Hysteria at UN Betrays Western Terror Sponsors

Hysteria at UN Betrays Western Terror Sponsors

Hysteria at UN Betrays Western Terror Sponsors

By Finian Cunningham

Hysteria and histrionics at the United Nations Security Council from the three permanent members, the United States, Britain and France, was tantamount to a signed confession. Ironically, one can imagine how the wording of such a «confession» would go: We the intensely vexed members are hereby displaying our boorish displeasure that the terror proxies we covertly sponsor in Syria for regime change are being thrashed.

Such was the tawdry display of undiplomatic conduct by the US, Britain and France, with officials from these countries inveighing against Russia with unsubstantiated, sensationalist accusations of committing war crimes. The intemperance was then followed by tantrums and walk-outs from the Security Council meeting – a meeting that these three members had originally convened.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov later lambasted the imperious attitude from the Western trio as an «unacceptable» breach of diplomatic protocol.

During the weekend, the US, Britain and France claimed that Russia was a «partner» with its Syria ally in perpetrating war crimes over the breakdown of the ceasefire that had been declared on September 12.

As usual, it was the American UN ambassador Samantha Power who excelled in the hysteria and histrionics. «What Russia is doing is not counter-terrorism. It is barbarism», declared Power with shrill, puffed up vitriol.

The US official even hinted that she would like to henceforth have Russia sanctioned from Security Council membership. «Russia holds a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. This is a privilege and a responsibility. Yet in Syria and in Aleppo, Russia is abusing this historic privilege».

That’s breath-taking delusional hubris coming from an official of a country that is currently bombing seven countries (Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen) and which has destroyed dozens more over the past decades with millions of civilian deaths.

The British ambassador Mathew Rycroft chipped into the Russia bashing by adding that «the Security Council needs to be ready to fulfill our responsibilities». He blamed Russia for unleashing «hell on Aleppo».

The concerted American, British and French rhetorical offensive against Russia suggests that these three powers are striving for an unprecedented objective. Perhaps, by delegitimizing Russia through a media process of criminalizing, the Western states are intending to over-ride the Security Council’s veto in order to give themselves a mandate for a large-scale military intervention in Syria – under the well-worn guise of «protecting human rights».

Incredibly, the US, British and French – together with the Western news media – continue to blame Russia for an attack on a UN aid convoy in Aleppo last week. Britain’s Foreign Minister Boris Johnson told the BBC that Russia «may have committed a war crime». This allegation is made despite the paucity of any supporting evidence to impute Russia or Syrian forces.

Both Russia and Syria have refuted any involvement in the deadly sabotage, and even the UN aid agencies and Syrian Arab Red Crescent have declined to blame Russia or Syrian forces.

Indeed, the evidence is more indicative of some kind of false flag propaganda incident carried out by the foreign-backed anti-government militants. Suspiciously, the video of the aid convoy attack, which forms the basis of subsequent Western claims, was supplied by the dubious White Helmets, also known as the Syrian Civil Defense. This group works closely with the Al Qaeda-linked Aleppo Media Center and has been involved in fabricating atrocities with which to smear the Assad government forces. Tellingly, the White Helmet «volunteer» who was filmed commenting in the aftermath of the aid convoy attack last week has since been identified by Syrian patriots as an armed militant in one of the al Qaeda-affiliated terror brigades.

We are thus left to deduce that Western allegations of «war crimes» against Russia are not only false; they are terrorist-sourced fabrications that are a being peddled by Western governments and news media in a desperate attempt to slander Russia.

The escalation of Western media claims demonstrates a full-court psychological operation to rail-road the narrative of Syria and Russia being villainous and illegitimate. The preponderance of Western media reports on the renewed fighting around the northern city of Aleppo invariably attribute their source of information as «according to activists». These «activists» could be the White Helmet propaganda artists or the terrorist groups themselves. But Western media and governments are citing these unverified sources for their figures on «civilian deaths» and «banned munitions» allegedly being used by Syrian and Russian air forces. This is taking Western collusion with terrorists to a whole new level.

The recent broadside at the UN from the US, Britain and France is indicative of a coordinated political effort by these powers to hobble Russia’s otherwise successful military intervention in Syria. Not only has Russia’s intervention succeeded militarily in defeating the West’s covert regime-change war by wiping out the terrorist proxies; Russia’s involvement in Syria has succeeded in the international media war by exposing the true culpability of the Western powers in inflicting their dirty war on Syria.

