Trump Administration Pre-John Bolton
Trump Administration Post-John Bolton
March 11, 2018
The United States has invaded Syria with a significant military force, is occupying nearly one-third of its territory, has announced plans for an indefinite occupation, and is plundering the country’s petroleum resources. Washington has no authorization under international or even US law to invade and occupy Syria, much less attack Syrian forces, which it has done repeatedly. Nor has it a legal warrant to create new administrative and governance structures in the country to replace the Syrian government, a project it is undertaking through a parallel invasion of US diplomatic personnel. These actions—criminal, plunderous, and an assault on democracy at an international level—amount to a retrograde project of recolonization by an empire bent on extending its supremacy to all the Arab and Muslim worlds, including the few remaining outposts of resistance to foreign tyranny. Moreover, US actions represent an escalation of Washington’s long war on Syria, previously carried out through proxies, including the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda, into a full-scale conventional war with direct US military involvement. Yet, despite the enormity of the project, and the escalation of the war, the US occupation of Syria has largely flown under the radar of public awareness.
by Steve Gowans
April 4, 2018
Atop multiple indignities and affronts to liberty and democracy visited upon the Arab world by the West, including the plunder of Palestine by European settlers and the political oppression of Arabs by a retinue of military dictators, monarchs, emirs and sultans who rule largely at the pleasure of Washington and on its behalf, now arrives the latest US transgression on the ideals of sovereignty, independence, and the equality of nations: marauders in Washington have pilfered part of the territory of one of the last bastions of Arab independence—Syria. Indeed, Washington now controls “about one-third of the country including most of its oil wealth”,  has no intention of returning it to its rightful owners, has planned for an indefinite military occupation of eastern Syria, and is creating a new Israel, which is to say, an new imperialist outpost in the middle of the Arab world, to be governed by Kurdish proxies backed by US firepower.  The crime has been carried out openly, and yet has hardly been noticed or remarked upon.
Here are the facts:
In January, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson announced that US “troops will remain in Syria” indefinitely “to ensure that neither Iran nor President Bashar al-Assad of Syria will take over areas”  the United States captured from ISIS, even though these areas belong to the Syrian Arab Republic, by law and right, and not to Washington, or to Washington’s Kurdish proxy, the SDF. The SDF, or Syrian Democratic Force, is a US-constructed outfit which, in journalist Robert Fisk’s words, is neither Syrian (it’s dominated by Kurds, including those of Turkish origin) nor democratic (since it imposes Kurdish rule over traditionally Arab areas and dances to a tune called by a foreign master.) Moreover, it’s not much of a force, since, without US airpower, artillery, and Special Operations support, it is militarily inconsequential.  “US President Donald Trump’s rollout of an updated Syria policy,” reports Aaron Stein, writing in the unofficial journal of the US State Department, Foreign Affairs, “commits US forces to maintaining a presence” in northeast Syria in order to “hedge against” any attempt by Damascus to assert sovereignty over its own territory. 
The Pentagon officially admits to having 2,000 troops in Syria  but a top US general put the number higher, 4,000, in an October press briefing.  But even this figure is an “artificial construct,” as the Pentagon described a previous low-ball figure. On top of the infantry, artillery, and forward air controllers the Pentagon counts as deployed to Syria, there is an additional number of uncounted Special Operations personnel, as well as untallied troops assigned to classified missions and “an unspecified number of contractors” i.e., mercenaries. Additionally, combat aircrews are not counted, even though US airpower is critical to the occupation.  There are, therefore, many more times the officially acknowledged number of US troops in Syria, operating out of 10 bases in the country, including “a sprawling facility with a long runway, hangars, barracks and fuel depots.” 
In addition to US military advisers, Army Rangers, artillery, Special Operations forces, satellite-guided rockets and Apache attack helicopters , the United States has deployed US diplomats to Syria to create government and administrative structures to supersede the legitimate government of the Syrian Arab Republic.  Plus, the United States “is now working to transform Kurdish fighters into a local security force” to handle policing  while US diplomats on the ground work to establish local governments to run the occupied territory’s affairs. 
“The idea in US policy circles” is to create “a soft partition” of Syria between the United States and Russia along the Euphrates, “as it was among the Elbe [in Germany] at the end of the Second World War.”  On top of the 28 percent of Syria the United States occupies, it controls “half of Syria’s energy resources, the Euphrates Dam at Tabqa, as well as much of Syria’s best agricultural land.” 
During the war against ISIS, US military planning called for the Kurds to push south along the Euphrates River to seize Syria’s oil-and gas-rich territory.  While the Syrian Arab Army and its allies focussed mostly on liberating cities from Islamic State, the Kurds, under US direction, went “after the strategic oil and gas fields”,  “robbing Islamic State of key territory,” as The Wall Street Journal put it. The US newspaper correctly designated the seizure of key territory as a robbery, but failed to acknowledge the victim, not Islamic State, which itself robbed the territory, but the Syrian Arab Republic. But this skein of equivocation needs to be further disentangled. It was not the Kurds who robbed ISIS which earlier robbed the Syrians, but the United States which robbed ISIS which robbed Syria. The Kurds, without the backing of the US armed forces, are a military cipher incapable, by their own efforts, of robbing the Arab republic. The Americans are the robbers, the Syrians the victims.
The United States has robbed Syria of “two of the largest oil and gas fields in Deir Ezzour”, including the al-Omar oil field, Syria’s largest.  Last September, the United States plundered Syria of “a gas field and plant known in Syria as the Conoco gas plant” (though its affiliation with Conoco is historical; the plant was acquired by the Syrian Gas Company in 2005.)  Russia observed that “the real aim” of the US forces’ (incontestably denominated) “illegal” presence in Syria has been “the seizure and retention of economic assets that only belong to the Syrian Arab Republic.”  The point is beyond dispute: the United States has stolen resources vital to the republic’s reconstruction (this from a country which proclaims property rights to be humanity’s highest value.)
Joshua Landis, a University of Oklahoma professor who specializes in Syria, has argued that by “controlling half of Syria’s energy resources…the US will be able to keep Syria poor and under-resourced.”  Bereft of its petroleum resources, and deprived of its best farmland, Syria will be hard-pressed to recover from the Islamist insurgency—an operation precipitated by Washington as part of its long war on nationalist influence in the Arab world—a war that has left Syria in ruins. The conclusion that “Assad has won” and that the war is over except for mopping up operations is unduly optimistic, even Pollyannaish. There is a long road ahead.
Needless to say, Damascus aspires to recover its lost territory, and “on February 7 sent a battalion-sized column to [recuperate] a critical gas plant near Deir Ezzour.”  This legitimate exercise of sovereignty was repulsed by an airstrike by US invaders, which left an estimated 100 Syrian Arab Army troops and their allies dead.  The significance of this event has been under-appreciated, and perhaps because press coverage of what transpired disguised its enormity. An emblematic Wall Street Journal report, for example, asserted that the US airstrike was a defensive response to an unprovoked attack by Syrian forces, as if the Syrians, on their own soil, were aggressors, and the invading Americans, victims.  We might inquire into the soundness of describing an aggression by invaders on a domestic military force operating within its own territory as a defensive response to an unprovoked attack. Likewise, we can inquire into the cogency of Washington’s insistence that it does not intend to wage war on the Syrian Arab Army. That this statement can be accepted as reasonable suggests the operation of what Charles Mills calls an epistemology of ignorance—a resistance to understanding the obvious. It should be evident—indeed, it’s axiomatic—that the unprovoked invasion and occupation of a country constitutes an aggression, but apparently this is not the case in the specially constructed reality of the Western media. Could Russia invade the United States west of the Colorado River, control the territory’s airspace, plunder its resources, establish new government and administrative structures to supplant local, state, and federal authority, and then credibly declare that it does not seek war with the United States and its armed services? Invasion and occupation are aggressive acts, a statement that shouldn’t need to be made.
Washington’s February 7 attack on Syrian forces was not the first. “American troops carried out strikes against forces loyal to President Bashar Assad of Syria several times in 2017,” reported the New York Times.  In other words, the United States has invaded Syria, is occupying nearly a third of its territory, and has carried out attacks on the Syrian military, and this aggression is supposed to be understood as a defensive response to Syrian provocations.
It is incontestable that US control of the airspace of eastern Syria, the invasion of the country by untold thousands of US military and diplomatic personnel, the plunder of the Levantine nation’s resources, and attacks on its military forces, are flagrant violations of international law. No country has more contempt for the rule of law than the United States, yet, in emetic fashion, its government incessantly invokes the very rule of law it spurns to justify its outrages against it. But what of US law? If, to Washington, international law is merely an impediment to be overcome on its way to expanding its empire, are the US invasion and occupation of Syria, and attacks on Syrian forces, in harmony with the laws of the United States? If you ask the White House and Pentagon the answer is yes, but that is tantamount to asking a thief to rule on his or her theft. The question is, does the US executive’s claim that its actions in Syria comport with US law stand up to scrutiny? Not only does it not, the claim is risible. “Under both Mr. Obama and Mr. Trump,” explains the New York Times’ Charlie Savage, “the executive branch has argued that the war against Islamic State is covered by a 2001 law authorizing the use of military force against the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks [my emphasis] and a 2002 law authorizing the invasion of Iraq.” However, while “ISIS grew out an offshoot of Al Qaeda, the two groups by 2014 had split and became warring rivals,” and ISIS did not perpetrate the 9/11 attacks. What’s more, before the rise of ISIS, the Obama administration had deemed the Iraq war over. 
Washington’s argument has other problems, as well. While the 2001 law does not authorize the use of military force against ISIS, it does authorize military action against Al Qaeda. Yet from 2011 to today, the United States has not only failed to use force against the Syrian-based Jabhat al-Nusra, Al Qaeda’s largest branch, it has trained and equipped Islamist fighters who are intermingled with, cooperate on the battle field with, share weapons with, and operate under licence to, the group, as I showed in my book Washington’s Long War on Syria, citing the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Washington Post, which have extensively reported on the interconnections between US trained and armed fighters and the organization founded by Osama bin Laden. 
Finally, by implication, since the law does not authorize the use of force against ISIS, it does not authorize the presence of US aircrews in Syrian airspace or US military and diplomatic personnel on Syrian soil. In addition, it certainly does not authorize the use of force against a Syrian military operating within its own borders.
Let’s look again at Washington’s stated reasons for its planned indefinite occupation of Syria: to prevent the return of ISIS; to stop the Syrian Arab Republic from exercising sovereignty over all of its territory; and to eclipse Iranian influence in Syria. For only one of these reasons, the first, does Washington offer any sort of legal justification. The latter two objectives are so totally devoid of legal warrant that Washington has not even tried to mount a legal defense of them. Yet, these are the authentic reasons for the US invasion and occupation of Syria. As to the first reason, if Washington were seriously motivated to use military force to crush Al Qaeda, it would not have armed, trained and directed the group’s auxiliaries in its war against Arab nationalist power in Damascus.
Regarding Washington’s stated aim of eclipsing Iranian influence in Syria, we may remind ourselves of the contents of a leaked 2012 U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency report. That report revealed that the insurgency in Syria was sectarian and led by the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda in Iraq, the forerunner of Islamic State. The report also disclosed that the United States, Arab Gulf oil monarchies and Turkey supported the insurgents. The analysis correctly predicted the establishment of a “Salafist principality,” an Islamic state, in eastern Syria, noting that this was desired by the insurgency’s foreign backers, which wanted to see the secular Arab nationalists isolated and cut-off from Iran.  The United States has since decided to take on the role that it had once planned for a Salafist principality. A planned Saudi-style state dividing Damascus from Tehran has become an indefinite US occupation, from whose womb US planners hope to midwife the birth of a Kurd mini-state as a new Israel.
The reality that the US operation in Syria is illegal may account for why, with Washington’s misdirection and the press’s collusion, it has largely flown under the radar of public awareness. Misdirection is accomplished by disguising the US occupation of eastern Syria as a Kurd-, or SDF-effort, which the United States is merely assisting, rather than directing. The misdirection appears to be successful, because the narrative has been widely mentally imbibed, including by otherwise critical people. There are parallels. The United States is prosecuting a war of aggression in Yemen, against a movement that threatens US hegemony in the Middle East, as the Syrian Arab Republic, Iran and Hezbollah do. The aggression against Yemen is as lacking in legal warrant as is the US war on Syria. It flagrantly violates international law; the Houthis did not attack Saudi Arabia, let alone the United States, and therefore there is no justification for military action on international legal grounds against them. What’s more, the Pentagon can’t even point to authorization for the use of force against Yemen’s rebels under US domestic law since they are not Al Qaeda and have no connection to the 9/11 attacks. To side step the difficulty of deploying military force without a legal warrant, the war, then, is presented as “Saudi-led”, with the involvement of the United States relegated in the hermeneutics to the periphery. Yet Washington is directing the war. The United States flies its own drones and reconnaissance aircraft over Yemen to gather intelligence to select targets for Saudi pilots.  It refuels Saudi bombers in flight. Its warships enforce a naval blockade. And significantly, it runs an operations center to coordinate the bombing campaign among the US satellites who participate in it. In the language of the military, the United States has command and control of the aggression against Yemen. The only US absence is in the provision of pilots to drop the bombs, this role having been farmed out to Arab allies.  And that is the key to the misdirection. Because Saudi pilots handle one visible aspect of the multi-dimensional war, (whose various other dimensions are run by the Americans), it can be passed off to the public as a Saudi affair, while those who find the Saudi monarchy abhorrent (which it is) can vent their spleen on a scapegoat. We do the same to the Kurds, hurling rhetorical thunderbolts at them, when they are merely pawns of the US government pursuing a project of empire-building. Jeremy Corbyn, the British Labour Party leader, has seen through the misdirection, declaring that it is the West, not the Saudis, who are ‘directing the war’ in Yemen. 
It would profit us to heed the words of Ibrahim Al-Amin, who, on the occasion of the White House recognizing Al-Quds (Jerusalem) as the capital of Israel, asked Arabs whether it wasn’t time to realize that the United States is the origin of all that plagues them. Let us leave ‘Israel’ aside, he counseled. “Whatever is said about its power, superiority and preparation, it is but an America-British colony that cannot live a day without the protection, care and blind support of the West.”  The same can be said of the Saudi monarchy and the SDF.
I leave the last word to the Syrian government, whose voice is hardly ever heard above the din of Western war propaganda. The invasion and occupation of eastern Syria is “a blatant interference, a flagrant violation of [the] UN Charter’s principles…an unjustified aggression on the sovereignty and independence of Syria.”  None of this is controversial. For his part, Syrian president Bashar al-Assad has pointed out incontestably that foreign troops in Syria “without our invitation or consultation or permission…are invaders.” It is time the US invasion and occupation of Syria—illegal, anti-democratic, plunderous, and a project of recolonization—was recognized, opposed, and ended. There is far more to Washington’s long war on Syria than Al Qaeda, the White Helmets and the Kurds. As significant as these forces are, the threat they pose to the Syrian center of opposition to foreign tyranny has been surpassed by a more formidable challenge—the war’s escalation into a US military and diplomatic occupation accompanied by direct US military confrontation with the Syrian Arab Army and its allies.
Stephen Gowans is an independent political analyst whose principal interest is in who influences formulation of foreign policy in the United States. His writings, appear on his What’s Left blog. https://gowans.wordpress.com/2018/03/11/the-largely-unrecognized-us-occupation-of-syria/
1. Neil MacFarquhar, ‘Russia’s greatest problem in Syria: It’s ally president Assad,’ The New York Times, March 8, 2018.
2. Anne Barnard, “US-backed force could cement a Kurdish enclave in Syria,” The New York Times, January 16, 2018; Domenico Losurdo, “Crisis in the Imperialist World Order,” Revista Opera, March 2, 2018.
3. Gardiner Harris, “Tillerson says US troops to stay in Syria beyond battle with ISIS, The New York Times, January 17, 2018.
4. Robert Fisk, “The next Kurdish war is on the horizon—Turkey and Syria will never allow it to create a mini-state,” The Independent, January 18, 2018.
5. Aaron Stein, “Turkey’s Afrin offensive and America’s future in Syria: Why Washington should be eying the exit,” Foreign Affairs, January 23, 2018.
6. Nancy A. Yousef, “US to remain in Syria indefinitely, Pentagon officials say, The Wall Street Journal, December 8, 2017.
7. Andrew deGrandpre, “A top US general just said 4,000 American troops are in Syria. The Pentagon says there are only 500,” the Washington Post, October 31, 2017.
8. John Ismay, “US says 2,000 troops are in Syria, a fourfold increase,” The New York Times, December 6, 2017; Nancy A. Yousef, “US to remain in Syria indefinitely, Pentagon officials say,” The Wall Street Journal, December 8, 2017).
9. Dion Nissenbaum, “Map said to show locations of US forces in Syria published in Turkey,” The Wall Street Journal, July 19, 2017.
10. Michael R. Gordon, “In a desperate Syrian city, a test of Trump’s policies,” The New York Times, July 1, 2017.
11. Nancy A. Yousef, “US to send more diplomats and personnel to Syria,” The Wall Street Journal, December 29, 2017.
12. Dion Nissenbaum, “US moves to halt Turkey’s drift toward Iran and Russia,” the Wall Street Journal, February 21, 2018.
13. Nancy A. Yousef, “Some US-backed Syrian fighters leave ISIS battle to counter Turkey,” The Wall Street Journal, February 6, 2018.
14. Yaroslav Trofimov, “In Syria, new conflict looms as ISIS loses ground,” The Wall Street Journal, September 7, 2017.
15. Gregory Shupak, “Media erase US role in Syria’s misery, call for US to inflict more misery,” FAIR.org, March 7, 2018.
16. Trofimov, September 7, 2017.
17. Raj Abdulrahim and Ghassan Adnan, “Syria and Iraq rob Islamic State of key territory,” The Wall Street Journal, November 3, 2018.
18. Raj Abdulrahim and Ghassan Adnan, “Syria and Iraq rob Islamic State of key territory,” The Wall Street Journal, November 3, 2018.
19. Abdulrahim and Adnan, November 3, 2018.
20. Raja Abdulrahim and Thomas Grove, “Syria condemns US airstrike as tension rise,” the Wall Street Journal, February 8, 2018.
21. Joshua Landis, “US policy toward the Levant, Kurds and Turkey,” Syria Comment, January 15, 2018.
22. Yaroslav Trofimov, “As alliances shift, Syria’s tangle of war grows more dangerous,” The Wall Street Journal, February 15, 2018.
23. Raja Abdulralhim and Thomas Grove, “Syria condemns US airstrike as tensions rise,” The Wall Street Journal, February 8, 2018; Nancy A. Yousef and Thomas Grove, “Russians among those killed in US airstrike is eastern Syria,” The Wall Street Journal, February 13, 2018.
24. Yousef and Grove, February 13, 2018.
25. Charlie Savage, “US says troops can stay in Syria without new authorization,” The New York Times, February 22, 2018.
26. Savage, February 22, 2018.
27. Stephen Gowans. Washington’s Long War on Syria. Baraka Books. 20017. Pp. 149-150.
28. DIA document leaked to Judicial Watch, Inc., a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, which promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law.
29. Mark Mazzetti and Eric Schmitt, “Quiet support for Saudis entangles U.S. in Yemen,” The New York Times, March 13, 2016.
30. Stephen Gowans, “The US-Led War on Yemen, what’s left, November 6, 2017.
31. William James, “May defends Saudi ties as Crown Prince gets royal welcome in London,” Reuters, March 7, 2018.
32. Ibrahim Al-Amin, “Either America or Al-Quds,” Alahednews, December 8, 2017.
33. Syria condemns presence of French and German special forces in Ain al-Arab and Manbij as overt unjustified aggression on Syria’s sovereignty and independence, SANA, June 15, 2016.
Genie Oil: The Syria, Goldman Sachs, Israel, ISIS connection
April 14, 2017
by Rick Wiles of TruNews
Could Israel be using Goldman Sachs loyalists and powerful globalists to push US intervention in Syria as a challenge to Russias international dominance in natural gas?
(VERO BEACH, FLA) A company named Genie Energy, with major investors and advisors such as Lord Rothschild, former VP Dick Cheney and news mogul Rupert Murdoch, could be at the center of decade long play for Israeli energy dominance in the Middle East.
Other major players associated with Genie Energy include economist Larry Summers, Democratic Party veteran Bill Richardson, and former CIA director James Woolsey.
Genie Energy Ltd. (GNEPRA) is an American-based oil and gas company comprised of two operating divisions, Genie Retail Energy division (GRE) and Genie Oil and Gas (GOGAS). GRE operates retail energy providers and brokerage and marketing services, while GOGAS is a global oil and gas exploration company operating an exploratory program in Northern Israel through a subsidiary called Afek Oil and Gas.
The current President of Afek Oil and Gas is Efraim Effi Eitam, a former Israeli military commander who called for expelling Arabs from Israel.
Genie Energys Israeli arm, Afek Oil and Gas, was first given a license to drill in the Golan Heights area in April 2013, but due to legal challenges by the Society for Protection of Nature in Israel and Greenpeace development was halted until December 2014. The exploratory drilling began near the small town of Katzrin, northeast of the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee.
In October 2015 Afek Oil and Gas confirmed the discovery of oil in the Golan Heights.
In November 2015, The Economist, partially owned by the Rothschild family, ran a story titled Black gold under the Golan which detailed Genie Energys find in the Golan Heights.
Israels decision in 1981 to annex the Golan (unlike the West Bank, which remains formally under military occupation) caused a diplomatic crisis with America, The Economist noted. The heights are still regarded internationally as illegally-occupied Syrian territory.
The Economist added that an influential group including Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and his former cabinet secretary Zvi Hauser were actively lobbying Israels government to take advantage of the chaos in Syria to demand international recognition of their section of the oil rich Golan Heights.
Netanyahu, according to The Economist, urged that Israel should demand this as compensation for having tolerated Obamas Iranian nuclear agreement.
Gaining control of the Golan Heights has long been a goal of Israel.
In 2015, prominent Israeli politician Naftali Bennett called for the world to recognize the Golan Heights as Israeli territory, while calling for the expansion of Jewish settlers in the region.
I want to challenge the entire world, Bennett said at the 15th annual Herzliya Conference of the Institute for Policy and Strategy. I want to give the international community an opportunity to demonstrate their ethics. Recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights.
In mid-February 2017 during his visit to the White House, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked U.S. President Donald Trump to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, which was seized from Syria in the 1967 Middle East war, and unofficially annexed in 1981.
Netanyahu told Israeli and foreign media after his meeting with President Trump that he had raised the Golan issue, and said without elaborating that the U.S. leader was not surprised by the request. Israel made a similar request to the Obama administration in 2015, but it was rejected.
On February 15th 2017 the Independent reported that billionaire globalist activist George Soros, known for his investment in pro-western color revolutions, had invested $14.9 million in Goldman Sachs in the fourth quarter of 2016.
In late-February 2017, an ISIS affiliated group took control of the strategic oil-exploration area of the Golan Heights in Syria which Genie had rights to. After a surprise attack the jihadists captured the towns of Tseel, Sahem al Golan, Adwan, and Ten Jamoua which bridge Syria and Israel over the Yarmouk River.
The Israelis did not intervene at any point of the military confrontation, but have intervened on a dozen of occasions against the Assad regime.
In early-March, the Syrian government retook the Hayyan natural gas field in Syrias central province of Homs from ISIS, which is in vicinity of the Syrian Shayrat airbase, which was struck with US tomahawk missiles on April 6th 2017. In January 2017 ISIS reportedly blew up the Hayyan gas plant, the source of one-third of Syrias electricity, putting it a potential regional competitor totally out of order.
While this conflict was unraveling between 2015 and 2017, Genie Energy was busy beefing up its advisory board with top names in the political and business world including many with Goldman Sachs connections.
Mary Landrieu, former U.S. Senator from Louisiana (1996-2014), and previous Chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, was one edition. While serving as head of the Senate Committee she sponsored and passed the U.S.-Israel Energy Cooperation Bill, which promised to foster partnerships focused on developing resources such as natural gas and alternative fuels, on the academic, business and governmental levels.
In 2010 her brother, the current Mayor of New Orleans, selected Goldman Sachs for a $20 million investment in small business loans, and in 2014 a PAC representing Goldman Sachs donated $15,000 to her failed Senate campaign.
The wife of the board’s Chairman, Michael Steinhardt, serves on NYUs Board of Trustees with former Goldman Sachs #2 man Gary Cohn, along with Laurence Fink, the CEO of BlackRock, which is a top shareholder in Goldman Sachs, and John Paulson, who made billions of dollars on the purchase of credit default swaps with the collapse of the housing bubble in 2008. In 2010, Paulson along with Goldman Sachs was accused by the Securities and Exchange Commission of creating financial products designed to fail.
Genie investor Rupert Murdoch, the Founder and Executive Chairman of News Corporation, co-chairs the Partnership for New York City with Goldman Sachs Chairman and CEO Lloyd Blankfein. Murdoch also had Goldman Sachs co-head of investment banking John Waldron manage the merger of Fox and News Corp, and his abortive bid for Time Warner.
Lastly, in 2011 The New Yorker accused Rupert Murdochs Wall Street Journal of holding a profile story on-then Goldman Sachs COO Gary Cohn (now chief economic advisor for President Trump) because they did not want him being unfairly associated with news stories about Goldman Sachs having sold clients mortgages it thought were junk.
In addition to the Genies Strategic Board of Advisors connection to Goldman Sachs, on April 7th 2017 the company secured a $20 million revolving loan facility with Vantage Commodities Financial Services. Vantage is underwritten in part by Goldman Sachs.
According to former Breitbart writer Lee Stranahan, both President Trumps son-in-law Jared Kushner and his daughter Ivanka Trump are good friends of Rupert Murdochs former wife, Wendi Deng Murdoch. The DailyMail reported in 2016 that Wendi Murdoch organized a reconciliation for Jared and Ivanka in 2008 after the two had temporarily broken off their four year relationship over a religious disagreement.
Many are speculating these connections lead under White House doors within the Trump administration, with both Gary Cohn and Dina Powell serving as potential lobbyists for the interests of Goldman Sachs. One of the investment companies goals is to master what they call “The New Oil Order”, which would include Israel’s bid to shake up the natural gas industry.
Both Gary Cohn and Dina Powell have been lauded as deeply intertwined into a globalist wing of the White House led by Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, both dedicated Orthodox Jews with family connections to right-wing Israeli politics.
On April 5th, a day prior to the US missile strikes in Syria, Israel and the European Union signed a preliminary agreement to build a $6-7 billion undersea natural gas pipeline, which would run from Israel through the Mediterranean Sea to Greece or Italy, and provide a non-Russian energy alternative to EU by 2025.
The oil for the 1,248 mile long, 6 mile deep pipeline would prospectively be pulled from Israels Leviathan underwater natural gas field, discovered in 2010, and Cyprus Aphrodite gas field.
Previously on TRUNEWS, host Rick Wiles has detailed the questionable relationship Israel maintains with Syrian opposition groups also known locally as ISIS. Israel has reportedly provided medical aide, weaponry, intelligence support, and incremental air strikes to forces fighting President Bashar al-Assad throughout the conflict in Syria.
Could the Israeli lobbying for US and NATO intervention in Syria be an insurance play for the successful acquisition of the oil-rich Golan Heights, and the deployment of their competing Eurasia gas pipeline to Europe an asset which would generate trillions of dollars of revenue and energy independence for Israel for the next hundred years.
A major conflict of interest looms over the Rose Garden, whether it spells the end of the Trump administration, has yet to be determined.