Just listen to this pompous ass!

Source

May 30, 2017

I am sure the Russians, the Iranians and the Syrians are terrified out of their wits by this tough talking wannabe cowboy…
But the reporters, yeah, they *truly* love that…

(But, seriously, when will American learn that “talking tough” is considered a sign of weakness, not strength, in most of the cultures of our planet?)

U.S. Wants Control Over Anbar And Beyond – Iraq and Syria Will Prevent It

By Moon Of Alabama

“May 31, 2017 “Information Clearing House” – The U.S. is casting its net over the desert between Iraq and Syria, Saudi Arabia and Jordan to install military bases and power-structures that will guarantee major influence in the area for the foreseeable future. A part of that plan is to develop Sunni proxy forces that will keep the government forces of Damascus and Baghdad out of the area. Another part is to privatize important infrastructure to keep it under direct U.S. control.

To privatize the Iraqi Highway 1 between Baghdad and the Jordanian capital Amman, is a major point in these plans. According to the NYT:

As part of an American effort to promote economic development in Iraq and secure influence in the country after the fight against the Islamic State subsides, the American government has helped broker a deal between Iraq and Olive Group, a private security company, to establish and secure the country’s first toll highway.

The map shows Highway 1 from Baghdad to Amman. Notice the road junction east of the Jordan-Iraq border. There the road splits with one branch going north-west towards Damascus. The point where that road crosses from Iraq to Syria is the al-Tanf border station currently occupied by U.S. forces and their British and Norwegian auxiliaries as well some Syrian “rebels” under U.S. control. The U.S. recently bombed a convoy of Syrian and allied Iraqi forces which was moving towards that area.  The U.S. military dropped leaflets to Syrian troops to order them to stay away from their own border. Who the f*** do those U.S. troops think they are? What is there justification to be there in the first place? Large Iraq and Syrian government forces are now moving towards al-Tanf from the two sides of the border to evict the occupiers. Iraq, Syria, Iran and Russia have agreed that no U.S. position will be tolerated there. U.S. and other foreign troops will either move out voluntary from al-Tanf or they will be removed by force.

Highway 1 and its branch to Damascus is the most important economic lifeline between Syria and Jordan in the west and Iraq and beyond in the east. Whoever controls it, controls major parts of commerce between those countries. Iraq is a country with rich resources. While it is under economic strains after decades of U.S. sanctions and war against it by the U.S. and Takfiri proxy forces it has no long-term need to rent out such major real estate.

Nevertheless the current Iraqi government under Prime Minister al-Abadi signed a preliminary agreement for a 25 year contract with the U.S. company:

Mr. Abadi has awarded the development project to Olive Group, although the final details are still being worked out. The project would include repairing bridges in western Anbar Province; refurbishing the road, known as Highway 1; and building service stations, rest areas and roadside cafes. It would also include mobile security by private contractors for convoys traveling the highway.

Al Abeidi is now under pressure from the Shia majority who elected him into office to renounce the deal. It is obviously that the deal is not in their interest nor that of the country. According to U.S. diplomats one purpose of the deal is:

pushing back on the influence of Shiite Iran, whose growing power in Iraq has alarmed important Sunni allies of the United States like Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

Iran has little to do with the road. It is the Shia majority of Iraq that would benefit most from free flowing traffic and commerce on it.

Turkey and Saudi Arabia have enabled the Sunni insurgency in Iraq of which ISIS is just the latest incarnation. To allow the U.S. to control the road and thereby Anbar province in the name of Turkey and Saudi Arabia would guarantee that future Sunni insurgencies could threaten Baghdad whenever “needed”. Just remember how Obama said he used ISIS to throw then Prime Minster Maliki out of office:

The reason, the president added, “that we did not just start taking a bunch of airstrikes all across Iraq as soon as ISIL came in was because that would have taken the pressure off of [Prime Minister Nuri Kamal] al-Maliki.

A U.S. controlled west-Iraq and south-eastern Syria would be a highway for Saudi Arabian miscreants from their country up towards Baghdad and Damascus. It would be an incarnation of the “Salafist principality” the U.S. and other early ISIS supporters have wished for since at least 2012.

The U.S. is willing to obfuscate and to lie to further its imperial plans. The NYT is, as usual, complicit in that:

Playing on painful memories and fears of Iraqis, news outlets have also run false reports that Blackwater — the private security firm that acted with impunity in the early days of the American occupation and gunned down innocent Iraqis in Baghdad’s Nisour Square in 2007 — had taken on the project.

“The politics of this country are challenging,” said Christian Ronnow, executive vice president of Constellis, the parent company of Olive Group, a private security firm that has worked for years in Iraq.

What the NYT claims are “false reports” are in fact reasonable conclusions:

The [Constellis] Group combines the specialized skills and operational excellence of ACADEMI, Edinburgh International, Strategic Social and Triple Canopy,

ACADEMI

is an American private military company founded in 1997 by former Navy SEAL officer Erik Prince as Blackwater, renamed as XE Services in 2009 and now known as Academi since 2011 after the company was acquired by a group of private investors.

Olive Group is Constellis Group is Academi is Blackwater – the “false reports” in Iraqi media are way more truthful on that than the NYT is.

The U.S. project in Anbar province and its potential control of Highway 1 through private U.S. forces threatens to put an economic stranglehold on Iraq, Syria and Jordan. I trust that nationalist forces in those countries as well as their allies will do their best to prevent it.

This article was first published by Moon Of Alabama

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

Click for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.

Russian Navy firing cruise missiles on ISIS positions near Palmyra

Can the Impossible Happen in Britain?

Photo by Garry Knight | CC BY 2.0

To state the obvious: two weeks can be a long time in western electoral politics.

The Labour party under Jeremy Corbyn has been gaining steadily in the opinion polls, despite a massive media campaign to undermine him, extending from the BBC and the supposedly “liberal” Guardian to the UK’s famously ghastly tabloids. When Theresa May called the election, Labour was 20 or more points behind the Conservatives, but this figure was down to as little as 5 points in some polls conducted before the Manchester bombing atrocity occurred.

The policies put forward in Labour’s manifesto are popular (especially when they are not identified as Labour’s!), Corbyn has been an effective campaigner, but Labour has also been aided by a woefully inept Tory campaign.  The Tory spin doctors and election strategists somehow convinced themselves that the largely untried Theresa May was their trump card, so much so that only her name (accompanied by the vacuous slogan “strong and stable”), and not her party affiliation, featured on their election propaganda.

While the hunch behind this decision of the election strategists was probably the marketing of May as a Thatcher Mark II, she has been a disaster so far.  A stodgy performer in debate, famously unable to think on her feet, May refused to take part in televised debates.  Her few attempts at “connecting with the public” have seen the wheels come off the proverbial car.

She scuttled off rapidly when booed on a visit to a social-housing estate in Bristol– people living in social housing have been under an unrelenting cosh since Thatcher became prime minister in 1979, and only someone in a fantasy conjured-up by Lewis Carroll would envisage a Tory leader being greeted with warmth and affection on a visit to such an estate.  Someone on May’s support team needs to be sent forthwith to a dungeon in the Tower of London for this Carrollian mishap.

Another walk-about in Abingdon (Oxfordshire), potentially less hostile territory, saw May confronted by a voter with learning disabilities visibly upset at having her disability benefit cut by the Tories.  The easily flustered May, seemingly unable to distinguish between learning disabilities and mental health issues, sought desperately to reassure the distressed voter that the Tories had a bunch of new initiatives on the latter.  The massed TV cameras recorded the entire episode, and May became an immediate object of derision.  She retired to her bunker at Tory HQ, and has not been seen in public since.

May’s two one-on-one television interviews have likewise been a disaster.  UK TV interviewers, even those not known for their leftist inclinations, are a much less calmative bunch than their American counterparts (the Orange Swindler would not last 60 seconds with the routinely ill-disposed and aggressive Jeremy Paxman), and May suffered her predictable meltdown.  The sight of her waffling and prevaricating when interviewed by Andrew Marr and Andrew Neil while trying to pull-out her “strong and steady” soundbite as often as possible, was utterly delicious to behold.

So, what’s next for the maladroit May?  TV debates are out, and so it would seem are walk-abouts and one-on-one interviews.  The halt to campaigning observed by all parties after the Manchester carnage has given her some breathing space, but it is hard to see what can be improvised by her handlers.

Theresa May apart, the Tory manifesto has also been a hostage to misfortune.  A grab-bag of vague promises and uncosted policies, it soon suffered from media scrutiny.  The manifesto, and the accompanying vapid sloganeering, are thinly disguised attempts to deflect attention from the one big issue the Tories can’t campaign on and must therefore keep out of public view, namely, the cruel and irresponsible austerity policy they have pursued since 2010.  In parliament, May has voted for every legislative item underpinning this policy, despite touting herself as a “compassionate Conservative”.  Here in the manifesto we are told: “We do not believe in untrammelled free markets. We reject the cult of selfish individualism. We abhor social division, injustice, unfairness and inequality”.  They could have fooled me, and perhaps this was the Tory intention.

Paraded as “fiscal prudence”, Tory austerity has been quite the opposite.

The UK economy has grown since 2010, but, according to the Guardian, 7.4 million Brits, among them 2.6 million children, live in poverty despite being from working families (amounting to 55% of these deemed poor) – an increase of 1.1 million since 2010-2011 (i.e. the first year of austerity).

The report discussed by the Guardian, produced by the reputable Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF), shows that the number living below the Minimum Income Standard – the earnings, defined by the public, required for a decent standard of living – rose from 15 million to 19 million between 2008/9 and 2014/5.  The UK’s population is 65 million.

These 19 million people, or just under 1/3rd of the UK’s population, are its “just about managing” families (JAMs).

An important contributory factor in these shifts, the JRF said, was the increased number of people living in basically unaffordable private rental properties, with the number of people in poverty in private rentals doubling in a decade to 4.5 million.

“Failures in the housing market are a significant driver of poverty,” the JRF study said. “This is primarily, but not entirely, due to costs.”

The number of rental evictions has risen by 60% over 5 years to 37,000 annually.   Over the same period mortgage repossessions have fallen from 23,000 to 3,300.

According to an article by Frances Ryan in the Guardian:

For a government to cut in-work social security, reduce child tax credits and freeze working-age benefits in this climate is the equivalent of knowingly removing the life rafts from the millions of citizens who are struggling to stay afloat. Drowning comes in many forms: perhaps eviction notices or hungry children. The Children’s Society says that by 2020, when all the new tax and benefits changes will have been implemented, low-income families making a new claim for support could be up to £9,000 worse off a year. The government’s four-year freeze on working age benefits alone will make four million families poorer.

Social care has become increasingly unaffordable for these struggling families, the NHS is starting to charge for treatment as it undergoes a stealth privatization, they have fewer opportunities for upskilling in order to raise their incomes, and so on.  This while their wages are stagnant even as the cost of living is increasing for them.

“Austerity” always was a hoax attempting to magic the banking-induced crisis of 2007-2009 into a crisis of the welfare system.

It has nothing to do with the “deficit”— if it did, Cameron and Osborne would have serious steps to reduce the “deficit”, instead they chose policies that increased it.

And indeed, UK public sector debt has risen since 2010–  according to the Office of National Statistics, from 60% of GDP in January 2010 to 85.3% in January 2017.

The Tories and their banker pals are determined to make ordinary UK citizens pay for the bankers’ mistakes with reduced wages and pensions, reduced health care, reduced education opportunities, reduced real employment (job “growth” is largely confined to “bullshit” jobs or McJobs), and reduced social services.

Their public position is that ordinary UK citizens are “living beyond their means”, thereby using this as a subterfuge to get the ordinary citizen to pay for the bankers’ fecklessness and criminality.

So far, no politician from any party has stood up and said it is the stock-portfolio class, and not ordinary Ukanians, who live beyond the Ukay’s means!

With the ideological dragooning supplied in endless doses by the rightwing tabloids, the “slackers” and “scroungers” always seem to be the not so well-off or totally indigent, as opposed to predatory bankers and avaricious landlords.  The former tend not to vote under the present electoral system because nothing really changes for them come election-time, while the latter make a point of donating generously to the Tories in order to safeguard their gravy trains.

Kenneth Surin teaches at Duke University, North Carolina.  He lives in Blacksburg, Virginia.

More articles by:

One day after meeting Putin, French President Macron meets with ISIS-Al Qaeda leaders in Paris

One day after meeting Putin, French President Macron meets with ISIS-Al Qaeda leaders in Paris

If you ever needed any more proof that the new wonder-boy French President is nothing more than a neo-liberal, globalist puppet, then look no further than Macron’s recent meeting in Paris with Syria’s opposition, known as the Riyadh-based High Negotiations Committee (HNC)…which includes political and armed groups trying to overthrow the Assad government

Macron says he seeks to review French policy on Syria’s war with Saudi-Qatari-Turkey funded jihadists, but welcoming a terrorist organisation to Paris, one day after meeting Russian President Vladimir Putin, and days after ISIS bombed Manchester Arena, is no way to revaluate a failed western regime change operation of a sovereign nation…or maybe it is exactly the way Macron’s globalist rulers want him to behave when dealing with Syria.

Reuters reports

The unannounced meeting with Riad Hijab and a broader delegation from the Riyadh-based High Negotiations Committee (HNC), which includes political and armed groups, came as Macron seeks to review French policy on the six-year civil war.

“The president spoke of his personal commitment to the Syria dossier and of his support for the Syrian opposition in view of a political transition,” his office said in a statement.

Opposition officials were not immediately available for comment on the meeting.

Macron’s electoral victory has offered an opportunity for Paris to examine its policy on Syria with some considering the previous administration’s stance as too intransigent and leaving it isolated on the subject.

Macron, a newcomer to international diplomacy, said on Monday that his priority in Syria was to eradicate Islamist militants.

Alongside Putin in 17th century palace of Versailles outside Paris, Macron on Monday said he had agreed to set up a working group with Russia, including to exchange information. It was not immediately clear what that would entail.

Macron’s government says it backs U.N.-mediated peace talks in Geneva. However, Macron also called for a “political and diplomatic framework to build peace” without specifying whether it was a new initiative or part of the U.N. process.

More on the Riyadh-based High Negotiations Committee (HNC)…

The HNC was founded in December 2015 at a conference held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, which was attended by around 100 delegates. At the end of the conference, a joint statement was issued to confirm the formation of “a High Negotiations Committee for the Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces (HNC), with its headquarters in Riyadh, to undertake the tasks of choosing a negotiating delegation and to act reference point for negotiators with the representatives of the Syrian regime on behalf of the participants”.

The group’s chief negotiator, Mohammed Alloush, a member of Jaish al-Islam, resigned from the HNC in May 2016 because of the lack of progress in the Syrian peace process.

In September 2016, the HNC set out a detailed transition plan for Syria, committing the country to democratic and religious pluralism. The 25-page document was launched in London and was welcomed by the United Kingdom’s government.

In January 2017, the HNC announced that it will support the Syrian peace talks in Astana, which began on 23 January.

In February 2017, the HNC chief coordinator Riyad Farid Hijab rejected a statement by Staffan de Mistura that the latter will select delegates for the Syrian opposition in Geneva. He also objected to the participation Democratic Union Party (PYD) in the Geneva conference.

The HNC has faced criticism from Russia because it includes groups like Ahrar al-Sham and Jaysh al-Islam. Its transition plan in September 2016 was also criticized by the opposition Kurdish National Council and the Assyrian Democratic Organization due to it not addressing minority ethnic groups in Syria.

The Kurdish National Council withdrew from the HNC on 29 March 2017 in protest to the latter’s opposition to federalism and human rights for Kurds in Syria.

More on Riad Hijab

Riyad Farid Hijab was Prime Minister of Syria from June to August 2012, serving under President Bashar al-Assad. From 2011 to 2012, he was Minister of Agriculture.

On 6 August 2012, the Syrian government released a statement saying that Hijab had been dismissed.

Shortly thereafter a man describing himself as Hijab’s spokesman and several news organizations stated he had resigned and defected to the rebel side in the Syrian civil war.

Hijab is the highest-ranking defector from the Syrian government.

 

Mattis dismisses civilian victims of USA in Iraq and Syria as merely a ‘Fact of Life’

Mad Dog Mattis Says US Now Focused On ‘Annihilation’ Of ISIS; Civilian Casualties ‘Fact of Life’

Source: Brandon Turbeville, Activist Post

In a signal that the United States is about to ramp up the aggression in its war on Syria, Secretary of Defense, Jim “Mad Dog” Mattis has announced that the U.S. strategy to “defeat ISIS” is changing, stating that a new policy of “attrition” is over and the new policy of “annihilation” is about to begin.

Speaking to CBS’ Face The Nation, Mattis said,

Our strategy right now is to accelerate the campaign against Isis. It is a threat to all civilized nations. And the bottom line is we are going to move in an accelerated and reinforced manner, throw them on their back foot.

We have already shifted from attrition tactics, where we shove them from one position to another in Iraq and Syria, to annihilation tactics where we surround them. Our intention is that the foreign fighters do not survive the fight to return home to North Africa, to Europe, to America, to Asia, to Africa. We’re not going to allow them to do so. We’re going to stop them there and take apart the caliphate.

The United States, however, has long supported the terrorist group both in terms of funding and outright military assistance ever since the organization became publicly known as ISIS ( simply name change from al-Qaeda, an American created and controlled terrorist organization).

Mattis then launched into a familiar but incredibly hypocritical retort regarding the horror of killing women and children, something the United States has become quite adept at doing, particularly in the last two decades. He said,

We have got to dry up their recruiting,” he said. “We have got to dry up their fundraising. The way we intend to do it is to humiliate them, to divorce them from any nation giving them protection, and humiliating their message of hatred, of violence. Anyone who kills women and children is not devout. They … cannot dress themselves up in false religious garb and say that somehow this message has dignity.

Yet when the specific question of civilian casualties came up, Mattis appeared to be paving the way for an increase in the wholesale slaughter of innocent people in Iraq and Syria. Indeed, Mattis’ response appeared to be designed to set the stage and prepare the American people for the horror show that is about to be unleashed in the Middle East with renewed vigor. Mattis said,

Civilian casualties are a fact of life in this sort of situation. We do everything humanly possible consistent with military necessity, taking many chances to avoid civilian casualties at all costs.

The American people and the American military will never get used to civilian casualties. And we will – we will fight against that every way we can possibly bring our intelligence and our tactics to bear.


But, while Mattis feigns sorrow over the death of innocent people, he is obviously quite resigned to civilian deaths since his announcement is one of foreshadowing that seems to be taken straight out of the Israeli playbook. Of course, Mattis is not alone since the US military brass as well as the American people seem quite comfortable with civilian deaths in wars that their country has started.

Laughably, Mattis goes on to attempt to defend the killing of more than 100 civilians in Mosul by a U.S. airstrike as having been the fault of ISIS since the Western-backed organization would not allow civilians to leave the area being bombed. He then argues that the explosions were so massive because the U.S. airstrike hit a building in which ISIS was storing weapons and munitions. Fair enough. There is an argument to be made for his position (assuming, of course, the U.S. was actually fighting ISIS).

However, Mattis’ claims are eerily similar to those made by the Syrian and Russian militaries regarding similar incidents, most notably the alleged chemical weapons attacks in Khan Sheikhoun. At the time, however, the U.S. dismissed such claims out of hand, pretending that they were simply lies and more examples of the cruelty of Assad and his omniscient Russian allies. The idea that a military would unwittingly bomb a warehouse of munitions causing civilian deaths was, according to the West, preposterous. That is, unless the West needs a convenient excuse. When such is the case, the integrity and honor of the West is beyond question.

In fact, even as Mattis’ interview was published, the headlines in the corporate media were alight with accusations of Syrian military atrocities committed as a result of Assad’s much-maligned indiscriminate barrel bombs. But I digress . . .

Mattis also followed in the footsteps of the previous two administrations by reminding Americans that we are the good guys, something Americans need to be reminded of lest they forget or have a different perspective as a result of judging by what they see and the fruit their country bears. “We’re not the perfect guys, but we are the good guys. And so we’re doing what we can,” he said.

At least he admits America isn’t perfect. It’s important to give yourself an out when you are planning on murdering more innocent people. Both Bush and Obama can attest to this.

فشل ضرب محور المقاومة يؤدي إلى تفكيك محور الاعتدال

الأربعاء 31 أيار , 2017 01:23

إيهاب زكي – بيروت برس – 

لا يختلف عاقلان على أن العائلات الحاكمة في شبه الجزيرة العربية، تقوم على قاعدتين رئيسيتين في سعيها إلى البقاء، القاعدة الأولى فطرية وهي العقلية القبلية، والقاعدة الثانية مكتسبة وهي التبعية للولايات المتحدة، فبمتابعة تاريخ نشأة تلك المحميات مرورًا بالخلافات والتباينات وصولًا إلى أزمة اليوم بين أعضاء تلك المحميات في مجلس التعاون، تخرج بعقيدة راسخة بخضوع تلك العائلات لهاتين القاعدتين لا غيرهما، والتغير الوحيد الطارئ هو تغيرٌ ظرفي فرضته طبيعة العصر. فبدلًا من الصراع على الماء والكلأ صار صراعًا على النفط والغاز، وبدلًا من بريطانيا العظمى كمنشئة وحامية صارت الولايات المتحدة، وما يحدث اليوم من صراع إعلامي سياسي بين أعضاء حلفٍ واحد، سميّ يومًا حلف الاعتدال العربي، هو نتيجة طبيعية للقاعدة الجدلية الشهيرة “التراكم الكمّي يؤدي إلى تغيير نوعي”، فإنّ هذا الحلف راكم فشلًا فوق فشل على مدى العقدين الماضيين، في تجربة القضاء على فكرة المقاومة، ثم فشل في محاولات احتوائها، كما فشل في عزل إيران، وفشل في كسر شوكة حزب الله لصالح “إسرائيل”، والطامة الكبرى الفشل في إسقاط سوريا.

مضافًا إلى هذا الفشل المتراكم، فشلٌ آخر في ابتلاع اليمن، وفشلٌ في إنجاز ما يسمى بـ”حلٍ سياسي” للقضية الفلسطينية، وفشلٌ أيضًا في القضاء عليها-على الأقل- عبر “إشهار” تعويم “إسرائيل” كعضو شرق أوسطي متسيد، والإعلان عن انتهاء الصراع العربي-“الإسرائيلي”، وفي قلب هذا الفشل صراع أكثر من ظاهر وأقل من خفي على وراثة السلطة في كلٍ من السعودية وقطر. فهذا التراكم الكمي في الفشل سيؤدي حتمًا إلى تغيير نوعي، لأنّ المشغل الرئيسي لهذه الأدوات مجتمعة ومنفردة-الولايات المتحدة- سيسعى إلى إحداث تغيير داخل أدواته، طالما أنها راكمت الفشل فوق الفشل في تأدية وظائفها وإنجاز مهامها، فأصبح انشطار ما سمّي بمحور الاعتدال باديًا، كما أن الأصابع الأمريكية خلف هذا الانشطار ليست خافية، فهناك تناغمٌ بين الحملة الإعلامية السعودية على قطر وبين بعض التصريحات الأمريكية التشريعي منها والسياسي والإعلامي، ولكن هل هذا التغيير النوعي فحواه تغيير خرائط المحميات الخليجية، أم أنه مجرد ابتزاز أمريكي لأطراف المحور ماليًا أولًا وسياسيًا ثانيًا..؟ ما أرجحه هو تغيير خرائط، ولا أظن زيارة بن سلمان إلى روسيا تأتي خارج هذا السياق، وهي محاولة لقطع الطريق على قطر بالتقارب مع روسيا في حال تفكيك ونقل قاعدة العيديد إلى أبو ظبي أو إلى الرياض، فهل يدفع بن سلمان من حسابه في سوريا لقاء تحييد روسيا عن الأزمة القطرية؟

قد تبدو هذه الأسئلة متوحشة في جنوحها، ولكنها تنبع من تلبس العقلية القبلية التي تجنح نحو الأحقاد الثأرية، متخطيةً كل منطق سياسي أو حتى مصالح سياسية، فقطر هذه يعتبرها السعوديون أرضًا سعودية كامتدادٍ لأرض الإحساء، وفي أفضل الأحوال تعتبرها غِرًا سيء الخلق يناطح شيخ القبيلة، فمثلًا حين انقلب حمد بن خليفة على أبيه، كانت أموال قطر الدولة في حسابٍ شخصيٍ في بريطانيا باسم خليفة، الأمير الأب المنقلَب عليه، فقام الإبن المنقلب على أبيه برفع دعوى قضائية في بريطانيا لاستراداد أموال الإمارة، وبنفس المنطق القبلي تدخل شيخ القبيلة الملك السعودي لاحقًا عبدالله بن عبدالعزيز درءًا للفضائح مع وعد الأمير الإبن حمد بتسليمه الأموال مقابل التنازل عن الدعوى وإغلاق ملفها القضائي إغلاقًا غير قابلٍ للفتح بنصٍ أشرف عليه عتاة المحامين الإنجليز، ولكن الملك السعودي شيخ القبيلة أخلف وعده، فاعتبرها حمد بن خليفة طعنة نجلاء في الظهر، وبدأت الجزيرة وقت انشائها بمهاجمة المملكة، ولا يمكن للملكة أن تسمح بسابقة قضائية مثل هذه، حيث تجعل التمييز بين أموال الملك وأموال الدولة عرفًا قضائيًا، كما حدثت محاولة انقلابية على الابن المنقلب كانت خلفها السعودية، هذا في وقتٍ كانت توصف فيه السياسية السعودية-كما يقولون- بالتأني والحكمة، أما شخصيًا فلا أعرف شيئًا اسمه سياسة سعودية خارج الأوامر والمصالح الأمريكية، فكيف واليوم حيث التهور والرعونة هي أحد أبرز سمات مما يسمى بالسياسة السعودية.

المتابع لقناة الجزيرة يلاحظ أمرين مهمين، الأول أنها تصوّب على الإمارات في الملف اليمني بما يبدو أنه مساندة للأهداف السعودية، مع تجنب استهداف الدور السعودي أو الرد بالمثل على حملات الإعلام السعودي، والأمر الثاني أنها تحاول التصويب على ترامب والمساهمة في الحملات التي تستهدف إدارته أمريكيًا، بما يشي أن قطر تستشعر خطرًا جديًا على كيانها في ظل هذه الإدارة، وأن إقالة ترامب ستساهم في محاولة لجم جموح المحمدين، محمد بن سلمان ومحمد بن زايد. وبغض النظر عن مآلات هذه الأزمة التي ستتضح حدودها على ضوء الأيام والأسابيع المقبلة، يبدو أنّ الفشل الأمريكي في تفكيك محور المقاومة، بدأ يفكر في تفكيك محوره المعتدل، كخطوة اضطرارية لإعادة تشكيل محور أكثر فعالية على أنقاض المحور الذي راكم فشلًا على فشل، وقد يكون إفراغ ما يسمى بمجلس التعاون الخليجي من محتواه، خطوةً أولية على طريق تفكيكه، فعدم فعاليته في احتواء الأزمة القطرية مؤشرٌ جليّ على إفراغه من محتواه وجدواه.

%d bloggers like this: