Faced with the relentless U.S. economic war, Iran needs a war
economy. Indeed, the plan of a war economy should not be very difficult for
Iran to implement since it has a relatively successful experience of carrying
out such a plan: during the 8-year war with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, Iran
embarked on an extensive state-guided economic management that effectively
provided for both its military and civilian needs. Because of the revolutionary
atmosphere of the time, and because of the corresponding spirit of generosity,
selflessness, social cohesion, and national unity the country was able to
effectively withstand both the military and economic wars launched against its
territory and its people. Despite the extremely costly war, both in terms of
blood and treasure, and despite the fact that Iran’s total output, or national
income, at the time was only a fraction of what it is today, its people did not
experience nearly as much economic hardship as they do today. Why? Mainly
because its national resources were at the time distributed relatively
equitably—unlike today where those resources are monopolized and plundered by a
clique of financial oligarchs and economic mafias.
With the ever-changing and escalating
aftermath of the Khashoggi disappearance episode, there remain many fixed marks
that are interesting to identify.
But before we do, we must stop and briefly
look at the official American, Turkish and Saudi stands on this issue.
The Americans are best seen to be playing yoyo
with their Saudi “friends”. One moment they seem to be totally abandoning them
and sending them spiraling down in a free-fall, and the next moment they lift
them up, clutch them, and give them a sense of safety. Notwithstanding that on
the 3rd of October, and just before the Khashoggi story hit the
media frenzy, Trump reiterated that Saudi Arabia would not last two weeks
without America’s support, and what followed was a series of fluctuations and
backflips on the American side. At the time of promising severe measures
against the Saudis, Trump said that this will not mean canceling the arms deal
with Saudi Arabia. And when Pompeo visited Al Saud to talk to the royals,
leaving the Kingdom of Sand with an understanding that his boss Trump
articulated by hinting at vindicating the royals and putting the blame on some
rogue elements, America turned again supporting Turkish investigations and
awaiting their outcome, but just before Erdogan’s speech of the 23rd
of October, Trump reiterated that he was prepared to accept the Saudi Government
denial of involvement.
Gen. Ahmed al-Assiri, the Saudi intelligence
chief taking the fall for the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, hobnobbed in New York with
Michael Flynn and other members of the transition team shortly before Trump’s
inauguration. The topic of their discussion: regime change in Iran.
Mohammed bin Salman, the powerful Saudi crown
prince, dispatched Assiri from Riyadh for the meetings, which took place over
the course of two days in early January 2017, according to communications
reviewed by The Daily Beast. The January meetings have come under scrutiny by special counsel Robert Mueller’s office as
part of his probe into foreign governments’ attempts to gain influence in the
Trump campaign and in the White House, an individual familiar with the
investigation told The Daily Beast. A spokesperson for Mueller declined to
comment.
In a new article
titled “Mueller report PSA: Prepare for disappointment”, Politico cites
information provided by defense attorneys and “more than 15 former government
officials with investigation experience spanning Watergate to the 2016 election
case” to warn everyone who’s been lighting candles at their Saint Mueller
altars that their hopes of Trump being removed from office are about to be
dashed to the floor.
“While [Mueller is]
under no deadline to complete his work, several sources tracking the
investigation say the special counsel and his team appear eager to wrap
up,” Politico reports.
It was May 2017. The
Saudis were growing increasingly nervous. For more than two years they had been
relying heavily on U.S. military support and bombs to defeat Houthi rebels in
Yemen. Now, the Senate was considering a bipartisan resolution to cut
off military aid and halt a big sale of American-made bombs to Saudi
Arabia. Fortunately for them, despite mounting evidence that the U.S.-backed,
supplied, and fueled air campaign in Yemen was targeting civilians,
the Saudi government turned out to have just the weapon needed to keep those
bombs and other kinds of aid coming their way: an army of lobbyists.
That year, their
forces in Washington included members of more than two dozen lobbying and
public relations firms. Key among them was Marc Lampkin, managing partner of
the Washington office of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck (BHFS), a company that
would be paid nearly half a million dollars by the Saudi government in 2017. Records from the Foreign Agents
Registration Act (FARA) show that Lampkin contacted Senate offices more than 20
times about that resolution, speaking, for instance, with the legislative
director for Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) on May 16, 2017. Perhaps coincidentally,
Lampkin reported making a $2,000 contribution to the senator’s political
action committee that very day. On June 13th, along with a majority of his
fellow senators, Scott voted to allow the Saudis to get their bombs. A
year later, the type of bomb authorized in that sale has reportedly been
used in air strikes that have killed civilians in Yemen.
در مورد
رژیم حاکم بر ایران و دلایل وجودیِ آن نظریات متفاوتی ابراز شده است. بسته به اینکه
افراد با چه گرایش سیاسی نظر میدهند، در واقع از موضع آن دیدگاه سیاسی سخن میرانند.
مجاهدین که در اوان انقلاب با پشتیبانی عظیمی که داشتند، و چنانچه دخالت خمینی نبود
براحتی میتوانستند حکومت را در دست بگیرند، هم اکنون به چنان نقطه ضعفی رسیدهاند
که به دنبال هارترین شخصیتهای سیاسی آمریکا در پی براندازی حکومت ایران از طریق یورش
نظامی غرب هستند. سلطنت طلبان نیز همین راه را در پیش گرفتهاند، که البته از آنها
انتظار دیگری نمیرود. عقیده سلطنت طلبان در مورد چگونگی پیدایش رژیم آخوندی این است
که چون شاه در آستانه رسیدن به تمدن بزرگ بود، ملت (و نه دولتهای غربی) که خوشی زیر
دلشان زده بود و از پول نفت که شاه افزایش داده بود شکمهایشان سیر شده بود، به شاه
محبوبشان پشت کردند. البته از اینکه مجاهدین و ملی گریان از نخستین روز به دنبال
خمینی افتادند، به دلیل جنبههای مذهبی که داشتند
استبعادی نیست. ولی از اینکه گروههای چپگرا، حتی زمانیکه خمینی
دندانهای هار و کریه خود را نشان داد، همچنان به دنبال او سینه میزدند، باعث حیرت بود.
Every revolution has its own victims. A political revolution
terminates the regime in charge in favor of a new regime. This change dramatically
affects every facet of life, as it outmodes and prosecutes old values to be
replaced with new ones. Those who belonged to the old system, especially ex-government
officials in high ranking, are surrendered or sacrificed in the process. One of
the early victims of the Islamic Revolution was joy, or celebration, and happiness
in general! For instance, it was forbidden to clap hands in response to an atmosphere
of delight, or in appreciation of. As Islam (categorically Shia) is the
religion of weeping and mourning, anything that would elate someone was banned.
Among the first instruments of joy were musical and game apparatuses, as they
have traditionally been forbidden by Islam. Of course Islam’s attack on women
was almost at the same time. Ironically, no matter how much Khomeini and his
followers tried to keep women hidden in a sack, and in spite of daily violence
against them, women in Iran are considered exemplary for all women in the
Middle East. In addition to their success in education and music, they have
changed the rigid hijab decree by many fashionable forms, and as of today they
are still fighting against the roots of it. A speech was distributed in social
media of the most reactionary and fossil brain mullah who professed what
Khomeini and other mullahs have always had in mind, but they have never dared
to verbalize it. He said: “God created three kinds of animals. One that is for
carrying human’s load, such as donkey, mule, and horse. A second kind for
humans to eat, such as cow, sheep, and chicken. And finally he created a third
kind for men to enjoy, called women. Of course, in order for human being not to
get scared of them, He created them like humans! There should be (or there may
be) another book specifically about this subject, however it was mentioned
briefly here since women have been more involved in music, and its sanction has
impacted them more. But, like other liberties that Islamists tried to impede
and did not succeed, music, film, and other expressions of art which were not
approved by Khomeini at the beginning, found new ways of expressing themselves,
and continues to expand.
What
is the most popular way of losing weight? This has been a long-time question
for those who believe they have an extra layer of fat. Forget low carb,
Atkinson, exercise, calorie count, calorie restriction and all the old ways of
losing weight. The new way is in fact one of the oldest way of discharging
extra layer, although it was not necessarily undertaken to lose weight.
ای شب از رویای تو رنگین شده
سینه از عطر تو ام سنگین شده
ای به روی چشم من گسترده خویش
شادیام بخشیده از اندوه بیش
همچو بارانی که شوید جسم خاک
هستیم ز آلودگیها کرده پاک
با تو ام دیگر ز دردی بیم نیست هست اگر، جز درد خوشبختیم نیست
ای تپشهای تن سوزان من
آتشی در سایۀ مژگان من
ای ز گندمزارها سرشارتر
ای ز زرین شاخهها پُر بارتر
ای در بگشوده بر خورشیدها
در هجوم ظلمت تردیدها
This is the 17th
anniversary of 9/11. During the years that have passed large numbers of experts
have established conclusively that the official government account of the event
is false. Every year fewer people believe the unbelievable conspiracy theory
that a handful of Saudi Arabians outwitted the entirety of the US National
Security State and attacked with hijacked airliners the World Trade Center and
the Pentagon.
Nevertheless, the official story still stands, just as the
official story of President Kennedy’s assassination still stands despite
majority disbelief, just like the official story of Israel’s attack on the USS
Liberty still stands despite all evidence to the contrary. In the US the
government never corrects its proven lies.
People all over the world
are amazed that Americans could witness videos of the two towers blowing up
floor by floor and the obvious controlled demolition of Building 7 and conclude
that they were witnessing buildings collapsing from asymmetrical structural
damage and limited, short-lived office fires.
The 9/11 fabrication and
the Osama bin Laden myth were used by the Cheney/Bush regime to destroy the
civil liberty protections in the US Constitution and to elevate the executive
branch above both domestic and international law. This has culminated in yesterday’s
declaration of US lawlessness by President Trump’s National Security Advisor,
John Bolton, who stated that the US government will use any and all means to
protect US and Israeli war criminals from prosecution by the International
Criminal Court. The cost of 9/11 far exceeds the WTC buildings and the lives
that were lost. The real cost is the US Constitution, the separation of powers,
civil liberty, and the rule of law.
A war is a feud
between two leaders. The science of sociology combined with history reflects
this simple fact that people generally avoid hostility and find ways to settle
conflicts in a peaceful manner. Reading through war documents, we realize that
the rulers of so called democratic countries go through so much fabrication and
unending explanations and struggles in order to convince people to participate
in wars. In dictatorships, people have no choice anyway. And, there are
multitude of reasons why leaders of a country ignite a war to begin with. At
the very beginning of the revolution in Iran, Khomeini had showed his true
identity to people, and Iranians realized that he was not the soft hearted
human loving religious man he claimed to be before the collapse of the old
regime, but a hard headed theocrat who did not have any love for his country or
people, and a brutal dictator. As people started demanding their rights at the beginning
of the post-revolution Iran, he realized that a war was the best thing to keep
the society under his leash. He started egging on Saddam Hussein, as it is
documented. Saddam, another brutal ruler, received American blessing and
support to start his aggression: “During
Iraq’s epic struggle against the Ayatollah Khomeini, the United States of
course had more than spoken to Baghdad. Washington- choosing Iraq as lesser
evil against Shiite extremism- was responsible for huge amounts of weaponry,
military training, sophisticated technology, satellite-photo intelligence, and
billions of dollars reaching a needy Hussein, who was also lavishly supported
by Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, they being concerned that Iran’s anti-monarchist
sentiments might spread to their own realms. Indeed, there is evidence that
Washington encouraged Iraq to attack Iran and ignite the war in the first
place. And during this period on American support of Hussein, he was certainly
the same odious, repressive, beastly thug as when he later came under American
moralistic rhetorical fire. Similarly, absent Washington’s prodding, the UN did
not condemn Iraq’s invasion, nor did it impose any sanctions or lay down any
demands. Even as it officially banned arms sales to either combatant, the US
secretly provided weapons to both. The other bête noire of the region, the
Ayatollah, received American arms and military intelligence on Iraq during the
war, so as to enhance the ability of the two countries to inflict maximum
devastation upon each other and stunt their growth as strong Middle-East
nations, (P. 332).” It is worth repeating this fact that Khomeini also went
to Iran as the leader of the revolution with American blessing, and the aim of
the war for the west was to destroy Shah’s ammunition stockpile.
It is not unusual that Arabs and Americans look at the
same event from divergent lenses. Take, for instance, a scene from John
McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign when he told a woman in the audience
who had called Obama an Arab: “No, Ma`am. He is not an Arab. He’s a decent
family man.”
That brief exchange has been tweeted and retweeted
thousands of time in the last few days following McCain’s death. It has been
promoted by people in mainstream media (and think tanks and academia) as
evidence of the civility, “classiness”, and lack of prejudice of McCain.
Yet, Arabs saw something entirely different in that exchange. They saw
bigotry from McCain, who was denying that Obama was Arab in the same way one
denies that someone is a Nazi. He clearly implied that an Arab can’t be a
decent family man. In fact, Gen. Colin Powell was the only U.S.
politician who pointed this out at the time. But a new image of McCain is
being formulated before our eyes.
For Arabs in the Middle East and in the U.S., the view of
McCain does not conform to the hagiography of U.S. media. People in the
region remember well that McCain supported every U.S. and Israeli war,
invasion, or attack against any Arab target. They remember that he was a major
proponent of invading Iraq and argued for the expansion of U.S. wars into Iran,
Libya and Syria in the wake of Sep. 11.
As the Cold War entered its final act in 1985, journalist
Helena Cobban participated in an academic conference at an upscale resort near
Tucson, Arizona, on U.S.-Soviet interactions in the Middle East. When she
attended what was listed as the “Gala Dinner with keynote speech”, she quickly
learned that the virtual theme of the evening was, “Adopt a Muj.”
“I remember mingling with all of these wealthy Republican
women from the Phoenix suburbs and being asked, ‘Have you adopted a muj?”
Cobban told me. “Each one had pledged money to sponsor a member of the Afghan
mujahedin in the name of beating the communists. Some were even seated at the
event next to their personal ‘muj.’”
The keynote speaker of the evening, according to Cobban,
was a hard-charging freshman member of Congress named John McCain.
During the Vietnam war, McCain had been captured by the
North Vietnamese Army after being shot down on his way to bomb a civilian
lightbulb factory. He spent two years in solitary confinement and underwent
torture that left him with crippling injuries. McCain returned from the war
with a deep, abiding loathing of his former captors, remarking as late as 2000,
“I hate the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live.” After he was criticized
for the racist remark, McCain refused
to apologize. “I was referring to my prison guards,” he said, “and I will
continue to refer to them in language that might offend some people because of
the beating and torture of my friends.”
‘Hanoi Hilton’ prison where
McCain was tortured. (Wikimedia Commons)
In October 1, 1965 six
Indonesian generals were murdered by a group of junior officers who claimed
that those generals were supporters of CIA who had planned to oust the first
president of the country, Sukarno, and their action was to prevent it. General
Suharto: “a man who had served both the
Dutch colonialists and the Japanese invaders- and his colleagues charged that
the large and influential PKI [Communist Party] was behind the junior officers’
‘coup attempt’, and that behind the party stood Communist China, (P.193).”
This so-called coup was an excuse for Suharto to encourage people, in
particular Moslems, to initiate a Communist killing macabre: “The Indonesian people were stirred up in part by the display of
photographs on television and in the press of the badly decomposed bodies of
the slain generals. The men, the public was told, had been castrated and their
eyes gouged out by Communist women. (The army later made the mistake of
allowing official medical autopsies to be included as evidence in some of the
trials; and the extremely detailed reports of the injuries suffered mentioned
only bullet wounds and some bruises, no eye gougings or castration.),(P.
193,194).” Murdered Indonesians during those years are reported to be
between half to one million. There are accounts of Muslim men banding known
Communists together and mass killing them: “Twenty-five
years later, American diplomats disclosed that they had systematically compiled
comprehensive lists of ‘Communist’ operatives, from top echelons down to
village cadres, and turned over as many as 5,000 names to the Indonesian army,
which hunted those persons down and killed them…Robert Martens, a former member
of the US Embassy’s political section in Jakarta, stated in 1990: ‘It really
was a big help to the army. They probably killed a lot of people, and I
probably have a lot of blood on my hands, but that’s not all bad. There’s a
time when you have to strike hard at a decisive moment.’, (P. 194).”
After WWII, many
Europeans realized that the war that devastated Europe entirely, was nothing
but a capitalist ambitions in expanding markets. This knowledge frustrated
people to the point of checking socialist doctrines, especially considering the
heroism witnessed by communist organizations in many countries involved in the
useless war. The Predecessor of CIA fearing expansion of socialism in Europe became
very active in every Western European country. Many of the fascists, or fascist
sympathizers became agents of CIA: “Then
there was the case of Cardinal Battista Montini, another beneficiary of CIA
largesse. The payments made to him reveal something of the Agency’s mechanistic
thinking about why people become radicals. It seems that the good Cardinal was
promoting orphanages in Italy during the 1950s and 1960s and, says Victor
Marchetti, ‘The thinking was that if such institutions were adequately
supported, many young people would be able to live well there and so would not
one day fall into Communist hands.’ The Cardinal, as a Monsignor, had been
involved with the Vatican’s operation to smuggle Nazis to freedom after World
War II. He had a long history of association with Western governments and their
intelligence agencies. In 1963, he became Pope Paul VI, (P. 121).”
World War II sealed British Empire as a declining imperialist
forever, and opened the door for the United States to rise as the new
superpower in the world. In July of 1944, in Bretton Wood in New Hampshire, 44
allied nations got together and established IMF and what is now called World
Bank, under the power of the United States, which guaranteed a predicted American
Century. The rise was emanating from the pillars of capitalism, and no regime
in the world could expand capitalism to such high stages as it has been the
case with the US. Of course, this had been prophesied by some, that such great
capitalistic prominence could be achieved through force and domination of other
nations. Internally, as it was prophesied again, each industry became a
monopoly, or conglomerate of several companies in a monopolistic nature, and
enormous capitals were amassed in the hands of a few, while the rest of the
country continued gradual losing of resources. Overt policing with uniforms,
and covert controlling, FBI, keeps people inline to protect riches of
capitalists, while military and CIA
conduct the same duties beyond the borders. Anyone who could become a role
model, a leader, a national hero, or someone who puts societal benefits before
personal advantages, such as Martin Luther King or Malcolm X, were uprooted,
even if they were in the highest positions such as Kennedy brothers. In other
countries, military and CIA
covertly, if possible, and without regards to human dignity and even life, mow
down any nationalistic or socialistic uprising, and replace it with corrupt and
sadistic money hungry dictators. This has been the history of the world in the
past seventy years.
این سخنرانی یک و نیم
ساعته دکتر مرتضی محیط در مورد بحران اخیر ایران و آینده و سرنوشت ایران را باید ملاحظه
کرد. آیا به ایران حمله نظامی خواهد شد؟ آیا در ایران جنبش خود جوشی به وجود میاید؟
آیا سرنوشت ایران مانند لیبی و افغانستان و عراق و سوریه خواهد بود؟ دلیل بالا رفتن
دلار چیست؟ دکتر مرتضی محیط در این برنامه به تمام این پرسشها پاسخ میدهد. دیدن این برنامه
برای همه ایرانیان ضروری است.
The other day I noticed, with something of a shock, that Brett
Kavanaugh, the supreme court nominee, is almost exactly the same
age as me. I have always scoffed at those of my generation who cynically
hitched their star to the conservative movement but now, as I take my leave
from this space, it occurs to me that maybe they played the game right after all.
The Great Revolt review: Trump-approved study of 2016 is key reading
for Democrats
I started out in
journalism in the orange-fingered sunset of the Reagan era. The rise of the
right, I felt back then, was the most consequential development of my lifetime,
and understanding it was where I came to focus my energies.
What came to
fascinate me was the paradox of the thing. Republicans had
successfully inverted their historical brand-image as the party of the
highborn, remaking themselves as plain-talking pals of the forgotten people who
had so spurned them during the Great Depression. Republicanism’s payload,
however, was the same as it had been in 1932. And just look at what
conservatism proceeded to do to those average people once they welcomed it into
their lives.
But understanding
the perversity of rightwing populism only brought me to another mystery: the
continuing failure of liberals to defeat this thing, even as its freakishness
and destructiveness became apparent to everyone. My brain twirls to think that
rightwing populism is still running strong in 2018 – that it’s even worse now
than it was in 1988 – that the invective and the journalism and the TV shows
and all the mournful books about the decline of the middle class have amounted,
basically, to nothing.
Democrats simply have to take one of the houses of Congress this
fall and commence holding Trump accountable
We had the perfect
opportunity to reverse course in 2008, after a deregulatory catastrophe sent
the billionaires shrieking for handouts and ruined middle America as collateral
damage. That was the perfect moment for liberals to reclaim their Rooseveltian
heritage by governing forcefully on behalf of ordinary people, by warring
against over-powerful corporations, by demonstrating the power of the state to
build a just and humane society. But they didn’t do it.
The biggest Trump resignations and firings so far
I know the excuses:
those Republicans were so clever, they wouldn’t vote for Obama’s proposals,
etc. But from the long-term perspective, what really mattered was the absence
of Democratic will. Instead of doing what the moment required, Democrats chose
to help the banks get back on their feet and to stand by as inequality soared;
they scolded their base for wanting too much and they extended their hand
instead to Silicon Valley and big pharma. The task of capturing public anger
was one they regarded with distaste; they left that to Tea Party demagogues and
to Donald Trump.
We are going to pay
for that failure for a long time. The GOP should have been ruined by the
financial crisis; instead the culture wars are raging all over again, with dog whistles
and fights over the flag and the persecution mania of the populist right
blaring from the TV screen. We’re right back where we started. The crisis went
completely to waste.
For all their
cunning, Republicans are a known quantity. Their motives are simple: they will
do anything, say anything, profess faith in anything to get tax cuts,
deregulation and a little help keeping workers in line. Nothing else is sacred
to them. Rules, norms, traditions, deficits, the Bible, the constitution,
whatever. They don’t care, and in this they have proven utterly predictable.
Wisconsin, of all places, is a battleground state. In the hands of
a real politician, Trumpism could romp even farther
The Democrats,
however, remain a mystery. We watch them hesitate at crucial moments, betray
the movements that support them, and even try to suppress the leaders and ideas
that generate any kind of populist electricity. Not only do they seem
uninterested in doing their duty toward the middle class, but sometimes we
suspect they don’t even want to win.
(This is more than
just a suspicion, by the way. As none other than Tony Blair has said,
“I wouldn’t want to win on an old-fashioned leftist platform. Even if I thought
it was the route to victory, I wouldn’t take it.”)
Still, as we are
reminded at every turn, this flawed organization is the only weapon we have
against the party of Trump. And as the president’s blunders take a turn for the
monumental and public alarm grows, the imperative of delivering a Democratic
wave this fall grows ever more urgent.
Make no mistake: it
has got to happen. Democrats simply have
to take one of the houses of Congress this fall and commence holding Trump
accountable. Failure at this baseline mission is unthinkable; it will mean the
Democratic party has no reason for being, even on its own compromised terms.
As a conservative, I despair at Republicans' support for Trump.
His vision is not conservatism
Charles J Sykes
What concerns me as
I begin my leave, though, is the larger picture. Trump may be an oaf, but the
vicious strain of rightwing populism he introduced is not going away. Trumpism
is the future for the Republican party – it delivered Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Michigan and Iowa too. Wisconsin, of all places, is now a battleground state.
In the hands of a real politician, Trumpism has the potential to romp even
farther.
Beating the right
cannot simply be a matter of waiting for a dolt in the Oval Office to screw
things up. There has to be a plan for actively challenging and reversing it,
for turning around the fraction of working class voters who have been
abandoning the Democratic party for decades. The time is up for happy fantasies
of office-park centrism and professional-class competence.
As for me, I am off
to write a few books. I’ll be back in this space in a few years and we will see
how things have gone.
Thomas Frank is an
American political analyst and historian. His books include What’s the Matter
With Kansas?. His latest is Listen, Liberal: or, What Ever Happened to the
Party of the People?
Since you’re here…
… we have a small
favour to ask. More people are reading The Guardian than ever but advertising
revenues across the media are falling fast. Our independent, investigative
journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it
because we believe our perspective matters – because it might well be your
perspective, too.
Unlike many news
organisations, we haven’t put up a paywall – we want our journalism to remain
free and open to everyone. Democracy depends on reliable access to information.
By making our journalism publicly available, we're able to hold governments,
companies and institutions to account, and offer our diverse, global readership
a platform for debate and commentary. This encourages us all to challenge our
opinions on what’s happening in our world. By supporting The Guardian – and
just giving what you can afford – you can help us ensure that everyone has
access to critical information for years to come.
