Imran Khan, the newly elected Pakistan PM, has said Britain must return looted money to his country which is allegedly being stashed by corrupt Pakistani politicians in London.

The former international cricketer used his first meeting with British officials since his election win, to tell the UK that he wants to secure the return his nation's laundered money, reports the Telegraph. In the meeting with Thomas Drew, the UK's High Commissioner to Pakistan, Khan said it was "our firm resolve to bring back to the country the money laundered to the UK."

Khan swept to power on a populist anti-corruption ticket and did not hold back in attacking Pakistan's establishment. He has been scathing of the political class for siphoning off money from key public sector institutions and contracts before whittling away their wealth overseas.

The issue of extracting wealth and sending it abroad has dominated Pakistan's politics since the infamous Panama Papers leak that linked former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's family to offshore companies and four high-end London flats. Sharif has subsequently been sentenced to 10 years in jail on corruption charges relating to the purchase of the London flats.

If Ankara buys the Russian-made S-400 anti-aircraft system, it would be catastrophic for the US and could imply a break-up with Turkey, a newly-picked assistant secretary of state told US lawmakers during confirmation hearings.

The pessimistic outlook on Washington's quarrel with Ankara over the Russian weapon system came from René Clarke Cooper, nominated to be the assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs. Cooper spoke to the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee on Wednesday to convince them he is the right man to assist Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

At one point, Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) asked about the Russian-Turkish deal and US move to bar supply of F-35 fighter jets in retaliation.

"A sale of something like the S-400 would be catastrophic for us," Cooper told Shaheen. "We do not want a NATO ally to be dependent upon the servicing and supply of equipment that is provided by Russia. That is for me an operational standpoint. The strategic standpoint is we don't want a NATO ally to have a weapon system supplied by Russia."

He conceded that if the long-standing cooperation between Turkey and the US were to be broken apart, it would be catastrophic too.

The UN Panel of Experts' update on the situation in the Central African Republic contains valuable information about the activities of the Russian military mission there.

An extensive report by the UN Panel of Experts on the Central African Republic (CAR) was released at the end of last month and contains valuable information about the activities of the Russian military mission there. The author has been paying very close attention to this angle of the conflict for the past nine months and produced the following analyses about it that should be referenced by the reader if they're not already familiar with the basics:

15 December, 2017: "Why Does Russia Want To Sell Arms To The Central African Republic?"

18 January, 2018: "Russia Might 'Pivot To Africa' With 'Mercenaries'"

7 May, 2018: "Russia's Grand Strategy In Afro-Eurasia (And What Could Go Wrong)"

9 June, 2018: "Russia's Making Some Smart Moves In The Central African Republic"

21 July, 2018: "BRICS Summit: Russia's Return to Africa"

1 August, 2018: "Why'd A Former Russian Oligarch Send Journalists To An African War Zone?"

1 August, 2018: "Is The Central African Republic Turning Into Mali 2.0?"

Up until now, however, details about Russia's operation in this war-torn but mineral-rich landlocked state were scarce and mostly speculative, but the UN report finally sheds some light on what's happening there. This piece is broken down into one-sentence summaries that encapsulate the gist of each part where Russia is mentioned (identified through a simple CTRL+F keyword search), followed by the relevant passage and a description of where it was cited within the report.

In the past few days, the Internet has been flooded with a frankly silly rumor about the US soliciting Australia's assistance in preparing an attack on Iran. Needless to say, that report does not explain what capabilities Australia would possess which the USA would lack, but never-mind that. Still, the report was picked up in too many places (see here, here and here ) to be ignored. In one of these reports, Eric Margolis has described what such a US attack could look like. It is worth quoting him in full:

Outline of a possible AngloZionist attack on Iran

The US and Israel will surely avoid a massive, costly land campaign against Iran, a vast, mountainous nation that was willing to suffer a million battle casualties in its eight-year war with Iraq that started in 1980. This gruesome war was instigated by the US, Britain, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to overthrow Iran's new popular Islamic government.

The Pentagon has planned a high-intensity air war against Iran that Israel and the Saudis might very well join. The plan calls for over 2,300 air strikes against Iranian strategic targets: airfields and naval bases, arms and petroleum, oil and lubricant depots, telecommunication nodes, radar, factories, military headquarters, ports, waterworks, airports, missile bases and units of the Revolutionary Guards.

Iran's air defenses range from feeble to non-existent. Decades of US-led military and commercial embargos against Iran have left it as decrepit and enfeebled as was Iraq when the US invaded in 2003. The gun barrels of Iran's 70's vintage tanks are warped and can't shoot straight, its old British and Soviet AA missiles are mostly unusable, and its ancient MiG and Chinese fighters ready for the museum, notably its antique US-built F-14 Tomcats, Chinese copies of obsolete MiG-21's, and a handful of barely working F-4 Phantoms of Vietnam War vintage.

Air combat command is no better. Everything electronic that Iran has will be fried or blown up in the first hours of a US attack. Iran's little navy will be sunk in the opening attacks. Its oil industry may be destroyed or partially preserved depending on US post-war plans for Iran.

The only way Tehran can riposte is by staging isolated commando attacks on US installations in the Mideast of no decisive value, and, of course, blocking the narrow Strait of Hormuz that carries two-thirds of Mideast oil exports. The US Navy, based nearby in Bahrain, has been practicing for decades to combat this threat.

There is a lot of interesting material in this description and I think that it is worth looking into it segment by segment.

David Corn of Mother Jones unearths a fun quote from Donald Trump last year in which he declared that he doesn't think much of the term "American exceptionalism."

Corn puckishly notes that this puts Trump at odds with many Republicans who have spent years criticizing President Obama for his alleged failure to speak out on behalf of American exceptionalism. And this is more or less true.

But more interesting, I think, is what Trump himself actually meant by this. His full quote shows that all he really meant is that America is losing big time, and that claiming to be "exceptional" in that context only makes us look like bigger losers, compounding the embarrassment. Needless to say, this is a rather comical oversimplification of what the "American exceptionalism" debate is all about.

The US establishment wrongly believed that it could deal with Iran as with North Korea, using a carrot and stick. Threatening diplomacy has never worked with the "Islamic Republic" since 1979 when the Shah fell and Imam Khomeini seized power. It is true that US pressure on Iran over the last months has plunged the country into a monetary crisis with the local currency in a continuous free fall. Nevertheless, the US threat has united the entire country for the first time since the death of Ruhollah Khomeini. The Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) - considered the leading hardliners - and the political elite - seen by the West as pragmatic moderates - are now in perfect harmony and are adopting the same aggressive posture towards Trump. Indeed, the US still has a lot to learn about the Persian empire and its unyielding approach to the new occupant of the White House. Its leaders will not accept any meeting or negotiations without a US gesture of goodwill, and the restoration of the illegally and unilaterally revoked Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and the lifting of all sanctions.

At the same time, Iran is not closing all doors on the US. Following last week's exchange of threatening words between Iran and the US, Oman Foreign Minister Yusuf Bin Abdullah received the visit of Iran Foreign Minister Jawad Zareef. He travelled to Washington this week and met with US Defence Secretary Jim Mattis, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Advisor John Bolton to discuss the Iranian crisis.

President Donald Trump has expressed his unconditional willingness to meet with his Iranian counterpart Hassan Rouhani. Mahmoud Vaezi, Rouhani's chief of Staff, revealed that Trump asked eight times to speak with the Iranian President, who rejected Trump's requests.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov will meet in Moscow on August 6 with U.S. Senator Rand Paul, one of the only Washington legislators who applauded a recent summit between the U.S. and Russian presidents.

Ryabkov, in an interview with the Russian news agency Interfax, and Paul's office announced the meeting on August 2. Russian news agencies said that Paul will be leading a U.S. delegation meeting with Russian lawmakers.

Paul was one of the only U.S. legislators to express support last month for President Donald Trump's summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki.

The deployment of the Russian military police to the Golan Heights took place following coordination with the Israeli authorities, the Israeli Embassy in Moscow said Thursday.

"The Israeli Embassy to Russia confirms that the deployment of Russian military police forces occurred after an agreement with Israel," the press service of the diplomatic mission told Sputnik.

Chief of the Main Operational Directorate of the Russian General Staff, Col. Gen. Sergey Rudskoy said earlier in the day that UN peacekeepers, accompanied by the Russian military police, conducted the first patrol in the area of the Syria-Israel disengagement line on Golan Heights in six years.

The Russian Defense Ministry also said that it planned to deploy eight observing posts of the military police along the Syrian border with the Golan Heights.

August of 2017 was the nadir of the Trump administration. At that point impeachment was on the table. Trump was mired in racist controversy over violence at Charlottesville. He had a falling out with Chief Strategist Steve Bannon.

Robert Mueller's investigation was ramping up. Members of his cabinet turned against, notably Gary Cohn.

He was forced to sign a new sanctions bill, rammed down his throat by John McCain, an expansion of the odious Magnitsky Act. And, to sue for temporary peace, in my opinion, he made a deal with his opposition on Capitol Hill to leave foreign policy to the 'big boys' while he got to play around with domestic policy.

That's usually the end of the story of reformers who win the White House. As long as foreign policy objectives supporting the globalist expansion of universal debt slavery and transnational corporate autonomy were left alone, the Puppet-in-Chief could tinker with changes to domestic policy.

Not too much, just enough to satisfy the base and ensure the Gravy Train keeps on dropping off its booty to the rentier-class which benefits from this arrangement.

The US Senate approved the National Defense Authorization Act, a blueprint for $708 billion in Pentagon spending, voting Wednesday by a margin of 87-10. Forty-six Republicans were joined by 41 Democrats in approving the bill, which now goes to the White House for President Trump's signature.

The bill sets policy for the Department of Defense, approving weapons programs, a sizable troop build-up and a 2.6 percent across-the-board raise for uniformed personnel, but a separate appropriations bill must still be passed to actually approve the funding.

The 41-8 split in the Democratic Party caucus in the Senate was determined partly by political positioning. Those Democrats who are testing the waters for a presidential run and aim to strike a "left" posture for the 2020 primary campaign opposed the military spending bill: Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand and Jeff Merkley.