Thursday, 31 December 2020

Iran accuses British company of helping to assassinate Soleimani

 December 31, 2020 at 11:57 am | Published in: Iran, Middle East, News

People gather to protest the US air strike in Iraq that killed Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani on 6 January, 2020 [Mohammed Hamoud/Anadolu Agency]
People gather to protest the US air strike in Iraq that killed Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani on 6 January, 2020 [Mohammed Hamoud/Anadolu Agency]

Iranian Prosecutor Ali Al-Qasi Mehr has accused the British company G4S of providing the US armed forces in Iraq with the arrival details of the aircraft in which General Qasem Soleimani was travelling prior to his assassination by an American drone. G4S is responsible for aviation security at Baghdad International Airport, where the attack which killed Soleimani took place.

The public prosecutor made the allegation on Wednesday during a legal and judicial follow-up session covering the assassination of Soleimani and his delegation. Also taking part were the Chief Justice of Iran, Ebrahim Raisi, and officials of the judicial, military, security, intelligence and political authorities.

Iran's Attorney General claimed that investigations to date indicate Germany's involvement in the murder. He explained that the US Air Force in Germany was responsible for directing the drone that targeted Soleimani's convoy.

The Iranian authorities are working to prosecute the British company along with others suspected of involvement in the killing. "We identified 45 US nationals responsible for the assassination of Soleimani and we have submitted summons requests to Interpol," explained Mehr. "Iran has also granted six countries — Iraq, Syria, Qatar, Kuwait, Lebanon and Jordan — judicial representation to investigate the assassination of Soleimani, and we recently received the investigation results from Iraq."

 

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20201231-iran-accuses-british-company-of-helping-to-assassinate-soleimani/

Categories
IranMiddle EastNews
3 Comments

Less than a week after BoJo’s Brexit deal, is the UK starting to break up already?

 

Chris Sweeney

Chris Sweeney is an author and columnist who has written for newspapers such as The Times, Daily Express, The Sun and Daily Record, along with several international-selling magazines. Follow him on Twitter @Writes_Sweeney

Less than a week after BoJo’s Brexit deal, is the UK starting to break up already?
As the Republic of Ireland provides EU benefits for Northern Irish residents, and Scots express fury at elements of the Brexit agreement, it’s clear that stopping the UK breaking up is now a major headache for Boris Johnson.

The ink is barely dry on the Brexit deal and reality has bitten. 

Long tailbacks of lorries have been waiting to cross The Channel, due to increased checks.

British qualifications will no longer be automatically recognised across the European Union. And British police forces have lost access to the Schengen Information System database, which they use on average 1.65 million times a day. 

ALSO ON RT.COMDesperate Ireland has been seduced by the Joe Biden personality cult and doesn’t realise the fairytale won’t come true

But there’s a bigger issue that might not be so immediately obvious as these stark realities.

The first clear indications that Brexit could spell the beginning of the end for the United Kingdom have appeared.

The Republic of Ireland has announced it will fund the European flagship student exchange programme Erasmus for Northern Irish students.

Their counterparts on the British mainland are no longer eligible for the scheme. The Irish Minister for Higher Education Simon Harris said of the arrangement, “It’s not a cost, it’s an investment.”

On the face of it, it’s a noble act for a sovereign nation to fund a better education system for citizens of another state. But it’s not the only act of Irish generosity. Dublin is also doing the same to allow Northern Ireland’s population to remain in the European Health Insurance Card scheme.

Both of these moves saw United Ireland trend on Twitter.

It’s not hard to envisage people in Northern Ireland being disillusioned with being passed around like a political football by Boris Johnson and Westminster. Their geographic separation from Great Britain has made them the Achilles heel of many Brexit plans.

But there will be very few in Northern Ireland who won’t be grateful to their southern neighbours, as they are now set to retain some benefits of European Union membership without any cost to themselves.

Although a low-key move by the Irish, it’s savvy, benevolent and shows good faith — and will only boost the Irish assimilation movement. The message is, we’re extending our hand and want to help you.

It’s a far cry from Boris Johnson’s red tape that saw supermarket chains cause panic in November by revealing they may have to slash supplies of fish, dairy products and meat to Northern Irish stores.  That looks like it won’t happen now due to the deal, but the feeling of being left to twist in the wind lingers in Belfast.

The Scots, too, are also looking to exploit the post-Brexit reality. BoJo’s agreement with the EU will pass in the UK parliament because the Conservative government and the opposition, Labour, will vote for it. But the third biggest party won’t. All of the Scottish National Party’s MPs will play the only card they can.

The EU referendum was 52/48 percent in favour of leaving, but Scotland voted 62/38 against. That’s a huge swing and the SNP’s refusal to back the deal, even though it will have no actual bearing on the outcome, is a signal to the Scottish population. It’s underlining the commonly recited mantra that Westminster doesn’t care about them, and only the SNP will fight their corner.

These tactics appear to be proving successful, as recent polls show a record 58 percent now backing independence, the highest ever rate of support. They also show that the SNP is on course to win every single seat in Scotland’s parliamentary elections next year, bar one.

That would put them in an astonishing position of power and the SNP would feel entitled to demand another independence referendum, justifying it as the will of the people. It would be hard to argue against.

The SNP has also seized on the fact that the Brexit deal will result in reduced access to cod and haddock for Scottish fishing fleets. Fergus Ewing, the Scottish cabinet secretary for the rural economy, said of the deal, “This is a terrible outcome for Scotland’s coastal communities.”

In contrast, the UK’s negotiating team feels the deal will result in overall net gains for Scotland’s fishing industry. But the reality is that the agreement is so complex that there will be many caveats and loopholes the Irish or Scots will seek to exploit. And these will hurt.

It could become death by a thousand cuts for the UK, and the past few days have shown how difficult it will be for BoJo to keep the ship afloat. 

Many have predicted that Brexit will define his premiership. While he was the figurehead of the Leave campaign, it was Theresa May who was in Downing Street for the vast majority of the negotiation process with the EU. BoJo only took over for the final furlong and delivered a deal that some say is less generous than what May managed to get.

But the real legacy of his premiership will be whether he is able to prevent the obliteration of the UK.

If current voting trends continue, Scotland looks nailed on to have another independence referendum, and the result could be very different next time.

Northern Ireland is already being wooed by the bigger EU nation that it shares an island with.

And Wales’ independence party Plaid Cymru wants to offer an independence referendum if it gets enough votes in May’s local elections. 

If the practical realities of Brexit cause problems over the first few months of 2021, Plaid Cymru could see its support rocket as the Welsh look for a way out too.

Even if many of us are distracted by the glow of the shiny, new, long-awaited Brexit deal, it’s clear that the fight to save the UK has begun.

 The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

A New War in the New Year? Trump Again Takes Aim at Iran

 One of the most perplexing narratives presented during the waning days of the administration of President Donald J. Trump is his apparent disengagement from dealing seriously or providing leadership regarding the surging Coronavirus while at the same time continuing an activist foreign policy that in no way benefits any American. Ironically, the new administration of Joe Biden will, undoubtedly, establish its own priorities after January 20th, presuming the result of the election holds, and could easily reverse any government actions initiated overseas by Trump.

So it is all perhaps much ado about nothing, but meddling in the politics of others, creating enemies where enemies do not actually exist, and starting “little wars” to make a point about one’s virility create an unfortunate legacy in that they do not exactly win friends and influence people around the world. There have been interactions in a number of contexts, perhaps most dangerously in the continued promotion of the “threat” coming from China. The U.S. continues to emphasize the growth of Chinese foreign investments, the creation of its new Silk Road across Asia and into Europe, and Beijing’s growing military might. The mainstream U.S. media regularly fearmongers that the Chinese economy will surpass that of the U.S. inside a decade if it has not done so already.

The Administration, sometimes subtly and sometimes not so subtly, links China directly to the emergence of the Coronavirus and has implied that its propagation is part of a global plan to destroy western democracy and replace it with communism. The new defense budget includes a shift in spending to dramatically increase expansion of the navy to confront the Chinese in their own coastal waters. To be sure, China’s armed forces are being reshaped commensurate with its world role, but it does not realistically challenge that of the United States and will not do so even if it chooses to continue its expansion. Nevertheless, what began as a trade war is now being recast as an Armageddon-like conflict for global dominance, with the White House, Democrats, Republicans and the media all on board.

Russia too, the perpetual enemy, has fortunately escaped direct assault from the White House, leading to renewed claims that Trump is Putin’s puppet. The latest assertion is that a wave of hacking of government and other internet sites in the United States was done by Russia, though there has been precious little evidence provided to support that claim. Joe Biden has picked up the slack by asserting that he will be responding to the attack “in kind,” hello cyberwar, while several Democratic Senators have asked rhetorically whether the hack is an “act of war.” It is even being suggested that Russia will be interfering in the upcoming runoff election for the two Senate seats in Georgia, which will possibly decide who controls the upper chamber of the U.S. Congress for the next two years.

But the biggest winner in the “hated by America” sweepstakes is the usual favorite, Iran. On December 20th several rockets landed inside the fortified U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, which in turn sits inside the heavily guarded and protected Green Zone along the Euphrates River where most embassies and government offices are located. Insofar as has been reported, the missiles did little damage and killed one Iraqi civilian. It should be observed that the weapons were not very sophisticated and are of a type that is readily available in the Middle East. Similar attacks on the Green Zone using the same kind of unguided and crude rockets have become a regular feature of diplomatic and government life in Iraq’s capital.

Donald Trump responded three days later with a characteristically truculent series of tweets: “Our embassy in Baghdad got hit Sunday by several rockets. Three rockets failed to launch. Guess where they were from: IRAN. Now we hear chatter of additional attacks against Americans in Iraq… Some friendly health advice to Iran: If one American is killed, I will hold Iran responsible. Think it over.”

There is no evidence whatsoever that Iran either carried out or sponsored the attack on the Embassy and the photographs of the unexploded rockets, of a standard 107mm caliber widely available and used worldwide, have markings written in English, not Farsi. As is often the case, Trump chose to interpret the actual story and seeks both to demonstrate Iranian involvement and to define it as a provocation that would merit a military response that could start a war. He and his Pentagon wordsmiths would choose to call it “establishing deterrence” or “self-defense.” A spokesman for Central Command described the attack as “…almost certainly conducted by an Iranian-backed rogue militia group,” adding also that the 21-rocket barrage was “clearly NOT intended to avoid casualties.” “Almost certainly” in government speak means “we don’t know”: while a judgment of “clearly NOT intended” would be, under the circimstances, impossible to make definitively.

So unhinged is the hatred for Iran and all its friends that the Trump Administration has, in its last days in office, gone so far as to sanction Asma, the wife of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, as well as all her highly respectable family living in England, where she was born and raised. The reality is that the United States and Israel will stop at nothing to denigrate what they conveniently describe as “rogue regimes” when the only real rogues are in Washington and Jerusalem. Trump and Netanyahu have been wanting to start a war with Iran for the past four years and have been seeking to provoke the Iranians into a response that could be used to justify a massive counter-attack. Why all the tip-toeing around is taking place is because Americans and Israelis are seeking to establish a fig leaf to hide behind while they commit a war crime, i.e. initiating a war of aggression where there is no threat coming from the other side. Instead, they are engaging in what they refer to as “maximum pressure” using economic sanctions and assassinations, hoping to have Iran strike back hard against them so they can plausibly claim that they are the victims and are engaging in “deterrence” or “defense.”

That is what was behind the U.S. assassination of Iranian General Qassim Soleimani eleven months ago and the Israeli killing of top Iranian scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh in November. Ironically, if there is considerable tension in the Middle East, to include the rocketing of the U.S. Embassy, it is due to actions undertaken by Israel and the U.S. themselves. Israel has kept the pot boiling by regularly attacking “targets” in Syria, many of which are described as “Iranian-linked.” On Christmas Day Israel violated Lebanese airspace before hitting the city of Masyaf in Syria, which has a large Christian minority, reportedly killing five and destroying a research facility. The relatively low intensity warfare by the Jewish state is a practice that is fully supported by the United States, which continues to maintain forces in Syria to “guard the oil fields” while also supporting the efforts to bring about regime change in Damascus.

The possibility that there will be a war in the Middle East instigated by the Trump White House as a final gift to Israel must be taken seriously in spite of the short time frame remaining. Trump is also pushing ahead with U.S. taxpayer funded “deals” with various Arab states to get them to establish diplomatic ties with the Jewish state. And there are other signs that something is about to happen. The Israelis have moved one of their nuclear missile capable and cruise missile armed submarines into the Persian Gulf to provide a better window for attacking Iran and are hinting that military action might be impending. And there are also rumors in Washington that the U.S. might be closing its embassy in Baghdad due to the “threat,” a possible first step in reducing the number of Americans vulnerable to a war zone that would inevitably include heavily Shi’a Iraq. And what might the Congress and American people do to stop it all from happening? Nothing that would actually have any impact.


https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/12/31/a-new-war-in-new-year-trump-again-takes-aim-at-iran/


Lenin saved… by capitalism! Remote Russian region won’t tear down statue to Bolshevik icon because it’s too popular with tourists

 


Lenin saved… by capitalism! Remote Russian region won’t tear down statue to Bolshevik icon because it’s too popular with tourists
In life, he wasn’t known for worrying about profits, but in death Vladimir Lenin has become a surprise moneymaker for Russian officials. Now, his popularity among paying tourists is saving the Father of the Revolution’s legacy.

Speaking to local media on Wednesday, Vasily Orlov, Governor of the Amur Region in Russia’s Far East, told journalists that a monument to the Soviet icon in the city of Blagoveshchensk had become a surprise hit with visitors. The frontier town is set on the banks of the Amur river, which divides Russia from China.

READ MORE: Lenin for sale? Russian politician suggests flogging Soviet leader’s body to the Chinese

According to him, the statue of Lenin had been “preserved” during an overhaul of the city’s central square, because “it is very important for Chinese tourists — they like to be photographed against the background of [Vladimir] Ilyich.”

While tens of thousands of statues of the man who led the 1917 Revolution were erected during the Soviet era, many across Russia and the former republics have since been dismantled or fallen into disrepair. However, some local authorities have pushed back against that trend, with plans to take down a 42-tonne bust of the leader’s head shelved after a campaign in the Siberian Republic of Buryatia.

In 2018, a fistfight broke out between members of Russia’s Communist Party and Moscow politicians over plans to move a statue of Lenin in the capital. One leftist leader accused officials of “attempting to insult the entire Soviet past.” Andrei Morev, the head of the Yakimanka council where the brawl took place, defended the gathering, however, attempted to sum up the feelings of residents, saying “Lenin is a leader for some and a butcher for others… That’s why we need to hear the opinions of locals.”

Biden’s Politics of Impunity

 Two former U.S. intelligence officials serving under the Obama administration are set to return to important roles under President-Elect Joe Biden. Mike Morell and Avril Haines, the former Acting CIA director and Deputy CIA director respectively, have been nominated by Biden to serve as CIA Director and National Intelligence Director. The nominations have already elicited criticism of an extended narrative of the “War on Terror”, as opposed to Biden’s electoral rhetoric on ending wars.

In 2014, a report published by the U.S. Senate Democrats revealed the extent of the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation tactics” – a polite euphemism for the torture of detainees, which also included waterboarding. Morell objected to the torture label. “When people call it torture, I react strongly because it says my officers tortured people – they did not torture anybody.” Waterboarding, a torture tactic that simulates drowning, was considered by Morell as “one of the two most effective of all the harsh techniques” employed by the CIA against detainees suspected of affiliation with Al-Qaeda and terror plots.

Morell’s contention with waterboarding and torture is contradictory, to say the least, as expressed in a 2016 documentary. “Should a country, the United States of America, which stands for human rights in the world, which stands for human dignity, probably more than any country – do these techniques to another human being? That’s a really reasonable question.” A reasonable question with a flawed premise – the U.S. is hardly an example of human rights advocacy. Its manipulation of democracy to justify foreign intervention and endless wars does not constitute adherence to human rights and the promotion of human dignity. In using waterboarding as part of its torture techniques, U.S. politics exposed its justification of human rights violations by distinguishing between state-sanctioned violence, and terror.

In 2018, Haines lauded U.S. President Donald Trump’s nomination of Gina Haspel as CIA Director. “Gina Haspel is intelligent, compassionate and fair,” Haines declared, echoing Morell’s lauding of Haspel as having “deep integrity,” definitely not a CIA requisite. Haspel was chief of a secret U.S. base in Thailand which used torture tactics upon detainees, including waterboarding. She was also involved in destroying tapes containing evidence of CIA torture.

The intricacies of such nominations portray the extent of state complicity and continuity when it comes to the ramifications of foreign intervention, regardless of political representation. Tactics may be changing – drone strikes are now favourable to direct military intervention as was the case in the U.S. bombing of Libya under the auspices of NATO in 2011, which Biden hailed as a success. “In this case, America spent $2 billion and didn’t lose a single life,” he declared. The collateral damage, of course, was only incurred by civilians in Libya, similarly to the drone strikes and civilian deaths in Syria and Iraq while the U.S. shifted its attention against ISIS.

Biden is inheriting a political scenario where he can implement previous policies in a stealthier manner, due to the evolution of technology. The War on Terror narrative is well established, and barely questioned, unless nominees for top positions carry with them echoes of past violations. However, there needs to be a sequence that ties forthcoming accountability to the previous abuses and narratives which replenish rather than deter violence. The U.S. has expanded terrorism in the countries it claims to be reforming through democracy. After all, it is the same powers that have created or fabricated, as in the case of Iraq’s purported stash of nuclear weapons, the conditions warranting, according to U.S. imperialism, foreign intervention.

Biden’s choices point towards an acceptance of torture. How this will play out in the evolving scenario of war and terror remains to be seen, however, the extension of impunity is something that each U.S. president covets, almost in parallel with how the CIA operates. Through his choices, Biden has already shown he is no different from his predecessors – maintaining the terror narrative comes above upholding human rights.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/12/30/biden-politics-of-impunity/

Doomsday ex Machina: Daniel Ellsberg and the Nuclear Gang

 

 


Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair

You hide in your mansion
While the young people’s blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud

You’ve thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world

– Bob Dylan, “Masters of War” (1963)

October 15, 1969.

That’s the day the world might have ended, had Madman Richard Nixon had his druthers.

In his recent book, The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner, Daniel Ellsberg paints a doom and boom picture of the future, unless we immediately engage in negotiations with other nuclear armed nations to strengthen the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and begin the dismantling of the Doomsday Machine that is programmed to destroy as much life as possible on the planet once global nuclear war begins — a perilously close possibility under the current postures and protocols of nuclear-armed governments. (Even as late as last week, NATO rejected a UN call for the elimination of these omnicidal weapons.)

In the above example, Richard Nixon was inspired by Dwight D. Eisenhower’s strong arming tactics in securing an armistice in Korea. Citing Nixon Chief of Staff Bob Haldeman, Ellsberg writes,

Nixon “saw a parallel in the action President Eisenhower had taken to end another war. When Eisenhower arrived in the White House, the Korean War was stalemated. Eisenhower ended the impasse in a hurry. He secretly got word to the Chinese that he would drop nuclear bombs on North Korea unless a truce was signed immediately. In a few weeks, the Chinese called for a truce and the Korean War ended.”

Like Ike, Nixon knew that there was no point in bluffing; your future credibility was on the line. Diminished credibility, if you’re a super power, could be a dangerous thing.

Nixon was set to nuke the North Vietnamese on October 15, 1969: he was certain that the North Vietnamese were not ready to cave, and he was going to hit them with tactical nukes to make them kow-tow and to flash his terrible swift sword at the supporting Soviets. But a miracle happened:

What had prevented Nixon’s test of the madman theory from being carried out in 1969 was neither any leak of his threats and plans nor any North Vietnamese compliance with them. It was, as Nixon recounted in his memoirs, the fact that two million Americans took part on October 15 in the “Moratorium” (a general strike by another name), a nationwide weekday work- and school-stoppage protesting the war…The North Vietnamese
would not believe that he could continue such attacks in the face of this unprecedented popular resistance.

Nixon was livid, but. he was just beginning his presidency and there would be other opportunities to nuke the North Vietnamese.

In fact, just three years later, on April 25, 1972, an election year, Nixon was back looking to escalate in Vietnam, rather than seeking Peace with Honor. Ellsberg cites this conversation between Nixon and Kissinger on the White House tapes:

PRESIDENT: I still think we ought to take the dikes out now. Will that drown people?

HENRY KISSINGER: About two hundred thousand people.

PRESIDENT [reflective, matter-of-fact]: No, no, no … I’d rather use the nuclear bomb. Have you got that, Henry?

KISSINGER [like the president, low-key]: That, I think would just be too much.

PRESIDENT [in a tone of surprise]: The nuclear bomb, does that bother you? I just want you to think big, Henry, for Christsakes.

He longed to deliver “a ‘savage, brutal blow’ that would bring the ‘little fourth-rate country’ North Vietnam to its ‘breaking point.’”

TDM is chock full of revelations, surprises, and awe-inspiring anecdotes. Ellsberg explains that as inflammatory as the Pentagon Papers proved to be, as he distributed copies to newspapers across the country, while on the lam, and citizens came to the understanding that even the top generals prosecuting the war in Nam had already concluded that it could not be won and the draft and carnage were for nothing, his “other Pentagon Papers,” copied at the same time, regarding nukes and the two Doomsday Machines (the USA and Russia each have one), were even more important. Nixon was terrified that Ellsberg had secret documents that laid bare Nixon’s first strike nuclear intentions in Vietnam.

Ellsberg went to great lengths to hide the Doomsday material. He was already facing a 115 year sentence if he got convicted for the PP leak, but he felt the nuke papers could finish him off. He writes,

Later, when the papers were published in 1971, Henry Kissinger’s fear that I did know about Nixon’s nuclear threats and plans, and might have documents to back it up, was sufficient reason for him to regard me as “the most dangerous man in America,” who “must be stopped at all costs.”

Ellsberg gave the trove to his brother, who buried it in a landfill, only to have a hurricane come along and rearrange the dump so randomly that his marker was lost and the bag of top secret documents could no longer be found. That was the only reason the Doomsday material wasn’t released around the same time as the Papers. Amazingly enough, he had to reconstruct his data from FOIA requests years later.

The Doomsday Machine is dense and rich material, but very accessible, Ellsberg goes out of his way to be layperson friendly, telling us he’s aware that dry academic texts go unread — no matter how important — because of the language barrier. He’s kind of like Dante’s Vergil that way — a guide to an underworld of secrets and madness. As his subtitle implies, he was a war planner, an egghead from the RAND Corporation (RAND = Research and Development), who was contracted by the Pentagon to spec out options through war games, statistical analysis, and historical research that led to war doctrines and postures and, as we’ll see, critical speeches that provoked crises.

The Doomsday Machine covers a lot of ground, from 1945 to the present, but three main themes stood out for me: one, the delegation of authority regarding the use of the nuclear option in battle, and the precariousness of its control, given what Ellsberg describes as the US refusal to rule out a first strike posture (indeed, he argues that the US intention is the opposite); second, he describes in riveting detail the many miraculous near-miss nuclear arms incidents since 1945 that might have about brought Doomsday, including an incredible re-examination of the Cuban Missile Crisis, with shocking new revelations, including his admission that he himself may have caused the Crisis; and, third, there is his urgent quest to dismantle the Doomsday Machines while there is still time.

Ellsberg points out that the public has been lead to believe over the decades — by “unnamed high-ranking government officials,” the MSM, and Hollywood — that the President, as Commander-in-Chief, is in charge of the “football” and is the go-to guy for the orders to nuke the enemy. Under this conceit, as long as we have a rational, stable chief, then we are unlikely to engage in the kinds of self-destructive sword swaggering that could lead to nuclear holocaust. We saw this question raised in 2016 during the presidential debates with Hillary Clinton, channeling either Condoleeza Rice and the mushroom cloud or the pussygate cloud, asked viewers if Donald Trump was someone Americans wanted to see with his finger on the nuclear option (we now know the answer). But also one could ask the same of Hillary, given her well-known war hawk proclivities.

But in his chapter, Delegation: How Many Fingers on the Button?, Ellsberg discusses the totemic symbolism involved:

In a truly symbolic gesture that television cameras often capture during the inauguration of a new president, the aide carrying the football visibly shifts his gaze from the departing president to the new one at the moment of his swearing in. That shift signifies not only that the new president has acquired the full authority of his office but also that the existence of a civilian commander in chief of the nuclear forces of the United States—with, supposedly, exclusive control of these almost godlike powers of destruction—must not be and has not been interrupted for a single moment.

I admit I’ve never seen this exchange Ellsberg describes, but he goes on to insinuate that as with our Exceptionalism, the Hail to the Chief bullshit, is part of our delusional, habituated thinking that gets us into pickles time after time.

He details all the presidents from Truman onward and the nuclear mischief they got up to, and even provides a handy reference list of the 25 nuclear crises presidents have got themselves up to from GW Bush to Donald Trump (yes, including, especially Jimmy Carter). It’s a sobering list you’ll want to have a drink after reading. So, if rationality and stability are meant to be safeguards of our doctrines and postures, we are in a world of trouble, and, to use a phrase that Ellsberg keeps repeating in the book, we have been saved “only by a miracle” many times. But it only gets worse (another expression Ellsberg uses throughout the book).

It turns out that we can’t have a situation where the “football” carrying president (can you believe that clumsy-footed Ford was a gridiron standout?) is decapitated and no one is authorized to order a nuclear strike against the enemy. We (and the Russkies) can’t have that: each side must be able to retaliate if struck first by a fusillade of nuclear tipped arrows. So submarine commanders and field generals with nukes at their disposal can, under some circumstances, strike with vengeance. The delegated authority to strike is so widespread on each side (Russians and Americans, and Ellsberg thinks it’s true of the other nuclear states too) that, again, the chances of an “accident” are raised exponentially.

He recalls when he learned of the extent of the delegation of authority during Ike’s years, specifically in 1959 when he visited the cruiser St. Paul, the flagship of the Seventh Fleet, and talked with the commander, Vice Admiral Frederick N. Kivette and others. He wanted to know more about how the delegation worked. He writes,

So I ventured to raise the issue I’d been told about in great secrecy. I asked Admiral Kivette if he had heard of a letter from President Eisenhower to Admiral Felt delegating authority over nuclear operations if communications were out. He said, yes, he knew that Admiral Felt held such a letter.

But knowing and knowing are two different things. Trust derived from rank can be catastrophic (recall Captain Queeg and the strawberries aboard the Caine.)

Ellsberg notes that such delegation “contravened and superseded the guidance I’d read in Top Secret war planning,” and further notes, disturbingly,

I still didn’t feel certain that the alleged letters from President Eisenhower actually existed; no one had offered to show them to me, or even claimed to have seen one himself.

He notes that such information could easily be hidden in a Byzantine system of top secret tiers that provide access in one case, and lack of access to another, related, matter. The implicit authority given to tactical nuclear warriors may or may not have existed, but as one commander told him “it wouldn’t matter once the firing started.” Today, such delegation is widespread across the tactical nuclear forces of Europe.

Ultimately, the retaliatory systems of the super powers, a chain reaction of human impulses and computer-enhanced logic that could lead to “omnicide,” known by the Russians and the US as The Doomsday Machine, is the bottom line delegated authority. Ellsberg describes going with a colleague to see Dr. Strangelove in 1964, in which the term Doomsday Machine is used for the first time — in itself derived from a RAND study:

We came out into the afternoon sunlight, dazed by the light and the film, both agreeing that what we had just seen was, essentially, a documentary. (We didn’t yet know—nor did SAC—that existing strategic operational plans, whether for first strike or retaliation, constituted a literal Doomsday Machine, as in the film.)

It reminds me of the times Jon Stewart used to say that you knew we were in confusing times when people were turning to Comedy Central to get the real, reliable news.

In a book full of shockers, none is more jaw-dropping than Ellsberg’s mea culpa regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis. He spends two chapters explaining the lead-up to the Crisis and its much-hairier-than-we-know subplots. It begins with the Berlin Crisis of 1961. Soviet First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev wanted the Americans out of East Germany. The Soviets, frustrated with the “brain drain” of the professional class from East Germany into Ally-protected, totally surrounded West Berlin, began harassing and hindering US troops. It all led to the construction of the Berlin Wall and a near war when US and Soviet tanks faced off with hair-trigger tension at Checkpoint Charlie on October 27.

In the lead-up to the tension at Checkpoint Charlie, Roswell Gilpatric, Assistant Deputy Secretary of Defense, gave a speech (written by Ellsberg) to the Business Council on October 21, 1961 that for the first time implied that the US might engage the conventional forces of Soviets with nukes. Said Soviet Defense Minister Rodion Malinovsky the next day,

A realistic assessment of the picture would lead one to believe that what the imperialists are planning is a surprise nuclear attack on the U.S.S.R. and the socialist countries.

Ellsberg adds, the Soviets “had never been threatening nuclear first use, over Berlin or anywhere else. We were.” Further, Gilpatric’s speech contained a humiliating revelation to the world — the Soviets had a teeny-weeny number of ICBMs — 4! — and the Americans knew where they were (Plesetsk). It meant that tactical nukes from NATO could take out those ICBMs, leaving the Russians impotent to strike at the continental USA. Ouch.

Ellsberg writes that Khrushchev’s response was immediate. He shook off the humiliation, and, “Khrushchev’s first reaction was to go ahead with a thirty-megaton nuclear test explosion two days after the speech, soon followed by a fiftyeight-megaton explosion, the largest ever.” Ellsberg, who’d apparently yet to break good, gave another “humiliating” proxied speech a few months later. At a commencement speech at the University of Michigan in July 1962, Secretary of Defense Robert NcNamara, announced the new US intention of striking Soviet Command-and-Control centers (aka, decapitation) rather than cities. Khrushchev took this news the wrong way. He had postured that threatening cities and their citizens was a more effective deterrent to war.

Things were heating up and getting busy behind the scenes. Ellsberg writes,

Ten days later, Khrushchev attacked100 the Ann Arbor speech publicly asseeking “to legalize nuclear warfare and thereby the death of millions and millions of people.” He also said it was deceptive to the American people because bases in the United States were in or near large cities. “It will be first of all the civilian population that will fall victim to the weapons of mass annihilation.”

By the time of this speech Khrushchev was already sending medium range nuclear missiles to Cuba. In addition, Ellsberg reveals that Soviet soldiers were in possession of tactical nukes and permission to use them on any American invasion force.

