The Plausible Scenario that We May be Heading to a War with Iran | … and the Significance of Israel

The mainstream media has attempted to frame Donald J. Trump’s election victory as a sort of collusion between Russia and Trump — a scheme allegedly intended to promote an American president who would do Vladimir Putin’s bidding. But the truth is that there is one other country that stands to be the prime beneficiary of Trump’s reign as president: Israel.

Under the Obama administration, the United States had a curious relationship with Israel. In 2011, Obama vetoed a U.N. Security Council Resolution that would have condemned Israel’s settlement expansion. During Obama’s tenure, Israel’s settlement population increased from 500,000 to 600,000. According to Obama’s secretary of state, John Kerry, no administration in U.S. history has done more for Israel than Obama’s did:

“Our military exercises are more advanced than ever. Our assistance for Iron Dome has saved countless Israeli lives. We have consistently supported Israel’s right to defend itself by itself, including during actions [in] Gaza that sparked great controversy.”

In 2016, Obama approved a “record” military package to Israel worth $38 billion, nullifying claims that Obama “abandoned” Israel following the decision to withhold its veto on a resolution marking Israel’s settlements illegal at the end of 2016. As noted by Kerry:

“In the midst of our own financial crisis and budget deficits, we repeatedly increased funding to support Israel. In fact, more than 1/2 of our entire global foreign military financing goes to Israel. And this fall we concluded an historic $38 billion memorandum of understanding that exceeds any military assistance package the United States has provided to any country at any time.” [emphasis added]

However, on the surface, Obama appeared to be at odds with Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu over one key issue: Iran. The Iranian nuclear agreement reached in 2015 was heralded as a progressive move by some, but Israel completely rejected it and has refused to be bound by the agreement.

That being said, there is something Israel has done throughout Obama’s presidency that has barely attracted a blink from the U.N. Following the outbreak of war in Syria, Israel struck Syria multiple times (for example, during 2012201320142015, etc).

Why is this important? Because Iran and Syria are bound by a mutual defense agreement. In fact, Israel assassinated an Iranian general in Syria in 2015 with little to no outrage from the international community.

isfahan

A Brief History of U.S.-Iran Relations

Iran has been a major problem for the U.S.-Israel establishment for a long time. Iran’s defiant stance and desire to control its own oil supply in the face of U.S. hegemony has been a big issue for decades, as has its proximity to Russia and China. In 1953, the CIA overthrew Iran’s democratically elected leader, Mohammed Mossadegh, because he nationalized Iran’s oil fields. As noted by the Guardian:

“Britain, and in particular Sir Anthony Eden, the foreign secretary, regarded Mosaddeq as a serious threat to its strategic and economic interests after the Iranian leader nationalised the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, latterly known as BP. But the UK needed US support. The Eisenhower administration in Washington was easily persuaded.”

After installing a brutal U.S. dictator in the form of Shah Reza Pahlavi, the people of Iran overthrew the Shah in the 1979 revolution and rejected almost all American influence thereafter. Shortly afterward, the U.S. backed Saddam Hussein in Iraq to take out Iran in a brutal and bloody conflict that lasted close to a decade, nearly killing off an entire generation. The U.S. knew Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons, and the U.S. also secretly armed the Iranians to maximize the death toll.

Ever since the Iran-Iraq war came to an end, crippling sanctions and saber-rattling over Iran’s alleged nuclear program have been the go-to mantra for the U.S. establishment. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney prepped the Pentagon for a war with Iran in the early 2000s, but this war never occurred — most likely due to the duo’s lack of credibility after Iraq.

It must also be stated that Iran’s alleged nuclear program has been dramatically overhyped for decades (seriously, Netanyahu was crying wolf over Iran’s program as far back as 1996.)

In 2012, Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that elements within both the CIA and Mossad agreed there was insufficient proof to determine whether Iran was building a nuclear bomb, despite “throwing everything they had” at the nuclear program. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s grandiose U.N. speech in 2015 claiming Iran was moments away from making nuclear weapons was contradicted by his own intelligence agencies, who stated Iran was “not performing the activity necessary to produce nuclear weapons.”

Still, regime change in Iran and Syria has always been the ultimate goal of Israel, even in the face of this intelligence. In 2013, Israel’s ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren, told the Jerusalem Post:

“The initial message about the Syrian issue was that we always wanted [President] Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran.”

According to the Post, Oren said this was the case even if the other “bad guys” were affiliated to al-Qaeda.

What does this mean? Exactly what it says: Israel prefers al-Qaeda – the group allegedly responsible for 9/11 – to the current governments of Iran and Syria.

Despite multiple strikes on Iran’s closest ally — and most likely due to Obama’s perceived success in diverting a war and securing an agreement that ultimately benefitted Iran’s rivals in the form of Israel and Saudi Arabia — Obama warned Israel not to surprise him with a direct strike on Iran.

Whether Obama was being sincere or not, on the face of it, this warning was successful in tying Israel’s hands.

The Road to War

 However, Obama’s (somewhat questionable) era is over. What we have now is Theresa May as prime minister of the United Kingdom and Donald J. Trump as president of the United States.

Speaking to Republican policymakers in Philadelphia, Theresa May stated that Britain and the U.S. will no longer invade sovereign foreign nations “in an attempt to make the world in their own image.” However, May also stated that pushing back on “Iran’s aggressive efforts” to increase its “arc of influence from Tehran through to the Mediterranean” was a “priority.”

Not surprisingly, as a result of her comments and commitment to the U.S.-U.K alliance, May just secured “100% support” for NATO from President Trump.

When the U.S. and U.K talk about Iran’s aggression in its attempts to spread its influence to the Mediterranean, they are referring to a number of different things. First, bear in mind that as explained above, there is no evidence Iran is building a nuclear bomb. Secondly, according to Colin Powell’s leaked emails, Israel has a stockpile of at least 200 nuclear bombs. Iran is well aware of this, as its former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad once stated: “What would we do with one, polish it?’”

Third, it is no secret that Iran’s influence is spreading from Tehran to neighboring Iraq and through to Syria and Lebanon. But this in and of itself is not a crime; building relationships with your neighbors is common sense. Iran’s support for the designated terror group Hezbollah has all but been confirmed, but bear in mind that Hezbollah is one of the ground forces currently battling ISIS – the terror group that Trump singled out as his highest priority.

Finally, Iran has been accused endlessly of backing rebels in Yemen. This rationale has been used to promote an egregious and violent war, courtesy of Saudi Arabia. However, even just this past week, U.N. experts concluded:

“The panel has not seen sufficient evidence to confirm any direct large-scale supply of arms from the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, although there are indicators that anti-tank guided weapons being supplied to the Houthi or Saleh forces are of Iranian manufacture.” [emphasis added]

So, in essence, Iran is not producing nuclear weapons, nor is it backing rebels fighting on Saudi Arabia’s doorstep. This point cannot be stressed enough: despite Iran’s many warranted criticisms regarding mass executions, treatment of women and authoritarian rule, Iran is not doing any of the things the U.S. has accused it of doing as a rationale for a military strike on its people.

Recent Developments

Even so, the United States Congress is currently debating a bill that would “authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces to achieve the goal of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.” Congress might actually pass a law that will directly allow the U.S. military to strike Iran, even before there is any evidence that they pose a threat.

In a further attempt to provoke Iran, Trump’s travel ban list includes Iran, a country whose citizens have never once attacked the United States. The list excludes Saudi Arabia, the country that produced almost all of the 9/11 hijackers. Even Forbes admitted that since 1975, no Americans have been killed in terrorist attacks in the U.S. by citizens of the countries included in the ban.

To top things off, at the end of January, the U.K. and the U.S. will take part in operation “Unified Trident,” a joint exercise in the Persian Gulf that will simulate a military confrontation with Iran.

Before taking office, Trump stated he would dismantle the nuclear agreement with Tehran. Trump’s vow to wholeheartedly support Israel raises the possibility of granting Israel the confidence to attack Iran without any prior approval, thereby forcing the U.S. to come to Israel’s aid once the fight escalates.

This implied confidence is very real. Even days before Trump’s inauguration, Israel attacked a Syrian government airport. How often can this happen before Syria and/or Iran respond directly?

