On today’s Ron Paul Liberty Report:
If it’s Christmas, then it’s another massive, bloated “Continuing Resolution” keeping the US government open for a few more months. Every year House leadership – doesn’t matter which party – strong-arms Members to vote for the bloated bill… or miss Christmas with their families. Also today: “Peacekeepers” in Ukraine is a very bad idea. That’s why the neocons love it.
Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity.
Could a Trump administration spark a war with Iran? We explore the potential for conflict as we untangle decades of U.S. foreign policy strategies and discuss the implications of a bold pro-Israel stance. Drawing insight from General Wesley Clark’s post-9/11 revelations and recent reports from the Wall Street Journal, we examine the likelihood of military action targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities. Despite the absence of definitive evidence pointing to Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, we consider the complex regional dynamics, including the influence of Iranian allies like Hezbollah and the Houthis, and recent military activities in Yemen.
We then navigate the tangled web of alliances and power struggles in the Syrian conflict, dissecting the pivotal roles of the United States, Israel, and Turkey. From the humanitarian toll of American sanctions to the strategic employment of Syrian Kurds, we deliver a comprehensive analysis of the deeply interconnected geopolitical landscape. With Turkey’s controversial involvement and allegations of alliances with Al-Qaeda fighters, Antony Blinken’s optimistic comments about Syria’s future are weighed against the harsh realities on the ground. We also explore the shifting stances of Syrian leadership, the potential lifting of sanctions, and the implications for Israel.
In our concluding segment, the spotlight turns to the U.S. response to Israeli actions in Syria and the broader geopolitical ramifications. We scrutinize the State Department’s support for Israeli policies, especially in light of recent tensions between Turkey and the U.S. over Kurdish forces. The skepticism from the press corps toward official narratives is palpable, as we highlight a revealing exchange between AP journalist Matt Lee and State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller. This episode challenges the conventional discourse surrounding American foreign policy, inviting you to reconsider the intricate dynamics at play in this volatile region.
The end of Assad’s rule makes most U.S. sanctions on Syria obsolete, so naturally hawks in Congress want to keep them in place:
Republican and Democratic U.S. senators say it is too soon to consider lifting sanctions on Syria following the removal of President Bashar al-Assad, an indication that Washington is unlikely to change its policy any time soon.
U.S. sanctions on Syria are among the most harmful of any that Washington has imposed. They not only choke the Syrian economy directly and interfere with humanitarian assistance, but because of secondary sanctions they also discourage outside states and companies from investing in reconstruction efforts. Broad sanctions in Syria are an attack on the people just as they are an attack on the people in Venezuela, Iran, and elsewhere. The U.S. should have lifted these sanctions years ago, and now that Assad is out of power there is no excuse for continuing this policy. If a post-Assad Syria is to have any hope of rebuilding and recovering, the U.S. and its allies will have to stop inflicting collective punishment on the Syrian people.
On COI #728, Kyle Anzlaone updates Washington and Tel Aviv’s Middle East wars.
Subscribe on YouTube and audio-only.
Foreign Affairs just published an article by Senator Mitch McConnell: “The Price of American Retreat: Why Washington Must Reject Isolationism and Embrace Primacy.”
Col. Daniel Davis does a great job refuting his falsehoods and explains the errors of current US foreign policy. Check it out:
According to The Wall Street Journal, Trump is considering military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities:
President-elect Donald Trump is weighing options for stopping Iran from being able to build a nuclear weapon, including the possibility of preventive airstrikes, a move that would break with the longstanding policy of containing Tehran with diplomacy and sanctions.
The surest way to convince the Iranian government to build nuclear weapons is to attack their nuclear facilities. In addition to being reckless and wrong, “preventive” military action would practically guarantee the outcome that hawks say they want to prevent. The only thing stupider than using force to eliminate a non-existent threat is using force to create a threat that wouldn’t have existed otherwise.
