Connect with us


Israel claims to strike Iranian positions in Syria, 23 fighters reportedly killed

If it rains in Israel it will pour in Iran – Israel threatens




The picture above almost looks like shooting stars. If that were so, it would be beautiful, but it’s not a shooting star. It’s death raining over the Levant. The Israeli military just attacked Syria with a barrage of missile strikes, in what their media is claiming is the “most extensive” in decades.

Reports are saying that 23 fighters have been killed, Israeli media claiming that 18 of them were foreigners. In addition, Israel is claiming that they targeted “weapons storage, logistics sites and intelligence centers used by elite Iranian forces in Syria”. Overall, the most recent strikes on Syria have been framed as an assault against Iranian bases, essentially a continuation of what occurred yesterday, but on a larger scale.

Israel launches missile strike against Syria after Trump cancels Iran deal – reports

Israel is claiming that Iranian troops had previously launched 20 rockets from Syrian soil at Israeli military outposts in the Golan Heights. It is worth noting that the Golan Heights is actually Syrian soil, occupied illegally by Israel. Moreover, this is noted as the first time Israel directly accused Iran of firing missiles towards Israeli territory, according to Israeli news site Haaretz.

Iran, however, is claiming it has no bases in Syria, and needless to say, completely denies attacking Israel:

“Iran has no military presence in Syria, no bases. Israel is lying. It was Syria that conducted strikes yesterday in response to the repeated attacks on the country. Israel must realize that the situation has changed and aggression would not go unanswered,”  Sputnik quotes Abolfazl Hassan Beigi, a member of the Iranian parliament’s commission on security and foreign policy.

We should pay close attention to what Israel claims, regardless if it’s a lie, because we can predict their next actions, based on the events they are claiming to react to. For example, if Israel claims Syria bombed one of their outposts, regardless of the truth, we can be sure an Israel strike is incoming.

Missile fire is seen from Damascus, Syria May 10, 2018. REUTERS/Omar Sanadiki

This means the official Israeli narrative will say that henceforth, Iran has now directly attacked Israel. For Israel, and the Zionist cheerleading squad, this means they get to play their favorite excuse for war crimes, a neverending chorus of…wait for it…

“Israel has the right to defend itself.”

Don’t take my word for it, the infamous phrase as already been spouted from the White House and Downing Street.

That means this is only the beginning.

While all peoples have the right to defend themselves, Israel has an interesting definition of defense…it usually involves bombing innocent civilians, because a terrorist cell could have theoretically been hiding nearby, with a 1% chance of actually posing a threat to Israel. (And the jury is still out on whether or not that terrorist cell would be funded by Israel in the first place).

Speaking of actual defense, Israel is claiming it dealt a major blow to Syria’s air defenses, whereas Russia said that of the 60 air-to-ground missiles Israel fired, more than half were destroyed by Syrian air defenses, which the video below from the WashPo shows in action.

War with Iran?

What is particularly disturbing about all this, is not only the tragic events, but how it was all framed by Israel. We must pay very close attention to their claims. While it’s tempting for some to look at this as a simple situation, Israel wants an excuse to attack Syria, so they just invent a story about Iranian troops, to justify attacking Syria – the real target, there is more to this story than that.

Listen to the words of the Israeli defense ministry spokesperson:

“We saw it was very clear what the Iranians were doing, attacking Israel from Syrian soil,” he said….“This was by far the largest strike we have done, but it was focused on Iranian sites.”

From their words, it’s clear they are framing this all as an attack against Iran, which according to them, just so happens to be “On Syrian soil”. This time, for once, it actually appears that Syria was not the direct target.

To be sure, Israel hates Syria, and strikes her numerous times, but this time, the focus was so blatantly on Iran. In the past, when striking Syria, Israel felt no need to justify it, they often did not comment at all. But this time, they are speaking extensively, more than usual, and the line that is repeated is: Iran, Iran, Iran.

So while it’s tempting to claim Occam’s Razor, and say “But Israel is simply lying, there is no proof there were Iranian troops in those places, clearly the goal is to attack Syria, and Iran is used as the excuse.”

That was often the case in the past, a fake threat was invented as an excuse to blame Syria, but I believe it is the opposite, this time, based on the way the story is framed.

I believe this time, the goal was to attack Iran, and the chaos in Syria an excuse to begin this attack; a fight Israel has been wanting for years.

It doesn’t matter if Iran was even present in Syria or not, if Israel struck them or not, all that matters is Israel said so.

The truth does not matter to them, its the narrative they push which they intend to make the truth. So long as enough people believe the narrative, or at the very least are apathetic to the idea of war, the war propagandist has all they need.

One of the most important mistakes truthful people make, when dealing with untruthful parties, is assuming they operate by the same principals, or at the least, that a truthful person can predict the actions of an untruthful one by simply saying: “What would I do in this situation?”.

But it doesn’t work that way. Lairs and propagandists don’t think like normal people. For them, it does not matter what the truth is, all that matters is how is the situation framed. All that matters is their narrative.

Now, that the narrative has been set, everything moves forward. Donald Trump has already canceled the Iran deal, against the advice of almost every major player save for Israel.

CONFIRMED: US to withdraw from Iran nuke deal, impose new sanctions on Tehran

Numerous sources including Israeli media, and are reporting that Israel has made it clear, it hopes the cancelation of the Iran deal will lead to regime change in Iran. Israeli media is also reporting that Trump is “committed to regime change” in Iran, as the “only way to achieve peace in the Middle East”.

That is truly Orwellian.

While regime change was always the goal, the Iran deal provided a possibility that some people in the West may choose to align themselves with the right side of history. Now, Trump has clearly set US policy where it traditionally has been, united with Israeli policy in the Middle East.

The recent Israeli strikes in Syria were specifically targeted at Iran, according to the way the narrative was framed, regardless of the reality on the ground. It’s important to understand their goal of regime change in Iran is a separate issue to the war in Syria, albeit a connected issue

If one views these specific strikes as simply a normal part of the War in Syria, it blurs the particular objectives of Israel. While Iran is interconnected, as an ally of Syria, Iran is not the ruler of Syria, nor is Syria the proxy of Iran.

Syria is Syria, an ancient and sovereign nation, whose people have felt a brotherly connection to Russians since the 10th century, when Russia joined the same Orthodox Christian faith as was practiced in Syria since the first century.

Syria is being targeted in this War for a variety of reasons, namely, her refusal to obey the globalist powers, as well as her good relationship with Russia and Iran.

Most importantly, if you look at the geography, Syria is a keystone state, that represents an alignment of powers from the Mediterranean Sea, the borders of the former Soviet Union, and China. This line intersects Israel and Saudi Arabia, making it not so good for the Deep State’s oil and power geopolitics, but an ideal hub for the New Silk Road and the Multipolar world.

This is the big picture of what is happening in Syria, as well as the world. Once again the Levant becomes the center of humanity’s development, as it was at the beginning of man, so it may be at the end.

While that is the big picture of what is happening in Syria, and everything is interconnected, these most recent strikes seem targeted at Iran, and part of the overall goal of regime change. We must not lose sight of the details, while looking at the big picture, lest the whole thing become blurry.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Notify of


Clinton-Yeltsin docs shine a light on why Deep State hates Putin (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 114.

Alex Christoforou



Bill Clinton and America ruled over Russia and Boris Yeltsin during the 1990s. Yeltsin showed little love for Russia and more interest in keeping power, and pleasing the oligarchs around him.

Then came Vladimir Putin, and everything changed.

Nearly 600 pages of memos and transcripts, documenting personal exchanges and telephone conversations between Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin, were made public by the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Dating from January 1993 to December 1999, the documents provide a historical account of a time when US relations with Russia were at their best, as Russia was at its weakest.

On September 8, 1999, weeks after promoting the head of the Russia’s top intelligence agency to the post of prime minister, Russian President Boris Yeltsin took a phone call from U.S. President Bill Clinton.

The new prime minister was unknown, rising to the top of the Federal Security Service only a year earlier.

Yeltsin wanted to reassure Clinton that Vladimir Putin was a “solid man.”

Yeltsin told Clinton….

“I would like to tell you about him so you will know what kind of man he is.”

“I found out he is a solid man who is kept well abreast of various subjects under his purview. At the same time, he is thorough and strong, very sociable. And he can easily have good relations and contact with people who are his partners. I am sure you will find him to be a highly qualified partner.”

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the nearly 600 pages of transcripts documenting the calls and personal conversations between then U.S. President Bill Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin, released last month. A strong Clinton and a very weak Yeltsin underscore a warm and friendly relationship between the U.S. and Russia.

Then Vladimir Putin came along and decided to lift Russia out of the abyss, and things changed.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel

Here are five must-read Clinton-Yeltsin exchanges from with the 600 pages released by the Clinton Library.

Via RT

Clinton sends ‘his people’ to get Yeltsin elected

Amid unceasing allegations of nefarious Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election, the Clinton-Yeltsin exchanges reveal how the US government threw its full weight behind Boris – in Russian parliamentary elections as well as for the 1996 reelection campaign, which he approached with 1-digit ratings.

For example, a transcript from 1993 details how Clinton offered to help Yeltsin in upcoming parliamentary elections by selectively using US foreign aid to shore up support for the Russian leader’s political allies.

“What is the prevailing attitude among the regional leaders? Can we do something through our aid package to send support out to the regions?” a concerned Clinton asked.

Yeltsin liked the idea, replying that “this kind of regional support would be very useful.” Clinton then promised to have “his people” follow up on the plan.

In another exchange, Yeltsin asks his US counterpart for a bit of financial help ahead of the 1996 presidential election: “Bill, for my election campaign, I urgently need for Russia a loan of $2.5 billion,” he said. Yeltsin added that he needed the money in order to pay pensions and government wages – obligations which, if left unfulfilled, would have likely led to his political ruin. Yeltsin also asks Clinton if he could “use his influence” to increase the size of an IMF loan to assist him during his re-election campaign.

Yeltsin questions NATO expansion

The future of NATO was still an open question in the years following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and conversations between Clinton and Yeltsin provide an illuminating backdrop to the current state of the curiously offensive ‘defensive alliance’ (spoiler alert: it expanded right up to Russia’s border).

In 1995, Yeltsin told Clinton that NATO expansion would lead to “humiliation” for Russia, noting that many Russians were fearful of the possibility that the alliance could encircle their country.

“It’s a new form of encirclement if the one surviving Cold War bloc expands right up to the borders of Russia. Many Russians have a sense of fear. What do you want to achieve with this if Russia is your partner? They ask. I ask it too: Why do you want to do this?” Yeltsin asked Clinton.

As the documents show, Yeltsin insisted that Russia had “no claims on other countries,” adding that it was “unacceptable” that the US was conducting naval drills near Crimea.

“It is as if we were training people in Cuba. How would you feel?” Yeltsin asked. The Russian leader then proposed a “gentleman’s agreement” that no former Soviet republics would join NATO.

Clinton refused the offer, saying: “I can’t make the specific commitment you are asking for. It would violate the whole spirit of NATO. I’ve always tried to build you up and never undermine you.”

NATO bombing of Yugoslavia turns Russia against the West

Although Clinton and Yeltsin enjoyed friendly relations, NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia tempered Moscow’s enthusiastic partnership with the West.

“Our people will certainly from now have a bad attitude with regard to America and with NATO,” the Russian president told Clinton in March 1999. “I remember how difficult it was for me to try and turn the heads of our people, the heads of the politicians towards the West, towards the United States, but I succeeded in doing that, and now to lose all that.”

Yeltsin urged Clinton to renounce the strikes, for the sake of “our relationship” and “peace in Europe.”

“It is not known who will come after us and it is not known what will be the road of future developments in strategic nuclear weapons,” Yeltsin reminded his US counterpart.

But Clinton wouldn’t cede ground.

“Milosevic is still a communist dictator and he would like to destroy the alliance that Russia has built up with the US and Europe and essentially destroy the whole movement of your region toward democracy and go back to ethnic alliances. We cannot allow him to dictate our future,” Clinton told Yeltsin.

Yeltsin asks US to ‘give Europe to Russia’

One exchange that has been making the rounds on Twitter appears to show Yeltsin requesting that Europe be “given” to Russia during a meeting in Istanbul in 1999. However, it’s not quite what it seems.

“I ask you one thing,” Yeltsin says, addressing Clinton. “Just give Europe to Russia. The US is not in Europe. Europe should be in the business of Europeans.”

However, the request is slightly less sinister than it sounds when put into context: The two leaders were discussing missile defense, and Yeltsin was arguing that Russia – not the US – would be a more suitable guarantor of Europe’s security.

“We have the power in Russia to protect all of Europe, including those with missiles,” Yeltsin told Clinton.

Clinton on Putin: ‘He’s very smart’

Perhaps one of the most interesting exchanges takes place when Yeltsin announces to Clinton his successor, Vladimir Putin.

In a conversation with Clinton from September 1999, Yeltsin describes Putin as “a solid man,” adding: “I am sure you will find him to be a highly qualified partner.”

A month later, Clinton asks Yeltsin who will win the Russian presidential election.

“Putin, of course. He will be the successor to Boris Yeltsin. He’s a democrat, and he knows the West.”

“He’s very smart,” Clinton remarks.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


New Satellite Images Reveal Aftermath Of Israeli Strikes On Syria; Putin Accepts Offer to Probe Downed Jet

The images reveal the extent of destruction in the port city of Latakia, as well as the aftermath of a prior strike on Damascus International Airport.



Via Zerohedge

An Israeli satellite imaging company has released satellite photographs that reveal the extent of Monday night’s attack on multiple locations inside Syria.

ImageSat International released them as part of an intelligence report on a series of Israeli air strikes which lasted for over an hour and resulted in Syrian missile defense accidentally downing a Russian surveillance plane that had 15 personnel on board.

The images reveal the extent of destruction on one location struck early in attack in the port city of Latakia, as well as the aftermath of a prior strike on Damascus International Airport. On Tuesday Israel owned up to carrying out the attack in a rare admission.

Syrian official SANA news agency reported ten people injured in the attacks carried out of military targets near three major cities in Syria’s north.

The Times of Israel, which first reported the release of the new satellite images, underscores the rarity of Israeli strikes happening that far north and along the coast, dangerously near Russian positions:

The attack near Latakia was especially unusual because the port city is located near a Russian military base, the Khmeimim Air Force base. The base is home to Russian jet planes and an S-400 aerial defense system. According to Arab media reports, Israel has rarely struck that area since the Russians arrived there.

The Russian S-400 system was reportedly active during the attack, but it’s difficult to confirm or assess the extent to which Russian missiles responded during the strikes.

Three of the released satellite images show what’s described as an “ammunition warehouse” that appears to have been completely destroyed.

The IDF has stated their airstrikes targeted a Syrian army facility “from which weapons-manufacturing systems were supposed to be transferred to Iran and Hezbollah.” This statement came after the IDF expressed “sorrow” for the deaths of Russian airmen, but also said responsibility lies with the “Assad regime.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also phoned Russian President Vladimir Putin to express regret over the incident while offering to send his air force chief to Russia with a detailed report — something which Putin agreed to.

According to Russia’s RT News, “Major-General Amikam Norkin will arrive in Moscow on Thursday, and will present the situation report on the incident, including the findings of the IDF inquiry regarding the event and the pre-mission information the Israeli military was so reluctant to share in advance.”

Russia’s Defense Ministry condemned the “provocative actions by Israel as hostile” and said Russia reserves “the right to an adequate response” while Putin has described the downing of the Il-20 recon plane as likely the result of a “chain of tragic accidental circumstances” and downplayed the idea of a deliberate provocation, in contradiction of the initial statement issued by his own defense ministry.

Pro-government Syrians have reportedly expressed frustration this week that Russia hasn’t done more to respond militarily to Israeli aggression; however, it appears Putin may be sidestepping yet another trap as it’s looking increasingly likely that Israel’s aims are precisely geared toward provoking a response in order to allow its western allies to join a broader attack on Damascus that could result in regime change.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


“Transphobic” Swedish Professor May Lose Job After Noting Biological Differences Between Sexes

A university professor in Sweden is under investigation after he said that there are fundamental differences between men and women which are “biologically founded”



Via Zerohedge

A university professor in Sweden is under investigation for “anti-feminism” and “transphobia” after he said that there are fundamental differences between men and women which are “biologically founded” and that genders cannot be regarded as “social constructs alone,” reports Academic Rights Watch.

For his transgression, Germund Hesslow – a professor of neuroscience at Lund University – who holds dual PhDs in philosophy and neurophysiology, may lose his job – telling RT that a “full investigation” has been ordered, and that there “have been discussions about trying to stop the lecture or get rid of me, or have someone else give the lecture or not give the lecture at all.”

“If you answer such a question you are under severe time pressure, you have to be extremely brief — and I used wording which I think was completely innocuous, and that apparently the student didn’t,” Hesslow said.

Hesslow was ordered to attend a meeting by Christer Larsson, chairman of the program board for medical education, after a female student complained that Hesslow had a “personal anti-feminist agenda.” He was asked to distance himself from two specific comments; that gay women have a “male sexual orientation” and that the sexual orientation of transsexuals is “a matter of definition.”

The student’s complaint reads in part (translated):

I have also heard from senior lecturers that Germund Hesslow at the last lecture expressed himself transfobically. In response to a question of transexuallism, he said something like “sex change is a fly”. Secondly, it is outrageous because there may be students during the lecture who are themselves exposed to transfobin, but also because it may affect how later students in their professional lives meet transgender people. Transpersonals already have a high level of overrepresentation in suicide statistics and there are already major shortcomings in the treatment of transgender in care, should not it be countered? How does this kind of statement coincide with the university’s equal treatment plan? What has this statement given for consequences? What has been done for this to not be repeated? –Academic Rights Watch

After being admonished, Hesslow refused to distance himself from his comments, saying that he had “done enough” already and didn’t have to explain and defend his choice of words.

At some point, one must ask for a sense of proportion among those involved. If it were to become acceptable for students to record lectures in order to find compromising formulations and then involve faculty staff with meetings and long letters, we should let go of the medical education altogether,” Hesslow said in a written reply to Larsson.

He also rejected the accusation that he had a political agenda – stating that his only agenda was to let scientific factnot new social conventions, dictate how he teaches his courses.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...


Quick Donate

The Duran
Donate a quick 10 spot!


The Duran Newsletter