In the meantime, Iran is already responding in kind to the Trump administration’s recent policy initiatives. Just this past Sunday, Iran test-fired a ballistic missile, the first known test since Trump took office. While Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif stated Iran would “never use ballistic missiles to attack another country,” the U.S. has already called an urgent Security Council meeting to discuss the matter. Russia said the missile test has not contravened the U.N. Resolution on the Iranian nuclear accord, signaling where Russia’s allegiance may ultimately lie.

Further, Iranian state-run news site Press TV reported that if parties to the nuclear accord refrain from honoring their commitments, Iran has warned it will resume its nuclear activities to the levels that existed before the agreement was enforced.

Most importantly, according to a report in the local English-language daily, the Financial Tribune, the Iranian government announced it is going to stop using the U.S. dollar in its official statements. There is much speculation that Iraq’s decision to drop the U.S. dollar for the Euro in 2000 prompted Bush to attack Iraq in 2003, so it would be wise to keep an eye on these developments.

According to AlterNet, Trump has assembled a team that is “obsessed with Iran.” Not surprisingly, in response to the Iranian missile launch, the Trump administration has officially put Iran “on notice.” The White House has even used the actions of the Houthi rebels in Yemen as an excuse to make sure the Iranians “[understand] we are not going to sit by and not act on their actions,” but as explained above, even the U.N. has found no evidence of direct Iranian involvement in Yemen.

Where are we headed?

A war with Iran would be the end of the world as we know it. Iran has an enormous ground force, including countless volunteer militias who are experienced in repelling invaders (as Iraq found out the hard way in the 1980s.)

Nuclear powers Russia and China have warned the U.S. countless times not to attack Iran or Syria. Russia was clearly not making idle threats, as in 2015 they put their money where their mouth was and overtly intervened in the Syrian war to defend the Syrian government against U.S.-backed mercenaries. It is not clear if Russia has the ability — or the willpower — to finance another defensive effort in support of Iran, but what Russia has been adept at, in addition to relentlessly dropping bombs, is diplomacy. Take, for example, Obama’s failure to strike Syria in 2013 in part due to Russia’s diplomatic intervention.

China, on the other hand, is less likely to attempt diplomacy with Trump. A Chinese military official has already warned that a Chinese-U.S. war is becoming a “practical reality” under President Trump, and given Trump’s hardline approach to China, it wouldn’t be a stretch to predict who China would side with in this dispute. Further, a Chinese general already previously stated that China would defend Iran even if it meant “World War III.”

Additionally, NATO member Turkey has indicated it may seek to formally align itself with Russia and China, a move that could put Turkey in direct alliance with Iran considering Iran is also looking to formally join this Eurasian alliance.

When will this madness end? In the words of Noam Chomsky, the United States has been “torturing” Iran for 60 years. The intention to take out Iran is still on the table, even with the so-called “anti-establishment” candidate in office.

Clearly, the world cannot continue down this path towards nuclear annihilation. The current industrial war machine must be dismantled.

Unsurprisingly, former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, a man with vast experience in diffusing nuclear tensions, has warned that the whole world appears to be preparing for war. His message is one that the whole world needs to hear:

In [the] modern world, wars must be outlawed, because none of the global problems we are facing can be resolved by war — not poverty, nor the environment, migration, population growth, or shortages of resources.” [emphasis added]

 

 

This article (America’s Looming War with Iran: What You’re Not Being Told) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Darius Shahtahmasebi and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article to edits@theantimedia.org.

Analogies

Political cartoonist John Knott had little sympathy for the U.S. Congress’ indecision when it came to the Wagner-Rogers Child Refugee Bill, a piece of 1939 legislation that would have opened slots for 20,000 German refugee children to enter the United States. The bill was opposed by anti-immigrant organizations and never became a law. Tens of thousands of German Jewish children went on to die in concentration camps.

jewish

University of Texas

“But it Does me no Injury For my Neighbor to Say There are Twenty Gods or no God. It Neither Picks my Pocket nor Breaks my Leg.”

The idea that the United States has always been a bastion of religious freedom is reassuring—and utterly at odds with the historical record

America’s True History of Religious Tolerance | SMITHSONIAN

[From the earliest arrival of Europeans on America’s shores, religion has often been a cudgel, used to discriminate, suppress and even kill the foreign, the “heretic” and the “unbeliever”—including the “heathen” natives already here. Moreover, while it is true that the vast majority of early-generation Americans were Christian, the pitched battles between various Protestant sects and, more explosively, between Protestants and Catholics, present an unavoidable contradiction to the widely held notion that America is a “Christian nation.”

First, a little overlooked history: the initial encounter between Europeans in the future United States came with the establishment of a Huguenot (French Protestant) colony in 1564 at Fort Caroline (near modern Jacksonville, Florida). More than half a century before the Mayflower set sail, French pilgrims had come to America in search of religious freedom.

The Spanish had other ideas. In 1565, they established a forward operating base at St. Augustine and proceeded to wipe out the Fort Caroline colony. The Spanish commander, Pedro Menéndez de Avilés, wrote to the Spanish King Philip II that he had “hanged all those we had found in [Fort Caroline] because…they were scattering the odious Lutheran doctrine in these Provinces.” When hundreds of survivors of a shipwrecked French fleet washed up on the beaches of Florida, they were put to the sword, beside a river the Spanish called Matanzas (“slaughters”). In other words, the first encounter between European Christians in America ended in a blood bath.

The much-ballyhooed arrival of the Pilgrims and Puritans in New England in the early 1600s was indeed a response to persecution that these religious dissenters had experienced in England. But the Puritan fathers of the Massachusetts Bay Colony did not countenance tolerance of opposing religious views. Their “city upon a hill” was a theocracy that brooked no dissent, religious or political.

The most famous dissidents within the Puritan community, Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson, were banished following disagreements over theology and policy. From Puritan Boston’s earliest days, Catholics (“Papists”) were anathema and were banned from the colonies, along with other non-Puritans. Four Quakers were hanged in Boston between 1659 and 1661 for persistently returning to the city to stand up for their beliefs.

Throughout the colonial era, Anglo-American antipathy toward Catholics—especially French and Spanish Catholics—was pronounced and often reflected in the sermons of such famous clerics as Cotton Mather and in statutes that discriminated against Catholics in matters of property and voting. Anti-Catholic feelings even contributed to the revolutionary mood in America after King George III extended an olive branch to French Catholics in Canada with the Quebec Act of 1774, which recognized their religion.

When George Washington dispatched Benedict Arnold on a mission to court French Canadians’ support for the American Revolution in 1775, he cautioned Arnold not to let their religion get in the way. “Prudence, policy and a true Christian Spirit,” Washington advised, “will lead us to look with compassion upon their errors, without insulting them.” (After Arnold betrayed the American cause, he publicly cited America’s alliance with Catholic France as one of his reasons for doing so.)

In newly independent America, there was a crazy quilt of state laws regarding religion. In Massachusetts, only Christians were allowed to hold public office, and Catholics were allowed to do so only after renouncing papal authority. In 1777, New York State’s constitution banned Catholics from public office (and would do so until 1806). In Maryland, Catholics had full civil rights, but Jews did not. Delaware required an oath affirming belief in the Trinity. Several states, including Massachusetts and South Carolina, had official, state-supported churches.

In 1779, as Virginia’s governor, Thomas Jefferson had drafted a bill that guaranteed legal equality for citizens of all religions—including those of no religion—in the state. It was around then that Jefferson famously wrote, “But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” But Jefferson’s plan did not advance—until after Patrick (“Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death”) Henry introduced a bill in 1784 calling for state support for “teachers of the Christian religion.”

Future President James Madison stepped into the breach. In a carefully argued essay titled “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments,” the soon-to-be father of the Constitution eloquently laid out reasons why the state had no business supporting Christian instruction. Signed by some 2,000 Virginians, Madison’s argument became a fundamental piece of American political philosophy, a ringing endorsement of the secular state that “should be as familiar to students of American history as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution,” as Susan Jacoby has written in Freethinkers, her excellent history of American secularism.

Among Madison’s 15 points was his declaration that “the Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every…man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an inalienable right.”

Madison also made a point that any believer of any religion should understand: that the government sanction of a religion was, in essence, a threat to religion. “Who does not see,” he wrote, “that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?” Madison was writing from his memory of Baptist ministers being arrested in his native Virginia.

As a Christian, Madison also noted that Christianity had spread in the face of persecution from worldly powers, not with their help. Christianity, he contended, “disavows a dependence on the powers of this world…for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them.”

Recognizing the idea of America as a refuge for the protester or rebel, Madison also argued that Henry’s proposal was “a departure from that generous policy, which offering an Asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of every Nation and Religion, promised a lustre to our country.”

After long debate, Patrick Henry’s bill was defeated, with the opposition outnumbering supporters 12 to 1. Instead, the Virginia legislature took up Jefferson’s plan for the separation of church and state. In 1786, the Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, modified somewhat from Jefferson’s original draft, became law. The act is one of three accomplishments Jefferson included on his tombstone, along with writing the Declaration and founding the University of Virginia. (He omitted his presidency of the United States.) After the bill was passed, Jefferson proudly wrote that the law “meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew, the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.”

Madison wanted Jefferson’s view to become the law of the land when he went to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. And as framed in Philadelphia that year, the U.S. Constitution clearly stated in Article VI that federal elective and appointed officials “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution, but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

This passage—along with the facts that the Constitution does not mention God or a deity (except for a pro forma “year of our Lord” date) and that its very first amendment forbids Congress from making laws that would infringe of the free exercise of religion—attests to the founders’ resolve that America be a secular republic. The men who fought the Revolution may have thanked Providence and attended church regularly—or not. But they also fought a war against a country in which the head of state was the head of the church. Knowing well the history of religious warfare that led to America’s settlement, they clearly understood both the dangers of that system and of sectarian conflict.

It was the recognition of that divisive past by the founders—notably Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Madison—that secured America as a secular republic. As president, Washington wrote in 1790: “All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunity of citizenship. …For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens.”

He was addressing the members of America’s oldest synagogue, the Touro Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island (where his letter is read aloud every August). In closing, he wrote specifically to the Jews a phrase that applies to Muslims as well: “May the children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants, while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.”

As for Adams and Jefferson, they would disagree vehemently over policy, but on the question of religious freedom they were united. “In their seventies,” Jacoby writes, “with a friendship that had survived serious political conflicts, Adams and Jefferson could look back with satisfaction on what they both considered their greatest achievement—their role in establishing a secular government whose legislators would never be required, or permitted, to rule on the legality of theological views.”

Late in his life, James Madison wrote a letter summarizing his views: “And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”

While some of America’s early leaders were models of virtuous tolerance, American attitudes were slow to change. The anti-Catholicism of America’s Calvinist past found new voice in the 19th century. The belief widely held and preached by some of the most prominent ministers in America was that Catholics would, if permitted, turn America over to the pope. Anti-Catholic venom was part of the typical American school day, along with Bible readings. In Massachusetts, a convent—coincidentally near the site of the Bunker Hill Monument—was burned to the ground in 1834 by an anti-Catholic mob incited by reports that young women were being abused in the convent school. In Philadelphia, the City of Brotherly Love, anti-Catholic sentiment, combined with the country’s anti-immigrant mood, fueled the Bible Riots of 1844, in which houses were torched, two Catholic churches were destroyed and at least 20 people were killed.

At about the same time, Joseph Smith founded a new American religion—and soon met with the wrath of the mainstream Protestant majority. In 1832, a mob tarred and feathered him, marking the beginning of a long battle between Christian America and Smith’s Mormonism. In October 1838, after a series of conflicts over land and religious tension, Missouri Governor Lilburn Boggs ordered that all Mormons be expelled from his state. Three days later, rogue militiamen massacred 17 church members, including children, at the Mormon settlement of Haun’s Mill. In 1844, a mob murdered Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum while they were jailed in Carthage, Illinois. No one was ever convicted of the crime.

