerous by the day.

Israel’s mainstream newspapers, Haaretz, and the more conservative Jerusalem Post, both announce in headline news that Iran has built a new base in Syria with missiles capable of hitting Israel. One look at these newspapers with their talk of Israeli war preparations and the potential in assassinating the Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah makes it very clear that an expanded Middle Eastern war is fast approaching.  Russia, Syria, and Iran are being demonized as mind control propaganda spews forth.  The mainstream corporate media in the United States and other countries are sure to follow.

March 14, 2018

Donald Trump’s days of playing the passive/aggressive host of a reality-television game show are coming to an end.  Either he fires all the apprentices who might slightly hesitate to wage a much larger world war and lets the bombs fly, or he will be replaced by one who will.  Signs are that he has learned what his job entails and the world will suffer more death and destruction as a result.

Now we have the British Prime Minister Theresa May accusing Russia of poisoning in England the double-agent Sergei Skripal and threatening Russia to give a “credible” explanation why they killed this man or else, a man who sold the identities of Russian agents to the UK for cash, putting them in serious danger.  Or else, she says, the UK “will conclude that this action amounts to an unlawful use of force by the Russian state against the United Kingdom.”

Naturally she presented no evidence for Russian involvement, but the BBC, as is its wont, speculates on how the British may punish Russia, and the other corporate media chime in. But we are left to wonder where this is leading.  Could it be Syria?  Former British diplomat Craig Murray suggests it could be a false-flag setup aimed at raising Russiaphobia to hysterical proportions.  But to what end?

If we look to the United Nations and the accusations and threats flying from the mouth of the US Ambassador Nikki Haley, Obama’s UN Ambassador Samantha Power’s doppelganger in war lust, we see that the picture expands.  Haley threatened that the US will take unilateral action in Syria against Syrian and Russian forces if the UN didn’t adopt her resolution that would have allowed anti-government terrorists plenty of time to escape from East Ghouta.  She said, echoing words we have heard numerous times:

It is not the path we prefer, but it a path we have demonstrated we will take, and we are prepared to take again….When the international community fails to act, there are a Times when states are compelled to take their own action.

In response we have the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warning that another US strike on Syrian government forces would have serious consequences.  And the Chief of the Russian General Staff Valery Gerasimov saying,

We have reliable information about militants preparing to falsify a government chemical attack against civilians.  In several districts of Eastern Ghouta, a crowd was assembled with women, children, and old people, brought from other regions, who were to represent the victims of the chemical incident.

He added that “White Helmets” activists (proven to be financed by the US and UK) had already arrived at the scene with satellite video transmitters ready to film the scene and that the Russians had discovered a “laboratory for the production of chemical weapons in the village of Aftris which was liberated from terrorists.”  After the planned false-flag attack, the US was going to bomb government held districts in Damascus fulfilling Haley’s threat.

And here in the US, Col. Lawrence Wilkinson, who was Secretary of State Colin Powell’s chief of staff when Powell lied at the UN in 2003 to garner support for the criminal attack on Iraq, spoke to The Israel Lobby and American Policy 2018 conference ten days ago and said, speaking of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman, that:

They’re both headed for war. Of that I’m convinced. They will use Iran’s allegedly existential (sic) to Israel presence in Syria which is becoming even more so from a military perspective every day, Hezbollah’s accumulation of some 150,000 missiles if we believe our intelligence agencies. The need to set Lebanon’s economy back yet again, that’s important. Look at what they’re deliberating right now with regard to the new very, very rich gas find in the Eastern Mediterranean with Israel claiming Section 9 and Lebanon claiming Section 9. Take that, Lebanon. We’re going to bomb you, then you’ll let us have it. And that will be their excuse.

Now Rex Tillerson is out as Secretary of State and the head of the CIA, the far more war minded Mike Pompeo slides naturally into the role. Musical chairs for the power elite. As Trump has said of Pompeo,

“We are on the same wavelength.”

Riding that same wavelength is Nikki Haley, a trio whose alliance bodes very poorly for Middle Eastern peace or for any rapprochement with Russia.  The game turns deadlier as the Presidential Apprentice learns the rules and the empire prepares to shed more innocent blood in an unholy alliance with Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other “team players.”

But this time the game won’t be, in the words of another CIA liar, “a slam dunk.”  The opponents are ready this time.  The game has changed.

And in eastern Ukraine, the snow should be melting in the next 3-4 weeks.

March 24, 2018

Edward Curtin: False Flag Operations Will Start New War

Edward Curtin: False Flag Operations Will Start New War #075


RT.COM
Israeli missile strike ‘indirect response’ to Syrian Army’s success in E. Ghouta – Damascus

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad reaches out to shake the hand of a Syrian army soldier in eastern Ghouta, Syria, March 18, 2018. © SANA / Reuters

"The Israeli attack constitutes an indirect response to the success of the Syrian Arab Army in eliminating armed terrorist groups from the Damascus suburbs and other Syrian areas,” the Syrian Foreign Ministry wrote in a letter to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres obtained by Syria’s SANA news agency.


An Israeli air force F-15 fighter jet © Amir Cohen

2 Israeli warplanes carried out strikes on Syrian airbase – Russian MoD


“These groups helped to kill the Syrian people, abduct civilians and use them as human shields. Three thousand shells in just three months have led to the deaths of 155 citizens and wounded 865 civilians, mostly women and children."

The letter states that there will be “serious repercussions” for Israel’s attack, reaffirming that Syria “will not hesitate to exercise its right to defend its territory, people and sovereignty in all the ways guaranteed by the Charter of the United Nations and the provisions of international humanitarian law and international law.”

The letter also called upon the UN Security Council to “condemn these blatant Israeli aggressions and to take resolute and immediate action to prevent the recurrence of such attacks.”

Israel has not commented on Sunday’s missile attack. The Russian military said on Monday that two Israeli F-15s had targeted a Syrian airbase in Homs on Sunday night. Five of the eight missiles launched were intercepted before they reached their target, according to the Russian military. Lebanon has confirmed that Israeli warplanes had breached its airspace.

READ MORE: 'Nothing off the table' in Syria: Trump promises decision on US military action within 24-48 hours

The strike came just hours after US President Donald Trump vowed that there would be consequences for the Syrian government, following accusations that Damascus was responsible for an alleged chemical attack in Douma, Eastern Ghouta.

Trump surprised his military advisers last week after he said that he wanted to “get out” of Syria. Administration officials later clarified that there would be no immediate withdrawal but that Trump was opposed to keeping troops in the country long-term.

Moscow has warned that any military action taken in response to the unverified chemical attack would be “absolutely unacceptable” and could lead to “dire consequences.”

April 9, 2018

Washington (CNN) President Donald Trump said Monday he will make a decision as early as this evening on the US response to what he called an "atrocious" chemical weapons attack on civilians in Syria and warned that he will hold the responsible parties accountable.

"We cannot allow atrocities like that. Cannot allow it," Trump told reporters on Monday during a Cabinet meeting as he warned that "nothing's off the table." "If it's Russia, if it's Syria, if it's Iran, if it's all of them together, we'll figure it out and we'll know the answers quite soon"

The Syrian government and Russia have vehemently denied involvement in the attack and accused rebels in Douma of fabricating the chemical attack claims in order to hinder the army's advances and provoke international military intervention.

"I'd like to begin by condemning the heinous attack on innocent Syrians with banned chemical weapons," Trump said. "It was an atrocious attack, it was horrible. You don't see things like that as bad as the news is around the world, you just don't see those images."

"We are very concerned, when a thing like that can happen, this is about humanity. We're talking about humanity. And it can't be allowed to happen," he added.



ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Educated in the classics, philosophy, literature, theology, and sociology, Ed Curtin teaches sociology at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts. His writing on varied topics has appeared widely over many years. He states: "I write as a public intellectual for the general public, not as a specialist for a narrow readership. I believe a non-committal sociology is an impossibility and therefore see all my work as an effort to enhance human freedom through understanding." His website is http://edwardcurtin.com/ .

horiz-long grey

Parting shot—a word from the editors
The Best Definition of Donald Trump We Have Found




CIA stages gas attack pretext for Syria escalation

BE SURE TO PASS THESE ARTICLES TO FRIENDS AND KIN. A LOT DEPENDS ON THIS. DO YOUR PART.

By Patrick Martin, wsws.org
Dateline: 9 April 2018


The US media has seized on the latest claims by CIA-backed groups of a poison gas attack on civilians to demand a further escalation of the US-led war for regime-change in Syria and an increased confrontation with Russia.

The Syrian government claims that one of its airbases, in Homs province, has already come under missile attack. While the Pentagon is denying that it has launched any strikes on Syria yet, the rhetoric of the Trump administration indicates that preparations are being made for stepped-up military operations.


Picture of gas attack victims circulated by the New York Times on its 8 April 2018 edition, along with the rest of the American media (likely given to them by terrorist -affiliated organisations like the White Helmets, courtesy of the CIA). This is most likely an staged shot or an outright false flag. The Russian high command had warned about this weeks ago, to total silence by the complicit media and US government and allies. The pattern is clear. They are not fooling the whole world, only the critical captive populations in the so-called "developed west."


As with previous allegations of chemical weapons’ use, the public is being inundated with unverified footage of suffering victims, while government officials and the corporate media, prior to any investigation and without any substantiation, declare the government of Bashar al-Assad and its Iranian and Russian allies to be guilty of a war crime.

Within minutes, the New York Times and the Washington Post dashed out breathless articles placing the blame for the alleged attack at the feet of the Syrian and Russian governments. The Guardian declared in an editorial that “Syria’s renewed use of chemical weapons against its own people at the weekend is shameless and barbaric.”

The current claims are no more credible than those that preceded it. The official narrative that Assad carried out a gas attack in Eastern Ghouta in 2013 was used to prepare a massive US air strike that was canceled at the last minute by the Obama administration—a retreat that earned Obama furious recriminations that continue to the present. Subsequent investigations proved that the attack was actually launched by US-backed “rebels” in conjunction with the Turkish government.

The alleged gas attack that was used in April 2017 to justify the major US cruise missile assault on a Syrian air base was similarly exposed to have resulted from an air strike on a “rebel” poison gas facility.

The previous pretexts for military escalation were staged by the CIA and its proxy forces in Syria. The latest provocation is no different.

There is no credible evidence concerning the claimed attack in the Eastern Ghouta city of Douma, a few miles from the Syrian capital. There are video clips that prove nothing, since they could have been manufactured at any time and edited to serve the purpose. The sole on-the-spot accounts come from the White Helmets, celebrated by the media as a rescue organization, but affiliated with the anti-Assad “rebels” and largely funded by the United States, Britain, Germany and other imperialist powers. This includes $23 million from the US Agency for International Development, a longtime front for the CIA.

The Trump White House has denounced the alleged atrocity, with officials making the usual warning, prior to military action, that “everything is on the table.” The US National Security Council (NSC) will convene Monday for the first time under newly appointed chief John Bolton, who played a major role in the Iraq War and has publicly advocated bombing both Iran and North Korea. The NSC will recommend military options to the president.

Any such action would bring with it the imminent threat of a wider war. Both Iranian advisers and Russian military personnel are integrated with the Syrian government forces and could well be hit in any significant US military strike, triggering demands for retaliation in both countries.

A wider conflict is the deliberate aim of the US military-intelligence apparatus. For a month, the world stage has been dominated by a British-American campaign against Russia, centered on the supposed poisoning of Sergei Skripal, a British spy, and his daughter Yulia, in Salisbury, England. There has been an escalating campaign of accusations, expulsions of Russian officials, and suggestions that the incident amounts to a nerve gas attack on Britain by Moscow, i.e., an act of war.

Last week, however, the official narrative of Russian government poisoning collapsed. The British chemical weapons authority announced that it could not determine the source of the supposed poison and both Skripals were reported to be recovering—making nonsense of the claim that they had been poisoned by a deadly nerve gas manufactured in Russia.


Meanwhile...the presstitutes do their job. Here's the always reliable CBS (but they are no different than the rest).
Aired on April 9, 2018



The new media hysteria over a poison gas attack in Syria serves to divert attention from the collapse of the Skripal provocation, while providing a fresh pretext for escalating the offensive against Russia.

There is an additional reason for the focus on Syria. Over the past week, President Trump had publicly questioned continuing the US intervention in that country, given the debacles suffered by the CIA-backed Islamist forces and the consolidation of control over most of the country’s population centers by the Assad government. He initially declared that US troops would leave Syria shortly, only to reverse himself after intense pressure from the Pentagon and CIA, Congress and the media. The Douma incident has put an end to such wavering.

As the New York Times noted Sunday night: “Days after President Trump said he wanted to pull the United States out of Syria, Syrian forces hit a suburb of Damascus with bombs that rescue workers said unleashed toxic gas. Within hours, images of dead families sprawled in their homes threatened to change Mr. Trump’s calculus on Syria, possibly drawing him deeper into an intractable Middle Eastern war that he hoped to leave.”

The “rebel” group now holding out in Douma, Jaysh al-Islam, part of the Islamist opposition to Assad that includes the Syrian branch of Al Qaeda as well as the remnants of ISIS, has itself been credibly accused of using chlorine gas in the course of fighting against Kurdish forces and civilians in Aleppo in 2016. That charge, made by the Kurds, was given extensive publicity by Voice of America, the propaganda arm of the US government.

It is possible that Syrian warplanes struck a weapons cache belonging to the rebel group, causing the gas to leak out. More likely, the poison gas was deliberately released by Jaysh al-Islam, at behest of its CIA backers, to provide a pretext for US military intervention. Assuming, that is, that the reports of poison gas exposure are not simply manufactured by the US intelligence agencies for rebroadcast by a servile media.

What is least likely, from a political standpoint, is that the Assad government, just as it was on the brink of final victory in Eastern Ghouta after more than five years of bitter fighting, should suddenly unleash a poison gas attack, which would have no military value but would invite a savage response from the Trump administration and the other Western powers. A Syrian government statement pointed this out, declaring that “an army that is progressing quickly… does not need to use any kind of chemical weapons.”

According to Al Jazeera and Russian news sources, Jaysh al-Islam has been so thoroughly defeated that it has struck an agreement to completely withdraw all its militia and their families from Douma over the next 48 hours or so. Russian troops will reportedly move in to take control of the city.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry rebuffed the US claims of a gas attack in Douma. “Such claims and allegations by the Americans and some Western countries point to a new plot against the Syrian government and people, and are an excuse to take military action against them,” a spokesman told the press.

The Russian government denounced the US campaign over the supposed gas attack as a political provocation aimed at justifying deeper US military intervention in the Syrian civil war. “The spread of bogus stories about the use of chlorine and other poisonous substances by government forces continues,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said. “We have warned several times recently against such dangerous provocations. The aim of such deceitful speculation, lacking any kind of grounding, is to shield terrorists… and to attempt to justify possible external uses of force.”

The latest provocation follows a well-worn pattern, from the lies over Iraqi “weapons of mass destruction” to the present. The American intelligence agencies give the signal. Nonstop coverage is immediately launched on cable television, then demands for action are made by the White House and congressional leaders, boosted by editorials written by CIA mouthpieces such as the New York Times.

The brazen lies of the media are accompanied by breathtaking hypocrisy. The Times, the Washington Post, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN and company downplay and cover up the atrocities carried out by American forces and their allies—the incineration of Mosul and Raqqa, the gunning down of demonstrators in Gaza by the Israeli military, the mass killings in Yemen carried out with US support by Saudi Arabia, even as its crown prince is feted by the US ruling elite, and the ongoing slaughter in Afghanistan.

The overwhelming responsibility for the continuing carnage and suffering in Syria—as well as in Iraq, Yemen and throughout the Middle East—rests squarely with US imperialism, which has launched one war after another based on lies in an attempt to establish control over the region and its vital energy resources. The prospect of US strikes in response to the allegations of a chemical attack urgently poses the danger of a wider war and the need for an international working class movement against war and for socialism.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Patrick Martin is a senior editorialist with wsws.org, a socialist publication.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS

black-horizontal
Things to ponder

While our media prostitutes, many Hollywood celebs, and politicians and opinion shapers make so much noise about the still to be demonstrated damage done by the Russkies to our nonexistent democracy, this is what the sanctimonious US government has done overseas just since the close of World War 2. And this is what we know about. Many other misdeeds are yet to be revealed or documented.

Parting shot—a word from the editors
The Best Definition of Donald Trump We Have Found

In his zeal to prove to his antagonists in the War Party that he is as bloodthirsty as their champion, Hillary Clinton, and more manly than Barack Obama, Trump seems to have gone “play-crazy” — acting like an unpredictable maniac in order to terrorize the Russians into forcing some kind of dramatic concessions from their Syrian allies, or risk Armageddon.However, the “play-crazy” gambit can only work when the leader is, in real life, a disciplined and intelligent actor, who knows precisely what actual boundaries must not be crossed. That ain’t Donald Trump — a pitifully shallow and ill-disciplined man, emotionally handicapped by obscene privilege and cognitively crippled by white American chauvinism. By pushing Trump into a corner and demanding that he display his most bellicose self, or be ceaselessly mocked as a “puppet” and minion of Russia, a lesser power, the War Party and its media and clandestine services have created a perfect storm of mayhem that may consume us all. Glen Ford, Editor in Chief, Black Agenda Report

[premium_newsticker id=”211406″]



Oil and the origins of the War to make the world safe for Democracy

BE SURE TO PASS OUR ARTICLES ON TO KIN, FRIENDS AND COLLEAGUES

Newsletter 14: Was World War One a War To Control Oil?


Hello Dear Reader,
.
Once again I select an excerpt from my work to share with you. This free geopolitical newsletter has become for me a great enrichment of my contact with many of you readers as they provoke numerous comments and feedback I ordinarily would miss. I thank you for that and for your continued support. This time I draw on in depth research I did almost a decade earlier to prepare a manuscript expanding on what I detail in my best-selling book, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics. If you find this little-known chapter in our contemporary history important and interesting, I would encourage you to purchase the book via Amazon. Enjoy your journey back a century, sadly, what has been a century of war.
Best,
F. William Engdahl



A few Amazon Reader Reviews of Century of War:
"A must read for every citizen on this planet... -- Amazon Customer
"A must read..." -- Ahmed M. Alrayes
"One of the best books I ever read. -- Abdulmuhsen S Al Meshaan
"...this clearly written book is a must read -- José Ewerton
"My many thanks to Mr. Engdhal for his monumental work. -- Rugambwa Smart
Read this book -- K. W. Tighe
"Fascinating information – Goodview
"Excellent book. – Gospi
"Absorbing reading even for seasoned history buffs. A masterful dissection of the normally murky and misleading origins of World War I. A page-turner."—P. Greanville, The Greanville Post


Click on image or here to buy the book:

Oil and the origins of the War to make the world safe for Democracy

By F. William Engdahl 22 June, 2007

Abstract—

At first almost unnoticed after 1850, then with significant intensity after the onset of the Great Depression of 1873 in Britain, the sun began to set on the British Empire. By the end of the 19th Century, though the City of London remained undisputed financier of the world, British industrial excellence was in terminal decline. The decline paralleled an equally dramatic rise of a new industrial Great Power on the European stage, the German Reich. Germany soon passed England in output of steel, in quality of machine tools, chemicals and electrical goods. Beginning the 1880’s a group of leading German industrialists and bankers around Deutsche Bank’s Georg von Siemens, recognized the urgent need for some form of colonial sources of raw materials as well as industrial export outlet. With Africa and Asia long since claimed by the other Great Powers, above all Great Britain, German policy set out to develop a special economic sphere in the imperial provinces of the debt-ridden Ottoman Empire. The policy was termed penetration pacifique, an economic dependency which would be sealed with German military advisors and equipment. Initially, the policy was not greeted with joy in Paris, St. Petersburg or London, but it was tolerated. Deutsche Bank even sought, unsuccessfully, to enlist City of London financial backing for the keystone of the Ottoman expansion policy—the Berlin-to-Baghdad railway project, a project of enormous scale and complexity that would link the interior of Anatolia and Mesopotamia (today Iraq) to Germany. What Berlin and Deutsche Bank did not say was that they had secured subsurface mineral rights, including for oil along the path of the railway, and that their geologists had discovered petroleum in Mosul, Kirkuk and Basra.

The conversion of the British Navy under Churchill to oil from coal meant a high risk strategy as England had abundant coal but no then-known oil. It secured a major concession from the Shah of Persia in the early 1900’s. The Baghdad rail link was increasingly seen in London as a threat to precisely this oil security. The British response to the growing German disruption of the European balance of power after the 1890’s was to carefully craft a series of public and secret alliances with France and with Russia—former rivals—to encircle Germany. [A policy reminiscent of what the Anglo-Zionists are doing these days again with Russia, with equally dangerous consequences.—Eds] As well, she deployed a series of less public intrigues to disrupt the Balkans and encourage a revolt against the Ottoman Sultan via the Young Turks that severely weakened the prospects for the German Drang nach Osten. The dynamic of the rise of German assertiveness, including in addition to the Baghdad rail, the decision in 1900 to build a modern navy over two decades that could rival England’s, set the stage for the outbreak of a war in August 1914 whose real significance was a colossal and tragic struggle for who would succeed the ebbing power of the British Empire. The resolution of that epic struggle was to take a second world war and another quarter century before the victor was undeniably established. The role of oil in the events leading to war in 1914 is too little appreciated. When the historical process behind the war is examined from this light a quite different picture emerges. The British Empire in the decades following 1873 and the American Century hegemony in the decades following approximately 1973 have more in common than is generally appreciated.



Oil and the buildup to the Great War

[dropcap]I[/dropcap]n trying to sort out the myriad of factors at play in Eurasia on the eve of the First World War it is important to look at the processes leading to August 1914, and the relative calculus of power at the time. This means examining economic processes, including financial, raw material, population growth— in the context of relations among nations, and political and-- as defined by the original and influential English geopolitician, Sir Halford Mackinder-- geopolitical forces--a political economy or geopolitical approach.

It was common in the days of the Great War to speak of the Great Powers. The Great Powers were so named because they both were great in size and wielded great power in the affairs of nations. The question was what constituted great. Until 1892, the United States was not even considered enough a contender at the table to warrant posting a full Ambassador level diplomatic mission. She was hardly a serious factor in European or Eurasian affairs. The Great Powers included Great Britain, France, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Czarist Russia. After its defeat of France in 1871, Germany too joined the ranks of the Great Powers, albeit as a latecomer. Ottoman Turkey, known then as the sick man of Europe was a prize which all Great Powers were sharpening their knives over, as they anticipated how to carve it up to their particular advantage.

In 1914, and the decades following the end of the Napoleonic Wars in Europe, it was almost an axiom that there was no power on earth greater than the British Empire. The foundations of that Empire, however, were far less solid than generally appreciated.

The pillars of Empire

Turkish infantry on eve of WWI

Approaching the end of the 1890's, Britain was in all respects the pre-eminent political, military and economic power in the world. Since the 1814-15 Congress of Vienna, which carved up post-Napoleonic Europe, the British Empire had exacted rights to dominate the seas, in return for the self-serving "concessions" granted to Habsburg Austria and the rest of Continental European powers, which concessions served to keep central Continental Europe divided, and too weak to rival British global expansion.

British control of the seas, and, with it, control of world shipping trade, was one of the pillars of a new British Empire. The manufacturers of Continental Europe, as well as much of the rest of the world, were forced to respond to terms of trade set in London, by the Lloyds shipping insurance and banking syndicates. While Her Royal Navy, the world's largest, policed the major sea-lanes and provided cost-free "insurance" for British merchant shipping vessels, competitor fleets were forced to insure their ships against piracy, catastrophe and acts of war, through London's large Lloyd's insurance syndicate.

Credit and bills of exchange from the banks of the City of London were necessary for most of the world's shipping trade finance. The private Bank of England, itself the creature of the pre-eminent houses of finance in the City of London as the financial district is called--houses such as Barings, Hambros, and above all, Rothschilds--manipulated the world's largest monetary gold supply, in calculated actions which could cause a flood of English exports to be dumped mercilessly onto any competitor market at will. Britain's unquestioned domination of international banking was the second pillar of English Imperial power following 1815. 1

London-- a City built on gold

British gold reserves were very much the basis for the role of the Pound Sterling as the source spring of world credit after 1815. "As good as Sterling" was the truism of that day, which was shorthand for the confidence in world markets that Sterling itself was as good as gold. 2 After a law of June 22 1816, gold was declared the sole measure of value in the British Empire. British foreign policy over the next 75 years or more, would be increasingly preoccupied with securing for British private banks and for the vaults of the Bank of England, the newly mined reserves of world gold, whether in Australia, California or in South Africa. 3

The London gold market had expanded with the famous discovery of gold at Sutter s Mill in California in 1848, and the Australian discoveries three years later, to become the world's dominant gold trading center. Gold merchant houses such as Stewart Pixley and Samuel Montagu joined the ranks of brokers. Rothschild's added the role of becoming the Royal Mint gold refinery besides their banking business, along with Johnson Matthey. The Bank of England would certify good delivery status for these select gold fixing banks of the City, an essential element of growing international payments settlements in gold. 4

After 1886 weekly shipments of gold from especially South Africa, which comprised some two-thirds of the total in the years prior to the war, were offloaded at the docks of London, making the London gold market the unchallenged world leader. 5

By 1871 England was joined in its gold standard by other industrializing countries, who found enough gold from their foreign export trade to link their national currencies as well to the gold standard. In 1871 Germany, on the wave of her victory over France, with its reparations in French gold, proclaimed the birth of the German Reich with Chancellor Bismark as the decisive political power. Gold was made the backing for the Reichsmark. The German Reich acquired 43 metric tons after 1871 in reparations from France, helping Germany to quadruple its gold stock immediately after 1871, giving the liquidity for the unprecedented expansion of German industry. By 1878 France, Belgium and Switzerland had followed Germany and England on to the new gold standard for international trade. Czarist Russia, a major gold producer also used gold in its official reserves.6

In 1886 vast finds of gold were discovered in Transvaal. British prospectors streamed over the border from the Cape Colony, earlier annexed by Britain. Cape Colony Prime Minister was a British miner, Cecil Rhodes, who held a vision of an African continent controlled by England from the Cape to Cairo. As nationalist Boers became ever more assertive of their independence from the British in the 1890s it was clear in London that they must take South Africa by force. The financial future of the City of London and the future of the Empire rested on that conquest.


Boers with a German-made Mauser mortar. The tough Dutch settlers gave the British army a run for their gold.

By 1899 when the Anglo-Boer War broke out, a war for control of the gold of Transvaal, the region had become the world s largest single producer of gold. 7 Rhodes mines were the largest operators. French and German investors also had large stakes, but British miners controlled between 60 and 80% of the mine output.8 The bloody victory of England in that war, ensured the continued domination of the City of London as the world s banker. The serious loss of industrial hegemony by Britain after 1873 was largely obscured by her role in grabbing the vast gold reserves discovered in 1886 in Transvaal.

British Empire’s onset of economic decline

[dropcap]B[/dropcap]ehind her apparent status as the world's pre-eminent power, Britain was slowly deteriorating internally. After 1850 a sharp rise in British capital flowing overseas took place. After the US Civil War and with the emerging of German and Continental European as well as Latin American industrialization in the early 1870 s, this flow of capital out of the City of London became massive. Britain's wealthy found returns on their money far greater abroad than at home. It was one consequence of the 1846 Corn Law Repeal, the introduction of free trade in agriculture to force cheaper wages and to feed that labor with cheaper foodstuffs imported from Odessa, the United States, India and other foreign suppliers.9 Buy Cheap, Sell Dear had become the dominant economic pattern. 10

After 1846, wage levels inside Britain began falling with the price of bread. The English Poor Laws granted compensation for workers earning below human subsistence wage, with income supplement payments pegged to the price of a loaf of wheat bread. As bread prices plunged, so did living standards in England.

As a consequence, while the merchant banks and insurers of the City of London thrived, domestic British industrial investment and modernization, which had allowed England to lead the industrial revolution after the introduction of Watt s improved steam-powered engine in the 1760 s, stagnated and declined after 1870.

One consequence was the shift in economic weight from the industrial north of England— Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Newcastle, Liverpool-- south to London and the financial and trade services tied to the growing role of the City in international finance. From trade in visibles like coal, machines and steel products, Britain shifted to a nation earning from what were termed invisibles, or financial return on overseas investment and services.

Britain increased its dependence on imported goods following the introduction of free trade. From 1883 to 1913 the Sterling value of her imports rose by 84%. The real effect of the shift to import dependence was obscured by the phenomenal success of earnings from invisibles. In 1860 Britain led the world in coal production, the raw material feeding her industry and fueling her navy, with almost 60% of the total.By 1912 that fell to 24%. Similarly, in 1870 England enjoyed an impressive 49% share of total world iron forging output. By 1912 it was 12%. Copper consumption, an essential component of the emerging electrification transformation, went from 32% of world consumption in 1889 to 13% by 1913.11

The final quarter century of the 1800 s was the beginning of the end of the hegemonic position of Britain as the world's dominant economic power.

In 1873 a severe economic depression, dubbed in English history the Great Depression, spread, persisting until 1896, almost a quarter Century, a decisive period in the development of the forces leading to the Great War in 1914. The 1873 depression led to the further decline of British industrial competitiveness. Price levels went into steady fall or deflation, profit margins and wages with it. Huge sums of capital remained idle or went abroad in search of gain.

While the crisis in England was severe, the effects outside Britain were short-lived. By the mid-1890s the German Reich was in the midst of an economic boom unlike any before. The rival German and other Continental economies were rapidly industrializing and exporting to markets once dominated by British exports. 12

By the 1880s Britain s leading circles and advocates of Empire realized that they needed to not only send their entrepreneurs like Cecil Rhodes to mine the gold to feed the banks of the City of London. Increasingly, they realized a revolution in the technology of naval power was required if the Royal Navy was to continue its unchallenged hegemony of the seas. That required a radical shift in British foreign policy. The revolution in technology was the shift from coal to oil power.

After the 1890s, though little publicized, the search for secure energy in the form of petroleum would become of paramount importance to Her Majesty's Navy and Her Majesty's government. A global war for control of oil was shaping up, one few were even aware of outside select policy circles.

A revolution in Naval Power

[dropcap]I[/dropcap]n 1882, petroleum had little commercial interest. The development of the internal combustion engine had not yet revolutionized world industry. One man understood the military-strategic implications of petroleum for future control of the world seas, however.

In a public address in September 1882, Britain's Admiral Lord Fisher, then Captain Jack Fisher, argued to anyone in the British establishment who would listen, that Britain must convert its naval fleet from bulky coal-fired propulsion to the new oil fuel. Fisher and a few other far-sighted individuals began to argue for adoption of the new fuel. He insisted that oil-power would allow Britain to maintain decisive strategic advantage in future control of the seas.

Fisher argued the qualitative superiority of petroleum over coal as a fuel. A battleship powered by diesel motor burning petroleum issued no tell-tale smoke, while a coal ship's emission was visible up to 10 kilometers away. It required 4 to 9 hours for a coal-fired ship's motor to reach full power, an oil motor required a mere 30 minutes and could reach peak power within 5 minutes. To provide oil fuel for a battleship required the work of 12 men for 12 hours. The same equivalent of energy for a coal ship required the work of 500 men and 5 days. For equal horsepower propulsion, the oil-fired ship required 1/3 the engine weight, and almost one-quarter the daily tonnage of fuel, a critical factor for a fleet whether commercial or military. The radius of action of an oil-powered fleet was up to four times as great as that of the comparable coal ship.13

In 1885 a German engineer, Gottlieb Daimler, had developed the world's first workable petroleum motor to drive a road vehicle. The economic potentials of the petroleum era were beginning to be more broadly realized by some beyond Admiral Fisher and his circle.

By 1904 Fisher had been named Britain's First Sea Lord, the supreme naval commander, and immediately set to implement his plan to convert the British navy from coal to oil. One month into his post, in November 1904, a committee was established on his initiative to consider and make recommendations as to how the British Navy would secure its oil supplies. At that time it was believed the British Isles, rich in coal, held not a drop of oil.

The thought of abandoning the security of domestic British coal fuel in favor of reliance on foreign oil was a strategy embedded in risk. The Fisher Committee had been dissolved in 1906 without resolution of the oil issue on the election of a Liberal government pledged to work for arms control. By 1912, as the Germans began a major Dreadnought-class naval construction program, Prime Minister Asquith convinced Admiral Fisher to come out of retirement to head a new Royal Commission on Oil and the Oil Engine in July 1912.

Two months later on Fisher's recommendation, the first British battleship using only oil fuel, the Queen Elizabeth, was begun. Fisher pushed the risky oil program through with one argument: In war speed is everything. Winston Churchill had by then replaced Fisher as First Lord of the Admiralty and was a strong advocate of Fisher's oil conversion. Churchill stated in regard to the Commission finding, "We must become the owners or at any rate the controllers at the source of at least a proportion of the oil which we require." 14

From that point, oil conversion of the British fleet dictated national security priority to secure large oil reserves outside Britain. In 1913 less than 2% of world oil production was produced within the British Empire.15

By the first decade of the 20th Century securing long-term foreign petroleum security had become an essential factor for British grand strategy and its geopolitics. By 1909, a British company, Anglo-Persian Oil Company held rights to oil exploration in a 60-year concession from the Persian Shah at Maidan-i-Naphtun near the border to Macedonia. That decision to secure its oil led England into a fatal quagmire of war which in the end finished the British Empire as the world hegemon by Versailles in 1918, though it would take a second World War and several decades before that reality was clear to all.


French trench expecting gas attack.

Germany emerges in a second industrial revolution

[dropcap]B[/dropcap]eginning the 1870's the German Reich, proclaimed after the Prussian victory over France in 1871, saw the emergence of a colossal new economic player on the map of Continental Europe.

By the 1890's, British industry had been surpassed in both rates and quality of technological development by an astonishing emergence of industrial and agricultural development within Germany. With the United States concentrated largely on its internal expansion after its Civil War, the industrial emergence of Germany was seen increasingly as the largest "threat" to Britain's global hegemony during the last decade of the century.

After England's prolonged depression in the 1870's, Germany turned increasingly to a form of national economic strategy, and away from British "free trade" adherence, in building a national industry and agriculture production rapidly.

From 1850 to 1913, German total domestic output increased five-fold. Per capita output increased in the same period by 250%. The population began to experience a steady increase in its living standard, as real industrial wages doubled between 1871 and 1913.

In the decades before 1914, in terms of fueling world industry and transportation, coal was king. In 1890, Germany produced 88 million tons of coal while Britain, produced more than double that, as much at 182 million tons. By 1910, the German output of coal had climbed to 219 million tons, while Britain had only a slight lead at 264 million tons. Steel was at the center of Germany's growth, with the rapidly-emerging electrical power and chemicals industries close behind. Using the innovation of the Gilchrist Thomas steel-making process, which capitalized on the high-phosphorus ores of Lorraine, German steel output increased 1,000% in the twenty years from 1880 to 1900, leaving British steel output far behind. At the same time the cost of making Germany's steel dropped to one-tenth the cost of the 1860s. By 1913 Germany was smelting almost two times the amount of pig iron as British foundries. 16

The German rail revolution

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he rail infrastructure to transport this rapidly expanding flow of industrial goods, was the initial locomotive for Germany's first Wirtschaftswunder. State rail infrastructure spending doubled the kilometers of track from 1870 to 1913. The German electrical industry grew to dominate half of all international trade in electrical goods by 1913. German chemical industry became the world's leader in aniline dye production, pharmaceuticals and chemical fertilizers.

Paralleling the expansion of its industry and agriculture, between 1870 and 1914 Germany's population increased almost 75% from 40,000,000 to more than 67,000,000 people. Large industry grew in a symbiosis together with large banks such as Deutsche Bank, under what became known as the Grossbanken model of interlocking ownership between major banks and key industrial companies. 17

One aspect of that economic expansion after 1870, more than any other, aside from the program of Admiral von Tirpitz to build a German Dreadnaught-class blue water navy to challenge British sea supremacy, that brought Germany into the geopolitical clash which later became World War I, was the decision of German banking and political circles to build a rail link that would connect Berlin to the Ottoman Empire as far as Baghdad in then- Mesopotamia. 18

A Railway changes the geopolitical map of Europe

"When the history of the latter part of the nineteenth Century will come to be written, one event will be singled out above all others for its intrinsic importance and for its far-reaching results; namely, the conventions of 1899 and of 1902 between His Imperial Majesty the Sultan of Turkey and the German Company of the Anatolian Railways."-19-

Towards the end of the 19th Century, German industry and the German government began to look in earnest for overseas sources of raw materials as well as potential markets for German goods. The problem was that the choice pieces of underdeveloped real estate had been previously carved up between rival imperial powers, especially France and Britain. In 1894 German Chancellor, Count Leo von Caprivi, told the Reichstag, Asia Minor is important to us as a market for German industry, a place for the investment of German capital and a source of supply, capable of considerable expansion, of such essential goods (as grains and cotton) as we now buy from countries of which it may well sooner or later be in our interests to make ourselves independent. 20 Caprivi was supported in turning to Asia Minor by large sections of the German industry, especially the steel barons, and by the great banks such as Deutsche Bank, as well as the foreign policy establishment and the military under General Helmuth von Moltke, Chief of the General Staff.

Berlin’s Drang nach Osten

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he answer for Berlin's need to secure new markets and raw material to feed its booming industries clearly lay in the east—specifically in the debt-ridden, ailing Ottoman Empire of Sultan Abdul Hamid II. The situation in Ottoman Turkey had become so extreme that the Sultan had been forced by his French and British creditors to put the finances of the realm under the control of a banker-run agency in 1881. By the Decree of Muharrem (December 1881) the Ottoman public debt was reduced from £191,000,000 to £106,000,000, certain revenues were assigned to debt service, and a European-controlled organization, the Ottoman Public Debt Administration (OPDA), was set up to collect the payments. The OPDA subsequently acted as agent for the collection of other revenues and as an intermediary with European companies seeking investment opportunities. Its affairs were controlled by the two largest creditors—France and Britain, the French being the larger.

Sultan Abdul Hamid II portrait, taken during an official visit to England. The dejected look may indicate his predicament at the hands of British financiers.

The Germans set about to change that dependency of Ottoman Turkey on the British and French. For his part, Sultan Abdul Hamid II was all too pleased to open his door to growing German influence as a welcome counterweight and a source of new capital to solve the economic problems of the empire.

In 1888, the Oriental Railway from Austria, across the Balkans via Belgrade, Sofia, to Constantinople, was opened. This linked with the railways of Austria-Hungary and other European countries and put the Ottoman capital in direct communication with Vienna, Paris, and Berlin. It was to be significant for later events.

By 1898, the Ottoman Ministry of Public Works had applications from several European groups to build railways in the Anatolian part of the empire. These included an Austro-Russian syndicate, a French proposal, a proposal from a group of British bankers, and the proposal of the German Deutsche Bank. The Sublime Porte had no desire to have significant Russian presence on its territory, because of Russian desires for access for its navy through the Dardanelles. The British government backing for its bankers faded away with outbreak of the Boer War in 1899. The French proposal was considered significant enough that Deutsche Bank entered into negotiations with the French Banks about a joint venture. 21

The Sultan, Abdul Hamid II, on November 27, 1899, awarded Deutsche Bank, headed by Georg von Siemens, a concession for a railway from Konia to Baghdad and to the Persian Gulf. In 1888 and again in 1893, the Sultan had assured the Anatolian Railway Company that it should have priority in the construction of any railway to Baghdad. On the strength of that assurance, the Anatolian Company had conducted expensive surveys of the proposed line. As part of the railway concession, the shrewd negotiators of the Deutsche Bank, led by Karl Helfferich, negotiated subsurface mineral rights twenty kilometers to either side of the proposed Baghdad Railway line.22 Deutsche Bank and the German government backing them made certain that included the sole rights to any petroleum which might be found. The Germans had scored a strategic coup over the British, or so it seemed. Mesopotamian oil secured through completion of the Berlin-Baghdad Railway was to be Germany's secure source to enter the emerging era of oil-driven transport.

The German success was no minor event. The geographical position of the Ottoman Empire, dominating the Balkans, the Dardanelles straits, and territory to Shatt-al-Arab at the Persian Gulf, from Aleppo to Sinai bordering the strategic Suez Canal link to the British Empire India trade, down to Aden at the Strait of Bab el Mandeb. The German-Ottoman agreement assuring construction of the final section of the Berlin-Baghdad Railway meant the shattering of England's hope of bringing Mesopotamia, with its strategic location and its oil, under her exclusive influence and it meant as well a major defeat for France.

Britain reacts

[dropcap]S[/dropcap]ystematically, Britain took measures to secure her exposed flank in Mesopotamia. By 1899, Britain had secured a 99-year exclusive agreement between Britain and Kuwait, nominally part of the debt-ridden and militarily weak Ottoman Empire from the unscrupulous Shaikh Mubarak-al-Sabah. By 1907 they had converted it to a lease in perpetuity.

In 1905, through the machinations of a British spy, Sidney Reilly, Lord Strathcona secured exclusive rights to Persian oil resources and what in 1909 became the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, after discovery of oil there in 1908. The company negotiated an agreement with Winston Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty, shortly before World War I, for major financial backing by the British Government in return for secure oil for the Royal Navy. In 1912 the government, at Churchill's urging, bought controlling interest secretly in Anglo-Persian Oil Company. She had negotiated with the Sheikh of Muhammerah to also build an oil refinery, depot and port on Abadan Island adjacent to the Shaat-al-Arab as part of the emerging British policy to keep Germany out of the strategic Mesopotamian oil-rich region. 23

A German-built rail link to Baghdad and on to the Persian Gulf, capable of carrying military troops and munitions, was a strategic threat to the British oil resources of Persia. Persian oil was the first crucial source of secure British petroleum for the Navy. Already, the decision by the German Reichstag to approve the massive naval construction program of Admiral von Tirpitz in the German Naval Law of 1900, to build 19 new battleships and 23 battle cruisers over the coming 20 years, presented the first challenge to Britain s rule of the seas. At the Hague Convention of 1907 Germany refused to continue an earlier ban on aerial warfare. Under Count Zeppelin, the Germans had been the first to develop huge airships. 24

Turkey, backed and trained by Germany, had the potential, should it get the financial and military means, to launch a military attack on what had become vital British interests in Suez, the Persian route to India, the Dardanelles. By 1903 the German Reich was prepared to give the Sultan that means in the form of the Baghdad Railway and German investment in Ottoman Anatolia.

By 1913 that German engagement had taken on an added dimension with a German-Turkish Military Agreement under which German General Liman von Sanders, member of the German Supreme War Council, with personal approval of the Kaiser, was sent to Constantinople to reorganize the Turkish army on the lines of the legendary German General Staff. In a letter to Chancellor [Theobald] von Bethmann-Hollweg, dated April 26, 1913,

Hans von Wangenheim

[Hans] Freiherr von Wangenheim, the German Ambassador to Constantinople declared, "The Power which controls the Army will always be the strongest one in Turkey. No Government hostile to Germany will be able to hold on to power if the Army is controlled by us... " 25.

German intelligence operatives, led by Baron Max von Oppenheim, a German Foreign Ministry diplomat and an archaeologist, had made extensive surveys of Mesopotamia already beginning 1899 to explore the proposed route of the Baghdad Railway, confirming the estimates of Ottoman officials that the region held oil. The British referred to Oppenheim as The Spy. He was also an ardent German imperialist. In 1914 shortly before the outbreak of war, Oppenheim reportedly told Kaiser Wilhelm, "When the Turks invade Egypt, and India is set ablaze with the flames of revolt, only then will England crumble. For England is at her most vulnerable in her colonies." He was author of a German strategy of encouraging a Turkey-led Jihad or Holy War against the colonial powers of Britain, France and Russia as a strategy of war. 26



Isolating the German Reich

[dropcap]B[/dropcap]y the end of the 1880s fundamental shifts in security and trade alliances had begun. Britain, France and Russia were all growing alarmed at the emerging power and potential threat of the German Reich. In October 1903 Britain and France came together to agree on spheres of influence which resulted in the signing of an Entente Cordiale in April 1904, ending their imperial rivalries over Egypt, Morocco, Sudan and allowing both to concentrate on the threat posed by Germany in alliance with Austro-Hungary. 27

By 1907, following its defeat in the Russo-Japan War of 1905 in a conflict that Britain overtly helped along by providing battleships to the Japanese to destroy the Russian Pacific Fleet, Russia settled its disputes with Britain over Afghanistan, The Great Game as Kipling termed the fight between Britain and Russia for control of the Afghan passage to India. Russia also settled their dispute with Britain over Persia and in June 1908 at the Baltic port of Reval, King Edward VII met his cousin Czar Nicholas II to agree on an Anglo-Russian alliance. The system of carefully built diplomatic alliances laid by Bismark which saw France in 1887 as the only country hostile to Germany, had, by 1908 turned to one in which by then the only friendly ally of Germany was the Austro-Hungarian Empire, a remarkable reversal of alliances and the prelude to the Great War.

In the months up to outbreak of war in 1914, there were efforts at cooling down a mounting confrontation between the two great power blocks—the Triple Entente of England, France, Russia and the alliance of Germany with Austro-Hungary. In 1911 Germany and Russia signed the Potsdam Agreement over rights to northern Persia in return for a Russian agreement not to block the Baghdad Railway progress. Clear, however, was that Germany was fully committed to completing the Baghdad project.

Following the Balkan wars from 1910-1912, it was obvious to all that the next part of the Ottoman Empire to be carved up was Anatolian Turkey itself. The balance between the Great Powers was endangered with the result of the Balkan Wars, and the stunning defeat of the Ottoman army by small opponents. In a very short period, Turkey lost most of her territory in Europe...except for İstanbul, and a small hinterland, and retreated a to defence line in Çatalca.

Britain and British intelligence was active in the Balkans stirring revolt and opposition to Constantinople's rule. The Entente Powers—France, England and Russia-- knew that despite all her efforts, Germany did not have strong cards in the Balkans. And the Balkans constituted a strategic link between Berlin and Baghdad as a glance at a good typographical map reveals.

The success of the so-called Young Turk revolution of 1908-9 in forcing the Sultan to reinstate a constitutional monarchy with a parliament unleashed a series of destabilizing revolts in the Balkan provinces of the empire. British intelligence was actively engaged in pushing events along. The Young Turk revolutions of 1908 and 1909, which ended the reign of Abdul Hamid in the Ottoman Empire, offered France and Great Britain an unprecedented opportunity to assume moral and political leadership in the Near East. Many members of the Committee of Union and Progress, the revolutionary party, had been educated in western European universities--chiefly in Paris--and had come to be staunch admirers of French and English institutions. 28 In 1908, as Constantinople was under the chaotic rule of the secular Young Turk Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), Anglo-Turkish relations were quite warm. The British Ambassador, Sir Gerald Lowther, at least in the initial days after the takeover in 1908, extended unlimited British support for the revolution. He told the Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, "Things have gone as well as they could." 29 The role of the Young Turks, most of whom were members of various European freemason lodges, is a rich and important story beyond the scope of this brief essay. Initially at least the Young Turk regime viewed the agreements between the Sultan and the Germans on the Baghdad Railway and oil rights to be a symbol of the corruption and destruction of Turkish national resources.


Herbert

British diplomatic and intelligence operatives also played a role in Albanian independence in the Balkans. A key if little-known figure of British machinations at the time was Aubrey Herbert, Member of Parliament and British intelligence officer who was close to Gertrude Bell and T. E. Lawrence ( Lawrence of Arabia ). Herbert had been active since 1907 in fomenting Albanian independence from Constantinople, and was offered the Crown of Albania for his efforts, an offer which his friend, Asquith, dissuaded him from taking.

British active measures

As well in Serbia British military and intelligence networks were most active prior to outbreak of war. Major R.G.D. Laffan was in charge of a British military training mission in Serbia just before the war. Following the war, Laffan wrote of the British role in throwing a huge block on the route of the German-Baghdad project:

"If 'Berlin-Baghdad' were achieved, a huge block of territory producing every kind of economic wealth, and unassailable by sea-power would be united under German authority,"

warned R.G.D. Laffan. Laffan was at that time a senior British military adviser attached to the Serbian Army.

"Russia would be cut off by this barrier from her western friends, Great Britain and France," Laffan added. "German and Turkish armies would be within easy striking distance of our Egyptian interests, and from the Persian Gulf, our Indian Empire would be threatened. The port of Alexandretta and the control of the Dardanelles would soon give Germany enormous naval power in the Mediterranean."

Laffan suggested a British strategy to sabotage the Berlin-Baghdad link. "A glance at the map of the world will show how the chain of States stretched from Berlin to Baghdad. The German Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Bulgaria, Turkey. One little strip of territory alone blocked the way and prevented the two ends of the chain from being linked together. That little strip was Serbia. Serbia stood small but defiant between Germany and the great ports of Constantinople and Salonika, holding the Gate of the East...Serbia was really the first line of defense of our eastern possessions. If she were crushed or enticed into the 'Berlin- Baghdad' system, then our vast but slightly defended empire would soon have felt the shock of Germany's eastward thrust." (emphasis added-w.e.) 30

In 1915, after returning from a mission to Bulgaria, British MP Noel Buxton wrote in the introduction to his book similar views of the strategic role of the Balkans for British strategy of blocking Germany and Austro-Hungary:

No one now denies the supreme importance of the Balkans as a factor in the European War. It may be that there were deep-seated hostilities between the Great Powers which would have, in any case, produced a European War, and that if the Balkans had not offered the occasion, the occasion would have been found elsewhere. The fact remains that the Balkans did provide the occasion..." 31

Buxton added, "The Serbian army would be set free to take the offensive, and possibly provoke an uprising of the Serbian, Croat, and Slovene populations of the Austrian Empire. Any diminution of the Austrian force would compel the Germans to withdraw a larger number of troops from the other theatres of war." 32

The only Great Power whose interest lay in preventing the further deterioration of Ottoman control of its territories on the eve of war was Germany. The success of its grand economic and political project to win Ottoman Turkey as an informal sphere of influence, as well as securing the rights of the Baghdad Rail link to Mesopotamia and eventually to the Persian Gulf depended on preserving a stable political regime in Constantinople as partner. 33

In April 1913, His British Majesty's Foreign Office handed the Turkish Ambassador to London an official British statement of intent regarding Mesopotamian oil: His Majesty s Government...rely o the Ottoman Government to make without delay arrangements in regard to the oil wells of Mesopotamia which will ensure British control and meet with their approval in matters of detail. 34

Ironically, just on the eve of the assassination of the Austro-Hungarian Archduke and heir to the Habsburg throne in Sarajevo by Gavrilo Princip, a member of a Serbian Black Hand secret society with reported French Masonic ties, agreements were finally reached between the Germans, the British and the Turkish parties over oil rights in Mesopotamia.

In 1909, the National Bank of Turkey was founded following a trip, on request of England's King Edward, by the influential London banker, Sir Ernest Cassel. Cassel was joined by the mysterious and wealthy Ottoman subject, of Armenian origin, Calouste Gulbenkian. The bank had no representation of Ottoman origins. Its board included Hugo Baring of the London bank, Earl Cromer, Barons Ashburton, Northbrook and Revelstone. At the time Lord Cromer was Governor of the Bank of England. This elite British entity in Constantinople then created an entity called the Turkish Petroleum Company, in which Gulbenkian was given 40% share. The purpose was to win from the Sultan an oil concession in Mesopotamia. Simultaneously, a second British-controlled enterprise, Anglo-Persian Oil Company was actively trying to extend its Persian oil claims into the disputed borders with Mesopotamia. The third player, the only one with exploration rights from Sultan Abdul Hamid II was the Baghdad Railway Company of Deutsche Bank. The crafty British were about to change that.

The combined British efforts forced the German group into a compromise. In 1912 and again in early 1914 on the eve of the war, with the backing of British and German governments, the (British) Turkish Petroleum Company was reorganized. Share capital was doubled. Half went to Anglo-Persian Oil Company, now secretly owned by the British Government. Another 25% was held by the Anglo-Dutch Royal Dutch Shell group. A final 25% was held by the Deutsche Bank group, the only ones with rights to exploit the oil resources to either side of the Baghdad rail line. Finally, Shell and Anglo-Persian each agreed to give Gulbenkian 2.5% of their shares for a total of 5%. On June 28, 1914, in one of the great ironies of history, the Turkish Petroleum Company won the oil concession from the Sultan's government. It did not matter. War had broken out and British forces would secure the entire oilfields of Mesopotamia after Versailles in a new League Protectorate called Iraq.35

In June 1914, just days before the outbreak of war, the British Government, acting on First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill's urging, bought the majority share of the stock of the Anglo- Persian Oil Company and with it she took automatically APOC's major share in Deutsche Bank's Turkish Petroleum Company. 36 London left nothing to chance.

Why would England risk a world war in order to stop the development of Germany's industrial economy in 1914?

Karl Theodor Helfferich

The ultimate reason England declared war in August, 1914 lay fundamentally, "in the old tradition of British policy, through which England grew to great power status, and through which she sough to remain a great power," stated Deutsche Bank's Karl Helfferich, the man in the midst of negotiations on the Baghdad Railway, in 1918. "England's policy was always constructed against the politically and economically strongest Continental power," he stressed.

"Ever since Germany became the politically and economically strongest Continental power, did England feel threatened from Germany more than from any other land in its global economic position and its naval supremacy. Since that point, the English-German differences were unbridgeable, and susceptible to no agreement in any one single question." Helfferich sadly noted the accuracy of the declaration of Bismarck from 1897, "The only condition which could lead to improvement of German-English relations would be if we bridled our economic development, and this is not possible." 37


German soldiers with gas masks in WW1. Almost everyone who died in that war, on either side, never quite understood the real causes of the war. And a century later, humanity has yet to learn its lessons.

Endnotes:

1 Glyn Davies, A History of Money from Ancient Times to the Present Day, rev.ed., (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1996), 348-352.
2 Sir John Clapham, Bank of England, Vol.II, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1944), p.217.
3 Timothy Green, Central Bank Gold Reserves: An historical perspective since 1845, World Gold Council, Research Study no. 23, November 1999, London.

4 T. Green, Central Bank Gold..., 3,6.
5 Russell Ally, Gold & Empire: The Bank of England and South Africa’s Gold Producers, 1886-1926, (Johannesburg, Witwatersrand University Press, 1994), 31.
6 T. Green, Central Bank Gold..., 6-9.
7 As South African economic historian Russell Ally put the relationship between the Boer War and the Bank of England’s gold reserves, ‘To be sure, Britain did not take physical control of the Transvaal just because the Bank of England was concerned about the state of its gold reserves...However, this should not detract from the fact that there was a growing appreciation of the importance of the Witwatersrand’s gold for the Bank of England’s safeguarding its leadership of the international gold standard and that this coincided with the mining magnates’ (e.g. Rhodes and others—f.w.e.) hostility towards Kruger’s government.’ Cited in Russell Ally, Gold & Empire: The Bank of England and South Africa’s Gold Producers, 1886-1926, (Johannesburg, Witwatersrand University Press, 1994), 25. Ally also notes the crucial role of Lord Milner, then High Commissioner of the Cape Colony and later Governor of Transvaal. Milner and his circle, using the resources from the will of Cecil Rhodes, later founded The Round Table and a periodical of the same name, in order to advance an enormously influential agenda for the regeneration of the British Empire, a fascinating subject beyond the scope of this brief essay.
8 P.J. Cain and A.G. Hopkins, British Imperialism: Innovation and Expansion 1688-1914, (London, Longman, 1993), 373.
9 Susan Fairlie, ‘The Corn Laws and British Wheat Production, 1829-76,’ Economic History Review, Second Series, Vol. 22, No. 1, April 1969, 88-116.
10 Cain and Hopkins, British Imperialism, 181ff.
11 Cited in Sonderabdruck aus der Frankfurter Zeitung, Gegen die englische Finanzvormacht, (7 November, 1915), Frankfurt am Main, Druck & Verlag der Frankfurter Societsdruckerei GmbH.
12 Hans Rosenberg, ‘Political and Social Consequences of the Great Depression of 1873-1896 in Central Europe,’ Economic History Review, Vol. 13, nos.1&2, 1943.
13 Eric J. Dahl, ‘Naval innovation: from coal to oil,’ Joint Force Quarterly, Winter, 2000. The details on oil versus coal powered ships is found in Anton Mohr, The Oil War, (New York, Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1926), 113-115. Anton Zischka, Oelkrieg: Wandlung der Weltmacht Oel, Leipzig, Wilhelm Goldmann Verlag, 1939) 293 for additional comparative data of oil over coal.
14 Winston Churchill, quoted in Peter Slulgett, Britain in Iraq: 1914-1932, (London, Ithaca Press, 1976, 103-4.
15 Anton Mohr, The Oil War, (New York, Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1926), 118-120.
16 There are numerous sources which detail the rapid industrial transformation of the German Reich after 1870. Especially useful in this regard are Karl Erich Born, Wirtschafts-und Sozialgeschichte des Deutschen Kaiserreichs (1867 /71-1914), (Stuttgart, Steiner Verlag, 1985; and Knut Borchardt, The German Economy, 1870 to the present., (London, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1967).
17 Karl Helfferich, Deutschlands Volkswohlstand 1888-1913, (Berlin, Verlag von Georg Stilke, 1913).
18 K.E. Born, Wirtschafts...
19 Charles Sarolea, The Bagdad Railway and German Expansion as a Factor in European Politics ( Edinburgh, 1907), p. 3, quoted in Edward Mead Earle, Turkey, The Great Powers, and The Bagdad Railway
A Study in Imperialism, (New York The Macmillan Company, 1924), v.
20 Count Leo von Caprivi, quoted in Franz Fischer, War of Illusions: German Policies from 1911 to 1914,( New York, W. W. Norton Company Inc., 1975), 49.
21 E.M. Earle, The Great Powers..., 58-60. Earle included a 1922 correspondence of his with the representative of the British rail group, Mr E. Rechnitzer, in which the latter stated, ‘My offer being much more favorable than that of the Germans, it seemed likely in August, 1899, that it would be accepted. Unfortunately the Transvaal War broke out in the autumn of that year, and the German Emperor, a few days after the declaration of war,

specially came to London to ask our Government to give him a free hand in Turkey. It appears that there was an interview between the Emperor and Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, who was more interested in Cecil Rhodes' scheme in Africa than in my scheme in Turkey.’
22 Anton Mohr, The Oil War, 80-81.

23 UK National Archive, BP Archive, Archon Code: 1566. http://www.archiveshub.ac.uk/news/0300bp.html, accessed on 16 June, 2007. BBC, The Company File: From Anglo-Persian Oil to BP Amoco, August 11, 1998., http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/149259.stm. Details available on the relation between the British government and Anglo-Persian are detailed in Anton Mohr, The Oil War, 124-129. For background on Churchill’s role in securing oil sources and converting the Navy see Sara Reguer, Persian Oil and the First Lord: A Chapter in the Career of Winston Churchill , Military Affairs, Vol. 46, No. 3 (Oct., 1982), 134-138.

24 Sara Reguer, Persian Oil..., 134.
25 Freiherr von Wangenheim, cited in Hans Herzfeld, Die Liman-Krise und die Politik der Großmächte in der Jahreswende 1913/14, Berliner Monatshefte 11, 1933., 841 ff.
26 Baron Max von Oppenheim as cited in The First World War: Haji Wilhelm, http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/F/firstworldwar/cont_jihad_1.html., accessed on 18 June, 2007.
27 Martin Gilbert, A History of the Twentieth Century, Volume One:1900-1933, (London, Harper Collins, 1997), 81-82. See also Peter Hopkirk, On Secret Service East of Constantinople, (London, Juhn Murray, 1994), 85-87, for more on Oppenheim’s role in supporting the Jihad.
28 Edward Mead Earle, Turkey, the Great Powers..., 217-18.
29 Gerald Lowther to Grey, 4 August 1908, Pte. Lowther Papers (FO800/193B), cited in Hasan Ünal, Britain and Ottoman Domestic Politics: From the Young Turk Revolution to the Counter-Revolution, 1908-9, Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 37, No.2, April 2001, 1-2.
30 R.G.D. Laffan, The Serbs: The Guardians of the Gate, (1917, reprinted by Dorset Press, New York, 1989), 163-4.
31 Noel and Charles R.Buxton, The War and the Balkans (London, George Allen and Unwin, 1915), 1
32 Ibid., 20-21.
33 Nikolaus Brauns, Deutsch-türkische Beziehungen im Kaiserreich, 4.5.4 Deutsche Kompromisse mit der Entente..., www.agahdari.com, 30 October 2006, 38
34 Cited in Peter Sluglett, Britain in Iraq..., 104-5.
35 Nubar Gulbenkian, Wir—die Gulbenkians: Porträt in Oel, (München, R. Piper & Co., 1966), 93-95.
36Peter Slugett, Britain in...,105.
37 Karl Helfferich, Der Weltkrieg: Vorgeschichte des Weltkrieges, (1919, Ullstein & Co., Berlin), 165-6.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR
  Born in Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States, Engdahl is the son of F. William Engdahl, Sr., and Ruth Aalund (b. Rishoff). Engdahl grew up in Texas and after earning a degree in engineering and jurisprudence from Princeton University in 1966 (BA) and graduate study in comparative economics at the University of Stockholm from 1969 to 1970, he worked as an economist and freelance journalist in New York and in Europe. Engdahl began writing about oil politics with the first oil shock in the early 1970s. His first book was called A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order and discusses the alleged roles of Zbigniew Brzezinski and George Ball and of the USA in the 1979 overthrow of the Shah of Iran, which was meant to manipulate oil prices and to stop Soviet expansion. Engdahl claims that Brzezinski and Ball used the Islamic Balkanization model proposed by Bernard Lewis. In 2007, he completed Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation. Engdahl is also a contributor to the website of the anti-globalization Centre for Research on Globalization, the Russian website New Eastern Outlook,[2] and the Voltaire Network,[3] and a freelancer for varied newsmagazines such as the Asia Times. William Engdahl has been married since 1987 and has been living for more than two decades near Frankfurt am Main, Germany.


black-horizontal
[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]




Former Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh Killed in Sanaa—two takes

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.

Video footage of a body resembling Ali Abdullah Saleh has been circulating on social media


Former Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh has been killed near the country’s capital of Sanaa. His death was confirmed by his political party, the General People’s Congress, according to Al-Jazeera.

Video footage of a body resembling Saleh has been circulating on social media. One image depicted how armed men used blankets to transport his corpse from the back of a pickup truck, Al-Jazeera reported.

Earlier media reports indicated that Houthi rebels, Saleh’s former allies-turned-rivals, blew up his residence in Sanaa. Houthi sources also announced that Saleh was killed during an attack on his car.

Houthi TV announced the “killing of the treacherous leader Ali Abdullah Saleh and his supporters. This is after he and his men blockaded the roads and killed civilians in a clear collaboration with the enemy countries of the coalition.”

It went on to state that the country’s ministry of interior released a statement announcing the takeover of “all the positions and strongholds of the treacherous militia in the capital Sanaa and the surrounding areas, as well as other provinces in order to impose security.”

Saleh’s rule over Yemen extended for more than three decades. Though he was deposed in 2012, he remained a key factor in the country’s ongoing resistance to the Saudi-led, U.S. and British-backed war against the country, allying his forces with Houthi rebels.

However, Saleh’s death comes two days after he expressed willingness to discuss issues with the Saudi-led coalition, a move that was deemed “a coup” against the alliance of Houthi rebels.

Hussain Albukhaiti, a Sanaa-based activist, informed Al Jazeera that Houthi forces had wrestled control of most areas in Sanaa patrolled by Saleh’s forces early Monday morning. “Only small pockets remain.”

He noted that the “very strategic” Al-Mesbahi residential area, approximately 200 meters from Saleh’s residence, had also been secured by Houthi rebels. “The area around his home is completely surrounded and may be taken over by the Houthis within the next few hours.”

Since the bombing campaign against Yemen began in 2015, the U.K. has licensed roughly US$4.2 billion dollars in weapons to Saudi Arabia, according to PressTV.

In early June, the U.S. Department of Defense also confirmed a US$750 million military sale to Saudi Arabia. It included U.S. made missiles, bombs, armored personnel carriers, warships, munitions, and a “blanket order training program” for the Saudi security forces receiving the military equipment both inside and outside the kingdom, Reuters reported.

Amid the bombing and devastation, which has killed over 33,000 people and forced more than a million to flee their homes, Yemen also faces a severe cholera outbreak that has claimed the lives of at least 2,119 people according to Alexandre Faite, head of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Wolfgang Jamann, head of the Cooperative for Assistance and Relief, a non-governmental humanitarian agency, described the ongoing crisis in Yemen as being an absolute “shame on humanity.”

Top photo | In this Sept. 3, 2012 file photo, former Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh speaks during a ceremony marking the 30th anniversary of his General People’s Congress party in Sanaa. (AP/Hani Mohammed)


© teleSUR

By Stephen Lendman

Former Yemeni President Killed: The Price of Betrayal

Ali Abdullah Saleh ruled Yemen despotically from May 1990 until ousted in February 2012 – earlier ruling North Yemen from 1978 to 1990.  He sided with Houthi fighters against Saudi Arabia until betraying them – shifting his allegiance to the kingdom, saying:

“I call upon the brothers in neighboring states and the alliance to stop their aggression, lift the siege, open the airports and allow food aid and the saving of the wounded and we will turn a new page by virtue of our neighborliness.”

The Houthi controlled interior ministry accused him of “creating chaos by working with militias of aggression, helping extremist militants,” the group’s political bureau adding:  “It is not strange or surprising that Saleh turns back on a partnership he never believed in. The priority has been and still is to confront the forces of aggression.”

On December 4, Houthi fighters blew up his home in Sanaa, media reports saying he was killed en route to Marib, his death confirmed by a senior aide, a video of his alleged body posted online by the Houthis, showing a severe head wound. On Monday, Houthi al-Masriah television said “(t)he leader of treason has been killed.” Its media official Abdel-Rahman al-Ahnomi said he was killed, trying to flee to Saudi Arabia through Marib. Heavy fighting has been ongoing in Sanaa for days, Saudi terror-bombing striking Houthi positions. Their fighters now control the city, according to reports, many Saleh loyalists defecting to their forces.

The UN called for a humanitarian halt in fighting to let civilians get out of harm’s way, enabling aid workers to reach them, the wounded able to get medical treatment.  UN humanitarian coordinator in Yemen Jamie McGoldrick said streets in Sanaa are “battlegrounds.” Aid workers “remain in lockdown.” Sanaa-based Norwegian Refugee Council protection and advocacy advisor Suze van Meegen said fighting in the city “completely paralyz(ed) humanitarian operations,” adding:

“No one is safe in Sanaa at the moment. I can hear heavy shelling outside now and know it is too imprecise and too pervasive to guarantee that any of us are safe.”

Regional ICRC director Robert Mardini tweeted: “The night was tough. Massive urban clashes with heavy artillery and airstrikes. Yemenis stuck in their homes, too scared to go out. Reduced access to water, health care, food and fuel.”

An unnamed woman said “(i)t’s like horror movies. I have lived through many wars but nothing like this.”

Explosions rock the city, defenseless civilians at risk of death or severe injuries. Bodies of dead and wounded lie in streets unattended, fighting too fierce for anyone to venture out, hundreds killed or wounded since last Wednesday. Defection of loyalist Saleh forces to the Houthis marks a significant turn in the war, ongoing for nearly three years, causing the world’s gravest humanitarian crisis. On Monday, Houthi spokesman Mohammed Abdul Salam claimed significant gains in the battle for Sanaa, saying:

“With the aid and approval of God, the security forces backed up by wide popular support were able last night to cleanse the areas in which the militias of treason and betrayal were deployed.”

Will Trump order aerial attacks on Houthi fighters in Sanaa, aiding Saudi terror-bombing? Will US-orchestrated aggression escalate, intensifying the humanitarian crisis?


ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Contributing Editor Stephen Lendman was born in 1934 in Boston, MA. In 1956, he received a BA from Harvard University. Two years of US Army service followed, then an MBA from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania in 1960. After working seven years as a marketing research analyst, he joined the Lendman Group family business in 1967. He remained there until retiring at year end 1999. Writing on major world and national issues began in summer 2005. In early 2007, radio hosting followed. Lendman now hosts the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network three times weekly.

Earlier media reports indicated that Houthi rebels, Saleh’s former allies-turned-rivals, blew up his residence in Sanaa. Houthi sources also announced that Saleh was killed during an attack on his car. Houthi TV announced the “killing of the treacherous leader Ali Abdullah Saleh and his supporters. This is after he and his men blockaded the roads and killed civilians in a clear collaboration with the enemy countries of the coalition.”

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

black-horizontal
[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]

By subscribing you won’t miss the special editions.

Parting shot—a word from the editors
The Best Definition of Donald Trump We Have Found

In his zeal to prove to his antagonists in the War Party that he is as bloodthirsty as their champion, Hillary Clinton, and more manly than Barack Obama, Trump seems to have gone “play-crazy” -- acting like an unpredictable maniac in order to terrorize the Russians into forcing some kind of dramatic concessions from their Syrian allies, or risk Armageddon.However, the “play-crazy” gambit can only work when the leader is, in real life, a disciplined and intelligent actor, who knows precisely what actual boundaries must not be crossed. That ain’t Donald Trump -- a pitifully shallow and ill-disciplined man, emotionally handicapped by obscene privilege and cognitively crippled by white American chauvinism. By pushing Trump into a corner and demanding that he display his most bellicose self, or be ceaselessly mocked as a “puppet” and minion of Russia, a lesser power, the War Party and its media and clandestine services have created a perfect storm of mayhem that may consume us all. Glen Ford, Editor in Chief, Black Agenda Report

window.newShareCountsAuto="smart";