Like I said...
US push to extend cross-border aid opening is aimed at supplying terrorist groups
& prolonging war – Syrian FM
26 Jun, 2021 19:56
The Bab al-Hawa crossing at the Syrian-Turkish border, in Idlib governorate. © Reuters / Khalil Ashawi
The US is fighting hard to keep the border crossing from Turkey into Syria’s Idlib open because it allows them to supply arms to terrorists under the pretense of delivering aid, Syrian Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad told RT.
A diplomatic standoff is underway as the seven-year-long UN mandate to keep the Bab al-Hawa crossing point between Turkey and northern Syria open expires in July. The US and its allies, including Turkey, which has military presence in Idlib and maintains contacts with the local armed groups, are pushing for the crossing to remain operational for at least another year, citing concerns over civilians in the last terrorist stronghold in the country. But Syria’s main ally, Russia, threatens to veto the relevant UN Security Council resolution, insisting that all aid to the population should be channeled through Damascus.
Mekdad said Washington’s policy on cross-border aid was “pure hypocrisy.” Their efforts to keep the crossing operational are just “another attempt to help terrorist groups and to provide them with all necessary materials to prolong the terrorist war against Syria,” which has been ongoing since 2011.
Cross-border activities by the US and Turkey are a “direct violation of the sovereignty of our country,” Mekdad said, claiming arms are being sent to the militants as part of this “so-called humanitarian assistance.” He pointed to the presence in Idlib of Jabhat al-Nusra, an Al-Qaeda offshoot and UN-designated terrorist group.
Mekdad also slammed US sanctions on Syria. “If the Western countries are really careful (concerned) about Syrian citizens, they should lift their sanctions…,” he said, adding that they “aren’t allowing us to even import medical instruments, not to mention foods and other necessary materials.”The “unilateral coercive measures” by the US and other Western countries “are killing the Syrian people” and some 95% of the population are affected by them, Mekdad added.
On Friday, US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Joey Hood said that Washington will maintain a “limited military presence” in the southern enclave of At Tanf and in the northeast of Syria in order to counter Islamic State and support their allies from the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces militia.
But Syria’s top diplomat reiterated the demand by Damascus for some 900 American troops to finally withdraw from the country.
“[The US] have to stop their infringement on the territorial integrity of Syria because they are illegally entering into Syria…they have to stop stealing Syrian oil, and Syrian wheat, and other Syrian property,” Mekdad continued, adding that without American support, “Daesh would have been eliminated a long time ago.”
Mekdad also said that Damascus was looking forward to the resumption of talks next month in Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan aimed at a Syrian peace settlement.
The so-called Astana format – brokered by Russia, Turkey and Iran – is “the most effective mechanism” for finding solutions to the crisis, given that the negotiations are attended by the Syrian government, the opposition and international players that support each of the sides.
“Most recent positive developments in Syria have proven that the Astana format is the best format for finding a political settlement to the crisis,” the foreign minister said.
It's absurd to think that America, since the 2nd World War, ever entered a theatre of war for the purpose of ending it. America enters wars for the purpose of using its inventory of war. Having war-time vehicles, materials, weapons, etc., etc., standing unused in the USA is very bad for the profit levels of America's war-loving oligarchs.
I believe America wants to keep the war in Syria going until they can come up with an excuse for a full-on invasion. Meanwhile, they are happy to steal Syrian oil.
Iran says it will ‘NEVER’ give nuclear site images to UN watchdog
as monitoring deal expires
27 Jun, 2021 18:20
Iran won’t hand over images from some of its nuclear sites to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), as Tehran’s monitoring agreement with the UN agency has expired, Iranian parliament’s speaker stated.
“The agreement has expired... any of the information recorded will never be given to the IAEA and the data and images will remain in the possession of Iran,” Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf said during a parliament session on Sunday.
Those recordings were made in offline format and they’re going to be stored in Iran in full compliance with the country’s laws, he said, as quoted by Iran’s semi-official Tasnim news agency.
Iran's Supreme National Security Council is expected to decide, at its first session after the deal’s expiration, whether to prolong the monitoring agreement, Mahmoud Vaezi, chief of staff to outgoing Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, said midweek.
The deal, which IAEA and Iran signed after Tehran decided to reduce cooperation with the agency in February, allowed the watchdog to keep receiving at least some data about Iran's nuclear activities. It was agreed for a three-month period and later extended for another month.
But earlier this week the monitoring deal expired, after a letter from IAEA with an offer to extend it again or to sign a new one went unanswered by Tehran.
IAEA chief Rafael Grossi called on Iran to provide “an immediate response” on the crucial matter, but was brushed off by Iranian envoy to the IAEA, Kazem Gharibabadi, who insisted that his country “was not required to comply” with the demand.
Gharibabadi later said on Twitter that past data recording was “a political decision” by Tehran aimed at facilitating the talks on the US return to the Iranian nuclear deal and “shouldn’t be considered as obligation.”
On Friday, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken warned that Iran’s reluctance to cooperate with the IAEA could negatively affect the outcome of the ongoing talks to revive the so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
The JCPOA, which Tehran and six world powers signed after years of diplomatic efforts in 2015, saw Iran curbing its military nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of international sanctions.
But in 2018, then-President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew the US from the landmark deal and imposed new sanctions against Iran, much to the shock of other signees – China, France, Russia, UK, Germany and the EU. The move by Washington prompted Tehran to renege on some of its commitments under JCPOA, including intensifying its uranium enrichment.
Indirect talks between Washington and Tehran have been underway in the Austrian capital Vienna since April, as Joe Biden, who replaced Trump in the White House, has expressed eagerness to restore the agreement.
The negotiations are currently on pause, likely until early July, with differences still not settled between the sides. Washington says that a deal will only be struck after Iran returns to full compliance with JCPOA, but Tehran insists that US sanctions must be lifted first.
Secret British military docs allegedly found near BUS STOP reveal
UK foresaw furious Russian reaction to Crimea incursion
27 Jun, 2021 09:48
© Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia/Handout via REUTERS
Britain mulled what Moscow might do if it sent a warship into disputed waters, near Crimea, according to "secret" documents allegedly found at a bus stop. The leak comes after London was discovered to have lied about the incident.
The 50-page dossier, containing classified information about the HMS Defender’s journey through the Black Sea, was reportedly discovered in a “soggy heap” behind a Kent bus stop on Tuesday morning. The person who discovered the documents, the story goes, contacted the BBC upon realizing their sensitive nature. The dossier includes emails and PowerPoint presentations, and is believed to have originated in the office of a senior Ministry of Defence (MoD) official.
A spokesperson for the ministry said that an employee had reported the loss of sensitive papers, adding that it would be “inappropriate” to comment further. An investigation is now underway to determine how the documents ended up at the bus stop, the BBC said.
The MoD viewed the Royal Navy destroyer’s mission, dubbed “Op Ditroite,” as an “innocent passage through Ukrainian territorial waters,” the secret documents reportedly show. British military planners believed that they had a “strong, legitimate narrative” for passing through the disputed area, and said that having journalists aboard the warship would help provide “independent verification” of the vessel’s actions.
However, there was apparently an understanding that the Russian military would likely view the HMS Defender’s travel itinerary differently.
“What do we understand about the possible 'welcome party'…?” asked one British military official, during high-level discussions that were detailed in the classified dossier.
A series of slides prepared by the UK’s Permanent Joint Headquarters (PJHQ) offered two potential routes through the Black Sea, with one described as “a safe and professional direct transit from Odessa to Batumi.” The plan included a short stretch through a “Traffic Separation Scheme” located near the southwest tip of Crimea. Choosing this route would “provide an opportunity to engage with the Ukrainian government… in what the UK recognises as Ukrainian territorial waters,” one of the slides explained.
The BBC said that the mislaid dossier outlined potential Russian responses, ranging from “safe and professional” to “neither safe nor professional.”
The documents also discussed the possibility of keeping the HMS Defender away from contested waters. This plan would avoid any potential confrontation but would also allow Russia to claim that the UK was “scared” or “running away,” the secret dossier stated.
One of the presentations contained in the trove of classified documents noted that contact between Russian and British forces in the area have largely been “unremarkable” but that, “following the transition from defence engagement activity to operational activity, it is highly likely that... interactions will become more frequent and assertive.”
Moscow said Wednesday's mission had prompted it to fire warning shots at the vessel. Which was quickly denied by the UK's Ministry of Defence, claiming that its vessel was conducting “innocent passage through Ukrainian territorial waters in accordance with international law,” and the Russian shots were part of a pre-planned gunnery exercise.
On Thursday evening, video emerged showing Russian forces repeatedly demanding that the British leave their waters and, after several warnings, targeting warning shots at the intruding ship.
Journalists who were aboard the British warship at the time suggested that the confrontation with Russian forces was expected. One reporter noted that “increasingly hostile warnings were issued over the radio” by the Russian coast guard.
Russia summoned the British ambassador, as well as the UK’s military attache in Moscow, to protest over the incident.
While it would have taken a huge mistake by one side or the other to have started a real conflict from this event, mistakes do happen. The point of challenging the other guy to respond is a stupid, adolescent thing to do. It is such a pity that militaries seem to have to resort to such childish behavior. Wouldn't it be nice if we all grew up and acted like adults?
No comments:
Post a Comment