Inevitable blowback: Manchester a Product of West’s Libya/Syria Intervention

Product of West’s Libya/Syria Intervention

Global Research, May 25, 2017

Here’s what the media and politicians don’t want you to know about the Manchester, UK, suicide attack: Salman Abedi, the 22-year-old who killed nearly two dozen concert-goers in Manchester, UK, was the product of the US and UK overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya and “regime change” policy in Syria. He was a radicalized Libyan whose family fled Gaddafi’s secular Libya, and later he trained to be an armed “rebel” in Syria, fighting for the US and UK “regime change” policy toward the secular Assad government.

The suicide attacker was the direct product of US and UK interventions in the greater Middle East.

According to the London Telegraph, Abedi, a son of Libyan immigrants living in a radicalized Muslim neighborhood in Manchester had returned to Libya several times after the overthrow of Muamar Gaddafi, most recently just weeks ago. After the US/UK and allied “liberation” of Libya, all manner of previously outlawed and fiercely suppressed radical jihadist groups suddenly found they had free rein to operate in Libya. This is the Libya that Abedi returned to and where he likely prepared for his suicide attack on pop concert attendees. Before the US-led attack on Libya in 2011, there was no al-Qaeda, ISIS, or any other related terrorist organization operating (at least with impunity) on Libyan soil.

Gaddafi himself warned Europe in January 2011 that if they overthrew his government the result would be radical Islamist attacks on Europe, but European governments paid no heed to the warnings. Post-Gaddafi Libya became an incubator of Islamist terrorists and terrorism, including prime recruiting ground for extremists to fight jihad in Syria against the also-secular Bashar Assad.

In Salman Abedi we have the convergence of both these disastrous US/UK and allied interventions, however: it turns out that not only did Abedi make trips to Libya to radicalize and train for terror, but he also traveled to Syria to become one of the “Syria rebels” fighting on the same side as the US and UK to overthrow the Assad government. Was he perhaps even trained in a CIA program? We don’t know, but it certainly is possible.

While the mainstream media and opportunistic politicians will argue that the only solution is more western intervention in the Middle East, the plain truth is that at least partial responsibility for this attack lies at the feet of those who pushed and pursued western intervention in Libya and Syria.

There would have been no jihadist training camps in Libya had Gaddafi not been overthrown by the US/UK and allies. There would have been no explosion of ISIS or al-Qaeda in Syria had it not been for the US/UK and allied policy of “regime change” in that country.

When thinking about Abedi’s guilt for this heinous act of murder, do not forget those interventionists who lit the fuse that started this conflagration. The guilt rests squarely on their shoulders as well.

Daniel McAdams is director of the The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity. Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity.

Britain’s Collusion with Terror

Britain’s Collusion with Terror

Crimes of Britain | May 24, 2017

When Britain’s collusion with death squads across the ‘Middle East’ and Africa is mentioned it falls on deaf ears. The only time you’ll hear of Britain’s open collaboration with these forces are when they are branded ‘moderates’ or ‘rebels’ by the British media.

Firstly, what do I mean by death squad. I use this term to refer to a wide range of forces, namely Al-Qaeda and Al-Qaeda affiliated groups, Islamic State, the UVF (Ulster Volunteer Force), UDA/UFF (Ulster Defence Association/Ulster Freedom Fighters), RHD (Red Hand Commandos), LVF (Loyalist Volunteer Force) and the British Army’s very own units such as the Military Reaction Force, Special Reconnaissance Unit and the Force Research Unit.

C2ct4CYXEAARC50
The British Army on patrol with the UDA in the North of Ireland

Loyalist death squads in Ireland were an extension of the British state. They worked hand in hand with British intelligence, British military and the colonial police (RUC). In 2012, the De Silva Report revealed that 85% of the intelligence the UDA received had been supplied by the British security forces. The UDA was not proscribed as a terrorist organisation until 1992 – the decade when the British were waging a campaign of pacification on the Provisional Republican movement.

Loyalist terror gangs were responsible for scores of terror attacks in partnership with said British forces. The 1974 Dublin and Monaghan bombings which claimed the lives of 34 people carried out by the UVF in cahoots with British intelligence. Britain keeps the files on this act of terror firmly under lock and key. The Miami Showband massacre in 1975, saw the British Army team up with the UVF to murder three members of a cabaret band. Human rights lawyers Pat Finucane and Rosemary Nelson were assassinated by loyalist death squads working with British military and intelligence. There are endless examples of British collusion with loyalist death squads over a forty year period.

The Irish motto is “collusion is not an illusion, it is state murder” and it rings true today with regards to Britain’s relationship with its death squad proxies across Africa and the ‘Middle East’.

Saudi Arabia is a British creation that serves the interests of the Brits and the United States to this day. The British re-established Saudi Wahhabism in the region after it had been rejected, using its intolerance to wage an internal war on the Ottoman Empire during WW1. In a typically British case of divide and conquer, they allied with the Al-Saud family who have been willing servants of British and American imperialism since their reign.

It was Winston Churchill who bankrolled and armed Ibn Saud, the first King of Saudi Arabia. He doubled his subsidy in 1922 to £100,000. In 1921, Churchill delivered a speech to the House of Commons whereby he branded the followers of Ibn Saud “bloodthirsty” and “intolerant”. For the British this was no problem as long as the Al-Saud family and its followers worked in their interest. And this remains this case today. Not only in relation to the Saudis but also to the various proxy forces fighting across the ‘Middle East’ and Africa. So long as these contras work in British interest, the British will support them. When they render themselves useless or go rogue as often is the case, the British wages war on them.

“They [Ibn Saud’s followers] hold it as an article of duty, as well as of faith, to kill all who do not share their opinions and to make slaves of their wives and children. Women have been put to death in Wahhabi villages for simply appearing in the streets… [they are] austere, intolerant, well-armed and bloodthirsty”. – Churchill, 1921, speech to the House of Commons.

Thatcher’s open collusion with the Mujahideen in the 1980s saw her tell a large group on the Pakistan and Afghanistan border that the “hearts of the free world are with them“.

Britain covertly gave military training and supplies to the Mujahideen. The SAS was routinely going in and out of Afghanistan from Pakistan, moving supplies to the Mujahideen and other Afghan groups. In 1986 Britain shipped 600 shoulder launched anti-air craft missiles, with many going to the forces of Hizb-e-Islami, headed by Addul Haq whom Thatcher welcomed to Britain the same year. Haq had ordered a bombing in Kabul which killed 28 people, most of them students. Haq stated that the intention of the bomb was ‘to warn people’ against sending their children to the Soviet Union’.

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, an associate of Osama Bin Laden, was also invited to London in 1986 by Thatcher. She hailed him a “freedom fighter“. He had gained status after throwing acid in a woman’s face. Known as the ‘Butcher of Kabul’, Hekmatyar, oversaw a campaign of terror which led to at least 50,000 deaths in Kabul alone.

The Mujahideen were bolstered  with billions of dollars and military training mainly from the United States. Britain’s specific contributions were specialised military training and funnelling military supplies in to Afghanistan.

In Libya in 2011, Britain allied and worked with various death squads like the LIFG (Libyan Islamic Fighting Group). It was only in 2005, after the 7/7 bombings, that the LIFG  was designated as a terrorist group. 6 years later though, the British were back colluding with this very force against Libya, a country it has wanted regime change in since the al-Fatah revolution led by Muammar Gaddafi in 1969.

An SAS unit along with MI6 agents on a covert mission were captured just outside of Benghazi. They claim they were on their way to meet with Libyan ‘rebels’. Branded a “diplomatic team” by William Hague this blunder on behalf of the SAS was quickly swept under the carpet. A telephone conversation of then British ambassador Richard Northern asking for this “diplomatic team” to be released was leaked. In Basra 2005 an SAS team was apprehended by the Iraqi police after a clash in which two people were left dead. They were dressed in Arab clothing with heavy weaponry. The British Army sent in tanks to brake down the walls of the prison they were being held in.

We saw Britain assist the movement of thousands of militants in Bosnia who were there to fight against the Serbs. Hundreds of men from Britain have in recent years travelled to Syria and joined various death squads in the region. A trail collapsed in 2015 against a Swedish national whose lawyers argued British intelligence agencies were “supporting the same Syrian opposition group” as he was. They went on to allege British intelligence were supplying weapons to the group.

Britain is not the enemy of terrorism – it stokes the flames of sectarianism and facilitates death squads when and where it fits in with the agenda of their foreign policy

Undercover in Idlib

May 24, 2017

Interview with Parents of Venezuelan Man Set on Fire by Anti-Government Mob

The US regime change effort in Venezuela seems to be going full steam. On Saturday, May 20, a government supporter, 21-year-old Orlando Jose Figuera, was set on fire by a mob, most likely of the protestor-for-hire variety. The video above features an interview with his parents.

An RT report posted today contains the following:

Horrifying images from the scene show Figuera running while nearly naked with flames on his back. “A person was set on fire, beaten up, stabbed… They nearly lynched him, just because he shouted out that he was a ‘Chavista,’” said Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, referring to supporters of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela established by late leader Hugo Chavez.

Speaking on state TV, Maduro described the torching as “a hate crime and a crime against humanity.” The 21-year-old victim, who sustained heavy injuries, severe burns, and stab wounds, was taken to intense care.

Amazingly Figuera survived, or at least he’s still alive for the moment.

The Washington Post seems to be doing its faithful best to promote the regime-change effort. An article published today, headlined “Venezuela is Sliding into Anarchy,” says  Figuera was attacked by a “lynch mob,” but not until much further down in the story (a total of 13 paragraphs) do the writers finally get around to mentioning that the victim was a supporter of the government–and then the information is given in such a back-handed manner it is almost as if they are seeking to provide moral justification for what happened to him:

He was suspected of being a pro-government spy, according to some versions. Others alleged he was a thief.

The story also portrays anti-government protest leaders as nonviolent, while including the customary comments on the situation from a Western think tank–in this case the International Crisis Group

Gunson, of the International Crisis Group, said he did not think Venezuela’s opposition leaders could control the spreading turmoil or turn down the temperature. “Only a decision by the government to de-escalate would do it, and there is no sign of that,” he said. “Quite the contrary.”

“I think we will start to see curfews, mass arrests, a higher daily death rate and even worse violations of human rights,” said Gunson.

In other words, if the protests grow even more violent, it’s the government’s fault. The International Crisis Group, by the way, was co-founded by George Soros, who is today listed as a member of the Board of Trustees, according to Wikipedia. Other Jews on the board include former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, and Israeli journalist Nahum Barnea. And if all thls isn’t enough, the Wikipedia article also includes the following tidbit which would strongly suggest the International Crisis Group cannot possibly be an objective observer of events in Venezuela:

Moisés Naím, a member of the board of directors of the International Crisis Group served as the Venezuelan Minister for Development for the centrist government of Carlos Andrés Pérez. In 2011 the International Crisis Group released a report intimating that the Venezuelan government of Hugo Chavez might suffer “unpredictable, possibly violent consequences” if it did not audit the election results in which Chávez won.[15] The election results have been recognized as valid by 170 neutral international observers with the exception of the United States government, who along with allied governments, provides half of the funding for the International Crisis Group. (emphasis added)

None of this, of course, is mentioned in the Washington Post story.

By the way, former Venezuelan President Carlos Andrés Pérez survived a coup attempt by Hugo Chavez in 1992, but later was ousted after the Venezuelan Supreme Court found him guilty of embezzling 250 million bolivars.

Of this past Saturday’s events, Venezuela Analysis is reporting as follows:

The incident occurred during another day of anti-government protest that saw opposition supporters attempt to march on the Ministry of the Interior in downtown Caracas, despite lacking a permit for the route.

The march was preceded by a speech by Miranda Governor and former opposition presidential candidate Henrique Capriles in which he called Maduro the “the biggest m—–f–cker in the country”.

“We will remain firm until this corrupt narco-dictatorship leaves Venezuela, until we have the change we want… If we have to risk our skin, we will risk it!” he told the crowds.

Although the march began peacefully, the mobilization later devolved into violent clashes as demonstrators tried to penetrate police lines around the western Caracas municipality of El Libertador.

It seems the Trump administration is fully on board with the regime change effort, and apparently Exxon-Mobil, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s former employer, has a particular interest at stake. This at any rate is the assessment in an article published several days ago by Eric Draitser:

There is a misconception spreading through the Beltway like an airborne virus, infectious in its obliviousness to reality: the idea that the administration of President Donald Trump is so bogged down by scandal and controversy that it cannot achieve any geopolitical and strategic objectives. In fact, the opposite is true. Like a cornered animal, Trump and his team are exceedingly dangerous, both in their unpredictability and, strangely enough, also in their predictability.

And when it comes to Venezuela, their strategy is transparent.

Oil reigns supreme in the minds of Trump, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and the rest of the administration. In the case of Venezuela, oil remains the lifeblood of its economy.  So in a very real sense, the White House and State Department’s interests converge with the economic imperatives of corporate America in the Bolivarian Republic.

Tillerson represents perhaps the perfect embodiment of U.S. government attitudes toward Venezuela. A slick oil man through and through, Tillerson has long sought to destabilize Venezuela in an attempt to reassert ExxonMobil’s supremacy in the country.

Venezuela’s recent rocky history begins with Chavez’s nationalization of the oil sector under the state oil company PDVSA in 2007. The Chavez government offered ExxonMobil book value for assets that it intended to assume control over, while the Tillerson-led company demanded market value, which they priced at roughly $15 billion.  Eventually, the World Bank’s arbitration court ordered Venezuela to pay $1.6 billion to ExxonMobil.

But ExxonMobil’s anger at Caracas was certainly not assuaged with that settlement agreement. In fact, the following decade saw ExxonMobil step up efforts to destabilize Venezuela’s socialist government using a variety of tactics.

Which Government Dominates US-Saud Alliance?

Which Government Dominates US-Saud Alliance?

ERIC ZUESSE | 24.05.2017 | WORLD

Which Government Dominates US-Saud Alliance?

With America’s sale of $350 billion of its weapons to Saudi Arabia during the next ten years, which side will dominate, if the royal family of Saudi Arabia — the owners of Saudi Arabia, which is to say the Saud family — again finance, and participate in directing, an attack against the U.S., such as 9/11?

The last time around, the U.S. government hid for fifteen years the damning evidence (the ‘missing 28 pages’ that were actually 29 pages) in the 9/11 report that documented from the testimony to the congressional panel by FBI agents, that Prince Bandar bin Sultan al-Saud and his wife had personally financed the apartment rentals and flight training of at least some of the 15 Saudi members of the 19-member team that carried out the 9/11 attacks. The U.S. government also hid from the public the U.S. court testimony by Osama bin Laden’s captured bagman who had personally collected each one of the million-dollar-plus cash donations to Al Qaeda before 9/11, most of which mega-donations were from members of the Saud family — and Prince Bandar was among those, too — and so, it was more than just the tens of thousands of dollars which the FBI had found and had been reporting. Then, when the 9/11 victim families pursued in U.S. courts a civil case against the Saudi government (which is 100% owned by the Saud family), U.S. President Barack Obama vetoed the bill that Congress had passed to allow the case to proceed. That was the U.S. victims, seeking court investigations into possible massive criminality against them and against the United States of America, by members of Saudi Arabia’s royal family and their agents (perhaps including George W. Bush himself) working on their behalf — and U.S. President Barack Obama did everything he could to block even the investigations. He was George W. Bush #2, but with prettier rhetoric (designed specifically to fool liberals; not, like Bush’s, to fool outright conservatives).

Consequently: at the level of the U.S. Presidency, though ultimately not of the U.S. Congress, there has been a solid record of submission to the Sauds (andeven in the matters of symbolism and etiquette) (including participation in a head-chopper’s ritual dance) so as to be able to protect mega-criminals among them from facing American justice — even at its weaker, merely civil, level.

The Hill reported, on Tuesday, the 19th of April, in 2016, the view of the then-candidate Trump, regarding what the then yet-to-be-released ’28 redacted pages’ from the 9/11 report might likely show:

«I think I know what it’s going to say», he said on Fox News’s «Fox & Friends». «It’s going to be very profound, having to do with Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia’s role on the World Trade Center and the attack. That’s very serious stuff. It’s sort of nice to know who your friends are and perhaps who your enemies are. You’re going to see some very revealing things released in those papers… I look forward to reading them».

However, later, as President Trump, on 5 February 2017, he was asked in a Super Bowl television interview, what his policies would be regarding Iran, and he answered (video here, transcript here): «They have total disregard for our country. They are the number one terrorist state». This (boldfaced) phrase is the standard one that Israel uses to refer to Iran — which, unlike Saudi Arabia, does support terrorism against Israel. So: the U.S. President there was representing actually the Israeli people (or, specifically, Jewish Israelis), and not at all the American people. (He also wasn’t representing the European people, who, like the American people, suffer terrorism that’s financed by the Sauds and their fellow fundamentalist Sunnis, and who suffer virtually no terrorism from Iran or any Shiites at all — and yet whose aristocracies bond with America’s (the key Western backers of the terrorism they suffer).

So: he’s not entirely ignorant of at least the «redacted pages», and he even said he «looked forward to reading them», and his understanding of the situation prior to his having read them was that they had «to do with Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia’s role on the World Trade Center and the attack. That’s very serious stuff. It’s sort of nice to know who your friends are and perhaps who your enemies are». And, if he read them, then that’s precisely what they documented (from the FBI). They show exactly what he expected them to show. But now, as the President, he claims that Iran — and not its rabid enemy Saudi Arabia — is «the number one terrorist state».

As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted in a State Department cable on 30 December 2009, «Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide». She also mentioned other Islamic-majority countries in that cable, but none of them were Shiite majority or Shiite-led; they all were clearly fundamentalist-Sunni countries — the countries that America’s aristocracy allies with. (And never were the Sauds mentioned in her cable by name. She just wanted to get onto the official record, that she ‘cared’. Everything for her was PR, in order to win more power, and more money.)

The U.S. government, because of its bought Presidents, is now selling $350 billion of U.S. weapons to «the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups [which is all of the terrorist groups except for the Shiite group Hezbollah] worldwide».

There are contrasting hypotheses put forth to explain why this 180-degree turnabout by Trump is happening:

On May 21stBlake Hounshell at Politico attributed this change to its being allegedly due to Trump’s promise «to stop pestering them about human rights and political freedoms… Trump is offering, in short, a war on terror without the pretense of idealism. There has always been a strong odor of hypocrisy hanging over the U.S. relationship with regimes like Saudi Arabia, and perhaps there’s something refreshing in Trump’s ‘we are not here to lecture’ candor». Hounshell was using the internal self-contradictions within Trump’s sales-pitches, in order to ‘explain’ what was actually a stunning change in Trump’s sales-pitches. However, this excuse ignores that Trump is, in fact, not waging America’s «war on terror» (such as he’s implying) but instead Israel’s — and America already donates $3.8 billion per year to the Israeli government, which, moreover, is an enemy of the American people though not nearly to the extent that the Sauds (the Saudi government) are. At the very top level, the U.S. Presidency is owned by the Sauds but with considerable assistance from Jewish and some Christian billionaires who are American citizens. (And some of them are simultaneously Israeli citizens, which should be outlawed.) It’s not merely the Saud family, and their Thani family friends who own Qatar, and the other royal families who own yet other fundamentalist-Sunni kingdoms.

By contrast, I have put forth two hypothesis to explain Trump’s change-of-tune, which probably function in conjunction with one-another to provide a fuller explanation of this: (1) that the Sauds are crucial to the bottom lines of Lockheed Martin and America’s other top ‘defense’ contractors; and, (2) that the Sauds’ financing of jihadists in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Syria and other Russia-allied lands, is crucial to the conquest of Russia by America’s aristocracy, which conquest is the top foreign-policy goal of the U.S. aristocracy, who carry water for the Sauds. Combining those two partial explanations together produces an understanding both of the anti-Iranian and of the anti-Russian obsessions of the U.S. aristocracy — who, after all, are the main people who control America, and who thus control the U.S. President.

The Sauds are chiefly determined to conquer Iran, and the American aristocrats are chiefly determined to conquer Russia.

Israel is mainly on the side of the Sauds. (After all, Israel never militarily attacked Saudi Arabia, but it did militarily attack the United States — and the U.S. aristocracy hid that, much as they’ve hidden the Sauds’ attack, 9/11.) Furthermore, just as there were some U.S. operatives who knew about the 9/11 attacks before the event, and who benefited from it, there also were Israelis who knew about it ahead of time and who were delighted once it had occurred — and this delight went straight up to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself. (Anti-Semites claim that facts like those are somehow ‘proof’ that «the Jews did it», but these people simply ignore the ovewhelming mass of solid evidence implicating the Sauds and Al Qaeda in financing and executing the actual operation — as if «Foreknowledge entails guilt», instead of «Guilt entails foreknowledge and lots more than that», such as is actually the case.)

Even within a given aristocracy (or other, such as corporate, organzation), there are circles who know about and participate in a particular operation, and circles who are ignorant of it. Never is the full entity involved in it, no matter how organized the entity happens to be. And, of course, any ‘conspiracy theory’ that blames an ethnicity or other mass of people for anything, isn’t even a conspiracy-theory at all, because any conspiracy is a highly organized, and usually highly hierarchical, operation, no mass at all. Such a ‘theory’ is instead pure bigotry — like Adolf Hitler’s, or Paul Kagame’s, both of whom were themselves gifted at conspiracy, and, unfortunately, put it to the most evil of uses. In fact, good conspiracies also exist, and they were essential to, for example, the winning of World War II. Therefore, anyone who blanketly condemns «conspiracy theories» or even «conspiracies», is either a con-artist, or else a dupe of one.

If the Saud family again finance, and participate in directing, an attack against the U.S., such as 9/11, it will be with the participation of the U.S. aristocracy, just as it was on 9-11. In other words: the aristocracies of the U.S., Saudi Arabia, and Israel, are joined-at-the-head, inseparable. They function as one gang, though, like in the Mafia and other criminal gangs, they each have their respective turfs.

However, Donald Trump clearly knows about «Saudi Arabia’s role on the World Trade Center and the attack. That’s very serious stuff. It’s sort of nice to know who your friends are and perhaps who your enemies are». But, after he was elected, he got bought-off, by the Sauds, and by the Israelis. However, the Americans — this nation’s aristocracy, and not its people — have clearly been pushing him to do this, or else he’ll soon be replaced by his Vice President, Mike Pence. So: the people who have been carrying out this Saudi operation are their U.S. partners, who have big megaphones in the U.S.

Ranking the relative power between these three aristocracies would be difficult and merely a guess, but my own ordering of them would be: (1) the Sauds; (2) the Israeli and pro-Israeli aristocracy; (3) the U.S. aristocracy. In any case, since they’re all joined-at-the-head, they’re basically all one aristocracy — each of them needs the other two in order to be able to do what they do. That’s the world’s most powerful political force. It is by far the leading gang. And this is actually the most important thing to understand about international affairs today.

The main factual basis I can offer for that ranking, would be that, whereas the U.S. has been physically invaded by both of the others, (by Israel in 1967, and by the Sauds in 2001), the U.S. has not invaded either of the others. The U.S. instead continues to accept both of the others as ‘allies’. This is remarkable. What self-respecting, sovereign, country would do a thing like that? None. This is the main factual basis. But it’s not the only factual basis. For another factual example, several American Presidents have been captured on photographs as bowing down to the Saudi king. Never once has any indication been published of a Saudi king having bowed down to an American president. (Of course, no head-of-state ever should bow down to any other, except perhaps in a public and physical surrender. And for the American people to accept it from its presidents, is stunning. But the American people accept lots of abuse from the governments of Saudi Arabia and Israel. It’s par for the course in the tri-partite relationship — which yet further indicates that the U.S. is at the bottom of this totem-pole.)

من البحرين إلى البادية… الندم

من البحرين إلى البادية… الندم

 

ناصر قنديل

– تتكامل حلقات التصعيد الأميركي منذ نهاية المئة الأولى من ولاية الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب، ما دفع البعض للاستنتاج أن مرحلة جديدة في المواجهات تنتظر المنطقة، لكن التدقيق في مضمون الخطوات التصعيدية الأميركية يشير إلى معادلة خفية تربط بينها، فهي جميعاً كانت متاحة للإدارة السابقة لكنها كانت تراها بأفق مسدود، وبلا مستقبل يغير موازين القوى وإضاعة للوقت والجهد، فتلتزم بقراءة أشد عقلانية للنهايات وتقرّر بناء عليها الذهاب للتفاوض بلا مغامرات هوليودية معلومة النتائج وتعبر عن الإفلاس والعجز وتؤدي بالنهاية إلى تقدم المحور المقابل جدياً في ميادين المواجهة الحقيقية، وتفرض التفاوض معه من موقع أضعف.

– العقوبات على إيران كانت عرضاً قدّمه بنيامين نتنياهو للرئيس الأميركي السابق باراك أوباما بدلاً من توقيع التفاهم النووي، وكان جواب أوباما وماذا بعد، عودة للتفاوض وقد تقدمت إيران أشواطاً جديدة في ملفها النووي، وقبول بشروط أصعب في التفاهم لصالح إيران. ومثل العقوبات كان دائماً على طاولة البيت الأبيض مشاريع سعودية للتصعيد في اليمن والبحرين، وكان قد منح الكثير منها الضوء الأخضر أملاً بربح جبهات وساحات مواجهة، ولما بانت التوازنات الحاكمة للمواجهة وصار كل تصعيد مجرد ربح بصري مؤقت، ينتج المزيد من المواجهة ويذهب بها إلى مناطق أشد صعوبة وخطورة، صار الضوء أصفر.

– معاينة ساحات التصعيد الأميركي في عهد دونالد ترامب تشير إلى النتائج المترتبة على منح الضوء الأخضر للسعودية بسلوك دموي مفرط في المنطقة الشرقية بعناوين مذهبية سيوصل لمشروع حرب أهلية يخرج عن السيطرة، بينما الذهاب للوحشية في البحرين، كما يحدث منذ كلام ترامب المعلن لملك البحرين في قمة الرياض أن الأمور ستكون بيننا أفضل من الآن وصاعداً، بمعنى لا منظمات حقوق إنسان سنقيم لها اعتباراً ولا صحافة ولا رأي عام، بما يمثل إطلاق يده ويد النظام السعودي في ارتكاب مجازر مفتوحة في البحرين، سينتج أوهام انتصارات لكنه سينتقل بالانتفاضة الشعبية إلى المواجهة المسلحة التي لا ينقصها إلا القرار ليشتعل البحرين ويصير مستقبل نظامه على كفّ عفريت مهما حشد له الأميركيون والسعوديون.

– في البادية السورية والبادية العراقية فعل الأميركيون ما يستطيعون من إشارات هوليودية لرسم خطوط حمراء، كانت متاحة دائماً لسلف ترامب باراك اوباما كغارة التنف أو ضربة مطار الشعيرات. وها هي النتيجة،

لا أحد يأبه لخطوط ترامب الحمراء ومواقع جماعاته تسقط لحساب الجيش السوري وحلفائه الذي توسّعوا خلال شهر في البادية بمساحة خمسة آلاف كليومتر مربع، ومثلهم فعل الحشد الشعبي في العراق، ووجد الأميركيون أنفسهم مجدداً أمام الخيارات الصعبة، وهي ترك حلفائهم يتساقطون، أو التحوّل نحو حرب تخرج عن السيطرة، وفي الحالين خسائر وعودة للتفاوض من موقع الضعف.

– يتساءل دبلوماسيون أميركيون سابقون في مجموعات التفكير في مراكز الدراسات بمناسبة مناقشة وضع حمص وحلب وحماة، عما كان عليه الوضع لو حزم الأميركيون أمرهم وفرضوا القبول على حلفائهم بالتسوية مع الروس وسورية وإيران قبل سقوط مواقع الجماعات المسلحة في هذه المناطق، وفقاً لما نص عليه التفاهم الذي أنجزه وزير الخارجية آنذاك جون كيري مع نظيره الروسي سيرغي لافروف، والجواب هو سيعترف الأميركيون لاحقاً بجميل إدارة أوباما لما فعلته بالذهاب إلى التفاهم النووي مع إيران ولم تأخذ بنصيحة نتنياهو، التي يبدو ترامب ميالاً للأخذ بها لو كان هو المفاوض يومها، ومثل ذلك سيكون الندم كبيراً على خطوات المخاطرة بالتصعيد بتفويت فرص التسويات وأخذ المنطقة إلى حمام دم، بينما لا قرار حرب بحجم تغيير التوازنات.

– الرئيس الأميركي لا يهمه المستقبل البعيد لبلاده، بل أن يتخطى مؤقتاً الإحراجات والأزمات في فترة ولايته، ولو على طريقة شراء الوقت وتوريث الأزمات للسلف، وكلما كانت صورة الرئيس الداخلية مهزوزة صار شراؤه للوقت على طريقة المقامرين أكثر وضوحاً كطريقة لإدارة الحكم، وهذا ما يفعله ترامب في السياسة والحرب والاقتصاد.

(Visited 269 times, 269 visits today)
Related Videos

 

Related Articles

سعر قطر 400 مليار قبضها ترامب

سعر قطر 400 مليار قبضها ترامب

ناصر قنديل

– يستطيع كلّ قارئ مدقق اكتشاف الدسّ في الكلام المنسوب لأمير قطر عندما يقرأ المقطع الخاص بالحديث عن الرئيس الأميركي «الذي لن يستمرّ بسبب ملاحقات عدلية وتجاوزات قانونية». وهو كلام لا يمكن صدوره من دولة عظمى تجاهر بالعداء لأميركا فكيف بدولة صغيرة تدور في الفلك الأميركي في نهاية المطاف، وتحمي حكمَها قاعدة عسكرية أميركية؟

– الإصرار السعودي عبر منابر الإعلام المموّلة والمشغّلة من محمد بن سلمان، على رفض الكلام القطري عن اختراق موقع وكالة الأنباء القطرية الرسمية ودسّ البيان بلسان الأمير، يعني نية مبيّتة بالاشتباك، والإصرار على إعداد تقارير إعلامية وتوزيعها عن مسؤولية قطر عن العلاقة بالقاعدة وطالبان والنصرة وداعش وحزب الله وحماس والإخوان المسلمين وإيران، هو جزء من حملة تمهيدية لعمل ما يُفترض أنه يحتاج لتغطية رأي عام خليجي وعربي ودولي، فتكون مصر والإمارات والبحرين وأميركا و«إسرائيل» شركاء في تقديم هذه التغطية كلّ لسبب يخصّه بما يُنسب لقطر.

– ترجمة الحرب على إيران في قمة الرياض هو بالاستيلاء على قطر، التي تشكّل امتداداً تركياً في الخليج ومصدر إزعاج تقليدي للسعودية. وضبط الزعامة السعودية بأمير شاب كمحمد بن سلمان يستدعي مهابة لم تأتِ بها حرب اليمن، ويفترض أن تأتي بها حرب أخرى، ووضع الخليج كمنطقة نفوذ خالصة للسعودية في مواجهة إيران، كيف وأنّ قطر ثروة غاز هائلة وقناة فضائية فاعلة يرتب الاستيلاء عليهما بحكم قطري تابع للسعودية إضافة نوعية مالياً وإعلامياً.

– منح الملك سلمان للرئيس الأميركي ما يريد من مال وصفقات وسياسة، خصوصاً في مجال العلاقة بـ»إسرائيل»، ولم يعُد لقطر ما تتميّز به في هذا المجال. فهذه السعودية عندما تنضمّ للتطبيع تصير قطر تفصيلاً صغيراً، وما يريده الملك تثبيت خلافة ولده في الحكم، وتعويضاً عن الخسارة في سورية والعجز في اليمن تمثله قطر.

– الأرجح أنّ المخابرات السعودية افتتحت نشاطات مركز الحرب الإلكترونية الذي أطلق عليه اسم مركز مكافحة التطرف «اعتدال»، بحضور الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب، وكانت أولى مهامه قرصنة موقع الوكالة القطرية ونشر كلام منسوب للأمير القطري وهو نائم. فالبيان تمّ نشره على موقع الوكالة منتصف الليل، وهو توقيت غريب عجيب لنشر كلام قيل في وضح النهار لأمير الدولة، الذي يأوي إلى فراشه الساعة التاسعة ليلاً، والهدف تأخُّر النفي القطري لما نشر، واتهام قطر بسبب التأخير بأنها نشرت الكلام وتقوم بسحبه والادّعاء بالقرصنة لأنها تلمّست خطورة ردود الأفعال. وهذا ما يقوله السعوديون ومَن يستجلبونهم للتعليق على الكلام.

– منذ ثلاثة أعوام والسعوديون يسعون للحصول على الضوء الأخضر الأميركي لحسم وضع قطر ووضعها تحت الإبط السعودي. ويبدو أنّ الفرصة لم تحن إلا بزيارة ترامب للرياض ومقايضته الصفقات المغرية برأس الحكم القطري، خصوصاً في ظلّ الخلاف التركي الأميركي وموقع قطر مع تركيا، وضغط مصر على واشنطن طلباً لضبط الأداء القطري في قضية الإخوان المسلمين، وتعمّد ترامب تسمية حركة حماس كحركة إرهابية في خطابه في القمة، بينما تتباهى قطر بنجاحها في جلب حماس إلى خط التسويات بوثيقة جديدة، ووجود تفاهم سعودي أميركي على التصعيد بوجه إيران، واعتبار التعاون مع إيران في مسار أستانة والعلاقات الثنائية من جانب قطر لعباً على الحبال، وكانت الحصيلة بيع قطر للسعودية بأربعمئة مليار دولار قبضها ترامب، فأعطى الضوء الأخضر.

(Visited 348 times, 348 visits today)
Related Videos

 

Related Articles

%d bloggers like this: