Tag Archives: Regime Change

Bolivia Is the Latest Successful US-Backed Coup in Latin America, by Alan Macleod

It looks like the US government has regime-changed Bolivia’s Evo Morales, who it has never liked. From Alan Macleod at mintpressnews.com:

There is a perfect word in the English language for when army generals appear on television demanding the resignation of an elected head of state while their allies detain and torture government officials.

Bolivian President Evo Morales “resigned” at gunpoint Sunday, after army generals publicly demanded his resignation, despite convincingly winning re-election just three weeks ago.

The preceding 21 days were filled with fractious demonstrations and counter-protests from Morales’ supporters and opponents. On October 20, Morales had secured enough votes to win the election outright in the first round without the need for a run-off against his closest challenger, Carlos Mesa. However, Mesa cried fraud, citing supposed irregularities in the vote-counting procedure, claiming Morales did not receive the requisite vote share to ensure his victory. The Organization of American States (OAS) and the U.S. government repeated this claim, although neither group provided evidence of fraud. Morales invited the OAS to audit the election as he was confident of its veracity. Indeed, a report by the Washington-based Center for Economic Policy Research found that the vote totals were “consistent” with those announced, finding no irregularities whatsoever. Despite this, the local U.S.-backed opposition went on the attack.

Continue reading→

 

 

Insane and Ill-Advised: Trump’s Future War with Iran, Part 2 (with a link to Part 1), by Danny Sjursen

There is no upside and virtually unlimited downside to a possible war with Iran. From Danny Sjursen at fff.org:

Part 1 | Part 2

Iran is an enigma to most American policymakers. Iranian foreign and defense policies, according to Kenneth Katzman, are “products of overlapping, and sometimes contradictory, motivations.” The key question is whether Iran is an expansionist, theocratic, Shia-chauvinist state, or a rational, defensive bulwark with only limited regional aspirations. While it is a bit of both, it is generally more defensive and decidedly not a strategic or existential threat to the United States.

Iran’s role in the region is not entirely negative. Particularly in Iraq, Iran and the United States have recently found themselves on the same side. Both states opposed the Islamic State. Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Units, a largely Shia Iraqi militia network, were critical in stopping the spread of ISIS and then fighting back against them. These militias have enjoyed significant Iranian support, without becoming a totally Iranian initiative. At the same time, they have been significant drivers of sectarianism and have raised worries that they will undermine the Iraqi government’s authority at Iran’s behest. Iran and the United States also both opposed the independence referendum in Iraqi Kurdistan and the attempted coup in Turkey. Those areas of overlapping interest are narrow and often temporary, yet they highlight the danger of viewing U.S.-Iranian relations as a zero-sum competition.

There are also limits on the threat Iran poses to vital U.S. interests in the Middle East. Thanks to the 2016 nuclear agreement, the prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapon has been delayed for a number of years. Iran would have to either develop covert facilities, which the agreement’s inspection regime makes more difficult; or signal its intentions to weaponize by expelling inspectors, an act that would quickly isolate it diplomatically.

Continue reading

The Grayzone’s Anya Parampil on Fox: US regime change policy fuels migration crisis

Regime changes have consequences! Who knew?

Suddenly, Western “Regime” Changes Keep Failing, by Andre Vltchek

The rest of the world has wised up to US “regime” change tactics. From Andre Vltchek at off-guardian.org:

It used to be done regularly and it worked: The West identified a country as its enemy, unleashed its professional propaganda against it, then administered a series of sanctions, starving and murdering children, the elderly and other vulnerable groups. If the country did not collapse within months or just couple of years, the bombing would begin.

And the nation, totally shaken, in pain, and in disarray, would collapse like a house of cards, once the first NATO boots hit its ground.

Such scenarios were re-enacted, again and again, from Yugoslavia to Iraq.

But suddenly, something significant has happened. This horrific lawlessness, this chaos stopped; was deterred.

The West keeps using the same tactics, it tries to terrorize independent-minded countries, to frighten people into submission, to overthrow what it defines as ‘regimes’, but its power, its monstrously destructive power has all of a sudden become ineffective.

It hits, and the attacked nation shakes, screams, sheds blood, but keeps standing, keeps proudly erect.

Continue reading

America’s Legacy of Regime Change, by Stephen Kinder

After World War II, the US government got into the regime change business in a big way. It was easier than invading countries and deposing their undesirable governments. From Stephen Kinzer, reviewing Covert Regime Change: America’s Secret Cold War by Lindsey A. O’Rourke at fff.org:

Covert Regime Change: America’s Secret Cold War by Lindsey A. O’Rourke (Cornell University Press, 2018); 330 pages.

