Global Research, July 29, 2017
Washington announced sweeping sanctions to be imposed on three countries: Russia, Iran and North Korea, following the US House of Representatives vote to impose a three countries’ sanctions “package”.
While the justifications are diverse and unrelated, all three countries are from a military and geopolitical standpoint on the US nuclear “hit list”. They are considered as de facto rogue states, enemies of America.
The Congressional bill invoked respectively Tehran’s support of terrorism, Russia’s meddling in the 2016 presidential elections, and North Korea’s ICBM missile tests.
The pretexts with regard to Russia and Iran are largely fabricated. The main sponsor of Islamic terrorism is US intelligence.
The “package sanctions regime” is intimately related to the Deep State military agenda. Moreover it is worth noting that the legislation included a (rather dangerous) clause to “disapprove of any moves the president makes to end the sanctions… and build a better relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin.”
This clause is visibly intended by the neocon hawks in Washington to constrain the powers of the White House. In the words of Paul Craig Roberts, they are intended to “Put Trump in a box.”
The Congressional bill still requires the endorsement of President Trump, who might exercise his veto.
The China Sanctions Regime
While China was excluded from the Congressional three countries’ “package”, Washington formally intimated in early July that sanctions would also be imposed on China in response to China’s increased bilateral commodity trade with North Korea.
China is described as an ally of North Korea. While the US sanctions regime is not officially directed against the Chinese government, selected Chinese banks and trading companies involved in the financing of China-DPRK commodity trade are potential targets of US reprisals.
Having lost patience with China, the Trump administration is studying new steps to starve North Korea of cash for its nuclear program, including an option that would infuriate Beijing: sanctions on Chinese companies that help keep the North’s economy afloat.
The insinuation is crystal clear: curtail your trade with North Korea, or else…
Washington has visibly opted for a coordinated package of sanctions which is intimately related to its global military agenda. Is this sanctions regime a preamble to military action?
From a US foreign policy perspective, China, Russia and Iran constitute a geopolitical “block”. China and Russia are members of the Shanghai Cooperation Agreement (SCO), allies in the fields of trade, energy as well as military cooperation, Iran is slated to become a full member of the SCO.
Economic sanctions are indelibly tied into military and intelligence planning. In many regards the sanctions “package” (in derogation of international law) constitutes an act of war.
Russia and China have a longstanding comprehensive military cooperation agreement. Ironically, barely acknowledged by the Western media, a month prior to the House of Representatives vote, Beijing and Moscow signed (June 29, 2017) a so-called roadmap on military cooperation for 2017-2020, which in essence constitutes a rebuttal to US-NATO threats including the US sanctions regime.
Moreover, both China and Russia have economic as well as defense cooperation agreements with North Korea.
Russia signed in November 2015 an “agreement on the prevention of dangerous military activities” with the DPRK, largely directed against the militarization of the Korean peninsula. In turn, China has a bilateral military cooperation agreement with North Korea which is part of the 1979 Sino-North Korean Mutual Aid and Cooperation Friendship Treaty,
The US sanctions regime is not only directed against those “three plus one” countries, it is also directed against countries which have bilateral trade, investment or military cooperation agreements with China, Russia, Iran and North Korea.
Weakening the European Union
Moreover, the sanctions regime is quite deliberately intended to weaken the European Union, specifically in relation to the sale of Russian natural gas to the EU.
Punitive measures are also envisaged directed against European companies involved in the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project, which is used to transport natural gas from North Western Russia to Germany.
What this suggests is that EU member states which enter into trade with Russia would be subjected to sanctions.
France has raised doubts about “the legitimacy of new US sanctions against Iran and Russia, saying they do not conform to international law due to their extraterritorial reach” (Press TV)
The Pentagon’s Military Agenda
This sanctions package directed against four enemies of America is related (and “supportive”) of US and allied military deployments in major regions of the World:
- Eastern Europe, Scandinavia, Balkans (against Russia),
- Caucasus (against Russia and Iran)
- Syria and Iraq (against Iran and Russia),
- Militarization of the Persian Gulf (against Iran)
- South China Sea (against China as part of the Pivot to Asia)
- East Asia and the Korean peninsula including the THAAD deployment (against North Korea, China and Russia).
Vigilant Shield 07:
Irmingham [Iran], Nemazee [North Korea], Ruebek [Russia], Churya [China]
From a strategic point of view, the Pentagon’s World War III war “scenarios” which have been conducted on regular basis for more than ten years include these four countries, which are now the object of US sanctions.
The details of these WWIII war games scenarios –which involve the use of nuclear weapons– invariably remain classified. In 2006, the Vigilant Shield 2007 war games involving four fictitious countries were leaked to the Washington Post in an article by William Arkin
Vigilant Shield exercise (Vigilant Shield 07), which simulated the outbreak of a major war, contemplated four hypothetical enemies: Ruebek (Russia), Churya (China), Irmingham (Iran) and Nemazee (North Korea).
Examine the details below of the World War Scenario (Road to Conflict). Is there a relationship?
Is the US sanctions regime directed against four countries in any way related to the war games and routine World War III scenarios conducted by the Pentagon against these four countries.
Further analysis is contained in Michel Chossudovsky, Towards a World War III Scenario, The Dangers of Nuclear War, Global Research, (2011) (click cover to order from Global Research)
Irmingham [Iran], Nemazee [North Korea], Ruebek [Russia], Churya [China]
Details and Sequencing: [emphasis added]
“• Road to Conflict (RTC): 11 Sep – 15 Oct 06– Initial Irmingham Enrichment I&W [indications and warning]
– Initial Ruebeki & Irmingham Involvement – Ruebek I&W, PACFLT [U.S. Pacific Fleet] Sub Deployments
– Initial Nemazee ICBM [intercontinental ballistic missile] I&W
– Initial MHLD [homeland defense?] I&W
– Strategic IO [information operations (cyber warfare)] operations (Ruebek & Churya)
– Ruebek & Irmingham Conduct Joint AD [air defense] Exercise• Phase 1 / Deployment: 4 – 8 Dec 06– Rogue LRA [Russian long-range aviation] w/CALCM [conventional air launched cruise missile] Launch
– Continue Monitoring Strategic Situation
– Continue Monitoring Nemazee Situation• Possible Nuclear Testing • Probable ICBM Preparation– Continue Monitoring MHLD Situation• Five VOIs [vessels of interest]
• Churya Flagged VOI into Dutch Harbor Supports BMDS [ballistic missile defense system] Threat to Ft Greely– Continue Monitoring IO Activities
– Nemazee Conducts SLV [space launch vehicle] Launch – 8 Dec 06• Phase 2 Minus 42 Days:• Additional Nemazee ICBM Shipments to Launch Facilities
• RMOB [Russian main operating bases] Acft Conduct LR Navigation Flights
• AS-15 [nuclear armed cruise missile] Handling at RMOBs– Minus 41 Days:
• Additional Nemazee ICBM Preps at Launch Pad # 2
– Minus 40 Days:
• Activity at Nemazee Nuclear Test Facilities
– Minus 35 Days:
• DOS [Department of State] Travel Warning – Minus 30 Days:
• Ruebek LRA Deploys Acft to Anadyr & Vorkuta• Phase 2 Minus 30 Days:• Growing International Condemnation of Ruebek
• Ruebek Deploys Submarines– Minus 20 Days:
• Nemazee Recalls Reservists – Minus 14 Days:
• DOS Draw-down Sequencing
– Minus 13 Days:
• Ruebek Closes US Embassy in Washington DC – Minus 11 Days:
• Nemazee Conducts Fueling of Additional ICBMs
• Ruebeki Presidential Statement on Possible US Attack• Phase 2 Minus 10 Days:• POTUS Addresses Congress on War Powers Act– Minus 6 Days:
• Ruebek President Calls “Situation Grave” – Minus 5 Days:
• CALCM Activity at Anadyr, Vorkuta, and Tiksi
• Ruebeki SS-25 [nuclear armed mobile ICBMs] Conduct out of Garrison Deployments
• Nemazee Assembling ICBM for Probable Launch
– Minus 4 Days:
• Ruebek Closes US Embassy in Washington DC • Ruebek Acft Conduct Outer ADIZ [air defense identification zone] Pentrations
• Mid-Air Collison w/NORAD Acft During ADIZ Penetration• Phase 2 Minus 4 Days:• Nemazee ICBM Launch Azimuth Threatens US– Minus 3 Days:
• NATO Diplomatic Efforts Fail to Diffuse Crisis • USAMB to Ruebek Recalled for Consultation
• POTUS Addresses Nation – Minus 2 Days:
• Nemazee Leadership Movement – Minus 1 Day:
• Ruebek Expels US Mission• Phase 2 / Execution: 10 – 14 Dec 06– Pre-Attack I & W
– Imminent Terrorist Attack on Pentagon Suggests Pentagon COOP [continuity of operations plan]
– Nemazee Conducts 2 x ICBM Combat Launches Against United States
– Ruebek Conducts Limited Strategic Attack on United States
• Wave 1 – 8 x Bear H Defense Suppression w/CALCM
• Wave 2 – Limited ICBM & SLBM Attack
– 2 x ICBM Launched (1 impacts CMOC [Cheyenne Mountain], 1 malfunctions)
– 2 x SLBM Launched Pierside (1 impacts SITE-R [“Raven Rock” bunker on the Maryland-Pennsylvania border], 1 malfunctions)
– 3 x Bear H from Dispersal Bases w/ALCM (Eielson AFB, CANR, Cold Lake)
– US Conducts Limited Retaliatory Attack on Ruebek
• 1 x ICBM C2 Facility
• 1 x ICBM Against ICBM Launch Location
• Phase 2 / Execution:
– Ruebek Prepares Additional Attack on United States
• Wave 3 – Prepares for Additional Strategic Attacks – 1 x ICBM Movement, NO Launch
– 3 x SLBM PACFLT Pierside Missile Handling Activity (NO Launch)
– 6 x BEAR H (launch & RTB [return to base]) w/6 x ALCM (NO launch)”
The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Prof Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2017
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!
No comments:
Post a Comment