With astounding arrogance, this Western trio is pounding Syria illegally with warplanes over the past two years and have documented covert links to the illegally armed insurgents. In a recent TV interview on France 24 (September 25), Turkey’s Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu also confirmed that special forces from the US, Britain and France were operating in northern Syria, purportedly to assist «moderate rebels» to fight against the al Qaeda-type terror groups. This all amounts to a gross violation of Syrian sovereignty by the NATO powers and warrants a legal prosecution for foreign aggression.

The Western media offensive against Russia also comes within a week of American and British warplanes massacring over 62 Syrian army troops at the airbase near Deir ez-Zor, which led to the ceasefire’s collapse two days later.

Yet the West has managed to blackout that war crime after quickly shoving it down the memory hole as an «accident».

American ambassador Samantha Power was incandescent when Russia called for a Security Council emergency meeting over the Deir ez-Zor atrocity on September 17. She disparaged Russian concerns as a «cynical stunt».

As if to avenge Russian audacity to shame the Americans, the US and its Western allies countered with their own «emergency» meeting alleging Moscow’s «war crimes» the following week. But, as noted, the only «evidence» that the West presents is hearsay from anonymous «activists» who are most probably acting as propaganda conduits for terrorist groups.

Syrian ambassador Bashar al Jaafari reminded the UN Security Council that it was his country’s legal and constitutional prerogative to defend the Syrian nation and defeat illegally armed militants on its territory.

Rather than giving the Syrian representative a modicum of respect, the American, British and French officials stormed out of the Security Council meeting – just as American ambassador Power had done the week before when Russia’s Vitaly Churkin was addressing media about the Deir ez-Zor massacre.

Following the latest ceasefire charade in which Western-sponsored «moderate rebels» were conspicuously indistinguishable from terror groups, Syria, Russia, Iran and Hezbollah have every right to launch a renewed offensive to finally bring an end to this foreign-fueled covert war for regime change. The gloves are off. They need to be.

And as the foreign proxy army of terrorist brigades gets wiped out in their last stand at Aleppo, the Western masterminds behind the covert war are becoming increasingly desperate.

The desperation at seeing the regime-change project being lost in Syria could trigger all-out war between NATO powers and Syria’s allies, including Russia. This is a very real danger especially with Turkey, the US, Britain and France expanding military operations in northern Syria.

One thing is for sure though. Washington and its accomplices will step up the media hysteria and defamation against Syria and Russia. Expect more histrionic tantrums at the UN and a barrage of «humanitarian tragedies» – from the three permanent members of the Security Council who brought us the hell of Syria’s catastrophe in the first place.


Former editor and writer for major news media organizations.

He has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages


Syrian Army Will Hit Terrorism Wherever it Is in the Country

Tuesday, 27 September 2016 01:20

Syrian Army Will Hit Terrorism Wherever it Is in the Country

DAMASCUS, (ST)- The Presidential Political and Media Advisor Bouthaina Shaaban has stressed that the Syrian Arab Army will hit terrorism wherever it exists in the country and that the Syrian government is determined to restore sovereignty over the entire Syrian soil and retaliate to all attempts targeting Syria’s future and unity.

In an interview with “Al-Mayadeen TV” last night, Shaaban said the US administration’s weak and unbalanced stances on and immoral dealing with the agreements it has ratified have negatively affected the implementation of the Russian-American agreement on Syria. She pointed out that Russia is committed to the agreement and is fighting terrorism, while the Americans have so far showed no commitment.

Shaabn asserted that the Syrian leadership was an essential party in consultations on every item in this agreement even before it was written, noting that Russia doesn’t make an agreement on any details about Syria without the approval of the Syrian government.

“The West feels no embarrassment in signing a deal and then showing non-commitment to it,” Shaaban said, noting that it is doing this with Russia and it had done this before with Iran in the nuclear agreement.

Syria wants public US apology that guarantees aggression won’t be repeated

Regarding media reports on a US apology from Syria for the American aggression on a Syrian Army position in Deir Ezzor, Shaaban clarified the American apology from Syria was conveyed through unofficial channels. “Syria doesn’t count on this apology. It wants a public apology that guarantees this issue won’t be repeated.”

” Syria is a legitimately-recognized state and a UN member… The Syrian Arab Army is fighting terrorism and President Al-Assad gets his legitimacy from the Syrian people not from the American Administration,” She stressed.

The political and media advisor went on to say that “the Syrian opposition is the one that has refused to have dialogue with the Syrian government because of its being linked to foreign agendas, whereas, the Syrian government has managed to sign deals with gunmen several times and in different areas, because these gunmen were more independent than the Saudi-linked opposition.”

Shaaban denied any coordination between Russia, Iran and Turkey before the flagrant Turkish aggression on the Syrian territories. Erdogan is the one who started the aggression on Syria and” we never ignored this aggression or believed Turkey’s claims about fighting terrorism.”

Shaaban said that the United Nations doesn’t play its role as a neutral international organization, noting that this was clear when some UN staff tried to convince citizens to not leave al-Waer neighborhood in Homs countryside and in Daraya in Damascus countryside.

She pointed out that the UN chief’s special envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura also doesn’t do his task transparently and that Ban Ki-moons latest accusations against Syria are baseless.

Shaaban criticized some Arab countries’ attempts to normalize ties with the Israeli enemy which is the only beneficiary from the so-called “Arab Spring”

She affirmed that Saudi Arabia and Qatar are supporting and financing terrorist groups in Syria and they send terrorists to Syria across Turkey. ” Both countries continue this policy as “we haven’t felt any change as regards their relation with the terrorist organizations operating in Syria.”

Hamda Mustafa

Related Articles

Russian Foreign Ministry makes public parts of agreement with US on Syria

A 90-minute movie: Clinton, Trump battling to win the presidential debate

September 27, 2016

Clinton Trump

He Who Hesitates Is Lost And Russia Hesitated

By Paul Craig Roberts

September 25, 2016 “Information Clearing House” – The Russian government deceived itself with its fantasy belief that Russia and Washington had a common cause in fighting ISIS. The Russian government even went along with the pretense that the various ISIS groups operating under various pen names were “moderate rebels” who could be separated from the extremists, all the while agreeing to cease fighting on successive verges of victory so that Washington could resupply ISIS and prepare to introduce US and NATO forces into the conflict. The Russian government apparently also thought that as a result of the coup against Erdogan, which was said to implicate Washington, Turkey was going to cease supporting ISIS and cooperate with Russia.

Alas, the Russians so fervently, or perhaps I should say feverishly, desired an agreement with Washington that they deceived themselves. If Finian Cunningham’s report is correct, Washington has taken advantage of Russia’s urging that Washington and Turkey join in the attack on ISIS by invading northern Syria under the guise of “fighting ISIS.”

Syria has now been partitioned, and the pretend or fake “moderate rebels” can be built up inside the US/Turkish occupied areas of Syria and the war against Syria kept going for as long as Washington wants. The western presstitutes will report that the Turkish/American forces occupying areas of Syria are not invaders but are attacking ISIS.

With US, Turkish, and, little doubt, soon other NATO troops operating inside Syria, the neoconservatives will have many opportunities to provoke a conflict with Russia from which Russia will have to stand down or reply with force. In the event of a Trump presidential victory, the neocons want to make certain Trump is embroiled in a war that will prevent an accommodation with Russia.

It is unclear whether US Secretary of State Kerry’s effort to arrange a Syrian ceasefire was sincere and he was sandbagged by the Pentagon and CIA. Regardless, if Kerry was sincere, he is obviously unable to stand up to the neocons, blessed as the State Department is with Victoria Nuland and a number of other warmongers.

Obama is equally weak, which is why he was chosen by the oligarchy as president. A person without experience and knowledge is an excellent tool for the oligarchy. American blacks and white liberals actually believed that an inexperienced candidate from nowhere without an organization of his own could make a difference. Apparently, the gullibility of a majority of Americans is endless. This American hallmark of gullibility is why a handful of neoconservatives can so easily lead the sheeple into endless wars.

The idiot Americans have been at war for 15 years and the morons have no idea what has been achieved. The fools are unaware that the US in its decades long accumulation of weakness now confronts two major nuclear powers: Russia and China.

Americans have been taught by the presstitutes serving the military/security complex that nuclear war is not all that different from ordinary war. Look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, two targets of American atomic bombs. Today, seven decades later, the cities are flourishing, so what’s the problem with nuclear weapons?

The atomic bombs that Washington dropped on these helpless civilian centers while the Japanese government was trying to surrender, were mere popguns compared to today’s thermo-nuclear weapons. One Russian SS-18 wipes out three-fourths of New York state for thousands of years. Five or six of these “Satans” as they are known by the US military, and the East Coast of the United States disappears.

Russia had a victory for Syria and democracy in its hands, but Putin lacked the decisiveness of a Napoleon or a Stalin and let his victory slip away as a result of false hopes that Washington could be trusted. Now a Russian/Syrian victory would require driving the Turks and Americans out of Syria.

If Russia struck hard and fast, Russia could succeed by using Washington’s lie and claiming that Russia thought the US and Turkish forces were ISIS, just as Washington claimed when Washington intentionally struck a known Syrian Army position.

If Russia actually annihilated the Turkish and US force, which Russia could easily do, NATO would collapse, because no European country wants to be destroyed in World War 3. But Russia won’t collapse NATO by decisive action. The Russians won’t fight until war is absolutely and totally forced upon them. Then they will pay a huge price for their indecisiveness rooted in their foolish belief that Russia has common grounds with Washington. The only common grounds Russia has with Washington requires Russia’s surrender. If Russia will surrender, Russia can achieve Western acceptance, and Washington’s agents, the Russian Atlanticist Integrationists, can rule Russia for Washington.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.

Related Videos 

Related Articles

Obama and the Syrian confusion

Written by Nasser Kandil,

In an interview with the writer of history of the US presidents Doris Goodwin which was published yesterday in “Vanity Fair magazine”, it assumed the presidential biography of the US President Barack Obama while he is at the gates of leaving the White House, presenting personal comparisons between him and between his understanding and his reading of the biographies of the presidents, classifying them between the honorable who left indelible impact in the history of the United States and have formed a source of inspiration for him in his political and presidential experience, especially the President Abraham Lincoln. Obama has presented an attempt to interpret his biography as a young man descendant of the American Negroes, who are busy in challenge, ambition of self-assertion, and the ability to present something new and remarkable; he emphasized their leading capacities in the life of country in which they suffered the bitterness of getting the right of integration in their environment and institutions. Obama tried to be modest in presenting himself and his accomplishments, satisfying of saying that he is proud that he dismissed America the falling into pitfalls which others may fall in.

In front of the question about the bewildering issues in which the president whose his mandate will end soon says that maybe he could behave in different way, so what is it? Obama says that “I have done well in various issues which I have dealt with internally and externally, politically, economically, and militarily, but the issue of Syria remains, I am unable to answer the question was it possible for us to do something and we have not done it”, he was to finish this tragedy till he obviated, “surely I do not mean to do what others call me to do and what others blame me for not doing. I am confident that I had done what I did by not listening to the reckless tips or listening to the waves of anger, but neither arming the opposition nor coming for military strike under the slogan of using the chemical weapons would make difference”, “Sometimes I say” Obama continues “I mean what we did not do, ideas that did not come into our minds”. “I wonder if the matter was proposed to Lincoln and Roosevelt, would they take decisions that did not come into my mind?

The Syrian confusion of Obama which based on the recognition that the military escalation against the Syrian country would not make better situation of America, even if he suggested through his speech better situation intended to Syria, he meant Syria which the Americans like to see, which means Syria which does not worry Israel and which the other allies of America or those who rule feel comfortable to it, thus the intention of the search is serving the US interests and politics, but this is not a criticism to the US President, but it is an explanation of the approach of his search and opening the door; really what Obama would do from this perspective not from the perspective of Syria, as we see it?. This is our task, not the task of the US President and we cannot expect it from him.

It is the right of the observer to wonder away from the genius demand, through which Obama talks about his predecessors, and where he says humbly that he did not have alike, why the elected US President in 2008 ignores resorting to what was stated of recommendations in the report of the Committee of Iraq which the Congress has formed early 2006, and has issued its

report and recommendations at the end of this year, knowing that the US President Barack Obama has taken the commitment of withdrawing from Iraq and closing Guantanamo, he knows that it is from the rare committees which was formed by the Congress and headed by the representatives of the two parties as a recognition of the national crisis to assume the name of its two heads James Baker and Lee Hamilton, and maybe it is from the few rare staff which looks like the thought of Lincoln which Obama considers him his inspirer; in its combining the two parties in the major national crises. The committee reached to conclusions and has put recommendations, if Obama drew his foreign policy according to it, the war would not take place neither in Syria nor in Libya and the region would not expose to this mass destruction.

