TRUMP AND MEXICO

What catapulted Donald Trump's popularity as he began his presidential campaign in 2015 was his assertion that Mexico did not send the best people to the United States, but primarily rapists and criminals.

Trump pledged to deport millions of illegal immigrants from the United States to Mexico and their countries of origin, without contemplation.

That resonated strongly with a large section of the electorate of the Republican Party that has always opposed immigration, not only illegal, but even legal.

Trump later claimed that the way to stop illegal migration coming through the country's southwestern border was to build a wall along the 3,200 kilometers (1988 miles) of the U. S. - Mexico border; and that Mexico would pay for that wall.

Trump also pointed out that the Free Trade Agreement between the United States, Canada, and Mexico was harmful to Americans, because low wages in Mexico and the lack of labor and environmental regulations had led to the deindustrialization of the United States, as companies had moved their factories to Mexico and China.

And in the same way, Mexico’s trade surpluses with the United States, due to NAFTA, affected the U. S. economy.

Trump also referred to drug smuggling that continues to flow from Mexico to the United States and pledged to fight Mexican drug cartels.

But at the end of his term in office on January 20, 2021, Trump was unable to deliver on most of his promises regarding Mexico.

With respect to the construction of the wall, according to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, 727 kilometers (452 miles) of the border wall had been constructed by 4, January 2021.

But of that amount, only 129 kilometers (80 miles) of “new wall” were built; the rest were repairs and replacements of old fences with new ones.
Mexico did not pay for the wall, but Trump continued to assure that it did, because pressure from Washington forced the government of President López Obrador to send 28,000 members of the National Guard to its southern border to stop illegal migration, thus constituting a “human wall” on the border with Guatemala that was paid for by Mexico.

Concerning deportations, during Obama's second term (2012-2016) more undocumented people were deported than during the four years of Trump's administration, as the Democrat expelled 1,280,000 migrants from the country, while Trump expelled 800,000 during his term (Biden has already expelled 1,200,000 so far, so he will surpass Obama).

Regarding U. S. investment in Mexico, data from the Mexican government confirm that it decreased during Donald Trump’s presidency:

2017: $15,554,000,000 corresponding to 45.4% of total foreign investment received in Mexico that year.

2018: $11,772,600,000 corresponding to 34.7% of total foreign investment received that year in Mexico.

2019: $12,850,400,000 corresponding to 37.6% of total foreign investment received that year in Mexico.

2020: $10,240,900,000 corresponding to 37.1% of total foreign investment received that year in Mexico.

Regarding the trade balance between the two countries, it developed as follows during the Trump administration:

2017: $131,006,000,000 surplus for Mexico.

2018: $139,826,000,000 surplus for Mexico.

2019: $151,510,000,000 surplus for Mexico.

2020: $160,978,000,000 surplus for Mexico.

So, when it comes to trade, America’s trade deficits not only remained, but increased. And this, even though on July 1, 2020, the new trade agreement between the United States, Canada, and Mexico (USMCA) entered into force, which was promoted by Trump and which, according to him, would reverse the inequality in trade relations between the three North American partners, benefiting the United States more.

Regarding drug trafficking, Trump threatened the Mexican governments (first that of Peña Nieto and then that of López Obrador), that he would call the drug cartels “terrorist organizations” if Mexico did not commit itself to fighting them thoroughly.

He finally did not designate the cartels as “terrorist organizations,” and even at the end of his presidency, when the DEA arrested former Mexican Secretary of National Defense, General Salvador Cienfuegos, in Los Angeles, California, accusing him of drug trafficking links, both Trump and his then Attorney General, William Barr, faced with protests from Mexico’s government and threats to end all security cooperation with the United States, forced them to return the General to Mexico, where he enjoys complete freedom, without any charges against him.

It was later learned that Trump went so far as to propose to his security cabinet the possibility of bombing drug cartel laboratories and their hiding places in Mexico, but he was deterred from doing so.

Now Trump continues to make many harsh claims against Mexico on his way to the White House, as in this new attempt in 2024, since he has indicated, once again, that he will directly attack Mexico's drug cartels; that he will expel all illegal migrants from the country; that he will completely seal off the southwest border, to prevent the arrival of more migrants, etc.

It remains to be seen whether Trump succeeds in the nomination of the Republican Party, which is beginning to be complicated by the rise of former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, supported by the traditional political establishment of the Republican Party and by the neo-conservatives who continue to dominate foreign and security policy in the Joe Biden administration.

If Trump is the Republican candidate, he will have to defeat Biden in the general election; and if he does, we will have to see how many of his threats and invectives against Mexico he will be willing to put into practice, both in terms of migration, drug trafficking and issues such as trade and investment (in 2026 it is established that a revision of the USMCA must be made); and how many of these public policies will be supported by big economic interests, the political-military establishment and powerful interest groups in the United States.

CNN And Washington Post Busted For Pro-Israel Propaganda Shenanigans

Caitlin Johnstone

https://caityjohnstone.medium.com/cnn-and-washington-post-busted-for-pro-israel-propaganda-shenanigans-59b0c80a1b96

Both CNN and The Washington Post have been caught engaging in some pretty shady journalistic malpractice with their Israel reporting in recent days.

In a new article titled “CNN Runs Gaza Coverage Past Jerusalem Team Operating Under Shadow of IDF Censor,” The Intercept reports that all of CNN’s reporting on Israel and Palestine is funneled through a bureau in Jerusalem which slants reporting to benefit Israeli information interests and is subject to regulation by Israeli military censors. The Intercept also reports that last year CNN “hired a former soldier from the IDF’s Military Spokesperson Unit to serve as a reporter” at the onset of the war on Gaza.

Unnamed CNN staff told The Intercept that CNN’s iron-fisted protocols for regulating information related to the Israel-Palestine issue have had a “demonstrable impact on coverage of the Gaza war”.

“‘War-crime’ and ‘genocide’ are taboo words,” the anonymous CNN staff member said. “Israeli bombings in Gaza will be reported as ‘blasts’ attributed to nobody, until the Israeli military weighs in to either accept or deny responsibility. Quotes and information provided by Israeli army and government officials tend to be approved quickly, while those from Palestinians tend to be heavily scrutinized and slowly processed.”

The Intercept reports that the former IDF spinmeister has been bylined in dozens of CNN stories since the attack on Gaza began, with one report being “little more than a direct statement released from the IDF.”

Kind of makes you wonder why CNN doesn’t just cut out the middleman and run all its reporting directly through IDF headquarters in Tel Aviv. Seems like it would be a bit more efficient, and certainly a lot more honest.

Meanwhile The Washington Post has been caught assigning a reporter with a history of anti-Palestinian bias to write a smear piece on independent media outlets Electronic Intifada and The Grayzone for their critical reporting on Israel’s ongoing massacre in Gaza.

Both Electronic Intifada and The Grayzone received emails from a Washington Post reporter named Elizabeth Dwoskin, who said she’s writing a piece on “efforts to minimize or misdirect information about the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks on Israel” and interrogating them about their articles casting doubt on the official narrative about what exactly happened that day.

As Electronic Intifada’s Ali Abunimah highlighted on Twitter, when Dwoskin was at Columbia University twenty years ago she was authoring Nakba denialist claims that Palestine never existed and that prior to Israel’s formation the land was inhabited only by “desert Bedouins without a sense of national identity as we know it today.”

It’s bad enough for The Washington Post to be attacking independent media for asking the critical questions and doing the real journalism the Post itself should also be doing, but to assign someone with a public history of egregiously anti-Palestinian rhetoric to the task is especially lacking in journalistic integrity.

“If I’m following, a reporter that has denied the fact that Palestinians existed before the state of Israel is allowed to cover Israel/Palestine and write about ‘misinformation’ for Washington Post?” tweeted award-winning journalist Laila Al-Arian of Abunimah’s revelation.

Neither of these instances will come as a surprise to anyone who has been paying critical attention to the amazingly awful reporting the western mass media have been churning out about the Gaza assault these last three months, but they do offer some rare insight behind the curtain into how the sausage gets made.

The biggest misconception about propaganda is that it is something that happens to other people, and is done by other countries. Westerners like to think of themselves as free-thinking people whose worldviews are formed by facts and truth, contrasting themselves with nations like North Korea and China where populations are viewed as being subjected to conformity-enforcing propaganda. They believe that if propaganda does occur in the west, it comes here from nations like Russia trying to corrupt our minds and weaken our trust in our institutions, or if the propaganda is domestic in origin it only affects people in other political parties.

In reality the typical western mind has been marinating in domestic propaganda throughout its entire life, and its worldview has been manufactured for it by powerful manipulators who benefit from its intellectual compliance with their interests. The indoctrination into the mainstream western worldview began in school, and it continues throughout adulthood with the help of mainstream media outlets like CNN and The Washington Post.

If we’re ever to have a healthy civilization, we’re going to have to wake up from the propaganda-induced coma we’ve been placed in so we can begin pushing against the cage walls we’ve been indoctrinated our whole lives into ignoring and start using the power of our numbers to force real change in the systems which govern our world. Luckily the atrocities that have been taking place in Gaza have been rapidly waking people up, because it turns out there’s only so much propaganda spin you can put on the murder of thousands of children.

The more people become aware that our civilization is built on deception and everything we’ve been told about the world is a lie, the closer we get to living in a truth-based society where nothing like the Gaza massacre would ever be permitted to occur.

What Is Netanyahu’s Ultimate Goal in the Middle East?

by Ramzy Baroud Posted on January 08, 2024

https://original.antiwar.com/ramzy-baroud/2024/01/07/what-is-netanyahus-ultimate-goal-in-the-middle-east/

This article was written shortly before Israel assassinated the Deputy Head of Hamas Political Bureau Saleh al-Arouri in Beirut on January 2. The assassination is a further illustration of the Israeli government’s desire to escape the consequences of its disastrous war in Gaza, by igniting a regional conflict. 

The clashes between Hezbollah and Israel are the closest to an actual war that the Lebanon-Israel border has seen since the war of 2006, which resulted in a rushed Israeli retreat, if not outright defeat.

We often refer to the ongoing conflict between Lebanon and Israel as ‘controlled’ clashes, simply because both sides are keen not to instigate or engage in an all-out war.

Obviously, Hezbollah wants to preserve Lebanese lives and civilian infrastructure, which would surely be seriously damaged, if not destroyed, should Israel decide to launch a war.

But Israel, too, understands that this is a different Hezbollah than that of the 1980s, 2000 and even 2006.

Compared to Israel’s behavior in the war of 2006, the Israeli response to Hezbollah’s military action – compelled by its solidarity with the Palestinian Resistance in Gaza – is greatly tamed.

For example, the 2006 war was presumably provoked by a Hezbollah attack on Israeli soldiers, which killed three. (Hezbollah says that the soldiers violated Lebanese sovereignty, as the Israeli army has indeed done numerous times before and since then.)

That single event led to a major war that wreaked havoc on Lebanon, but also resulted in the retreat and defeat of the Israeli army.

Imagine what Israel would have done by the standards of the 2006 war if Hezbollah had killed and wounded hundreds of Israeli soldiers, bombed scores of military bases, installations and even settlements, as it has done, on a daily basis, since early October.

A Different Hezbollah 

Despite numerous threats, Israel is yet to go to war with the main objective of pushing Hezbollah forces past the Litani River, thus supposedly securing the border Jewish settlements. But why the hesitation?

First, Hezbollah fighters are much stronger than before.

For years, Hezbollah has fought in traditional warfare settings, namely in Syria, thus producing a generation of battle-hardened fighters and commanders, who are no longer bound to the rules of guerilla warfare, as was the case in the past.

Second, Hezbollah’s missile capabilities have exponentially grown since 2006, not only in terms of numbers – up to 150,000 according to some estimates – but also in terms of precision, explosive capabilities and range.

Moreover, Hezbollah has excelled in the development of its own rockets and missiles, which include the powerful Burkan, a short-range rocket, which can carry a heavy warhead, between 100 to 500 kilograms. This makes Hezbollah, in some ways, self-sufficient in terms of weapons, if not munitions.

Third, Hezbollah’s sophisticated Radwan Elite Units and an elaborate tunnel system that goes deep inside northern Israel, would force Israel to contend with a whole different military reality than that of the last war, should a major military conflict break out.

Fourth, the Israeli army itself is in tatters, demoralized, greatly exhausted and weakened by ongoing daily losses on the Gaza front. It is hardly in a state of preparedness to fight a long and more difficult war against a better prepared enemy.

That in mind, one must not take such comments as that of Israel’s Defense Minister Yoav Gallant too seriously when he says that his country is fighting a war on seven different fronts. In actuality, the Israeli army is still fighting a single war in Gaza, a difficult war that it is not winning.

Provoking Iran 

To distract from its Gaza losses, and its inability to launch a major war against Lebanon, Tel Aviv wants to drag Tehran into the war.

But why would Israel escalate against the strongest of its enemies in the region, if it is not able to beat the smaller ones?

The short answer is that, by engaging Iran directly, Israel would force the US into a major regional war.

We all remember the seemingly odd decision by the Biden Administration to dispatch an aircraft carrier to the Israeli shores of the Mediterranean, immediately after the start of the Gaza war on October 7. (The Gerald R. Ford was ultimately withdrawn on December 31.)

Washington wanted to send a message to Iran that an attack on Israel would be considered an attack on the United States. But when it became clear that Iran had no interest in an actual war, Washington realized, or must have realized, that the danger of a regional war does not stem from Tehran, but from Tel Aviv itself.

That is when official US intelligence and political estimates began telling us, and repeatedly so, that Iran had nothing to do with the Hamas military operation of October 7, and that Iran was not interested in war.

The target audience for that message was Israel and its US-western allies who have been angling for a US-Iran war for years. Biden’s lack of interest in war, of course, has little to do with his propensity for peace, and everything to do with the lack of any serious geostrategic objectives in the Middle East now, his administration’s disastrous failure in Ukraine and the rapid depletion of armaments and munitions.

Israel persisted, however. It continued to accuse Iran of being the orchestrator of the Hamas attack, and the main ‘existential threat’ to the ‘Jewish state’. In Israel’s understanding, the collective action of Hamas and other Palestinian Resistance groups, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Ansarallah in Yemen and the Islamic Resistance of Iraq, are all fragments of a larger Iranian scheme to destroy Israel.

To defeat that imaginary threat, Israel carried out numerous acts of provocations against Iran, focused mostly on the bombing of Iran’s military positions in Syria, leading to the assassination of a top Iranian commander, General Sayyed Ravi Mousavi, near Damascus on December 25.

Biden the Enabler 

For Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a US-Iran war would constitute a lifeline for a desperate politician who fully, and rightly, understands, that a no-victory in Gaza would equal a defeat for the Israeli army. Such a defeat would not only be a disgraceful end for Netanyahu’s political career, but also an end of a long-sustained myth that Israel, and the US, can impose their political will on the Middle East through military superiority and firepower.

The Biden Administration must be fully aware of Netanyahu’s intentions, that of dragging the region into the abyss of possibly one of the most devastating wars in recent memory.

Reported disagreements and, in fact, a rift between Biden and Netanyahu are not related to a US moral objection to the Israeli genocide in Gaza, but to a real American fear that another Middle Eastern war could precipitate the breaking down of US power in the energy-rich region – in fact, beyond.

Thus, the current standstill: Washington’s inability to free itself from its blind commitment to Israel and its violent Zionist ideology, and Netanyahu’s inability to distinguish between the goal of sustaining his personal career and that of destroying the whole of the Middle East.

Unable to place US interests above those of Israel, Biden continues to feed the Israeli military machine, which is mostly used to kill Palestinian civilians in Gaza. This is allowing Netanyahu to champion a perpetual war in Gaza, while working to expand the conflict so that it reaches Beirut, Tehran and other regional capitals.

Needless to say, Netanyahu, described by US Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib as a ‘genocidal maniac’, must be restrained. If not, the Israeli genocide in Gaza will multiply into other genocides throughout the Middle East.

Dr. Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of six books. His latest book, co-edited with Ilan Pappé, is Our Vision for Liberation: Engaged Palestinian Leaders and Intellectuals Speak Out. His other books include My Father was a Freedom Fighter and The Last Earth. Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA). His website is www.ramzybaroud.net.

Is Uncle Sam Being Duped Into Fighting Israel's War?

MIKE WHITNEY • JANUARY 5, 2024

https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/is-uncle-sam-being-duped-into-fighting-israels-war/

This week’s drone strike on senior Hamas leader Saleh al-Arouri in southern Beirut provides compelling evidence that Israel wants to expand the conflict beyond its borders. In the last few weeks, Israel has assassinated a deputy political leader in Hamas (al-Arouri), a senior adviser in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, (Sayyed Razi Mousavi) and “nearly a dozen senior Iranian military officials” (Fox News) at an airport in Damascus. At the same time, Israel has launched multiple unprovoked airstrikes on Lebanon and Syria. All of these incitements suggest that Israel is exploring ways to expand the hostilities beyond Gaza in order to plunge the entire region into war.

Israeli provocations across the Middle East are an attempt to draw the United States deeper into a region-wide conflict. Israeli leaders know that their country will not become the dominant regional power unless its enemies –mainly Hezbollah and Iran– are severely weakened. But Israel also realizes that its enemies will not be weakened without US assistance. Thus, the US must be put in a situation where it feels compelled to engage Iran and Hezbollah militarily in order to rescue its closest ally in the Middle East. If Israel opens up a two-front or three-front war with its enemies –as it is currently trying to do– then the United States will be forced to intervene on Israel’s behalf increasing the probability that Israel will emerge as the regional hegemon. That is the underlying goal of the current operation.

None of this, of course, has anything to do with “defeating Hamas” which was the pretext Israel used to obliterate Gaza and push its population towards the Egyptian border. The real objective is to change the basic power-dynamics in the Middle East in a way that best suits Israel’s interests. Here’s an excerpt from an article at the BBC that was filed on Wednesday:

At least 103 people have been killed by two bomb explosions near the tomb of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani on the fourth anniversary of his assassination by the US, Iran’s state media report. State broadcaster Irib said dozens more people were wounded when the blasts hit a procession near the Saheb al-Zaman mosque in the southern city of Kerman…. Videos showed bodies on a road and ambulances rushing to the scene….

Wednesday’s incident comes amid heightened tensions in the region after the deputy leader of the Iran-backed Palestinian group, Hamas, was killed in an apparent Israeli drone strike in Lebanon. At least 103 dead in bomb blasts near Iran general Qasem Soleimani’s tomb – state TV, BBC

Is Israel responsible for the terrorist attack in Iran?

The evidence is not conclusive, but it certainly fits with the pattern of recent assassinations and drone attacks in neighboring countries. The bombing incident has also infuriated the Iranian people who have flooded the streets in droves demanding retaliation. Again, the public reaction fits perfectly with Israel’s goal of provoking an emotional over-reaction that draws Iran into a direct confrontation with Israel. Keep in mind, the Biden administration has two carrier groups deployed to the region that are prepared to come to Israel’s aid at a moment’s notice. So, if Iran does respond (with missile attacks or airstrikes) the US is perfectly positioned to join the fray. This might explain why Netanyahu continues to bomb his neighbors with impunity. He knows that Uncle Sam “has his back.”

BREAKING | Multiple casualties reported in Baghdad following US airstrikes on the PMU headquarters at the Iraqi Interior Ministry complex.

Here’s more from Aljazeera:

Israel has launched attacks on positions in Syria and Lebanon, as part of its ongoing campaign against opposing militaries and armed forces in the Middle East.

“The [Israeli army] struck military infrastructure belonging to the Syrian Army,” the Israeli military said in a post on the social media platform X on Tuesday.

“[Israeli military] fighter jets also struck Hezbollah terrorist infrastructure in Lebanon,” it added, promising it would “continue to operate against any threat to Israel’s sovereignty”.

The latest attacks, which occurred between Monday and Tuesday, marked a spike in tensions between Israel and neighbors it has said have links to its enemy, Iran. Israeli army launches attacks on targets in Syria and Lebanon, Aljazeera

Why is Israel doing this? Why are they provoking their neighbors even while they are conducting a major operation against the Palestinians in Gaza? Don’t all these incitements suggest that Israel wants to widen the war? Here’s more from Aljazeera:

A drone strike in Beirut’s southern suburbs of Dahiyeh, a Hezbollah stronghold, killed senior Hamas official Saleh al-Arouri on Tuesday. The drone hit a Hamas office, leaving six people dead, Lebanon’s state news agency reported.

Hamas confirmed the death of al-Arouri and called it a “cowardly assassination” by Israel, adding that attacks on Palestinians “inside and outside Palestine will not succeed in breaking the will and steadfastness of our people, or undermining the continuation of their valiant resistance”. Who was Saleh al-Arouri, the Hamas leader killed in Beirut?, Aljazeera

The assassination of al-Arouri was no more ‘a spontaneous act of revenge’ than the attacks on Syria, Lebanon, or Gaza. They’re all part of a Grand Plan to redraw the map of the Middle East by provoking Israel’s enemies and then drawing Washington into the hostilities. That is the basic strategy in a nutshell. Here’s how political analyst Arnaud Bertrand summed it up on Twitter:

Israel is doing its very best to trigger a regional war by bombing Lebanon and Iran left and right, presumably to get the US more involved in the fighting as some sort of Hail Mary, but neither Lebanon nor Iran nor the US are taking the bait. Arnaud Bertrand @RnaudBertrand

Bertrand is right; Israel is trying to drag the US into a war of its own making. He’s also right in saying that Iran and Hezbollah have shown great restraint (so far) and have resisted the temptation to retaliate. But how long will that last? After all, they can’t allow Israel to pummel them forever without responding in kind. And they can’t simply roll-over and play dead either. And, that’s not what they’re doing. What they’re doing is following events as they unfold so they have a better idea of Israel’s broader strategy. They are biding their time while Israel moves its troops out of Gaza and up to the northern front where they are likely to clash with Hezbollah militants sometime in the next two weeks. That appears to be what is going on.

Meanwhile, the western media is trying to prepare the public for another conflict in the Middle East by reiterating the claim that a “regional war” may now be inevitable. Check out these recent headlines and see if you can detect a recurrent theme:

• U.S. strike in Baghdad raises specter of wider regional war, Washington Post
• Attacks Heighten Fears of a Wider War for the Middle East and U.S., New York Times
• ‘I’m afraid that we are really approaching a regional war,’ says Lebanese Foreign Minister, CNN
• Escalation in the Middle East: the danger of a regional war is growing, Guardian
• Blinken Set For Israel Visit As Regional War Fears Mount, Barrons
• Blinken Heads to Middle East As Risk of Broader Conflict Grows, VOA
• Blinken heads to the Mideast again as fears of regional conflict surge, AOL

Get it? The media is preparing the public for a wider regional war in the Middle East. Articles like these are being used to persuade the masses that conflict is unavoidable and resistance is pointless.

But, in whose interests are these articles being written? Whose geopolitical agenda is being promoted? Which country stands to benefit from a misinformed American public walking sheeplike into another deranged conflagration in which millions die and nothing is gained?

Why, Israel, of course.

From the looks of things, Uncle Sam is going to be asked to provide the military muscle for a lunatic operation that will pit US firepower against Hezbollah and Iran, neither of who pose any threat to American lives or US national security. The objective of this misguided war will be to eliminate Israel’s enemies so that Israel can “secure the realm” and assume the role of regional hegemon, the undisputed ruler of the Middle East.

It’s a pipe dream.

 MEXICAN GOVERNMENT USELESS TO STOP MIGRATORY WAVE AND DRUG TRAFFICKING

The Government of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, although it accepted all the instructions that Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas and Presidential Advisor Elizabeth Sherwood Randall communicated to him on December 27, 2023 during their visit to Mexico City, to increase the number of troops of the National Guard and the Mexican Army on its southern border, with the aim of stopping the wave of migrants that continue to arrive in Mexico, to head for the United States, the reality is that every month about 50,000 migrants enter the country, and the Mexican government only deports 8.6% of them (of the almost 600,000 migrants who entered Mexico during 2023, only 51,600 were returned to their countries).

López Obrador is urged to get along with Joe Biden’s government on the migration issue, as he hopes this will serve as a quid pro quo so that the U. S. government does not criticize the overwhelming way in which the Mexican president is undermining Mexico’s very fragile democracy, attacking the judiciary every day, trying to disappear autonomous bodies that are in charge of preventing government abuses such as the National Institute for Access to Information and Protection of Personal Data; or weakening the autonomous National Electoral Institute, by restricting the budget it needs to organize the elections, thus limiting it from fulfilling its role of preventing government interference in favor of the ruling candidates.

But everything indicates that the highly corrupt and inefficient Mexican authorities will not be able to fulfill the promises made by López Obrador to Biden, and the uncontrolled wave of migrants will continue to reach the southern border of the United States, so that the candidates of the Republican Party will continue to have a powerful theme with which to attack the Democrats during the election cycle of this year 2024.

Likewise, López Obrador will do very little to stop drug and fentanyl shipments headed for the United States, given his government’s complicity, at least with Mexico’s main drug-trafficking cartel, that of Sinaloa.

Under pressure from the United States, López Obrador’s government has had to arrest relevant members of the cartel, such as one of the sons of “el Chapo” Guzmán, Ovidio Guzmán.

But the cartel has helped the ruling party (Morena) to win local elections in 2021, intimidating and even kidnapping political operatives of opposition parties, to allow Morena's candidates to win in northwestern states such as Sinaloa and Sonora.

Likewise, President López Obrador himself has been extremely cordial and careful in referring to members of the Sinaloa cartel, such as the recent death of the mother of “el Chapo” Guzmán, expressing his condolences at one of his morning press conferences.

What’s more, López Obrador has visited what is considered Mexico’s “drug trafficking capital,” the small town of Badiraguato in the state of Sinaloa six times! during his term in office, while no Mexican president dared to visit that city before, because it would be considered totally inappropriate.

The president's eldest son, José Ramón López, celebrated his stepdaughter's 15th birthday in the state capital of Sinaloa, Culiacan, even though he lives with his U. S. wife in Houston, Texas, with a party for 700 people attended by several musical groups and even a circus, with plenty of food and drink for everyone.

Rumors in the city were that the children of “el Chapo” paid for the party.

In short, the López Obrador government is so tied to organized crime that it will hardly be able to fulfill the agreements it has reached with the U. S. authorities to stop the drug and fentanyl shipments that the Mexican cartels are sending to the United States.

But the Biden administration – and at the time also Trump’s – continues to “collaborate” with López Obrador, because otherwise the Mexican government would allow even more (if that’s possible) the smuggling of drugs and people into the United States; and the last thing the Biden administration needs right now is a confrontation with its southern neighbor, when it has to deal with the war in Ukraine and the Palestinian genocide carried out by Israel (with U. S. support), in the midst of a presidential election that increasingly seems to lean in favor of Donald Trump.

Iraqis: Don't use our country as a 'proxy battleground'

US strikes in Baghdad that killed an Iraqi militia leader are testing the fragile relationship

TANYA GOUDSOUZIAN

JAN 05, 2024

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/iraqis-angry-us-airstrikes/

The U.S. airstrike that killed Mushtaq Talib al-Saidi, otherwise known as Abu Taqwa, and two other militiamen on Thursday has been unequivocally condemned by Iraqi leaders, starting with President Latif Rashid and Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Sudani down to every parliamentary member in range of a microphone.

“This is a blatant violation of Iraq's sovereignty and security,” said Rashid in a post on X. “We also condemn the attacks on Iraq’s Kurdistan Region. Iraq must not and will not be turned into a proxy battleground. Priority must be given to dialogue as a means to defuse tensions and find common ground.”

“The Iraqi armed forces hold the forces of the international coalition responsible for this attack,” Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani’s office said in a statement, also calling a “dangerous escalation and aggression.”

The foreign ministry also weighed in Thursday, saying, “Iraq reserves its right to take a firm stance and take all measures that deter anyone who tries to harm its land and security forces.”

Abu Taqwa was an operational commander in the Iranian-backed Harakat al-Nujaba, which was designated a global terrorist organization by the Trump Administration in 2019. But it is also part of the wider Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), an umbrella group of paramilitary organizations that are linked to the security apparatus of the Iraq government and were instrumental to the 2014-2017 campaign against Daesh (or ISIS).

Abu Taqwa was the leader of a designated terrorist organization, but the implications of this attack question the very wisdom of this operation. At least six strategic consequences come to mind.

Coming on the heels of a similar U.S. attack less than 10 days earlier, critics say Thursday’s strike was a violation of Iraqi sovereignty and the government’s authority to manage military operations within its own country. Whatever Washington says about respect for Iraq’s autonomy and its relations with Baghdad, the attacks seem to suggest — at least to officials — otherwise.

Second, the United States has been consistent in its messaging that it does not wish to expand the Israel-Gaza war into a regional war. The policy has been ostensibly to contain the conflict, but Thursday’s operation seemed to test that goal in dangerous ways. Israel has its hands full with outside attacks from Hezbollah and the Houthis, and the logic behind provoking the Iraqi PMFs into expanding the conflict is puzzling.

Third, the United States continues to operate against Daesh in Syria, but much of that operation is controlled, resourced, and resupplied from within Iraq. Separately, Washington continues a conventional train and equip security cooperation program with the Iraqi Security Forces as well as augmenting the Iraqi Security Forces with assets ranging from intelligence to air support. This attack puts that entire relationship in question and has reignited the debate over the expulsion of the U.S. forces — an issue which Sudani raised himself only a week ago.

But the debate goes back to the 2020 parliament vote which took place after the assassination of Qassim Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the commander of the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces and a member of the Iraqi parliament.

Fourth, coming one day after the four-year anniversary of the Soleimani killing and on the heels of a terrorist attack in Iran which killed over 100 civilians at a ceremony at his tomb, it is hard to imagine a worse time to execute another PMF leader. Emotions were already running high among Iraqis and Iranians, and this could easily be exploited.

Fifth, the attacks intensify the risk to American diplomats, troops, and civilians in Iraq. Calls for revenge are resonating throughout the country, and it is hard to ignore the high probability that fresh retaliatory attacks will follow from Thursday’s strike.

In carrying out military operations within the country of an ally, decisions must be respectful of the host country and well-coordinated. Politics, public opinion, and fundamental issues such as sovereignty must be thoroughly weighed. While it may make absolute sense to “take a terrorist off the battlefield” there are deeper considerations when that “battlefield” is in the country of an ostensible ally.

Washington must develop better ways of coordinating with the Iraqis ahead of these operations, especially as General Patrick Ryder, Pentagon spokesman, made it clear yesterday, that the U.S. “maintains the inherent right of self-defense if our forces are threatened.” He did add that “we'll continue to communicate, as we have been all along, closely with our Iraqi partners when it comes to the safety and security of our forces in Iraq.”

It is hard to see how that happened in the drone strike on Mushtaq Talib al-Saidi.

Tanya Goudsouzian

Tanya Goudsouzian is an Istanbul-based Canadian journalist who has covered Afghanistan and the greater Middle East for over two decades. She has interviewed leading figures from across the Afghan political spectrum, including the late King Zahir Shah, the late President Burhanuddin Rabbani and former President Ashraf Ghani. Previously, she was Opinion Editor at Al Jazeera English.

