ANNUAL ADVERTISING RATES FOR INSURE-DIGEST

Annual Advertisement Rates
Showing posts with label Middle East. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Middle East. Show all posts

Friday, January 10, 2020

Lebanon: 'We are in a dark tunnel': Lebanese fear economic collapse more than the Iran-U.S. conflict

Lebanon has too much history perched on the edge of wider regional conflicts to be too rattled by fears of another one between the U.S. and Iran. As Margaret Evans reports, what people fear most is an economic collapse.

Insure-Digest

Wednesday, January 1, 2020

Middle East: U.S. troops in Syria heading to Iraq, not home as Trump claims

U.S. President Donald Trump insists he's bringing home Americans from "endless wars" in the Mideast, but his Pentagon chief says all U.S. troops leaving Syria will go to western Iraq, and the U.S. military will continue operations against ISIS.

Read more at:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/u-s-troops-syria-heading-to-iraq-1.5328549

Sunday, November 10, 2019

Iran-Oil Reserves: Iran says it has discovered a massive new oil field with 50B barrels

Iran has discovered a new oil field in the country's south with over 50 billion barrels of crude oil, its president said Sunday, a find that could boost the country's proven reserves by a third as it struggles to sell energy abroad over U.S. sanctions.

The announcement by Hassan Rouhani comes as Iran faces crushing American sanctions after the U.S. pulled out of its nuclear deal with world powers last year.

Rouhani made the announcement Sunday in a speech in the desert city of Yazd. He said the field was located in Iran's southern Khuzestan province, home to its crucial oil industry.

Read more at: Iran says it has discovered a massive new oil field with 50B barrels | CBC News

Wednesday, September 18, 2019

IRAN: The Real Reason Trump Won’t Attack Iran – Emily Meierding

A war in the Persian Gulf would profoundly destabilize the global oil system. If the Trump administration strikes Iran, unilaterally or in conjunction with Saudi Arabia, and targets the state’s oil facilities, these attacks will take more resources offline. Although Iran’s oil output has declined significantly since the United States reimposed sanctions in 2018, the country still produces more than 2 million barrels of oil per day and exports about half a million barrels per day of petroleum products and liquefied petroleum gas to a variety of resource consumers.  Airstrikes would remove these supplies for the market, while other oil producers are struggling to compensate for the loss of Saudi resources.

Unsurprisingly, Chinese and European officials have adopted a cautious attitude toward the crisis. Although China’s foreign ministry condemned the attack, spokesperson Hua Chunying advised the parties “to avoid taking actions that bring about an escalation in regional tensions.” She also refrained from attributing responsibility for the strikes to a specific actor. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson pushed for an international response to the attacks. However, they also emphasized the “importance of avoiding the further escalation of tensions in the region.” Given this reticence, if the United States wants to strike Iran, it will have to go it alone.

Starting a war to protect oil markets will only backfire for the US.

Read more: The Real Reason Trump Won’t Attack Iran – Foreign Policy

Support EU-Digest, which has reported the news without any political affiliation since 2004, and opposes those who seek to discredit and even destroy news organizations who believe in the right of a free Press. You can do that by investing in an advertisement in EU-Digest, or by giving a donation to keep our efforts going : to donate or advertise and pay by credit card, click on: https://www.paypal.com/webapps/hermes?token=8BP18304C1657151J&useraction=commit&mfid=1567106786154_8591ae1288ebf  

Sunday, June 23, 2019

USA,: Trumps economic plan for Mideast met widespread rejection

Trump's economic plan for Mideast peace met with widespread rejection

The Digest Group                   
Almere-Digest
EU-Digst
Insure-Digest 
Turkish-Digest 

For additional information, including advertising rates - e-mail: Freeplanet@protonmail.com

Sunday, May 12, 2019

Sunday, January 13, 2019

Middle East: Israel strikes Iranian targets in Syria

Netanyahu confirms air strikes on Iranian targets in Syria Israel acknowledged on Sunday that it carried out a weekend air strike on what it called an Iranian arms cache in Syria.

Saturday, December 29, 2018

Middle East: A new direction for the Middle East in the vacuum left behind by Trump

Read more at:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/russia-to-host-putin-erdogan-rouhani-summit-on-syria/

Friday, December 14, 2018

EU -Turkey-Russian Energy Cooperation: "Politics can make strange bedfellows" - Russia’s Gas Strategy Gets Help From Turkey - by Marc Pierini

Politics/Energy can make strange bedfellows
It was November 19 in Istanbul. There, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan held a ceremony marking the completion of the first underwater segment of the Turkish Stream gas pipeline, linking Russia to Turkey’s European shores. The project is a vivid illustration of Moscow’s strategy to strengthen its position in supplying gas to Europe while reducing its reliance on the Ukrainian transit corridor.

For Ankara, the project is a symbol of Turkey’s independent decisionmaking and of the country’s significance in the wider region. Seen from Ankara, Turkish Stream serves a political purpose. It celebrates the blossoming friendship between Turkey and Russia and confirms Ankara’s ambition to be part of the solution to major international issues—in this case, securing the gas needs for a large part of the EU. 

However, Turkish Stream will also increase Ankara’s dependence on Moscow for its energy needs.

The project’s second meaning is that Turkey is contributing to an essential element of Russia’s multi-pronged, long-term strategy of remaining Europe’s major gas supplier, while creating a “third gas corridor” in addition to the Ukrainian and Baltic Sea supply routes. This strategy is unfolding on several fronts: in Ukraine; in the Baltic Sea; and through future extensions of Turkish Stream to southern and central Europe (toward Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary, Slovakia, and to Greece and Italy.)  

This Russian strategy has raised continuous opposition from the United States.

It is also worth noting that Turkish Stream is not part of the EU’s Energy Union plans since it does not contribute to diversification of supplies. In fact, it will rather reinforce Russia’s market  predominance in both Turkey and the EU.

In Ukraine, the multi-pipeline network channeling Russian gas to Western Europe will remain a vital link. But reducing its use could inflict massive losses in terms of transit costs for authorities in Kiev, which is part of Russia’s strategy in Ukraine.

Much will depend on negotiations for the extension of the Russia-Ukraine commercial agreement, which will end in 2019. To help alleviate Kiev’s concerns, Germany has made the continuation of transit via Ukraine an ingredient of a final agreement on Nord Stream 2, the latter being the subject of controversies within the EU.

The Russian strategy is in no way limited to selling Russian gas on the European continent. It extends much further afield in the wider Eastern Mediterranean region.

Egypt is a case in point.

Following the massive discoveries in the so-called Zohr field to the north and east of the Nile River delta, Russia bought a 30 percent stake from the Italian energy group ENI in 2016 with the consent of the Italian government, which Moscow has had a long and close relationship with. The official reason for the sale was the need for ENI to spread the risk of its Egyptian operation.

Similarly, offshore gas discoveries in Lebanese waters have attracted Russian interest— although drilling off Lebanon is largely dominated by France’s TOTAL and Italy’s ENI, who have a 40 percent share each. Russia’s NOVATEK has bought a 20 percent stake.

Russia has also made moves to control both the oil and gas sector in Syria, despite the ongoing war. The actual effect of these recent maneuvers will very much depend on the final political arrangement expected to end the almost eight-year-old civil war. Many of Syria’s oil and gas fields are located north and east of the Euphrates River, currently outside the control of regime forces. In addition, for reasons linked to the ongoing naval military activities, no offshore exploration has yet taken place in Syrian waters.

In Iraq, Russia is involved in pipeline deals in the Kurdistan region through a number of oil and gas companies, although the actual exports would have to take place through Turkish territory or possibly even through Syria in the distant future.

Such an ambitious Russia strategy is justified by Europe’s gas market fundamentals.

A stronger demand for gas in Europe is good for Russia. According to Oxford Energy, gas demand in Europe (Turkey and non-EU Eastern Europe included, except Serbia) has started rising again for three consecutive years—in 2015, 2016, and 2017—to reach a level of 548 billion cubic meters (bcm), due to continued economic recovery, the impacts of climate change, and the increased use of gas by the power sector. The trend seems to be continuing in 2018.

According to the Finnish Institute for International Affairs, Russia took advantage of several factors: economic recovery and decreasing gas production in the EU, lower Russian selling prices, and the current limited availability of non-Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG) on the European market.

In addition, preexisting disputes between the EU and Russia (including an antitrust investigation against Gazprom, and a Russian complaint at the WTO) have been resolved, signaling that commercial interests on both sides have prevailed, despite a less-than-optimal political climate.

In such an environment, Russia is in a strong position to keep dominating gas supplies to the EU, 
which amounted to 40 percent of extra-EU imports in 2016—although new developments could upset the current situation, such as a rapid development of LNG exports to Europe from other sources.

LNG imports amounted to only 14 percent of total extra-EU gas imports in 2017, with the main supplies coming from Qatar (41 percent), Nigeria (19 percent), and Algeria (17 percent).

In this wider context, and seen from Brussels, Turkish Stream—with a final projected capacity to deliver 31.5 bcm/y, of which 15.75 bcm/y would go to Europe —is a relatively small component of the wider gas supply chain to the EU. In fact, it would represent just over 6 percent of the EU’s imports at 2017 levels.

Yet, seen from Moscow, the pipeline is potentially a significant addition to Russia’s capabilities to export gas to Europe (Turkey included). Assuming that Turkish Stream’s second phase will be completed and operational, it would represent between 16 and 19 percent of Russian sales to the EU and Turkey (at 2017 levels and all other factors remaining unchanged).

In that sense, the ceremony on November 19 in Istanbul was more than just another photo opportunity. It was a symbol of the success of Russia’s objectives in the wider Western European area, with Turkey’s help. 

Together with Russia’s S-400 missile deal with Turkey, it was a symbol of how efficiently Moscow has been using Ankara’s relative diplomatic isolation to its advantage. For Ankara, this was another way of telling the world: Turkey matters.

Read more: Russia’s Gas Strategy Gets Help From Turkey - Carnegie Europe - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Sunday, November 18, 2018

Middle East: Saudi Arabia and U.S. on collision course as Mohammed bin Salman's standing ebbs

Trump has pledged that he won’t whitewash the murder and that the United States will do what’s necessary regarding whoever was involved, though he hasn’t mentioned Prince Mohammed’s name. The time to cash the check has come earlier than Trump expected. 

Saudi Arabia tried last week to lighten the load for the president by announcing the arrests of 21 suspects and the indictment of 15, while the attorney general said he would demand the death penalty for five, though he didn’t provide any names. 

Earlier King Salman fired Ahmed al-Asiri, the deputy intelligence chief, and Saud al-Qahtani, Mohammed’s senior adviser. In so doing the king set a ceiling on how high the punishment could go. But now it seems there will be no choice but to examine his own son’s future. 

According to The Washington Post, Prince Mohammed’s brother Khalid, the Saudi ambassador to Washington, was the one who phoned Khashoggi and encouraged him to go to the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul. The prince’s adviser and aide, intelligence man Maher Abdulaziz Mutrib, allegedly led the ring and after the murder phoned Qahtani and asked him to tell the boss that it was mission accomplished. 

Mutrib didn’t explicitly say the boss’ name but Qahtani has only one boss and that’s Prince Mohammed. The Saudi ambassador has strongly denied having any telephone conversation with Khashoggi, and a Post reporter has written that their last meeting came in 2017; afterward they corresponded several times. The top Saudi prosecutor said Thursday that Khashoggi was murdered by a “lethal injection” and that his body was dismembered, with his organs handed to someone outside the consulate for disposal.

Read moire: Saudi Arabia and U.S. on collision course as Mohammed bin Salman's standing ebbs - Middle East News - Haaretz.com

Wednesday, August 8, 2018

Middle East: Iran - US Relations: Donald Trump bullies rest of world they must choose between trade with US or Iran - by Bethan McKernan

European companies should still be able to trade with Iran despite new US sanctions, according to minister of state for the Middle East, Alaistair Burt.

Donald Trump tweeted “anyone doing business with Iran will NOT be doing business with the United States”.

The EU has launched a “blocking statute”, designed to allow companies within the bloc to sue the Trump administration, if they are adversely affected by US sanctions, and has encouraged member states to continue trading with Tehran.

This EU legislation should protect businesses in member states who do not wish to break off economic ties with Tehran despite the reinstatement of US sanctions which came into effect on Tuesday, Mr Burt told the BBC.

“If a company fears legal action taken against it and enforcement action taken against it by an entity in response to American sanctions then that company can be protected as far as EU legislation is concerned,” added Mr Burt.

Read more: Donald Trump says rest of world must choose between trade with US or Iran | The Independent

Thursday, July 5, 2018

Middle East: Iran threatens to block Strait of Hormuz over US oil sanctions - by Saeed Kamali Dehghan

A potential confrontation between the US and Iran is brewing in the Strait of Hormuz after Tehran threatened to block the Gulf passageway in retaliation for Washington’s looming sanctions against Iranian oil exports – a threat the US military said would be immediately countered.

The Trump administration is demanding all countries end imports of Iranian oil by 4 November as part of its new policy of hostility towards Tehran after Washington’s unilateral exit from the 2015 nuclear agreement.

Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani, responded during a rare visit to Europe this week by signalling that Tehran could disrupt regional crude shipments and cut its cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog.

On Thursday the commander of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards, whose forces patrol the Strait of Hormuz – through which one-fifth of the world’s oil passes in tankers – said the Guards were ready to put Rouhani’s words into action if necessary.

The US navy signalled it was ready to confront Tehran militarily in response.

Mohammad Ali Jafari, the Guards commander, was quoted by the semi-official Tasnim news agency as saying: “We will make the enemy understand that either everyone can use the Strait of Hormuz or no one.”

Bill Urban, a spokesman for US Central Command, said Washington and its allies provided security in the region and would not stand idly by. “Together, we stand ready to ensure the freedom of navigation and the free flow of commerce wherever international law allows,” he said.

The threats will bring back memories of the latter years of the 1980s Iran-Iraq war, when US forces attacked Iranian territorial waters after a US ship struck an Iranian mine.
Advertisement

Rouhani returned to Tehran on Thursday after lobbying European leaders to deliver a robust rebuttal to the US withdrawal from the nuclear deal.

“The Americans have claimed they want to completely stop Iran’s oil exports. They don’t understand the meaning of this statement because it has no meaning for Iranian oil not to be exported while the region’s oil is exported,” Rouhani said this week in Switzerland.

“If you can do such a thing, do it and see the result,” Rouhani added in a threat that was lauded at home by the commander of the Quds force, Qassem Suleimani.

Rouhani had two overarching messages during his visit to Europe, Geranmayeh said. “First, Iran expects more concrete action from all parties to the nuclear agreement to sustain economic channels. Second, sustaining oil exports and market share is a red line for Iran.

“If Trump implements his threat to squeeze Iran’s oil exports, Tehran is prepared to escalate against the US to impose direct costs for global oil markets. This is a core issue of national security behind which there is growing backing from the political establishment.”

Despite the US’s withdrawal, the deal has not yet collapsed as Europe remains committed to salvaging it. Geranmayeh said Europe was expected to present a more concrete economic package to Iran during a ministerial meeting at the JCPOA’s joint commission on Friday.

Also at stake is Rouhani’s political career. The agreement is the moderate cleric’s main achievement in office, for which he was rewarded with a second term last year, but Trump’s antagonism towards Iran has empowered Rouhani’s hardline opponents at home, risking him becoming an early lame duck.

Trump’s hostility has compounded the country’s economic woes, while Iran is going through weeks of protests due to a currency crisis and environmental issues. Hardliners have started their onslaught on Rouhani, blaming his economic performance for the protests.

Note EU-Digest: some political analysts believe that one of the reasons Trump is meeting with Putin is also to find out how Russia would react in case the US and its two major allies in the Middle East, Israel and Saudi Arabia, attacked Iran.

 Read more: Iran threatens to block Strait of Hormuz over US oil sanctions | World news | The Guardian

Monday, April 23, 2018

EU ASYLUM LAW: EU granted 500,000 people asylum protection in 2017

EU member states as well as Norway, Iceland and Switzerland granted protection status to 538,000 asylum seekers in 2017, according to new data released by Eurostat recently.

Another 24,000 refugees were resettled in the region last year.

Last year's asylum seeker figures represent a 25% drop from 2016, when 710,000 asylum seekers qualified for international protection in the bloc.

Two forms of protection are offered under EU law: refugee status — for people fleeing persecution, and subsidiary protection — for those who face serious harm if they return to their country of origin, and who don’t qualify as refugees. But protection may also be given for humanitarian reasons, such as on grounds of ill health or if the person is an unaccompanied minor.

Around a third of such asylum seekers in Europe came from Syria last year, followed by Afghan citizens (19%) and Iraqis (12%).

Note EU-Digest:The Eurostat figures in this report are not very clear. 

According to the data listed in this re, a third (33.%) of asylum seekers come from Syria, followed by Afghanistan with 19% and Iraq with 12%. Added together 64%. 

Where do the rest of the asylum seekers (36%) come from? 

Probably a large number of them from Africa, who come to Libya by illegal means to make the crossing to Europe. In our  opinion, these are mainly "economic migrants" and not asylum seekers, just as most of them from Afghanistan and Iraq. It is also striking that many of the asylum seekers are young and able men . The EU and the governments of the Member States must, as far as their migrants and asylum policies are concerned do a far better job, Right now it can only be qualified as being barely functional.

READ MORE: EU granted 500,000 people asylum protection in 2017 | Euronews

Sunday, April 15, 2018

Middle East - Syria: Limited U.S. military action leaves al-Assad looking like the winner - by Mark MacKinnon

U.S. President Donald Trump declared “mission accomplished” in the wake of Friday’s strikes against the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad − but if anyone emerged as a winner it was Mr. al-Assad. 

In a video posted on Twitter by his office Saturday morning, Mr. al-Assad was shown walking calmly to work just hours after the cruise-missile strikes ended. Later in the day, the Syrian military announced it was in full control of Douma, the town on the outskirts of Damascus where Mr. al-Assad’s forces are alleged to have used chlorine gas and perhaps other chemical agents in an April 7 attack.

“All the terrorists have left Douma city,” the Syrian army said in its own “mission accomplished” statement, declaring an end to the five-year siege of the wider area known as East Ghouta. The Army of Islam militia that held Douma until the weekend said that it was forced to withdraw after the attack that killed dozens.

Read more: Limited U.S. military action leaves al-Assad looking like the winner - The Globe and Mail

Wednesday, March 14, 2018

Weapons Industry: A vicious Circle, as US, Russia,China, EU create wars in Middle East and arms sales there soar amid widespread conflict

Arms imports by Middle East countries mired in violent conflict have doubled in 10 years — and the US, Russia and Europe remain the major suppliers, according to latest research.

Arms imports by Middle Eastern states have more than doubled over the past decade, with the US and European countries the main suppliers of weapons to the region. This is one of the main conclusions of the latest report by SIPRI — the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

The independent think-tank dedicated to arms control and disarmament says the volume of international major weapons shipments rose by 10 per cent between 2013-2017 compared to the previous five-year period — largely due to an increase to the far east and the Middle East.

Five countries — the United States, Russia, France, Germany and China — accounted for nearly three-quarters of all arms exports over the past five years.

Note EU-Digest:  :"War is most profitable for us", said one major arms exporter, "and let no one tell you that countries involved in these proxy wars, are in it for moral reasons, It all comes down to economic benefits. So please rest assured these wars will go on forever, for some reason or whatever".

Read more: US and European arms sales to Middle East soar amid widespread conflict | Euronews

Wednesday, January 24, 2018

Kurdistan: It's Time for an Independent Kurdistan - by Stanley Weiss

The dispossessed have become dangerously destabilizing. The overlooked can no longer be overlooked. And what was once a Middle Eastern flashpoint may yet become a safety valve for spiking regional tensions.

It will not be easy, but the uncertainty and plasticity in the region today offers an opportunity to secure a Kurdish homeland and remedy the capricious map-making of the early 20th century. Iraq is threatening to split into the pre-Iraq Sunni, Shia and Kurdish divisions of the Ottoman Empire, with the Kurds semi-independent and the Iran-allied Shiites ruling the Sunnis. Iran’s economy is in free-fall. Syria will soon have no central control and no choice. And while no country is eager to surrender a fifth of its population, Turkey would do well to get ahead of this issue — ending the vicious, ongoing war with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), saving countless lives and positioning themselves to reap the benefits of a long-term strategic alliance to counterbalance Iranian influence. Not to mention, membership in the European Union will forever be out of reach for a Turkey at war with itself.

For proof of what’s possible, look no further than Iraqi Kurdistan, a pro-American, pro-Israel and semi-autonomous parliamentary democracy most Americans have never heard of. Nurtured by an American no-fly zone in the aftermath of the first Gulf War, the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) was established under the Iraqi Constitution in 2005, a stunning testament to the success of Muslim representative government. Of more than 4,800 American soldiers killed in the brutal battles for Iraq, not a single one has lost their life — and no foreigner has been kidnapped — within the borders of Iraqi Kurdistan. Boasting two international airports, a booming oil industry and a dawning respect for the rights of women, this 15,000 square-mile territory of nearly four million Kurds is the one part of President George W. Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” that was actually accomplished.

Building on this unanticipated success, the U.S. should rethink its previous opposition to an independent greater Kurdistan and recognize that the advantages of a friendly, democratic and strategically-positioned ally far outweigh the outdated assumption that the Kurds’ national liberation would result in regional conflagration. At this point, inaction is far more likely to provoke continued regional conflict. Whether that means calling for U.S.-brokered talks with Turkey or a temporary UN peacekeeping force, sanctions or scaled up foreign investment, the U.S. should make every effort to incentivize the consolidation and emergence of a single, stable, secure Kurdish homeland.

After a thousand years of turning a thousand blind eyes, the world can’t keep kicking the Kurdish can down the road. Somewhere along that bloodstained road to Damascus, the region needs to experience this epiphany — and soon. The first major protests in Syria began outside the Ummayad Mosque, Islam’s fourth-holiest site and the location of Saladin’s tomb. Saladin’s descendants, it seems, are on the march once more. These Kurds want to be heard. Will the U.S. - - and the world — listen?

No EU-Digest: Creating an independent Kurdistan, which stretches from the Mediterranean  to Iraq, along the borders of Syria, Turkey, Iran is the only solution to guarantee a lasting peace for countries who presently are opposing the creation of an independent Republic of Kurdistan. These include, Iran, Iraq , Syria and Turkey, which all have large local Kurdish populations.. 

Once there is an independent Kurdistan, which has the global recognition and legitimacy of an independent state, it will be far easier for specially Turkey to deal with the PKK and other Kurdish factions at home,  by offering local Kurds to either stay or migrate to this new Republic of Kurdistan. A far better proposition than fighting these factions endlessly, which so far have had no results at all.

The EU could in this case become a key player and broker in this process, together with the Russians and Americans in making this happen. So far, unfortunately, they have not had the vision and willpower to do so.

Read more: It's Time for an Independent Kurdistan | HuffPost

Thursday, December 14, 2017

US Wars: Wars are bleeding the US economy dry and the success rate of these wars? A bigger than life O

Investment in the US military versus return on investment?
Emily Larsen wrote in  the Daily Caller on Friday 8 November, that President Donald Trump claimed the U.S. has spent $7 trillion in the Middle East at a rally in Florida on Friday. This time he Presidewnt Trump seemed to have at least the some of the figures right  even thogh he might have mixed up the sequence of these figures..

Trump said: “We have spent as of two months ago almost $7 trillion in the Middle East,” Trump said. “And you know what we have? We have nothing. It’s worse than it was 17 years ago when they started.”

Trump made similar claims during the 2016 presidential election and in his first months in office, alluding to the cost of U.S. wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Middle East.

Some figures from studies mainly, based on figures provided by the military estimate U.S. spending on wars in the Middle East is high, about $4.4 trillion, but not as high as Trump claims.

War spending in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria since 2001 is about $4.4 trillion, according to professor Neta Crawford from Brown University’s Costs of War project.

The Department of Defense (DOD) reported in June it had spent only $1.5 trillion on war-related costs since Sept. 11, 2001. But Crawford says that direct DOD spending doesn’t tell the whole story.

“War costs are more than what we spend in any one year on what’s called the pointy end of the spear,” she told The Wall Street Journal last month. “There are all these other costs behind the spear, and there are consequences of using it, that we need to include.”

Crawford’s $4.4 trillion figure includes costs through 2017 for operations overseas, medical and disability claims for veterans, counter terrorism efforts by the Department of Homeland Security and interest on borrowing for the wars.

Her estimate comes closer to Trump’s $7 trillion figure, when including expected future spending. When including expenditures for veteran health care through 2056 and estimated war costs for 2018, total war-related spending rises to $5.6 trillion.

A Harvard working paper from 2013 estimated that the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will total between $4 trillion and $6 trillion. These figures are also closer to Trump’s claim, but they are also based on cost estimates of veteran care for decades to come. Trump’s claim is based on costs to date.

Another factor is that the wars in the Middle East are financed almost entirely with debt. Crawford’s study estimates that accumulated interest on war appropriations through 2013 alone will add $7.9 trillion to the national debt by 2056. But, again, these are expected costs, not costs so far.

Note EU-Digest: the bottom line,whatever way one tries to juggle with the figures, is quite clear. The US is spending far too much on its military activities and basically have very little or nothing to show for it.  

Consequently, the EU must at least have the courage to also question these expenditure,  specially after President Trump scolded them for not paying their share of NATO expenditures. After all, what would otherwise be the purpose for EU nations to remain in the NATO?   

EU-Digest

Thursday, November 23, 2017

UN - The US inability to admit reality - by Thierry Meyssan

Decidedly, very little has changed since 11 September 2001. The United States continue to manipulate international public opinion and the tools of the United Nations, no doubt for different reasons, but still with the same contempt for the truth.

In 2001, the representatives of the United States and the United Kingdom, John Negroponte and Stewart Eldon, assured that their two countries had just attacked Afghanistan in legitimate defence after the attacks committed in New York and Washington.

The Secretary of State, Colin Powell, promised to hand the Security Council a complete dossier presenting proof of Afghan responsibility. 16 years later, this document has still not been seen.

n 2003, the same Colin Powell came to explain to the Security Council, during a speech which was relayed by the televisions of the whole world, that Iraq was also implicated in the attacks of 11 September, and that it was preparing new acts of aggression against the United States by means of weapons of mass destruction.

 However, once he had retired from his functions in the US government, General Powell admitted on a TV channel in his own country that the many accusations in his speech were all false [3]. 14 years after this speech, we are still waiting for the United States to apologise to the Security Council.

US methods after 2001 were totally different from any that had preceded them. In 1991, President Bush the Father had made certain that he had international law on his side before he attacked Iraq, having pushed President Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait and to dig in. He had thus obtained the support of almost all the nations in the world. On the contrary, in 2003, Bush the Son settled for lying and then lying some more. Many States distanced themselves from Washington, and we saw the greatest pacifist demonstrations in History, from Paris to Sydney, from Beijing to Mexico.

In 2012, the UN Department of Political Affairs drew up a project for the total and unconditional surrender of Syria [4]. Its director, US citizen Jeffrey Feltman, ex-Under-Secretary of State for Hillary Clinton, used all the means at his disposal to create the greatest coalition in History and accuse Syria of all manner of crimes, none of which were ever proven.

If the States which possess the Feltman document have decided not to publish it, their intention is simply to preserve the United Nations. It is indeed inacceptable that the might and means of the UNO were used to promote war, when the institution was created in order to preserve peace. Since I am not held to the same obligations as a State, I have published a detailed study of this ignoble document in “Right Before Our Eyes”
.
In 2017, the UNO-OPCW Joint Investigative Mechanism, created at the request of Syria in order to investigate the use of chemical weapons on its territory, became the object of the same struggle which had earlier opposed Hans Blix to Washington. Except that this time, the fronts were reversed. In 2003, the UNO was defending peace. This is no longer the case, since Jeffrey Feltman was reappointed and is still the number 2 of the UNO. This time it’s Russia which is opposing the pro-US international civil servants in the name of the Charter.

For the complete report click here At the UN - US inability to admit reality, by Thierry Meyssan