The elected US President cannot ignore directly after the issuance of the report of Baker Hamilton the fact that there was a decision of putting the recommendations aside knowing that the president was a partner in its taking, despite of what was provided by the language of the report, the recommendations and their issuance under the name of the two parties of moral support and historic devotion to the president who adopted them as an approach of his policy. Obama has only withdrawn from Iraq and closed Guantanamo as promises of the report recommendations, but he neglected the fundamental and the main part which he returns to it today and which the US policy returns to it regardless the obstinacy and many attempts of denial, in addition to the projects of obstinacy hoping to adjust that or change that. So was the continuation of increasing the sanctions on Iran by coincidence, hoping to submit it in its nuclear program and its regional policies, knowing that in front of the president there were signed recommendations from more than seventy figures of the Republican and the Democratic parties that call to admit that Iran is a nuclear country that has influence over the files of Iraq, Afghanistan, and the security of the Gulf and the energy. Was it by coincidence that the president said in 2010 that he will not exert pressure on Israel to accept a settlement for the Palestinian Cause which is less than a cheap and modest, while he examined carefully in reading a report that says that there is no reluctance in obliging Israel to accept a Palestinian country on the occupied territories since 1967 which its capital is the Eastern Jerusalem with resolving the issue of the refugees based on the UN resolution 194 of the right of return and compensation. So did the president who signed the decision of setting up the missile shields on the European areas off Russia miss that the mentioned report has recommended him of correcting the path of the cooperation with Russia and giving up of the language of the arrogance and the provocation which the administration of his predecessor George Bush has pursued. regarding Syria, the report recommended of the recognition of Syria as an active regional country and indispensable partner in the stability of Iraq and Lebanon, and a central country in the Arab Israeli conflict, so was his approach of Syria established from the illusion of this recognition?

The US President Obama cannot convince us that he has no regrets because he ignored the report which he read and has got the inspiration from it about the most prominent item of his foreign policy; the withdrawal from Afghanistan, after he gave up of the request of the withdrawal from Afghanistan which was a part of his campaign for the nomination before he was selected, then he returned to the decision of the withdrawal under the demand of the same party which asked him to give it up before, it is the organization of politics and decision- making in America which positions between the army and the intelligence, it is the party which he obeyed by adopting fluid positions toward the Palestinian Cause, then he came preaching during his visit to Cairo after his

presidential winning without a project, and after he had accepted to give up of his own speech of resolving the Palestinian issue, deterring the Israeli provocations, and taking the region to peace that is based on the rules of the international law. This was the main title in the policies which Obama the romantic presidential candidate was looking to before he turned into the real candidate who is acceptable by the decision- making organization.

The fairness requires from Obama the admission that he was a victim of disinformation and bargains that controlled his arrival to the White House and have required from him accepting moral concessions, which it is revealed today that they caused the mass destruction to the Arab and Islamic countries and have brought the dangers to the world, because these countries ignored facts that were clear and apparent, they have insisted on waging dangerous tests because they lived the state of denial of the facts which their titles were drawn by the recommendations of Baker-Hamilton. Because the avoidance of the hard choices of the report and its recommendations has come as a result of the illusion of the ability to change the facts and was the Soft War or the Smart War which based on bombing the national entities in the countries of the Mediterranean and destabilize the project of the country in them. The climax was the Syrian war which Obama knows that that he is the first one who said that the illusion of the presence of a moderate opposition is nothing but a fantasy, he knows the credibility of what his Vice President Joe Biden said in front of professors, students, and graduates of Harvard about the role of Washington’s allies in bringing the terrorism, resettling it, and supporting it to be rooted in Syria and thus to be the strength of the” revolution” under the American eye.

Obama did not convince himself to convince us once again successively in two consecutive days, as he knows that the world was safer during the Cold War, he knows that there is no reason for the confusion about Syria, the report of Baker Hamilton was on his desk before he entered to the White House, but it is enough for Obama to remember and to evaluate on the comparison the situation of Syria, what has happened in the Iranian nuclear program, which the policy of siege and sanctions has led to make the negotiation starting from new round from points where Iran has not reached in the previous round, till enriching uranium has become on high degrees. Furthermore, what Iran has conceded in the understanding has become just some of what it accomplished in stages of the negotiation and which would not be included in any understanding if it was signed with the starting of the negotiation. So what if Obama followed the recommendations of Baker-Hamilton since the start of his mandate and he started with Iran, Syria, and Palestine as an integrated tripartite?, would he imagine the Middle East which would conduct the track of democracy and the freedoms smoothly and peacefully and that his people before his government would consider favorably the US policies. According to the US President this consideration is the center of the US interests and the tool of their protection.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

أوباما والحيرة السورية

ناصر قنديل

– في حديث لكاتبة تاريخ رؤساء أميركا دوريس غودوين نشرته أمس، مجلة «فانيتي فير» تناول الرئيس الأميركي باراك أوباما سيرته الرئاسية وهو على أبواب مغادرة البيت الأبيض، مقدّماً مقارنات شخصية بينه وبين فهمه وقراءته لسيرة رؤساء يصنّفهم بين العظماء الذين تركوا بصمة لا تُمحى في تاريخ أميركا، وشكلوا مصدر إلهام له في تجربتيه السياسية والرئاسية، وخصوصاً الرئيس ابراهام لنكولن، قدّم أوباما محاولة تفسير لسيرته الذاتية كشاب متحدّر من زنوج أميركا الذين يخوضون تحدّي وطموح إثبات الذات والقدرة على تقديم جديد ولافت، يؤكد مقدراتهم القيادية في حياة البلد الذي عانوا مرارة الحصول على حق الاندماج في بيئته ومؤسساته، وبدا أوباما محاولاً التواضع في تقديم نفسه وإنجازاته، مكتفياً بالقول إنه يفخر بكونه جنّب أميركا الوقوع في مطبات كان سواه ليقع فيها.

– أمام السؤال عن المسائل المحيّرة التي يقول الرئيس الذي تنتهي ولايته قريباً، إنه ربما كان بالمستطاع التصرف بطريقة مختلفة، وما هي، يقول أوباما لقد أحسنت الأداء في مختلف القضايا التي تعاملت معها داخلياً وخارجياً، سياسياً واقتصادياً وعسكرياً، لكن تبقى مسألة سورية فأقف عاجزاً عن الجواب على سؤال: هل كان بيدنا أن نفعل شيئاً لم نفعله، وكان لينهي هذه المأساة، ويستدرك، طبعاً لا أقصد فعل ما يدعوني كثيرون لفعله وما يأخذه عليّ كثيرون لعدم فعله، فهنا أنا واثق أنه كان عليّ فعل ما فعلته بعدم الإصغاء للنصائح المتهوّرة أو الإصغاء لموجات الغضب، فلا تسليح المعارضة ولا المضيّ بالضربة العسكرية تحت شعار استخدام السلاح الكيميائي كانا سيحدثان فرقاً. وأحياناً أقول، يتابع أوباما، أقصد بما لم نفعله أفكاراً لم تخطر ببالنا، وأتساءل هل لو كان الأمر معروضاً على لنكولن وروزفلت لاتخذ خيارات لم ترد ببالي؟

– حيرة أوباما السورية التي تتأسّس على التسليم بأنّ التصعيد العسكري ضدّ الدولة السورية ما كان ليجعل وضع أميركا أفضل، حتى لو كان يوحي بكلامه الحرص على وضع أفضل لسورية، وهو يقصد سورية التي يحب الأميركيون رؤيتها، أيّ سورية التي لا تقلق «إسرائيل» والتي يرتاح إليها حلفاء أميركا الآخرون أو يديرون الحكم فيها، فيصير المقصود بالبحث خدمة المصالح والسياسة الأميركيتين وهذا ليس مأخذاً، على رئيس أميركا، بل توضيح لمنهج بحثه، وفتح لباب السؤال، فعلاً ماذا كان بمستطاع أوباما أن يفعل من هذا المنظار، وليس من منظار سورية الأفضل كما نراها نحن، فتلك مهمتنا وليست مهمة الرئيس الأميركي ولا يمكننا توقعها منه؟

– هنا من حق المراقب التساؤل بعيداً عن طلب العبقرية التي يتحدّث عنها أوباما لدى أسلافه ويتواضع بالقول إنه لم يملك مثلها، لماذا يتجاهل الرئيس الأميركي المنتخب عام 2008 التطرق لما ورد من توصيات في تقرير لجنة العراق التي شكّلها الكونغرس مطلع عام 2006 وأصدرت تقريرها وتوصياتها في نهاية ذلك العام وأخذ منها المرشح الرئاسي باراك أوباما الالتزام بالانسحاب من العراق، وإغلاق معتقل غوانتانامو، وهو يعلم أنها من اللجان النادرة التي شكلها الكونغرس برئاسة ممثلي الحزبين إقرار منه بالأزمة الوطنية، لتحمل اسمي رئيسيها جيمس بيكر ولي هاملتون، وربما تكون من الأطر القليلة والنادرة التي تشبه فكر لنكولن الذي يعتبره أوباما ملهماً له، في جمعها للحزبين في الأزمات الوطنية الكبرى، وقد توصلت اللجنة إلى خلاصات ووضعت توصيات لو رسم أوباما سياسته الخارجية وفقاً لها، ربما لما وقعت الحرب في سورية ولا في ليبيا ولا تعرّضت المنطقة لهذا الدمار الشامل.

– لا يستطيع الرئيس الأميركي المنتخب بعد صدور تقرير بيكر هاملتون مباشرة تجاهل حقيقة انّ قراراً بوضع التوصيات على الرفّ قد اتخذ وكان الرئيس شريكاً باتخاذه، رغم ما توفره لغة التقرير والتوصيات وصدورها باسم الحزبين من دعم معنوي وتكريس تاريخي للرئيس الذي يعتمدها منهجاً لسياسته، فاكتفى أوباما بالانسحاب من العراق وإقفال غوانتانامو كوعود من توصيات التقرير، وأهمل الجوهري والأساسي الذي يعود إليه اليوم وتعود إليه السياسة الأميركية بمكابرة وكثير من محاولات الإنكار، ومشاريع العناد أملاً بتعديل هنا أو تغيير هناك، فهل تمّ بالصدفة التوجه لمتابعة زيادة العقوبات على إيران أملاً بإخضاعها في ملفها النووي وسياساتها الإقليمية، وبين يدي الرئيس توصيات موقع عليها من أكثر من سبعين شخصية من الحزبين الجمهوري والديمقراطي تقول بالاعتراف بإيران دولة نووية وذات نفوذ في ملفات العراق وأفغانستان وأمن الخليج والطاقة. وهل بالصدفة قال الرئيس عام 2010 إنه لن يضغط على «إسرائيل» لقبول تسوية للقضية الفلسطينية أقلّ ما يُقال فيها إنها مسخ ومتواضعة، وهو يتمعّن بقراءة تقرير يقول له لا تتباطأوا في إلزام «إسرائيل» بقبول دولة فلسطينية على الأراضي المحتلة العام 1967 عاصمتها القدس الشرقية مع حلّ لقضية اللاجئين يستند للقرار الأممي 194، بحق العودة والتعويض. وهل فات الرئيس الذي وقع قرار نصب الدرع الصاروخية على المساحة الأوروبية قبالة روسيا أنّ التقرير المذكور أوصاه بتصحيح مسار التعاون مع روسيا والإقلاع عن لغة التعالي والاستفزاز التي انتهجتها إدارة سلفه جورج بوش؟ وبالنسبة لسورية قال التقرير الاعتراف بها كدولة إقليمية فاعلة وشريك لا غنى عنه في استقرار العراق ولبنان، والدولة المحورية في الصراع العربي الإسرائيلي، فهل تأسّست مقاربته لسورية من وحي هذا الاعتراف؟

– لا يستطيع الرئيس أوباما أن يقنعنا بأنه ليس نادماً، لأنه تجاهل التقرير الذي قرأه واستوحى منه أبرز بند لسياسته الخارجية وهو الانسحاب من العراق بعدما تخلى عن طلب الانسحاب من أفغانستان الذي كان جزءاً من حملته للترشيح قبل رسوّ الخيار عليه، ثم عاد إلى قرار الانسحاب بطلب من الجهة ذاتها التي طلبت منه التخلي عنه من قبل، وهي مؤسسة صناعة القرار والسياسة في أميركا، التي تتموضع بين الجيش والمخابرات، وهي الجهة التي أطاعها بتبني مواقف مائعة من القضية الفلسطينية ليأتي واعظاً في زيارته إلى القاهرة بعد فوزه الرئاسي بلا مشروع، بعدما قبل التخلي عن خطابه الخاص بحلّ القضية الفلسطينية وردع الاستفزازات «الإسرائيلية»، وأخذ المنطقة إلى سلام مؤسّس على قواعد القانون الدولي، وهو ما كان عنواناً أساسياً في سياسات يتطلع إليها أوباما المرشح الرئاسي الرومانسي قبل أن يتحوّل إلى المرشح الواقعي المقبول من مؤسسة القرار.

– الإنصاف يقتضي من اوباما الاعتراف أنه كان ضحية تضليل، ومساومات حكمت وصوله للبيت الأبيض واستدعت منه قبول تنازلات أخلاقية، يكتشف اليوم أنها تسبّبت بالدمار الشامل للبلاد العربية والإسلامية وجلبت المخاطر للعالم، لأنها تجاهلت حقائق كانت واضحة وبائنة، وأصرّت على خوض الاختبارات الخطرة لأنها عاشت حال الإنكار للوقائع التي رسمت عناوينها توصيات بيكر هاملتون، لأنّ تفادي الخيارات الصعبة للتقرير وتوصياته، جاء بوهم القدرة على تغيير الوقائع، وكانت الحرب الناعمة أو الذكية التي قامت على تفجير الكيانات الوطنية في بلاد حوض المتوسط وزعزعة مشروع الدولة فيها، وكانت ذروتها الحرب السورية، التي يعرف أوباما أنه أول من قال إنّ وهم وجود معارضة معتدلة فيها ليس إلا فانتازيا، ويعرف صحة ما قاله نائبه جو بايدن أمام أساتذة وطلاب وخريجي هارفرد عن دور حلفاء واشنطن في جلب الإرهاب وتوطينه ودعمه ليتجذر في سورية ويكون قوة «الثورة» فيها، تمّ تحت العين الأميركية.

– أوباما لم يقنع نفسه كي يقنعنا للمرة الثانية على التوالي في يومين متتاليين، فكما يعلم أنّ العالم كان أكثر أمناً في ظلّ الحرب الباردة يعلم أن لا سبب للحيرة في سورية، فتقرير بيكر هاملتون على طاولته منذ ما قبل دخوله البيت الأبيض، ويكفي أن يتذكر أوباما ويقيس على المقارنة، حال سورية، ما جرى مع الملف النووي الإيراني الذي أدّت سياسة الحصار والعقوبات إلى جعل التفاوض يبدأ في كلّ جولة جديدة من نقاط لم تكن إيران قد بلغتها في الجولة التي سبقت، حتى صارت تخصّب اليورانيوم وعلى درجات مرتفعة، وصار ما تتنازل عنه إيران في التفاهم ليس إلا بعضاً مما أنجزته في مراحل التفاوض وما كان ليتضمّنه أيّ تفاهم لو تمّ توقيعه مع بداية التفاوض، فماذا لو سار أوباما بتوصيات بيكر هاملتون منذ بدء ولايته، وبدأ بإيران وسورية وفلسطين، كثلاثية متكاملة، هل يستطيع تخيّل الشرق الأوسط الذي كان سيشقّ طريق الديمقراطية والحريات بسلاسة وسلام، وشعوبه قبل حكوماته تنظر بعين الرضا للسياسات الأميركية، وهذه النظرة وفقاً لما يعلم الرئيس الأميركي هي قلب المصالح الأميركية وآلة حمايتها.

King Netanyahu visits US Colony



After Barack Obama signed $38 billion military aid to the Zionist regime two weeks ago, King Netanyahu decided to visit US colony to choose the next Viceroy, who would be more willing to attack Iran.

Netanyahu arrived in New York on Sunday and held a 90-minute very private meeting with Donald Trump at Trump Tower, New York. Trump’s campaign released a statement after the meeting, saying the two men spoke about terrorism, Iran, ISIS and cybersecurity. There was no mention of the two-state Palestine solution.

The PLO secretary-general Saeb Erekat, who reportedly had sex with Israel’s former justice minister Tzipi Livni, slammed Donald Trump over his ignorance of Jerusalem status.

Later, Bibi held a 50-minute meeting with Jewish Lobby’s choice, Hillary Clinton. She told him that she is against the US or UN pressuring Israel to accept an independent Palestinian state.

Netanyahu, a typical coward Zionist Jew, needed a group of 20 security agents to go to bathroom in New York.

Netanyahu, a professional spook, rejected Obama’s invitation to dine at the White House in March 2016 while in New York to address AIPAC conference. However, he bumped into Obama on the sidelines of UN General Assembly in New York two weeks ago to thank him for the $38 billion donation. Interestingly, neither Hillary or Trump bothered to meet Netanyahu at that time.

Netanyahu dislike Hillary Clinton for supporting US-Iran nuclear agreement. Donald Trump not only opposes Iran deal – he is also a Crypto Jew.

%d bloggers like this: