Saturday 15 February 2020

SYRIAN ARMY ELIMINATES TURKISH-AFFILIATED FIELD COMMANDER IN SOUTHEAST IDLIB


15.02.2020

The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) has eliminated a military commander of the Turkish-backed National Front for Liberation (NFL), opposition sources revealed on February 15.

The commander, identified by his nom de guerre “Abu Muslim Taoum,” was killed on February 9 in clashes with army units in the town of al-Taliyah in the southeastern Idlib countryside.

Abu Muslim was reportedly the commander of Jaysh al-Ahrar’s Special Forces. The group is one of the key members of the NFL.

Syrian Army Eliminates Turkish-Affiliated Field Commander In Southeast Idlib
Abu Muslim Taoum

Several militants were killed alongside Abu Muslim, three of them were identified by local activists as Abu Mohamad al-Sham, Abu Mohamad al-Hamui and Abu Adana Taftanaz.

Earlier this week, the Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS) neutralized a senior al-Qaeda commander, who was taking part in a Turkish-led attack on SAA positions in western Aleppo.

Turkish-backed militants and al-Qaeda-affiliated groups in Greater Idlib have been fighting side by side against the SAA for more than a year now. Turkey is now reportedly providing all of them with military support.

More on this topic:

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Kissing International Law Goodbye to Satisfy Israeli Greed

Passionate Zionist’ Boris Johnson and his lieutenants speak with forked tongue on Palestinian rights and sovereignty. And the small matter of justice simply isn’t in their playbook.
Image result for Kissing International Law Goodbye to Satisfy Israeli Greed
By Stuart Littlewood
Palestinian chiefs say that Trump’s so-called peace plan contains 300 violations of international law and they will take it up with the Security Council. That’s nearly two violations per page. Given the document was put together by America and Israel, both lawless and criminal to the core, no-one is surprised. It is a brazen expression of criminal intent from start to finish.
In the UK our new Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab, has shot to prominence.  We’re told he spent the summer of 1998 at Birzeit University (in Palestine’s West Bank) working for one of the PLO’s chief negotiators on the Oslo peace accords. That doomed-to-fail initiative began in 1993 and created a form of interim governance and the framework for a final treaty by the end of 1998. So Mr Raab was there at a time when the two sides had been faffing about for 5 years achieving nothing.
In October 1998 the US, desperate to keep the charade going, convened a summit at Maryland’s Wye River Plantation at which Clinton with Yasser Arafat, Benjamin Netanyahu, and senior negotiators produced the Wye River Memorandum. Not that this did much good either. But Raab must have learned a lot about Israeli perversity and intransigence, not to mention America’s shortcomings as an honest broker.
Before entering Parliament Raab joined the Foreign Office and worked at the The Hague bringing war criminals to justice, then became an adviser on the Arab-Israeli conflict. But you wouldn’t think so when looking at his latest performances.
As reported in Jewish News Raab welcomed Trump’s so-called peace plan calling it “a serious proposal, reflecting extensive time and effort. A peace agreement between Israelis and Palestinians that leads to peaceful coexistence could unlock the potential of the entire region, and provide both sides with the opportunity for a brighter future. Only the leaders of Israel and the Palestinian territories can determine whether these proposals can meet the needs and aspirations of the people they represent.
“We encourage them to give these plans genuine and fair consideration, and explore whether they might prove a first step on the road back to negotiations.”
His boss Boris Johnson said of it: “No peace plan is perfect, but this has the merit of a two-state solution. It is a two-state solution. It would ensure that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and of the Palestinian people.” A fatuous remark if ever there was one because (a) he clearly hadn’t read it carefully, (b) the Palestinians weren’t consulted, and (c) as Jewish News stated, a Palestinian capital would be established on the outskirts of East Jerusalem while most of Jerusalem, including the sublime and ancient walled city (which is officially Palestinian), would remain under Israeli control. That is perhaps the cruellest part of the Zionist swindle.
UK Government a ‘Force for Good’?
In the Global Britain debate on 3 February Raab pompously declared that “the third pillar of our global Britain will be the UK as an even stronger force for good in the world. Our guiding lights will remain the values of democracy, human rights and the international rule of law”.
But Alistair Carmichael (LibDem) pricked Raab’s pretty balloon, asking: “If the concept of a global Britain is to have any meaning and value, surely it must have respect for human rights and an international rules-based order at its heart. With that in mind, will the Foreign Secretary reconsider the unqualified support he gave to President Trump last week in respect of the so-called peace plan for Palestine? Will the right hon. Gentleman repudiate the proposed annexation of the West Bank and at long last support the recognition of a Palestinian state?”
Raab replied: “I gently say to the right hon. Gentleman that I do not think he has read the detail of this. Whatever else he may disagree with, the one thing that the plan put forward by the US included was a recognition of and commitment to a two-state solution. We have been absolutely clear that that is the only way in which the conflict can be resolved…. Rather than just rejecting the plan, it is important that we try to bring the parties together around the negotiating table. That is the only path to peace and to a two-state solution.”
I’d have expected Raab, by now, to be extremely sceptical of any two-state solution given the many irreversible facts on the ground that Israel has been allowed to create with impunity. And he would know better than most how many times the sides have come to the table for grotesquely lopsided negotiations and how the Israelis never honour the agreements they make.
Raab won the Clive Parry Prize for International Law while at Cambridge. So if he’s so wedded to the values of democracy, human rights and the international rule of law, why are these vital ingredients missing from his recipe for peace? It must be obvious to everyone – except Government ministers – that you cannot achieve peace without justice. And justice in the form of UN resolutions and international and humanitarian law has already spoken several times. It waits… and waits… and waits… to be implemented.
Then we had Dr Andrew Murrison, Minister of State for International Development & the Middle East, in answer to a written question: “We have made clear our deep concern about the suggestion that any parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territories should be annexed…. Any declaration of a unilateral border change undermines the rules-based international order and the UN Charter. The UK calls on all parties to refrain from actions in contravention of international law that would imperil the viability of a two-state solution, based on the 1967 lines, and make it harder to achieve a just and lasting peace.”
Dr Murrison can’t have been paying attention. Illegal border changes departing from 1947 Partition lines and 1967 lines, annexations and other actions in contempt of international law and the UN Charter have been going on for 70 years simply because none of those pillars of modern civilisation have been enforced where Israel’s concerned. Rules-based international order has been constantly undermined and is now non-existent in the Holy Land.
The question is, what does the UK Government, which is largely responsible for this sorry state of affairs, going to do about it besides mouthing the usual limp-wristed idiocy? Is the Johnson administration happy, in George Orwell’s words, for the US-UK-Israeli boot to stamp on the human face of the Palestinians for ever?
BDS targeted
And as if the Holy Land fiasco wasn’t enough we must put up with crass ministerial utterances on the home front. Robert Jenrick, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities & Local Government, complains that only 136 of the 343 local authorities in England have agreed to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism and insists that all universities and local councils “must adopt” it. If they don’t, and they fail to tackle anti-Semitism, they can expect to lose public funding.
According to the Jewish Chronicle he vowed to take action against universities and “parts of local government” who have become “corrupted” by anti-Semitism. Writing in the Sunday Express, he added: “I will use my position as Secretary of State to write to all universities and local authorities to insist that they adopt the IHRA definition at the earliest opportunity. I expect them to confirm to me when they do so.”
Jenrick qualified as a lawyer so should respect warnings by top legal opinion (for example Hugh Tomlinson QC, Sir Stephen Sedley and Geoffrey Robertson QC) that the IHRA definition is “most unsatisfactory”, has no legal force, and using it to punish could be unlawful. It also undermines Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 10 of the UK’s own Human Rights Act 1998.
But Jenrick seems to have aligned himself with sinister moves by Johnson aimed at protecting Israel from the consequences of its countless breaches of international law and crimes against the Palestinians by banning public bodies from imposing their own boycotts, disinvestment or sanctions (BDS). What could any decent administration possibly fear from BDS? It is simply a peaceful response to Israel’s thuggery. It urges non-violent pressure on Israel until it complies with international law by meeting three perfectly reasonable demands:
  • Ending its unlawful occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall (international law recognises the West Bank including East Jerusalem, Gaza and the Syrian Golan Heights as occupied by Israel).
  • Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality.
  • Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194.
So how is Boris Johnson proposing to block BDS? Briefing notes accompanying the Queen’s Speech to Parliament, which set out his Government’s programme, said:
  • We will stop public institutions from imposing their own approach or views about international relations, through preventing boycotts, divestment or sanctions campaigns against foreign countries and those who trade with them.
  • This will create a coherent approach to foreign relations from all public institutions, by ensuring that they do not go beyond the UK Government’s settled policy towards a foreign country. The UK Government is responsible for foreign relations and determining the best way to interact with its international neighbours.
The ban will apply to institutions across the public sector, not just councils, and will cover purchasing, procurement and investment decisions.
Johnson and his underlings just don’t get it. BDS is a legitimate, peaceful way of opposing the Israel’s illegal occupation. Put simply, as long as the Occupation is business as usual for Israel, there should be no business with Israel.  Furthermore the foreign policies of successive UK governments have not met with the approval of the British people, and never will with US-Israel pimps dictating at Westminster.
If the Government’s “settled policy” towards Israel was consistent with international law and human rights conventions – as it should be – there’d be no need for BDS campaigns because the UK would already be applying sanctions. Furthermore the Conservatives’ election manifesto pledged to “ensure that no one is put off from engaging in politics…. by threats, harassment or abuse, whether in person or online”. They also promised to champion the rule of law, human rights, free trade, anti-corruption efforts and a rules-based international system – all of which Israel refuses to comply with.
Yet, only last month Jenrick announced to a Conservative Friends of Israel parliamentary reception that he would “look forward to the day” when Britain’s embassy in Israel will be “moved to Jerusalem”. And he told the Board of Deputies of British Jews he would not tolerate local authority approved BDS campaigns in the UK. “Local authorities should not be wasting time and taxpayer’s money by dabbling in foreign policy or pursuing anti-Israel political obsessions.”
By the same token one might ask why the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government is wasting time and taxpayers’ money dabbling in foreign policy and advocating on behalf of a foreign military power? It’s not in his job spec.
Kenrick has an Israeli-born wife and is a member of Conservative Friends of Israel. Before he tries ordering local authorities what to think and do he should have the courtesy to declare these interests. According to the Guardian he’s an MP who is “on the up”. Heaven help us.
Johnson is expected to hold a Cabinet reshuffle this week. His administration is already top-heavy with Zionists and, as 80 percent of Conservative MPs are reportedly signed-up Friends of Israel, there’s no shortage of compliant stooge material to fill even more top posts.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Erdogan’s Long-Coming Reality Check:


February 14, 2020
by Ghassan Kadi for The Saker Blog
It is hard to say if Erdogan is running out of choices, friends, time, or all of the above; and his stands on various issues and the contradictions he ploughs through are making his situation increasingly untenable.
For the benefit of readers who haven’t heard this before; Erdogan is juggling being a Turkish Muslim reformer who parades under the photos of Turkish secular anti-Muslim nation-builder Mustafa Kemal; an EU-aspiring member and also an aspiring global Sunni leader; an ally of Israel as well as Hamas; an Islamist who is also at odds with the Wahhabi Islamists; a nationalist Turk who wants to curb Kurdish aspirations not only in Syria and Iraq but also in Turkey; a Sunni leader who wants to restore the Sultanate and Caliphate and the fundamentalist Sunni version of anti-Shiite Islam but is also a friend of Shiite Iran; a NATO member with a special relationship with America, and a special friend and ally of Russia.
Ironically, despite all the contradictions and conflicts of interest, he has thus far managed to get away with wearing not only all those hats, but also turbans and fezzes in between. Clearly however, this maneuvering cannot last forever and, sooner or later, he is going to end up painted into a tight corner. I certainly would like to believe that he is already in this space.
Erdogan however believes that he has a mandate from God. Following his November 2015 election win, in an article titled “Erdogan the Trojan Horse of Terror” (https://thesaker.is/erdogan-the-trojan-horse-of-terror/), I wrote: “With this win, Erdogan felt invincible. For an Islamist, and this is what Erdogan is, feeling invincible takes on a whole new meaning.
This is a simplistic translation of a Quranic verse: “If God is by your side, no one can defeat you” (Quran 3:160).
Erdogan believes he is invincible because he believes that he is on a mission and that God is by his side. If he had any reason to doubt this divine role he believes he has, the November election results put that doubt to rest.”
Ironically, Erdogan is able to comprehend the contradictions of others. Whilst America for example does not give two hoots about the Syrian Kurds and is only using some vulnerable leaders to dig a wedge between the Syrian Government and the Syrian Kurdish population, Erdogan has most vehemently stated to both the Obama and Trump administrations that America cannot be an ally of Turkey and the Kurds at the same time.
Yet, this same Erdogan justifies for himself the supplying of Idlib terrorists with state-of-the-art weaponry to attack not only Syrian Army units with, but also the Russian Hmeimim Air Base. The Russians have thus far thwarted countless attempted drone attacks on the base, and if Turkey did not directly supply the weapons, it definitely facilitated their transport.
Remember that the Idlib area that is controlled by Tahrir al-Sham (formerly known as Al-Nusra) lies between the Syrian-Army controlled area and the Turkish border. It has an open highway to Turkey where all arms and fighters move freely from Turkey into Syria.
And even though Erdogan has signed an agreement with Russia to end the terrorist presence in Idlib, according to veteran Palestinian journalist Abdul Bari Atwan, he does not want to understand why Russia is fed up with him and his antics and why President Putin is refusing to meet with him. In his article written in Raialyoum https://www.raialyoum.com/index.php/لماذا-يرفض-بوتين-لقاء-قمة-مع-اردوغان-لح/, Atwan argues that the Russians refuse Erdogan’s call for a new disengagement negotiation meeting and that Turkey must adhere to the existing Sochi agreement; which it has broken on several occasions by Erdogan.
Atwan adds that:
Firstly: “the Turkish gamble and reliance on Syrian opposition and the Free Syria Army in particular have failed because those forces abandoned their positions and the Syrian Army entered the towns of Khan Sheikhoun and Maarra Al-Numan unopposed without suffering a single casualty
Secondly: The 12 Turkish surveillance posts that were established in the Idlib district have turned into a liability because seven of them are under siege by the Syrian Army with a hundred Turkish soldiers trapped in each and can easily be destroyed by the Syrian Army in case Turkey launches a major offensive against Syria.
Thirdly: Russian support to the Syrian Army has reached an unprecedented level after the Russians shot down two drones launched by Tahrir Al-Sham yesterday” (ie the 10th of February 2020).
In addition, according to Atwan, “Erdogan missed a golden opportunity when he refused the (recent) Iranian initiative proposed to him by Iranian FM, Zarif, to find a political resolution for the impasse with Syria, and this was perhaps the last opportunity to reach a diplomatic resolution before a direct open confrontation with Syria”
In a Financial Times article titled “Testing Times for Erdogan and Putin” https://www.ft.com/content/cbe31640-4726-11ea-aeb3-955839e06441, the author is a tad short of saying that the relationship between Erdogan and Putin is irreconcilable. According to him, “If Turkey’s president Recep Tayyip Erdogan was looking for a way to convey his anger at Russia over the death of eight of his country’s troops in Syria, a visit to Ukraine provided the perfect opportunity.
At a guard of honour at the presidential palace in Kyiv on Monday, Mr Erdogan shouted “Glory to Ukraine”, a nationalist slogan deeply associated with anti-Russia sentiment and the country’s fight for independence after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
His carefully chosen words — to an army battling Russia-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine — were a clear rebuke to President Vladimir Putin”.
In all of this, what Erdogan needs more than anything, is a long-coming reality check, and it seems more forthcoming than ever.
He may believe that he is a president for life who deserves the purportedly one thousand room palace he built for himself. He may hope to rebuild the Ottoman Empire and resurrect the Caliphate. He may imagine that, having been able to build up the Turkish economy to a level that has earnt a position in the G20, he has become the leader of a super power; but he has not. Turkey is at best a regional power, but it is only powerful if it has more powerful friends and allies to back it up. For as long as Turkey has to literally beg the Russians and/or the Americans to buy state-of-the-art weapons to defend itself with, then it is not in a position that allows it to stand on its own feet; not in the manner that Erdogan wishes it to stand. He should take heed and look at history. Mehmet Al-Fatih built his own guns to breakdown the defence walls of Constantinople. Even though the engineer who built them was from the Balkans, but they were Mehmet’s guns and they were the biggest in the world at the time.
I am not advocating that Erdogan should build his own nuclear arsenal, fighter jets and defence and attack missiles. In the ideal world, no one should. But to add to his list of contradictions, if Erdogan wants to wear the Turban of the Sultan, huff and puff at Russia, he cannot be riding Don Quixote’s donkey at the same time.
And if he thinks that he can now make a U-turn and be the loyal NATO leader and dump Russia, he will find himself again facing the same impasse he had with the Americans over the Kurdish issue. Furthermore, what will this do to his trade deals with Russia and his gas supplies?
And if Erdogan also thinks that America would come forward to save him in Idlib, one would have to remember that the illegal American presence in North East Syria is hundreds of kilometres away from Idlib and separated by the Russian-backed Syrian Army. Why would America, even Trump’s America, risk a confrontation with Russia to save his hide?
Erdogan has thus far evaded Karma because he has been hedging his bets in all directions, working up his enemies and allies against each other. But unless one is powerful enough to stand on his own feet when he needs to, then such a strategy in the long run can only leave one with no friends, a long list of enemies and a hoard of untrusting onlookers.
Above all, what do Turkish people want from the Turkish presence in Syria? Turkey hasn’t been at war for a whole century. The leader that once promised “zero problems” with neighbours is digging in his heels and seems determined to engage in an all-out war with Syria. The average Turkish citizen may ask why and to what end?
Erdogan has hopefully finally wedged himself into a corner that he cannot weasel his way out of without losing face. He will either have to bolster his military presence in Syria and fight the Syrian Army and Russia, or back off. If he takes the former option, he will not find any international supporters, and possibly the support of his own people will become questionable. But if the psychopathic, megalomaniac feels that he has to retreat, he will be scrambling for a face-saving exit, and the options are running out.
Russia was prepared to put the deliberate Turkish downing of the Su-24 in November 2015 behind and move forward. A lifeline was given to Erdogan back then, based on the promises he made and the later agreements he signed. But time proved that he was only looking for buying time, and that window with Russia is up.
Body bags have already been sent to Turkey and there are unconfirmed figures of how many Turkish soldiers have been killed defending Al-Nusra fighters. What is pertinent here is that, in the event of an all-out war with Syria, Syrians will be fighting an existential battle, aided by Russia and regional allies. Turkey however, will be fighting a different type of existential battle; one for Erdogan, not for Turkey itself.
Turkey has no reason for having a military presence and fight in Syria. It is only Erdogan’s ego and dreams that do.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

IRGC Aerospace Forces Commander’s debriefing about Iran’s strike against Al-Assad US Airbase


Author: lecridespeuples
Translation: resistancenews.org
Transcript:
The assassination of the martyr Hajj Qassem Soleimani was one of the greatest strategic mistakes in the history of the United States. These strikes were only the beginning of considerable transformations and developments in the region and around the world.
The vengeance of the blood of the martyr Soleimani and our other dear martyrs lies in the triggering of a phase which had to be implemented (sooner or later). As the Supreme Leader Sayed Khamenei said, May God preserve him, ‘The revenge for the blood of the martyrs will drive the US forces out of the region.’ Our missile strikes against one of the most important American bases in the framework of our ‘Operation Martyr Soleimani’ were the start of a major operation that will continue throughout the whole region.
This operation was somewhat different from our previous operations targeting ISIS, which were unilateral operations in which we targeted the various terrorist groups without facing any response from the enemy. But in this strike against the United States, our perspective was different, and we were almost certain to be attacked. This is why all of our units were on high alert, ready to face the enemy, and at least ready for a limited war; and we had also prepared for a large-scale war. So all our units in the various divisions were ready to move on to the next operations in the event of an American response, namely to bomb all the American bases in Iraq and in the countries of the region.
For this operation against the al-Assad base, the choice of the target was very important for us, and in the early morning (following the day of the martyrdom), we were able to identify the bases which were involved in the terrorist operation which caused the martyrdom of the Commander of the al -Quds Forces of the IRGC.
These were the bases of al-Taji (located near Baghdad), Ayn Al-Assad (180 km from Baghdad), the martyr Mowaffaq base in Jordan, and the Ali Al-Salem base in Kuwait. All these bases participated in this joint terrorist operation which was carried out with the help of units located there.
The first option for us in this revenge was the al-Taji base, but a few hours before the operation, we changed the target and chose Ayn al-Assad.
The reason is that the Taji base was close to Baghdad and the Kadhimiya mausoleum, and that it is a common base for both Iraqi and American forces. In addition, we feared that missile attacks and explosions would disturb civilians. So we chose Ayn al-Assad, the largest American military base in Iraq and even in the entire region.
The targets we chose were aimed at hitting the American war machine, the American Command Control Center, American planes, American helicopters and a group of facilities that they used as ammunition depots or for support and maintenance, which was considered the first strike of the operation.
But we were ready to continue the operation, depending on the reaction of the enemy. Without reaction from the US, our attack would have been limited to Iraq and the targeted US bases in Iraq. But in the event of an American response, these operations would have been extended to include American bases in other countries in the region.
The al-Assad base, which has been targeted by Revolutionary Guard missiles, is the largest US base in Iraq, and the most distant from Iran.
We used missiles with a range of 500 km for Operation Martyr Soleimani; during the attack, we used Fateh-313 missiles and long-range missiles such as the Intifada missile with a range of 700 km.
The affected facilities and equipment, such as helicopters and the helicopter maintenance unit, were completely destroyed. The operation was not intended to kill soldiers, and that is why we did not target the barracks and did not seek to deliver a fatal blow. We targeted American military vehicles and destroyed the Command Control Center, its assets and key facilities.
Their Command Center has been destroyed and there are certainly many casualties.
Our main objective was to instill insecurity and terror in their hearts, but if they persist (to occupy our region), other places will be targeted.
It was one of the most strategic American bases in Iraq, six kilometers wide by eight kilometers in length, and the current President visited it recently because it was well-equipped and safe.
Despite their so-called missile shield systems, all of our missiles were fired (and hit their target), and no antimissile missiles were fired at our missiles.
Yes, it is interesting to note that the Americans did not fire a single shot on our missiles which hit all of their targets with precision.
Although they had a large number of planes and defensive equipment around the base of Ain al-Assad, they could not confront us.
The President said that everything is fine and that there are no losses, while the United States did not allow journalists to film the base and assess the damage. The Pentagon said it was assessing the losses.

All is well! Missiles launched from Iran at two military bases located in Iraq. Assessment of casualties & damages taking place now. So far, so good! We have the most powerful and well equipped military anywhere in the world, by far! I will be making a statement tomorrow morning.

306K people are talking about this

It was a slap from Iran in the face of the United States, in a preliminary response to their crime. Resistance movements in the region must take additional punitive measures.
The balance of losses is unknown. We are very pessimistic towards the enemy, and if they make the slightest mistake, our response will certainly not be as modest as this strike; on the contrary, our response will certainly be decisive.
It was a major operation, disarming one of its largest military bases, and there obviously were some fatalities. The operation is modest compared to the (value of the) blood of the martyr Soleimani and the other martyrs, and the price of this martyrdom will be the expulsion of the United States from the region. But militarily, it was a very large and very complex operation.
The Americans were not ready to respond to the attack, as their statements reveal. They strove to overcome this crisis without losing face. Beforehand, they had threatened us and said they would destroy 52 major Iranian targets in the event of an Iranian retaliatory strike to the killing of martyr Soleimani, but they dared not do anything.


….hundreds of Iranian protesters. He was already attacking our Embassy, and preparing for additional hits in other locations. Iran has been nothing but problems for many years. Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have…..
….targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!

125K people are talking about this

Since the Second World War, there has been no open attack by a State against the Americans or their interests. No formal military action has been taken against the United States since the Second World War. We have clearly demonstrated that those days are over, and that the decision to strike directly at the United States had been taken unanimously within the country and forces of the Resistance Axis. Thank God the operation was carried out with great care and success. Supreme Revolution Leader Sayed Khamenei also said that if they bombed any target, we would hit ten targets in retaliation. And this round ended like this (because the United States chickened out).
The Islamic Republic of Iran, the United States and the region are entering a new phase. We must be convinced that the future will see major upheavals that no one can ignore. In my opinion, the very will to carry out this operation was more important than the operation itself.
Five minutes after the operation, we launched a major electronic war, hacking American drones flying over the area. We chased them and cut the video and communications links, and it was a big blow for them because they were a great many.
We fired four missiles at other American bases in Iraq, but we were ready to launch several hundred missiles within an hour or two. We thought this conflict could last two to three days to a week (if it did not spread to an all-out war) if the two sides exercised restraint, and that is why we also prepared our special missiles.
We did not seek to kill anyone in the operation, but dozens were killed and others were injured, some of whom were evacuated from Iraq by planes. If we had wanted to kill American soldiers, we would have designed the operation differently. We could have killed at least 500 soldiers in the first salvo, and if they had fired back, we would have changed our strategy and no longer felt any obligation to spare the lives of American forces, and in the second and third salvo, more than 5,000 people would have been killed in two hours.
When asked why the Americans did not launch a war against Iran, the Commander of the IRGC’s Aerospace Forces replied:
They conduct their politics through propaganda, intimidation and media operations. They will definitely win against disarming countries, but they cannot win against a country like Iran. Because the Islamic Republic of Iran is a big & strong country.
If the Americans are to achieve any goals of theirs in Iran, given Iran’s vast territory, they will need to strike thousands of points, including military bases, and oil and economic facilities. Iran for its part has only to focus on specific areas to target, namely a handful of American bases that can be likened to prisons in the sense that the American forces are gathered there (and cannot flee anywhere). The largest of them was Ayn al-Assad, with an area of ​​50 square kilometers, so their military and human positions (in our sights) are very clear, and we can destroy them with a limited number of missiles and offensive capabilities.
The Americans had created security for themselves by intimidating others, but that security has disappeared. Today, the security and the spirit (of impunity and conquest) of the US army have disappeared.
The American people waste their lives and spend all their money so that American officials devote part of it to electoral campaigns and another to support the Zionist entity, which means that the Zionists live from the pockets of the American people. But they should know that these expenses have so far been unprofitable. It is in their interest to leave the region at the lowest possible cost. They must leave voluntarily from Iraq, Afghanistan and the Arab countries. What I know about the Resistance and the forces that are forming and regrouping in the region is that if the Americans don’t leave the region by themselves, they will suffer major losses (that will force them out).
The United States has defined the Arab Gulf States as vital points for them. I invite the countries of the region to follow the example of the decision of the Iraqi Parliament and the Iraqi people to order the United States to withdraw from their country. Similarly, the Kuwaitis, the Qataris, Oman, the Afghans and the United Arab Emirates must decide to expel the United States; because if they don’t, the Resistance movements will take the decision and the Americans will have to leave the region (by force).
Donate as little as you can to support this work and subscribe to the Newsletter to get around censorship.
“Any amount counts, because a little money here and there, it’s like drops of water that can become rivers, seas or oceans…” Hassan Nasrallah

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!