So Ellsberg reckons he made Khrushchev mental with these new threats he wrote for the Kennedy administration and K wanted some payback. By October, the Kennedy administration discovered that Khrushchev didn’t need ICBMs to take out Americans, when satellite photos showed that the Soviets had placed nuclear missiles in Cuba. This time it was Jack Kennedy caught with his pants down. (Oh wait.) Many films, books, and college courses have been produced over the years to account for what happened during the 13 days in October, known as the Cuban Missile Crisis, but Ellsberg’s account is the best by far. Aside from all the close-up shots of the conferring Kennedys (Robert and Jack) angst-filled and chewing their fingernails, and getting photo-snapped looking meaningfully out windows, Ellsberg provides details that ratchet up the tension to the breaking point. I was going mental myself; my plush carpet looks like one of those mysterious crop circles.

Aside from the aforementioned tactical nukes awaiting an invasion that Kennedy didn’t know about, Ellsberg details how ultimatums and warnings to the Soviets were complicated by Cuban soldiers kept firing at American aircraft (they shot down a U2 and hit another low-flying plane), and the Soviets were helpless to stop them; only the fact that they were newbies on the guns kept us all in this world. The Pentagon was ready to go. The Cubans didn’t see themselves as puppets of the Soviets, much to their surprise. The Americans were on DEFCON-2, one step below all-out war.

But the craziest stuff happened on the four Soviet diesel-powered submarines circling Cuba. The subs each had a nuke. They weren’t built for warm water; cooling equipment malfunctioned and temperatures reached 140 degrees Fahrenheit; the men moved around in their underwear, they were dehydrating and dropping like “dominoes”; they needed to surface for air but feared being be-bopped by US naval vessels enforcing the blockade.

On the B-59 sub, the men reached a derangement level, with the heat, and no air, and Americans dropping practice depth charges. Ellsberg cites Vadim Orlov, chief of the special signals intelligence, who describes the scene:

…Americans,,, surrounded us and started to tighten the circle, practicing attacks and dropping depth charges. They exploded right next to the hull. It felt like you were sitting in a metal barrel, which somebody is constantly blasting with a sledgehammer.…

They finally decided they’d had enough and got ready to nuke the Americans, but on that sub, on that day, instead of needing just two officers willing to launch the missile — that sub had three, one of whom, Alexandrovich Arkhipov refused to launch. Instead, they surfaced.

We generally know what happened after that: Khrushchev caved again and had to leave Cuba and take his toys with him. More humiliation before the Politburo. Khrushchev had been prepared to ixnay with just a promise from Kennedy not to invade Cuba, but the latter waited too long and K upped the ante again to include the US removal of nuclear missiles from Turkey, which were aimed at Moscow. US military commanders were livid at the concessions, writes Ellsberg:

For military commanders who had regarded the failure of the crisis to lead to invasion as an intense disappointment, this last revelation was one more proof of Kennedy’s weakness and “appeasement.”

We’ll leave this episode there.

There’s another near Cuban Missile-like crisis that Ellsberg mentions that took place on the Iranian border in August 1980, just a couple of months prior to the presidential election. Ellsberg describes the still highly secretive event:

…the possible imminent use of tactical nuclear weapons if a secret Soviet buildup on the Iranian border led to a Soviet invasion of Iran, followed by the expression of explicit, secret nuclear warnings to the Soviet Union (a hidden episode…[that Carter] press secretary Jody Powell was quoted as describing it as “the most serious nuclear crisis since the Cuban missile crisis”).

Again, the US has shown that it is willing to go up against a conventional force it cannot defeat by introducing first strike nukes. (Carter even championed the people-hating neutron bomb.)

Ellsberg closes out The Doomsday Machine by calling for a dismantling of the omnicidal system that he convincingly argues will eventually destroy us, especially as we leave decisions on their use on the battlefield up to commanders, in a line of delegation that is not clear or fully predictable. He offers up a list of proposed changes:

+ a U.S. no-first-use policy

+ probing investigative hearings on our war plans in the light of nuclear winter

+ eliminating our ICBMs

+ forgoing delusions of preemptive damage-limiting by our first-strike forces

+ giving up the profits, jobs, and alliance hegemony based on maintaining that pretense

+ otherwise dismantling the American Doomsday Machine

These, along with more whistleblowing, grassroots movement and education are required.

Along with Fail Safe, another film that graphically reminds us of the stakes of a nuclear holocaust, The Day After and Threads are also compelling depictions that may inspire political activism. Ellsberg also maintains a website where documents referenced in The Doomsday Machine are available on Ellsberg’s website.  The Doomsday Machine is highly recommended reading.


John Kendall Hawkins is an American ex-pat freelancer based in Australia.  He is a former reporter for The New Bedford Standard-Times.\

https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/12/28/doomsday-ex-machina-daniel-ellsberg-and-the-nuclear-gang/