Once again Greg Hunter interviews Paul Craig Roberts. They make a great pair. Early on PCR corrects Greg's false impression that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. RE the Yemen war, PCR sees it as a way to draw Iran into the battle as an excuse for Israel to bomb Iran. Asked about the Obama administration's intentions, PCR remarked that he was once high up in a presidential administration wherein the agendas and meetings were so many that they "prevented you from doing your job." Finally turning to the US economy, PCR said it is now so bad that it will no longer be possible to fake employment reports and that this situation is beyond repair. That is, we are headed toward a Great Depression with no way out...

---

Middle East Revolution & Inflationary Depression Coming-Paul Craig Roberts

By Greg Hunter On March 29, 2015                                                                       Original Here

By Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com  (Early Sunday Release)

Former Assistant Treasury Secretary Dr. Paul Craig Roberts thinks the Middle East violence is going to get much worse.  Dr. Roberts contends, “Unless the Islamic State somehow collapses, you are going to see a new wave of revolutionary developments in the Middle East.  I suspect all the oil dictatorships will be overthrown because there is a tiny handful of people we installed there and they are mega-billionaires, and there isn’t anybody else that’s got anything. . . . I think they are all headed down the drain.”

Why does the foreign policy of the U.S. in the Middle East look so confusing and scattered?  Dr. Roberts says, “The administration has different elements with different agendas.  So, different elements in the administration are pursuing different agendas.  Some still want to overthrow Assad; so, they want to support ISIS.  Others think ISIS has gotten out of control and is doing something we didn’t expect.  So, you have various blocks inside our government in conflict with one another.”

GREG HUNTER

Turning to the American economy, Dr. Roberts, who has a PhD in economics, thinks, “If you measure inflation correctly, GDP (gross domestic product) has been negative since the downturn in December of 2007.  It never recovered.  All of the other indicators show that there is no sign anywhere of recovery. . . . My own opinion is the first quarter and second quarter of this year will be negative and probably it will go down from there.  I don’t think there will be a recovery, and there is really no way they can recover it except by understating inflation.  There has been no growth in real consumer income for decades.  That means people have no growth in their income.  So, they can’t spend more and prices are rising faster than are acknowledged.  All you got to do is go to the grocery store. . . . So, people’s real income is falling, and if real income is falling, there can be no growth in consumer demand. . . . What can the Fed do?  There’s not much they can do except print more money.  That will eventually get into the economy and drive up prices.  So, you are going to have no ability to buy anything because of rising prices—hyperinflation.  They have created a perfect storm.  There is really no way out for the Fed.  They focused the economic policy since 2008 on saving four or five big banks.  That’s all they have done. . . . They have used up everything to save four or five big banks.”

What does Dr. Roberts see for the rest of this year?  Dr. Roberts says, “I don’t retain a forecasting model, but I can see what’s going on.  The first six months of this year and the GDP, even with the fake inflation numbers, will be negative.  The decline is so strong now that they can’t hide it anymore with manipulated numbers.  So, we are going to go into a recession.  How do you get out of it?  I can’t see any way for them to get out of it, so, it will worsen.  I think it will head into a depression. . . . I think we are going to have an inflationary depression, and there is no policy cure for that. . . Dr. Roberts goes on to say, “They may expect this and that could explain the militarization of the police.”

Join Greg Hunter as he goes One-on-One with Dr. Paul Craig Roberts of PaulCraigRoberts.org.

(There is much more in the video interview.)

https://youtu.be/IaB9EcUCkdI


After the Interview:

Dr. Roberts is a prolific writer and posts his articles on his free website PaulCraigRoberts.org.  If you would like to help out Dr. Roberts with a tax deductible contribution (click here.)

Related Posts:

• Threat of Nuclear War Back-Paul Craig Roberts
• Dollar is The Weak Spot for US-Paul Craig Roberts
• Fed Laundering Treasury Purchases to Disguise What’s Happening-Paul Craig Roberts
• Gold and the US Dollar Fight to the Death-Paul Craig Roberts
• U.S. Has Plans for Preemptive Nuclear Attack- Paul Craig Roberts

"Mosul, the second largest city in Iraq, has just been overrun by al Qaeda forces. These are the forces that Washington has claimed a number of times to have completely defeated. These "defeated" forces now control Iraq's second largest city and a number of provinces. The person Washington left in charge of Iraq is on his knees begging Washington for military help and air support against the Jihadist forces that the incompetent Bush regime unleashed in the Muslim world." -- Paul Craig Roberts

---

Washington’s Iraq “Victory” — Paul Craig Roberts

---

June 14, 2014 | Original Here                                              Go here to sign up to receive email notice of this news letter

Washington’s Iraq “Victory”

Paul Craig Roberts

The citizens of the United States still do not know why their government destroyed Iraq. “National Security” will prevent them from ever knowing. “National Security” is the cloak behind which hides the crimes of the US government.

George Herbert Walker Bush, a former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency who became President courtesy of being picked as Ronald Reagan’s Vice President, was the last restrained US President. When Bush the First attacked Iraq it was a limited operation, the goal of which was to evict Saddam Hussein from his annexation of Kuwait.

Kuwait was once a part of Iraq, but a Western colonial power created new political boundaries, as the Soviet Communist Party did in Ukraine. Kuwait emerged from Iraq as a small, independent oil kingdom. http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/iraqkuwait.html

According to reports, Kuwait was drilling at an angle across the Iraq/Kuwait border into Iraqi oil fields. On July 25, 1990, Saddam Hussein, with Iraqi troops massed on the border with Kuwait, asked President George H. W. Bush’s ambassador, April Glaspie, if the Bush administration had an opinion on the situation. Here is Ambassador Glaspie’s reply:


“We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary [of State James] Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960’s that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.”

According to this transcript, Saddam Hussein is further assured by high US government officials that Washington does not stand in his way in reunifying Iraq and putting a halt to a gangster family’s theft of Iraqi oil:

“At a Washington press conference called the next day, State Department spokesperson Margaret Tutweiler was asked by journalists:

‘Has the United States sent any type of diplomatic message to the Iraqis about putting 30,000 troops on the border with Kuwait? Has there been any type of protest communicated from the United States government?’

“to which she responded: ‘I’m entirely unaware of any such protest.’

“On July 31st, two days before the Iraqi invasion [of Kuwait], John Kelly, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern affairs, testified to Congress that the ‘United States has no commitment to defend Kuwait and the U.S. has no intention of defending Kuwait if it is attacked by Iraq’.”

(See here among other sources: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1102395/posts )

Was this an intentional a set-up of Saddam Hussein, or did the Iraqi takeover of Kuwait produce frantic calls from the Bush family’s Middle Eastern business associates?

Whatever explains the dramatic, sudden, total change of position of the US government, the result produced military action that fell short of war on Iraq itself.

From 1990 until 2003 Iraq was acceptable to the US government.

Suddenly, in 2003 Iraq was no longer acceptable. We don’t know why. We were told a passel of lies: Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that were a threat to America. The spectre of a “mushroom cloud over an American city” was raised by the National Security Advisor. The Secretary of State was sent to the UN with a collection of lies with which to build acceptance of US naked aggression against Iraq. The icing on the cake was the claim that Saddam Hussein’s secular government “had al Qaeda connections,” al Qaeda bearing the blame for 9/11.

As neither Congress nor the US media have any interest to know the reason for Washington’s about face on Iraq, the “Iraq Threat” will remain a mystery for Americans.

But the consequences of Washington’s destruction of the secular government of Saddam Hussein, a government that managed to hold Iraq together without the American-induced violence that has made the country a permanent war zone, has been ongoing years of violence on a level equal to, or in excess of, the violence associated with the US occupation of Iraq.

Washington is devoid of humanitarian concerns. Hegemony is Washington’s only concern. As in Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Pakistan,Yemen, Ukraine, Syria, and Iraq, Washington brings only death, and death is ongoing in Iraq.

On June 12, 500,000 residents of Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city, benefactors of Washington’s “freedom and democracy” liberation, fled the city as the American trained army collapsed and fled under al Qaeda attack. The Washington-installed government, fearing Baghdad is next, has asked Washington for air strikes against the al Qaeda troops. Tikrit and Kirkuk have also fallen. Iran has sent two battalions of Revolutionary Guards to protect the Washington-installed government in Baghdad.

(After this article was published, Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani dismissed the widespread news reports–Wall Street Journal, World Tribune, The Guardian, Telegraph, CNBC, Daily Mail, Times of Israel, etc.–that Iran has sent troops to help the Iraqi government. Once again the Western media has created a false reality with false reports.)

Does anyone remember the propaganda that Washington had to overthrow Saddam Hussein in order to bring “freedom and democracy and women’s rights to Iraqis”? We had to defeat al Qaeda, which at the time was not present in Iraq, “over there before they came over here.”

Do you remember the neoconservative promises of a “cakewalk war” lasting only a few weeks, of the war only costing $70 billion to be paid out of Iraqi oil revenues, of George W. Bush’s economic advisor being fired for saying that the war would cost $200 billion? The true cost of the war was calculated by economist Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard University budget expert Linda Bilmes who showed that the Iraqi war cost US taxpayers $3 trillion dollars, an expenditure that threatens the US social safety net.

Do you remember Washington’s promises that Iraq would be put on its feet by America as a democracy in which everyone would be safe and women would have rights?

What is the situation today?

Mosul, the second largest city in Iraq, has just been overrun by al Qaeda forces. These are the forces that Washington has claimed a number of times to have completely defeated.

These “defeated” forces now control Iraq’s second largest city and a number of provinces. The person Washington left in charge of Iraq is on his knees begging Washington for military help and air support against the Jihadist forces that the incompetent Bush regime unleashed in the Muslim world.

What Washington has done in Iraq and Libya, and is trying to do in Syria, is to destroy governments that kept Jihadists under control. Washington faces the prospect of a Jihadist government encompassing Iraq and Syria. The Neoconservative conquest of the Middle East is becoming an al Qaeda conquest.

Washington has opened Pandora’s Box. This is Washington’s accomplishment in the Middle East.

Even as Iraq falls to al Qaeda , Washington is supplying the al Qaeda forces attacking Syria with heavy weapons. It is demonized Iran that has sent troops to defend the Washington-installed regime in Baghdad! Is it possible for a country to look more foolish than Washington looks?

One conclusion that we can reach is that the arrogance and hubris that defines the US government has rendered Washington incapable of making a rational, logical decision. Megalomania rules in Washington.

This article is published jointly with the Strategic Culture Foundation http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2014/06/14/washington-iraq-victory.html

The Guardian's Glenn Greenwald excoriates members of the US Congress who have been informed of the full extent of NSA secret spying, could have leagally informed all Americans of what NSA has been doing (by speaking on the Senate floor), but instead have covered up those activities while criminalizing heroic whistleblowers Edgar Snowden and Bradley Manning.

---

MONDAY, AUGUST 5, 2013                                                                                Original here

Greenwald: Is U.S. Exaggerating Threat to Embassies to Silence Critics of NSA Domestic Surveillance?



The Obama administration has announced it will keep 19 diplomatic posts in North Africa and the Middle East closed for up to a week, due to fears of a possible militant threat. On Sunday, Senator Saxby Chambliss, the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the decision to close the embassies was based on information collected by the National Security Agency. "If we did not have these programs, we simply would not be able to listen in on the bad guys," Chambliss said, in a direct reference to increasing debate over widespread spying of all Americans revealed by Glenn Greenwald of The Guardian. "Nobody has ever questioned or disputed that the U.S. government, like all governments around the world, ought to be eavesdropping and monitoring the conversations of people who pose an actual threat to the United States in terms of plotting terrorist attacks," Greenwald says. Pointing to the recent revelations by leaker Edward Snowden that he has reported on, Greenwald explains, "Here we are in the midst of one of the most intense debates and sustained debates that we’ve had in a very long time in this country over the dangers of excess surveillance, and suddenly, an administration that has spent two years claiming that it has decimated al-Qaeda decides that there is this massive threat that involves the closing of embassies and consulates around the world. ... The controversy is over the fact that they are sweeping up billions and billions of emails and telephone calls every single day from people around the world and in the United States who have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism." Greenwald also discusses the NSA’s XKeyscore Internet tracking program, Reuters’ report on the Drug Enforcement Agency spying on Americans, and the conviction of Army whistleblower Bradley Manning.

Blogger's Note: For an analysis of the new US world-wide terror alert, you might be interested in the informed (yet pleasantly sarcastic) views of the intrepid Asia Times reporter, Pepe Escobar: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Al-Qaeda-To-The-Rescue-by-Pepe-Escobar-130806-611.html

Preface for those who get their news from the US mainstream media: The US, Israel, NATO, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia are supporting the Syrian rebels (including an Al Qaeda contingent) with the object destroying the secular government in Syria, thus converting it to the third secular middle-eastern state after Iraq and Libya to be destroyed by inter-sectarian violence to the profit the aforementioned polities. Note the hypocrisy of blaming Al Qaeda for the 9/11 attacks and now arming them to help out with the US's latest attempt to subvert another country.

---

Aleppo, Istanbul, and London
By Michael Collins, on June 11th, 2013                                                              Original Here

The war in Syria went from a seeming quagmire to a conflict that may reach a dramatic climax with the coming battle for Aleppo, a city of nearly three million people that was once the commercial center of the nation.   Political leaders and events in two other cities, Istanbul and London, will play a central role in the outcome of the battle.  (Image)

The Syrian Army finished off final rebel resistance in the city of Qusayr last week fighting alongside the Lebanese group Hezbollah.  As a result, the rebel supply line from Lebanon is shut down and the major road from Damascus to Aleppo via Qusayr is open.  The road will serve the supply line for an attack to end rebel occupation of half of that city.

A victory by the Syrian military in Operation Northern Storm, its name for the Aleppo effort, will leave the rebels with very little in the way of major influence or meaningful territory.  From the start, the rebel strategy focused on urban warfare.  The various groups would have little chance of survival in a conventional battle with the Syrian Army.  With the shelter of cities and towns, the Syrian Army’s  advantage vanished allowing the rebels to carry on the conflict and prevail in key areas.

Damascus is under government control.  With a victory in Aleppo, the Syrian state would reclaim control of its two key population centers.  The United States – Russia sponsored peace conference scheduled for July would be an afterthought.

Two of the key supporters of the Syrian rebels are not in a position to provide much help the rebels in their attempt to hold their position in Aleppo.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan is preoccupied with a raging protest movement focused on the PM and his policies.  The movement began and is centered in Istanbul, the nation’s largest city and world trade gateway.  Turkey took the lead in public opposition to the Syrian government in 2011.  Its southern border near Aleppo, particularly the city of Adana, served as the conduit for supplies and fighters from Persian Gulf oil states.

Siding with rebels was never popular in Turkey.  It is very unpopular now.  As certain as he may seem about every thing he says, Erdogan would risk a great deal through robust assistance to the rebels.

British Prime Minister David Cameron has a deep commitment to the Syrian rebels.  Cameron has steadfastly advocated for a lifting of European Union ban on the supply of weapons to the rebels.  The PM is limited by defections from his own party and a split cabinet, with one faction opposed to the supply of lethal assistance.   Oddly, Cameron maintains that it will take 18 months for the weapons supplies to spread among the rebels.

The battle for Aleppo will be decided long before the suggested 18 months is up.  The outcome could end the rebels as a viable force that justifies additional outside aid.

The Battle for Aleppo – July 2012 through May 2013

The rebels first attacked Aleppo in earnest in July 2012.   Prior to that rebels took control of large sections of the countryside around the city.  The attack originated from a cluster of towns to the north of the city near the Turkish border or with rebels embedded in Aleppo.  Foreign fighters and Syrian rebels were likely trained and supplied in the Turkish city of Adana, just across the Syria-Turkey border.   News of the Turkish base first surfaced in July 2012.

Whichever version of the attack is correct, one thing is for certain.  There was no civil insurrection in Aleppo by citizens of that city.  Nor did the attack come at the request by Aleppo’s residents.

Currently, the city is divided into three sectors controlled by the rebels, the Syrian military, and Syrian Kurds.   The rebels control the eastern sector and the countryside around the western sector, which is controlled by the Syrian military.  Two Kurdish groups control a smaller section of the city, the Salahaddin Brigade, which cooperates with rebels, and the Kurdish Democratic Union Party, distant from both rebels and the Syrian military.

The successful rebel offensive in July resulted in control of a large portion of eastern Aleppo.   As the battles raged, Syrian Army troops faced a significant disadvantage.  Rebel control of the city of Qusayr and the Homs province cut off regular supplies and troop movements to support efforts in Aleppo.

The fall of Qusayr changed all that.  The Syrian’s can now supply their military in Aleppo, knowing that the Lebanese rebel supply pipeline is closed.  In addition, the military has adjusted its fixed battle mindset for urban warfare into a more efficient approach and, of most significance; the Syrians are now allied with Hezbollah.  The two fighting groups proved to be a formidable combination.  After it was clear that Qusayr would fall, Hezbollah deployed 4,000 fighters to Aleppo for that battle.

Istanbul and London

Turks are protesting in 80 cities across the country.  The eruption of civil discontent started on May 31 when police assaulted protesters in Istanbul’s Taksim Square.  What started as a protest of plans to change a major square in Istanbul has grown to a nationwide movement sustained since May 31.  The general themes have broadened to include the opposition to the autocratic rule of Prime Minister Erdogan, creeping religious rules restricting the public, and Turkey’s involvement to the conflict in Syria (see previously cited polling results).

Erdogan’s initial reaction to the protests was disdain calling the protestors “bums.”  When he left the country for a visit to North Africa, his Deputy Prime Minister apologized for the violent police reaction in the early protests and met with demonstrators.    When Erdogan returned, he was expected to calm things.  Instead he held rival rallies of his supporters telling crowds that the protestors were “drinking beer in mosques and insulting women wearing headscarves.”  These allegations risked pitting his party supporters against protestors in violent conflict.

There are three constituencies that openly oppose Erdogan: supporters of the secular model of rule in Turkey, the Alevi population, and the Kurds. All together, these three groups represent close to half of the total population.

A fourth, more dangerous opponent is Fethullah Gulen, leader of the powerful Hizmet movement, a moderate Muslim “state within a state.”  Gulen opposes Erdogan’s commitment to violence in Syria and the Prime Minister’s overbearing style of rule.  A clear abandonment of Erdogan would be devastating.

Erdogan alienated the military through the prosecution of several hundred military leaders for alleged plans for false flag terror operations against fellow Turks.  Yet he relies on the military to further his program by restraining the type of military coups that have toppled previous Turkish leaders.

Why would Erdogan risk his rule to intervene directly in Syria, particularly a battle about to be fought that could determine the outcome of the rebel assault on Syria’s government?  And, if he did, would the military cooperate?

There is no civil unrest beleaguering British Prime Minister David Cameron.  However, his insistence on providing weapons to Syrian rebels is costing him dearly.  Half of his cabinet came out in opposition to any military aid (although there has been covert aid for some time).   Eighty-one Conservative Members of Parliament wrote an open letter to Cameron opposing aid through weapons.   The members demanded a floor debate and vote on any aid package.

There are even comparisons to Cameron’s obsession with the Syrian violence with former PM Tony Blair’s fixation on invading Iraq.

Cameron’s main support on the Syrian project comes from his neoconservative cabinet members and their allies in the British version of the Federalist Society, known as the Henry Jackson Society.

The PM is isolated politically in his adamant support for aiding the rebels.  His ability to deliver is viewed as extremely limited.

Even if Erdogan acts without regard to his political future and Cameron has one, neither leader will be able to provide the time-critical delivery of what the rebels need to survive the furious onslaught by the Syrian Army and Hezbollah set to begin in the next hours or days.

Since the conflict began, in victory and defeat, the various factions of the Syrian rebels have complained bitterly about an absence of weapons and ammunition.   This may be one instance when their complaints are right on target.  If Operation Northern Storm succeeds, this may be the last request for weapons that the rebels make; or, at least the last request that anyone bothers to cover.

END

This article may be reposted with attribution of author ship and a link to this article.

FAIR AND BALANCED: DEMOCRACY NOW IS THE ANTI-FOX NEWS. ATTACKING IRAN WOULD "BE A DISASTER THAT WOULD MAKE IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN LOOK LIKE TEA PARTIES."

---

MARCH 05, 2012                                                                                                         Permalink

Debate: Attacking Iran, AIPAC, Israel-Palestine and Obama with Rashid Khalidi and Jonathan Tobin

President Obama addressed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) on Sunday, assuring the pro-Israel lobbying group he will not tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran and reiterating his unwavering support for Israel. As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meets with Obama at the White House today, we host a debate between Rashid Khalidi of Columbia University and Commentary magazine’s Jonathan Tobin. "It is true [Iran does not] have the weapon now, the question is are we going to wait until ... they are one screwdriver away from doing it or not," says Tobin. "[Iran’s] policy has been to forthrightly proclaim it wishes to destroy Israel — to wipe it off the map. Letting it have nuclear weapons is a threat to the entire region." But Khalidi argues that war with Iran "would guarantee that no responsible Iranian leadership in the future would allow Iran to be without a nuclear weapon after it had been attacked in an unprovoked fashion either by the U.S. or Israel." Khalidi adds, "It will be a disaster that would make Iraq and Afghanistan look like tea parties." Tobin and Khalidi also debate the relationship between Iran and Syria. [original includes rush transcript]