The New York Times reports:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/02/us/politics/syrian-president-al-shara-washington-visit.html]
Syria’s President to Visit Washington for First Time Since Taking Power
The president, Ahmed al-Shara, was until recently wanted by the United States as a terrorist with a $10 million bounty on his head.
As Caitlin Johnstone reports:
[https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/the-us-empire-keeps-getting-creepier]
Reuters reports that the US is preparing to establish a military base in Damascus. For years the empire waged a complex regime change operation in Syria to oust Assad, first by backing proxy forces to destroy the country and then via sanctions and US military occupation to prevent reconstruction. And it worked. The empire’s dirty war in Syria will be cited by warmongering swamp monsters for years to come as evidence that regime change interventionism can succeed if you just stick at it and do whatever evil things need to be done.
Now the former terrorist will be showered with his own bounty, a meeting with Trump - in exchange for a US Syrian airbase of course - and encouraged to join the fight against other terrorists now that all the sanctions on him are being lifted by all and sundry.
This reminds FNN of the series of flip-flops with Colonel Gaddafi of Libya who ended up with a bayonet in his bottom after he was abandoned by his former 'allies'.
FNN is also reminded of Cyril Cusack as 'Control' in The Spy Who Came in from the Cold:
Our work, as I understand it, is based on a single assumption that the West is never going to be the aggressor. Thus, we do disagreeable things, but we're defensive. Our policies are peaceful, but our methods can't afford to be less ruthless than those of the opposition, can they? You know, I'd say, uh... since the war, our methods - our techniques, that is - and those of the Communists, have become very much the same. Yes. I mean, occasionally... we have to do wicked things. Very wicked things, indeed. But, uh, you can't be less wicked than your enemies simply because your government's policy is benevolent, can you?
And some deluded people still think the Ukraine war was unprovoked by the USA and NATO.
As Caitlin Johnstone also reports:
In Italy a journalist was fired from the news agency Nova for asking an EU official if she thought Israel should be responsible for the reconstruction of Gaza in the same way she’s said Russia should have to fund the reconstruction of Ukraine. A Nova spokesperson confirmed to The Intercept that the journalist was indeed fired for asking the inconvenient question on the basis that “Russia had invaded a sovereign country unprovoked, whereas Israel was responding to an attack.”
The only answer?
Question More as RT's tagline suggests.