A member of the Federal Communications Commission, Jessica Rosenworcel, wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post.

It is unlikely that the headline was chosen by the author of the op-ed. The editors of the Washington Postopinion page wrote it. I also doubt that she would have chosen a picture of the FCC head to decorate her piece.

For the record: The headline is false.

The op-ed is about a request for comments the Federal Communications Commission issued last year in preparation of its net-neutrality decision. Anyone, and anything, could comment multiple times. Various lobbying firms, political action groups and hacks abused the public comment system to send copy-paste comments via single-use email accounts or even without giving any email address.

But this had and has nothing to with Russia or Russians.

Here are the top graphs of the the WaPo op-ed with the "Russia-did-it" headline:

What do Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), deceased actress Patty Duke, a 13-year-old from upstate New York and a 96-year-old veteran from Southern California have in common?

They appear to have filed comments in the net neutrality record at the Federal Communications Commission. That ought to mean they went online, submitted their names and addresses, and typed out their thoughts about Internet regulatory policy. But appearances can be deceiving. In fact, each of these individuals — along with 2 million others — had their identities stolen and used to file fake comments.

These fake comments were not the only unnerving thing in the FCC net neutrality record. In the course of its deliberations on the future of Internet openness, the agency logged about half a million comments sent from Russian email addresses. It received nearly 8 million comments from email domains associated with FakeMailGenerator.com with almost identical wording.

I have emphasized the only words in the whole op-ed that are related to Russia. They are wrong. The author of that op-ed does not understand the FCC public comment system. Public comments are made by filling out a form on the FCC website leaving ones comment, some address data and an email address. Public comments are not "send" by email. Thus the FCC did not log any comments "sent from Russian email". It logged comments made in a web form where the human (or program) making the comment provided a Russian email address as a means of contact. (It is obviously not expertise on such communication issues that qualifies Jessica Rosenworcel for her position as FCC commissioner.)

At least 12-13 million of the 21.7 million comments to the FCC were fake. 8 million email addresses entered in the form the FCC had set up were generated with www.fakemailgenerator.com, half a million were entered with *.ru Internet domains.

FakeMailGenerator can use foreign domains for generating throw-away email addresses. In the screenshot below it generated an Hungarian one for me.

If I would comment at the FCC and enter Reephy@fleckens.hu into the FCC form I would be counted as Hungarian. I would not have "send" that comment from an Hungarian email address. Nor would entering the comment make me Hungarian. Neither do *.ru email domains mean that the people (ab-)using them have anything to do with Russia.

The Pew Research Center analyzed the 21.7 million comments the FCC received:

Fully 57% of comments used temporary or duplicate email addresses, and seven popular comments accounted for 38% of all submissions

The FCC and other agencies are required by law to accept public comments. But, as the op-ed says, it is utterly useless to request such public comments on the Internet without having some authentication system in place. The FCC had some email address verification system in place, but it did not use it. As the Pew Center writes:

[T]he Center’s analysis shows that the FCC site does not appear to have utilized this email verification process on a consistent basis. According to this analysis of the data from the FCC, only 3% of the comments definitively went through this validation process. In the vast majority of cases, it is unclear whether any attempt was made to validate the email address provided.

As a result, in many cases commenters were able to use generic or bogus email addresses and still have their comments accepted by the FCC and posted online.

It is obvious that the FCC had no interest at all in receiving legitimate public comments. But the FCC at least did not blame Russia. The Washington Post editors do that when they chose a headline that has no factual basis in the piece below it. They abuse the op-ed which has the presumed authority of an FCC commissioner to reinforce their anti-Russian propaganda campaign.

C. J. Hopkins notes that the cult of authority is systematically used to make the lunatic claims of Russiagate believable.

Matt Taibbi writes that the aim of the Russiagate campaign was and is to target all dissent:

If you don't think that the endgame to all of this lunacy is a world where every America-critical movement from Black Lives Matter to Our Revolution to the Green Party is ultimately swept up in the collusion narrative along with Donald Trump and his alt-right minions, you haven't been paying attention.

That's because #Russiagate, from the start, was framed as an indictment not just of one potentially traitorous Trump, but all alternative politics in general. The story has evolved to seem less like a single focused investigation and more like the broad institutional response to a spate of shocking election results, targeting the beliefs of discontented Americans across the political spectrum.

Some commenters here lamented about my posts about the Steele dossier and or Russiagate issues. "It's enough already." But the issue is, as Taibbi points out, much bigger. In November 2016 the Washington Post pushed the ProPornOT campaign which denounced some 200 non-mainstream websites as "Russian propaganda". This website is an "primary initial" target of that campaign.

If the campaign succeeds to its full intent, Moon of Alabama will no longer be accessible.

The Russiagate nonsense has do be debunked at each and every corner to prevent its further abuse against dissent on everything else.

moonofalabama.org

The Trump administration has threatened to end the nuclear deal with Iran. In our last post we argued in detail that the attempt of the European 3, the United Kingdom, France and Germany, to soothe Trump by condemning Iran's ballistic missiles is itself a breach of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and the UN Security Council Resolution 2231.

The University of Alabama endorsed Moon of Alabama's legal reasoning :-). Professor Daniel Joyner, author of several books on international law, non-proliferation and the nuclear deal with Iran, responded to the piece:

Dan Joyner @DanJoyner1 – 6:43 PM – 24 Jan 2018
Replying to @MoonofA
Hi, I enjoyed your post and agree with its analysis.
I examined 2231 in a chapter you can download here: Iran's Nuclear Program and International Law: From Confrontation to Accord, Chapter 7
I addressed the missile issue at pg. 240, and reached the same conclusion you do.

Ellie Geranmayeh, a member of the European Council of Foreign Relations (a U.S. aligned institution), is also defending the nuclear deal and warns against endorsing its breach. She argues in Foreign Policy that the Europeans should not soothe Trump but take a strong stand against any U.S. attempt to put Iran back into the bad corner:

Some European officials state in private that the best option is for Europe to muddle through in the hope that Trump will eventually shift his position. But muddling through just won’t do. Trump is likely to continue increasing his maximalist demands unless Europe flexes its political muscle.

In order to protect its economic and security interests, Europe must not only reject Trump’s ultimatum — which would be a kiss of death for the nuclear deal — but also push back. Europe should put in place a viable contingency plan if the United States continues backtracking on the deal and let Washington know it’s ready to use it.

The author puts forward a four point plan which would indemnify European companies which are dealing with Iran but threatened by secondary U.S. sanctions:

Put simply, EU officials must tell Trump: If you fine our companies’ assets in the United States, we will reclaim those costs by penalizing U.S. assets in Europe. This would cause a major trade conflict that the Europeans want to avoid by all means. But the option and the precedent exist.

Pressing Iran on the ballistic missile issue leads to a dead end, and possibly a new conflict that is not in European interest. Europe should  therefore address that issues on a wider, regional base:

[I]n recent months France and Germany have reportedly both pressed for the EU to introduce new sanctions targeting Iran’s missile program. This approach is unlikely to persuade Tehran to negotiate over its missile program. Nor are such steps likely to gain support from China and Russia as the nuclear-related sanctions did. This is especially true now due to rising U.S.-Iranian tensions and increasing Western arms sales to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Israel. A more pragmatic approach would be for the EU to facilitate a dialogue with all regional powers with the goal of limiting the range of ballistic missiles and their transfer under existing international arms control regimes.

Possibly later this week a U.S. delegation will meet with European diplomats to talk about the way forward. Britain, pressed with a Brexit scenario, is probably the most inclined to follow the U.S. line:

“I’d say there was a pretty wide measure of agreement on the European side about the need to look at what Iran is doing on the ballistic missile front and to work out what we can do collectively to constrain that activity and to make a big difference there,” [British Foreign Secretary Boris] Johnson said at a meeting with [U.S. Secretary of State Rex] Tillerson on Monday. “And we think we can do that; we think we can do that together. But as Rex says, it’s important we do that in parallel and don’t vitiate the fundamentals of the Iran nuclear deal, and we’re sure we can do that.”

Johnson and others are wrong with this. There is no reasonable case at all to (solely) address Iranian ballistic missiles when Saudi Arabia, Israel and the U.S. (also Pakistan) all have ballistic missiles pointed at Iran. Tehran will rightfully reject any such talks. Addressing Iran's ballistic missiles in the framework of JCPOA and UNSCR 2231 is a breach of the resolution which had lifted all limits on Iran's missile activities. The only chance to talk about ballistic missiles at all is within a much wider framework.

The EU-3 should follow the advice given by Ellie Geranmayeh and prepare for an economic confrontation with the U.S. over the nuclear deal. It is clearly the U.S. which is in breach of the deal and which rejects the UNSC resolution it had earlier supported.

If the Europeans do not hold up the case, Trump will notice that the EU folds even under mild pressure. He will use that experience to push other cases and will attempt to blackmail the EU over and over again.

The involved politicians should also recognize that opposing Trump is a domestic winner in Europe where his approval rates are at a record low. There will be no lack of backing for harder line policies.

moonofalabama.org

The Trump administration wants to abolish the nuclear agreement with Iran. The big European countries want to keep the formal agreement but are actively looking for other reasons, specifically Iran's ballistic missiles, to put new sanctions on Iran. A detailed look into the issue reveals that those European countries are willfully misreading the relevant UN resolutions and mislead the public about their real motivations.

Elijah Magnier just published an excellent piece on the history of U.S. attempts to restrict Iran in the Middle East and to again put it again under its tutelage. He touches on the nuclear deal with Iran and the Trump administration attempts to abolish it. The deal was cosigned by three European countries, the United Kingdom, France and Germany, as well as by Russia and China. Magnier writes:

Iran will not re-negotiate the nuclear deal and relies on Europe to stand firm, confirming its signature and commitment. Europe is in need of Iran because the Islamic Republic is part of the continent’s national security and an advanced guard against terrorism. Europe has had enough of wars [… .]

[The] Iranians and their allies are the partners Europe is looking for, ready to stand back from the US, that faraway continent that is less vulnerable than nearby Europe to terrorism and terrorists.

That assessment of the European position is wrong.

1. The European governments care about terrorism just as much as the U.S. government does – which means they do not care at all. Remember that the war on Libya, with the help of Qatari paid Takfiris of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, was cooked up by the French President Sarkozy and the Britain Prime Minister Cameron a full year before it happened. Ghaddafi was killed, Libya drowned in blood and terrorism thrived. The blow back came in May 2017 when a Libyan Takfiri blew himself up and killed more than 20 people in Manchester UK. No one was held responsible. Instead the Europeans repeat the same scheme in Syria and are still supporting the terrorist assaults against the legitimate Syrian government.

2. These Europeans want Iran back under a strict sanction regime just like the U.S. wants it. They Europeans do not want to formally break the nuclear agreement. (They might fear that some companies would file for indemnity.) But they are actively looking for ways to circumvent it. They want to provoke Iran into breaking the agreement by claiming that Iran's ballistic missile program is in violation of the nuclear agreement and the relevant UN resolutions. If they use the issue to apply unilateral sanctions or to "snap back" old ones, Iran has little choice but to declare the agreement null and void.

Some relevant headlines:

• German For Min says understands U.S. reaction to Iran missile test – Feb 3 2017

• France, Germany want Iran to reverse ballistic missile program – Dec 4 2017

• EU countries defend nuclear deal with Iran and express concerns over Tehran’s ballistic missiles … – Jan 11 2018

• Germany weighs new sanctions against Iran – report – Jan 20 2018 

• Germany is lobbying among European allies to agree new sanctions against Iran in an attempt to prevent U.S. President Donald Trump from terminating an international deal curbing Tehran’s nuclear programme, Der Spiegel magazine reported on Saturday.

• France says Iran not respecting U.N. text on ballistic missiles – Jan 22 2018

These European countries say they are under pressure from Trump to offer something and are therefore taking up the ballistic missile issue:

The strategy could include threatening Iran with targeted economic sanctions if it does not agree to curtail its ballistic weapons arsenal, which the West believes contains longer-range missiles potentially capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

But why would anyone believe that Trump would not just take whatever Europeans offer and simply continue on his path. If Trump wants to break the nuclear agreement the Europeans should let him do so and not risk to add to the damage.

Moreover – the claim that these Europeans are moving against Iran's ballistic missiles because of Trump is deeply dishonest. The same European countries started their campaign about the alleged Iranian ballistic missile violation under then President Obama. As DW reported on March 30 2016(!):

The United States and its European allies have accused Iran of defying a UN Security Council resolution by launching nuclear-capable missiles.

The US, Britain, France and Germany leveled the charges Tuesday in a joint letter addressed to Spain's UN ambassador and UN chief Ban Ki-moon. In the letter, US and European officials said Iran's recent ballistic tests involved missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons and were "in defiance of" council resolution 2231, adopted last July.

Iran had launched missiles that were "inherently capable of delivering nuclear weapons," the letter said. It called on the Security Council to discuss appropriate responses to Tehran's failure to comply with its obligations.

That 2016 letter itself was based on two lies. As discussed in detail below the UNSC Resolution 2231 (2015) does NOT prohibit any ballistic missile activities in Iran. It especially does NOT prohibit missiles "inherently capable of delivering nuclear weapons". It does not even "demand" such. Iran acted as much "in defiance" as someone who rejects an "obligation" to "suck on this" (vid).

As DW correctly noted:

Council diplomats said the case for new UN sanctions on Iran was weak. Moreover, Western officials said that although the launches went against 2231, they were not a violation of the core nuclear agreement … 
…
Diplomats say key powers agree the resolution's language is not legally binding and cannot be enforced through the use of sanctions or military force. But Western nations view the language as a ban and say Iran has a political obligation to comply.

Iran denies its missiles are able to carry nuclear weapons … 
…
[A] rebuke from the Security Council could provide a legal framework for the US and European countries to consider new sanctions against Iran, according to Western diplomats. France has also suggested there could be unilateral European sanctions over Iran's missile launches.

The European claim now that they want to press Iran on ballistic missiles to prevent Trump from ripping the nuclear agreement apart. This claim is obviously false. The same three Europeans attempted to press Iran on ballistic missiles, in circumvention of the nuclear deal, way before anyone but Trump himself dreamed that he might become President of the United States.

Iran's Ballistic Missile Program

Iran has sensible reasons to have a ballistic missile force. During the Iraq-Iran war the Iraqi army launched the War of the Cities on Iran. Five large waves of air raids and dozens of ballistic missiles with conventional and chemical weapon payloads hit Iranian cities and caused several thousands of casualties within the civilian population. Iran had no way to defend against these attacks or to retaliate in kind. As the Wikipedia entry on the War of the Cities linked above notes:

The conflict caused [the] initiation of Iran's missile program by [the] IRGC.

Currently two of Iran's immediate neighbors have medium range ballistic missile capabilities. Saudi Arabia has a ballistic missile force of older Chinese DF-3 missiles as well as newer Chinese CSS-5 (DF-21). Both types have a range of 1,500-2.5000 miles and a payload capacity of up to 2 tons. Pakistan, Iran's eastern neighbor, has a significant ballistic missile force armed with conventional and nuclear warheads. Israel has medium range ballistic missiles, likely nuclear armed, which can hit Iran. The U.S. has, of course, a missile force with global reach.

Three of Iran's main adversaries, Saudi Arabia, Israel and the United States, have missiles capable of hitting Iran. Iran does not want to repeat the experience of the Iraq-Iran war. Iran will not give up its own ballistic missile force. Those missiles are its only means to deter especially its Wahabbi and Zionist neighbors and the imperial U.S. from using their missiles against Iranian cities. Iran thus rejects any negotiations about its ballistic missile programs but it has put sensible restrictions on its active forces.

Iran's Supreme Leader voluntarily limited the range of Iran's ballistic missiles:

Speaking on the sidelines of a conference in Tehran, Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari [the head of the paramilitary Revolutionary Guard] told journalists that the capability of Iran’s ballistic missiles is “enough for now.” The Guard runs Iran’s missile program, answering only to Khamenei.

“Today, the range of our missiles, as the policies of Iran’s supreme leader dictate, are limited to 2,000 kilometers, even though we are capable of increasing this range,” he said.

The Iranian ballistic missile program is obviously not directed at Europe. Its missiles can not reach any European city. There is no reason for European countries to worry about them. This could change though if Europe acts hostile against Iran.

No European government has yet plausibly explained why Iran's ballistic missile program should be of any more concerns than Saudi Arabia's or Israel's.

What the UN Security Council resolutions say about Iran's ballistic missiles

To understand the legal aspects we have to dip into the history and language of the relevant UNSC resolutions.

Before the nuclear agreement the UN Security Council Resolution 1929, adopted on June 9 2010, restricted Iran's ballistic missile program in a legally binding form:

Acting under Article 41 of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, [the UNSC] 
[…] 9. Decides that Iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using ballistic missile technology, and that States shall take all necessary measures to prevent the transfer of technology or technical assistance to Iran related to such activities;

Note the specific description of "missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons".

On July 20 2015 the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2231. It endorsesthe Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, JCPOA or nuclear agreement, which the five permanent UNSC members and Germany had negotiated with Iran.

In the new resolution the UNSC decides under point 7 that …:

(a) The provisions of resolutions 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008), 1835 (2008), 1929 (2010) and 2224 (2015) shall be terminated;

That paragraph lifts all old restrictions on Iran's ballistic missile activities. The limits of UNSCR 1929 (2010) on ballistic missiles no longer apply.

[Excursus – "snap back"]

There is a tricky issue following the above point 7 in para 10 to 15 of UNSCR 2231 under the title "Application of Provisions of Previous Resolutions". The termination of the old resolutions and the sanctions those applied can, under certain conditions, itself be terminated. This is the "snap back" provisions the Obama administration held out against its critics. A National Public Radio piece explained the process:

Here's how it would work: If U.S. officials believe Iran is violating the deal, they would bring the allegation to the Security Council. At that point, sanctions would be imposed automatically — the first unusual twist in the deal. If members of the security council — Russia, China or others — rise to Iran's defense, they can block the new sanctions only by passing a new resolution.

That could be stopped by a U.S. veto. The U.S. is one of five permanent council members — including Great Britain, France, Russia and China — with veto power.

In other words, instead of making sanctions vulnerable to a veto by the five permanent Security Council members, the deal flips that around, and gives the U.S. (or others) power to stop any attempt to block the imposition of sanctions.

To come to the point where the "snap-back" provision apply, the U.S. or other states must only "notify" the UNSC that it found an issues it "believes constitutes significant non-performance of commitments under the JCPOA."

Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei has said that such a "snap back" of sanctions, based on dubious allegations, would be considered by Iran as a violation of the nuclear agreement.

The U.S. and the west-Europeans seem to believe that this backdoor to reintroduce the old sanction regime against Iran can be triggered by their lamenting over Iranian ballistic missiles activities. A precise reading of the resolution shows that this is not the case.
[End of the "snap back" excursus]

The new UNSCR 2231 (2015) itself does not mention ballistic missiles at all. But it has two annexes. Annex A is a copy of the JCPOA as adopted in Vienna on July 14 2015 by all JCPOA parties including Iran. Annex B is simply headline "Statement". It accompanied JCPOA but was issued only by the 5+1 states, not by Iran. The exact legal status of the Annex B "Statement" within the UNSCR is not clear (at least to me). But even if we consider it a binding part of the resolution it does not give the legal backing for the current claims against Iran.

The Annex B Statement provides that:

3. Iran is called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology, until the date eight years after the JCPOA Adoption Day or […]

That point 3 in the Annex B is the only item in UNSCR 2231 (2015) that is relevant to Iran's current ballistic missiles.

Thus:

• UNSCR 2231 (2015) lifts the strict, legally binding provision ("decides") of UNSCR 1929 (2010) against any and all ballistic missiles in Iran.
• UNSCR 2231 (2015) introduces a new point in an Annex Statement that asks Iran in a legally non-binding way ("calls upon") to limit its ballistic missile activities.
• There is a significant change of language in the description of the relevant ballistic missiles between the two resolutions. While 1929 (2010) talks about "missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons", 2231 (2015) talks about "missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons".

Some people, like the US Ambassador to the UN and some European ministers, are trying to build on the "calls upon" provision in the Annex B Statement to accuse Iran of legally violating the resolution.

This is nonsense. The UN issued "Editorial Guidelines" for writing resolutions. The "calls upon" phrase is listed as a "common operative verb" distinct from other, much stronger common operative verbs likes "decides" or "demands". The European Institute for Peace noteson UN resolutions that:

[B]inding paragraphs start with “decides” instead of “urges”, “invites” or “calls upon”.

The "call upon" phrase in UN resolutions is non-binding. It is Diplomatese for "pretty please". Saying "No!" to someones "pretty please" is not defying an "obligation". It is not against the "spirit" of anything. Acting against the request expressed in a "calls upon" clause is NOT a violation of a resolution. It can thus not trigger any legal consequences.

In addition to that the change of language in the ballistic missile description from 1929 (2010) to 2231 (2015) acknowledges that there are ballistic missile types to which even the "calls upon" clause does not apply.

The old formulation practically designated all missiles that have a certain lift capacity and allow for a payload size theoretically large enough to hold a nuclear weapon. This first formulation includes, for example, missiles developed to launch satellites into space as well as some conventional short range artillery missiles.

The second, new formulation is much less restrictive. It applies only to missiles which are consciously "designed", i.e. developed and engineered, with nuclear weapon capability in mind. The technical specificity of such a "design" must go beyond the simple provision of a certain lift capacity and payload size like it is used for space launchers or conventional ballistic missiles. Such differentiating and qualifying language as the resolutions use would otherwise make no sense. The authors and legal editors of such resolutions do not use different technical descriptions for the same specific issue.

Iran says that none of its missiles are "designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons." Thus even the non-binding "calls upon" clause does not apply to them.

It is interesting to note that the change on ballistic missiles between the two resolution was made against the will of the Obama administration. As Philip Gordon, the White House coordinator for the Middle East in the Obama administration, recalled:

[W]hen Mr. Obama sought to include a prohibition on ballistic missiles in the Iran deal, or at least extend a previous Security Council resolution banning them, not just Russia and China but even our European allies in the nuclear negotiations refused. They argued that the ballistic missile ban was put in place in 2010 only to pressure Iran to reach a nuclear deal, and they refused to extend it once that deal had been concluded.

All commentators, except the most partisan against Iran, accept the change between the resolutions 1929 and 2231 and see no violation in Iran's ballistic missile program.

But now the Europeans are trying to revert that position. While they try to keep the nuclear agreement intact they now attempt to build up a new case against Iran based on the ballistic missile nonsense.

Conclusions

• The claim of the three European countries that they now want to press Iran on ballistic missiles only to soothe Trump and to make him stick to the JCPOA is a lie. They used the same irrelevant pressure point in 2016 under the Obama administration.

• The claim that the ongoing ballistic missile program of Iran is falling under the UNSCR 2231 missile definition is false. There is no evidence that any Iranian ballistic missiles was specifically "designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons".

• Even if there were such evidence Iran would not be in any legally relevant violation of the UNSCR 2231. The "calls upon" phrase used in the relevant paragraph is non-binding. (The implied assertion that the Annex II Statement is a fully operational part of the UNSCR might also be questionable.)

All the above shows that the Europeans are not honest with regards to Iran. While they want to keep the formal nuclear agreement intact they still want to take hostile actions against Iran and reintroduce or create new sanctions against it. Iran can not and should hope for any support from Europe.

moonofalabama.org

The U.S.-led Coalition against Islamic State is currently training a force to maintain security along the Syrian border as the operation against ISIS shifts focus. The 30,000-strong force will be partly composed of veteran fighters and operate under the leadership of the Syrian Democratic Forces, CJTF-OIR told The Defense Post.
…
“The Coalition is working jointly with the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) to establish and train the new Syrian Border Security Force (BSF). Currently, there are approximately 230 individuals training in the BSF’s inaugural class, with the goal of a final force size of approximately 30,000,” CJTF-OIR Public Affairs Officer Colonel Thomas F. Veale said. 
…
Veale acknowledged that more Kurds will serve in the areas of northern Syria, while more Arabs will serve in areas along the Euphrates River Valley and along the border with Iraq.

The SDF and the Kurds are under control of the PKK/YPK, a terrorist organization that is nearly daily fighting and killing Turkish forces within Turkey. The Arabs which ostensibly shall seal the area off from the rest of Syria are most likely tribal forces that were earlier aligned with the Islamic State.

The Turks were not consulted before the U.S. move and are of course not amused that a "terrorist gang", trained and armed by the U.S., will control a long stretch of their southern border. Any Turkish government would have to take harsh measures to prevent such a strategic threat to the country:

Such initiatives endangering our national security and Syria’s territorial integrity through the continuation of cooperation with PYD/YPG in contradiction with the commitments and statements made by the US are unacceptable. We condemn the insistence on this flawed approach and remind once again that Turkey is determined and capable to eliminate any threats targeting its territory.

Russia noted that such a U.S. occupation has no legal basis:

The Russian foreign minister stressed decisions of the kind were taken without any grounds, coming from a UN Security Council resolution, or from some agreements reached during the intra-Syrian talks in Geneva.

Syria warned that any Syrian taking part in this move will be in trouble:

The Ministry considered any Syrian citizen who takes part in the US-backed militia as a traitor to the Syrian state and people and will be treated as one, adding that these militias will hinder reaching to a political solution to the situation in Syria.

The U.S.Congress is concerned about this move:

Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday, David Satterfield, the acting assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, outlined US goals in Syria as finishing off IS, stabilizing northeastern Syria and countering Iranian influence. 
…
“That won’t pass muster,” committee Chairman Bob Corker, R-Tenn., interjected.
…
Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., who initially asked Satterfield the question he declined to answer, expressed concerns that eliminating Iranian influence from Syria entirely was a fool’s errandthat could keep US troops tied up in Syria forever.
…
Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., the top Democrat on the committee, also voiced concern that the Trump administration does not have the necessary legal authorization from Congress to keep US troops in Syria beyond the defeat of IS.

Just two month back, in a phone call with the Russian President Putin, the President Trump seemed to be against such a move:

The Presidents affirmed their commitment to Syria’s sovereignty, unity, independence, territorial integrity, and non-sectarian character, as defined in UNSCR 2254, …

The U.S. move comes at the right time for Syria. The Russian, Turkish, Iranian and Syrian agreement of Astana set up a de-escalation zone in Idleb governorate but committed the parties to continue the fight against al-Qaeda. The agreement was in imminent danger of breaking down as Turkey protested against the current Syrian operation against al-Qaeda in east-Idleb. Turkey cooperates with al-Qaeda to keep its options open for a take-over of some Syrian land. It is also concerned about the north-western Kurdish enclave of Afrin which is protected by Russian forces.

But the U.S.move in the east constitutes a greater threat to Turkey than tiny Afrin. The east is more important to Turkey than Idelb in the west. The whole eastern half of Turkey is now endangered by a Kurdish force at its underbelly. The U.S. move increases Turkey's incentive to keep the Astana agreement about Idleb intact and to re-unite with Syria, Russia and Iran against the U.S.-Kurdish alliance. Erdogan, with his usual rage, was clear that he can not and will not let the U.S. move stand:

“A country we call an ally is insisting on forming a terror army on our borders,” Erdogan said of the United States in a speech in Ankara. “What can that terror army target but Turkey?”

“Our mission is to strangle it before it’s even born.”

Joshua Landis believes that the U.S. has given up on Turkey as an ally and is solely committed to do Israel's and Saudi Arabia's bidding. It is completely concentrated on countering Iran. But there are few if any Iranian troops in Syria and the supply line from Tehran to Damascus is via air and sea and can not be influenced from an enclosed Kurdish enclave. Moreover, the U.S. presence in the north-east is not sustainable.

The north-eastern U.S. held area of Syria is surrounded by forces hostile to it. Turkey in the north, Syria in the west and south, Iraq, with a pro-Iranian government, in the east. It has no ports and all its air-supplies have to cross hostile air space.

Internally the area consists of a Kurdish core but has nearly as many Arab inhabitants as Kurds. The Kurds are not united, there are many who are against the PKK/YPG and support the Syrian government. Probably half of the Arabs in the area were earlier Islamic State fighters and the other half favors the rule by Damascus. What all Arabs there have in common is hatred for their new Kurdish overlords. This all is fertile ground for an insurgency against the U.S. occupation and its Kurdish YPG proxy forces. It will need only little inducement and support from Damascus, Ankara or elsewhere to draw the U.S. presence into a chaotic fight for survival.

Turkey's wannabe Sultan Erdogan has long tried to play Russia against the U.S. and vice versa. He ordered Russian air defense systems which will enable him to withstand a U.S. air attack. At the same time he allowed U.S. ships to pass the Bosporus Straits into the Black Sea and to threaten Russia in Crimea even when the Montreux Convention would have allowed him to restrict their passages. The U.S. now leaves him no choice. Russia is the one force that can help him to handle the new threat.

The NATO bigwigs in Brussels must be nervous. Turkey has the second biggest army within NATO. It controls the passage to the Black Sea and with Incirlik the most important NATO airbase in the south-eastern realm. All these give Turkey leverage that it can use when Russia offers it a decent alternative to NATO membership.

One wonders who in the White House developed this idea. It goes against everything Trump had said about U.S. engagement in the Middle East. It goes against NATO's interests. There is no legal basis for the move. It has little chance of being sustainable.

My guess is that National Security Advisor McMaster (pushed by his mentor General Petraeus) is the brain behind this. He has already proven to lack any strategic vision beyond moving military brigades here and there. What will he do next? Order the CIA to restart arming al-Qaeda aka the "Syrian rebels" who just sent their emissaries to Washington to beg for renewed support? Turkey needs Russia and Russia is fighting those "Syrian rebels". Why should Turkey, which controls the border to Syria, allow new CIA weapons to pass?

It is beyond me how the U.S. expects to sustain its positions in the north-east of Syria. It is hard to understand why it believes that such a position will give it any influence over Iran's commitment to Syria. The move robs it of any political flexibility. It is a trap of its own design.

In the end the U.S. military will have to retreat from the area. The Kurds will have to crawl to Damascus to beg for forgiveness. The strategic shortsightedness of both, the U.S. administration and the YPG leadership, amazes me. What do these people think when they make such decisions?

moonofalabama.org

MOON OF ALABAMA

The riots and protests in Iran continue for a 6th day. While "western" media claim that the protests are growing I see no evidence for that in the various videos that appear online. The legitimate protests over price rises, failing private banks and against the new neoliberal austerity budget of President Rohani were hijacked early on by rioting gangs. These are obviously coordinated from the outside of the country through various internet applications, especially Telegram and Instagram:

Amad News, a channel on Telegram, appears to have played a pivotal role in the wave of protests. Reportedly administered by exiled journalist Rohollah Zam — a son of a senior Reformist cleric said to have escaped the country after being accused of having links with foreign intelligence agencies …

Blocking the specific control channels proved to be insufficient:

Special software used to circumvent the government filters could still be downloaded easily. And on Monday, as on other days, there were calls for protests online and on foreign-based Persian-language satellite channels.

The blockage of the internet applications was lifted today.

The original protests over economic issues seem to have died down after President Rouhani confirmed the right to protest, conceded economic problems and promised to take them on. Indeed there are only few new videos of genuine protest marches but an avalanche of videos of rioting, arson and tussling with police forces. The size of the protests are in a few hundred people or less. Counter demonstrations, expressing loyalty for the republic (not noted in "western" media), are bigger in size than the anti-government protests. Since December 28 protests and riots have occurred in a total of 66 cities by now, but only about 30 have been taking place each night. This might point to some planning behind the events. A daily switching of venues might be intended to prevent police preparations.

The groups of rioters are between 30 and 80 people in size with a some bystanders milling around. They seem to follow a flash mob strategy appearing here and there and to vanish again when police appears in force. In some cities rioters attacked police stations, military posts and were even stealing firetrucks. Some of the rioters are evidently trying to get their hands on weapons.

Altogether only a few thousand people, overwhelmingly male youth, seem to be involved. Thousands protest in Israel each week against the corruption of Prime Minister Netanyahoo. On New-Years-Eve more than 1,000 cars in France were set alight by arsonists. None of this is front page news but a few dozen riots in Iran get elevated to a "revolution".

The total death toll of the "peaceful protests" is now some 21 of which (by my count) at least five were policemen killed in attacks by "protesters" and two unrelated civilians who were run over and killed by rioters driving a stolen firetruck. Six rioters were killed when they tried to attack a police station in the town of Qahderijan. The governor there claimed that the attackers were armed with guns.

The same faking of pictures of large demonstrations and "evidence" of government brutality that we have seen with regard to the war on Syria is taking place with Iran. Videos of demonstrations from Argentine and Bahrain are used to claim large demonstrations in Iran. A tweet with the Bahrain video by a "journalist" who claimed it was in Iran has received more than 17,000 re-tweets. Videos from Spain or even movie scenes are purported to show police violence in Iran. A video of a man lying on his back and being cared for is once claimed to show that he has been shot by police while at the same time another propagandists claims that the man had a cardiac arrest after police used a taser on him. There are no signs of wounds or other trauma. The dude probably just passed out.

The terrorist group MEK (NCRI, MKO) "leaked" fake protocols of an alleged government meeting which it claims shows panic over the protests. Allegedly the government fears the leader of the MEK, Marjam Rajavi. The MEK has paid large sums to get support from politicians, including John McCain in Washington and elsewhere. During the Iraq-Iran war it fought against Iran on the side of Iraq. After the U.S. invaded Iraq the MEK was held in special camps under U.S. control. According to a 2012 Seymour Hersh report the U.S. military trained MEK fighters in the U.S. in sabotage and insurgency technics. These people are deeply hated in Iran but feared they are not. Their early engagement in the "protests" via their website and propaganda ops in Iran may point to deeper role in the riots.

The usual neoconservatives in the U.S. media are arguing for "more help" for the "Iranian people". The help they want to offer is designed to worsen their economic situation.

I earlier argued that the larger plan of the instigators of these riots is not aimed at winning a violent "regime change" conflict, but at causing a reaction by the Iranian government which can then be used to press especially Europeans to again isolate Iran. This plan is now confirmed by an op-ed in the Washington Post. Michael Singh of the Zionist lobby in Washington writes:

If the regime resorts to violence anyway, the international response should focus on diplomatic isolation. European and Asian states should reduce their diplomatic ties with Iran and downgrade Iran’s participation in international forums. Sanctions may also have a role …

Unsurprisingly the neoconned WaPo editors are fully in sync with the lobby:

European leaders, who have been far more cautious, should speak up. … On Sunday [President Rohani of Iran] recognized that the demonstrators had legitimate grievances and nominally accepted their right to protest. The Trump administration and other Western governments should aim to hold him to those words through diplomacy and the threat of sanctions in the event of more bloodshed.

The rioting at the current level is in no way endangering the Iranian republic. Should some rioters acquire weapons the intensity might change a bit. But unless they receive material and personal support from the outside, like it happened in Syria, the situation will soon calm down. The people of Iran are against such violence and the government has yet to use its manifold capabilities.

I had documented in earlier posts that the Trump administration, in tight co-operations with Israel, long prepared for an intensification of a conflict with Iran. Half a year ago the CIA set up a special office with a high level Iran hawk leading the charge. Last month Trump named another Iran hawk to lead the State Department Middle East section.

Since the Iranian people successfully achieved "regime change" in 1979 the U.S. and Britain have had an adversarial policy against Iran. It has ebbed and flowed in intensity but never changed. Under Trump we will see a rapid increase of hostile actions. The administration just called for a UN emergency session about the situation. That is a laughable move when one considers the size of daily murder the U.S. and its allies commit in Yemen, Syria and Palestine. But the operation that unfolds now is likely just a small part of a larger anti-Iran strategy that has yet to become visible.

Update (Jan 3, 01:00am EST)

I just checked various internet resources for two hours to find new videos of protests/riots of January 2 to 3. There were just a handful and none of them was remarkable. Some short clips of loud screaming of small crowds and light bashing with riot police. The protests and riots are obviously dying down.

This map is by HRA_news a Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA). It says "There were protests in at least 11 cities in #Iran on the sixth day".

Eleven cities is less than half than the thirty cities with protests/riots that were counted yesterday.

moonofalabama.org

The promotion of the alleged Russian election hacking in certain media may have grown from the successful attempts of U.S. intelligence services to limit the publication of the NSA files obtained by Edward Snowden.

In May 2013 Edward Snowden fled to Hongkong and handed internal documents from the National Security Agency (NSA) to four journalists, Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, and Ewen MacAskill of the Guardian and separately to Barton Gellman who worked for the Washington Post. Some of those documents were published by Glenn Greenwald in the Guardian, others by Barton Gellman in the Washington Post. Several other international news site published additional material though the mass of NSA papers that Snowden allegedly acquired never saw public daylight.

In July 2013 the Guardian was forced by the British government to destroy its copy of the Snowden archive.

In August 2013 Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post for some $250 million. In 2012 Bezos, the founder, largest share holder and CEO of Amazon, had already a cooperation with the CIA. Together they invested in a Canadian quantum computing company. In March 2013 Amazon signed a $600 million deal to provide computing services for the CIA.

In October 2013 Pierre Omidyar, the owner of Ebay, founded First Look Media and hired Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras. The total planned investment was said to be $250 million. It took up to February 2014 until the new organization launched its first site, the Intercept. Only a few NSA stories appeared on it. The Intercept is a rather mediocre site. Its management is said to be chaotic. It publishes few stories of interests and one might ask if it ever was meant to be a serious outlet. Omidyar has worked, together with the U.S. government, to force regime change onto Ukraine. He had strong ties with the Obama administration.

Snowden had copies of some 20,000 to 58,000 NSA files. Only 1,182 have been published. Bezos and Omidyar obviously helped the NSA to keep more than 95% of the Snowden archive away from the public. The Snowden papers were practically privatized into trusted hands of Silicon Valley billionaires with ties to the various secret services and the Obama administration.

The motivation for the Bezos and Omidyar to do this is not clear. Bezos is estimated to own a shameful $90 billion. The Washington Post buy is chump-change for him. Omidyar has a net worth of some $9.3 billion. But the use of billionaires to mask what are in fact intelligence operations is not new. The Ford Foundation has for decades been a CIA front, George Soros' Open Society foundation is one of the premier "regime change" operations, well versed in instigating "color revolutions".

It would have been reasonable if the cooperation between those billionaires and the intelligence agencies had stopped after the NSA leaks were secured. But it seems that strong cooperation of the Bezos and Omidyar outlets with the CIA and others continue.

The Intercept burned a intelligence leaker, Realty Winner, who had trusted its journalists to keep her protected. It smeared the President of Syria as neo-nazi based on an (intentional?) mistranslation of one of his speeches. It additionally hired a Syrian supporter of the CIA's "regime change by Jihadis" in Syria. Despite its pretense of "fearless, adversarial journalism" it hardly deviates from U.S. policies.

The Washington Post, which has a much bigger reach, is the prime outlet for "Russia-gate", the false claims by parts of the U.S. intelligence community and the Clinton campaign, that Russia attempted to influence U.S. elections or even "colluded" with Trump.

Just today it provides two stories and one op-ed that lack any factual evidence for the anti-Russian claims made in them.

In Kremlin trolls burned across the Internet as Washington debated options the writers insinuate that some anonymous writer who published a few pieces on Counterpunch and elsewhere was part of a Russian operation. They provide zero evidence to back that claim up. Whatever that writer wrote (see list at end) was run of the mill stuff that had little to do with the U.S. election. The piece then dives into various cyber-operations against Russia that the Obama and Trump administration have discussed.

A second story in the paper today is based on "a classified GRU report obtained by The Washington Post." It claims that the Russian military intelligence service GRU started a social media operation one day after the Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was illegally removed from his office in a U.S. regime change operation. What the story lists as alleged GRU puppet postings reads like normal internet talk of people opposed to the fascist regime change in Kiev. The Washington Post leaves completely unexplained who handed it an alleged GRU report from 2014, who classified it and how, if at all, it verified its veracity. To me the piece and the assertions therein have a strong odor of bovine excrement.

An op-ed in the very same Washington Post has a similar smell. It is written by the intelligence flunkies Michael Morell and Mike Rogers. Morell had hoped to become CIA boss under a President Hillary Clinton. The op-ed (which includes a serious misunderstanding of "deterrence") asserts that Russia never stopped its cyberattacks on the United States:

Russia’s information operations tactics since the election are more numerous than can be listed here. But to get a sense of the breadth of Russian activity, consider the messaging spread by Kremlin-oriented accounts on Twitter, which cybersecurity and disinformation experts have tracked as part of the German Marshall Fund’s Alliance for Securing Democracy.

The author link to this page which claims to list Twitter hashtags that are currently used by Russian influence agents. Apparently the top issue Russia's influence agents currently promote is "#merrychristmas".

When the authors claim Russian operations are "more numerous than can be listed here" they practically admit that they have not even one  plausible operation they could cite. Its simply obfuscation to justify their call for more political and military measures against Russia. This again to distract from the real reasons Clinton lost the election and to introduce a new Cold War for the benefit of weapon producers and U.S. influence in Europe.

None of the Russia-gate stories so far has held up to scrutiny. There is no proof at all, nor reasonable evidence, that Russia interfered in elections in the U.S. or elsewhere. There is no evidence of "collusion" with the Trump campaign.

One of the most complete debunking of the false claims can be found in the recent London Review of Books: What We Don’t Talk about When We Talk about Russian Hacking. Consortium News has published many pieces on the issue as well as analyses and warnings of what may follow from it. Many other writers have caught up and debunk the various false claims. The Nation lists various cases of journalistic malpractice with regard to Russia-gate.

The people who promote the "Russian influence" nonsense are political operatives or hacks. Take for example Luke Harding of the Guardian who just published a book titled Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win. He was taken apart in a Real News interview (vid) about the book. The interviewer pointed out that there is absolutely no evidence in the book to support its claims. When asked for any proof for his assertion Harding defensively says that he is just "storytelling" – in other words: its fiction. Harding earlier wrote a book about Edward Snowden which was a similar sham. Julian Assange called it "a hack job in the purest sense of the term". Harding is also known as plagiarizer. When he worked in Moscow he copied stories and passages from the now defunct Exile, run by Matt Taibbi and Mark Ames. The Guardian had to publish an apology.

The Mexican government controls the media by buying an immense amount of advertisement. It thus guarantees income as long as its political line is followed. The U.S. government has its own ways of controlling the media. In the 1950s to 1970s the CIA ran Operation Mockingbird which gave it control over much of the news and opinion output in U.S. media. During that time up to 400 main stream journalists were working for the CIA.

The method of control has likely changed. The handling of the Snowden affair lets one assume that the CIA induces billionaires to buy up media and to implement the CIA's favored policies through them. We do not know what the billionaires get for their service. The CIA surely has many ways to let them gain information on their competition or to influence business regulations in foreign countries. One hand will wash the other.

James Clapper as Director of National Intelligence, John Brennan as CIA head and James Comey from the FBI "assessed" that Russia influenced the U.S. presidential election. Annex B of their report, which hardly any report bothered to mention, read:

Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation and precedents.

That sentence is the core of Russia-gate. There are lots of claims, assertions and judgments but no proof at all that any of the alleged Russian influence really happened.

It is probably due to the undue influence of the intelligence services that media have adopted that Annex B standard fro themselves. With regards to Russia (and other issues) assertions are now enough – there is no need to investigate, to find the truth or to verify claims.

How will that system work if an accident happens, some jet gets shot down and the issue escalates. Will there be any reporter left in the main stream media who is allowed to ask real questions?

moonofalabama.org

Just in time for Christmas the Washington Post laments the cholera epidemic in Yemen caused by the U.S.-Saudi war on the country: One million people have caught cholera in Yemen. You should be outraged.

The International Committee of the Red Cross reported today that a million Yemenis have contracted cholera in the last 18 months. More than 2,000 have died, according to the United Nations. It's the largest cholera outbreak in world history.
…
Sixteen million people lack reliable access to clean food and water. The disease could spike again in March, when the rainy season begins. Experts warn, too, that diseases kill more people, and more quickly, when a population is underfed. In Yemen, 1.8 million children are acutely malnourished. Nearly half a million babies and toddlers are starving.

YOU SHOULD BE OUTRAGED, says the Washington Post. But outraged at whom? Not one word in the piece mentions that the U.S. is directing the war on Yemen and providing to the Saudis all they need to commit the ongoing war crimes.

The U.S. provides the bombs, it provides the intelligence and since early this year it doubled its refueling flights for the Saudi bombing attacks. (The military is now intentionally muddling that data.)

The Saudi attacks, with U.S. bombs, based on intelligence the U.S. provides and enabled by U.S. refueling, intentionally targets water, food supplies and infrastructure to starve the population:

Ahmad Algohbary @AhmadAlgohbary

1000 days of #Saudi war on #Yemen led by #UK-#US:
12k civilians killed.
21k civilians wounded.
Infrastructure:
Schools & institutes: 763
Popular markets & malls: 576
Water tanks networks: 524
Governmental facilities: 1.654
Bridges & roads: 1.941
Ports: 15
Airports: 14
We are devastated

During the last days weeks alone the U.S./Saudi airstrikes have killed at least 130 civilians:

According to Rupert Colville, the spokesperson for the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), 136 civilians and non-combatants – including women and children – have been killed and another 87 injured in airstrikes in Sana'a, Sa'ada, Al Hudaydah and Taizz governorates in the period from 6 to 16 December.

Last week U.S. provided bombs also killed at least ten women on their way to a wedding.

While destroying its infrastructure the Saudis and the U.S. have erected a total blockade around the country. U.S. ships help sealing off the Yemeni coast. U.S. soldiers are on the ground in Yemen and there have been more than 120 U.S. drone strikes on Yemen this year.

While some parts of the U.S. government are working with the Saudis to cause the genocide in Yemen other parts are trying to prevent that. The incoming legal advisor of the State Departmnet conceded that the blockade is illegal under U.S. and international law. The Deputy Secretary of State calls for lifting the blockade which the Pentagon is upholding.

The Saudis claimed several times to have lifted the blockade to let aid come into the country. The U.S. claims to have increased its humanitarian aid to Yemen. But USAID, the government organization which distributes such supplies, says that this is not true. It has money to spend but no way to get any goods into the country and to the people in urgent need:

There are no signs that a blockade of Yemen’s ports by a Saudi-led military coalition has eased to allow aid to reach communities increasingly at risk of starvation, the head of the U.S. government’s aid agency said on Tuesday.

There is not one word about all that that in Washington Post piece. According to the Post the U.S simply does not exist in that war. It is a "Saudi campaign" and "Saudi coalition" that wages the war and causes the cholera without one word that the U.S. and UK are part of it. Apparently it is editorial policy of the Washington Post to never mention the U.S. culpability in that war. Earlier reports, editorials and op-eds also make no mention of U.S. military role in the war.

Apparently you should be outraged that lack of basic food and easily preventable cholera is killing people in Yemen, but not at those who cause it.

I for one am outraged at the Washington Post and those despicable editors and writers who are covering up the war crimes their country is committing.

moonofalabama.org

MOON OF ALABAMA

Yesterday the Republican controlled U.S. Senate passed a gigantic tax bill. The House will today agree to it and Trump will sign it as soon as possible.

The bill lowers the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%. It lowers the top tax bracket from 39.6% to 37%. It will burden at least half of the poor people. It is wholesale looting:

When fully-phased in, the bill will give 83 percent of its benefits to the top 1 percent. Incredibly, it raises taxes on half of working families.

Republicans always argue along the fraudulent theory of supply side economics. They claim that higher income for companies will allow them to invest more and to thereby increase economic activity. It is a stupid argument. There is no empirical data to support it and no real social scientist takes it seriously. Most companies do not lack money. They can also borrow at record low rates. No company holds back on investing if there is additional profitable demand for its products. Without additional demand there is simply no justification for any additional investment.

Demand can not increase if the people have no money to buy. To increase demand, disposable income has to rise via higher wages, more welfare distribution or less taxes in the lowest tax brackets. (An increase of consumer debt can only work so long and has negative long term consequences.) 

The new tax law will increase the federal deficit by roughly $1.5 trillion over ten years. The giant rise in debt is intentional. It will be the justification for step two of the republican plan to bring the U.S. back to the Gilded Age. Speaker Paul Ryan already announced such plans:

Congressional Republicans and the Trump administration are eyeing sweeping legislative and regulatory changes to the country’s welfare system next year.

Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said he wants to use the fast-track reconciliation process next year for entitlement reform, with a focus on promoting work and career-based education. 
…
There’s broad support in the Republican conference for changing the federal safety net to impose stricter work requirements on programs like Medicaid and food stamps.

For now the Republicans will likely hold back on medicare and social security. These are earned benefits, not "welfare". Even Republican voters want to keep them without major changes. Any attempt to touch these programs would lead to a heavy electoral backlash. It is thereby unlikely that the Republicans will be able to steal enough from the poor to compensate for all the money they now hand to the rich. Instead they will increase the federal debt.

While most voters do not like the current tax bill, the Republicans might benefit from it in the 2018 midterm election. Most of the negative effects of the bill will only be felt in 2019 and later years. It is those future years that the republicans have to fear. As long as interests rates are low an increase in federal debt has little effect. But when interest rates rise, as they will, the federal budget situation will become way more difficult.

The mini-Reagan in the White House and Republican Congress members like to compare their current bill with Ronald Reagan's 1981 tax bill. That one went into a similar direction than the current one. The top tax rate decreased from 70% to 28%. But by 1982 and in later years Reagan had to introduce the highest tax increases ever to keep the budget at least somewhat stable. Tax revenue as a percentage of GDP did not decrease at all under Reagan.

The two steps of decreasing taxes and slashing welfare the Republicans planned for will likely be followed by third (and forth) step that will decrease the impact of the original bill. Historically the overall positive and/or negative impact of this pandering to their rich sponsors will likely be much less than both sides of the aisles are predicting.

moonofalabama.org