Heading towards global war?

 

   By Reginald Johnson

            (Editors note:  As this article was being published, President Trump announced that the war on Iran would be over "soon." This is a bizarre statement. Just the day before, his war secretary Pete Hegseth said the war was "just beginning." On Saturday, Trump said ground troops could be sent to Iran. The administration doesn't seem to know what it is doing. If the war ends soon, that will be a good thing. But I'm very skeptical this will actually happen, because nothing that Trump says can be trusted. Remember this is the same president who ordered bombing attacks against Iran in the middle of what were supposed to be good faith negotiations with Iran over that country's nuclear development program. He did this twice, last year, and then again this year.) 

        As the Iran War ratchets up in intensity, there is fear the war could spark a global conflict with disastrous consequences.

       In the nine days since the United States and Israel launched their unprovoked attack on Iran, the war has already spilled over into many other countries in the region, with Iran hitting US bases and other targets in Bahrain, Kuwait, Dubai and Qatar. Israel has moved again into Lebanon, attacking the pro-Iranian group, Hezbollah.

   Missile attacks have also taken place against targets in Turkey and Azerbajan, with Israel blaming Iran. But the Iranians have denied responsibility and claim that Israel conducted "false flag" strikes trying to draw Turkey and Azerbajan into the war.

  In still more developments, Russia reportedly is providing Iran with intelligence on US targets in the region and US President Donald Trump is considering giving arms to the Kurds in Turkey, so they can invade Iran. Trump is also said to be weighing sending US ground troops to fight in Iran.

 Finally, as oil prices skyrocket due to shipping lanes being closed through the Strait of Hormuz, there are concerns about how China will respond to the situation. China gets 60 percent of its oil from Iran, and now that supply may be threatened with the strait closed.

    One of those who's deeply disturbed about the trend of events is Columbia Professor Jeffrey Sachs.

 "We are probably in the early days of World War III," said Sachs, a former UN official and a noted foreign policy critic. "The question is, whether it is contained."

   Speaking on a podcast with Prof. Glenn Diesen, Sachs said he's both concerned about the escalating trend of the war and also the irrational behavior of Trump.

  He described Trump as "mentally unhinged" and a "madman" determined to establish American hegemony around the world, despite the risks.

   Sachs said the world has seen madmen before who were bent on conquest, such as Napoleon and Hitler.

  But, Sachs said, "we've never had a circumstance like this in the nuclear age."

  "I would say the world is in a more dangerous situation than ever before. Period," he said. 

  Despite the gravity of the moment and Trump's reckless policy, Sachs said there are few in Washington, DC willing to call out Trump and demand that the war end before it is too late.

  "We're wondering, where, if any, are the grown-ups in the United States in positions of authority who will speak truthfully about this?" he said in another interview with Danny Haiphong.

    "I don't see almost any. There are a few voices in Congress, (Senator) Rand Paul is one of them, Congressman (Thomas) Massie is another...but there are very few others and this is what is alarming," Sachs said.

  Two other military/foreign policy experts, Ret. Col. Lawrence Wilkerson and former CIA analyst Larry Johnson said in interviews recently that due to economic pressures relating to the price of oil, and Israel's losses in the war, the Iran conflict would probably not last long. Both said that contrary to the glowing reports in the US media about US progress in the war, Israel was being hit hard by Iranian missiles and US bases have been badly damaged, too.

 Another concern for Israel is they are running out of interceptors to block incoming missiles.

Speaking on a podcast with Danny Haiphong, Wilkerson said his biggest worry is that Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu might resort to using a nuclear weapon if Israel is losing badly.

  "I have no doubt he'll use one," Wilkerson said. "That's really the problem."

Has World War III already started?

 

                           

      By Reginald Johnson

 

Foreign policy analyst Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson sees alarming parallels between what’s happening in the world today and the year 1914,  when World War I broke out.

Like Britain and France at that time who were desperately trying to hold onto their empires in the face of a rising German state, the United States is now trying to maintain its global hegemony as China surges as an economic and military power.

“Mark my word, we’re already in World War III. We are in the opening stages of World War III,” said Wilkerson.

 “And this war is going to be fought and it will be fought whether it starts in Southwest Asia, the Arctic or as the war continues in Ukraine and spreads, it will be fought in order to stop the same thing that Britain and France were trying to stop years and years ago ---the overtaking of the American empire by China and its other friends. That’s what we’re involved in today,” said Wilkerson.

 Then he added ominously, “The difference, the salient difference between today and then is, we have nuclear weapons.”

Col. Wilkerson was part of a discussion hosted by Danny Haiphong about President Trump’s recent moves on Ukraine and global tensions in general. Former CIA analyst Larry Johnson also took part.

Wilkerson once was Chief of Staff  to Secretary of State Colin Powell during the Bush administration.  Early on he supported the Iraq War but later became a critic.  In recent years he’s been a commentator on  foreign affairs, often criticizing Israel and US policy in the Middle East.

Wilkerson said the US is in a “very, very serious” situation globally and Americans need to get a grasp on it.

Both he and Johnson criticized Trump on his management of foreign policy.

“To have Trump in the chairman’s seat, so to speak, is an utter disaster,” Wilkerson said.

                                                                                                          

Risking World War III

 

     By Reginald Johnson

     Commentary

  A United States senator has said something that should send chills down everyone’s spine.

    Senator Chris Coons, a Democrat from Delaware, said America may have to send troops to Ukraine, a step that would almost certainly start World War III.

  Speaking on the “Face the Nation” show, Coons said  “If Vladimir Putin, who has shown us how brutal he can be, is allowed to just continue to massacre civilians, to commit war crimes throughout Ukraine without NATO, without the West coming more forcefully to his aid, I great- I deeply worry that what's going to happen next is that we will see Ukraine turn into Syria.”

  He then said, “The American people cannot turn away from this tragedy in Ukraine. I think the history of the 21st century turns on how fiercely we defend freedom in Ukraine and that Putin will only stop when we stop him. “

 Coons’ remarks followed comments he made days earlier at the University of Michigan where he stressed the need for Congress and the administration to come to a “common position” where they agree “about when we are willing to go the next step and to send not just arms but troops to aid in the defense of Ukraine.”

  In an astounding lapse, the host of “Face the Nation” Margaret Brennan failed to follow up and ask Coons just what are the implications of introducing troops to Ukraine.

  The implications are mind-boggling. If troops are sent to Ukraine, this will certainly be seen by Russia as a declaration of war by the US and NATO. Then all bets are off.

  There are some deluded people out there who think we could fight a ground war with Russia and keep it limited to conventional weapons. This is fantasy. A major war in Europe between US/NATO and Russia --- both sides armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons --- would inevitably escalate to nuclear war. After that, it’s a serious question as to whether the world and humanity would survive.

  During an exchange of nuclear missiles, tens of millions of people would be killed instantly or within a few hours. Whole cities would be wiped out. For those who survived the initial blasts or lived far away from the explosions, they would not be lucky. Due to the massive amount of radiation fallout from the blasts, they would slowly but surely die from radiation sickness.

Nuclear bomb explosion. A nuclear exchange between the US and Russia would kill tens of millions of people. (Wikimedia Commons)

  This is obviously in an apocalyptic scenario, but it is not out of the realm of possibility.

   It is true that Biden administration officials distanced themselves from Coons’ remarks and reiterated that President Biden has no plans to send troops to Ukraine. Officials said the US will keep sending lethal aid to help Ukraine.  But you wonder if Biden's position might change, if the Ukraine War --- already ugly --- gets uglier.

   With each new report of an alleged Russian massacre or war crime, the calls will grow to “do something!” and “stop the slaughter!” More and more members of Congress and the media will likely say we have to bite the bullet and send troops, and that in turn could pressure Biden to support direct intervention.