Even as late as 1960, Catholic presidential candidate John F. Kennedy felt compelled to make a major speech declaring that his loyalty was to America, not the pope. (And as recently as the 2008 Republican primary campaign, Mormon candidate Mitt Romney felt compelled to address the suspicions still directed toward the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.) Of course, America’s anti-Semitism was practiced institutionally as well as socially for decades. With the great threat of “godless” Communism looming in the 1950s, the country’s fear of atheism also reached new heights.

America can still be, as Madison perceived the nation in 1785, “an Asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of every Nation and Religion.” But recognizing that deep religious discord has been part of America’s social DNA is a healthy and necessary step. When we acknowledge that dark past, perhaps the nation will return to that “promised…lustre” of which Madison so grandiloquently wrote.]

Chickens Coming Home to Roost

One thing Mr. Trump has been consistently doing the last few months is not challenge this country’s sensibilities, ideals or democratic convictions. Mr. Trump stands defiantly upright, proud and stubbornly in the middle of the room, seemingly uninvited, like a thorn under the foot -infected- being a crystal clear, non-distorting mirror.
And looking at ourselves in that mirror after a 300-year orgy with street hookers, expired pills and moonshine, hangover, blackout and all, seems like encountering an intruder. Pants down.

And without a gun.

[George Erasmus, an aboriginal leader from Canada said, “Where common memory is lacking, where people do not share in the same past, there can be no real community. Where community is to be formed, common memory must be created.”]

The Problem the Republican Party, and now the Nation, has with Donald Trump

 

Amid Heroin Crisis, GOP Contenders Reframe Addiction as a Health Crisis

[Several Republican candidates have responded to the crisis with an about-face rarely seen since Richard Nixon launched the so-called war on drugs 45 years ago: a mainstream conservative movement calling for treating low-level drug use with health services instead of prison time. Last month in New Hampshire, GOP contenders unveiled several ideas — although few with detailed plans — to treat heroin addiction via rehabilitation, from placing more emphasis on drug prevention and targeting drug dealers instead of users to expanding recovery programs.]

Read the full article | Infographics | AL JAZEERA

Also, Drug Poisoning Mortality: USA 2002-2014 | Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

1 GOOD SAMARITAN

Epidemic of Drug Overdose Deaths Ripples Across America

Deaths from overdoses are
reaching levels similar to the
H.I.V. epidemic at its peak

[Deaths from drug overdoses have jumped in nearly every county across the United States, driven largely by an explosion in addiction to prescription painkillers and heroin.

Some of the largest concentrations of overdose deaths were in Appalachia and the Southwest, according to newcounty-level estimates released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The number of these deaths reached a new peak in 2014:47,055 people, or the equivalent of about 125 Americans every day.]  Read the full article here | THE NEW YORK TIMES

1 DEATHS

What is this Notorious Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)?

The TTIP (Trans-Atlantic Partnership Agreement) TISA, (Trade in Services Agreement) and TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement) are highly controversial and top secret deals that would affect the lives of citizens worldwide, yet the general public have no right to decide whether we want them- or even know the details of the draft legislation.

TTIP, in particular, is of major concern. As ANONYMOUS have reported, the deal allegedly threatens to allow corporations to sue governments who do not comply with their wishes, compromise online privacy, make fracking a standard procedure across 28 countries, privatize European health systems, force GMO food on unwilling citizens, strip us of our civil liberties, and ensure that corporations have control over the European Parliament.

Julian Assange called TTIP “The most important thing happening in Europe right now,” which is why Wikileaks is raising a 100,000 euro reward for any information relating to the deal. The site says of TTIP:

“It remains secret almost in its entirety, closely guarded by the negotiators, and only big corporations are given special access to its terms. The TTIP covers half of global GDP and is one of the largest agreements of its kind in history. The TTIP aims to create a global economic bloc outside of the WTO framework, as part of a geopolitical economic strategy against the BRICS countries of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.”

Considering the impact all three of these trade deals will allegedly have on democracy, human rights, food safety and the environment, public awareness should be widespread. (ANONYMOUS)

Some more information on the subject:

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) | OFSE

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) | OFFICE OF THE US TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

What is the TTIP? | USECONOMY

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership | WIKIPEDIA

What is TTIP, and How Does it Affect Us? | GUARDIAN

The TTIP of the Spear | ECONOMIST