For most of history, seizing another country or territory was a straightforward proposition. You assembled an army and ordered it to invade. Combat determined the victor. The toll in death and suffering was usually horrific, but it was all done in the open. That is how Alexander overran Persia and how countless conquerors since have bent weaker nations to their will. Invasion is the old-fashioned way.

When the United States joined the race for empire at the end of the 19th century, that was the tactic it used. It sent a large expeditionary force to the Philippines to crush an independence movement, ultimately killing some 200,000 Filipinos. At the other end of the carnage spectrum, it seized Guam without the loss of a single life and Puerto Rico with few casualties. Every time, though, U.S. victory was the result of superior military power. In the few cases when the United States failed, as in its attempt to defend a client regime by suppressing Augusto Cesar Sandino’s nationalist rebellion in Nicaragua during the 1920s and 30s, the failure was also the product of military confrontation. For the United States, as for all warlike nations, military power has traditionally been the decisive factor determining whether it wins or loses its campaigns to capture or subdue other countries. World War II was the climax of that bloody history.

After that war, however, something important changed. The United States no longer felt free to land troops on every foreign shore that was ruled by a government it disliked or considered threatening. Suddenly there was a new constraint: the Red Army. If American troops invaded a country and overthrew its government, the Soviets might respond in kind. Combat between American and Soviet forces could easily escalate into nuclear holocaust, so it had to be avoided at all costs. Yet during the Cold War, the United States remained determined to shape the world according to its liking — perhaps more determined than ever. The United States needed a new weapon. The search led to covert action.

Continue reading

War and the Paper Standard, by L. Reichard White

This is the best article posted tonight. It’s long, but it explains much that is hidden about US foreign policy. From L. Reichard White at lewrockwell.com:

Maybe you’ve noticed the frenzied U.S. Government attempt to replace Venezuela’s duly elected hood-ornament — PresideNT Nicolas Maduro — with Juan Guaido, a nearly unknown U.S. prepped Venezuelan politician?

Why are they trying to do that?

With National. Security Advisor John Bolton suggesting a berth at Gitmo for Mr. Maduro if he doesn’t step down and flee the country — and Sen. Marco Rubio implying Muammar Gadaffi’s last minutes of life being intimate with a bayonett as another future for Mr. Maduro — “our” D.C. reprehensibles are displaying their unsavory colors.

Prominently showcasing this level of thuggery, usually hidden from polite society in smoke-filled back rooms, restricted C.I.A. workshops — and censored and classified “above top secret” for decades — marks a whole new phase in international relations.

But why?

With Mr. “Art of the Deal” Trump & Company seriously abusing the standard Games Theory and negotiation baseline — you know, “All options are on the table” — they’ve already (March 3, 2019) played the “suggest a U.S. invasion” card.

And pulling out all the Art of War stops too, Trump & Company — clearly with maximum arm twisting — have wheedled, cajoled, bribed, bullied, and/or threatened about one quarter of the world’s governments into suddenly proclaiming this relatively unknown to be PresideNT of Venezuela. Despite — or maybe because of — Mr. Maduro’s democratic victory last year (May 20, 2018.)

Merely labeling the democratically elected Maduro “dictator” while proclaiming unknown Guaido “PresideNT” — without an invasion or bloody revolution so far or even a vote — though ingenuous is pure Sun Tsu genius. If it works.

But why are they doing that?

Continue reading→

Iran, Make My Day, Says Trump, by Eric Margolis

The American way of regime change and war hasn’t worked very well the last few decades, which must be why the Trump administration wants to continue using it in Venezuela. From Eric Margolis at lewrockwell.com:

Is it just a coincidence that TV networks are re-running old ‘Dirty Harry’ films just as a powerful US Naval armada and Air Force B-52 bombers are headed for what could be a clash with Iran?  Here we go again with the ‘good guys’ versus the ‘bad guys,’ and ‘make my day.’

Maybe it’s more bluffing?  The current US military deployment was scheduled before the latest flare-up with Iran, but the bellicose threats of White House neocon crusaders like John Bolton and Mike Pompeo certainly create the impression that the US wants war.

Adding to the warlike excitement, President Trump just ordered seizure of a large North Korean bulk cargo ship.  This was clearly a brazen act of war and violation of international law.  More dangerous brinkmanship by administration war-mongers who increasingly appear besotted by power and hubris.

Continue reading