Tag: regime change

Did a Trump executive order just cripple the global US regime change network?

With federal funding paused to USAID, pro-Western media outlets from Ukraine to Nicaragua are panhandling for donations, and a multi-billion dollar regime change apparatus is in panic mode.

Among the flurry of executive orders issued by President Donald Trump in the first days of his administration, perhaps the most consequential to date is one titled, “reevaluating and realigning US foreign aid.”

Under this order, a 90-day pause was instantly enforced on all US foreign development assistance across the globe – excepting, of course, the largest recipients of US aid in Israel and Egypt. For now, the order forbids the disbursement of federal funding for any “non-governmental organizations, international organizations, and contractors” charged with delivering US “aid” programs overseas.

Within days, hundreds of “internal contractors” at the US Agency for International Development (USAID) were placed on unpaid leave or outright fired, as a direct result of the Executive Order. Washington Post contributor John Hudson has reported organization officials brand Trump’s directives on “foreign development assistance” a “shock and awe approach,” which has left them reeling, uncertain of their futures. One nameless USAID apparatchik told him, “they even removed all the pictures in our offices of aid programs,” as accompanying photographs attested.

Keep reading

The Moral Depravity of U.S. Sanctions and Embargoes

In the December 29, 2024, issue of the conservative Wall Street Journal, the paper’s longtime columnist Mary Anastasia O’Grady, who also serves on the Journal’s editorial board, wrote an article harshly criticizing the dictatorships in Cuba and Venezuela. Quoting a State Department statement issued in January 2021, she points out that the Cuban communist regime is a murderous supporter of terrorism that lets the Cuban people “go hungry, homeless, and without medicine.”

O’Grady also also points out that Cuba is a supporter of the dictatorial regime of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro, who has ruthlessly tyrannized the Venezuelan people, not only politically but also economically with the same type of socialist economic system that exists in Cuba. Harkening back to the popular post-9/11 U.S. “war on terrorism,” which replaced the previously popular “war on communism,” she points out that Venezuela is as big a supporter of terrorism as Cuba is.

O’Grady concludes her essay with the following statement: “Under Cuban political tutelage, eight million Venezuelans have fled the country, there are 1,900 political prisoners, and the five patriots inside the [Argentine] embassy are being starved to death. This is state-sponsored terrorism by any other name.”

Yesterday, the Journal published an editorial calling on the U.S. government to come to the support of the Venezuelan people. The editorial points out that “only Venezuelans can reclaim their democracy” but then adds this concluding interventionist line: “But a U.S. policy that restores sanctions on Venezuelan oil exports and puts maximum pressure on the regime would at least show which side America is on.”

Those two articles demonstrate much of what is wrong with the U.S. government’s foreign policy of interventionism, which, needless to say, is favored not only by  right-wingers but also by left-wingers.

Consider Cuba. For more than 60 years, the U.S. government has maintained a harsh system of sanctions against the people of that nation. We call it an “economic embargo” but that’s just another fancy word for the modern-day term of “sanctions.”

Keep reading

How the West Destroyed Syria

RS: Why do you think the Syrian military and government collapsed so rapidly?

Peter Ford: Everybody was surprised but with hindsight, we shouldn’t have been. Over more than a decade, the Syrian army had been hollowed out by the extremely dire economic situation in Syria, mainly caused by western sanctions. Syria only had a few hours of electricity a day, no money to buy weapons and no ability to use the international banking system to buy anything whatsoever. It’s no surprise that the Army was run down. With hindsight, you might say the surprise is that the Syrian government and Army were successful in driving back the Islamists. The Syrian Army forced them into the redoubt of Idlib four or five years ago. But after that point, the Syrian army deteriorated, became less battle ready on the technical level and also morale.

Syrian soldiers are mainly conscripts and they suffer as much as any ordinary Syrian from the really dreadful economic situation in Syria. I hesitate to admit it, but the Western sanctions were extremely effectively in doing what they were designed to do: to bring the Syrian economy down to its knees. So we have to say, and I say this with deep regret,  the sanctions worked. The sanctions did exactly what they were designed to do to make the Syrian people suffer, and thereby to bring about discontent with what they call the regime.

Ordinary Syrians didn’t understand the complexities of geopolitics, and they blamed the Syrian government for everything: not having electricity, not having food, not having gas, oil, high inflation. Everything that came from being cut off from the world economy and not having supporters with bottomless pockets.

Syria was being attacked and occupied by major military powers (Turkey, USA, Israel). Plus thousands of foreign jihadis. The Syrian army was so demoralized that they really were a paper tiger by the end of the day.

Keep reading

Lessons from Iraq, Libya, and Syria: Resistance, Betrayal, and Collapse

The tumultuous collapses of Iraq, Libya and Syria offer stark parallels and contrasts, shedding light on the complex interplay of foreign intervention, internal strife and the fragile dynamics of power in the Middle East.

At the heart of anti-colonialism lie two principles which, at first glance, seem to stand in direct opposition. The first calls for unwavering support of the global struggle for resistance and liberation against white supremacy and colonialism, a battle fought across borders and systems of oppression. The second prioritizes empowering the poorest workers and peasants, ensuring that wealth is redistributed to uplift those most marginalized.

Achieving both of these core principles is rare and remarkable. State-building efforts, including attempts at socialist state formation, are constantly pressured to compromise with colonial powers and transform into comprador states that serve external capitalist interests. Most succumb to this pressure swiftly. The coup against Ben Bella in Algeria and the betrayal of Lumumba by Kabila are just two of many examples.

Despite their flaws and criticisms, Saddam’s Baathist Iraq and Gaddafi’s Libyan Jamahiriya managed to uphold both principles. In stark contrast, Syria failed on both fronts, resulting in the hollowed-out, degenerated state under Assad. This stands in sharp contrast to Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011, both of which resisted colonial destruction at the time. A telling indication of Syria’s failure is the complete lack of popular will to fight for the decrepit Baath regime once it falls.

Keep reading

US Eases Restrictions For Syria In ‘Signal Of Goodwill’ To New Islamist Rulers

The US is planning to announce an easing of restrictions on providing humanitarian aid and other basic services such as electricity to Syria while still keeping crushing economic sanctions on the country in place, Reuters reported on Monday.

Reuters noted the “decision by the outgoing Biden administration will send a signal of goodwill to Syria’s new Islamist rulers and aims to pave the way for improving tough living conditions in the war-ravaged country while treading cautiously and keeping US leverage in place.”

Syria’s new government, led by extremist militants from Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), is calling for the lifting of the US sanctions, which impoverished Syria and prevented reconstruction after the end of the Syria war in 2019.

Washington is so far refusing to lift sanctions, despite its longtime support for HTS and its leader Ahmed al-Sharaa (also known as Abu Mohammad al-Julani), a former deputy to slain ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

Previously known as the Nusra Front, HTS was the official Al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria. The group enjoyed support from the US, Israel, Qatar, and Turkiye, which sought to use the group to topple the Syrian government led by former president Bashar al-Assad starting in 2011.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the Biden administration approved the easing of restrictions over the weekend, saying the move authorizes the Treasury Department to issue waivers to aid groups and companies providing essentials such as water, electricity, and other humanitarian supplies.

The US-funded Syrian opposition group, the Syrian Emergency Task Force (SETF), and other Syrian activists lobbied heavily for the US to impose the sanctions, claiming they would only hurt Assad and other top Syrian officials, not Syrian civilians.

Keep reading

2025, Iran Is Back in the U.S. Crosshairs for Regime Change

A new American president and a new Middle East configuration have brought Iran back into the crosshairs for regime change with an intoxicating vengeance.

The signs are that Iran is going to face intensified hostility from the U.S. over the next year for regime change.

The sudden fall of Syria and the isolation of Hezbollah in Lebanon – Iran’s regional allies – have made Tehran look vulnerable.

Anti-Iran hawks in the U.S. are cock-a-hoop about the prospect of regime change in Tehran.

The recent death of Jimmy Carter at the age of 100 puts in perspective how great a prize the Islamic Republic represents for Washington’s imperial desires. Carter was disparaged as the American president who lost Iran in 1979 as a crucial client state for U.S. power in the Middle East.

For over four decades, American imperialist power has sought to topple the Islamic Republic and return the Persian nation to the U.S. global fold.

Though, as U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken lamented last month, American “regime change experiments” in Iran have been a failure.

Now, however, there is renewed enthusiasm in Washington for the Persian prize.

The lust for regime change in Tehran has peaked with the dramatic fall of President al-Assad in Syria.

American lawmakers and Iranian exiles are publicly calling for the new Trump administration to get back to its maximum pressure campaign on Tehran because they believe there is “a perfect moment” for regime change.

During Donald Trump’s first White House (2017-2021), he revoked the Iranian nuclear deal of the Obama administration and ramped up economic sanctions in what was referred to as a policy of “maximum pressure.”

A growing chorus of Republicans and Democrats are urging the United States to seize the opportunity of a perceived weakened Iran to overthrow the clerical rule of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Keep reading

How the Human Rights Industry Manufactures Consent for “Regime Change”

In the words of the United Nations, “human rights” range from “the most fundamental—the right to life—to those that make life worth living, such as the rights to food, education, work, health, and liberty.” These rights are supposed to be “inherent to us all.” But this lofty ambition has become distorted, not only by the UN itself but by the whole of what Alfred de Zayas calls the “Human Rights Industry.”

This industry, headed by the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), has multiple layers that include UN “expert groups” and “rapporteurs,” regional commissions like (in the Western Hemisphere) the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, international NGOs such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, and tens of thousands of other non-governmental organizations.

In part, this industry still attempts to defend real human rights—the most topical example being the remarkable work of the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Palestine, Francesca Albanese. But, take almost any other country as an example—such as the much less publicized case of Nicaragua—and the real purpose of most of the human rights industry is exposed.

Keep reading

The curiously evolving relationship between Russia and the terrorist group that took control of Syria

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (“HTS”) is a coalition of Sunni Islamist insurgent groups in northern Syria. It evolved from Jabhat al-Nusra which was al-Qaeda’s former branch in Syria. In an effort to appear moderate, HTS cut ties with al-Qaeda in 2016. Despite these efforts, HTS remains listed as a terrorist organisation due to its history and ongoing activities.

HTS is designated as a terrorist organisation by the US, Russia, Turkey, the United Kingdom and other states.  But since HTS took control of Syria at the end of last year, it seems Russia, along with other governments, is willing to consider removing HTS from the terrorist list, even though there is no evidence that HTS has changed its ways.

We don’t have any answers, only questions.  Questions such as: Was the takeover of Syria agreed upon between powerbrokers in Syria, including Russia and the United States, before HTS launched their offensive?  Were groups such as HTS used to give the appearance of a takeover while, in reality, it was a changing of the guard?  

Keep reading

US helps Syria’s ruling Al Qaeda offshoot while punishing its people

In his memoir of his time as a senior aide to President Obama, Ben Rhodes recalled one of the administration’s top quandaries in Syria.

Back in late 2012, the CIA was waging a multi-billion dollar covert war to help insurgents topple then-Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. By that point, Al Qaeda had established a powerful franchise in Syria known as Jabhat al-Nusra, which international actors were promptly designating as a terrorist organization.

Yet for a US government seeking regime change in Damascus, adding al-Nusra to the State Department terror list posed a problem. On the ground, Rhodes acknowledged, al-Nusra “was probably the strongest fighting force” against the Syrian government. Moreover, rather than coming into conflict with one another, it was “also clear that the more moderate opposition” favored by the US was in fact “fighting side by side with al-Nusra.” Therefore, Rhodes recalled arguing to his colleagues, designating al-Nusra as a terrorist organization “would alienate the same people we want to help.”

Rhodes and his compatriots ended up losing that debate. Yet while the State Department designated al-Nusra in December 2012, it turns out that the US still found a way to help. By placing Nusra on the terrorist list, the New York Times explained that month, the Obama administration hoped “to remove one of the biggest obstacles to increasing Western support for the rebellion: the fear that money and arms could flow to a jihadi group that could further destabilize Syria and harm Western interests.”

In other words, designating al-Nusra as a terrorist group was a toothless move that helped the Obama administration continue arming the insurgency that the Nusra militants dominated. The notion that US sanctions would force an Al Qaeda-dominated rebellion to abandon its leading fighting force was a fantasy – if not a deliberate ruse — that ensured that US weapons would continue to flow.

And that they did: three months after Nusra’s terrorist designation, the Associated Press reported that the US and its proxy war allies had “dramatically stepped up weapons supplies to Syrian rebels” to help them “seize Damascus.” Despite the Obama administration’s public opposition to Nusra, “there is little clear evidence from the front lines that all the new, powerful weapons are going to groups which have been carefully vetted by the U.S.” Instead, insurgents “including Jabhat al-Nusra” had been seen “with such weapons.” Once U.S. weapons arrived in Syria, the Obama administration quietly acknowledged that it had no way of controlling who would use them. “We needed plausible deniability in case the arms got into the hands of al-Nusra,” a former senior administration official explained in 2013.

Keep reading

Pretending Your Partners Aren’t Who They Are

Maybe Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, the leader of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), who is now the leader of Syria, really has changed. Maybe he has matured, as he told CNN, as if his years as an al-Qaeda terrorist leader were a youthful indiscretion.

But the world cannot simply take the pragmatic rebel at his word. On December 8, after Asaad fell and Jolani took over control of Syria, U.S. President Joe Biden said “We’ve taken note of statements by the leaders of these rebel groups in recent days and they’re saying the right things now. But as they take on greater responsibility, we will assess not just their words but their actions.”

But judge them just by their words is precisely what the Biden administration did. HTS is designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, and the State Department has a $10 million reward for information leading to the capture of Jolani. Despite the designation and the bounty, U.S. State Department officials met with Jolani on December 20, at which time, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Barbara Leaf told Jolani that “based on our discussion,” the U.S. “would not be pursuing the Rewards for Justice reward offer that has been in effect for some years.” The decision was based, not on Jolani’s actions, but on his words, on “our discussion.”

In proxy wars and regime changes, there are always three parties: the country undertaking the action, the government or country the action is aimed at, and the domestic group that is being used or that is intended to replace the current regime. The history of overt and covert U.S. operations is littered with disasters that resulted from a third party that was as, or more, nefarious than the regime it replaced. In order to avoid immersing itself in the turbulent seas of direct action, the U.S. has dipped its toes into some pretty fetid proxy waters. The challenge after is to rebrand the proxy group to sell it to the international community.

Abu Mohammad al-Jolani has traded his al-Qaeda name for his given name, Ahmed al-Sharaa, and his rebel clothes for Western style clothes. The founder of the al-Nusra Front, the Syrian branch of Al-Qaeda, has renamed and rebranded his organization. He has made politically pragmatic promises to the United States. But terrorists are not always to be trusted. And whether he is al-Jolani or al-Sharaa, must be judged by his actions, as Biden and Leaf insist, and not by his words.

Keep reading