  Already in Congress there is some support for acting a lot more aggressively toward Russia. Representative Adam Kinzinger, a Republican from Illinois also said that he would back sending troops to Ukraine. Two Republican senators, Roger Wicker of Mississippi and James Inhofe of Oklahoma, are on record as favoring sending troops and ---- incredibly --- saying the US should not rule out a first strike nuclear attack on Russia.

  It should be noted that while people in the political world generally said they didn’t agree with Coons’s comments about sending troops, you didn’t hear any harsh public denunciation of his suggestion, despite the grave implications of directly intervening in Ukraine.

  You have to wonder whether Coons wasn't floating the idea of sending troops on behalf of the administration, just to test public reaction. Coons is good friends with Biden.

  Public opinion will be key in terms of how far the administration is willing to go in helping Ukraine. A national poll in February found that a majority of Americans were not in favor of sending troops to Ukraine. But again, public attitudes could change as the media keeps uncritically reporting allegations of Russian atrocities, such as mass killings and indiscriminate bombing attacks.

 ( It should be noted that there has been no conclusive evidence offered to back up the sweeping claims of Russian atrocities such as the Bucha massacre, the missile strike on the Kramatorsk train station and the alleged Russian bombing of the maternity hospital in Mariupol. The US and Western media have failed to adequately check out these charges and instead have shamelessly accepted the claims of Russian responsibility as flat fact.)

   One public figure who has called out Senator Coons is former member of  Congress Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat from Hawaii. Gabbard, a member of the Army Reserve and an Iraq War veteran, said on the Laura Ingraham show on FOX that Coons’ comments were irresponsible and served to “undermine national security.”

   She added, “I think of my brothers and sisters in uniform who would be the ones whose lives that are put on the line in what would essentially kick off World War III and be a direct challenge to nuclear-armed Russia.

  “Risking nuclear war --- that’s exactly what he’s proposing and everyone should be very clear eyed as they hear this kind of rhetoric coming from Washington.”

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stop World War III

      By Reginald Johnson

  

             

     NEW HAVEN ---- As the nation paused this week to honor the veterans of wars past and present, a group of peace activists gathered here to demand that the United States stop trying to “provoke” so much conflict around the world.

            Holding placards saying “Honor Vets, Stop Wars” and “Lower Military Budget, Raise Minimum Wage” members of the Greater New Haven Peace Council and others held a protest called “Veterans Day Vigil to Stop World War 111” to underscore the urgent need for a change in American foreign policy.

       “We’re calling for support of veterans, putting resources into veterans, not ignoring the needs of vets, addressing the medical needs of vets, but at the same time, honoring veterans by stopping wars,” said Henry Lowendorf, a spokesman for the council.

      Lowendorf said the Obama administration has to begin de-esclating the conflicts in Syria and Ukraine, which the U.S. had a key role in creating in the first place.  America, he said, has to “stop provoking the Russians, the Chinese, the Syrians and other people and other governments.”

 

Peace activists demand that U.S. military interventions around the world must end.

    Unless there is a real change in U.S. policy --- turning towards diplomacy as a means of resolving problems and away from military intervention --- the chance of a global catastrophe is real, Lowendorf and others said.

      About a dozen people showed up for the protest, held in a drizzly rain on the corner of Chapel and College streets, in the heart of the city’s downtown.

   The demonstrators held up their signs to the cars going by, and a number of drivers honked their approval.

Mary Compton (center) and Susan Klein (left) say no to war.

     A flyer passed out by the group said: “Our world is at a critically dangerous juncture: there is the possibility of a military, even a thermonuclear, confrontation between NATO, led by the United States, and Russia. These nations each possess thousands of nuclear missiles aimed at each other on hair trigger alert. The militaries of the two superpowers are again facing each other, this time in Eastern Europe, especially in Ukraine, and in Syria. And tensions are increasing each passing day."

   The group demanded immediate diplomatic negotiations to end the conflict in Syria, involving all interested parties, including the Syrian government; removal of all NATO forces from the states bordering Russia; dismantle NATO; remove all foreign troops from Afghanistan; and end the U.S. strategy for global domination.