Disclosure of Epstein list tears off ‘fig leaf’ from US political elites: experts

By 

Chen Qingqing

Published: Jan 04, 2024 

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202401/1304829.shtml

As the disclosure of the Epstein list shocked US society, it also has triggered a wide range of discussion across China's internet as some experts believed the timing of the disclosure is driven by the upcoming presidential election, particularly as it implicates former US president Donald Trump. Overall, the release of the list has once again torn off the "fig leaf" from the US political elites, intensifying ordinary people's disdain and disillusionment toward them, some experts said. 

Former presidents Bill Clinton and Donald Trump are mentioned in newly unsealed Jeffrey Epstein-related court documents, but they are not accused of any wrongdoing involving the disgraced sex trafficking financier, the USA Today reported on Thursday. 

Trump's name appears in a document in which Epstein is quoted as saying he would invite the then-real estate mogul to join him at a casino. In another document, a witness said she was never asked to engage in sexual relations with Trump, the media report said. 

"I believe the public disclosure was driven by electoral politics, particularly with implications toward Trump. It seems more like a political stunt," Shen Yi, a professor at Fudan University, told the Global Times on Thursday. 

Before the list was released, an article in Newsweek speculated about Trump's relationship with Epstein, guiding readers with conjecture, Shen said. 

The US media outlet Newsweek on Wednesday ran an article entitled "Everything Jeffrey Epstein Documents Reveal About Donald Trump," which also quoted Trump's interview with New York magazine in 2002 which stated that "he'd known Epstein for 15 years and that he was a 'terrific guy.'"

Clinton also being on the list leaves more room for speculation, Shen said. "If this list turns into a mess and more speculative reports emerge, especially targeting Trump, it could create a counterproductive political mobilization. This would eventually only serve to validate Trump's claims about being politically persecuted by the American judicial system."

The New York Post also interviewed Epstein's younger brother, who said that if Jeffrey Epstein revealed what he knew about both candidates for the 2016 presidential election, referring to Trump and Hillary Clinton, "they'd have to cancel the election," US media reported on Thursday. 

"The timing of the list's release being this close to the election cannot be considered coincidental," Li Haidong, a professor at the China Foreign Affairs University, told the Global Times on Thursday. 

The list, which includes political and business elites and their intricate connections with Epstein, also reflects on whom American politics truly serves and may prompt public questioning of the legitimacy of current political figures and the political system in the US, Li said. 

"The implications for Trump in this context could be significant," he said. Trump's supporters might see this as yet another attack, portraying him as a victim of demonization. At the same time, the involvement of Democratic Party elites indicates that both parties "may be cut from the same cloth," Li said. 

Epstein, a US millionaire with connections with celebrities, politicians, billionaires, and leading academics, first faced arrest in 2005 in Palm Beach, Florida. This initial arrest stemmed from allegations that he paid a 14-year-old girl for sexual activities, according to media reports. 

Subsequent investigations revealed a pattern of similar abuse reported by numerous other underage girls. However, in a 2008 legal settlement with prosecutors, Epstein was permitted to enter a guilty plea for a charge related to a single victim. His sentence was 13 months in a jail-based work-release program.

Post-conviction, Epstein saw some of his high-profile connections, including former US presidents Clinton and Trump, distance themselves from him. Despite this, he maintained relationships within the elite circles for another 10 years, often leveraging his philanthropic engagements.

In 2019, investigative journalism by the Miami Herald reignited public and legal scrutiny of Epstein's actions, leading to federal prosecutors in New York charging him with sex trafficking. Epstein later committed suicide in jail as he awaited his trial. 

Back in 2019, some US media reported that Epstein donated to several Democrats throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. One of the biggest beneficiaries of Epstein's contributions was then-Senate hopeful Hillary Clinton, who received $20,000 from him in 1999 through her joint fundraising committee with the Democratic Party, ABC News said, citing Federal Election Commission filings. 

Bill Clinton's presidential campaign also received $1,000 from Epstein in 1992, according to the media report. 

Based on publicly available information, Epstein appears to have had closer ties with the Democratic camp, but that doesn't necessarily mean Republican figures are completely insulated, said some experts, who believe that the release of this list has once again torn off the "fig leaf" from American politicians, intensifying ordinary people's disdain and disillusionment toward the political elite. 

"It also underscores the unsavory logic of connections at the highest levels of US society and the continual degradation of the integrity of its political figures," Diao Daming, an associate professor at the Renmin University of China in Beijing, told the Global Times on Thursday. 

In addition to US politicians, Britain's Prince Andrew is also on the list, the BBC said, noting that the court filings include 40 documents of evidence from a woman who has made accusations against the prince.