طوى ترامب صفحة بولتون… فماذا عن الشرق الأوسط؟

سبتمبر 20, 2019

ناصر قنديل

– في صحيفتين شديدتي التعبير عن مناخ الباحثين والمفكرين والنخب المشاركة في صناعة القرار الأميركي مقالتان شديدتي الأهمية، واحدة لخبير الأمن والاستراتيجية المعروف باتزانه ومكانته ستيفن كوك نشرها في الفورين بوليسي، والثانية افتاحية لوول ستريت جورنال، والمقالتان تتناولان عملية ضرب مجمع أرامكو كمفصل هام في تحديد مستقبل الدور الأميركي في الشرق الأوسط، وفقا لتسمية الأميركيين لمنطقتنا. والتقاطع بين المقالتين واضح ومحدد ودقيق، وهو أنه من اللحظة التي لم يأخذ الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب فيها بنصيحة جون بولتون بالردّ على إسقاط إيران لطائرة التجسس الأميركية العملاقة، حدث أمران، الأول هو تبلور قرار ترامب بطرد بولتون، والثاني هو قرار إيران بالمضي قدماً في التصعيد، والسؤال الذي طرحته الوول ستريت علناً تحت عنوان هل يندم ترامب على طرد بولتون ويعود لنصائحه ولو بغيابه فيقرر المواجهة؟ طرحه ستيفن كوك في مقالته بصورة أشدّ عمقاً تحت عنوان، كيفية التصرف الأميركي بعد ضربة أرامكو لن تقرر فقط مستقبل السياسة الأميركية في المنطقة، بل مستقبل الوجود الأميركي في المنطقة، وتالياً مستقبل المنطقة، كما يقول عنوان مقال ستيفن كوك في الفورين بوليسي، هذه هي اللحظة التي تقرّر مستقبل الشرق الأوسط .

– المقالتان منشورتان قبل إعلان الرئيس ترامب عن تسمية مستشاره الجديد للأمن القومي روبرت أوبراين وما يتضمنه الاختيار من قطيعة مع نظريات بولتون، وإشهار لبدء عهد جديد يقوم على التفاوض، والذهاب إلى الأمم المتحدة، والابتعاد عن خيار المواجهة مع إيران. كذلك تعليق بولتون على ضربة أرامكو المتوافق مع مضمون المقالتين في القول إن عدم تجاوب ترامب مع دعوات الرد على إسقاط الطائرة كان السبب في تشجيع إيران على المضي في خيار التصعيد وصولاً لعملية أرامكو، سابق لجواب ترامب الضمني عليه بطبيعة اختياره أوبراين للخلف، وهو الآتي من عالم التفاوض والتحكيم والتعاقدات الاقتصادية. وبما قاله ترامب عن ترجيح خيار التعامل الدبلوماسي مع عملية أرامكو، ما يعني أن الأجوبة على الأسئلة التي طرحتها الصحيفتان قد تمت.

– ترامب ليس نادماً على طرد بولتون ولا على عدم الأخذ بنصيحته. هذا هو الجواب على سؤال الوول ستريت، والأهم هو الجواب على ما مهدت له الفورين بوليسي من توقعات لما سيترتب على كيفية التعامل مع عملية أرامكو. فستيفن كوك يقول في تلك المقالة، إن ثلاثة مصالح أساسية رسمت سياسة الولايات المتحدة تجاه الشرق الأوسط وتحكمت بها على مدى سبعة عقود وهي: ضمان التدفق الحر لموارد الطاقة من المنطقة، والمساعدة في الحفاظ على الأمن الإسرائيلي، والتأكد من عدم قدرة أي دولة أو مجموعة من الدول على تحدّي القوة الأميركية في الطريقة التي من شأنها أن تعرض المصالح الأخرى للخطر . ويسرد كوك محطات كحربي الخليج في عهد كل من جورج بوش الأب وجورج بوش الإبن، كمثال على محركات هذه السياسة، ويعتبر كوك أن ما جرى في الخليج منذ شهور يتصل بالمحاور المحركة للسياسة الأميركية، النفط وأمن إسرائيل وتحدي الهيبة الأميركية. والطرف المعني هنا هو إيران، وابتعاد واشنطن عن الرد سيعني شيئاً واحداً، وهو أن الأساس المنطقي الكامل للاستثمار الأميركي في الشرق الأوسط على مدار السبعين سنة الماضية قد تغيّر . وبالتالي يجب على الولايات المتحدة أن تحزم أمتعتها وتعود إلى الوطن .

Related Videos

 

Related Posts

Advertisements

9/11 Unmasked: An International Review Panel Investigation

By David Brooks

Source

911 Unmasked cbc29

David Ray Griffin and Elizabeth Woodworth. Olive Branch Press (Northhampton, MA; 2018) 308 pages

If any book would serve as a tombstone for the government-sponsored account of 9/11, this is it. Here lies the Authorized Conspiracy Theory; rest in pieces. A good fifty of them are laid out in this text for painstaking forensic examination. Like no other book before it, 9/11 Unmasked puts a wooden stake through the monstrous lie of 9/11. It represents the triumph of investigative research and critical thinking over tendentious conspiracy theorizing. Anyone who looks at this body of evidence will never believe the official story again – never, never, never.

Some may wonder why Prof. David Ray Griffin, who has already written voluminously on this subject, should feel compelled to give it another go. But this work functions as a capstone for all that has gone before. 9/11 Unmasked serves as the definitive user’s guide for deconstructing the official version of 9/11. It presents a resounding rebuttal to years of mendacious media reportage and fraudulent government reports. The text is concise and yet precise—300 reader-friendly pages backed up by nearly 900 endnotes. Sectioned into bite-sized chapters, it manages to be both a formidable work of scholarship and one which will appeal to the general public.

As if their own credentials were not enough, Griffin and co-author Elizabeth Woodworth convened a review panel of 23 experts in their respective disciplines to sift through the detritus of that day and arrive at a “best evidence” assessment regarding key components of the 9/11 narrative. Among the 51 subjects covered are the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7, the attack on the Pentagon, claims about military and political leaders, phone calls from the 9/11 flights, and the question of insider trading. On any given point, they juxtapose the official version of events with empirical and testimonial evidence.

Here is a one sample chapter of their analysis:

The Official Account

Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. (The 9/11 Commission Report, Chapter 5)

The Best Evidence

The FBI did not list 9/11 as one of the terrorist attacks for which Osama bin Laden was wanted. When asked why, Rex Tomb, when he was the head of investigative publicity for the FBI, stated that the FBI had “no hard evidence” connecting bin Laden to 9/11. There were also other statements indicating that evidence of bin Laden’s guilt had not been provided.

Also, although Secretary of State Colin Powell and British Prime Minister Tony Blair promised to provide evidence of bin Laden’s responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, neither of them did.

Finally, The 9/11 Commission Report discussed the responsibility of bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks as if it had evidence for it. But the “evidence” consisted of statements by captured followers of bin Laden, especially KSM (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed), yet the co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission—Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton—reported that they had been unable to question KSM or the other detainees. They were not even allowed to observe the interrogations of these men. And so, said Kean and Hamilton: “We …had no way of evaluating the credibility of detainee information. How could we tell if someone such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was …telling us the truth?”

In this passage alone there are seven endnotes substantiating each and every claim made herein. Had Griffin wanted to write at greater length, he could have expounded on how “detainee information” was allegedly obtained through “enhanced interrogation”—torture. But Griffin is intent on documentation. No theorizing; just cold, hard facts obtained from primary sources.

Such meticulous methodology can get tedious quickly, however. God is in the details, but how easy it is to get bogged down in details. Who really cares what time Vice President Dick Cheney arrived at the White House Command bunker or how much insider trading went on? But some in-depth sleuthing pays off. What a shock to learn that the only evidence for hijackers wielding box-cutters is one undocumented phone call supposedly made by the wife of Bush’s Solicitor-General. That’s all! There’s no other evidence box-cutters were used—or even that planes were hijacked. Keep that in mind the next time you’re patted down by airport security agents.

The 9/11 Commission Report works well enough as the outline for an action movie, but in the hands of David Ray Griffin and fellow 9/11 researchers, it does not survive critical scrutiny. How chilling to realize that maybe it was never intended to do so.

Hovering over Griffin’s magisterial analysis are these haunting words by a senior advisor to President Bush (Karl Rove), speaking to a New York Times journalist back in 2004:

We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.

Rove seemed to have anticipated the new academic discipline known as 9/11 Studies—which has indeed gone largely ignored, not only by official government agencies, but by every university political science department in the land. Intellectual analysis doesn’t get more judicious than this, but sure enough, “history’s actors” are still at it, forever plotting war.

But you have to wonder how long these so-called actors can keep up their act. While it’s true that 9/11 Truth has yet to set us free, neither is it going away. With every 9/11 anniversary that passes, more people smell something rotten in the Deep State of America.

Indeed the more judiciously one studies 9/11, the less it seems to fall under the rubrics of political science but that of sheer criminology. A monumental crime was committed – the pre-meditated mass murder of thousands of people! – but as Griffin relates, there was less forensic work done afterwards than what you see on a TV crime show

In this respect 9/11 Unmasked does not live up to its title. By the end of the book we are no more enlightened than at the beginning as to the identity of the perpetrators. The masks stay on. While Griffin produces abundant evidence that various branches of the US government were complicit in a cover-up, the question remains: Who actually committed the crime?

After going to such lengths to prove that explosives were put in World Trade Center, isn’t it time to ask who put them there? But in all the pages expended on the demolition of the WTC, there is not one mention of “Lucky” Larry Silverstein – the man who obtained the office complex only weeks before 9/11 and collected billions on the insurance. Nor is there mention of his good friend, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who called his pal every weekend without fail. Surely these individuals rate as “persons of interest,” as the police like to say.

But the cause of judicious analysis can only go so far. Having debunked the hallowed narrative of September 11th 51 ways to Sunday, Griffin ends his opus with this less-than-resounding note: “The most fateful example of fake news in the twenty-first century thus far has been the official account of 9/11. It is long past time to set the record straight.”

Is that all we can hope for? “To set the record straight”?! How about catching these criminals before they burn the rest of the planet down?!

But let’s see him do it. Let’s see David Ray Griffin set the record straight. Is there anyone more qualified for the job than the universally acknowledged Dean of 9/11 Studies? Let him reconvene the 9/11 Review Panel Investigation and determine what really happened, who did it, and why. What greater task can they have?

If there’s such a thing as an honest law enforcement agency in America, maybe someone will act on the findings of such a task-force. It’s never too late until it is.

The Smoking Gun in the Islamic State Conspiracy: Documents Prove US Arming Islamic State

By Georoid O’ Colmain

Source

US Special Forces in Yemen 41568

Bulgarian journalist Dilyana Gaytandzhieva has revealed that the US is arming the Islamic State (IS) terrorist group in Yemen. On her website Armswatch.com, Gaytandzhieva has published the documentation of the weapons contractors involved. A complex international network involving Serbia, Croatia, Afghanistan, and the United States has been supplying arms to IS terrorists in Yemen, where a civil war has been raging since 2015.

Still, shots taken from an IS video in Yemen show weapons manufactured by Serbian state-owned arms manufacturer Krusik and exported by Jugoimport SDPR. The weapons were purchased by American company Alliant Techsystems LLC (a subsidiary of ATK Orbital) on orders from the US Government. They were ordered by the US military as part of the Resolute Support operation in Afghanistan. In other words, they were supposed to be part of the US training and support for Afghan military and police when, in fact, they were shipped to terrorists in Yemen and Syria.

still image taken from the Islamic State video in Yemen 675ad

*(This still image taken from the Islamic State video in Yemen shows mortar shells 82 mm M74 HE lot 04/18 from the Serbian arms factory Krusik along with mortar shells from Bosnia and Herzegovina.)

Gaytandzhieva’s report also shows that US companies have been shipping weapons to Al-Qaeda from the same Serbian manufacturers via US military bases in Croatia and Qatar, as part of the US Special Operations Command’s (USSOCOM) Train and Equip programme in Syria. Many of those weapons have been identified in Al-Qaeda and IS videos in Syria and Yemen.

The finance for these arms supplies was handled by Sierra Four Industries, USA, on behalf of the US Government. But the payment passed through British company Charles Kendall & Partners Ltd. Why would US government contracts pass through private British companies?

Another US arms contractor identified in the documents is Mil Spec Industries. They supply weapons to the US military. In a leaked email to Krusik, they ask that their company name be removed from the weapons packaging. Why does the company not want to be identified? Many names of US military personnel are mentioned in the document and copies of their passports are included. The leak is one of the most important pieces of investigative journalism in recent decades.

Unsurprisingly, no mainstream media outlets have covered the story. Instead, we continue to be told that the US is fighting IS or ISIS. But is there any reason to believe that the US and its allies are really fighting the Islamic State?

Origin of the Islamic State

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria was formed in 2006 in the US Camp Bucca prison in Iraq. A 2014 Guardian report revealed that the group was formed in the prison under US supervision. Another Guardian report in November 2013 claimed the US was using Guantanamo Prison in Cuba as a training ground for double agents. The prison facility used for this purpose was called Penny Lane, a reference to the eponymous Beatle’s song. The Guardian article stated that:

“The biggest fear, former officials involved with the programme recalled, was that a former detainee would attack Americans then publicly announce that he had been on the CIA payroll.”

Strawberry Fields and Penny Lane

It is noteworthy that the US military used allusions to the Beatles in their prison facilities. Penny Lane is a street in Liverpool named after James Penny, a 19th-century slave trader. One cannot help speculate that the “shipping around” of US military-intelligence assets is what the US military had in mind when they set up Penny Lane secret facility.

The “Strawberry Fields” song was released simultaneously with “Penny Lane” in 1967. Critics have pointed out that “Strawberry Fields” contains occult symbolism. The song promotes drug-use and drop-out culture. In the 1950s and 60s the CIA ran programmes testing the effects of psychedelic drugs on the American population in order to assess their utility for social control and military operations. CIA agents such as cultural guru Timothy Leary promoted drugs among America’s youth. It was a generation of hedonism and narcissism which would produce some of contemporary world’s most ruthless capitalist overlords.

In 2001, the director of the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment, Andrew Marshall told Wire magazine that pharmacological warfare would be a central component of US military strategy in the following decade. The Armswatch report reveals that Atlas Air is one of the companies operating from Croatia where it undertakes the supply of narcotics on behalf of the US Government. It has been reported that many of the head-chopping terrorists in Syria use amphetamines, notably Captagon. The drugs excite and desensitize the terrorists, encouraging them to commit atrocities. Could the Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields facilities in Guantanamo Bay be the laboratory where these narcotics are tested on future double agents?

During the 2011 Libyan War, Colonel Gaddafi said the rebels in Benghazi were Al-Qaeda and were using drugs. A close associate of Bin Laden, Abdelhakim Belhaj was made NATO commander of Tripoli after the fall of Gaddafi. Belhaj had previously been under US captivity for terrorism, and was accused by former Spanish Prime Minister José Maria Aznar of being the mastermind of the 2004 Madrid train bombings which killed 193 people and injured 2000. Former Guantanamo inmate Abu Sofian bin Qumu was also part of the NATO-backed coalition against Gaddafi in Libya.

But the US Government’s links to terrorists go back a long way. In October 2010, Fox News reported that Yemeni Al-Qaeda leader Anwar Al-Awlaki dined at the Pentagon just months after the 2001 terrorists attacks in New York and Washington. FBI officials told the American news station that Pentagon officials were not interested in security concerns.

That a top Al-Qaeda operative could be invited to the Pentagon just months after the biggest terrorist attack in US history, makes the conspiracy theory that the US military is training terrorists rather than fighting them increasingly appear to be a conspiracy fact.

Terrorists protected by MI6

On 29 July 2005, former prosecutor for the US Justice Department, John Loftus told Fox News that the chief suspect in the July 2005 London bombings, Haroon Rashid Aswat, was an agent of MI6, the British Secret Service. He said they were protecting him and preventing his arrest by the Americans.

Loftus described a vast terrorist network operating in London called the Muhajiroun or Emigrants. It was the recruiting organisation for Al-Qaeda in Britain. MI6 used these terrorists to invade and destroy Yugoslavia during the 1990s, as NATO planned to break up the country into separate states. Loftus said:

“The CIA was funding the operation to defend the Muslims, British intelligence was doing the hiring and recruiting. Now we have a lot of detail on this because Captain Hook, the head of Al-Muhajiroun, his sidekick was Bakri Mohammed, another cleric. And back on October 16, 2001, he gave a detailed interview with al-Sharq al-Aswat, an Arabic newspaper in London, describing the relationship between British intelligence and the operations in Kosovo and Al-Muhajiroun. So that’s how we get all these guys connected. It started in Kosovo, Haroon was 31 years old, he came on about 1995.”

The Kosovan fighters committed countless atrocities against Serbs during the Balkan wars but were hailed as “heroes” by the Western media, while the Serbs were demonized.

NATO had plans for the break-up of Yugoslavia that go back to the 1970s. In an interview shortly before he died, French General Pierre Marie Gallois, “father of the French atom bomb,” explained in detail how NATO had conspired to destroy the Yugoslav Federation. General Gallois described the disinformation campaign waged by the Western media which blamed Kosovo Liberation Army atrocities on the Serbian army. The destruction of Yugoslavia would become a template for future wars of aggression waged by NATO against nations who refused to be subordinated to US military, economic and strategic interests.

The invasion and destruction of Libya in 2011 and the ongoing war against Syria are the most recent examples of genocidal wars waged by the West but blamed on the victims. The vast and highly-financed network of NGOs and compliant media outlets has been the key to keeping the Western public completely ignorant about the origin and nature of NATO’s “humanitarian” wars.

The US Bondsteel military base in Kosovo is the largest in Europe. An important Albanian source recently told me that the Bondsteel military base is being used as a training ground for the Mujahedeen Al Khalq, a terrorist organization which was used by the United States against Iran in the past and is now being revived for further terrorist operations against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Several state media reports in Iraq and Iran have accused the United States and the UK of delivering arms to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. There is no reason to believe they are lying, given the fact that top US officials admit IS is a tool of US geopolitics.

Former NATO commander General Wesley Clark – who stated in 2004 that the United States would “take out” 7 countries in five years – has admitted repeatedly that IS is an invention of US Persian Gulf allies for the geostrategic objective of defeating Iran and Hezbollah.

“Very candidly, the only people that will fight the Iranians and the Shiia and Hezbollah are these zealous, religious nuts; and all the Sunni powers were using them. They created a Frankenstein in the region.”

He also told CNN:

“ISIS got started from our friends and allies because, as people will tell you from the region, if you want somebody who will fight to the death against Hezbollah, you don’t put out a recruiting poster and say: ‘Sign up for us, we’re going to make a better world.’ You go after zealots and you go after these religious fundamentalists. That’s who fights Hezbollah.”

Former US Vice-President Joe Biden confessed to Harvard University students in 2014 that US allies backed ISIS against Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad. In June 2016, Israel’s Military Intelligence Chief, General Herzi Halevey told reporters that Israel does not want to see ISIS defeated in Syria.

Israel has not disguised the fact that it supports ISIS in Syria

Both the Israeli Defense Minister and the former Israeli ambassador to the United States have admitted Israel prefers ISIS to Iran. It has been confirmed by the Israeli press that Al-Qaeda terrorists in Syria have received medical and military aid from Israel. A Dutch Justice Ministry official told De Telegraaf news agency in March 2015 that “ISIS has nothing to do with Islam. It’s part of a plan by Zionists who are deliberately trying to blacken Islam’s name.

Since 2001, the evidence of Western collusion in Islamist terrorism is overwhelming, yet the public remains brainwashed by the NGO-media public relations complex deceptively referred to as “news”, who fail to inform citizens about these facts. In 2015, Sudanese President Omar Bashir told Euro News that the CIA and the Israeli Secret Intelligence Service (Mossad) were behind Boko Harem and ISIL terrorists in Africa. These terrorist organizations are murdering thousands of innocent people and forcing millions of others to flee their countries, exacerbating a world refugee and migrant crisis which is now out of control.

When it appeared that the Trump administration was about to change course and actually eliminate the ISIS terrorists in Syria, the New York Times columnist Thomas L.Friedman complained, suggesting ISIS was of strategic value to the United States. When Donald Trump talks about “fake news”, he never refers to the fact that the mainstream media are supporting Islamist terrorists all over the world by calling them “moderate rebels” and “revolutionaries.”

Documentary proof US backs Islamic State

The Iranian Government has amassed considerable proof that the US and Israel support ISIS.

Gaytandshieva’s report gives details of major arms manufacturers and contractors involved in the supply of weapons to the barbaric terrorists. What emerges is an international network of highly lucrative deals involving billions of dollars — all in the service of genocide.

Since the US-backed bombing of Yemen in 2015, hundreds of thousands of children have starved to death in what is estimated to be one of the largest famines in modern history. Libya, Syria, Yemen, and many more countries throughout Africa have been overrun and destroyed by psychopaths armed and trained by the people who work in these Western arms companies. They must be held to account!

The people named in the leaked documents should be prosecuted for terrorism under international law.

In his 2015 presidential campaign, Donald Trump tweeted repeatedly about getting US forces out of Syria, and ending useless wars. But the wars have continued under his watch. On 20 December 2018, he said that “Russia, Iran, Syria & others are the local enemy of ISIS.”

If President Trump knows that Iran and the Syrian Government are fighting terrorism in the Middle East, why is the US Government preventing US intellectuals and officials — many of whom support Trump — from attending New Horizons Conferences in Iran? The entire focus of the New Horizons Conferences I have attended has been the defeat of Islamist terrorism and the prospects for peaceful relations with the West.

To suggest that there is a “clash of civilizations” — that the West is fighting a “war on terrorism” against an international network of ruthless killers bent on taking away our freedoms — is to propagate the most asinine form of conspiracy theory. What I have written about here is simply the hard and disturbing evidence of a decades-long conspiracy by a global oligarchy of militants, Zionists and bankers to increase their power through genocide and enslavement. Will the masses ever wake up?

In Strawberry Fields, John Lennon sings “living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see”. That is precisely the matrix which the Western military-industrial-media-intelligence complex has imposed on the masses. The purpose of the mass media is to keep your eyes closed, to “take you down”, hypnotizing you into believing we live in a fruit meadow of human rights, freedom and democracy, when in reality what you perceive as strawberry fields is a vast, and ever-expanding sea of blood.

Kill Your Inner John Bolton

By  Caitlin Johnstone

Source

John Bolton 2 495f3

We each have a miniature John Bolton living rent-free inside our heads, ruining our peace and promoting world domination at every opportunity.

Hear me out.

The most common objection I hear when I advocate non-interventionist foreign policy can essentially be boiled down to something like, “But- but- but if we’re not controlling the world all the time, then the world will be out of our control!” The argument, as I understand it, is that if the US-centralized empire stopped waging endless wars, staging coups, inflicting siege warfare upon civilian populations, patrolling the skies with flying death robots, arming terrorist militias, and torturing journalists who expose US war crimes, the bad guys might win.

The thing I find funny about this argument, apart from the obvious, is that this is also the basic objection that the mind makes when the body is seated in meditation.

“This is all fine,” the mind interrupts constantly while the meditator struggles to find peace. “But there are tasks we must attend to, and there are wrong people on the internet who simply must be put in their place. Life is cold and hostile and we must protect and secure ourselves against it if we’re to be safe. You can keep sitting there doing that breathing nonsense if you must, but I’ve got plans, schemes and witty comebacks to formulate. The world simply cannot get by without my being there to control it.”

The best kind of meditation happens to be the same as best kind of foreign policy: you simply allow everything to be as it is. You sit without trying to manipulate or control any aspect of your experience. Since all mental suffering is ultimately born of the mind’s habit of trying to control life to protect and secure the interests of the illusory ego, the path to inner peace is therefore the same as the path to world peace: just allow things to be as they are.

In this form of meditation, you don’t try to force your mind to concentrate on anything in particular, or engage in any kind of manipulation at all. Thoughts come up about things that need to get done, and you just allow those thoughts to be as they are. Feelings come up about people who have wronged us in the past or stressful situations in the future, and you let them be, without getting involved. Everything which arises in your field of consciousness is given full permission to be as it is, without any mental interventionism.

When you sit in this way, the mind doesn’t really know what to do. It’s only ever existed in the context of conflict and control, so eventually it just lays down and relaxes, like a child throwing a tizzy who the mother just ignores.

It turns out that there is a deep and pervasive peace underlying everyone’s field of consciousness, and the only thing which keeps us from noticing it is our mental habit of continually fighting to control life in various ways. When we can relax and just allow our field of consciousness to be as it is, we notice ourselves beholding it with benevolent detachment, because the deep and pervasive peace underlying the appearance of all forms is in fact our true nature.

But it takes a leap of faith. It takes a decision to trust the world to handle its own affairs. It takes a conscious decision to honor the sovereignty of everyone and everything. Exactly as non-interventionist foreign policy would.

In exactly the same way that Trump’s National Security Advisor John Bolton argues that the “anarchic international environment” is so dangerous that any means necessary must be employed to bring it under control, we too have a shrill, mustachioed voice in our heads continually arguing that life must be brought to heel at any cost. But in both cases it is the agenda to control the world, and the inability to simply trust it, which is our real enemy. Our enemy is not a cold, hostile world which resists our attempts to control it, no: our enemy is the John Boltons, both within and without.

The natural, default position of both human consciousness and human civilization is peace. It is only by the most rigorous efforts to control and manipulate our world that we drag ourselves kicking and screaming out of that natural state. We will come to peace, both within and without, when we choose to trust the world and take that leap of faith into our true nature. The path to all peace necessarily follows this one unifying trajectory.

And until then of course the objections will continue. “What about the Russians?” “What about the Chinese?” “What about the wrong people on the internet?” But the thing about those objections is they’re quickly becoming irrelevant: humanity simply cannot keep doing things the way it is doing them. We are fast approaching a point where we will either sharply diverge from our current trajectory and make drastic, sweeping changes, or we will all perish due to nuclear war or ecological collapse.

One way or the other the sun will rise one day upon a world without any John Boltons, either in our heads or in Washington, DC. The only say we have in the matter is in whether this will happen because we chose to rid ourselves of the evil mutant death walruses who are driving us toward death and destruction, or because they succeeded in doing so.

US Empire: The Reality of the “Greater United States”

Global Research, August 09, 2019

The US Empire is not a term you will commonly hear when people refer to the United States of America. Nor is the Greater United States, American Empire or even just Empire. There is something of a taboo quality to using the word empire to refer to the US. Yet, that is precisely what it is. With numerous territories and land acquisitions, around 1000+ military bases worldwide and the ability to project its power to influence and coerce foreign territories and nations, the USA is the biggest empire the world has ever known. Countless foreign nations, victims of US aggression and invasion, have denounced the US for its imperialism, a word with the same etymological root as empire. So why is it so strange to describe it as the US Empire?

USA: From Republic to Empire

It is a telling example that the American experiment in self-governance has turned out like this. What began as an attempt to set up one of the most limited, constrained and decentralized governments ever has transmogrified into a sprawling empire whose breadth, power and influence is unprecedented in world history. Those who believe humanity should run society without government (anarchists) based only on voluntary cooperation (voluntaryists) point to the results of the American experiment as proof that government by its very nature grows out of control. The results, they say, show that no matter what limits you attempt to put on government, they can always be undone, because politicians can simply change laws and find way to bypass constitutions once they are in power. For one example of many, look at how the US bypassed many privacy and surveillance laws in the Bill of Rights by dreaming up a new idea (terrorism), defining it in law (first international terrorists, then domestic terrorists), changing the definition to describe their political enemies (gun carriers, conspiracy theorists), then applying that by name-calling its citizens. Suddenly, the usual rules don’t apply when terrorism and the fake war on terror are invoked. All of this is gives credence to the idea that no government is better than small government in the anarchy vs minarchy debate.

US Empire Greater United States

The actual Greater United States. Image credit: Daniel Immerwahr

US Empire Land Acquisition

Right from the start, the US has always looked west. The original 13 colonies soon expanded. Just to name a few highlights, the US Republic bought Louisiana from the French in 1803, annexed Texas in 1845 and took California away from Mexico in 1848 (at the conclusion of the Mexican-American War). The US then expanded further, such that it then had a mainland of 48 contiguous states and territory beyond that. It bought Alaska from Russia in 1867 and it conquered Hawaii in 1893 after a coup by a small group of rich landowners put a gun to the head of Hawaiian Queen Liliuokalani. A watershed moment in the history of the US Empire, and its land and territory acquisition, came in 1898. At that time, the Spanish colonial Empire was falling, and Spain was having problems quelling dissent in its colonies such as Cuba. Through a false flag operation revolving around the USS Maine, the USA entered the conflict (named the Spanish-American War), defeated Spain and established itself as a new colonial and imperial power. While it was at it, it either purchased or annexed the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa and Wake Island. Thus, by end of the 19th century, the US had already transformed itself into the US Empire. In this video and in his book, Daniel Immerwahr makes the point that around this time, Americans began to redraw their maps and take pride in their new status; however later on, they sought more to play down and hide their power, figuring it would serve them better to keep it concealed. At one point in the video clip, Immerwahr tells the story of an American GI soldier in the Philippines during WW2, who was told by a Filipino that the US had colonized the Philippines, but didn’t realize it. “What?” he said, thinking he was fighting in a foreign country not on US territory, “We colonized you?”

Hiding the Empire: 1000+ Military Bases

Fast forward around 120 years, and just look at the state of affairs. The US emerged as the sole world superpower after WW2, but unlike the British Empire, it decided not to outright conquer or annex territory, but rather to build military installations on virtually every continent. The US hides the official number of its military bases so as to conceal the true extent of its imperial reach, however based on the research of people like Chalmers Johnson and Nick Turse, we know that it is at least 1000 bases, and quite probably more. Johnson died in 2010, but in a talk now removed from YouTube claims that in 2004, the Pentagon’s official number was 725 (as published in the Base Structure Report). However, he acknowledged that the Pentagon disguised many of its bases and had 300+ unacknowledged ones. Turse has written many articles and books on the topic of US military bases including this 2019 one Bases, Bases, Everwhere … Except in the Pentagon’s Report:

“Officially, the Department of Defense (DoD) maintains 4,775 “sites,” spread across all 50 states, eight U.S. territories, and 45 foreign countries. A total of 514 of these outposts are located overseas, according to the Pentagon’s worldwide property portfolio. Just to start down a long list, these include bases on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia, in Djibouti on the Horn of Africa, as well as in Peru and Portugal, the United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom. But the most recent version of that portfolio, issued in early 2018 and known as the Base Structure Report (BSR), doesn’t include any mention of al-Tanf. Or, for that matter, any other base in Syria. Or Iraq. Or Afghanistan. Or Niger. Or Tunisia. Or Cameroon. Or Somalia. Or any number of locales where such military outposts are known to exist and even, unlike in Syria, to be expanding.”

To put this number in perspective, the emerging rivals to the US Empire have barely any foreign military bases: Russia has 21 (according to this source) and China has 2.

Hallmark of the US Empire: The Projection of Power without Annexation of Territory

The rulers of the United States Inc. have done a very good job of concealing the power and reach of the US Empire. Through domestic propaganda, they have obscured the reality of the empire such that not many Americans make the connection. They have also avoided colonizing too many weaker nations, instead preferring to project power without actually annexing land. This is achieved through economic warfare such as forcing smaller nations to buy US products, or the infamous use of sanctions as accelerated by Trump against nations like Venezuela and Iran. Then there is also the method described by former economic hitman John Perkins.

But, but … the US is a Republic, Right?

Some people at this point may say, “Well, the US may be an Empire, but its form of government is still a Constitutional Republic. Therefore, the US is a Republic.” Yes, the US is a republic in the sense that it has (highly controlled) elections where (s)elected individuals ascend to power, however, despite this form of governance, the US still behaves as an imperial bully, aggressor and invader to nations outside of it. That behavior is what defines it as an empire. In this context, the word “republic” means nothing. Have you noticed the irony with which nations around the world use the word republic in their official country titles? Both of the communist totalitarian nations of China and North Korea are “republics” since they are called People’s Republic of China and Democratic People’s Republic of Korearespectively. Never mind the censorship and control via social credit. In the so-called “free” West, in the Federal Republic of Germany, if you investigate the truth about the Holocaust you can be fined or imprisoned. In the French Republic, people are so taxed to the hilt they donned yellow vests to spark a worldwide protest movement. Republic means “a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives.” Do you really think the people hold the supreme power in the US, China, North Korea, Germany or France?

Conclusion

Words have power. Propagandists and magicians alike know this, since they know words help to mold perception and create reality. This is why you “spell” words, since uttered words are like a (magic) spell. The power of the US Empire lies in its narrative control and perception control. Whoever controls words, controls narrative; whoever controls narrative, controls perception. It’s a simple formula. Orwell’s great work 1984 showed what can come from word control. The question we must ask ourselves here is this: why is it so strange, uncomfortable and unfamiliar to call a spade a spade, and to admit internally to ourselves and externally to others that the USA is an empire? Surely this uncomfortability itself is evidence of the magic of word control and propaganda. Are we so programmed and conditioned with ideas of “USA = freedom and democracy” that we can’t fathom the idea of a US Empire? If so, then it is more crucial than ever that people begin to use terms like US Empire and Greater United States to take a small yet bold step of breaking the conditioning that holds them in chains.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on The Freedom Articles.

Makia Freeman is the editor of alternative media / independent news site The Freedom Articles and senior researcher at ToolsForFreedom.com. Makia is on Steemit and FB.

Sources

*https://thefreedomarticles.com/anarchy-vs-minarchy-pros-cons/

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-mz7x2RAmI

*https://www.salon.com/2019/01/11/bases-bases-everywhere-except-in-the-pentagons-report_partner/

*https://theintercept.com/2018/12/01/u-s-military-says-it-has-a-light-footprint-in-africa-these-documents-show-a-vast-network-of-bases/

*https://www.newsweek.com/russias-military-compared-us-which-country-has-more-military-bases-across-954328

*https://thefreedomarticles.com/google-project-dragonfly-helps-china-censorship/

*https://thefreedomarticles.com/sesame-credit-gamification-control/

Featured image is from The Freedom Articles

The last western Empire?

The Saker

The last western Empire?

August 01, 2019

[this column was written for the Unz Review]

“Missing the forest for the trees” is an apt metaphor if we take a look at most commentary describing the past twenty years or so. This period has been remarkable in the number of genuinely tectonic changes the international system has undergone. It all began during what I think of as the “Kristallnacht of international law,” 30 August September 1995, when the Empire attacked the Bosnian-Serbs in a direct and total violation of all the most fundamental principles of international law. Then there was 9/11, which gave the Neocons the “right” (or so they claimed) to threaten, attack, bomb, kill, maim, kidnap, assassinate, torture, blackmail and otherwise mistreat any person, group or nation on the planet simply because “we are the indispensable nation” and “you either are with the terrorists or with us“. During these same years, we saw Europe become a third-rate US colony incapable of defending even fundamental European geopolitical interests while the USA became a third-rate colony of Israel equally incapable of defending even fundamental US geopolitical interests. Most interestingly looking back, while the US and the EU were collapsing under the weight of their own mistakes, Russia and China were clearly on the ascend; Russia mostly in military terms (see here and here) and China mostly economically. Most crucially, Russia and China gradually agreed to become symbionts which, I would argue, is even stronger and more meaningful than if these two countries were united by some kind of formal alliance: alliances can be broken (especially when a western nation is involved), but symbiotic relationships usually last forever (well, nothing lasts forever, of course, but when a lifespan is measured in decades, it is the functional equivalent of “forever”, at least in geostrategic analytical terms). The Chinese have now developed an official, special, and unique expression to characterize that relationship with Russia. They speak of a “Strategic, comprehensive partnership of coordination for the new era.”

This is the AngloZionists’ worst nightmare, and their legacy ziomedia goes to great lengths to conceal the fact that Russia and China are, for all practical purposes, strategic allies. They also try hard to convince the Russian people that China is a threat to Russia (using bogus arguments, but never-mind that). It won’t work, while some Russians have fears about China, the Kremlin knows the truth of the matter and will continue to deepen Russia’s symbiotic relationship with China further. Not only that, it now appears that Iran is gradually being let in to this alliance. We have the most official confirmation possible of that fact in words spoken by General Patrushev in Israel after his meeting with US and Israeli officials: “Iran has always been and remains our ally and partner.”

I could go on listing various signs of the collapse of the AngloZionist Empire along with signs that a new, parallel, international world order is in the process of being built before our eyes. I have done that many times in the past, and I will not repeat it all here (those interested can click here and here). I will submit that the AngloZionists have reached a terminal stage of decay in which the question of “if” is replaced by “when.” But even more interesting would be to look at the “what”:

what does the collapse of the AngloZionist Empire really mean?

I rarely see this issue discussed and when it is, it is usually to provide all sorts of reassurances that the Empire will not really collapse, that it is too powerful, too rich and too big to fail and that the current political crises in the USA and Europe will simply result in a reactive transformation of the Empire once the specific problems plaguing it have been addressed. That kind of delusional nonsense is entirely out of touch with reality. And the reality of what is taking place before our eyes is much, much more dramatic and seminal than just fixing a few problems here and there and merrily keep going on.

One of the factors which lures us into a sense of complacency is that we have seen so many other empires in history collapse only to be replaced pretty quickly by some other, that we can’t even imagine that what is taking place right now is a much more dramatic phenomenon: the passage into gradual irrelevance of an entire civilization!

But first, let’s define our terms. For all the self-aggrandizing nonsense taught in western schools, Western civilization does not have its roots in ancient Rome or, even less so, in ancient Greece. The reality is that the Western civilization was born from the Middle-Ages in general and, especially, the 11th century which, not coincidentally, saw the following succession of moves by the Papacy:

These three closely related events are of absolutely crucial importance to the history of the West. The first step the West needed was to free itself from the influence and authority of the rest of the Christian world. Once the ties between Rome and the Christian world were severed, it was only logical for Rome to decree that the Pope now has the most extravagant super-powers no other bishop before him had ever dared contemplate. Finally, this new autonomy and desire for absolute control over our planet resulted in what could be called “the first European imperialist war”: the First Crusade.

To put it succinctly: the 11th century Franks were the real progenitors of modern “Western” Europe and the 11th century marked the first imperialist “foreign war” (to use a modern term). The name of the Empire of the Franks has changed over the centuries, but not its nature, essence, or purpose. Today the true heirs of the Franks are the AngloZionists (for a truly *superb* discussion of the Frankish role in destroying the true, ancient, Christian Roman civilization of the West, see here).

Over the next 900 years or more, many different empires replaced the Frankish Papacy, and most European countries had their “moment of glory” with colonies overseas and some kind of ideology which was, by definition and axiomatically, declared the only good (or even “the only Christian”) one, whereas the rest of the planet was living in uncivilized and generally terrible conditions which could only be mitigated by those who have *always* believed that they, their religion, their culture or their nation had some kind of messianic role in history (call it “manifest destiny” or “White man’s burden” or being a Kulturträger in quest of a richly deserved Lebensraum): the West Europeans.

It looks like most European nations had a try at being an empire and at imperialist wars. Even such modern mini-states like Holland, Portugal or Austria once were feared imperial powers. And each time one European Empire fell, there was always another one to take its place.

But today?

Who do you think could create an empire powerful enough to fill the void resulting from the collapse of the AngloZionist Empire?

The canonical answer is “China.” And I think that this is nonsense.

Empires cannot only trade. Trade alone is simply not enough to remain a viable empire. Empires also need military force, and not just any military force, but the kind of military force which makes resistance futile. The truth is that NO modern country has anywhere near the capabilities needed to replace the USA in the role of World Hegemon: not even uniting the Russian and Chinese militaries would achieve that result since these two countries do not have:

1) a worldwide network of bases (which the USA have, between 700-1000 depending on how you count)

2) a major strategic air-lift and sea-lift power projection capability

3) a network of so-called “allies” (colonial puppets, really) which will assist in any deployment of military force

But even more crucial is this: China and Russia have no desire whatsoever to become an empire again. These two countries have finally understood the eternal truth, which is that empires are like parasites who feed on the body which hosts them. Yes, not only are all empires always and inherently evil, but a good case can be made that the first victims of imperialism are always the nations which “host the empire” so to speak. Oh sure, the Chinese and the Russians want their countries to be truly free, powerful and sovereign, and they understand that this is only possible when you have a military which can deter an attack, but neither China nor Russia have any interests in policing the planet or imposing some regime change on other countries.

All they really want is to be safe from the USA, that’s it.

This new reality is particularly visible in the Middle-East where countries like the United States, Israel or Saudi Arabia (this is the so-called “Axis of Kindness”) are currently only capable of deploying a military capable of massacring civilians or destroy the infrastructure of a country, but which cannot be used effectively against the two real regional powers with a modern military: Iran and Turkey.

But the most revealing litmus test was the US attempt to bully Venezuela back into submission. For all the fire and brimstone threats coming out of DC, the entire “Bolton plan(s?)” for Venezuela has/have resulted in a truly embarrassing failure: if the Sole “Hyperpower” on the planet cannot even overpower a tremendously weakened country right in its backyard, a country undergoing a major crisis, then indeed the US military should stick to the invasion of small countries like Monaco, Micronesia or maybe the Vatican (assuming the Swiss guard will not want to take a shot at the armed reps of the “indispensable nation”). The fact is that an increasing number of medium-sized “average” countries are now gradually acquiring the means to resist a US attack.

So if the writing is on the wall for the AngloZionist Empire, and if no country can replace the USA as imperial world hegemon, what does that mean?

It means the following: 1000 years of European imperialism is coming to an end!

This time around, neither Spain nor the UK nor Austria will take the place of the USA and try to become a world hegemon. In fact, there is not a single European nation which has a military even remotely capable of engaging the kind of “colony pacification” operations needed to keep your colonies in a suitable state of despair and terror. The French had their very last hurray in Algeria, the UK in the Falklands, Spain can’t even get Gibraltar back, and Holland has no real navy worth speaking about. As for central European countries, they are too busy brown-nosing the current empire to even think of becoming an empire (well, except Poland, of course, which dreams of some kind of Polish Empire between the Baltic and the Black Sea; let them, they have been dreaming about it for centuries, and they will still dream about it for many centuries to come…).

Now compare European militaries with the kind of armed forces you can find in Latin America or Asia? There is such a knee-jerk assumption of superiority in most Anglos that they completely fail to realize that medium and even small-sized countries can develop militaries sufficient enough to make an outright US invasion impossible or, at least, any occupation prohibitively expensive in terms of human lives and money (see herehere and here). This new reality also makes the typical US missile/airstrike campaign pretty useless: they will destroy a lot of buildings and bridges, they will turn the local TV stations (“propaganda outlets” in imperial terminology) into giant piles of smoking rubble and dead bodies, and they kill plenty of innocents, but that won’t result in any kind of regime change. The striking fact is that if we accept that warfare is the continuation of politics by other means, then we also have to admit, that under that definition, the US armed forces are totally useless since they cannot help the USA achieve any meaningful political goals.

The truth is that in military and economic terms, the “West” has already lost. The fact that those who understand don’t talk, and that those who talk about this (denying it, of course) have no understanding of what is taking place, makes no difference at all.

In theory, we could imagine that some kind of strong leader would come to power in the USA (the other western countries are utterly irrelevant), crush the Neocons like Putin crushed them in Russia, and prevent the brutal and sudden collapse of the Empire, but that ain’t gonna happen. If there is one thing which the past couple of decades have proven beyond reasonable doubt is that the imperial system is entirely unable to reform itself in spite of people like Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, Ross Perrot, Ron Paul, Mike Gravel or even Obama and Trump – all men who promised meaningful change and who were successfully prevented by the system of achieving anything meaningful. Thus the system is still 100% effective, at least inside the USA: it took the Neocons less than 30 days to crush Trump and all his promises of change, and now it even got Tulsi Gabbard to bow down and cave in to Neocons’ absolutely obligatory political orthodoxy and myths.

So what is likely to happen next?

Simply put, Asia will replace the Western World. But – crucially – this time around no empire will come to take the place of the AngloZionist one. Instead, a loose and informal coalition of mostly Asian countries will offer an alternative economic and civilizational model, which will be immensely attractive to the rest of the planet. As for the Empire, it will very effectively disband itself and slowly fade into irrelevance. Both US Americans and Europeans will, for the very first time in their history, have to behave like civilized people, which means that their traditional “model of development” (ransacking the entire planet and robbing everybody blind) will have to be replaced by one in which these US Americans and Europeans will have to work like everybody else to accumulate riches. This notion will absolutely horrify the current imperial ruling elites, but I wager that it will be welcomed by the majority of the people, especially when this “new” (for them) model will yield more peace and prosperity than the previous one!

Indeed, if the Neocons don’t blow up the entire planet in a nuclear holocaust, the USA and Europe will survive, but only after a painful transition period which could last for a decade or more. One of the factors which will immensely complicate the transition from Empire to “regular” country will be the profound and deep influence 1000 years of imperialism have had on the western cultures, especially in the completely megalomaniac United States (Professor John Marciano’s “Empire as a way of life” lecture series addresses this topic superbly – I highly recommend them!): One thousand years of brainwashing are not so easily overcome, especially on the subconscious (assumptions) level.

Finally, the current rather nasty reaction to the multi-culturalism imposed by the western ruling elites is no less pathological than this corrosive multi-culturalism in the first place. I am referring to the new theories “revisiting” WWII and finding inspiration in all things Third Reich, very much including a revival of racist/racialist theories. This is especially ridiculous (and offensive) when coming from people who try to impersonate Christians but who instead of prayers on their lips just spew 1488-like nonsense. These folks all represent precisely the kind of “opposition” the Neocons love to deal with and which they always (and I really mean *always*) end up defeating. This (pretend) opposition (useful idiots, really) will remain strong as long as it remains well funded (which it currently is). But as soon as the current megalomania (“We are the White Race! We built Athens and Rome! We are Evropa!!!”) ends with an inevitable faceplant, folks will eventually return to sanity and realize that no external scapegoat is responsible for the current state of the West. The sad truth is that the West did all this to itself (mainly due to arrogance and pride!), and the current waves of immigrants are nothing more than a 1000 years of really bad karma returning to where it came from initially. I don’t mean to suggest that folks in the West are all individually responsible for what is happening now. But I do say that all the folks in the West now live with the consequences of 1000 years of unrestrained imperialism. It will be hard, very hard, to change ways, but since that is also the only viable option, it will happen, sooner or later.

But still – there is hope. IF the Neocons don’t blow up the planet, and IF mankind is given enough time to study its history and understand where it took the wrong turn, then maybe, just maybe, there is hope.

I think that we can all find solace in the fact that no matter how ugly, stupid and evil the AngloZionist Empire is, no other empire will ever come to replace it.

In other words, should we survive the current empire (which is by no means certain!) then at least we can look forward to a planet with no empires left, only sovereign countries.

I submit that this is a future worth struggling for.

The Saker

فعلاً لم يحدث هذا منذ ألف عام

 

يوليو 25, 2019

ناصر قنديل

– في كلام سابق للأمين العام لحزب الله السيد حسن نصرالله إشارة اعتبرها مرشد الجمهورية الإسلامية في إيران الإمام علي الخامنئي بصيص أمل عن اقتراب موعد تحرير القدس من الاحتلال، وفقاً لما وصفه نصرالله بالاستدلال بالمنطق واقع المعادلات والتوازنات، رابطاً أمله الشخصي بالصلاة في القدس بمعادلة الحياة والموت التي لا يمكن التحكم بها، رغم وقوع توقعاته لتحرير القدس ضمن المدى المنطقي لما يمكنه من أن يكون شاهداً على التحرير، وفي كلام لاحق لمستشار الإمام الخامنئي الدكتور علي ولايتي، المعروف بمكانته في الملفات الاستراتيجية في فريق الإمام الخامنئي، إشارة إلى أن إسقاط الطائرة الأميركية الإلكترونية العملاقة واحتجاز ناقلة النفط البريطانية، أحداث تمثل منعطفاً في تاريخ العالم الإسلامي.

– بالعودة إلى التاريخ تبدو منطقة الساحل الشرقي للبحر المتوسط وعمقها الآسيوي، كميدان جغرافي للمواجهات التاريخية بين الغرب والشرق، مسرحاً لتسجيل انتصارات الغرب وهيمنته واستعراضاته العسكرية، وفرض مصالحه الاقتصادية منذ خمسة قرون على الأقل عندما بدأت الإمبراطورية العثمانية تقدّم التنازلات للدول الأوروبية في جنوب السلطنة، لضمان مصالحها في بلدان الشمال، وصولاً لتفكك السلطنة مع الحرب العالمية الأولى وما تبعها من ترسيخ للهيمنة الغربية، لكن حتى مراحل صعود السلطنة العثمانية لم تشهد ردعاً للصولات والجولات الغربية نحو شرق المتوسط، فخلالها نشأ ما عُرف بعهد القناصل، وتنامي الإرساليات، ونشوء النسخ البدائية للوكالات التجارية.

– آخر ما يكتبه التاريخ عن يد الشرق العليا في شرق المتوسط كان في تمكّن شعوب المنطقة من مواجهة حملات الفرنجة التي سُمّيت بالحروب الصليبية واتخذت الدين شعاراً لها لحشد المشاركة في التعبئة لقواتها تحت شعار الذهاب إلى القدس، بينما سحقت في طريقها إلى فلسطين كل الكنائس الشرقية وقتلت الآلاف من قساوستها ورهبانها، ودمّرت ممتلكاتها، وقتلت عشرات الآلاف من رعاياها، واللافت أن حروب الفرنجة نجحت يومها خلال الفترة الممتدة من نهاية القرن الحادي عشر إلى نهاية القرن الثاني عشر ببناء مستوطنات في فلسطين ونجحت بوضع يدها على القدس، بصورة لا تختلف كثيراً عن واقع كيان الاحتلال اليوم، وبقيت الأساطيل الغربية ومحاولات تأمين طريق بري بحملات مستديمة، هي مصدر الحماية الذي يشكل مصدر قوة هذا الكيان الاستيطاني الناشئ يومها.

– مع تحرير القدس في نهاية القرن الثاني عشر، وجعلها متاحة لكل المؤمنين لممارسة عباداتهم وشعائرهم الدينية، انتهت عملياً الحروب الكبرى وبقيت مناوشات استمرت تحت مسمّى حملات صليبية، لكنها لم تقدر أن تغير الواقع الجديد، حتى نشوء كيان الاحتلال منتصف القرن العشرين، لكن اللافت بالقياس التاريخي أنه منذ نشأة هذا الكيان القائم على اغتصاب فلسطين، للمرة الأولى يبدو محاصراً بصواريخ قوى المقاومة ومقاتليها من كل الجهات عاجزاً عن خوض حرب، وتبدو الأساطيل البحرية والجوية والبرية لنجدته عاجزة عن تشكيل توازن ردع في المنطقة. وهذا هو مغزى ما تمثله حوادث إسقاط الطائرة الأميركية واحتجاز الناقلة البريطانية.

– منذ ألف عام لم يحدث مثيل لذلك، رغم ما تلقته الأساطيل الغازية لنابليون بونابرت على سواحل مصر أو أسوار عكا، ورغم حروب المواجهة التي خاضها جمال عبد الناصر في مواجهة العدوان الثلاثي، فقد بقي في كل حالة منها مجال للإعداد لجولة مقبلة، حيث كان احتياط الغرب القوي ينتقل من ضفة إلى ضفة، كما هو حال الأفول الفرنسي لحساب بريطانيا والأفول البريطاني لحساب أميركا. وهذا مغزى القول اليوم إنه منعطف تاريخي، وبصيص أمل.

Related Videos

Related Articles

%d bloggers like this: