Russian military to conduct observation flight over Turkey

By News Desk -2020-02-24

Russian Su Fighter Jets
Russian Su Fighter Jets

Russian inspectors will perform an observation flight over Turkey in the framework of the Open Skies Treaty, Head of the Russian Defense Ministry’s National Nuclear Risk Reduction Center Sergey Ryzhkov said.

“The observation flight over the territory of Turkey will be performed on February 25-28, 2020 from the Open Skies airfield of Eskisehir. The maximum flight range will be 1,900 km,” Ryzhkov said.

The flight will be carried out by the Russian surveillance plane Tu-154M-LK-1.

The aircraft will be strictly following the route earlier approved by Turkey and Turkish specialists onboard the plane will be controlling the use of the surveillance equipment and observation of the Treaty provisions, the military official stated.

Flights under the treaty are performed in order to ensure more transparency in military activity of the member-states and enhance security through confidence building measures,” he noted.

The Open Skies Treaty was signed in 1992 and has 34 member states. It entered into force in 2002. Surveillance flights are conducted over Russia, the United States, Canada and European countries.

The key tasks of the treaty are to develop transparency, monitor the fulfillment of armament control agreements, and expand capabilities to prevent crises in the framework of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and other international organizations.

Source: TASS


In the upcoming US Presidential elections, the new hysteria is that Russia is attempting to influence US voters and is supporting both key candidates – Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.

This means that the “evil Russians” have stepped up their game and actually want either of the front-runners to win.

Senator Bernie Sanders, the most popular Democrat politician, winner of Nevada’s next party election and leader of polls in the US autumn presidential election, said Russian President Vladimir Putin is not his friend and accused the Russian leader of being an “autocratic thug.”

But that’s exactly what he would say if he was a Putin agent, of course, he wouldn’t let himself be discovered.

If voters have to choose between Trump and Sanders, they will suddenly find themselves in a situation of choice between politicians, both of whom are declared authoritative by the media and “intelligence sources” claim they are actual Kremlin agents.

It is hard to imagine how a society can maintain at least minimal prudence and minimal respect for its own security forces and democratic institutions in this case.

It is also noteworthy that the reports that Russia is providing electoral support to Sanders, who is trying to become a presidential candidate for the Democratic Party, began appea

According to American experts, now his chances of winning the national congress of the Democratic Party, which determines the presidential candidate, have increased significantly.

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders beat opponents at Democrats’ caucuses in Nevada. According to American media, he won 47% of the vote. This is almost two times that of Joe Biden, who became second. Third place went to the ex-mayor of South- Benda to Pete Buttigic.

However, in 2016 there was already a similar situation – and then Sanders was simply “robbed” by the votes at the national party congress, because the party elite decided that Hillary Clinton would still be the best candidate, and the votes of ordinary voters and Sanders delegates did not matter.

The “fact” that Russian structures are trying to help the election campaign of the Vermont Senator Sanders, the Washington Post reported, citing sources in the US intelligence circles. As the publication emphasized, American lawmakers, the Donald Trump administration, and the candidate himself were informed of this Russian intervention.Joy Reid@JoyAnnReid

And unlike Trump, @BernieSanders had the correct response:

“I don’t care, frankly, who Putin wants to be president,” Sanders said in a statement to The Washington Post. “My message to Putin is clear: stay out of American elections, and as president I will make sure that you do.” …John Santucci@SantucciWOW —- WAPO – Bernie Sanders briefed by U.S. officials that Russia is trying to help his presidential campaign …28.1KTwitter Ads info and privacy7,048 people are talking about this

“Unlike Donald Trump, I do not consider Vladimir Putin a good friend. He is an autocratic thug,” Sanders also said. “I don’t care, frankly, who Putin wants to be president. My message to Putin is clear: stay out of American elections, and as president I will make sure that you do.”

US National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien said that he had seen no intelligence or analysis to support the claims that Russia was supporting anybody in the elections.

All information that claims Trump or Sanders are supported by Russia comes from unnamed US officials, and various intelligence sources.

Regardless, absurd rhetoric continues.

James Carville, a prominent democratic political strategist, said that Putin won the Nevada election.

Carville is known for actively participating in the winning election campaigns of Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Ehud Barak and Afghan President Ghani and so on and so forth.

According to Carville, the Kremlin specifically supports Sanders to bring down the weakest democratic candidate against Trump who will definitely lose to Trump. And to save Trump for the 2nd term, the main goal of the Kremlin.

As a result, Sanders’ victory in Nevada and Biden’s defeat translate into discussion of whether Putin manipulated the elections in Nevada. Carville also called on all democratic candidates to unite against Sanders and prevent the Kremlin from implementing its plans.

Republicans, in turn, point out that the CIA (with the support of CNN and the Washington Post) specifically stated 1 day before the Nevada caucus that Russia supported Sanders (this is in addition to standard accusations that Sanders was allegedly a communist).

Thus, they wanted to cover up Sanders’ relations with the Kremlin, as they did with Trump and lower his chances in the elections. But the voter failed and the plan did not work, hence the growing hysteria among the democratic establishment, which created a very monstrous picture, where the main candidates from both parties are connected with the Kremlin.

Regardless, a plethora of memes and caricatures are now being spread in social media, depicting Putin as the biggest winner, Sanders as a communist, as well as both him and Trump as Kremlin agents and what not.

Some of them can be seen below:




While there are certainly some structural similarities between the Syrian Arab Army’s ongoing liberation offensive in Northwestern Syria and Saakashvili’s previous desire to restore Georgia’s full sovereignty over Abkhazia and South Ossetia in 2008, the international legal and situational differences between the two are much too important to ignore and thus make these two cases morally incomparable, though some significant strategic insight can nevertheless be gained by studying both of them together.


Assad = Saakashvili?

The Syrian Arab Army’s (SAA) victorious liberation of the entirety of Aleppo last weekend was a milestone achievement in the country’s nine-year-long conflict, powerfully showing that the Syrian people are gradually becoming ever more successful in freeing their homeland from foreign occupation. It is the sovereign and internationally enshrined legal right of the Syrian Arab Republic to secure its indisputably recognized borders as well as to respond to foreign-backed terrorism emanating from the northwestern corner of the country, but the recent campaign has raised serious concerns that the SAA might enter into a large-scale conventional clash with the Turkish Armed Forces that are present in that region as part of their responsibilities under the Astana peace process that Damascus itself consistently supported since its initiation over three years ago. There are fears among some that Russia could even get dragged into a crisis with Turkey because of Syria’s latest moves, the same as former Georgian President Saakashvili attempted to drag the US into a crisis with Russia during his failed 2008 offensive against Abkhazia and South Ossetia to restore Tbilisi’s full sovereignty over its internationally recognized territory at the time.

Superficial Similarities

There are certainly some structural similarities between what Syria is currently doing and what Georgia had previously tried to achieve, but the international legal differences between them are much too important to ignore and thus make these two cases morally incomparable. Addressing the similarities first, both countries are backed by powerful patrons, Russia and the US respectively, and both governments were also recognized as the legitimate rulers of the entirety of their territories by the international community at the onset of their offensives against the regions that they earlier lost control over. Furthermore, their neighbors also had their military forces in those said territories prior to the commencement of large-scale hostilities as a result of international legal agreements supported by both Damascus and Tbilisi. These small states, however, might have believed that they could successfully drag their much larger patrons into a conventional conflict with their neighboring state through their respective offensives so as to compel the latter to withdraw in order to avoid a larger war that could have been sparked as a result of this possible brinkmanship. In this sense, there doesn’t seem to be much of a difference between what Syria is presently doing and what Georgia earlier attempted.

Details Are Everything

The similarities end there, however, and it’ll now be seen how the substantive differences between these two cases make their similarities superficial in hindsight. Abkhazia and South Ossetia had previously proclaimed independence following local referendums and thus enjoyed de-facto sovereignty prior to the agreement to formalize Russia’s military presence in each (then-)self-declared republic, while Idlib never experienced such political developments. In addition, each formerly Georgian region had their own authorities that were de-facto recognized by Tbilisi as legitimate participants in the peace process, unlike Idlib which has nothing at all resembling a centralized authority democratically speaking on behalf of the locals there. Another difference is that Turkey has legally binding responsibilities to thwart the terrorism emanating from the regions under its control, which it’s failed to do, unlike Russian forces in the former regions of Georgia which didn’t have these tasks, nor were there ever any credible instances of terrorism originating from Abkhazia or South Ossetia. Finally, the SAA began its ongoing offensive in response to Turkey’s failure to stem these aforesaid terrorist threats, whereas Georgia directly attacked Russian peacekeepers without provocation.

No Turkophobic War-Mongering Neocons In Moscow

That last point is especially pertinent because it explains why Russia openly supports Syria’s liberation campaign up to a certain point while the US never fully threw its backing behind Georgia’s failed attack. Russian forces have also been victimized by the terrorism emanating from the Turkish-controlled region of Northwestern Syria, but no American servicemen were ever threatened by the Abkhaz and South Ossetian forces under Russia’s control in those two former Georgian regions. In addition, the US reportedly urged Saakashvili to carry out his infamous rocket attack against Russian peacekeepers in Tskhinval, while Russia never gave anything that could even remotely be interpreted as a signal for President Assad to attack the Turkish Armed Forces. In fact, the argument can be made that some of the most rabidly Russophobic and war-mongering neoconservatives of the Bush-era “deep state” clamored for a crisis with Russia at the time but that comparatively more “rational” minds prevailed in averting that dire scenario. Nobody in any position of responsibility in Russia, however, harbors any intentions of entering into a similar sort of crisis scenario with Turkey no matter how badly some in the Alt-Media Community salivate at the thought of that happening.

The Russian-Turkish Strategic Partnership Remains Strong

As proof of this, it’s enough to recall the words of Foreign Minister Lavrov over the weekend when he said that “We have very good relations with Turkey, (but) that does not mean we have to agree on everything. Full agreement on all issues cannot be possible between any two countries.” Russian Ambassador to Turkey Alexei Yerzhov said a few days later that “our countries and peoples have complex ties that have been laboriously built in the recent year through scrupulous and painstaking efforts of tens of thousands of people, beginning from our presidents, Vladimir Putin and Tayyip Erdogan, who have made a serious personal contribution to the development of bilateral relations. Our countries need each other, our countries are interested in each other, and it is our duty to preserve and augment this potential.” Lavrov later noted, however, that “attacks on Syrian and Russian forces from Idlib are continuing”, but presidential spokesman Pushkov reiterated his country’s position that a possible clash between the Turkish and Syrian militaries over these regrettable events would represent the “worst-case scenario” from Russia’s perspective, clearly signaling that Moscow will do all that it can do prevent that from happening.

Concluding Thoughts

Considering that Syria’s latest liberation offensive was in response to Turkey’s failure to thwart terrorist attacks emanating from the region under its control in violation of the Astana peace process, it’s insincere for anyone to compare this development with Saakashvili’s failed attempt to take over Abkhazia and South Ossetia after attacking Russian peacekeepers there without provocation despite both countries sharing the same goal of restoring authority over their internationally recognized borders (only partially in the case with Georgia nowadays after Russia and a few other countries recognized the latter two regions as independent states). Should President Assad seek to follow in Saakhasvili’s footsteps by trying to drag his Russian patron into a conventional clash with Turkey just as the the former Georgian leader tried to do the same with the US vis-a-vis Russia, however, then he’ll certainly fail and might very well befall a similar political fate as his one-time counterpart. The same, however, also goes for President Erdogan too, since it would be an ironic twist of fate if he was the one who pulled a Saakashvili-like provocation instead. As such, both the Syrian and Turkish leaders should refrain from any action that could trigger that “worst-case scenario” and avoid dragging Russia into war.

By Andrew Korybko
Source: One World

أردوغان يحاول إعاقة المرحلة الجديدة في المنطقة

ناصر قنديل

تتطابق الحسابات التركية الخاصة بالتطلع لدور إقليمي أكبر من حجم ما يمكن تحقيقه من خلال البقاء في منطقة وسط بين محور تقوده واشنطن وآخر تقوده موسكو، مع حسابات واشنطن للتحوّلات الجارية في المنطقة والتي تؤذن بدخولها مرحلة جديدة، تستعدّ خلالها إيران وقوى المقاومة لإحداث تغييرات جذرية في موازين القوى في مواجهة واشنطن، تأسيساً على النجاح بتفادي أزمات حكوميّة في لبنان والعراق، وإنجاز تغيير جذري في المشهد السياسي الإيراني من بوابة الانتخابات البرلمانية الأخيرة التي تمّت تحت شعار برلمان قاسم سليماني، للبدء بتطبيق الخطة التي أعلنها الإمام علي الخامنئي باعتبارها المرحلة الثانية من الثورة بعد إنجاز المرحلة الأولى وعنوانها الاقتدار، وبتحويل التحدّي الناجم عن اغتيال القائد قاسم سليماني وإطلاق صفقة القرن إلى فرص لتفعيل المواجهة مع واشنطن، لتصعيد المقاومة في فلسطين ونقل الصراع إلى مرحلة نوعية جديدة يصعب كسرها، وتصعيد الحملة السياسية والعسكرية لإخراج القوات الأميركية من أفغانستان والعراق وسورية تحت شعار إخراج الأميركيّين من المنطقة.

تركّزت الحركة الأميركية ولا تزال على محاولات إعاقة حكومتي العراق ولبنان، لإرباك قوى المقاومة فيهما، وعلى محاولة تسريع التفاوض مع طالبان للتوصل إلى وقف للنار، تعرف أنه بيد حلفاء إيران تعطيله، لكنها تسابقهم في مسعى صناعة تفاهم بين الحكومة الأفغانيّة وطالبان يبقي على نوع من الوجود الأميركي في أفغانستان، حيث يبقى شعار حلفاء إيران من الأفغان رحيلاً كاملاً للأميركيين وإلا لا تسويات ولا تفاهمات ولا وقف للنار؛ بينما في العراق توضح المواقف المعرقلة لولادة حكومة الرئيس محمد توفيق علاوي، وارتباطها بتوافقات سياسية بين أصحابها على رفض الانسحاب الأميركي تحت شعار منع التفرّد الإيراني، ومواجهة خطر داعش المتجدّد، موقع الأميركيين منها، فيما يشكل موقع وموقف السيد مقتدى الصدر الذي مثّل بعد المرجعية الصوت الحاسم في تشكيل بيئة المواجهة مع داعش، ويصعب اتهامه بالتبعيّة لإيران، طعناً في صدقية القوى التي تراهن عليها واشنطن، طالما يتصدّر الصدر القوى الداعمة للحكومة والمنادية برحيل الأميركيين.

تشكل سورية حلقة حاسمة في هذه المواجهة، ففي سورية تخاض المواجهة مع تعقيدات وتشابكات إضافية، حيث الدور الروسي المرجعي والحاسم، والقدرة الإسرائيلية على التعطيل، والدور التركي المراوغ الهادف من اللعب على حبال التوازنات لتجميع أكبر المكاسب. وتحتلّ معارك بسط سيطرة الجيش السوري على أرياف حلب وإدلب موقعاً فاصلاً في تهيئة شروط فتح معركة إخراج الأميركيّين من سورية. وهنا يقع الدور التركي في منتصف الطريق عائقاً، ويشكل رأس الحربة في الرهانات الأميركيّة على تعطيل المسار الذي يبدو منطلقاً بزخم في كل الساحات لبلوغ لحظة المواجهة، ومثلما ظهر الدور الإسرائيلي مسقوفاً بغارات موسميّة تدرك تل أبيب عجزها عن تخطي سقوفها القابلة للاحتواء، شكل حسم الموقف الروسي عنصر تفوّق لمحور المقاومة وأسقط الكثير من الرهانات والأوهام، بينما شكلت الانتصارات العسكرية للجيش السوري المحققة ميدانياً وصولاً لفتح طريق دمشق حلب إنجازاً لنصف المطلوب. وجاء التدخل العسكري التركي المباشر بالنيابة عن محور واشنطن وتل أبيب لتعطيل النصف الثاني المتمثل بفتح طريق اللاذقية حلب، الذي يعني حصر الدور التركي في مدينة إدلب، بانتظار نضوح الحلّ السياسي، وهو وجود يمكن التعايش معه محاصراً ومنزوع الأنياب، خلال مرحلة فتح ملف الوجود الأميركيّ في سورية.

الزجّ بالأوروبيّين ممثلين بفرنسا وألمانيا في مفاوضات وقف إطلاق النار، تحت التهويل بعملية عسكرية تركية واسعة، والدعوة لقمة رباعية روسية تركية فرنسية ألمانية، لن يفيد الموقف التركي ولا الحسابات الأميركيّة، ما لم تكن واشنطن مستعدّة لخوض معركة شاملة، وهو ما يبدو مؤكداً أنه خارج الاحتمالات. فالموقف الروسي ومن خلفه الموقف السوري والإيراني، قوي جداً بوضع مسألة الإرهاب وخطرها على أوروبا على الطاولة، وربط وقف النار بتطبيق التزامات تركيا بإنهاء الجماعات الإرهابيّة وفصل المعارضة عنها، وهو طلب ثبت أنه أقرب للخيال،. وسيجد الرئيس التركي أن خياراته محدودة بين خوض المعركة العسكرية الخاسرة منفرداً، أو الاستجابة لتسهيل فصل معركة إنهاء الجماعات الإرهابية والانكفاء بعيداً عن المواجهة، والاكتفاء بتحييد مدينة إدلب لمرحلة لاحقة، بعد اشتراط نزع السلاح الثقيل منها، وتأمين إيواء النازحين فيها، واعتبارها رمزاً لسلامة المدنيين، ونشر دوريات روسية تركية فيها، بانتظار الحل السياسي.

وصل الأميركيون بسبب عدم امتلاكهم شجاعة الإقدام على الإقرار بالتحوّلات الكبرى في المنطقة لصالح محور المقاومة، وعجزهم عن أخذ خيار المواجهة الشاملة المكلفة والميؤوس من نتائجها، إلى جعل حروب الوكالة التي يخوضونها مجرد محاولات لشراء الوقت.

فيديوات متعلقة

Democrats Reportedly Rattled by Prospect of Sanders Snaring Nomination to Face off Against Trump

After a strong showing in the first two contests of the 2020 Democratic race – the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary, self-proclaimed democratic socialist Senator Bernie Sanders has been shaping up as the new Democratic front-runner, with the potential to run against President Donald Trump.

Some Democrats are reportedly rattled by the possibility that Sen. Bernie Sanders, who registered to run as a Democrat and as an Independent in 2019 after parting ways with the party following his 2016 primaries defeat by Hillary Clinton, could win the Democratic nomination that would see him enter a final showdown with President Donald Trump, reports Fox News.

As Sanders was projected to win Saturday’s Nevada caucuses, furthering his lead over his Democratic rivals, individual representatives from the ranks of vulnerable, or freshman Democrats representing battleground states are believed to have concerns over how the Vermont Senator might match up against the current Commander-in-Chief.

The ‘Sanders Scare’

Some Democrats are reportedly anxious that Bernie Sanders’ socialist bent might prevent him from winning over swing voters, such as those in rural areas, the upper Midwest and some of the more conservative-minded Democrats.

The outlet quotes one such freshman Democrat as saying:

“It’s bad… We are having conversations about how to deal with this.”

Another source, who suggested that a primary win by Bernie Sanders would see many voters leave the top of the ticket blank, was cited as expressing the dire prediction:

“If [Sanders] is the nominee, we lose.”

A Sanders nomination would almost certainly result in their states being snapped up by Donald Trump, as well as influence the ballot race for Democratic House and Senate candidates, two other Democrats apparently indicated.

“I think that [Sanders] can be challenging in parts of the country that we have to win in order to win the presidency,” Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., was quoted as saying.

Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., was more emphatic:

“We have to win Pennsylvania. [If] we lose there, it’s over.”

As for what possible measures might be taken by Democrats to offset the Sanders situation, lawmakers have not offered any specifics.

When asked if perhaps the Democrats would attempt to block Sanders, or try to “spin” things, one Democrat reportedly said an attempt might be made to accentuate local issues to enlist votes, but admitted it would be challenging to contend with the Sanders “narrative” and Trump impeachment aftershocks.

“We’re just starting,” said one Democrat.

One House Democrat from a swing state reportedly tried to allay concerns, arguing that it didn’t matter who the Democratic nominee was, as voters in his state were prepared to support “anyone else”, even Sanders, besides President Trump.

Some Democrats are believed to question whether they should consider self-proclaimed democratic socialist Sanders one of their own.
Although having always “caucused” with the Democrats in both the House and Senate, Sanders has long identified as a socialist, and when serving in the House and Senate he was identified as an “independent”.

Bernie Sanders with supporters

Against the backdrop of “alarm bells” regarding a likely Sanders nomination, some democratic sources pointed out that the party had only apportioned a small percentage of delegates and there was enough time to mitigate matters.

“It’s still so early… We just have to win,” said one source.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was reported as attempting to quell the swelling up anxiety, saying:

“I can hear you say ‘Oh, we’re all in a panic. The establishment Democrats.’ I’m like ‘Is there some establishment that I don’t know about around here?’”

Pelosi added:

“It’s a messy business. But this is so: we’re calm. We’re cool. We’re collected.”

Against the backdrop of VSanders’ projected 22 February victory in the Nevada caucuses, Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg, who is seeking to establish himself as Sanders’ chief rival, warned the Democrats against rushing to nominate the democratic socialist, suggesting this could prevent them from defeating President Trump.

Democratic presidential candidate former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg speaks to supporters at a primary night election rally at Nashua Community College, Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2020, in Nashua, N.H.

© AP PHOTO / ANDREW HARNIKDemocratic presidential candidate former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg speaks to supporters at a primary night election rally at Nashua Community College, Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2020, in Nashua, N.H.

“Senator Sanders believes in an inflexible, ideological revolution that leaves out most Democrats, not to mention most Americans… Before we rush to nominate Senator Sanders as our one shot to take on this president… let’s take a sober look at the consequences – for our party, for our values, and for those with the most at stake,” said Buttigieg.


Sanders sent out a series of tweets to celebrate his projected victory in the Nevada caucuses Saturday and urged his supporters to keep the momentum going.

We just won the Nevada caucus. This grassroots movement is unstoppable. Together, let’s win the Democratic nomination, defeat Trump and transform the country! Join us live in San Antonio:— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) February 23, 2020

​Sanders, who’s making his second consecutive White House run, has been campaigning in San Antonio, Texas, ahead of the Super Tuesday contests.

He celebrated his Nevada triumph by touting “a multi-generational, multiracial coalition”.

Sanders, whose popularity has been surging as evidenced by a new national Washington Post-ABC News poll which showed him leading by a huge margin, has now triumphed in two of the first three states to weigh in on the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.

The Vermont Senator won a week and a half ago in the New Hampshire primary, and also won the popular vote total in the Iowa caucuses, but slightly trailed Pete Buttigieg in the delegate percentage after the Iowa Democratic Party announced the results of a recanvass of targeted precincts from the state’s Democratic caucuses.

Buttigieg now leads Sanders by .08 state delegate equivalents, according to results posted by the state party, with 26.186 percent for Buttigieg to 26.182 percent for Sanders. The initial results were marred by apparent confusion due to reporting or mathematical errors.


Imam Khomeini’s Model: High and Mighty against the High-and-Mighty

By Batoul Ghaddaf

Beirut – From Islam vs. West to Islam vs Imperialism in all of their forms, Imam Khomeini proposed a groundbreaking worldview.

Prior to the Islamic revolution of Iran, Islamist groups declared war on the West, making it seem as if it is the West vs Islam, yet when Imam Khomeini came, he abolished this concept. He introduced a new term, a new strategy to act as he declared “Not Eastern nor Western, but an Islamic Republic”, stating the conflict as to be Islam vs Imperialism. This strategy gave life to a new worldview that has become a continued legacy. When other Islamists were speaking to the imperialist west as their rival, Imam Khomeini was saying they are not even our rivals, our rivals make them our equals, and we refuse to be equated with the imperialists.

This approach posed by Imam Khomeini broke the spirit of American hegemony on the Iranian people from one side and on the Arabs, who thought Camp David was the end of their dreams of sovereignty on another. It restored faith and confidence in not the governments, but the people, the individuals as creators of their own independence and future. This was most evident when the youth decided to attack the American embassy in Iran in 1979, where Imam Khomeini responded saying, “America cannot do a damn thing to us.” This statement became the headline of many big newspapers around the world. It was a shock to the American authorities. No one expected a “nobody”-state which just had its revolution to revolt this aggressively against the United States of America.

The supremacy Imam Khomeini stood against was not just limited to the Western world, although it seems as so today. In 1989, he sent a letter to the USSR predicting the fall of communism and inviting them to read about the Islamic revolution. The minister of foreign affairs of the USSR paid the Imam a visit to deliver the response. This man saw himself as the representative of the Eastern most powerful country in the world. To meet Khomeini, he was taken into a humble room with an old rug, where he had to take his shoes off to enter. He then waited for more than 30 minutes for Khomeini. He read the letter with stutters and shivers in the presence of Imam Khomeini. This reaction was mostly out of shock as he did not expect that the Imam would have the upper hand in this meeting. It is never that a weak state has the upper hand against a strong state. When he was done, Imam Khomeini spoke for only a minute and simply left before the translator could finish translating to the minister, paying no attention to the minister beyond what he came there for.

Slowly, this Khomeinist worldview shaped an Islamic political philosophy implemented in Iranian foreign policy today. A political philosophy which holds enmity towards arrogance and oppression and friendship and compassion towards the oppressed. This is evident in the friendship the Islamic Republic held with China and the help it offered, and still offers, to Palestinian leaders. The former has great economic relations with Iran, considering Iran a permanent exports partner. These relations have been made since the birth of the Islamic republic in 1979. The latter has been offered help and received training and weaponry. PLO leader Yasser Arafat called Iran “his own home” when he visited Khomeini in Tehran. In addition to these, the Cuban late president Fidel Castro visited the house of Imam Khomeini and his grave in 2001. He considered the victory of the Islamic Revolution as a major change in the power dynamics in favor of the oppressed countries against the colonial ones.

The legacy continues with the current Islamic Revolution Leader Khamenei through declaring enmity towards arrogant behaviors of Pompeo, as he speaks to the Arabs, and of Trump, the epitome of white supremacy which has not stopped in American politics long after slavery has ended. 

Therefore, according to the Islamic Republic’s foreign policy, these attitudes of supremacy and hegemony could not be tackled with a language of rivals and equals. Diplomacy has no place with oppressive states. The only attitude to be expected of Islamic Iran against such states is for Iran to be, as Khomeini planted, high and mighty against the high-and-mighty.

هل أوروبا قادرة على نصرة أردوغان

د.وفيق إبراهيم

يضرب الرئيس التركي في زوايا الأرض المتعددة، بحثاً عن حلفاء لديهم مصلحة في دعم مشروعه الاستعماري في سورية.

الخليج العربي يعمل بعنف ضد الدولة السورية، لكنه لا يؤيد اردوغان بسبب تحالفه مع الأخوان المسلمين الذين يشكلون خطراً على الأنظمة الملكية، اما الأميركيون فلا يريدون هزيمة اردوغان لكنهم لا يستطيعون نجدته بأكثر من تمرير أسلحة إلى حلفائه من المنظمات الإرهابية التي تنتشر في أدلب وعفرين وشمال سورية الحدودية. فالأميركيون يعرفون أن الهجوم الذي يشنّه الجيش العربي السوري في أرياف حلب وإدلب، يحظى بمشاركة حيوية روسية مشاركة ميدانيّة أيضاً، وهم لا يريدون تأجيج صراعهم مع الروس في الوقت الحالي خشية أن تفتح روسيا ملف الاحتلال الأميركيّ لآبار النفط في الشمال الشرق السوري وقاعدة التنف عند الحدود الجنوبية مع كل من الأردن والعراق، علماً أن روسيا إلى جانب إيران هما الطرفان الوحيدان العاملان في سورية بتأييد من دولتها الشرعية المعترف بها في الأمم المتحدة.

أما الصين فلا تتدخل في الأزمة السورية لأنها تترك هذه المهمة لحليفتها روسيا، فلا يتبقى لتركيا إلا طرفان بإمكانها الاستنجاد بهما، وهما «اسرائيل» وأوروبا.

على مستوى «اسرائيل»، لا يستطيع اردوغان الاستعانة بها علناً لأنه يفقد على الفور شرعية محاولاته لزعامة العالم الاسلامي وتقدمه في العالم العربي، وقيادته للاخوان المسلمين، لكنه ينسق معها مباشرة او بالوساطة الاميركية.

فتشن غارات على اهداف سورية بالتزامن مع تقدم الجيش العربي السوري في إدلب وأرياف حلب.

فلا يتبقى للرئيس التركي «المستوحد» إلا أوروبا، محاولاً اللعب في الميدان الذي تشتهيه دائماً، وهو إيجاد ادوار دولية لها بعد أكثر من ستة عقود كانت مسجونة خلالها داخل عباءة الأميركيين، لذلك تبدو اوروبا مضطربة تبحث بإعياء عن مواقع لها في مناطق واعدة بالغاز والاستراتيجيا والاستهلاك، لكنها تخاف من النفوذ الاميركي فتطل برأسها حيناً خارج العباءة وسرعان ما تعود إلى داخلها، عندما يرمقها الأميركي بغضب.

هذا يعني أن الدور الاوروبي في سورية خصوصاً والشرق الأوسط عموماً يحتاج في البداية الى إمكانيات أوروبية موازية الى جانب غضّ طرف أميركي او تأييد صريح.

هناك عامل إضافي يحول دون تدخلهم الفاقع حتى لو أمنّوا التأييد الأميركي، ويتعلق في أن الهجوم السوري الشرعي على إدلب يحظى بتأييد روسي كبير غير قابل للمساومة، بما يعني أن التدخل الأوروبي في هذه المنطقة قد يؤدي إلى قتال صريح مع روسيا ودورها السوري الكبير لذلك اقتنع أردوغان أخيراً أزاء التردد الاوروبي ان يجمع الى جانب تركيا كلاً من روسيا وفرنسا والمانيا في مؤتمر واحد.

فما فائدة مثل هذا المؤتمر إذا كانت أطرافه الأوروبية لا قدرة لهاعلى ترجيح الكفة التركية؟

يبدو أن أردوغان يهرب من اجتماعات مؤتمر سوتشي واستانة، لأنها تضمّ إيران إلى جانب روسيا وتركيا، والمعروف أن إيران مؤيدة للشرعية السورية سياسياً وعسكرياً واستراتيجياً، بما يدفع تركيا لتجاوز سوتشي إلى الآلية التي يراهن عليها أردوغان لتثبيت دوره السوري وتفضيل الذهاب نحو مؤتمر مع روسيا وبلدين أوروبيين، بما يخفف من حجم مؤيدي الهجوم السوري على إدلب.

لكن مثل هذه الحسابات تؤكد على سقوط الخيارات المفيدة لأردوغان وتوسله خيارات جديدة لن تكون أكثر من تطويل لمحادثات لن تؤدي على الإطلاق الى تغيير نتائج المعارك العسكرية الأخيرة التي ربحها الجيش السوري فتمكن من خلالها من ربط حلب بحماة وحمص ودمشق وتحرير مساحات واسعة وسط استمرار المعارك.

ماذا يريد أردوغان إذا؟

يضغط بعقلية «البراجماتي» للمحافظة على ما تبقى من مناطق سورية تحتلها قواته، بمعنى أنه يوافق على التقدم الأخير الذي أحرزه الجيش العربي السوري مقابل إقرار روسي بسيطرته حتى انتهاء الأزمة السورية على جزء من إدلب وعفرين وشريط الحدود حتى الشمال الشرقي وبعمق يتلاءم مع اتفاق أضنة الذي يسمح للأتراك بالتقدم في سورية لمنع عمليات إرهابية حتى 5 كيلومترات.

هنا، يبدو النفاق التركي واضحاً، والدليل أن مرحلة 1998 وحتى 2020، لم تحدث عملية واحدة ضد الأتراك على حدودها مع سورية، فيما دعت تركيا أكثر من مئة ألف إرهابي دولي ومحلي نظمت اختراقهم لحدودها مع سورية ودرّبتهم وسلحتهم ورعت كل عملياتهم الإرهابية، وهذا يؤكد أن الجيش العربي السوري هو الذي يجب أن يطبق اتفاقية أضنة نحو الداخل التركي وليس العكس.

يتبين إذا أن التدخل الاوروبي عبر البوابة التركية لن يكون أكثر من دور سياسي مؤقت، لأنه لا يستند إلى موازنات قوة بل مجرد قوة إعلامية آنية.

وهذا يعيد أردوغان إلى دائرة البحث عن حلفاء جدد، أو الاتجاه نحو معركة مع الجيش السوري يعرف مسبقاً أنه لن يربحها لسببين: تطوّر القدرات السورية في الدفاع الجوي بعد وضع مضاداتها الروسية الحديثة قيد الاستعمال وهذا يُلغي التفوق الجوّي التركي، هذا بالإضافة إلى أن روسيا تتعامل مع التهديد التركي على أنه يستهدفها أيضاً، لذلك من المرجّح تراجع تركيا وإرهابييها عن خط 4 الذي يربط حلب باللاذقية مقابل إرجاء البحث في احتلالها لعفرين والحدود والشمال الشرقي إلى مراحل.

%d bloggers like this: