US Foreign Policy is Nothing Short of Low-Intensity Warfare Against the Whole Planet by Finian Cunningham — Dandelion Salad

by Finian Cunningham Writer, Dandelion Salad East Africa Crossposted from Sputnik, May 16, 2019 May 20, 2019 To say the US conducts “foreign policy” is patently a misnomer. US policy is nothing short of low-intensity warfare against the whole planet. Its “foreign policy” is nothing more than a continuous program of psychological operations.

via US Foreign Policy is Nothing Short of Low-Intensity Warfare Against the Whole Planet by Finian Cunningham — Dandelion Salad

Advertisements

أنصار الله القوة الإقليمية الصاعدة

مايو 17, 2019

ناصر قنديل

قدّمت تجربة أنصار الله من الصمود والذكاء الاستراتيجي والإبداع التكتيكي ما يجعلها ظاهرة تستحق الدراسة، وها هي تتقدم إلى مصاف القوة الصانعة للسياسة والتوازنات الجديدة في منطقة الخليج، لتتقدّم كقوة إقليمية صاعدة في زمن التقهقر للقوى التقليدية في الخليج، بصورة تشبه ما صنعه حزب الله في منطقة المشرق، وبدرجة تقارب وتضاهي في إنشاء موازين ردع بوجه السعودية كما أنشأ حزب الله الموازين الرادعة بوجه «إسرائيل». وتأتي عمليات أنصار الله في التأثير على أسواق النفط العالمية لتمنحهم صفة القوة الإقليمية التي لا يمكن الحد من تأثيرها بغير التفاهمات السياسية معها، لأن إثبات القدرة كان كافياً للقول إن الذهاب إلى المواجهة مع أنصار الله، بعد الفشل في تحجيم ما أظهرته قوتهم في مواجهة حرب عالمية استهدفتهم في اليمن، إنما يعني تعريض سوق النفط العالمية لأضرار لا يحتملها العالم، دون ضمان بلوغ النتائج المرجوة بإضعاف انصار الله أو تحجيم تأثيرهم على مفاصل حساسة في سوق النفط، أظهروا إتقان التعامل معها في الزمان والمكان والإعلان وعدم الإعلان.

نمت تجربة أنصار الله في ظروف جغرافية تشبه تلك التي تعيشها غزة في ظل الحصار الإسرائيلي براً وبحراً وجواً، حيث تمسك السعودية بكل ما يحيط باليمن، وتمكّن أنصار الله رغم ذلك من بناء قدرات صاروخية متقدمة تميّزت بالتطويرات التقنية المذهلة، وتميّزوا بإتقان أشد تأثيراً وفاعلية في سلاح الطائرات المسيرة، فصارت طائراتهم بدون طيار سلاح جو حقيقياً، يعبر أجواء المنطقة ويضرب حيث يشاء مثبتاً القدرة على التملص من وسائل الدفاع الجوي والرادارات المنتشرة في اليمن والخليج، تحت إدارة الخبراء الأميركيين مباشرة، وأظهروا قدرة على التقاط اللحظة الاستراتيجية بطريقة تحاكي ما فعلته قوى ودول وحركات مقاومة متمرسة بقوانين الحرب وخوض غمارها، فدخولهم على خط القلق العالمي تجاه أسواق النفط أثناء تصاعد الاشتباك الأميركي الإيراني، واستهدافهم للمنشآت النفطية للدول المتورطة في العدوان على اليمن، جعلهم شريكاً حكمياً في أي تسوية جزئية أو كلية تطال هذا النزاع، أو تسعى لتحييده عن أسواق النفط على الأقل، وتمهيدهم لذلك ببراعة تكتيكية تمثلت بمبادرة في ميناء الحديدة قدّموها بالتنسيق مع الجهات الأممية دون التشاور مع قوى العدوان، مثل قمة المهارة في إمساك خطوط وخيوط لعبة الحرب والسلم والمناورة.

السلفة الاستراتيجية التي قدّمها أنصار الله لإيران في المواجهة، لم تتمّ على حساب وطنيتهم اليمنية التي تنزف تحت ظلم وجرائم العدوان اليومي السعودي الإماراتي المدعوم بوضوح لا لبس فيه وشراكة لا تحتمل الاشتباه لإدارة الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب، فقدّموا دون إعلان استثماراً مشتركاً يجعلهم شركاء في التسويات في معادلة دولية كبرى من جهة، ويمنح الحليف الإيراني موقع قوة في التفاوض من جهة أخرى، وبذلك ترجموا فهماً عميقاً وذكياً ناضجاً لمفهوم التحالفات، يشبه ما فعله حزب الله في استثماره في حرب تموز 2006 وحربه الدفاعية عن سورية، استثمار لا يبتعد عن مقتضيات الهوية الوطنية، بل يلبي حاجاتها المباشرة، لكنه لا يتردّد في دخول المسرح الإقليمي والدولي بتعزيز مكانة الحلفاء، والتقدّم بشجاعة إلى المسرح المباشر للصراعات الكبرى، ومن خلفها المفاوضات الكبرى، التي ترسم توازنات الإقليم والعالم.

يقول أحد قادة المقاومة، لقد أدهشنا أنصار الله اليمنيون دائماً، وكوادر المقاومة الذين كانوا على احتكاك مع التجربة اليمنية يحملون آثارها في أدوارهم اللاحقة ويتخذونها مثالاً في مخاطبة المتدربين والمحيطين، ويتحدثون بانبهار وإعجاب عن ميزات كالصبر والثقة بالنصر والمثابرة والتحمّل، واليقين بأن الوقت الصعب سيمرّ، وأن زمناً ليس بعيداً سيحمل التغيير الكبير، والأهم أنهم لا يتوقفون عن إضافة الجديد والمبتكر، سواء في مجال التقنيات أو التكتيكات القتالية أو الحرب النفسية، وهم ربما يكونون مثالاً يُحتذى في مجال الانضباط والتنظيم، رغم قسوة الحرب والظروف وقلة الموارد.

أيها الحوثيون، يا أنصار الله ورجاله، أنتم فخر أمتنا، تُرفع لكم القبعة، مبارك لكم أنكم في الطليعة تصنعون معادلات جديدة لشعبكم وأمتكم، وتدركون أن صفقة القرن التي تستهدف فلسطين تسقط من باب المندب ومياه بحر عمان وخط أنابيب ينبع – الدمام، كما تسقط بالمسيرات المليونية التي تتقدّم في شرق غزة والصواريخ التي تسقط قرب تل أبيب، لأن الصفقة تحتاج قوة الحليفين في تل أبيب والرياض، وتسقط بتمريغ خرافة قوتهما بوحول مجبولة بدماء الأبطال المقاومين، وليس غريباً أنكم كنتم دائماً تتسببون بالحرج لكل عربي حر صادق مع فلسطين بحجم حضوركم السخي في الساحات تحت قصف الطيران لتهتفوا لفلسطين في كل مناسبة تخصّها، فتكونون الأوائل، وهكذا أنتم اليوم، يمنيّون يدافعون بشراسة عن اليمن، وعرب أقحاح يلتزمون فلسطين بوصلة وميثاقاً، ومقاومون في الخطوط الأمامية لمحور يتكامل فعلاً وقولاً من أقصى الشمال إلى أقصى الجنوب ومن شرق الشرق إلى حيث الغرب.

ترامب ينتظر اتصالاً إيرانياً على رقم هاتف ساخن خاص وضعه لهذا الغرض وراح ينتظر، ومستشاروه اليوم ينصحونه بالسعي للحصول على رقم هاتف يخصّ أنصار الله لضمان استقرار أسواق النفط، التي لا تجدي فيها قواته وحشوده ولا حكومات يتوزع قادتها الألقاب الفخمة، والأموال الطائلة، والأسلحة المكدّسة، لكنهم لا يملكون بعضاً يسيراً من الروح التي تملكون، فتنتصرون بأرواحكم على كل ما بين أيديهم، وقد هزمت فيهم الروح، فتثبتون أن صناعة التاريخ والحرب تبدأ، كالنصر والهزيمة، بالروح وبالروح فقط. مبارك صيامكم وقيامكم، وتتبعكم المذهل لكلمات سيد مقاومتكم السيد عبد الملك الحوثي، الذي أدهش العالم بما قدم مع شباب وكهول صنعوا أحد النماذج الفريدة للمقاومة والفكر والنصر.

Related Videos

Related News

Iran Squeezed Between Imperial Psychos and European Cowards

By Pepe Escobar – with permission and cross posted with Consortium News

What Putin and Pompeo did not talk about

The Trump administration unilaterally cheated on the 2015 multinational, UN-endorsed JCPOA, or Iran nuclear deal. It has imposed an illegal, worldwide financial and energy blockade on all forms of trade with Iran — from oil and gas to exports of iron, steel, aluminum and copper. For all practical purposes, and in any geopolitical scenario, this is a declaration of war.

Successive U.S. governments have ripped international law to shreds; ditching the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is only the latest instance. It doesn’t matter that Tehran has fulfilled all its commitments to the deal — according to UN inspectors. Once the leadership in Tehran concluded that the U.S. sanctions tsunami is fiercer than ever, it decided to begin partially withdrawing from the deal.

President Hassan Rouhani was adamant: Iran has not left the JCPOA — yet. Tehran’s measures are legal under the framework of articles 26 and 36 of the JCPOA — and European officials were informed in advance. But it’s clear the EU3 (Germany, France, Britain), who have always insisted on their vocal support for the JCPOA, must work seriously to alleviate the U.S.-provoked economic disaster to Iran if Tehran has any incentive to continue to abide by the agreement.

Protests in front of former U.S. embassy in Tehran after U.S. decision to withdraw from JCPOA, May 8, 2018. (Hossein Mersadi via Wikimedia Commons)

Russia and China — the pillars of Eurasia integration, to which Iran adheres — support Tehran’s position. This was discussed extensively in Moscow by Sergey Lavrov and Iran’s Javad Zarif, perhaps the world’s top two foreign ministers.

At the same time, it’s politically naïve to believe the Europeans will suddenly grow a backbone.

The comfortable assumption in Berlin, Paris and London was that Tehran could not afford to leave the JCPOA even if it was not receiving any of the economic rewards promised in 2015. Yet now the EU3 are facing the hour of truth.

It’s hard to expect anything meaningful coming from an enfeebled Chancellor Angela Merkel, with Berlin already targeted by Washington’s trade ire; a Brexit-paralyzed Britain; and a massively unpopular President Emmanuel Macron in France already threatening to impose his own sanctions if Tehran does not agree to limit its ballistic missile program. Tehran will never allow inspections over its thriving missile industry – and this was never part of the JCPOA to begin with.

As it stands, the EU3 are not buying Iranian oil. They are meekly abiding by the U.S. banking and oil/gas sanctions — which are now extended to manufacturing sectors — and doing nothing to protect Iran from its nasty effects. The implementation of INSTEX, the SWIFT alternative for trade with Iran, is languishing. Besides expressing lame “regrets” about the U.S. sanctions, the EU3 are de facto playing the game on the side of U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates; and by extension against Russia, China and Iran.

Rise of the Imperial Psychos

As Tehran de facto kicked the ball to the European court, both EU3 options are dire. To meaningfully defend the JCPOA will invite a ballistic reaction from the Trump administration. To behave like poodles — the most probable course of action — means emboldening even more the psychopaths doubling as imperial functionaries bent on a hot war against Iran at all costs; Koch brothers Big Oil asset and enraptured evangelist, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and paid Mujahideen-e Khalq asset and notorious intel manipulator, National Security Advisor John Bolton.

The Pompeo-Bolton gangster maneuver is hardly Bismarck’s Realpolitik. It consists of relentlessly pushing Tehran to make a mistake, any mistake, in terms of “violating” its obligations under the JCPOA, so that this may be sold to gullible American public opinion as the proverbial “threat” to the “rules-based order” doubling as a casus belli.

There’s one thing the no-holds-barred U.S. economic war against Iran has managed to achieve: internal unity in the Islamic Republic. Team Rouhani’s initial aim for the JCPOA was to open up to Western trade (trade with Asia was always on) and somewhat curtail the power of the IRGC, or Revolutionary Guards, which control vast sectors of the Iranian economy.

Washington’s economic war proved instead the IRGC was right all along, echoing the finely-tuned geopolitical sentiment of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, who always emphasized the Americans cannot be trusted, ever.

And as much as Washington has branded the IRGC a “terrorist organization,” Tehran replied in kind, branding CENTCOM the same.

Independent Persian Gulf oil traders dismiss the notion that the kleptocrat House of Saud — de facto run by Jared “of Arabia” Kushner’s Whatsapp pal Mohammed bin Salman (MbS), the Saudi  crown prince – holds up to 2.5 million barrels of oil a day in spare capacity capable of replacing Iran’s 2 million barrels of exports (out of 3.45 million of total daily production). The House of Saud seems more interested in hiking oil prices for Asian customers.

London protests at Saudi bombing of Yemen. March 2018. (Alisdare Hickson via Flickr)

Faulty Blockade

Washington’s energy trade blockade of Iran is bound to fail.

China will continue to buy its 650,000 barrels a day – and may even buy more. Multiple Chinese companies trade technology and industrial services for Iranian oil.

Pakistan, Iraq and Turkey — all bordering Iran — will continue to buy Iranian high-quality light crude by every method of payment (including gold) and transportation available, formal or informal. Baghdad’s trade relationship with Tehran will continue to thrive.

As economic suffocation won’t suffice, Plan B is — what else — the threat of a hot war.

It’s by now established that the info, in fact rumors, about alleged Iranian maneuvers to attack U.S. interests in the Gulf was relayed to Bolton by the Mossad, at the White House, with Israeli National Security Adviser Meir Ben Shabbat personally briefing Bolton.

Everyone is aware of the corollary: a “reposition of assets” (in Pentagonese) — from the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group deployment to four B-52 bombers landing in Al Udeid Air base in Qatar, all part of a “warning” to Iran.

A pre-war roaring crescendo now engulfs the Lebanese front as well as the Iranian front.

Reasons for Psychotic Rage

Iran’s GDP is similar to Thailand’s, and its military budget is similar to Singapore’s. Bullying Iran is a geopolitical and geo-economic absurdity. Iran may be an emerging Global South actor — it could easily be a member of the G20 — but can never be construed as a “threat” to the U.S.

Yet Iran provokes psychopathic imperial functionaries to a paroxysm of rage for three serious reasons. Neocons never mind that trying to destroy Iraq cost over $6 trillion — and it was a major war crime, a political disaster, and an economic abyss all rolled into one. Trying to destroy Iran will cost untold trillions more.

The most glaring reason for the irrational hatred is the fact the Islamic Republic is one of the very few nations on the planet consistently defying the hegemon — for four decades now.

The second reason is that Iran, just like Venezuela — and this is a combined war front — have committed the supreme anathema; trading on energy bypassing the petrodollar, the foundation stone of U.S. hegemony.

The third (invisible) reason is that to attack Iran is to disable emerging Eurasia integration, just like using NSA spying to ultimately put Brazil in the bag was an attack on Latin American integration.

The non-stop hysteria over whether President Donald Trump is being maneuvered into war on Iran by his pet psychopaths – well, he actually directed Iran to “Call me” — eludes the Big Picture. As shown before, a possible shut down of the Strait of Hormuz, whatever the reasons, would be like a major meteor impact on the global economy. And that would inevitably translate as no Trump reelection in 2020.

The Strait of Hormuz would never need to be blocked if all the oil Iran is able to export is bought by China, other Asian clients and even Russia — which could relabel it. But Tehran wouldn’t blink on blocking Hormuz if faced with total economic strangulation.

According to a dissident U.S. intel expert, “the United States is at a clear disadvantage in that if the Strait of Hormuz is shut the U.S. collapses. But if the U.S. can divert Russia from defending Iran, then Iran can be attacked and Russia will have accomplished nothing, as the neocons do not want detente with Russia and China. Trump does want detente but the Deep State does not intend to permit it.”

Assuming this scenario is correct, the usual suspects in the United States government are trying to divert Putin from the Strait of Hormuz question while keeping Trump weakened, as the neocons proceed 24/7 on the business of strangling Iran. It’s hard to see Putin falling for this not exactly elaborate trap.

Not Bluffing

So what happens next? Professor Mohammad Marandi at the Faculty of World Studies of the University of Tehran offers quite a sobering perspective: “After 60 days Iran will push things even further. I don’t think the Iranians are bluffing. They will also be pushing back at the Saudis and the Emiratis by different means.”

Marandi, ominously, sees “further escalation” ahead:

“Iranians have been preparing for war with the Unites States ever since the Iraq invasion in 2003. After what they’ve seen in Libya, in Syria, Yemen, Venezuela, they know that the Americans and Europeans are utterly brutal. The whole shore of the Persian Gulf on the Iranian side and the Gulf of Oman is full of tunnels and underground high-tech missiles. The Persian Gulf is full of ships equipped with highly developed sea-to-sea missiles. If there is real war, all the oil and gas facilities in the region will be destroyed, all the tankers will be destroyed.”

And if that show comes to pass, Marandi regards the Strait of Hormuz as the “sideshow”:

“The Americans will be driven out of Iraq. Iraq exports 4 million barrels of oil a day; that would probably come to an end, through strikes and other means. It would be catastrophic for the Americans. It would be catastrophic for the world – and for Iran as well. But the Americans would simply not win.”

So as Marandi explains it — and Iranian public opinion now largely agrees — the Islamic Republic has leverage because they know “the Americans can’t afford to go to war. Crazies like Pompeo and Bolton may want it, but many in the establishment don’t.”

Tehran may have developed a modified MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) framework as leverage, mostly to push Trump ally MbS to cool down. “Assuming,” adds Marandi, “the madmen don’t get the upper hand, and if they do, then it’s war. But for the time being, I thinks that’s highly unlikely.”

Guided-missile destroyer USS Porter transits Strait of Hormuz, May 2012. (U.S. Navy/Alex R. Forster)

All Options on the Table?

In Cold War 2.0 terms, from Central Asia to the Eastern Mediterranean and from the Indian Ocean to the Caspian Sea, Tehran is able to count on quite a set of formal and informal alliances. That not only centers on the Beirut-Damascus-Baghdad-Tehran-Herat axis, but also includes Turkey and Qatar. And most important of all, the top actors on the Eurasian integration chessboard: the Russia and China in strategic partnership.

When Zarif met Lavrov last week in Moscow, they discussed virtually everything: Syria (they negotiate together in the Astana, now Nur-Sultan process), the Caspian, the Caucasus, Central Asia, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (of which Iran will become a member), the JCPOA and Venezuela.

The Trump administration was dragged kicking and screaming to meet Kim Jong-Un at the same table because of the DPRK’s intercontinental ballistic missile tests. And then Kim ordered extra missile tests because, in his own words, as quoted by KCNA, “genuine peace and security of the country are guaranteed only by the strong physical force capable of defending its sovereignty.”

Global South Watching

The overwhelming majority of Global South nations are watching the U.S. neocon offensive to ultimately strangle “the Iranian people”, aware more than ever that Iran may be bullied to extinction because it does not posses a nuclear deterrent. The IRGC has reached the same conclusion.

That would mean the death of the JCPOA – and the Return of the Living Dead of “all options on the table.”

But then, there’ll be twists and turns in the Art of the (Demented) Deal. So what if, and it’s a major “if”, Donald Trump is being held hostage by his pet psychopaths?

Let The Dealer speak:

“We hope we don’t have to do anything with regard to the use of military force…We can make a deal, a fair deal. … We just don’t want them to have nuclear weapons. Not too much to ask. And we would help put them back into great shape. They’re in bad shape right now. I look forward to the day where we can actually help Iran. We’re not looking to hurt Iran. I want them to be strong and great and have a great economy… We have no secrets. And they can be very, very strong, financially. They have great potential.”

Then again, Ayatollah Khamenei said: the Americans cannot be trusted, ever.

The Anti War Movement, SDS, The Weather Underground And The Jews.

May 13, 2019  /  Gilad Atzmon

24458233639_180a7fc7e3_z.jpg

In the 1960s, the United States had an authentic broad based peace movement that sprang from opposition to the War in Vietnam. Motives varied; fear of the draft, revulsion for the US strategy that was based on increasing enemy deaths, and general youthful rebellion probably all played a part. Yet by 1970, years before the end of the war, the anti war movement was in disarray. This paper addresses some of the reasons the movement was never able to capitalize on its support or to form a broad based Left anti war party. In fact, some remnants of the rancorous movement can be seen now in the US’ deeply divided politics.

Long term American involvement in Vietnam escalated after the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that gave President Johnson the power to wage war. As the war expanded in 1965, the fledgling anti war movement focused on ending US involvement in Vietnam. In his history of the anti war movement of which he was part, Bill Zimmerman writes that at first the movement adopted “two strategic goals: to give activists enough knowledge about Vietnam to be able to draw others into action, and to normalize opposition, since many Americans were hesitant to oppose their own country in a time of war.”

By 1967 the costs of the war were increasingly evident. As death tolls rose, the anti war movement grew and its stated goals evolved into a plan to build a mass movement and convert it into a political force. That year there were a number of large anti war demonstrations including 100,000 protesters gathered at the Lincoln Memorial and 500,000 in New York.

As the war dragged on, it began to seem that although the US military could level a city, it was not equipped to win a limited war on foreign turf. Perhaps for this or other reasons in 1967 much of the anti war movement adopted a frankly anti American posture. According to Bill Zimmerman: “Our strategy, less coherent than in earlier stages, was to force an end to the war by creating instability, chaos and disruption at home.”

This shift can be seen in the changes in one of the largest anti war groups, Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). SDS began in 1960 as a Leftist education and civil rights group that by 1965 had taken on a leadership role in the anti war movement. In 1968, SDS gained a large number of new members following North Vietnam’s Tet Offensive whose success came as a shock to many Americans who had been repeatedly informed that the communists’ resolve and resources were crumbling. Even the ordinarily prosaic newscaster Walter Cronkite remarked, “to say that we are mired in stalemate is the only reasonable, yet unsatisfactory conclusion.”

At its peak, in 1969, SDS had over 100,000 members and its actions made national news. Many of the members who had joined in 1968-9 were anti war, but not necessarily radical or Leftist, and tended to be from the south and the midwest. They were largely ignorant of and disinterested in the Left and its history. As Kirkpatrick Sale writes in his exhaustive history of the SDS: “They were non-Jewish, nonintellectual, nonurban, from a nonprofessional class, and often without any family tradition of political involvement, much less radicalism.”

With the influx of working class members, SDS, always a tumultuous organization, entered a period of destructive internal turmoil and battles for leadership that pitted the ‘old guard’ intellectual Leftists who fought to adopt radical policies against the ‘new guard’ who were more interested in demonstrations to end the war.

Steve Weissman, a veteran of the old guard, later regretted that the SDS had “underestimat[ed] … the importance of the anti war movement and lost the chance to create a permanent political force in America.” By failing to use the anti war movement for recruitment and education and peckishly insisting on increasingly far Left political positions, the SDS lost a chance to build an American left, one that included not only intellectuals and students but other strata of America as well.

The Yippies, formed at the end of 1967 by Abbie Hoffman and a few others, were a publicity hungry anti war group whose principal weapon was the public mockery of institutions. Famed Yippie actions included an “exorcism” and attempted levitation of the Pentagon and the guerrilla theater of Abbie Hoffman and other Yippies who dropped hundreds of dollar bills onto the New York Stock Exchange, effectively closing the floor as stockbrokers scrambled for the money. These well publicized comedic acts were deliberately intended to undermine the institutions they attacked.

Yippie activism captured perfectly the chaotic final years of the “movement,” as the New Left subsided into  factionalism and confusion over political objectives.

Their antics also contributed to the public’s widely held view that the  anti war movement was too countercultural, too radical.

In 1969 the deep divisions in SDS resulted in a convention that was so acrimonious that it “could hardly even agree upon a time to adjourn, much less an organization for revolution.”  SDS broke into two main factions, the Progressive Labor Party and the Weathermen, a self proclaimed radical group dedicated to fighting for the overthrow of American capitalism.

The Weathermen’s first declaration was that “the job of white Americans is to do anything they can in support of [revolutionary] struggles.”  Members of Weathermen contended that any efforts at organizing whites against their own perceived oppression were “attempts by whites to carve out even more privilege than they already derive from the imperialist nexus.” This sounds like the seeds of the contempt that the former anti war candidate, Hillary Clinton, showed unemployed coal miners and steel workers.

The white, mostly bourgeois, Weathermen found that the rest of the anti war movement failed to follow them. Despite their dwindling popularity, they somehow imagined that the urban communes they set up would become bases for organizing the would-be rank and file of the revolution, but predictably, they failed to rouse the proletariat.

Zimmerman, who came to view the Weathermen with contempt, believed that in order to make their movement grow they “had to make it easy for people to join us, not require them to carry foreign flags, risk arrest or adapt a militant posture toward a government many still considered their own.”

But the Weathermen were focused on demanding loyalty to itself.  New members were subjected to intense initiation rituals. Mass orgies entitled “smash monogamy” were scheduled with the intent of making the relationship with the group the only one that mattered.

With revolution rather than peace as its goal, the Weathermen turned to terrorism.  In 1969, the Weathermen issued a well-publicized call for a “fight the pigs” event in Chicago that the press dubbed “Days of Rage.” Two days prior to the protests, the group bombed the Haymarket Police statue. But the expected mobs of protestors failed to materialize.  A crowd of about 100 worked diligently to create chaos, but managed only to cause property damage and get arrested.

Frustrated, the Weathermen became increasingly violent. They built bombs to detonate at the sites of their purported oppressors. In March, 1970, a bomb meant for a dance at a nearby military base went off prematurely, blowing up their Greenwich Village town house, killing three and injuring two. At the time two additional bombs with 44 sticks of dynamite were defused with information provided by an undercover agent. The group ultimately set off about 25 bombs in various locations, including a nail bomb that killed a policeman. Historian Harvey Klehr writes that “the only reason they were not guilty of mass murder is mere incompetence.”

In September 1970, the Weathermen robbed a National Guard armory in Massachusetts stealing weapons and ammunition before setting fire to the armory. They used these weapons in a bank robbery during which they shot a police officer in the back. Three others were killed in a separate bank robbery.

Although the Weathermen diverted much of the anti war movement’s leadership, demonstrations against the war  continued, albeit on a more sporadic and spontaneous basis. In 1969, following the news of the1968 My Lai Massacre of 347 civilians, a broad based nationwide one day moratorium drew 500,000.

Then in 1970, the  invasion and bombing of Cambodia brought about large, violent and disorganized campus protests that resulted in the National Guard shooting into crowds of protestors, causing the deaths of 4 students at Kent State University and 2 at Jackson State University. Then again in 1971, demonstrations flared up after news broke of the invasion of Laos.

In part, organized demonstrations subsided in the wake of the departure of their far left organizers, and in part the movement lost its impetus when President Nixon and his defense Secretary, Melvin Laird, began to implement ‘Vietnamization,’ that is, the policy of transferring military operations from American troops to the South Vietnamese. Nixon gradually reduced the number of Americans in Vietnam until direct military involvement ended in 1973.

But the Weathermen remained energized throughout this period. They convened a  ‘war council’ in 1970 that issued a “Declaration of a State of War” against the US government.The council ended with a speech by John Jacobs who condemned the “pacifism” of white middle-class American youth (of which, of course, he was one). And declared that: “We’re against everything that’s ‘good and decent’ in honky America,…We will burn and loot and destroy.” The anti-White hatred reflected in Jacobs’ remarks was a central theme of the council. The Weathermen even debated whether killing White babies was a salutary revolutionary act.

The generally sympathetic documentary, “The Weather Underground” (the group’s name changed when their lawlessness forced them underground), portrays Weather members who put their lives on the line for peace and to oppose racism and who saw themselves as joining Black people and the Vietnamese in revolution. The Black Panthers, whose communal living facilities were dedicated to providing food and services to Black neighborhoods, shunned the Weathermen, calling the group’s  violence “stupid and unnecessary.”

Brian Flanagan, a rare working class member of the Weather Underground, and alone among the former members interviewed in the Documentary, compared the Weathermen to Islamist terrorists and to Timothy McVeigh, noting that all shared the conviction that their own knowledge of what was right for society entitled them to break laws, to kill, to engage in terrorism. “When you feel that you have right on your side,” he said, “you can do some pretty horrific things.” Others interviewed in the Documentary remain unapologetic, and do not seem to see that their actions failed to inspire political change or even to help bring an end to the war. Bill Ayers, one of the group’s “rich kid radicals” said in a 2001interview, “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.”

Many in this movement that had superseded the anti war movement and transformed it into a divisive, patronizing, violent, disruptive force were Jewish. Why? Mark Rudd  former leader of SDS at Columbia University and of the Weather Underground, addressed this question in a later essay. As he explains, although he was a third generation American, he grew up in an insular world where his “family carried the Jewish ghettos of Newark and Elizabeth with them to the suburbs.” He writes that his family was far from “assimilated, if that means replacing a Jewish identity with an American one.”

Rudd’s explanation for his political alienation is instructive.  “As a child I never fell for the seduction of patriotism. It seemed so arbitrary, who’s an American and who’s not. If my relatives hadn’t emigrated, who would I be? Since I was also at core an idealist and a utopian—another Jewish tradition?—I wanted to skip all that obviously stupid and dangerous stuff that gave rise to wars and racism.”

This is an astounding statement. He views being an American as the arbitrary result of immigration (although immigration was a purposeful event) and his Jewishness as an irreducible and positive trait. Then after speaking of the racism of his family (they moved out when Black families moved into their Newark neighborhood) he sees patriotism, a sentiment that presumably embraces all Americans including Blacks, as racist and treats his own membership in an insular racial group as “idealist and utopian.”

When Rudd entered Columbia he joined SDS where all of his mentors and friends, and indeed, most of the group, were Jewish. Rudd recalls many conversations with his Jewish comrades but never a conversation in which they  “discussed the fact that so many of us were Jewish. This glaring lack alone might serve as a clue to what we were up to: by being radicals we thought we could escape our Jewishness. Left-wing radicalism was internationalist, not narrow nationalist; it favored the oppressed and the workers, not the privileged and elites, which our families were striving toward.”

While Rudd may have wanted to escape his identity and become one with the ‘workers,’ it seems that the workers had no interest in his revolutionary politics. Gilad Atzmon points out in ‘Being In Time,’ that when ‘revolutionary’ Jews went to Spain to join the Civil War, they found themselves in an International Brigade that was 1/4 Jewish and Yiddish was the lingua franca. While they wanted, as Rudd did, to escape their identity and join the proletariat, they found themselves in a “Jewish ghetto, fighting Spanish patriots.” They might have identified with the working class, but they were not a part of that class.  Atzmon explains, “[t]he Red Jews who traveled to Spain ended up fighting in Jewish legions because ID politics and Left-orientation are largely a Jewish intellectual domain that is actually quite foreign to working people.”

Then, as if to illustrate his confusion, in Rudd’s next paragraph he switches to seeing the ‘revolution’ not as an escape from his identity but as an affirmation of it, stating: “Identifying with the oppressed seemed to me at Columbia and since a natural Jewish value. What outraged me and my comrades so much about Columbia, along with its hypocrisy, was that despite the large number of Jewish students the University had “the air of genteel civility. Or should I say gentile?”

Here is the part of the anti war movement that is in complete rebellion against all that is ‘goyim.’ And yet it is Archie Bunker who we hold out as a racist. But even the fictional ‘racist’ Archie didn’t leave his home when a Black family moved next door as Rudd’s family had. Atzmon notes that ‘All in the Family’ was itself subversive of working class values. Beginning in 1971 we watched Archie railing against his son-in-law who represented what we now call ‘political correctness.’  Our universal denigration of Archie became a part of our adoption of identity politics, that eschews bigotry yet divides society into groups based on inherited characteristics.

Rudd’s explanations for why so many in the radical anti war movement were Jewish seems to me to be incomplete. The movement never was ‘internationalist,’ as it failed to convince the working class to join nor did the movement help Rudd escape his Jewish identity, he consistently identified as Jewish and found much to criticize about goyim. There are a few other possible motives that might have contributed to the phenomenon he addresses.

First, the Jews were the vast majority of the intellectuals of the movement. By adopting radical politics that were frankly anti American the Jews (in the movement) were able to differentiate themselves and escape the company of the seemingly unwelcome ‘middle Americans’ (goyim). Instead they formed an elitist apparatus within the so-called radical left.

George Tyler writes in “Weather Underground:Driving down a Dead End Street,” “Many of the Weather Underground leaders are sons and daughters of wealthy families – prominent corporation executives, lawyers, etc. …The arrogance, elitism and impatience stemming from their class background was reflected in their politics.” Much as they claimed proletarian values, these SDS leaders were unable to compromise or work with their working class brethren. Their contempt for others is not unlike the latter day critique of the ‘basket of deplorables.’

In fact, some former members of SDS saw the Weathermen’s violence and attacks on the middle class as deliberately designed to destroy the anti war movement. Although perhaps not intentional, it was at a minimum predictable that the Weather Underground’s actions would be repellent to most.

Also, and perhaps relevant, the radical split off and effective weakening of the anti war movement occurred  after 1967, the year of the Six Day War after which a victorious Israel was viewed with pride by many diaspora Jews. The radical students seeking the oppressed to represent might well instead have chosen the Palestinians who had been uprooted by the Jewish state. Was some of their anger at America transferred from embarrassment at the land grab  by the Israelis and the creation of thousands more refugees? Or instead, did they sympathize with Israel and feel themselves even stronger when represented by a victorious state? In any case, these radicals who identified as Jewish were more interested in ‘fixing’ the United States than in ‘fixing’ Israel.

Whatever the motivation, it was the intellectual and largely Jewish members of SDS who formed the Weathermen whose violence kneecapped the anti war movement. While they saw those who did not join them as ‘complicit’ in ‘America’s crimes,’ they were at least as complicit in that they accomplished nothing except to hurt the anti war movement by association.

However upset the Weathermen claimed to have been by the millions of deaths in Vietnam, even today most show no regret for the deaths they caused. In listening to them it is clear that there never was an achievable goal in their calls for a total revolution without a map. Atzmon points out that, “[t]hey didn’t want to liberate America, they wanted to liberate themselves from themselves by being themselves. It didn’t work very well.”

In the years since, many of the Weathermen have emerged from hiding, and have as  Larry Grathwohl, writes in his memoir of his time as an undercover agent, “pulled off [one of] their most audacious feats: they negotiated a return to society, avoided legal consequences for their most serious crimes, and rose to influential positions in academia and politics – all without renouncing their anti-American ideology or apologizing for the acts of terrorism they committed against ordinary Americans.”

Sale concludes his history of the SDS narrative by pointing out SDS’ ‘salutary’ long term effects. “SDS taught the mechanics of political organizing and protest to an activist segment of the student population and restored the legitimacy of mass dissent to the national scene, leading eventually to such direct political consequences as liberalized laws (with respect, for example, to abortion, marijuana, homosexuality, community control, and the rights of blacks, women, and the young), the reorganization of the Democratic Party and the nomination of George McGovern, and the extension of suffrage to eighteen-year-olds.”

Perhaps it is the residue of the elitism of the SDS that has left the Democratic Party alienated from its former working class base.

Venezuela isn’t Syria… but America’s war tactics are the same — In Gaza

May 14, 2019, RT.com -by Eva Bartlett

Since Juan Guaido declared himself Venezuela’s interim president, rhetoric emanating from Washington has grown increasingly familiar. It echoes the bombastic & hollow humanitarian-crisis type of war propaganda which has been used repeatedly in resource-rich nations, from Afghanistan to Iraq to Libya to Syria. And now we’re seeing it […]

via Venezuela isn’t Syria… but America’s war tactics are the same — In Gaza

Escalated Trump Regime War Threats Against Iran

By Stephen Lendman
Source

Preemptive Trump regime war on Iran would be madness. Israel should be wary about what it’s long pushed for.

If war on Iran happens, its cities, military, and nuclear facilities will be vulnerable. So will US regional bases, troops and warships.

Knowing it could be attacked by US and/or Israeli forces, Hezbollah could aid Tehran by missile strikes on Israeli and US targets. If Russia got involved to defend its regional interests as it did in Syria, global war could follow.

All of the above is why I doubt the Trump regime will go this far, continuing to exert maximum toughness on the Islamic Republic by other means — notably by escalated sanctions war to crush its economy, heated rhetoric, and saber rattling, hoping for regime change by these actions.

Yet Pompeo, Bolton, Netanyahu, and likeminded extremists in both countries are so hostile toward Iran, making anything possible, even unthinkable war on the nation, risking dire consequences if launched.

It could happen by accident or design, perhaps by a CIA/Mossad false flag, a US tradition since the mid-19th century, 9/11 the mother of them all.

According to the Wall Street Journal on Monday, an unnamed Trump regime official accused Iran of “likely (being) behind the attack on two Saudi Arabian oil tankers and two other vessels damaged over the weekend near the Strait of Hormuz,” the Journal adding:

“The assessment (was) not conclusive…The US official…didn’t offer details about what led to the assessment or its implications for a possible (Trump regime) response.”

On Monday, a similar AP News report cited an unnamed Trump regime official, saying an “initial assessment (of what happened to Saudi and UAE tankers) is that Iranian or Iranian-backed proxies” were responsible — a bald-faced Big Lie.

Pompeo falsely accused Iran of “escalating a series of threatening actions and statements in recent weeks.” 

Days earlier, a State Department statement said the Trump regime “hold(s) (Iran) accountable for activities that threaten the region’s stability and harm the Iranian people. This includes denying Iran any pathway to a nuclear weapon” it doesn’t seek.

Iran’s nuclear program has no military component, affirmed multiple times by the IAEA and US intelligence community.

In its annual assessments of global threats, time and again it stated that no evidence suggests the Islamic Republic is pursuing a nuclear weapons capability.

Claims otherwise by Trump regime hardliners and Israel are bald-faced Big Lies.

On Monday, Trump said “(i)f they do anything, they will suffer greatly. We’ll see what happens with Iran.”

Fact: Iran hasn’t attacked another country in centuries, threatening none now except in self-defense if attacked, its legal right under the UN Charter and other international law.

Fact: Iran seeks regional peace and stability. Its ruling authorities abhor nuclear weapons, wanting them all eliminated.

Fact: Not a shred of evidence suggests Iran had anything to do with alleged sabotage to Saudi and UAE tankers over the weekend.

Fact: Lots of evidence shows the Islamic Republic intends no actions to give the Trump regime a pretext for war.

Fact: Tehran seeks mutual cooperation with regional and world community nations.

Fact: Throughout the Islamic Republic’s history, seven US administrations sought regime change — from Jimmy Carter to Trump.

Fact: US war plans were drawn against Iran years ago, never implemented, updated over time. The possibility of US aggression against the country is greater by the Trump regime than any time before.

So far, US actions have been restricted to sanctions war, hostile rhetoric, and saber-rattling. How far the Trump regime intends to go against Iran remains to be seen.

Bolton and acting US war secretary Patrick Shanahan reportedly drew up a plan to deploy up to 120,000 US troops to the Middle East if Iran attacks Pentagon forces or resumes activities Washington can claim are all about pursuing nuclear weapons — no matter how false.

The plan reportedly was discussed by Bolton, Shanahan, CIA director Gina Haspel, DNI Dan Coats, and Joint Chiefs Chairman General Joseph (“fighting Joe”) Dunford.

It’s unclear if Trump was briefed so far. Pompeo and Bolton have been escalating hostile rhetoric toward Iran for months. Fake Mossad intelligence warned of a possible Tehran plot against US regional forces.

Not a shred of credible evidence suggests such a plan exists. Big Lies repeated enough get most people to believe them. All wars are based on lies and deception.

In response to phony claims of an Iranian threat to US Middle East forces, the Pentagon deployed the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group and nuclear-capable B-52 bombers to the region.

In April, Trump falsely declared Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) a terrorist group, an unprecedented action against a nation’s military. US moves against Iran greatly escalated tensions, heightening the risk of war.

All post-WW II US wars were against nations threatening no one, naked aggression by any standard, none authorized by Congress or the Security Council.

On Monday, Pompeo met with his UK, French, and German counterparts in Brussels, along with EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, discussing Iran.

She was quoted saying that the EU strongly opposes “military escalation” against Iran, urging “maximum restraint and avoiding any escalation on the military side,” adding:

“Pompeo heard that very clearly today from us, not only from myself, but also from the other ministers of EU member states” on where they stand on this issue.

“We, as you know, as the European Union, always encourage dialog and diplomatic engagement. This has always been our commitment. This is what we are practicing, including with Iran.”

EU/NATO countries are involved in virtually all US wars of aggression, Washington’s so-called “coalition of the willing.” Will Iran be an exception if the Trump regime attacks the country? Heavy pressure will be brought to bear on its key countries to get involved if things go this far.

Mogherini was less than candid, claiming “(t)here is full determination on the European Union’s side, and also all the member states expressed that today very clearly on continuing to implement it at full the nuclear deal with Iran.”

Since Trump’s JCPOA pullout last May, EU actions belied its supportive rhetoric for the deal, failing to follow through on promises made.

It’s why Iran gave Britain, France and Germany “60 days to meet their commitments, especially in the banking and oil sectors,” adding:

“Whenever our (legitimate) demands are met, we will, to the same extent, resume the commitments. Otherwise, the Islamic Republic will be suspending more commitments stage by stage.” 

“In line with protecting the security and national interests of the Iranian people,” the Supreme National Security Council said it’ll suspend some of its voluntary commitments, relating to enrichment and storage of uranium and heavy water — according to its rights under JCPOA articles 26 and 36.

“Iran stands ready to continue its consultations with the remaining parties to the deal at all levels, but it will swiftly and firmly react to any irresponsible measure, including returning the case (of Iran’s legal nuclear program) to the Security Council or imposing more sanctions.”

Iran, Russia and China fully comply with JCPOA provisions. The Trump regime illegally pulled out of the binding agreement. Britain, France and Germany failed to fulfill their obligations, delaying and equivocating instead.

Will they change their behavior in the weeks ahead to save the deal, or will they surrender to US demands like countless times before?

Avoiding US war on Iran may depend on their JCPOA compliance. How they’ll act is very uncertain. The jury remains out on this vital issue.

Note: Spain’s Defense Minister Margarita Robles ordered the withdrawal of its Mendez Nunez frigate from the Middle East combat group led by the USS Abraham Lincoln over heightened tensions with Iran. 

Will other NATO countries take similar actions to avoid the risk of war with the Islamic Republic?

 

معاني البدء بتحرير إدلب على وقع طبول الحرب الأميركية

مايو 14, 2019

العميد د. أمين محمد حطيط

كانت الجماعات المسلحة والجهات التي تقودها أو تدعمها، تعمل في محيط إدلب ضدّ الجيش السوري مطمئنة الى نجاحها في جرّه الى حرب استنزاف مرهقة، وإحراجه ميدانياً وسياسياً ومعنوياً ووضعه في وضع لا يستطيع الانطلاق الى عمل ميداني يكسر رتابة المشهد او يغيّر من واقع امتلاك الإرهابيين زمام المبادرة في ظلّ تقيد الجيش السوري بمخرجات استانة ومضمون اتفاق سوتشي وقيود منظومة مناطق خفض التصعيد.

في ظل هذا التصور تطور الاستفزاز الإرهابي للجيش والمدنيين السوريين في ريف حماة الشمالي وريف حلب الجنوبي الغربي الى الحد الذي ألحق بالجيش خسائر مؤثرة وبالمدنيين ضربات مؤلمة ومعطلة للحياة الطبيعية في أكثر من مرة. خسائر كانت تقع على مرأى ومسمع قيادة معسكر العدوان على سورية التي كانت تطرب بكل مكوناتها لما تحدثه عمليات حرب الاستنزاف الإرهابية ضد السوريين مدنيين عسكريين.

تحت وطأة هذا الوضع المرفوض لا بل المستحيل القبول به أصلاً والقبول باستمراره استطراداً كان اجتماع استانة الأخير الذي ووجهت فيه تركيا بالحقيقة التي لا يمكن السكوت عليها ووضعت بين خيارين إما التنفيذ السريع والجدي لكلّ التزاماتها في سوتشي وأستانة، ووضع حدّ لحرب الاستنزاف التي بدأها المسلحون منذ أربعة أشهر تقريباً، او التزام الصمت امام قيام الجيش العربي السوري في معالجة الوضع ورسم خريطة جديدة في الميدان تفتح الطريق أمام إنهاء الوضع الشاذ في ادلب في مرحلة لاحقة لا بد آتية.

وإظهاراً للجدية في مواقف الثنائي الروسي الإيراني المتبني للموقف السوري، ولتأكيد انّ صبر سورية قد نفد وانّ قواتها المسلحة هي على أهبة الاستعداد للعمل في الميدان بصرف النظر عمّن سيواجهها، كان يوم قصف الطيران الطويل المنفذ من قبل سلاح الجو السوري والطائرات الروسية العاملة في سورية واستهدف فيه أكثر من 45 قاعدة نارية للمسلحين كما كانت الرسالة الصاروخية التي وجهتها المدفعية السورية لإحدى النقاط العسكرية التركية في محيط ادلب وأدت الى خسائر بشرية تركية في الموقع.

بهذا العمل المتكامل سياسياً وعسكرياً وميدانياً، فهمت تركيا بان قرار وقف حرب الاستنزاف اتخذ ولا رجعة عنه وأن هناك مرحلة عمل عسكري سوري في المحيط ستبدأ مهما كانت العوائق، وفهمت بأن لا طائل من المكابرة، لذا التزمت الصمت واكتفت بمراقبة حركة قوات الجيش العربي السوري التي انطلقت لتنفيذ عمليات المرحلة الأولى من مراحل تحرير منطقة ادلب، التحرير الذي سيتم وفقاً لعملية مركبة من عناصر ثلاثة ويتم على مراحل متتابعة تفرضها الظروف المعقدة التي تقوم في المنطقة أو التي تحيط بها محلياً وإقليمياً ودولياً.

وبالتالي فإن الصمت التركي لم يكن نتيجة لما يريد أن يروج له المرجفون والمشككون الذين صنعوا من انفسهم ابواقاً للتشكيك بكل ما يتصل بالأداء الوطني للحكومة السورية او التخفيف من قوة قراراتها الاستراتيجية والادعاء بأن سورية اشترت صمت تركيا بالتساهل في مستقبل تل رفعت، بل إن الصمت التركي كان نتيجة الموقف السوري الموسوم بالحزم والقوة مدعوماً بموقف إيران ومحور المقاومة وروسيا. موقف أظهر لتركيا أن عهد المناورات لكسب الوقت وتمرير المشاريع المعادية الخاصة ولى وأن هناك مرحلة جديدة في الميدان والسياسة عليها أن تسلم بها، ففهمت وسلمت وصمتت.

إذن ركبت سورية عمليتها من عناصر ثلاثة كما ذكرنا، بحيث تتكامل جميعها في خدمة الهدف الأساس والكبير المتمثل بتحرير ادلب ومنطقتها واستعادتها الى حضن الوطن والسيادة السورية بأقل كلفة ممكنة، لذا ركبت العملية من عناصر كان أولها ضغطاً متعدد العناوين هدفه إخراج العدد الأكبر من المدنيين من ميدان المعركة لتجنيبهم أهوال الحرب، والثاني عقد مصالحات مع الفصائل المسلحة بعد ممارسة عمليات الترغيب والترهيب بوجهها حتى يستجيبوا لدعوة الحكومة بالخروج من الميدان مقابل ضمان مستقبلهم في الوطن رغم أن شروط المصالحات هنا تبدو أكثر شدة وتعقيداً مما مضى لأنه بعد ادلب لن يكون هناك محل يتوجه إليه رافضو المصالحة، أما العنصر الأخير فهو كما يوصف بانه آخر الدواء الكي أي العمل العسكري الذي شاهد المتابع جزءاً بسيطاً منه مورس فأدى الى تحرير مناطق هامة في المنطقة، حيث دخلت قوى الجيش إلى الحدود الإدارية لإدلب.

ومن جهة أخرى اعتمد لعملية التحرير، ولأسباب إنسانية وعملانية استراتيجية، باعتماد أسلوب المراحل ذات الأهداف المرنة المتدحرجة وهو نهج ألفه الميدان السوري خلال عمليات التحرير السابقة، وجاءت المرحلة الأولى من اجل تحقيق أربعة اهداف رئيسية هي:

كسر خطة الإرهابيين ومشغليهم، الرامية الى إدارة حرب استنزاف يجرّ الجيش الغربي السوري اليها ووضع حد نهائي لهذا الامر.

إجهاض المناورات التركية الرامية للتسويف ومنع تحرير إدلب وكسب الوقت لتنفيذ المشروع التركي في المنطقة المتمثل باقتطاع الأرض والتدخل في مستقبل النظام السياسي السوري.

ضرب معنويات المسلحين وإجهاض آمالهم بطول البقاء في المنطقة مستندين على الوعود بحماية مشغليهم.

تهيئة منطقة العمليات وتسوية خطوط التماس بما يسهل الانطلاق في المرحلة الثانية من العملية والتي ستركز على تحرير مساحات أوسع وتخليص أعداد أكبر من المدنيين المتخذين شبه رهائن لدى المسلحين.

ومستفيدة من التحضيرات الميدانية العسكرية، ومن الإنجازات الاستخبارية الهامة التي حققتها المخابرات في ادلب في صفوف المسلحين، ومن الارباك الغربي والإقليمي والأميركي بشكل خاص في ما يتعلق بالمواجهة مع ايران، وإشاعة فكرة اقتراب الحرب في المنطقة بعد دخول القرارات الأميركية «صفر تصدير نفط إيراني» حيز التنفيذ. ومن نتائج اجتماعات استانة الأخيرة، مستفيدة من كل ذلك نفذت قوى الجيش العربي السوري المنتشرة في محيط المنطقة، المرحلة الأولى من العملية بنجاح باهر وبسرعة اختصرت التوقيت الموضوع لها الى النصف او أقل واقتصدت بالجهود والتضحيات بشكل فاق التوقع.

وعليه يمكن القول إن تنفيذ المرحلة الأولى من عملية تحرير إدلب جاءت بنتائج تخطت ما حدد لها ولهذا تدحرجت أهدافها الى أبعد ما خطط لها أصلاً وسيكون لها من المفاعيل العملانية والاستراتيجية ما يؤثر على مجمل المواجهة في سورية بين معسكري العدوان والدفاع عن سورية، أولاً وينسحب تأثيرها بشكل عام على المواجهة القائمة في الإقليم بين محور المقاومة وقوى العدوان عليه بقيادة اميركا، ولن تجد أميركا مجدياً لها قرع طبول الحرب ضد ايران وحزب الله ولن يكون لها بالتهويل والحرب النفسية ما تحلم به من إذعان وخضوع، فالحرب لن تكون نزهة لأميركا وحلفائها، ومحور المقاومة ماضٍ قدماً في المواجهة المدروسة والواقعية غير الاستفزازية، وواثق من النتائج التي لن تكون إلا في مصلحة شعوب المنطقة التي تطمح الى بناء منطقة لأهلها لا يكون لمستعمر فيها مقر أو نفوذ.

وبالخلاصة نقول إن عمليات ادلب في سقفها المرسوم وأسلوب تنفيذها المخطط وفي ظرفها المدروس تستجمع من المعاني والدلالات ما يمكن إجماله بالقول بان:

ان سورية ومعها محور المقاومة لا تتراجع عن القرارات الاستراتيجية مهما كانت كلفتها.

ان التهويل بالحرب ومناورات الحرب النفسية لن تثني سورية ومحور المقاومة عن أداء المهام الدفاعية مهما كانت الكلفة.

ان من انتصر في مراحل الحرب الدفاعية التي استهدفت سورية ومحور المقاومة خلال العقد المنصرم لن يفرط بانتصاره مهما كانت الظروف.

إذا استوجب الظرف والحال مرونة وليونة في التنفيذ فإن الامر ممكن شرط ان لا يمس بالصلابة والثبات على المبادئ.

مقالات مشابهة

%d bloggers like this: