A US-Taliban Peace Deal Would Redefine the Regional Balance of Power

By Andrew Korybko

Global Research, September 06, 2019

The tentative peace deal that the US is negotiating with the Taliban would redefine the regional balance of power if it’s officially promulgated, thus continuing the ongoing trend of Great Power realignment in Eurasia.

It’s been widely reported that the tentative peace deal that the US is negotiating with the Taliban will see the removal of 5,000 American troops from Afghanistan and the closure of five military bases (at least in the first phase) in exchange for the armed group (formally recognized as terrorists by Russia and many other countries) promising not to allow their territory to be used by international terrorists such as Daesh. Should this pact be officially promulgated, then it would redefine the regional balance of power and continue the ongoing trend of Great Power realignment in Eurasia. Before analyzing the implications of this possible move, it must first be pointed out that there’s supposedly significant opposition to the agreement within the American government itself, with Time reporting that Pompeo refused to sign it because of concerns that he has that it would legitimize the Taliban as a US-recognized political force in the country despite the organization declining to bestow the same recognition on the Kabul government that they’ve sworn to overthrow.

It’s unclear whether Pompeo’s concerns are sincere or if they’re just self-interested political positioning ahead of his possible candidacy in the 2024 elections in the event that the full US military withdrawal that it’ll likely eventually lead to is as destabilizing for Afghanistan as Obama’s one from Iraq was and he wants to distance himself from it in advance. Another detail that deserves mentioning is that former Secretary of Defense Mattis recently revealed in his memoirs that he regards Pakistan as the “most dangerous country” in the world, even though the global pivot state greatly facilitated the progress that’s been made thus far on brokering peace in Afghanistan and its leader was warmly received by Trump over the summer. The US’ “deep state” divisions had previously been between its diplomatic and military wings yet now it appears as though they’re on the same page in opposition to the President’s peace push, but Trump’s “going rogue” to get it done anyhow, likely emboldened per his style to think that he must be doing something right if he’s received this much pushback.

If Trump signs the deal and it expectedly receives important endorsements from regional powers like Russia, China, Pakistan, and Iran (all of which and others the Taliban expect to serve as “international witnesses” to the accord), then he can have the “face-saving” pretext necessary to withdraw his troops even further and pass his decision off as a necessary one in the interests of peace, which he hopes will help him extricate his country from this ultra-expensive but ultimately failed campaign and therefore possible win re-election next year. He’s also on record as saying that more immediate stakeholders such as India, Pakistan, Russia, Afghanistan (meant in this context to be the Kabul government), Iran, Iraq, and Turkey will probably have to intervene in the US’ wake in order to ensure that Daesh doesn’t take advantage of the situation, which can be interpreted either as a pragmatic admission of America’s defeat in this seemingly never-ending war or a Machiavellian maneuver to embroil his rivals in this quagmire.

Whatever his true intentions may be, going forward with the tentative Taliban peace deal would radically change the regional balance of power. The armed group would likely take over Kabul sooner than leader and officially return to power, thus reducing the effectiveness of India’s exploitation of the country as a springboard for carrying out its Hybrid War on CPEC and therefore enabling Pakistan to concentrate more of its military-strategic focus on defending its eastern border. Nevertheless, Indian influence might not be totally removed from Afghanistan in the scenario of a Taliban takeover because Russia has some sway over the group after hosting it for peace talks several times and its Foreign Minister recently said that Moscow is closely coordinating with its new global partners in New Delhi on this matter, so its possible that they might join forces to dangle the carrot of sustainable economic development through an eastern branch of their jointly pioneered North-South Transport Corridor (NSTC) in order to retain some Indian influence in the country.

India brazenly defied the US’ CAATSA sanctions threats this week by agreeing to jointly producemilitary equipment with Russia on top of proceeding apace with its deal to purchase the S-400s, and the Vladivostok-Chennai Maritime Corridor that they’re creating will have serious security implications for China if it’s accompanied by a forthcoming logistics pact that sees the Indian navy regularly patrolling this future trade route that traverses through the South China Sea and up China’s eastern coast. While Russia and India maintain that their bilateral relations aren’t aimed against any third parties, it might have been the case that their game-changing moves were predicated on the belief that it’s necessary to preemptively “balance” the predictable expansion of Chinese-Pakistani influence in Afghanistan following the eventual American withdrawal that would thus secure CPEC and correspondingly place India at a major strategic disadvantage given its refusal to accept the Belt & Road Initiative‘s (BRI) flagship project due to its maximalist approach towards the Kashmir Conflict.

As the cliched saying goes, “every action has an equal and opposite reaction”, and Russia’s “proactive balancing” with India against China and Pakistan is no different, likely resulting in the counter-response of China doubling down on its commitment to CPEC and Pakistan opening the doors for its partner to “counter-balance” India in Afghanistan as well. In addition, the US might interestingly gravitate closer to Pakistan too out of desire to “balance” the de-facto Russian-Indian alliance after New Delhi defied Washington’s CAATSA sanctions threats, which could curiously put the US and China on the same page regarding the need to support the global pivot state. The world’s superpowers might thus be in tacit agreement over this geostrategic necessity even if they remain at odds over their so-called “trade war“, but should their economic disagreements eventually be overcome, then it can’t be discounted that they might even coordinate their efforts in this respect. As such, it’s clear that the regional balance of power will definitely be redefined if the US-Taliban peace deal succeeds.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

Did Russia and China Get the US to Accelerate Its Diplomatic Drawdown in Afghanistan?

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Andrew Korybko, Global Research, 2019

https://www.globalresearch.ca/taliban-peace-deal-would-redefine-regional-balance-power/5688277


JUST NEWS published this article following the Creative Commons rule. If you don't want your article to appear in this blog email me and I will remove it asap.

Follow @counter_info

Video: The Malaysian Airlines MH17 Tragedy. What is Real, What is Fake? “Highly Likely” Can Mean Anything

Interview of independent Journalist Max Van Der Werff About the MH17 Crash

By Max Van Der Werff

Global Research, September 01, 2019

Donbass Insider 28 September 2018

For all the people who follow the MH17 case, Max van der Werff is an outstanding analyst. After spending thousands of hours of investigation on the crash of the Malaysian airline, Max has become an expert on this case.

His blog, ironically called ‘Kremlin troll‘, is really a gold mine, containing a lot of useful information about what happened to the MH17, the available information, and what are the problems with the official investigation.

Recently, he gave an interview for the Philippine television about the status of the investigation, how he works on this case, what pushed him to investigate on the MH17, his doubts about the conclusion of the JIT, and how he hopes this case will end.

Watch the full interview in English (you can skip the three minutes which are in Filipino):

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Video: “The Truth About 5G”

The original source of this article is Donbass Insider

Copyright © Max Van Der Werff, Donbass Insider, 2019

https://www.globalresearch.ca/video-max-van-der-werff-mh17-crash/5687689

JUST NEWS published this article following the Creative Commons rule. If you don't want your article to appear in this blog email me and I will remove it asap.

Follow @counter_info

Who Is Behind Blowing Up Ammunition Warehouses in Iraq? Iran Is the Target

By Elijah J. Magnier

Global Research, August 26, 2019

Elijah J. Magnier 24 August 2019

An explosion occurred Tuesday at an ammunition storage warehouse used by Iraqi security forces operating under the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF) close to the US air and military base in Balad, Salahuddin province, 64 km north of Baghdad. Over a week before, a warehouse at Camp-Sakr used by the Federal Police and PMF in Baghdad city blew up, causing casualties.

The vice commander of the PMF Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes accused Israel of being behind the explosions, claiming “four Israeli drones were stationed at the US military base in Iraq, responsible for both explosions”. Israel Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu hinted at the responsibility of Israel for the attacks saying “Iran has no immunity anywhere… In Iran itself, in Lebanon, in Syria, in Iraq, in Yemen.” Why is Iran the target and what could be the consequences?

There is no doubt that the war between the “Axis of the Resistance” (i.e. Iraqi PMF, Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Houthis in Yemen and Palestinians in Gaza) and the “US-Israel Axis” and their Middle Eastern allies (Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain) is at a new peak- since 2006 and the “large and serious failure” of Israel’s third war on Lebanon. Moreover, in 2003, when the US declared itself an occupation force in Iraq, Secretary of State Colin Powell visited Syria and delivered President Bashar al-Assad a warning to stop supporting Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas, paving the road for a “New Middle East”. Assad had the choice to join the “Axis of Resistance” or join the “US new World Order”. When Assad’s decision was made, the war started in Syria in earnest in 2011, to cut off the link with the “Axis of Resistance” and stop the flow of weapons to Lebanon (one of many reasons for the war in Syria). But again, the war failed to achieve its objectives and Damascus cemented its partnership with the “Axis of Resistance”.

Iraq was next on the list of wars: the US watched ISIS, the “Islamic State” terror group, transferring its jihadists from Iraq into Syria and observed – without interfering for two months – how ISIS was occupying a third of Iraq in 2014. It was judged suitable for the US-Israel Axis and their Middle Eastern allies to watch idly the partition of Iraq, obviously in the hope it might disrupt the “Axis of Resistance”. A sectarian war would have lasted decades in the Middle East, keeping all the countries concerned “very busy”.

In Palestine, resistance groups imposed a new rule of engagement on Israel following their acquisition of new missiles capable of reaching Tel Aviv and hunting down Israeli vehicles with laser-guided technology. Iran supplied the Palestinians with military technology and military expertise. Gaza has become very difficult for Israel to “chew and squash”.

In the Yemen, four years of war against the poorest country in the Middle East managed to increase the poverty of the Yemenites, but failed to break their will. Indeed, the Iranian supply of weapons imposed a new rule of engagement in turn on Saudi Arabia, allowing the Yemenites to down US drones, hit far-flung airports and target energy resources.

From 2006 to 2019: After Failures in Syria, Iraq, Palestine and Yemen, War Is No Longer an Option for Israel

Following these failures on all fronts (Iraqi, Syrian, Palestinian, Yemenite and Lebanese) the US-Israeli Axis seems to be changing its objectives. Instead of hitting Iran’s allies, the target-objective is focused on Iran itself. The US administration, influenced by Prime Minister Netanyahu, revoked the “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” (JCPOA), known as the “nuclear deal”, and imposed what it calls “maximum pressure” on Iran.

President Hassan Rouhani said

“one of the EU leaders I met in New York last year told me that Trump advised him to stop dealing with Iran because there will be no more Islamic Republic in three months”.

But Iran proves to be holding its ground firmly, ready for war if imposed, or if prevented from exporting its oil. It has downed a US drone and was close to an all-out war situation, hitting tankers and confiscating a British-flagged tanker when one of its supertankers was captured. However, despite these measured responses by Iran to provocation, particularly its wish to avoid downing a US spy plane with 38 crew onboard, tensions between the US and Iran are far from decreasing.

What we are observing in Iraq today is a change in the US-Israeli Axis’s policy, hitting the “Axis of the Resistance,” its capabilities and friends wherever possible. A decision-maker within this “Axis” said:

“(US Secretary of State Mike) Pompeo and his ministry’s effort seems to be to chase and surround the Axis of the Resistance, and in particular the Lebanese Hezbollah. In Africa, Latin America, Europe, anywhere in the world, the US is focused on hitting Hezbollah’s sympathisers and the societies that support it and to dry up its resources. This is because Israel failed to defeat it face-to-face on the battlefield- and because Hezbollah is one of the most dangerous and effective allies of Iran.”

It is indeed true that Israel hit hundreds of targets in Syria in the first years of the war without claiming responsibility. Only in the last two years did Israel announce its responsibility overtly. Most of Israel’s hits – according to well-informed sources – were selective targets based on intelligence information. Israel hit strategic weapons in Syria or on their way to Lebanon but always before they reached the Lebanese-Syrian borders, in Syrian territory.

“There is a consensus between the US and Israel to hit Iran and its allies. Nevertheless, the confrontational style differs between the two. In Iraq, objectives were hit and personalities assassinated but not revealed to public. What is happening today in Iraq (warehouses blown-up) is similar to the Israeli style of hitting targets in Syria”, said the source.

In Baghdad, sources within the decision-making authority said “Israel targeted the PMF in June 2018 and killed a few dozen PMF. Last month, the PMF revealed the CIA connections of Iraqi Brigadier General Mahmoud al-Fallahi, commander of Anbar, who was caught delivering to a CIA agent in Iraq all coordinates of the location of PMF and their ammunition warehouses. The audio release stated that Israel was planning to hit PMF positions. Therefore, Israeli involvement is not excluded because the destruction of the capability of Iran’s allies is the objective”.

“If PMF warehouses holding strategic missiles that can hit Israel and destroy any US bases in Iraq with precision have been destroyed, it means that the principal US-Israeli objective has been reached. The PMF is the continuation of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Palestinian groups in Gaza and Yemen. They are ready to stand by Iran and take part in any war against the Islamic Republic. Both the US and Israel know that very well”, said the source.

In Iraq, it is not that difficult to have access to sensitive information. The news of the storage of precision missiles in PMF warehouses is in every mouth. During my presence in Iraq for over a decade (and I continue to travel to Iraq regularly), I realised that many Iraqis cannot keep secrets or sensitive information. For example, in 2004 I was informed the same day when the commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Brigade Haj Qassem Soleimani arrived in Baghdad. He used to travel regularly to Lebanon for more than 20 years and no one within Hezbollah middle level of command knew about his presence. Yet every time Soleimani visited Iraq, the entire country knew about it the same day, including whom he visited.

Revealing the location of precision missiles and PMF warehouses is a normal exchange of information among Iraqis. It is therefore inevitable that the US and Israel were alerted and reacted by destroying these missiles, knowing that Iran would like to keep Iraq outside its battlefield with the US for many reasons. The US has agreed to allow Iraq to do commerce and buy electricity from Iran, giving waivers for another three months. This is resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars in Iranian pockets, in cash!

The Israelis, who are excellent at reading opportunities and probabilities in warfare and military strategy, understand when to hit their enemies- and also when to refrain when a harsh response might be triggered. They have attacked Syria hundreds of times, while keeping away from Lebanon for 13 years. Israel knows very well that Assad, for now, is not willing – despite the encouragement of its allies – to hit back and trigger a new front with Israel in retaliation for Netanyahu’s continuous aggression against the Syrian state. In the meantime, Israel is most likely aware that Hezbollah is just looking for an opportunity to hit Tel Aviv hard if attacked, and if any of its men are killed by Israeli raids or air attacks.

Iraq, in Israel’s view, is not ready to attack Tel Aviv because it has not yet constructed its full strength. Therefore, it is a soft target for Israel and a potential objective for destroying Iranian missiles stocked in PMF warehouses, for example. But to confirm or not the use of “four Israeli drones working as part of the US fleet in Iraq to target PMF” would still be a very early, premature conclusion.

Brigadier Hassan Salame, the commander of the IRGC, stated correctly in Mash’had that “Iran is fighting invisible wars on many fronts”. Indeed, Iraq is one of the multiple fronts on which Iran is engaging the US-Israel Axis. Actually, the Iran-US “war” has never ever really stopped since 1979, the declaration of the “Islamic Revolution”.

Despite the Iranian desire to keep Iraq away from its military theatre with the US, Washington itself would be taking a great risk by allowing Israel to hit the Iraqi security forces if these warehouses were hit by Israeli jets. Indeed, no possible Israeli attack on the Iraqi forces can take place without US approval and knowledge. The US has many military airports and bases in the country, and enjoys the use of several airports in the occupied north-east of Syria (al-Hasaka and Deir-ezzour provinces).

The explosion and destruction of PMF warehouses are in fact only tactical attacks: they do not actually affect Iran and its allies. As in Syria, hundreds of targets were destroyed, but Iran was capable of replacing the destroyed missiles because its factories continue producing them! Israel acknowledges that Hezbollah, despite hundreds of attacks on Syria, managed to accumulate more than 150,000 missiles and rockets. The Palestinian groups still receive the latest warfare technology and so does the Yemen (the Houthis), despite the apparent blockade.

In Iraq, the US risks coming out as the biggest loser. Not only Israeli strikes undermine the relations with Iraq but also because Iran has managed to build a second Hezbollah in Mesopotamia. Hashd al-Shaabi needed a robust ideology to stand by and defeat ISIS. This ideology is durable: it will not dissolve, and it will persevere in opposition to US Middle East hegemony.

It is true that Iraq has US weapons and needs US intelligence support to stand on its own feet. But it should be kept in mind that Iraq 2019 is no longer Iraq 2003 (the US occupation), nor Iraq 2014 (occupation by ISIS). New allies and partners are ready to take over, like Russia (already offering intelligence through the common military operation room in Baghdad), China and Iran: they are indeed no longer at Iraq’s gates, but inside its walls.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

All images in this article are from the author

The original source of this article is Elijah J. Magnier

Copyright © Elijah J. Magnier, Elijah J. Magnier, 2019

https://www.globalresearch.ca/who-behind-blowing-up-ammunition-warehouses-iraq-iran-target/5687229

JUST NEWS published this article following the Creative Commons rule. If you don't want your article to appear in this blog email me and I will remove it asap.

Follow @counter_info

US Missile Test, UN Security Council Face Off: China-Russia v. US

By Stephen Lendman

Global Research, August 25, 2019

At the request of Russia and China, a Thursday Security Council session was held on the Trump regime’s development of short-and-intermediate-range missiles prohibited by the landmark 1987 INF Treaty.

The key pillar of arms control (and earlier ones) are gone because the US unilaterally abandoned its obligations based on Big Lies — the INF pullout announced in February, formal withdrawal occurring on August 2.

Russia and China correctly warned that the White House move threatens international peace and security — what’s true about Washington’s geopolitical agenda overall under both extremist wings of its war party.

Ahead of Thursday’s SC session, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said the following:

“The (meeting) was based on the plans announced by the US, which concern the deployment of intermediate-range missiles to the Asia-Pacific region” close to China and North Korea, adding:

“Clearly, it is only the first step, and in the future, the US may deploy such weapons to other regions of the world, including Europe” near Russia’s border — heightening world tensions more than already.

On August 18, the US war department said the Pentagon “conducted a flight test of a conventionally-configured ground-launched cruise missile at San Nicolas Island, California” — banned by the INF Treaty it failed to explain, adding:

“The test missile exited its ground mobile launcher and accurately impacted its target after more than 500 kilometers of flight.”

“Data collected and lessons learned from this test will inform the (war department’s) development of future intermediate-range capabilities.”

During Thursday’s SC session, acting Trump regime envoy Jonathan Cohen repeated long ago debunked Big Lies about Russian INF violations that didn’t occur.

Moscow invited international inspections of missiles objected to by the US. They never took place because Trump regime hardliners pressured their NATO counterparts not to accept the offer.

Sergey Lavrov earlier explained that US INF Treaty violations began 20 years ago under the Clinton co-presidency and continued under Bush/Cheney, Obama and Trump.

Not a shred of credible evidence suggests Russian noncompliance, just the opposite. False accusations are all about giving the US an unjustifiable pretext to abandon its international obligations — what it does time and again.

Trump regime withdrawal from the INF Treaty was planned long before announced last February.

The pullout is all about leaving the US unrestrained to develop and deploy short-and-intermediate-range/nuclear-capable cruise and ballistic missiles close to the borders of its adversaries — notably Russia, China, North Korea, Venezuela and Iran.

During Thursday’s Security Council session, China slammed the Trump regime’s unilateral INF Treaty pullout, its UN envoy Zhang Jun saying the following:

Since agreed on by Soviet Russia and the US in 1987 until abandoned by the White House this month,

“the treaty effectively mitigated the arms race on intermediate-range missiles between the US and USSR in Europe and helped to enhance strategic mutual trust between major powers, ease international relations and advance nuclear disarmament process.”

The above is a true statement – polar opposite the litany of Big Lies recited by the Trump regime’s envoy — typical of how the US operates on the world stage, why it can never be trusted by other nations, allies and adversaries alike.

China: Russia and the US “should have properly handled differences over treaty compliance through dialogue and consultation to earnestly safeguard the effectiveness of the treaty.”

Trump regime hardliners ruled it out so the Pentagon can go its own way unconstrained by international laws, norms, standards, and agreements with other countries.

Unilaterally withdrawing from the INF Treaty “will have a far-reaching negative impact on global strategic balance and stability, regional security in Europe and Asia as well as international arms control regime,” China stressed.

When China, Russia, and other nations call on the US to exercise restraint and observe its international obligations, it falls on deaf ears in Washington virtually always.

Beijing has “no interest (in) and will not be part of…so-called arms control negotiations with the” with the US, its envoy stressed, adding:

“(A)ll its land-based intermediate range missiles are deployed within (its) territory…for defense purposes only and pose no threat to any country.”

China and Russia prioritize world peace and cooperative relations with other countries — at war with none.

The US under both wings of its war party seeks dominion over planet earth, its resources and populations — waging endless preemptive wars of aggression in multiple theaters against nonbelligerent nations threatening no one.

Russia’s deputy UN envoy Dmitry Polyanskiy stressed the importance of the INF Treaty now gone.

After observing its treaty obligations “for a while,” compliance became “inconvenient” for the US side, “believ(ing) in (its) exceptionalism,” said Polyanskiy, adding:

The US is “determined to impose inequitable unilateral schemes of international relations on others” — breaching its international obligations unaccountably.

Putin said Russia won’t breach INF Treaty provisions except in response to US violations — clearly what happened.

Abandonment of arms control treaties “leaves no instrument in the world to curtail the arms race,” Putin stressed.

New START is next on the Trump regime’s chopping block for elimination when expires in February 2021 if DJT is still in power.

Bolton said extending it is unlikely. Putin said no Trump regime official “is willing to talk about (extending New START) with us.”

Agreed to by the US and Russia in April 2010, it succeeded START I (1991) and the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT).

New START limits deployment of strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550, a major reduction from earlier levels, a verification regime agreed on to assure both sides comply with their obligations.

Russia: The US “had been persistently and deliberately violating the INF Treaty for a long time,” pullout intended long before announced.

“(L)ast December, Russia proposed a General Assembly draft resolution in support for the INF Treaty.”

EU/NATO countries, in cahoots with the US, rejected the idea, going along with the Trump regime’s abandonment of the INF Treaty by not allying with Russia to save it.

Moscow warned that the treaty’s demise would “lead to a new nuclear arms race,” missiles with these weapons targeting European cities because leaders of these countries failed to act responsibly.

Congressional budgeting for INF banned missiles was in place “long before this treaty was sentenced to death. And, as always, Russia is to blame,” its UN envoy stressed.

Abandonment of the rule of law and international obligations by the US left the world a far more dangerous place than during the Cold War.

It’s highlighted by the Trump regime’s war secretary Mark Esper, saying the Pentagon is preparing for “high-intensity conflicts against competitors such as Russia and China” — clearly Iran as well.

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ Doomsday Clock stands at two minutes to midnight, moved there in January 2018.

The nuclear arms race launched by the Trump regime may get it moved closer to doomsday in the weeks or months ahead.

A Final Comment

On Friday, Vladimir Putin ordered Russia’s Defense Ministry to respond appropriately to threats posed by the Trump regime’s INF Treaty pullout, its August 18 missile test prohibited by treaty, likely more of the same to come, and deployment of these missiles, stressing:

“We have repeatedly pointed out that the deployment of such launchers by the US at its missile defense base in Romania, and their expected deployment in Poland in the near future are a direct and flagrant violation of the treaty on medium and short-range missiles,” adding:

“The US side stubbornly denied this, claiming that land-based MK-41s were supposedly unable to launch sea-based Tomahawk cruise missiles.”

“Now, the fact of their violation is out in the open and impossible to dispute. They themselves have spoken about it.”

Russia will do whatever it considers necessary to defend its security from a clear threat posed by the US. China will act the same way. So will Iran.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from InfoRos

Russian Foreign and Defense Ministers on US Treaty Breaches

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Stephen Lendman, Global Research, 2019

https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-missile-test-un-security-council-face-off-china-russia-v-us/5687073


JUST NEWS published this article following the Creative Commons rule. If you don't want your article to appear in this blog email me and I will remove it asap.

Follow @counter_info