EIR Daily Alert Service, MONDAY, JUNE 24, 2019
MONDAY, JUNE 24, 2019
Volume 6, Number 123
EIR Daily Alert Service
P.O. Box 17390, Washington, DC 20041-0390
- Seven Days in June
- Ten Minutes From Nuclear Holocaust? Trump Stops Attack on Iran
- VIPS Warns Trump Against Pompeo-Bolton War Agenda
- Iranian Military Leaders Admonish U.S. of Consequences of War
- Americans Are Urging Trump To Stand Firm Against Iran War Drive
- Tucker Carlson Charges Permanent Establishment Wants War
- Putin: ‘The System’ Won’t Let Trump Develop Good Relations With Russia, But ‘Dialogue Is Needed’
- Lozansky Exhorts Trump To Hold Summit With Putin at G20
- China Daily Guest Article Considers ‘Infrastructure Ideal for Sino-U.S. Cooperation
- Mexico Working for Central American Development, Again Invites Trump, White House to Participate
- Preparations for First-Ever Russia-Africa Summait in October Underway
- Next Week Is the Showdown Between the EU Commission and the Italian Government
June 23 (EIRNS)—The week between Friday June 21 and Friday June 28—the week now underway—can be shaped as a major turning point in the global strategic situation, in the direction of a New Paradigm to replace the bankrupt British Empire, that Lyndon and Helga LaRouche have long promoted.
On Friday, June 21, the LaRouche movement premiered its shocking new feature video, “The LaRouche Case: Robert Mueller’s First Hit Job,” which is being widely disseminated internationally along with the video of the June 8 Memorial “The Triumph of Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.,” and the petition calling on President Donald Trump to exonerate LaRouche. A week later, on Friday, June 28, the G20 will hold a summit in Osaka, Japan, where Trump will meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping and may also meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin—among other crucial diplomacy.
In between, this week, the world continues to teeter on the brink of World War III, which, if it is unleashed, could well mean thermonuclear war. As Helga Zepp-LaRouche stated in her weekly webcast on June 21:
“Who does not wake up and know that we are on the verge of World War III? Such a person is not in the real world. We are closer to World War III than at any time, I would say, in the entire postwar period. That danger is not yet gone. I think it’s a very good thing that Trump intervened at the last moment [to call off air strikes against Iran], but it was 10 minutes before the attack! People should really realize that this is not a joke…. If this would have happened, we may have been on the way to World War III; and that is not an exaggeration.”
And although the world was able to dodge the bullet a few times in recent weeks, there is every reason to believe that the British Empire and their war party in the United States—the Boltons, Pompeos and Pences of the political scene—will attempt new “false flag” provocations in the days ahead. Those who would downplay the danger of war, Zepp-LaRouche stressed, actually increase that danger, by putting a damper on the required mobilization to stop war.
What kind of mobilization is needed, in Zepp-LaRouche’s view? The entire old paradigm of British free trade and geopolitics which is driving the world inexorably to war, must be replaced with a Four Power Agreement for global economic development, of the sort specified by Lyndon LaRouche, among the U.S., China, Russia and India—all of whose leaders will be present at the G20 summit in Osaka starting June 28. Trump is scheduled to meet with Xi; and in extensive comments to the press on June 20 and then again on June 23, Putin once again expressed his willingness to sit down with Trump to address the thorniest of strategic issues. These are opportunities that must not be missed, which can serve as the foundation for the crucial, profound changes that must follow. As Zepp-LaRouche stated in her webcast:
“As for the G20 meeting, if this blows up, it may be that the last chance to have peace will be lost. And on the other side, you have the potential of Trump meeting Putin and Xi Jinping in particular, and finding a solution to the many problems of this world…. We absolutely have to change the paradigm; the war party must be stopped; Trump must be enabled to carry out his intentions to improve relations with Russia and China, which he has stated many times,” Zepp-LaRouche stressed.
President Trump, however, is facing a British-orchestrated dual power situation in the country—even within his own administration—and must be strengthened, urged, and pressured to use the G20 summit to change the entire direction of global strategy. The exoneration of Lyndon LaRouche is the fulcrum to make such a dramatic shift achievable.
“It may not be obvious for many people,” Zepp-LaRouche asserted, “but if Lyndon LaRouche is not exonerated, I do not think that we can stop the present drumbeat to World War III. Because his exoneration and neutralizing the war machine which is driving the world towards World War III, that’s one and the same thing. Because it was that apparatus that prosecuted my husband, despite the fact thathe was completely innocent of all accusations, which is exactly the war party driving the world to the verge of extinction.”
For that reason, Zepp-LaRouche reiterated, “Our aim is to get these videos out everywhere and get them acted on; which means we need to have the exoneration of Lyndon LaRouche.”
STRATEGIC WAR DANGER
June 21 (EIRNS)—The manufactured provocation around the Straits of Hormuz nearly broke out in war this morning, as the war party demanded a military assault on Iran in response to the Iranian downing of an unmanned U.S. surveillance drone near the Straits of Hormuz early Thursday morning, June 20. While the U.S. military swore Iran made was an unprovoked attack against a drone in international waters, 21 miles from the Iran coast, Tehran insists it has evidence that the drone was within the 12-mile limit of Iranian airspace. Iran displayed parts of the drone they said were recovered from Iranian territory in the Gulf of Oman. They also announced that they had sent two warnings to the drone to change course, the last one coming 10 minutes before they shot it down.
The war party surrounding Trump then went to work demanding an immediate military attack on Iran, with wild claims about the international disaster for the U.S. if they failed to respond forcefully. Trump met all day June 20 with military and security staff and leaders of the Congress. Later in the evening, the New York Times released a story claiming that Trump had ordered an attack on three radar and missile sites in Iran, that the planes were in the air, but that he then reversed himself and called it off, 10 minutes before the bombs would have been dropped.
In fact, Trump refuted that story, both in a tweet and in an interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd on Friday morning, June 21. He told NBC that he had never given a “green light” to the operation, and there were no planes in the air. He explained:
“We had something ready to go subject to my approval. They came in to me and said, ‘Sir, we’re ready to go, we’d like a decision.’
“I said, ‘How many people will be killed?’ In this case, Iranians.
“ ‘Sir, I’d like to get back to you on that.’ Great people, these generals.
“They came back and said, ‘Sir, approximately 150.’
“I thought about it for a second, and I said, ‘You know what? They shot down an unmanned drone, and here we are sitting with 150 dead people.’ That would have taken place within a half-hour after I said go ahead. And I don’t like it. I didn’t think it was proportional.”
June 22 (EIRNS)—Yesterday the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) published a memorandum to President Donald Trump, posted to Information Clearing House, headlined: “VIPS Memo to the President: Is Pompeo’s Agenda the Same as Yours?” It opened, “We are concerned that you are about to be mousetrapped into war with Iran. … [W]e have serious doubts about Secretary Pompeo; it is clear to us that he has his own agenda, and we know from our own experience with him that his agenda is not always the same as yours.
“Pompeo’s behavior betrays a strong desire to respond with military force—perhaps even without your express approval—to Iranian provocations (real or imagined)…. He is a neophyte compared to his anti-Iran partner John Bolton, whose decades-long dilettante approach to interpreting intelligence, strong advocacy of the misbegotten war on Iraq … and his own aggressive agenda are a matter of record.”
The memo then reports “our strong doubt regarding [Pompeo’s] trustworthiness on issues of consequence to you and the country,” describing former NSA Technical Director William Binney’s experience in his Oct. 24 2017 meeting with then-CIA Director Pompeo, who refused to follow President Trump’s instruction that he examine Binney’s evidence on the impossibility of the “Russian hack” of the DNC server, at the foundation of the Russiagate myth. It points out that now, having admitted in court submissions that neither the Justice Department nor the FBI ever had access to the DNC computers, nor the final report from “the DNC-hired cybersecurity company, CrowdStrike, upon which Comey chose to rely for forensics on alleged Russian ‘hacking,’ ” Binney’s report that there was no hacking is fully vindicated and Pompeo’s support for the “hacking” lie is fully discredited.
VIPS contrasts the Ivy League tradition of lying on behalf of geopolitical wars from Pompeo (West Point and Harvard Law) and Bolton (Yale) against Iran, McGeorge Bundy (Harvard) against Vietnam, and Rumsfeld (Princeton) with his Iraqi WMD, to self-described “country boy” Binney, who bases his conclusions on “the principles of physics, applied mathematics, and the scientific method,” and cites Binney’s accomplishments as featured in the documentary “A Good American.”
An “updated” version of the Memo, posted today to Consortium News, concludes with additional 10 paragraphs, under the subhead “Cooked Intelligence,” comparing the lying of Gen. William Westmoreland to extend the Vietnam War and lying from CENTCOM in “Cheney-like hyperbole.” They conclude: “We believe your final decision yesterday was the right one—given the so-called ‘fog of war’ and against the background of a long list of intelligence mistakes, not to mention ‘cooking’ shenanigans…. We are at your disposal, should you wish to discuss any of this with us.”
June 23 (EIRNS)—Iranian military leaders are warning the U.S. against the consequences of launching a war on Iran. Maj. Gen. Gholamali Rashid, commander of the IRGC’s Khatam al-Anbiya Headquarters, speaking to IRGC Aerospace Force commanders, made clear to the Trump Administration that it “should behave in a responsible way to protect the lives of American forces.” This plays on the well-known Pentagon fears for the security of U.S. forces in the region should there be a war. Rashid said if war breaks out, the scope and duration of the conflict would be uncontrollable, and blamed any escalation on “U.S. interventionist policy.”
Brig. Gen. Abolfazl Shekarchi, spokesman for the General Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, told Tasnim in an interview that Iran will never be the first side to start a war, but the enemy’s slightest mistake will draw a revolutionary response from Iran in West and Central Asia from which the attackers would not survive. “Threat for threat means that if the enemy fires a single bullet at us, it will receive 10 bullets and have to pay a heavy cost,” he stated, warning that any act of aggression against Iran will draw such a “historic response” that would make the assailants regret their move.
The Iranian Armed Forces are closely monitoring the U.S. moves, General Shekarchi said, and went on: “A military mistake from the enemy, particularly from the U.S. and its regional allies, will be tantamount to firing at a powder keg on which are the U.S. and its interests, and it will set the region ablaze and burn up the U.S., its interests, and its allies.”
U.S. POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC
June 21 (EIRNS)—“I have strongly encouraged @realDonaldTrump to trust HIS instincts and avoid another war,” Sen. Rand Paul tweeted today, in response to a Business Insider story headlined “Top Aides Reportedly Urge Trump To Go to War with Iran.”
Two days before, Senator Paul told Fox News that he opposed the increase in troops being sent to Southwest Asia to counter Iran. One of the things he said he liked about Trump was that he said the Iraq War was a mistake, Paul stated. “An Iran war would be an even bigger mistake.” If our forces are shot at, they can respond in self-defense, but retaliation—blowing up a ship or dropping a bomb, as Sen. Tom Cotton, for one, is proposing—is “a completely wrong-headed and unconstitutional idea,” Paul insisted. But of all the people in the administration, the President has the best handle on this, and is less likely to act in an irrational way to go out and blow something up, the Senator said.
Col. Larry Wilkerson (ret.), then-Secretary of State Colin Powell’s aide during the buildup to the disastrous Iraq War, told journalist Mehdi Hassan on his “Deconstructed” podcast yesterday that there are innumerable similarities between the techniques and methodologies being used by Bolton, Pompeo, the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), et al. today to drive the U.S. into a war with Iran, and those used by Cheney, Wolfowitz, and the same FDD to get their 2003 Iraq War. Including media complicity, just as when “Cheney would take raw intelligence, feed it to the New York Times; the New York Times would then print it front page above the fold right side; and Cheney would then cite it as verified.”
“I’ve used intelligence as a military professional and a diplomat for almost half a century,” but when it comes to the story that Iran mined the oil tankers, “I wouldn’t believe any of it, as they’ve presented it, just as the Prime Minister of Japan didn’t believe it, or Germany, believe it. The credibility of United States on intelligence is really low right now.”
War in Iran would be “horrible”; it is four times the size of Iraq, has 80 million, not 26 million people, and terrain “that’s just inhospitable, almost killed Alexander the Great, for example.” He knows whereof he speaks; in 1979, he did the war planning for how to stop the Russians if they should invade Iran after their invasion of Afghanistan.
Wilkerson, likewise, said several times that he does not think President Donald Trump wants this war.
June 21 (EIRNS)—Tucker Carlson charged on his nightly show on Fox News on Thursday night, June 20, that the war party in Washington is deploying U.S. troops in such a way as to provoke a conflict which will trigger the war in Iran they seek.
Carlson put it this way in his segment called “Hungry for War”: “The permanent foreign policy establishment in Washington”—John Bolton, Bill Kristol, New York Times writer Bret Stephens cited as exemplary—“want a war badly. That’s why they are putting American troops in a position where conflict is evitable, in order to start a war—and everyone in Washington knows it, because they have seen it before.”
President Donald Trump does not desire that war, Carlson said, and one of the reasons he was elected, is that he said that U.S. wars in the Middle East were a mistake.
Interestingly, this week, Carlson also ran a frontal attack on the Koch brothers—for years, the “single most important funders of Republican politics in Washington,” he points out. Conservatives and Republicans, he suggests, might want to rethink their relationship with these “libertarian ideologues.”
Among the evidence he marshals, Carlson includes the Koch brothers’ campaign for cuts to Social Security and Medicare; their efforts to kill a bill to prevent drug companies from charging Americans more than they charge abroad; their role in “the 2017 tax cut, which was far better for corporate America than it was for the middle class”; their support for abolishing all usury laws; and support for the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, “which would cut required penalties for heroin and cocaine traffickers in half … in the middle of the deadliest drug epidemic in American history.”
THE NEW GLOBAL ECONOMIC ORDER
June 23 (EIRNS)—In a June 23 interview with Russia’s NTV television host Irada Zeinalova, Russian President Vladimir Putin once again stated that he is willing to sit down with President Donald Trump to address strategic issues, but there are forces around Trump that are blocking that possibility.
“We see that the system is such that many things, which he [Trump] wants to do, cannot be done,” TASS reported Putin telling NTV. “Although, certainly, a lot depends on the political will.”
He continued: “Of course, dialogue is needed. They have their own idea of how these or other issues are solved, and we have our own. But it is impossible to find consensus without dialogue. Therefore, as soon as they are ready—please, we will be glad to develop these relations….
“Let them decide themselves whether they need to foster relations with Russia or not. Therefore, if they need dialogue—please, we are ready. If they don’t need it—we will wait until they mature.”
Putin had an exchange with journalists on this same subject, during his June 20 extensive “Direct Line with Vladimir Putin” broadcast, taking questions from millions of Russians. The full exchange follows:
“Q: Trump wrote on Twitter more than once that he would very much like to meet with you. Do you want to meet with him? And if you do, do you think the meeting will benefit this country in any way? Is he capable of improving our bilateral relations?
“Vladimir Putin: Dialogue is always good. There is always need for it. And, of course, if the U.S. is interested in it—I have said this many times—we are open to dialogue to the extent that our partners are.
“However, we understand, we see what is happening in U.S. domestic politics. Even if the President wants to meet us halfway in some respects, wants to talk about something, there is a host of restrictions related to the actions of other government institutions. This is especially true now that the incumbent President will be keeping one eye on the demands of the election campaign that he has already started.
“So I believe not everything will be simple in our relations, considering that part of the U.S. establishment is exploiting Russia-U.S. relations, trying to catch something for itself in this turbid water and inventing, as was mentioned here, groundless fakes by exerting efforts that are worthy of better use. And on and on, always the same.
“Therefore, as soon as our colleagues are ready we will respond accordingly, all the more so since we have a lot to discuss in international security and disarmament. I am referring to the New START Treaty that is about to expire and, in general, to the need to cultivate normal interstate relations in all areas, including the economy.
“After all, U.S. companies are not leaving the Russian market. They are working on it although the turnover is not big. But, as I have already said, under Trump our trade grew by $5 billion. It fell under Obama to $20 billion but under Trump, it increased despite all the restrictions and sanctions. As for sanctions, I think this is a big mistake on the part of the U.S. I hope they realize this eventually and fix it.”
June 21 (EIRNS)—“All of us who voted for Mr. Trump in 2016 and plan to do so in 2020 expect him to set aside the noise of Washington politics and realize his potential as a great statesman with the strategic vision at the G20 meeting in Japan,” by holding a summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin during that G20, Edward Lozansky, president of the American University in Moscow, urged in an op-ed in the Washington Times on June 19.
“As the 2020 presidential campaign season begins in full swing this autumn, it is unlikely that Mr. Trump will have another opportunity in the near future to sit down with Russian President Vladimir Putin to talk about a meaningful rapprochement between Washington and Moscow that would be a good thing, not a bad thing,” Lozansky wrote.
The roots of today’s anti-Russia hysteria trace back to Russiagate, which “is rightfully viewed as the political scandal most damaging to American democratic institutions and national security as it steers Washington and Moscow toward another, more dangerous arms race. Some well-known and respectable analysts even use the words ‘nuclear catastrophe’ to describe the potential result of the dire state of U.S.-Russian relations….
“Mr. Trump has to use the G20 summit to talk to Mr. Putin and search for some progress in repairing U.S.-Russian relations before the damage is irreparable…. A serious dialogue between the U.S. and Russia is long overdue.”
June 22 (EIRNS)—A guest viewpoint article in today’s China Daily is a grand slam discussion of the many benefits of collaboration on infrastructure between China and the United States, if they move together—in funding, technologies, industrial capacity development—in building projects in both the U.S. and third countries. Titled, “Infrastructure Ideal for Sino-U.S. Cooperation,” the article is by Liu Weiping, Senior Research Fellow at the China Development Bank, and the timing is propitious, during the countdown to the June 28-29 Group of 20 summit, where Presidents Xi Jinping and Donald Trump will meet. An essential point is, “China’s foreign reserves could be the course of the much-needed financing for rebuilding U.S. infrastructure.”
The writer also reminds readers, “During Trump’s visit to China in November 2017, $253.5 billion worth of business deals were signed, reflecting the potential of China-U.S. cooperation.”
After opening comments about the Trump and Congressional Democrats having agreed there should be $2 trillion in infrastructure investment in the United States, and that China has “rich experience” in the technologies involved, the article calls for their cooperation, which will benefit the whole world. It then treats this from all important angles, in seven sub-sections.
1) “Infrastructure Cooperation Can Boost Global Growth.” Essential figures are given: China and the U.S. account for 40% of global GDP and 32.8% of global exports. The article gives particulars on how the financial obligations of the two nations can be turned to advantage. “China has built huge foreign exchange reserves—$3.1 trillion by May this year. It holds $1.11 trillion worth of U.S. treasury bonds, making it the largest creditor of the U.S. Infrastructure cooperation will help China to balance its foreign exchange reserves, and the U.S. to reduce its debt and revitalize its infrastructure….”
2) “Mutual Trust Can Lead to Infrastructure Cooperation.” The two nations can achieve “political harmony,” while having different economic systems.
3) “Previous U.S. Infrastructure Plans Made Slow Progress.” There has been “a lack of reasonable public spending in almost 30 years,” resulting in “aging, even collapsing” U.S. infrastructure. What can happen is that, “The U.S. federal, state and local governments can establish financing vehicles to encourage collaboration between Beijing and Washington.” The “financing vehicles created by Chinese banks can be a point of reference….” Individual projects can have special financing platforms, and project revenue bonds can be issued, for “low-cost financing globally.”
4) “Cooperation Based on Economic Benefits.” Among several points of cooperation, the author stresses, “production capacity.” It stands out that, “China’s production capability in infrastructure is far stronger than the U.S. For example, of the total global steel output of 1.63 billion tons in 2016, China produced 808 million tons, 10 times more than the U.S. It also produced 2.4 billion tons of cement in 2016, some 30 times more than the U.S. And China’s coal production capacity was 5.7 billion tons in 2015, with the actual output being 3.36 billion tons compared with 800 million tons in the U.S.
5) “Infrastructure Upgrading to Create Big Opportunities.” Among points made is that wrong perceptions in the U.S. about China can be changed in the course of discussing and cooperating on projects, which “would deepen China-U.S. strategic trust and help avoid conflicts.”
6) “Need to Establish Bilateral Coordination Mechanism” The U.S. should “form teams to study how China can boost U.S. infrastructure development.”
7) “Chinese Firms Should Be Aware of Risks.” Different ways to deal with new ventures, such a Chinese firm partnering with an American firm for work in the U.S. Or firms from the two nations can partner in third countries.
June 22 (EIRNS)—In his June 21 press conference, President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, together with Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard, reported on Mexico’s ambitious organizing perspective to ensure that the Comprehensive Development Plan for Central America and Southern Mexico becomes a reality—hopefully with the participation of the U.S. and other advanced-sector nations, not the least of which is China.
In fact, the first phase of that plan has already begun, López Obrador reported, with the June 20 signing of a bilateral accord with El Salvador’s President Najib Bukele, by which Mexico will provide $100 million to promote a “Sowing Life” reforestation program in that country like the one already underway in Southern Mexico, with the goal of providing 20,000 jobs to poor Salvadorans. As Ebrard explained, this is the largest cooperation program Mexico has undertaken with Central America, and intends to replicate it in both Honduras and Guatemala. The results, he further stated, will be seen in the short term, and combined with other measures, are a concrete step in addressing the causes for mass migration, and promoting wellbeing and development.
Asked about President Donald Trump’s statement to Telemundo earlier this week, that he admired López Obrador and would like to meet with him soon, the Mexican President replied that he’d like to meet with Trump too, but thought it best to wait two months, so that the two leaders could jointly evaluate how the migration agreement between them was working. Despite the complexities and difficulties of relations with the U.S., López Obrador continued, “I have to recognize that Trump has shown a willingness to reach agreements,” and the agreement with the U.S. on migration was a good one. Had the U.S. imposed tariffs on Mexican exports, the results for Mexico’s export-oriented economy would have been disastrous, he said.
So, yes, the agreement with the U.S. was good, he stated, but with the new accord with El Salvador, Mexico has “begun a new and different path to deal with the migratory phenomenon,” because, he emphasized, coercive measures just don’t work.
June 21 (EIRNS)—The Kremlin announced officially on May 28 that the first-ever Russia-Africa Summit will be held on Oct. 24, 2019, in Sochi. It will be co-chaired by President Vladimir Putin and current chair of the African Union, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. All of Africa’s heads of state are invited to attend, as well as leaders of major subregional associations and organizations. An economic forum will be held for Russian and African officials and businessmen on Oct. 23, at which some 3,000 African businessmen are expected to participate.
President Putin first proposed the idea of such a summit at the 2018 BRICS summit in South Africa, and his aide, Yury Ushakov, is now chairing the summit Organizing Committee. Russian organizers describe the summit as “of unprecedented scale” for Russia, whose intent is to provide “a strategically important step towards creating the most favorable conditions to develop trade and economic relations and diversity the forms and areas of Russian-African cooperation.”
Preparatory meetings are already being held, including a Russia-Africa Business Dialogue organized as part of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum; a Russia-Africa Economic Forum being held in Moscow on June 20-21, along with the 26th annual shareholders meeting of the African Export-Import Bank, which is being held in Moscow for the first time; and a Russia-Africa Parliamentary Conference on July 1-3.
COLLAPSING WESTERN FINANCIAL SYSTEM
June 22 (EIRNS)—According to the Rome daily Il Messaggero, Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte is ready to break with the EU Commission if the Commission does not soften up and drop the request for a violation proceeding against Italy. The Italian offer is that Rome can put some €3 billion to balance the debt (peanuts, indeed) but no further cuts. Those funds are coming from less spending for the social measures and €1 billion comes from an extra dividend paid to the government by the state-owned Cassa Depositi e Prestiti. If the Commission does not agree, it will be war.
In the two-day meetings in Brussels, Conte found no support by any of the 19 Eurozone member states. “Eurozone partners do not take a position and fully rely on the technical evaluation by the Commission. Even Chancellor Merkel made it known that she did not talk about debt procedure with Conte,” the daily says.
Conte is therefore ready to use the veto power to block the election of the new European Commission president at the first deadline June 30. On June 26, Conte will ask his Deputy Premiers Matteo Salvini (Lega) and Luigi Di Maio (M5S) for full support in this strategy. The next day, June 27, “it will be up to the Commission to take the responsibility for checking whether Conte’s explosive belt is a bluff or is full of TNT.”
Reach us at email@example.com or call 1-571-293-0935