جعجع ديماغوجيا أم سفسطائية أم بروباغندا؟

ناصر قنديل

حاول الدكتور سمير جعجع مساجلة دعوة الأمين العام لحزب الله السيد حسن نصرالله، استباقاً لمطالبته بتلقفها، والدعوة قائمة على الفصل بين الخلافات السياسية وبين الملفات الاقتصادية، وتنطلق من أن حجم وعمق الأزمة ببعديها المالي والاقتصادي يفرضان على الجميع التبصر في أن لا شيء سيبقى للخلاف عليه وحوله إذا وقع الانهيار الذي يحذّر منه الجميع. وهي دعوة تلامس ما يتمناه كل لبناني في سره لمستوى تفكير القادة ولدرجة تحمّلهم للمسؤولية، وقد بلورها السيد نصرالله بالدعوة لنوع من لجنة أو اجتماعات تشترك فيها الكتل النيابية مع الحكومة لبلورة الحلول ومناقشتها، والسير بما يتفق عليه انطلاقاً من حجم الخطر من جهة، وترجمة لدرجة الشعور بالمسؤولية من جهة موازية، ولعله من المفيد التذكير أن كلام السيد نصرالله لم يأتِ سجالياً، لا مع القوات ولا مع سواها.

بدأ جعجع تعليقه بوصف دعوة السيد بمحاولة التهرّب من المسؤولية، ثم دخل معها في مشروع سجاليّ، مشترطاً على حزب الله القيام بثلاثة، رفع الغطاء عن حلفائه في فساد الكهرباء، ووقف تدخله في ملفات عربيّة ترتب عليها انكفاء عرب الخليج عن دعم لبنان، ووضع سلاح المقاومة بعهدة الدولة لأن بقاءه خارجها أفقد الدولة المصداقيّة، وبالتالي الدعم الدولي. وحسناً فعل جعجع بأنه قال ما قال، وهو كلام يردّده كل خصوم المقاومة، في السرّ والعلن، ولو بالمفرق وجاء يعرضه جعجعج كبضاعة بالجملة، متهجماً بالاتهام بالتهرّب من المسؤولية على الحزب الذي لم يُعرَف عنه إلا التفوّق بالتصدي لكل تحدي بأعلى درجات المسؤولية.

في مدارس السجال والمنطق، تحضر لدى قراءة جعجع مدرسة الديماغوجيا والقائمة على تجميع تلفيقي لذرائع يمكن أن تبدو حججاً منطقية لتسويق موقف أو فكرة أو توجيه اتهام. وهي مدرسة الغوغائيّة الفكرية والمنطق الكلامي، أي الترتيب التسلسلي للكلمات وتنميق عرضها بما يوحي بتماسك الفكر الواقف خلفها. وهناك البروباغندا، وهي المدرسة الدعائيّة القائمة على الترويج الدعائي لفكرة يراد زرعها في عقول الناس من خلال توجيه أحادي لمنهج مقاربة الموضوع بعزله عن سياقه، ويرمي في طريق التلقي مجموعة معطيات مموّهة، وغامضة غير مثبتة، اعتماداً على خلق الانطباع بدلاً من الإقناع. والمدرسة الثالثة هي السفسطائية التي تمثل تفوّقاً منطقياً ومنهجياً، برفض القبول بالمسلّمات والبديهيات والتفوق في تفكيكها وصولاً لهزيمة المنطق الآخر، وربما تكون السفسطائيّة كمدرسة رافقت حكم الشعب وظهور ممثليه في أثينا بعد سقوط الأوليغارشيا، وحكم أمراء الحرب وأثريائها، موضوع تقليد لدى الكثير من الانتهازيين الذي يرغبون بالتشبّه بثوريّة السفسطائيين.

ما قاله جعجع سهّل النقاش والتفنيد إذا تحرّرنا من الانطباع، وكشفنا سطحية المنطق العاجز عن الإقناع. فأي غطاء يقدّم السيد نصرالله للفساد في قطاع الكهرباء. وهل تقدّم نواب القوات الواثقون مما بين أيديهم من توجيه الاتهام لمن يسمّيهم جعجع بحلفاء السيد نصرالله، ومعهم كما ظهر كلام الحليفين في قوى الرابع عشر من آذار، بطلب تشكيل لجنة تحقيق برلمانية في ملف الكهرباء من ألف إلى يائه، منذ العام 1990، وليرفضها نواب كتلة الوفاء للمقاومة ليمكن اتهامهم بتوفير التغطية للفساد؟ وما أسهل الاختبار لو اراد جعجع وحزبه تحمل المسؤولية بدلاً من التهرّب منها! أما الحديث عن العرب الذين انكفأوا عن لبنان بسبب مواقف حزب الله، فهل قول جعجع إنهم انكفأوا يجعل ذلك حقيقة؟ وهل حجز رئيس حكومة لبنان حليف جعجع نظرياً، في فندق الريتز بالسعودية وإملاء الاستقالة عليه، كان انكفاءً، أم أن حلفاء جعجع من العرب هم شركاء في مواجهة تقودها واشنطن لحساب “إسرائيل”، وخطة المواجهة معلنة وقد راهنت على إفقار لبنان للضغط على المقاومة وسلاحها، كما يفعل جعجع، وصولاً للقول إن المال المطلوب ثمنه السلاح ولاحقاً ترسيم النفط وليلتحق باللاحق فرض مشروع التوطين؟ ونأتي لمصداقية الدولة، فهل ورد في مؤتمر سيدر حديث عن مصداقية الدولة في الإصلاح أم في السلاح، وهل تقارير شركات التصنيف العالمية تتحدث عن مصداقية الالتزام بالشروط والمعايير الشفافة للإنفاق، أم مصداقية الالتزام بالشروط الإسرائيلية للبنان الضعيف. ويعلم الدكتور جعجع أن هناك جهة واحدة هي واشنطن تربط هذه بتلك وتفعل ذلك لحساب “إسرائيل”، ويردد جعجع وراءها الربط، فهل سأل نفسه لحساب مَن يفعل؟

ثمة طريقان لمواجهة الأزمة، طريق تعرضه واشنطن علينا وتحدّث عنها كل من جيفري فيلتمان وديفيد شنك

ر مطولاً، وأسمياها طريق الازدهار الممكن، ومدخلها ما عرضه جعجع على السيد نصرالله، أي تعرية لبنان من مصادر القوة والانضواء تحت الوصاية الأميركية، وتلك قمة التهرّب من المسؤولية. وطريق أخرى وطنية لبنانية تقوم على الإقرار بالاختلاف بين اللبنانيين على أشياء كثيرة، والسعي للعمل معاً فوق الخلاف لخطة إنقاذ تعتمد على توظيف القدرات اللبنانية ووضع الخطط الإصلاحية، والتواصل مع الخارج للفصل بين خلافاته السياسية مع لبنان وبين تعاطيه مع أزمته الاقتصادية، بأن يبدأ اللبنانيون بفعل ذلك. وهذا هو عين تحمّل المسؤوليّة.

بعض البروباغندا، وبعض الديماغوجيا، لا يجعلان صاحبهما سفسطائياً، ولو بذل جهداً، فقد سقطت محاولته بكلمة تكرّرت كثيراً في ردّه هي المصداقية.

Trump Plans to Keep U.S. Troops Permanently in Iraq

by Eric Zuesse for The Saker Blog

A reliable and exceptionally knowledgeable source, who doesn’t wish to be publicly identified, has confidentially informed me that an agreement has been reached in which U.S. troops will remain permanently in Iraq but under exclusively NATO command, no longer under the command of CentCom (US Central Command in the Middle East).

On February 12th, NATO’s defense ministers agreed to increase operations in Iraq. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has been working ever since Fall of 2019 to prepare this plan (Trump had been pushing for it even before that), and Stoltenberg has consulted in Jordan with King Abdullah, and also in Brussels with Sabri Bachtabji, Tunisia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, because Tunisia is a key part of Trump’s plan, to use other NATO nations as America’s proxies controlling the Middle East.

On February 1st, pro-Muslim-Brotherhood Turkey agreed to the plan, and will be transferring jihadists (al-Qaeda-affiliated groups, plus some ISIS) from Syria’s jihadist-filled Idlib Province, into Libya, via Tunisia, so as to boost the forces of Fayez al-Sarraj (former monarchist now backed by U.S., EU, and Turkey) to defeat the forces of Khalifa Haftar (former Gaddafi-supporter, now in the Libyan civil war claiming as his objective the defeat of all jihadists there). Whereas U.S., EU, and Turkey, back al-Sarraj, Russia isn’t involved in the war, except trying to negotiate peace there, but al-Sarraj rejects any involvement by Russia. Turkey’s interest in Libya is to win Libya’s backing so as to be in a stronger position to win turf in the emerging competition for rights to oil and gas under nearby parts of the Mediterranean Sea. To have Libya beholden to Turkey would be to increase the likelihood of Turkey’s getting that offshore oil.

America’s position regarding the jihadists that Turkey has been protecting in Syria’s Idlib province is that they can be useful as proxy boots-on-the-ground to defeat Haftar, whom America too opposes, favoring al-Sarraj, whom Turkey likewise backs; so, Turkey and U.S. are cooperating on this effort in Libya.

America’s interest is in overthrowing Syria’s secular Government and replacing it with one that would be acceptable to the fundamentalist-Sunni Saud family who own Saudi Arabia. In order to do this, America will therefore need to keep its forces in Iraq. Otherwise, Russia and Iran, both of which America and the Sauds hope ultimately to conquer, would have stronger influence in the Middle East, which neither America nor the Sauds want. America invaded Iraq not only directly for its international corporations to profit, but also in order to have its hundreds of bases there from which to control the entire Middle East — bases that are supplied out of the world’s largest Embassy building (from which even other U.S. embassies are supplied), which building was constructed in Baghdad after the 2003 invasion. Trump’s plan now is to bring in NATO allies, so that they will help out in the Middle East, more than in the past. Trump wants America’s vassal-nations to absorb some of the financial burdens of imposing empire, so that America’s taxpayers won’t need to fund the full cost of it, for the benefit of the billionaire owners of international corporations that are based in the United States and in its allied (or vassal) (including other NATO) countries. This is why Stoltenberg has been working, for months, to effectuate Trump’s plan.

On February 1st, the veteran Middle Eastern reporter David Hearst headlined at his Middle East Eye site, “EXCLUSIVE: US military offers Iraq a partial pullback”, and he reported that,

A representative of the US military told the Iraqis present that the United States was prepared to leave positions in or near Shia-majority areas, such as Balad Air Base, which is located 80km north of Baghdad and houses US trainers and contractors.

Washington, the Iraqis were told, could even consider reducing its presence in Baghdad.

We are prepared to leave some of the Shia-majority areas, like the base in Balad. Maybe we could reduce our presence in Baghdad,” the military representative told his Iraqi counterparts, who understood from this that the US presence in the Iraqi capital would be reduced to guarding its embassy and the airport.

However, the US side categorically ruled out withdrawing from their biggest air base in Iraq, and indeed the whole Middle East, Ain al-Assad. …

For the US side, Ain al-Assad was its “red line”.

The representative said: “We cannot even start talking about withdrawing [from that base]. Withdrawal is out of the question.”

Such was the sensitivity of these discussions that they were held well away from Iraq. The meeting took place in the private residence of the Canadian ambassador to Jordan in Amman, Middle East Eye was told.

Present at the meeting was a representative of the US military, a Nato official and a senior Iraqi security adviser.

America needs the vast Ain al-Assad base in order ultimately to overthrow Bashar al-Assad (no relation), Syria’s secular President, who is allied with Russia and with Iran. NATO will increasingly be taking over this function of assisting the war for regime-change in Syria.

On February 15th, Middle East Monitor bannered “Iraq: Washington to strengthen presence of NATO to disengage militarily from Baghdad” and reported that America’s allies will take over there but “This will only work if the NATO mission includes a strong US component.” So: America’s withdrawal will be only nominal. This will help NATO by assuring that Trump won’t abandon NATO if he wins a second term, and it will also help Trump to win a second term by Trump’s claiming to be withdrawing from the Middle East even without actually doing any such thing.

The aim of this is to fool the public everywhere. In international affairs, this is the way to win: first, fool your own public; then, get your allies to fool theirs. That builds a “coalition.” Donald Trump is doing precisely this.

Trump is continuing Barack Obama’s wars, just like Barack Obama continued George W. Bush’s wars. The plan for America to control the Middle East remains on course, now, ever since 2001. As Obama often said, “America is the one indispensable nation.” (All others are therefore “dispensable.”) It is certainly the leading nation. And America’s aristocracy possess patience. They know that Rome wasn’t built in a day. In order to be the leading nation and the biggest international aggressor (so that “America is the one indispensable nation”), what is essential is to treat every other nation as being “dispensable” (make them fear you), so that either they will do as the leading nation wants, or else they will be dispensed with — they will become added to the list of target-nations to be conquered. They are dispensable; they are disposable. A disposable nation is aware of its subordinate position. On February 15th, the International Institute for Strategic Studies reported that

the US dedicated a significantly higher proportion of its defence budget to procurement and R&D than its NATO allies. European countries are increasing their defence investments as a share of their total spending – for those countries with available data, funds rose from 19.8% in 2018 to 23.1% in 2019 – but the equivalent category reached 29% in the US. The United States’ defence investments were thus worth around four times as much as European states’ combined.

A nation which spends 29% of its GDP on “defence” might be weak in other ways, but everyone in the world will fear it, and all other nations will know that they are “dispensable,” because the country which spends that high a percentage (and there is only one which does) also happens to have the world’s largest economy. Any other country, which isn’t one of its vassals, will be viewed by it (or by its aristocracy) as being an “enemy” — a nation that is targeted for “regime-change,” instead of for being a market. And being a targeted nation is very different than being a target market. It is to be only a target — a target of sanctions, a target of coups, and, if those fail, then a target of invasion and military occupation, like Iraq is.

(Howsever, actually, the U.S. spends only around 7% — $1.5 trillion divided by $22 trillion — of its economy toward the Pentagon and the rest of America’s military. Still, it might be the highest percentage on Earth. Because around $1 trillion yearly in U.S. military spending is off-the-books, that ‘defence’ figure could actually be closer to 10%. But it’s not 29%. Right now, around 20% of U.S. GDP goes to buy healthcare, which is the very largest percentage for healthcare of any country on the planet. America’s quality of healthcare is at or near the lowest of all industrialized nations; so, the wastage in its healthcare is even larger than in its military.)

Iraq and Iran and Syria — and every other nation that is friendly toward Russia — all of them, are targets of the U.S. regime. That’s why Trump plans to keep U.S. forces in Iraq: Iraq was conquered in 2003, and he wants it to stay that way.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

The Transnational Hezbollah Commander: Sayyed Abbas Mousawi

Israa al-Fass and Marwa Haidar

“This resistance is our source of pride. It taught us everything. The resistance taught us that we can make strength out of our weakness,” said Sayyed Abbas Al-Mousawi, former Hezbollah Secretary General who was assassinated by Israeli occupation on February 16, 1992.

Sayyed Abbas was known for his resistance movement that knew no boundaries. Starting by Lebanon and Palestine, and not ending by Syria, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan, Sayyed Abbas considered Palestine as the primary cause of the Muslim nation. He saw the resistance as a transnational movement that can’t only operate in one battlefield.

Palestine Was the Spark

Sayyed Abbas AlMousawi

Inspired by a youth who was the first Lebanese to be martyred in a battle with Israeli occupation in 1968 in Jordan, Sayyed Abbas, who was 15 years old back then, went to Syria’s Zabadani to take part in a training camp established by Fatah Palestinian resistance movement.

The senior commander then decided to apply himself to Hawza studies. He affiliated with leading Lebanese Shia cleric Imam Sayyed Mousa Al-Sadr in the southern town of Tyre. After that, he joined Hawza of Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Mohammad Baqer Al-Sadr in the holy city of Najaf. Sayyed Mohammad Baqer Al-Sadr was an influential Shia cleric, philosopher, political leader, and founder of the Daawa Party of Iraq.

Upon his arrival to Lebanon in 1978, when the Baathist regime expelled all non Iraqi clerics, Sayyed Abbas founded Al-Muntathar Hawza in Baalbeck. He believed that the role of this Hawza was not limited to the Shiite arena in Lebanon. In March 1978, the Israeli enemy launched an aggression on Lebanon in which it managed to occupy areas located to the south of Litani River. At time, Sayyed Abbas played pivotal role in mobilizing the Lebanese people for resistance.

Sayyed Abbas was highly inspired by the victory of the Islamic Revolution led by Imam Sayyed Ruhollah Khomeini in 1979. The revolution in Iran represented for the former Hezbollah S.G. a glimpse of hope in face of the US hegemony and Israeli oppression.

Establishing Hezbollah

Following the Israeli occupation of south Lebanon in June 1982, Sayyed Abbas returned to Lebanon from Tehran along with Sheikh Ragheb Harb, Lebanese cleric who was well-known for his anti-Israel stances and then was a senior Hezbollah commander. The two men worked at the end of that year on establishing the resistance movement, Hezbollah.

“The Islamic Resistance in south Lebanon. We called it Islamic because its ideology ad spirit is Islam. However, it is for all the oppressed people across the world,” Sayyed Abbas said about Hezbollah, the Islamic Resistance in Lebanon.

In that year (1982), Sayyed Abbas headed a delegation representing Hezbollah to Iran, where they met Imam Khomeini who blessed their efforts, telling them that “he sees victory on their foreheads,” according to “Jihad and Martyrdom Leader” documentary which explores the life of Sayyed Abbas.

Sacred Defense in Ahvaz

Later in 1983, Sayyed Abbad headed for Iran’s Ahvaz to take part in the sacred defense during the war launched by the Baathist regime in Iraq.  Imam Khomeini dispatched his personal delegate Sheikh Abbas Al-Kaabi who urged Sayyed Abbas to go back to Lebanon, stressing that the Lebanese battlefield needed him more.

When he returned to Lebanon, Sayyed Abbas tried to strengthen ties with other Muslim clerics from outside the Shiite arena in a bid to boost Islamic unity and unify resistance movements allover Lebanon.

He coordinated resistance efforts with both Sheikh Said Shaaban in the northern city of Tripoli and Sheikh Maher Hammoud in the southern city of Sidon.

Resistance Path of Victory

ormer Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Abbas Al-Mousawi with resistance fighters (photo from archive)

“Sayyed Abbas presented the resistance as a path of victory not only as a path of martyrdom,” Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah described his predecessor in the documentary which was aired on Al-Manar TV.

Sayyed Abbas was the military commander of the Islamic Resistance in south Lebanon. He personally oversaw resistance operations which forced the Israeli enemy to withdraw from Beirut and then from Sidon to the southern villages and towns.

Visits to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kashmir

In March 1990, Sayyed Abbas went to Pakistan, to take part in a pro-Palestine conference. In that visit he toured 17 Pakistani villages, where he tackled Israeli oppression, importance of resistance and US schemes in the region. After that, Sayyed Abbas visited Afghanistan, where he met with fighters against Soviet troops, and then he went to Kashmir.

Hezbollah S.G.

In April 1991, and following years of hard work in ranks of the Islamic Resistance, Sayyed Abbas was elected to be Hezbollah Secretary General. Sayyed Nasrallah narrates in the “Jihad and Martyrdom” documentary how long it took to convince Sayyed Abbas that he has to accept this post.

“After ten days of attempts to convince him, Sayyed Abbas accepted to assume his duties as the Secretary General of Hezbollah,” according to Sayyed Nasrallah.

Upon his election, Sayyed Abbas was maintained strong relation with resistance fighters as well as with Lebanese people whom was keen to serve them. He raised the slogan of “We Are All at Your Service,” referring to securing basic needs of the people in light of the state’s absence in several areas especially in south, Bekaa and Beirut southern suburb.

Martyrdom and Will

Sayyed Abbas was assassinated in February 16 1992, when he was returning from south Lebanon where there was a ceremony marking the martyrdom anniversary of Sheikh Ragheb Harb. Israeli Apache helicopters fired missiles at his motorcade, killing him, his wife, his five-year-old son, and four others.

Following his martyrdom, Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah succeeded Sayyed Abbas, whose primary will was to “preserve the Islamic Resistance.”

Source: Al-Manar Website

Voice Message from Former Hezbollah SG Martyr Sayyed Abbas al-Mousawi to His Family in 1983: Preserve Faith & Education (Video) 

What a Sin! Bahrain Man Jailed For 3 Years after Burning ‘Israeli’ Flag

By Staff, Agencies

A Bahraini man’s biggest crime was that he burned a flag of the nation’s enemy.

A court in Bahrain sentenced a man to three years in prison for burning an ‘Israeli’ flag, local media reported Monday.

The Supreme Court of Appeal refused to hear a petition from the Bahraini man, who was convicted of allegedly organizing an illegal gathering and rioting, among other charges.

At a pro-Palestinian demonstration last May, the defendant along with 10 other people blocked streets at the entrance to the village of Abu Saiba by setting a fire in the middle of the road and then burning an ‘Israeli’ flag, Bahraini media reported.

Several local news outlets noted that the sentencing sparked outrage among dozens of Bahrainis on social media, who accused their government of seeking to appease the Zionist entity amid Manama’s warming ties with the Tel Aviv regime.

Though only two Arab states, Egypt and Jordan are publicly normalizing ties with the Zionist entity, there has been an opening with Bahrain and other Gulf states in recent years.

‘Israel’ Will See Resurrection Day When Hezbollah Fires Precision-guided Missiles: Zionist Experts

A number of Israeli politicians, military commanders, and experts testified that Hezbollah precision-guided missiles can massively destroy the vital and strategic installations in the Zionist entity during any upcoming war.

The former PM Ehud Barak said that Hezbollah precision-guided missiles can hit the infrastructure, energy plants, governmental installations, the defense ministry headquarters, and the premier’s office.

The commander of operations division in the Israeli army, Aharon Halifa, added that the military bases, seaports, and the transportation network will be hit during the upcoming war with Hezbollah.

The Zionist analysts went on to say that Hezbollah missiles can even hit the Knesset headquarters, describing the Resistance group as a growing monster that is unprecedentedly threatening ‘Israel’.

The analysts also called on the Israeli competent authorities to prepare in a completely different manner for the next war, which will be just as Israel’s Resurrection Day because of Hezbollah precision-guided missiles.

Source: Al-Manar English Website

Related

Idlib City Is Preparing Ticker Tape Parade For Assad

South Front

Syrian government forces did not stop their operation in Greater Idlib with the success in the western countryside of Aleppo city, and continued making gains in the province. During the past 24 hours, they took control of over 10 settlements.

Furthermore, they forced members of the mighty Idlib rebels to retreat from Sheikh Aqil, besieged another Turkish observation point, and set a foothold for a possible offensive on the city of Darat Izza.

This town, located 30km west of Aleppo, had an estimated population of approximately 42,000 in 2013. In the modern Syria, it is most-widely known as the stronghold of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham that hosts its key forces and facilities in this part of the province.

The fall of Darat Iazza into the hands of government troops will also disrupt a link between the Turkish-occupied Afrin region and armed groups hiding in the countryside of Idlib city. Thus, Ankara will not be able to freely redeploy its proxies from one part of northwestern Syria into another. On the same day, President Bashar al-Assad congratulated the Syrian people and the Syrian Army with the victory in western Aleppo.

However, he said that this achievement “does not mean the end of the war” and declared that the military will continue combating terrorism in the provinces of Aleppo and Idlib. Turkish threats to launch a war on Syria if its forces do not stop their anti-terrorism campaign, al-Assad described as empty words. The televised speech of the president came amid reports that Hayat Tahrir al-Sham started evacuating its remaining weapon depots in the Mount Simeon District of Aleppo province towards the region of Afrin, and the border with Turkey west of Idlib.

These developments indicate that the group does not really believe that it is able to defend Darat Izza in an open battle with the Syrian Army. It is interesting no note how the public rhetoric of pro-militant media outlets changes depending on the military successes of the Syrian Army.

During the previous stages of the conflict, they preferred to call the Damascus government a bloody dictatorship that is killing peaceful moderate rebels all around Syria. Then, it evolved into the regime fighting against the ‘Syrian revolution’, while ‘Assad sectarian militia’ evolved into ‘Assad forces’. After the deployment of the Syrian Army in the vicinity of Idlib city, ‘Assad forces’ started slowly becoming ‘government troops’. It seems that when the army enters the city itself, Idlib grant-eaters will welcome the internationally-recognized government. Taking into account the recent developments on the frontline, they probably should start preparing posters featuring great leader Bashar al-Assad immediately.

Therefore, the main hope of Idlib groups and their supporters is the Turkish diplomatic efforts in the framework of the Astana format. On February 17, Moscow and Ankara started a new round of negotiations on the situation in Idlib. The Turkish leadership’s current main goal is to stop the Syrian advance and to consolidate its own influence in the scraps of the militant-held part of Idlib. In turn, it will likely have to surrender a part of its lovely moderate rebel groups that are publicly linked with al-Qaeda.

If Russia and Turkey find no understanding on the situation, Ankara will continue making attempts to protect Idlib groups with a variant of military and diplomatic measures. This will likely lead to a further escalation of the conflict.

Related News

هل يتخلّص الأتراك من أردوغان؟

وفيق إبراهيم

معارك حلب وإدلب المتواصلة وسط انتصارات بنيوية للجيش العربي السوري على الإرهاب المتشكل من وحدات تركية وأخرى متنوّعة بإمرتها وضعت السياسة التركية في مأزق عميق، لا يمكن التخلص منه إلا بتغيير في استراتيجية الدولة التركية نفسها. فهذا التراجع التركي ليس مجرد معارك على بضع قرى أو طرق وجسور. بقدر ما يتعلق بنجاح سوري لافت في وضع الدور التركي في سورية في مرحلة تقهقر تتدحرج تدريجياً نحو الانهيار الكامل.

بذلك يقترب الاحتلال التركي أجزاء من سورية من الأفول مقابل إقفال كامل لأي علاقة ممكنة لتركيا مع الشرق العربي.

وبالتالي كامل العالم العربي مع انهيار لمحاولات الرئيس التركي أردوغان بتنصيب نفسه سلطاناً عثمانياً اسلاموياً.

لقد أدت سياسات أردوغان المستندة الى حزب العدالة والتنمية المنتسب الى فدرالية الاخوان المسلمين الى عداءات لتركيا مع كامل جيرانها، فهي تحتل أراضيَ سورية وعراقية وقبرصية وتدعم حزب الإصلاح الاخواني في اليمن والاخوان المسلمين في مصر والسراج الاخواني في ليبيا وأحزاب الاخوان في السودان والجزائر وتونس والمغرب والأردن.

هذا بالإضافة الى علاقاته المتدهورة الى ما يشبه القطيعة مع بلدان الخليج باستثناء قطر ولديه أيضاً علاقات سيئة بالاتحاد الأوروبي بسبب احتلاله قسماً من قبرص، الى جانب عداء عميق مع اليونان يصل أحياناً الى حدود اندلاع الحرب.

أما أرمينيا فتركيا في حرب صامتة معها بسبب مطالبات يريفان الأرمنية بإقرار عالمي بالمجازر التي اقترفها العثمانيون وورثتهم في مراحل طويلة بين القرنين 19 ومطلع العشرين في حق الأرمن.

يتبين ان هذه العداءات الحربية والسياسية بين تركيا وعشرات الدول في العالم تنتج إقفالاً أوروبياً في وجهها وانسداداً عربياً كاملاً وذعراً اسلامياً من مطامعها، حتى ان الأميركيين باتوا يحذرون من ذهابها احياناً نحو مشاريع مستقلة، انما من خلال الراية الأميركية. لذلك اعتقد اردوغان ان انفتاحه على روسيا عملية مركبة تجعل الأميركي يجري وراءه لمنع استقراره في الكرملين الروسي، وتفرض على الأوروبي مساومته وإلا فإنه مستعد لإطلاق النازحين السوريين نحو أوروبا.

ويلعب أردوغان على مستويين مع العرب، فيزعم أنه يحارب للدفاع عن السنة في وجه ما يسمّيه المشروع الشيعي.

ويعادي «إسرائيل» من أجل نصرة القضية الفلسطينية، كما يدّعي.

فماذا عن «حقائق» سياساته؟

لا يأبه أردوغان للعرب بكامل فئاتهم السنية والشيعية والمسيحية، لأن ما يريده هو إعادة تأسيس إمبراطورية اما بواسطة الاخوان المسلمين او من خلال الطموح العثماني.

على مستوى «إسرائيل» فيتبين أن أردوغان يتبنى خطاباً معادياً يناقض العلاقات الاقتصادية العميقة بين البلدين ولكون تركيا واحدة من أوائل البلدان التي اعترفت بالكيان المحتل.

هذا بالإضافة الى ان الطرفين يلتقيان في الانتماء العميق الى المحور الاميركي ولم يتعاديا إلا كلامياً.

ماذا عن الأوضاع الداخلية لتركيا: اقتصادياً هناك تراجع واضح وتقهقر في أسعار الليرة التركية مع اندلاع صراعات سياسية بين الاتجاهات الاسلامية والقومية والجمهورية فيها يتصاحب مع قمع للأقليّات الكردية والعلوية والمعارضات الكردية نفسها.

فيحاول أردوغان بأسلوب «قومجي» تركي لإعادة جذب المعارضات التركية بادعاء الدفاع عن تركيا في وجه الأكراد والأخطار الخارجية.

بذلك يتضح جلياً سوء السياسات الأردوغانية التي حوّلت تركيا الى جزيرة معزولة عن جوارها ومتعادية معها.

وهذا ما جعل الرئيس التركي يراهن على نفخ دوره في سورية لإعادة بناء أدواره في مناطق ثانية واختار إقامة علاقات مع الروس لتسهيل طموحاته في بلاد الشام وتالياً العراق فاستطاع بمدة بسيطة بناء علاقات اقتصادية بروسيا بدأت بالاتفاق على خطين لأنابيب الغاز يمرّان بالبحر الأسود أحدهما لاستهلاك تركيا الداخلي والثاني لأوروبا.

كما عقد عشرات اتفاقات التبادل الاقتصادي مع الروس مع عودة نحو 3 ملايين سائح روسي يأتون سنوياً إليها.

كان هذا السخاء الروسي وسيلة لجذب تركيا نحو حلف مع موسكو على نقاط محددة لا تلغي نهائياً علاقاتها التاريخية بالناتو. وكانت الاندفاعة التركية في سورية للاستمرار في مشاريع التفتيت، فأنقرة تخشى مشروع دولة كردية في شرق سورية أو شمالي العراق قابلة للامتداد الى أكراد تركيا وهم نحو 15 مليون نسمة.

لذلك حاول التركي اللعب على الصراع الروسي الأميركي لممارسة مطامعه في ادلب وعفرين وشرقي الفرات وحدوده مع سورية.

لقد بدا أن أردوغان اعتقد ان حاجة الروس اليه تجعلهم يغضون الطرف عن مماطلاته في إدلب.

حتى بدا أن عاماً كاملاً بدءاً من 2019 كانت كافية لإقناع القيادة الروسية بتلاعب اردوغان، هذا ما جعل القرار السوري الروسي بتحرير إدلب مبرماً لا رجعة عنه مهما حشدت تركيا جنودها وأسلحتها في مناطق سورية تحتلها.

الأمر الذي يضع المواطن التركي امام مستجدات تبدأ من استعداء أردوغان لكامل الدول العربية المجاورة والبعيدة واوروبا واميركا وروسيا والعالم الاسلامي، بما يهدّد الاستقرار التركي اقتصادياً ولجهة مرتكزاته الدولية والسياسية.

فهل يتخلّص الأتراك من أردوغان وعنجهياته؟

إن استـــمرار التدهـــور التركي الاقتصادي والسياسي المتعلق بالعلاقـــات مع العالم كفـــيل بنــمو حـــركات معارضة تركية يؤيدهـــا الشــارع وتتحيّن الفرص لإسقاطه بـــكل الوســائل الانتخـــابية منها والعسكرية.

فيديوات متعلقة

مقالات متعلقة

%d bloggers like this: