Nice response Larry. Usually your articles are generously sourced, which I appreciate very much. This one, not so much, perhaps because your generalizations are too large to have a single source. The case studies of Iraq and Greece are highly factual and that granularity gives them far more gravitas than they would otherwise have. Sourcing, in journalism, is badly underrated.

Good compilation of information here.

I believe that the mainstream media will soon begin to take a hard look at the activities of these 400 U.S. funded bioweapons labs around the world.

The evidence is mounting fast that they have been violating the international ban on bioweapons research from day one.

We need intense scrutiny of their every move and daylight shining into the heart of this swamp.

The first step is to do a systematic search of scientific publication platforms based on appropriate combinations of key words, to identify where these labs are, who staffs them, and what those people have been doing on our tax dollars.

This is not a comment on a particular article, though I have found much to think about on the Unz Review.

I would like to recommend that Ron Unz or any other contributor to this review offer learned comment on the following article:

“Blast From The Past” – visible to me at: https://getpocket.com/explore/item/blast-from-the-past?utm_source=pocket-newtab — and apparently published recently in Foreign Affairs magazine.

This lengthy and extraordinarily well researched series of articles by various nuclear policy experts, points out that Jimmy Carter and every subsequent president including Obama has maintained a fiction; that is, a lie, that Israel did NOT test a nuclear warhead in the ocean off the coast of South Africa on September 22, 1979–as was indicated by a U.S. surveilance satellite called “Vega 6911” bs two other independent forms of collaboration. A series of articles by various nuclear policy experts ends with an editorial by Leonard Weiss suggesting that “Jimmy Carter should come clean” after so many years of cover-up, whose motivations had entirely to do with fear by Carter that his reelection bid would be ruined by a revelation that the Israelis had violated a nuclear test ban treaty not so long after signing it.

Following is a lengthy excerpt from this article in which the nakedly political dimensions of Jimmy Carter’s rather consequential and self-serving Big Lie are pointedly discussed.

I will only comment that the parallels between nuclear test ban-obsessed Jimmy Carter (of all presidents) and our own treaty-busting Donald Trump, today, are appalling to me. I mean, consider the illogic of the entire U.S. defense and intelligence establishment knowing exactly what Israel had done and yet covering it up and letting the country get away with it simply because of the power of the Israeli lobby in the U.S. has for so long been a sin qua non for any president or would-be president.

Such a SMALL country. Yet it has had the power brokers of the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth under its total domination for 70 years. I can think of no more air tight refutation of American “exceptionalism” than this.

=========

” As president, Carter had taken a hard line toward Pakistan in 1977 and 1979, cutting off economic and military assistance because of Pakistan’s violations of laws forbidding the import of nuclear reprocessing technology and unsafeguarded enrichment technology. In addition to its requirements against reprocessing, the Glenn Amendment, passed in 1977, forbade nuclear explosive testing. Less than a year later, Carter would sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978—a law I took the lead in drafting while working on nonproliferation issues in the Senate—that was motivated by India’s 1974 nuclear test, under which nuclear trade with India would ultimately cease.

Carter also tried to forge a Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty with the Soviets in the face of conservative political opposition claiming that verification of such a treaty was problematic and perhaps impossible. The Vela event presented several political dilemmas for Carter: If the administration claimed that Vela did not detect a nuclear test, then the disagreements from expert scientific observers of the satellite system would suggest a large element of uncertainty as to whether the satellite system for detecting nuclear explosions was reliable, which would translate into the unreliability of verification of a comprehensive nuclear testing ban.

On the other hand, if the administration admitted that Vela detected a nuclear test, then it would have to identify the perpetrator. If Carter named Israel as the perpetrator, he could not avoid the imposition of sanctions under the Glenn Amendment without declaring in essence that the United States had a double standard in its policy on nonproliferation and that Israel was subject to different rules than Pakistan and India.

And imposing sanctions on Israel would have caused a furor among the large pro-Israel element in the Jewish diaspora, an important locus of political support for the Democratic Party and for Carter himself, especially after the success of his efforts to broker the Camp David Accords that brought peace between Israel and Egypt.

Because the panel was kept from delving into intelligence information relevant to the Vela event, they could not consider whether reports of Israeli nuclear and missile cooperation with South Africa could have been motivating factors for a nuclear test involving both countries. The panel was tasked instead with searching for technical explanations of the double flash other than a nuclear test.

In defense of the Ruina Panel’s conclusion, Richard Garwin has put forth arguments suggesting uncertainty in the Vela signal because of specific phase anomalies in the recorded bhangmeter data. These arguments have been countered by observers like Hawkins who contend that such anomalies were the result of aging of the bhangmeters and began to be seen so regularly that their appearance became a mark of authenticity in judging whether a test had occurred.

The sensitivity of the U.S. government on the subject of Israel’s nuclear weapons is such that federal employees with security clearances are still today regularly admonished to refrain from publicly discussing Israel’s nuclear capabilities, as I was in 1979, and this wall of silence extends to subsequent presidential administrations. As a result, the full political ramifications of an Israeli test have been avoided thus far. After four decades, there is a constituency within government, arms control think tanks, and political organizations for letting sleeping dogs lie.

In the age of President Donald Trump, it is natural to avoid raising an uncomfortable issue that is now 40 years old when there are virtually daily assaults on the U.S. Constitution and the liberal international order. But if there is any hope of a successful international movement toward a world without nuclear weapons there must be a serious commitment to the enforcement of international treaties, regardless of the diplomatic or domestic political problems such enforcement might create.

Carter famously ran on a promise of never lying to the American people. While Carter did not lie about the Vela event, he allowed the truth to be obscured by means of a White House panel whose creation was politically motivated. In his golden years, he should consider setting the record straight as yet another important contribution to his legacy as a peacemaker committed to

nonproliferation.”