Driven out of the US administration, the Straussians, who already control Ukraine and Israel, have extended their influence to the UN and the Contact Group on the Defense of Ukraine. They now have the means to wage war and paralyze supporters of peace.
For nearly a year, President Donald Trump has been restoring order in the United States. He has reestablished the principles of equality before the law and merit-based promotion at the expense of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). He has slashed federal budgets for everything related to imperial spending and attempted to restore the military’s primary function: homeland defense.
At the same time, we all see how he is failing to achieve the peace he hoped for in Ukraine and Palestine. He is letting the Europeans fight not for Ukraine, but against Russia and the coalition of Benjamin Netanyahu persisting in its program of a “Greater Israel”, that is to say annexing its neighbors [1].
However, we fail to see the worst of it: the Straussians, who held the upper hand under George Bush Jr., Barack Obama, and Joe Biden, are still not defeated. They have retreated into two intergovernmental organizations: NATO and the UN.
Apart from NATO, they have taken control of the Contact Group on the Defense of Ukraine (formerly the Ramstein Group), which, since September 9, no longer meets alternately at the US military base in Ramstein and at NATO headquarters in Mons-Brussels, but now also in London.
It was they who, along with the Ukrainian secret services, organized the drone flights over Western and Northern European airports. Then, they pushed for the delivery of German Patriot missile batteries to Ukraine, after secretly organizing the transfer of the first batteries from Israel.
They are still the ones who falsified the reports of the UN Secretary-General on the Security Council meetings of September 19 and 26 [2]. Contrary to these reports—which we were wrong to trust—the Security Council did not approve the reimposition of sanctions against Iran. Moreover, it lacked the power to do so.
This summer, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom adopted a strange common position on the JCPoA, that is, the nuclear agreement signed during the 5+1 negotiations with Iran. As a reminder, the United States led these negotiations supposedly to end Iran’s military nuclear program and prevent the country from acquiring an atomic bomb. After a round of discussions, the meetings were interrupted for a year while Washington and Tehran concluded a secret protocol about which we know nothing.
Negotiations then resumed and were immediately concluded with a treaty in Vienna. It is also important to remember that China and Russia, which participated in the negotiations, both confirmed that there had been no Iranian military nuclear program since 1988.
The JCPoA was validated by Security Council Resolution 2231 on July 20, 2015. As a result, the sanctions that the council had adopted against Iran were gradually lifted. However, by the following year, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany were questioning the agreement on the grounds that Iran was conducting research on missiles capable of delivering atomic bombs. Ultimately, on May 8, 2018, President Donald Trump (in his first term) decided to withdraw from the agreement on the grounds that it had not prevented Iran from increasing its military power in the Middle East. On September 19, 2020, Elliott Abrams, President Trump’s representative for Venezuela… and Iran, announced the reinstatement of US sanctions, allegedly by resorting to paragraph 11 of the resolution (“snapback mechanism”). However, neither Washington, nor London, nor Paris, nor Berlin have ever attempted to resort to paragraph 36 of the JCPoA for the simple reason that they would have had to admit that they were wrong.
Sergey Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, reacted strongly to the lies from the UN press service. Without directly implicating Secretary-General António Guterres, he warned him of the infiltration of his administration by war mongers. He had his letter distributed to every member state of the Organization.
However, as Iran, China, and Russia have repeatedly stated for the past five years, the JCPoA was included in Resolution 2231. Consequently, it is not possible to activate paragraph 11 of the resolution without taking into account the commitments signed in the JCPoA [3]. And these were initially violated by the Europeans and the United States. China declared: “The United States has reimposed and has continuously tightened unilateral sanctions against Iran and has adopted maximum pressure measures.” As a result, Iran has been unable to benefit from the economic advantages of the JCPOA and has been forced to default on some of its obligations under the JCPOA.” [4]
Under international law, there is no doubt that the mechanism for reinstating sanctions must be considered a unilateral punishment against Iran and an unjust measure.
These legal considerations are not quibbles. Respect for them is essential to international law. There is a hierarchy of norms, and one cannot invoke a provision of one text without first activating that of a related earlier text. [5].
The fact that the United Nations administration falsified the minutes of two Security Council meetings, as evidenced by the verbatim transcripts of these meetings, leaves no room for doubt. [6] This administration is no longer impartial, but is playing into the hands of the opponents of peace in the Middle East.
Guo Jiakun, the spokesperson for the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, responded to questions about his country’s position on the allegations from Germany, France, and the United Kingdom, but ended the briefing when asked to comment on the false UN reports.
Don’t assume that the war advocates only control the UN press office. The day after the publication of the falsified summaries of Security Council meetings, the General Secretariat drafted a “note verbale” (reference: DPPA/SCAD/SCA/4/25(1)) instituting sanctions against Iran as if they had been approved [7]. Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia, the Russian Permanent Representative, nearly choked. He immediately drafted a letter to the Secretary-General (reference S/2025/610), which he circulated to the Security Council [8].
We are going through a situation where the General Secretariat, abandoning the impartiality of its function and the principles of international law, has aligned itself with the legal interpretation of two States, permanent members of the Council, France and the United Kingdom.
It will be recalled that in 2016, during the war against Syria, the UN’s second-in-command, the American Jeffrey Feltman, and his assistant, the German Volker Perthes, drafted in their New York office not a peace plan, but a plan for Syria’s surrender [9]. I commented on this document, which I analyzed for President Bashar al-Assad, in my book Before Our Very Eyes. Taken aback by its contents, most historians remained circumspect. The Syrian Arab Republic had been overthrown by the United Kingdom and Turkey. This secret document will be revealed when this book is published in German.
In 2016, the United Nations, formed in 1948 to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war,” was able, contrary to its official purpose, to act to overthrow the Syrian Arab Republic. They implemented the plan A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm [10], written by the Straussians for Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996. They can therefore, once again, act for war.
This is likely what President Donald Trump was referring to in his address to the 80th session of the General Assembly on September 23 [11]. Indeed, in that speech, he did not criticize the UN in the name of “American exceptionalism” [12] like other US presidents before him, but because it failed to intervene in his peace efforts on different continents, in seven different conflicts.
We must understand what is happening today: the enemy is no longer Uncle Sam; it is still the Straussians [13], now within the United Nations and the Contact Group on the Defense of Ukraine. They still want to lead us towards generalized war. They now rely on Israeli revisionist Zionists [14] and Ukrainian fundamentalist nationalists [15].