US Intends Permanent Occupation of Syria

By Stephen Lendman

Source

Illegally occupying northern and southern parts of Syrian territory, US dark forces have no intension of leaving.

Endless US war by hot and other means continues against the nation and its people — in defiance of international and its own constitutional law, how rogue state USA operates worldwide, including at home.

On Wednesday, interventionist Blinken defied reality by falsely blaming Damascus for “perpetuat(ing) suffering of the Syrian people.”

As he knows well, their misery is caused by over a decade of US aggression, occupation, theft of its resources, and wanting its people suffocated into submission to diabolical interests of both right wings of its war party — along with using ISIS and other jihadist foot soldiers against the nation, its military and people.

Blinken announced new illegal sanctions, saying the following:

The Biden regime illegally sanctioned Syrian prisons, officials in charge of running them, two militia groups and their leaders.

Defying reality, he falsely claimed that “(t)hese actions underscore the US commitment to promote respect for human rights and accountability for abuse against Syrians (sic.” 

Since March 2011, US regimes, their imperial partners, and jihadist foot soldiers bear full responsibility for over a decade of aggression and occupation.

Time and again, US high crimes are falsely blamed on victims of targeted countries — in Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq, Libya, Syria and elsewhere post-9/11 alone.

On Tuesday, the Biden regime said it has no intention of ending its illegal occupation of Syrian territory, falsely adding:

The US “support(s) Syrian Democratic Forces in their fight against ISIS (sic)” — what the Pentagon and CIA created for use as proxy foot soldiers where they’re deployed regionally and elsewhere.

On Monday, Biden’s impersonator falsely said the US combat mission in Syria is ending (sic), adding:

Imperial occupation of northern and southern parts of the country continues indefinitely.

Claiming it’s to combat the threat of ISIS that the US created, supports and uses to advance its imperial interests ignores its aim to redraw the regional map that’s all about wanting hegemony of this hydrocarbon-rich part of the world.

It’s unknown what US force-strength remains in the country.

Officially reported numbers can’t be taken at face value.

Throughout the regime, the US maintains considerable airpower, along with thousands of paramilitary forces, private military contractors, and jihadist proxy troops.

US-assassinated Iranian Quds Force commander General Qassem Soleimani supplied the country’s Foreign Ministry with clear proof of Pentagon/CIA support for ISIS and other jihadist groups.

According Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf’s advisor Hossein Amir-Abdollahian:

General Soleimani “gave me documents — proving US/Western support for regional jihadists — and told me to slap them in the face of the West and the UN,” adding:

The documents “contained precise information on the geographical position, time and exact details” of US/Western collusion with them.

While Mosul was under occupation by ISIS, “an American A330 (transport plane) landed in Mosul Airport.”

“American generals got off the plane and military equipment was unloaded.” 

“At the airport’s VIP lounge, the American generals talked with Daesh leaders in Mosul for three hours and 23 minutes and then boarded the plane and returned.”

“What did they bring Daesh? Weapons and equipment it needed and that they had already agreed on.” 

At other times, Iran learned that the US shifted ISIS and other jihadists from Syria and Iraq to “northern Afghanistan…Libya…and southern Yemen.”

Iran, Syria and Russia have extensive knowledge about how the Pentagon and CIA arm, train, deploy and use jihadists in the Middle East and elsewhere.

US ruling regimes are responsible for mass slaughter and destruction regionally and worldwide.

They have no intention of changing the scourge of their wicked ways.

هُيام «الضعفاء» بالنموذج الإسرائيليّ

الجمعة 30 تموز 2021

وليد شرارة

Visual search query image
لا تقيم إسرائيل اعتباراً فعلياً للدول الأعضاء في «نادي معجبيها»، مثل فرنسا (أ ف ب )

تأتي زيارة وزير الأمن الصهيوني، بيني غانتس، واجتماعه مع نظيرته الفرنسية فلورانس بارلي، ضمن مساعي حكومة الاحتلال إلى احتواء التداعيات السلبية لفضيحة برنامج «بيغاسوس» الذي أنتجته شركة «إن إس أو» الإسرائيلية، والذي استُخدم من قِبَل المغرب للتجسّس على هاتف الرئيس الفرنسي إيمانويل ماكرون، ورئيس وزرائه السابق إدوارد فيليب، و15 وزيراً ونائباً ومسؤولاً سياسيّاً. البيان الصادر عن وزارة الدفاع الفرنسية بعد الاجتماع، يشي برغبة في تجاوز التداعيات السلبية المذكورة، إذ يشدّد على ضرورة تقديم إسرائيل «التوضيحات التي تطلبها فرنسا، والأساسية بالنسبة إلى الثقة والاحترام المتبادل بين البلدين»، وإطلاع المسؤولين في هذا البلد «على مدى معرفة الحكومة الإسرائيلية بأنشطة زبائن إن إس أو». الارتباط العضوي بين الشركة المشار إليها والأجهزة الأمنية والعسكرية الصهيونية، لم يكن خافياً على العديد من الخبراء والصحافيين الفرنسيين، في السنوات الماضية، أي قبل «الفضيحة» الأخيرة. فهذا لوي إمبير في «لوموند»، يشير في مقالة بعنوان «برنامج بيغاسوس: مجموعة إن إس أو في قلب القوة الناعمة الإسرائيلية»، إلى أن «الشركة المنتِجة للبرنامج والحكومة الإسرائيلية تعملان يداً بيد لبناء تحالفات جديدة، وخدمة مصالحهما على المستوى الدولي». لم تكن الأجهزة الأمنية الفرنسية غافلة عن هذه الحقيقة، وطلب «توضيحات» من قِبَل رسميين فرنسيين يعكس حرصاً على الحفاظ على التعاون المتعاظم في الميادين التكنولوجية والأمنية مع الكيان الصهيوني، باعتباره مصدر إلهام في كيفية خوض «الحروب الجديدة»، الموجّهة أساساً ضدّ السكان والحركات الشعبية، نتيجة لخبراته المتراكمة في هذا المضمار في فلسطين المحتلّة ولبنان. هو «نموذج» يُحتذى بنظر قطاعات وازنة من النُّخب السياسية الفرنسية والغربية، وكذلك بالنسبة إلى زبائنه التقليديين من أنظمة فاسدة ومستبدّة في جنوب العالم، ومنه العالم العربي. لكن، وفي مقابل هذا الحرص على العلاقات مع «الدولة – النموذج»، فإن اللافت هو أن الأخيرة لا تقيم اعتباراً فعلياً للدول الأعضاء في «نادي معجبيها»، باستثناء الولايات المتحدة وروسيا والصين، كونها دولاً قادرة على ردّ الصاع صاعين في حال تجرّأت إسرائيل على استخدام منتجاتها التكنولوجية للتجسّس عليها.


حبٌّ من طرفٍ واحد


قيام إسرائيل ببيع برنامج «بيغاسوس» للمغرب لكي يستخدمه الأخير للتجسّس على المسؤولين الفرنسيين، يُعدّ تطوّراً يستحقّ التأمّل فيه، لأنه يكشف تحوّلاً في طبيعة التحالفات التي تنسجها تل أبيب وفي نظرتها الفعلية لِمَن تعتبرهم حلفاء من «الدرجة الثانية». محاولات إسرائيل للتجسّس حتى على أهمّ حلفائها، ليس بالأمر الجديد. جميعنا يذكر قضيّة الأميركي جوناثان بولارد الذي اعتُقل سنة 1985 بتهمة التجسّس على بلاده لحسابها. الجديد هو بيعها برامج تجسّس لدول أخرى تعمل على تطوير علاقاتها معها، كالمغرب مثلاً، دون التأكُّد من عدم استخدامها ضدّ حلفاء آخرين، كفرنسا مثلاً. يعزو فردريك مورو، الخبير الفرنسي في شؤون الدفاع، في مقابلة مع «لوموند»، عدم اكتراث إسرائيل لردّ الفعل الفرنسي أو الأوروبي تجاهها، إلى قناعتها بأنه سيكون في غاية الضعف. ولا شكّ في أن هذا الرأي يتضمّن الكثير من الوجاهة لأن التحوّلات البنيوية، السياسية والاجتماعية، التي شهدها الكيان الصهيوني في العقود الماضية، وطغيان التيارات الفاشية القومية والدينية على المشهد السياسي فيه، كان لها أيضاً أثر كبير على الفهم السائد للوضع الدولي وللتحالفات. العالم من منظور هذه القوى، بات غائباً أكثر من أيّ حقبة سابقة، وموازين القوى الفجّة هي التي تحكم تعامل أطرافه بعضها مع بعض، صراعاً وتقاطعاً وتحالفاً. إسرائيل لا تحترم إلّا الأقوياء، وهم في حالتنا الولايات المتحدة وروسيا والصين، وتتجنّب استفزازهم. أمّا الآخرون، فهي تتعاطى معهم، وكما أظهرت «الفضيحة»، وفقاً لأولوياتها الظرفيّة.

لم تَعُد قوّة إسرائيل «الناعمة» تستند إلى ادّعاءاتها بكونها «واحة ديمقراطية» في محيط من البرابرة

وما فعلته مع فرنسا، لن تتردّد في تكراره في المستقبل مع دول كالمغرب والإمارات والسعودية إذا اقتضت مصالحها المتغيّرة ذلك. لا تحالفات ثابتة، أو على الأقلّ تجنّباً للتأزيم، إلّا مع الأقوياء. هي لم تراعِ الاندفاعة الفرنسية غير المسبوقة حيالها في السنوات الماضية، والتي فصّلها الباحث والصحافي الفرنسي، جان ستيرن، في سلسلة مقالات على موقع «شرق 21» عن اللوبي الإسرائيلي في بلاده. فشركة «إلبيت» الإسرائيلية تساهم في إنتاج نظام «العقرب»، وهو في قلب استراتيجية القوات البرية الفرنسية في العقود القادمة، و»يسمح بتطوير قيادة رقمية واحدة تعتمد على وصلة مشتركة تسمح للجنود المنتشرين في الميدان وكذلك للأدوات العسكرية الجديدة، مثل الطائرات من دون طيار والروبوتات، بأن تكون متّصلة في وقت واحد لتستبق بالتالي ردود فعل العدو». أمّا الشركات الفرنسية العاملة في حقل التكنولوجيا الرقمية، فـ»جميعها تريد الموساد عندها»، بحسب العنوان الحرفي لإحدى مقالاته في السلسلة المشار إليها آنفاً، والتي يتحدّث فيها عن مدى إعجاب الشركات الخاصّة وصناعات الدفاع الفرنسية، بإنجازاته في المجالات التكنولوجية، خاصّة برنامج «بيغاسوس». وهذه المقالة نُشرت في 26 نيسان الماضي، أي قبل «الفضيحة»، ما يضعنا أمام هُيام من طرف واحد يقابله عدم اكتراث، إن لم يكن ازدراء من الطرف الآخر.



جاذبية نموذج السيطرة والتنكيل والقتل


لم تَعُد قوّة إسرائيل «الناعمة»، أي جاذبيتها، تستند إلى ادّعاءاتها بكونها «واحة ديمقراطية» في محيط من البرابرة و/أو الأنظمة المستبدة. فقدت هذه السردية الحدود الدنيا من الصدقيّة على نطاق الكوكب. جاذبيتها اليوم تستند إلى خبراتها ومعارفها في ميدان القوّة الخشنة، والتي اكتسبتها من خلال حربها المستمرّة على الشعب الفلسطيني وشعوب المنطقة وقواها المقاومة. وحتى كاتب صهيوني «معتدل» كيوفال هراري يعترف بذلك في مقالة كتبها بعنوان: «سنستطيع قرصنة البشر قريباً»، يعتبر فيها أن «الضفة المحتلّة هي حقل تجارب بالنسبة إلى الإسرائيليين حول كيفية بناء ديكتاتورية رقميّة. كيف نستطيع التحكُّم بـ2,5 مليون من السكان عبر استخدام الذكاء الاصطناعي والبيغ داتا والطائرات المسيّرة والكاميرات؟ إسرائيل رائدة في مجال الرقابة والسيطرة: تقوم باختبارات ميدانية، ومن ثم تصدّرها نحو بقية العالم». وعلى الغالب، فإن هذه الخبرات وما تتيحه من قدرات أمنية وعسكرية وتكنولوجية، لأطراف تعتبر الشعوب أو قطاعات معتبرة منها، مصدراً رئيساً للتهديد، هي بين أبرز الاعتبارات التي تُفسّر هيامها بالنموذج الإسرائيلي.

US bombing of Iraq and Syria is illegal aggression – Occupiers have no right to ‘self-defense’

Visual search query image

Independent journalist focused on geopolitics and US foreign policy.

 July 28, 2021

Source

Ben Norton

Militarily occupying Iraq and Syria is a thoroughly bipartisan policy in the United States. And bombing West Asia has become a favorite pastime that unites both Democrat and Republican presidents.

The United States believes it has the right to bomb, militarily occupy, and economically strangulate any country, anywhere, without consequence. But the world’s peoples are standing up more and more to the global dictatorship of US hegemony.

Visual search query image

On June 27, Washington launched airstrikes against forces in both Iraq and Syria, two sovereign countries illegally occupied by the US military, which have repeatedly called for American troops to leave.

The US attack proved to be a gift to the genocidal extremists in ISIS: it helped provide cover as remnants of the so-called “Islamic State” launched a terror attack on a power grid in northern Iraq. Similarly, the US bombing killed several members of Iraqi government-backed units who had been protecting their nation from ISIS and Al-Qaeda.

It is far from the first time Washington has clearly been on the same side as far-right Takfiri fanatics. For example, current US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan admitted in an email to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2012 that “AQ is on our side in Syria.” And the US government supported al-Qaeda extremists in its wars on Yemen and Libya.

In addition to aiding notorious terrorist groups, these US strikes on Iraq and Syria were glaringly illegal under international law. Moreover, they constitute a clear act of aggression against the peoples of West Asia, who for decades have struggled for self-determination and control over their own, plentiful natural resources – resources that the US government and its all-powerful corporations seek to control and exploit.

The Pentagon tried to justify its attack claiming it was an act of “self-defense.” Absurdly, the US Department of Defense – the world champion in violating international law – even cited international law to try to legitimize the airstrikes.

In reality, the US military’s presence in Iraq and Syria is illegal. And under international law, a military power that is illegally occupying a territory does not have the right to self-defense. That is true just as much for apartheid “Israel” in its settler-colonial aggression against Palestine as it is for the United States in its imperial wars on the peoples of Iraq and Syria.

Iraq’s prime minister, Mustafa al-Kadhimi, made that clear. He condemned the US strikes as a “blatant and unacceptable violation of Iraqi sovereignty and Iraqi national security.”

In January 2020, in response to Washington’s assassination of top Iranian General Qasem Soleimani and Iraqi Commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis – a criminal act of war against both Iraq and Iran – the democratically elected parliament in Baghdad voted 170 to 0 to expel the thousands of US troops occupying Iraq.

Washington simply ignored the vote, silencing the voices of the Iraqi people – while threatening more economic sanctions on their government. In addition, the Pentagon stressed that the vote was nonbinding. Still, even the US government-backed RAND Corporation acknowledged that there “is no treaty or status of forces agreement (SOFA) authorizing the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq.”

Likewise, the United States is illegally occupying one-third of Syrian sovereign territory. The internationally recognized government in Damascus has repeatedly called on the US military occupiers to leave, but they have refused, in a flagrant violation of Syrian sovereignty.

“The presence of Americans in Syria is a sign of occupation, and we believe that all nations and governments must stand up to their unlawful presence in the region,” Syrian Prime Minister Imad Khamis declared in 2020, after the US assassinations of the top Iraqi and Iranian military leaders.

While former Republican President Donald Trump radiated a kind of neocolonial arrogance, boasting that US troops would illegally remain in Syria because “we want to keep the oil,” the Democratic Joe Biden administration has not acted much differently.

President Biden appointed hardline neoconservative operative Dana Stroul as the top Pentagon official for Middle East policy. In 2019, Stroul bragged that Washington “owned” one-third of Syrian territory, including its “economic powerhouse,” which includes the vast majority of its oil and wheat reserves.

Stroul’s promotion was an unambiguous sign that the Democrats are endorsing the same sadistic Trumpian strategy, to militarily occupy Syria, steal its natural resources, starve its government of revenue, deny its people bread and gasoline, and prevent reconstruction of what Stroul snidely referred to as the widespread “rubble.”

The reality is that militarily occupying Iraq and Syria is a thoroughly bipartisan policy in the United States. And bombing West Asia has become a favorite pastime that unites both Democrat and Republican presidents.

Trump launched airstrikes against Syria in April 2018 on totally unsubstantiated accusations that Damascus had carried out “gas attacks,” claims that have since been proven false by multiple whistleblowers from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

Then in December 2019, the Trump administration bombed anti-ISIS militias in both Syria and Iraq.

Biden carried out a similar, illegal attack on these same fighters in eastern Syria in February 2021. Another example of Washington serving as the de facto air force for the remnants of the so-called “Islamic State.”

The December 2019, February 2021, and June 2021 US airstrikes targeted the Iraqi government-backed Popular Mobilization Forces (PMFs), known in Arabic as the al-Hashd al-Sha’abi. In its official statement on the June bombing, the Pentagon stated unequivocally that it was attacking Kata’ib Hezbollah and Kata’ib Sayyid al-Shuhada, two prominent Iraqi armed groups in the Hashd.

The Department of Defense misleadingly referred to these units as “Iran-backed militia groups.” The US government and the corporate media outlets that act as its obedient mouthpiece always describe the Hashd as “Iran-backed” to try to downplay their role as indigenous protectors of Iraqi sovereignty and deceptively portray them as foreign proxies of Washington’s favorite bogeyman.

In reality, the PMFs are Iraqi units supported by the elected, internationally recognized government in Baghdad. The Hashd played a leading role in the fight against ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other extremist Takfiri groups in both Iraq and Syria – while the United States, apartheid “Israel”, and NATO allies spent billions of dollars backing Salafi-jihadist death squads in their genocidal war on the people of Syria.

The Hashd do indeed receive assistance from Tehran, and they have every right to do so. After all, Iran is Iraq’s neighbor, whereas the United States is on the other side of the planet. But Washington, NATO, and their de facto stenographers in the corporate press corps seek to discredit all resistance to criminal US aggression in West Asia by erasing its organic, indigenous roots and lazily depicting it as a vast conspiracy controlled by an omnipresent Iranian controller.

The PMFs made it clear that they will not tolerate Washington’s assault on their nation’s sovereignty. “We reserve the legal right to respond to these attacks and hold the perpetrators accountable on Iraqi soil,” the Hashd declared.

Unlike the US military occupiers, the people of Iraq and Syria do have a right to exercise self-defense in response to strikes by foreign aggressors. They can legally resist American military occupation and neocolonialism, just as the people of Palestine have the right to resist Israeli military occupation and Zionist settler-colonialism. It is a right enshrined in international law – and an inalienable right that any nation would defend.

If Washington wants to stop attacks on its troops, there is an easy way to do that: withdraw them from the region where they are not wanted. American soldiers will be much safer at home.The opinions mentioned in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Al mayadeen, but rather express the opinion of its writer exclusively.

Related Videos

Related Articles

Buy a brick! The USA is selling Ukraine

July 28, 2021

Buy a brick! The USA is selling Ukraine

by Rostislav Ishchenko

Source

https://ukraina.ru/opinion/20210723/1031902943.html

Translated by Eugenia

As we all know, to sell soothing useless one first has to buy something useless. At some point, Washington bought Ukraine – for a high price. The process of buying took a long time, as Ukraine was bought part by part.

When finally in 2014 all of Ukraine became the property of the US, White House quickly realized, to its horror, that several US administrations had been investing significant amounts of money in a completely useless product.

The Americans did not feel it necessary to hide their emotions. That is why as far as in 2015 some of the “Maidan heroes” guided by some emotional reactions of their American owners, overheard but not understood a proposed theory that Putin organized Maidan himself with the aim to take Crimea and burden the Americans with the rest of Ukraine. While the residents of the controlled territory entertained themselves with the conspiracy theories, the Americans were thinking about who they could unload Ukraine on.

At first, they though that Russia absolutely had to show interest in Ukraine. The reasons were obvious:

Long common history;

Personal and family connections;

Importance of cooperation in the industry and of the Ukrainian gas transit for the Russian economy;

Solution of the Crimea problem (with the disappearance of Ukraine, the claimant for the peninsula would disappear as well).

The US intended to trick Russia into buying Ukraine at the exchange for a free hand in Syria and the Middle East. They thought that the sanctions introduced for “the occupations of Crimea” would be left in place, this time under the guise of the sanctions for “the occupations of Ukraine”. In short, Washington planned to exchange something useless for something quite useful, preserving at the same time all the means of pressuring Russia. The Americans would not be the Americans if they did not manage to make money, even when faced with a potential loss.

However, this time the US was doomed to disappointment. Moscow did not show any interest in that useless product. It was not even clear whether Moscow would take Ukraine if it were paid to do so. As to paying something to get Ukraine – that was out of question. The next series of sanctions, aimed at creating a situation for Kremlin when annexing Ukraine would be less ruinous than keeping the status quo, also did not solve the problem. It turned out that Russia, although suffering short-term financial losses from the sanctions, learned how to use them to win strategic victories in the long-term game.

In 2016, Ukraine stopped playing a significant role in the American initiatives with regard to Russia. Ukraine was kept ready for sale, but it was understood that it was necessary to look for a new buyer. Furthermore, since by that time even pigmies in Africa realized just how useless Ukraine really was, it was critical to find a buyer that would not be able to refuse the offer. The sale of the Kiev colony of the US empire entered the mode “buy a brick” (1), which allowed to present an ordinary robbery as a voluntary purchase.

Obama during his term failed to find an appropriate “buyer”. Trump was not much interested in the Ukrainian problem, preferring to intrigue against China and fight against Nordstream-2 for the benefit of the US gas industry. However, in the end it were the Trump policies that helped the Biden administration to bind a “buyer” that would not be able to refuse the offer of a brick.

Fighting against Nordstream-2 and trying to minimize the cost of the American global hegemony, Trump seriously damaged the relationships with Germany. The Germans, finding themselves in an unexpected situation when the US turned from an ally to an economic competitor and stopped guaranteeing the military and political protection, had not dared to sharply change gears and go under the Russian wing. Besides, that could have easily caused an irreversible split in the EU. Berlin started to look for ways to restore the good relations with the US.

As a result, the Biden administration was able to execute a turnaround. Not being bound by the interest of the US oil and gas industry (Biden favors “green” energy instead of the traditional one) and with full understanding that the Germans were determined to complete Nordstream-2 at all costs, Washington pretended that it was super-concerned about the fate of Ukraine. A talk with Germany on the subject was presented as essentially a prerequisite for the normalization of relations. At the same time, the US made an unusual move refusing to impose sanctions against the German politicians and companies involved in the Nordstream-2 project.

Normally Washington never yields anything first during negotiations demanding concessions from its partners instead. In this case, however, the Americans were remarkably constructive. The real reason for that attitude was soon revealed: the Americans made Germany sign onto a deal purportedly serving the interests of Ukraine.

The celebrations in Kiev turned out to be short. When the details of the deal were revealed, it became quite clear that nobody guarantees anything to Ukraine or intends to compensate it for anything. Germany made a vague promise to fight for the interests of Ukraine and to push Gasprom to negotiate with Ukraine the extension of the transit contract. This, by the way, the Russian government never refused to do, provided Ukraine could offer competitive transit conditions. But this is precisely what Kiev does not want to do dreaming about continuing to profit from the “exclusiveness” of its transit capabilities. That is why Ukraine is fighting so fiercely against Nordstream-2. But nobody promised to force Moscow into an unprofitable deal. This was finally understood in Ukraine, and loud whine about betrayal immediately followed.

Ukraine is mistaken: it has not been betrayed; it has been sold. Furthermore, in spite what Biden’s opponents say, Biden did not sell it to Putin. Putin is using the Ukraine situation to serve Russian interests quite effectively, but he has not paid a dime or made a single political concession. On the contrary, Gasprom and Russia are planning to make a profit from all this, compensating for forced losses of the previous period. Biden sold the Ukrainian “brick” to Merkel.

In order to go away in style and leave her party a chance to remain in power, Bundeskanzlerin needed to restore mutual understanding with the US. However, the Nordstream-2 was such an important project that in this case Merkel was not prepared to make a single concession. The Americans are tough negotiators, though, so they did manage to make her an offer she could not refuse.

They have removed Nordstream-2 from the equation. The existing sanctions were left in place, for they did no harm, whereas no new sanctions, particularly against the Germans, will be imposed. All Germany’s obligations towards Ukraine would be expressed as vaguely as possible. It would be up to Berlin to decide what exactly these obligations are.

The only specific promise was that the US would collect money in the West in the amount of 1 billion dollars, which would be given to Ukraine to develop “green” energy in order to be able to compensate any potential problems with natural gas supplies. Germany would serve as a manager of the “green” energy development in Ukraine contributing 150-200 million dollars to that 1 billion (a tiny sum for Germany).

Biden killed two birds with one stone. First, he demonstrated to his supporters in the US how effectively he fights for ecology introducing “green” energy even in such a distant and God forsaken place as Ukraine.

Second, the Germans that have been fighting nuclear and coal power stations at home for years, could apply their experience in Ukraine at the same time making use of a billion dollars. They would, of course, have to share some with the aboriginies, but not that much. Besides, the Germans would be in a position to solve the problem of a dozen of nuclear blocks in Ukrainian nuclear plants all potential Chernobyls – that are still in the playful Ukrainian paws.

Thirdly, since after this “support” and “reforms”, Ukraine would inevitably face a deficit of electric power, the EU would be able to sell it not only natural gas “via reverse”, but also electricity.

Fourthly, the US finally got rid of the Ukrainian “suitcase without the handle” successfully forcing it onto Germany. Now it is time for the Merkel’s successors to think how to sell Ukraine back to Russia even if with added financial compensation.

Merkel herself has no cause to complain. She bought a “brick”, of course, but a brick nicely packaged in golden foil. While the purchase is being unwrapped, the elections will be over and the Chancellor will retire. If CDU/CSU fail to remain in power, that would definitely not be her fault. Merkel is passing on a solid well cared for country without debt or problems. The promises, which Kiev troublemakers would cling to, will surface later when the fate of the elections and the coalition will have been decided.

We have to give the honor where the honor is due: the Americans never discard anything and manage to get their pennies for the most useless and unattractive product.

As far as Ukraine is concerned… Well, nobody concerns himself with Ukraine anymore. The Ukrainian citizens are left with the only hope that at some time in the future, after a series of re-sales, this invalid, which is Ukraine, in spite of its obnoxious personality, a habit to gnaw at the owner’s furniture, damage wallpaper, and crap all over the place, would end up an good hands.

But this is very unlikely.

(1) “Buy a brick” – a common Russian joke. A big guy holding a brick approaches a passerby: “Ah, dude, buy this brick”. The person responds: “No, thank you, I don’t need it”. When the big guy waives the brick menacingly over the head of the other: “You’d better buy this brick and not tempt your fate”.

الانسحاب الأميركي من وسط آسيا بين الفوضى والاستقرار

Visual search query image

كاتب وباحث سياسي في العديد من المنافذ الإخبارية العربية ، ومنها جريدة الأخبار ، وقناة الميادين الإخبارية الفضائية ، وعربي 21 ، وراي اليوم ،.

 الأربعاء 28 تموز 2021

المصدر

عمرو علان

كما كان دخول أميركا عسكرياً إلى قلب آسيا، من خلال احتلال أفغانستان قبل 20 عاماً، تبدّلاً نوعياً في وضع الجغرافيا السياسية الذي كان قائماً في وسط آسيا آنذاك، فإنَّ انسحابها اليوم لا يقلّ أهميّة كذلك من هذا المنظور.

لم يكن دخول أميركا إلى آسيا الوسطى – قبل 20 عاماً من خلال احتلال أفغانستان – نقلة هامشية في لعبتي الشطرنج الجغرافيتين، السياسية والاقتصادية، فكما يقول الأستاذ المساعد البروفيسور برياني تود في مركز البحوث الاستراتيجية “Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies” في جامعة ” National Defense University” الأميركية: “إذا ما كنّا – يقصد الأميركيين – خلال التسعينيات ننظر إلى منطقة وسط آسيا من خلال البعد الروسي، فإننا صرنا في الألفية الثانية ننظر إلى تلك المنطقة من خلال البعد الأفغاني”.

Visual search query image
كان الدخول العسكري الأميركي إلى قلب آسيا تحولاً استراتيجياً إذ جعل منها المهيمن الرئيس في عموم منطقة أوراسيا

إنَّ وجود أفغانستان في قلب آسيا يجعل منها عقدة مواصلات برية في حركتي نقل البضائع والأفراد، ولا سيما أنَّ لها حدوداً مشتركة مع 6 دول آسيوية، 3 منها تعد دولاً محورية، هي الصين شرقاً، وباكستان جنوباً، وإيران غرباً. يضاف إلى ذلك وقوع أفغانستان في حيّز اهتمام جمهورية روسيا الاتحادية ضمن عقيدة “الخارج القريب” أو استراتيجية “سياسة الوصول جنوباً” في حقبة ما بعد الاتحاد السوفياتي؛ فمن خلال البرّ الأفغاني يمكن لروسيا الوصول إلى باكستان، ومنها إلى المحيط الهندي.

لهذا، كان الدخول العسكري الأميركي إلى قلب آسيا تحولاً استراتيجياً، إذ جعل منها المهيمن الرئيس في عموم منطقة أوراسيا، ومؤثراً أساسياً في سياسات دول تلك المنطقة ونُظُمِها، ما شكَّل مصدر إزعاج لكلٍ من روسيا والصين وإيران؛ فبالنسبة إلى روسيا، صار الوجود العسكري الأميركي في حديقتها الخلفية، علاوة على قطع الطريق عليها للوصول إلى المحيط الهندي. بالنسبة إلى إيران، شكَّل تموضع قوة عسكرية عدوانية على حدودها تهديداً استراتيجياً دائماً، ولا سيما بعد تمدد هذا الوجود إلى الساحة العراقية في غرب آسيا، ليضع إيران بين فكّي كماشة.

أما صينياً، فشكَّل الوجود الأميركي في أفغانستان حاجزاً أمام طريق الصين التجاري للوصول إلى الغرب؛ هذا الطريق الذي تحوّل في ما بعد إلى استراتيجية “مبادرة الحزام والطريق” الصينية. وازدادت أهمية الممر الأفغاني في “مبادرة الحزام والطريق” بعد بناء الصين ميناء “جوادر” على بحر العرب في باكستان، وبعد تَبَلْور اتفاقيات “الممر الاقتصادي الصيني الباكستاني” الذي يعد درَّة التاج في “مبادرة الحزام والطريق”.

يظهر هذا الاهتمام الصيني المتزايد في أفغانستان في زيادة حجم المساعدات النقدية لهذا البلد، وفي اتفاقيات الاستثمار الصيني الموقَّعة حديثاً في قطاع التعدين واستغلال مناجم النحاس، إضافةً إلى مشاريع بنى تحتية أخرى من سكك حديد وغيرها.

ورغم أنَّ العديد من المشاريع الاقتصاديّة الاستراتيجيّة التي تم الاتفاق عليها بين الصين وأفغانستان ما زالت تنتظر الدخول حيز التنفيذ، ورغم أنَّ عدد الشركات الصينية التي دخلت فعلاً إلى السوق الأفغاني لم يتجاوز الـ300، وهي تقتصر حالياً على كبريات الشركات الصينية، كشركة “هواوي” مثلاً، فإنَّ المصالح “الجيو-سياسية” و”الجيو-اقتصادية” الصينية باتت واضحة في الساحة الأفغانية. كل هذه الاستثمارات الاقتصادية لا تنتظر سوى زوال العائقين الرئيسين أمام البدء بها، وهما الوجود الأميركي واستعادة الاستقرار السياسي في هذا البلد الذي أنهكه الاحتلال والحروب البينية.

إذاً، كما كان دخول أميركا عسكرياً إلى قلب آسيا تبدّلاً نوعياً في وضع الجغرافيا السياسية الذي كان قائماً في وسط آسيا آنذاك، فإنَّ انسحابها اليوم لا يقلّ أهميّة كذلك من هذا المنظور. 

وهنا، نلحظ أنَّ انسحاب الاحتلال السوفياتي أواخر الثمانينيات عقب فشله في أفغانستان، كان قد حصل ضمن استراتيجية وخطة منظمة، ما ساعد في صمود حكومة نجيب الله التي كانت مدعومة سوفياتياً حتى تفكك الاتحاد السوفياتي ذاته، بينما نجد أن الانسحاب الأميركي تم بطريقة عشوائية، ومن دون استراتيجية واضحة، ما يطرح احتمالات دخول أفغانستان في حالة عدم استقرار سياسي ودورة عنف داخلي متجدّد، حتى إنَّ صحيفة “وول ستريت جورنال” كانت قد كشفت مؤخراً عن تقديرات استخبارية أميركية جديدة تتنبأ بسقوط حكومة كابول المدعومة أميركياً خلال 6 أشهر بعد استكمال الانسحاب الأميركي.

لهذا، صدرت تقديرات في كلٍّ من روسيا والصين تُخمِّن أن طريقة الانسحاب الأميركية غير المدروسة تهدف عن عمد إلى إدخال الساحة الأفغانية في حالتي فوضى وعدم استقرار، ما يضرب الاستراتيجيتين الروسية والصينية في منطقة وسط آسيا، اللتين يعدّ استقرار أفغانستان عنصراً مهماً فيهما.

بمعنى آخر، إنَّ الأميركي يسعى إلى إشعال كرة نار ليلقي بها في الحضن الروسي والصيني، وحتى الباكستاني والإيراني، ويمكن لعدم الاستقرار في أفغانستان أن يؤثر في ساحتي باكستان وإيران الداخليتين، ولا سيّما الساحة الباكستانية. وبهذا، يترك الأميركي على عاتق هذه الدول عبء ترتيب الفوضى التي خلقها بنفسه. ولعل هذا ما يفسر رؤية الصين وروسيا للانسحاب الأميركي من أفغانستان على أنّه فرصة وتحدٍّ في آنٍ واحد.

وقد عبَّرت الصين صراحةً عن توجُّسها من طريقة الانسحاب الأميركي غير المنظم، وذلك في كلمة مندوب الصين في جلسة “مجلس الأمن الدولي” في 22 حزيران/يونيو 2021، التي خُصِّصَت لنقاش الوضع في أفغانستان، كما أكّد هذا التوجُّس وزير خارجيتها وانغ يي خلال افتتاح “منتدى السلام العالمي” التاسع الذي عُقِد في بكين في 3 تموز/يوليو 2021.

لكنْ مهما كان الحال، سواء كان انسحاب أميركا، كما وصفه بدقّة ديمتري ترنين مدير “مركز كارنيغي موسكو”، حين كتب أنَّ الانتشار الأميركي خارج العالم الغربي يتضمّن مشكلتين؛ أولهما أن الأميركي عندما يدخل منطقة بالقوة يُحدِث اضطراباً في “جغرافيّتها السياسية” السائدة، والأخرى تكون عند انسحابه، إذ يُخلِّف وراءه فوضى، أو أنَّ الانسحاب الأميركي جاء فوضوياً بشكلٍ متعمّد؛ ففي الحالتين، لا يغير ذلك من حقيقة الأمر ومما يترتّب عليه.

وحتى إن عددنا الانسحاب الأميركي تحولاً إلى استراتيجية “التحكّم في الفوضى عن بُعد” في محاولةٍ لضرب مصالح الصين وروسيا في منطقة وسط آسيا بكلفة أقل، يظل هذا انكفاءً على وقْع فشَلٍ لاحتلال دام 20 عاماً، إذ أخفق الاحتلال في تحقيق هدفه الاستراتيجي بتثبيت سيطرةٍ مستتبةٍ للأميركي وحلفائه على قلب آسيا، وعلى عقدة المواصلات البرية عبر أفغانستان.

ولا ننسى أن الهدف المعلن الأميركي عند احتلال أفغانستان كان القضاء على حركة “طالبان” نهائياً، بينما نجد اليوم أن احتمال عودة “طالبان” إلى الحكم صار كبيراً، بعد أن باتت التقارير المتواترة تشير إلى تَمكُنها من استعادة السيطرة على نحو 80% من مساحة أفغانستان في فترة زمنية قياسية، وبعد أن باتت كلّ الدول المجاورة لأفغانستان، إضافة إلى روسيا، تتعاطى مع الحركة على أنها اللاعب الرئيس في المشهد الأفغاني. وبدأت الهند أيضاً مؤخراً بفتح خطوط تواصل معها، رغم الموقف العدائي للهند تجاهها، بسبب ديناميات التحالفات في ذلك الإقليم وتعقيداتها، بين الصين وباكستان من ناحية، والهند من ناحية مقابِلة.

وفي المحصّلة، تفرض المرحلة القادمة تحدياً على الدول الفاعلة في ذاك الإقليم، ولا سيما الصين وروسيا، بالتعاون مع إيران وباكستان والهند، من أجل ترتيب الوضع الداخلي الأفغاني واستعادة هذا البلد استقراره السياسي الذي يتوقف عليه انطلاق حركة إعادة الإعمار والتنمية، بما يخدم الشعب الأفغاني بداية، ويصب تبعاً في مصلحة الاستراتيجيات الكبرى لمركزي القوى العالميين الصاعدَين، الصين ومبادرتها “الحزام والطريق”، وروسيا واستراتيجيتها “الأوراسية”؛ هذه الاستراتيجيات التي تمهّد لولادة عالَم ما بعد الهيمنة الغربية.

من أجل هذا الهدف، توجد عدة اتحادات وتحالفات إقليمية يمكن البناء عليها من أجل إعادة رسم الجغرافيتين السياسية والاقتصادية في منطقة وسط آسيا، وامتداداً غرب آسيا، لكن من دون الخوض في التفاصيل، يرى البعض أن تكون “منظمة شانغهاي للتعاون” هي الأكثر قدرة على القيام بهذه المهمة الكبرى التي لا تخلو من الفخاخ والمصاعب.

أما بالنسبة إلى آثار هذه التحولات في المنطقة العربية، فنوجزها بالمعادَلة الآتية: كل صعود للشرق، وأفول للغرب، وتراجع للإمبريالية والهيمنة الغربية، هو مصلحة محققة لـ”دول الأطراف” عموماً، ما يوجِد فرص وبيئة جديدة مؤاتية في المنطقة العربية، يبقى على عاتق العرب حُسن استثمارها وتوظيفها في مصلحة الإقليم.إن الآراء المذكورة في هذه المقالة لا تعبّر بالضرورة عن رأي الميادين وإنما تعبّر عن رأي صاحبها حصراً

White House: Biden, Al-Kadhimi Agree on Continued Security Partnership

27 Jul, 2021

Source: Al Mayadeen

By Al Mayadeen

US President Joe Biden and Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa Al-Kadhimi affirmed their respect for Iraq’s democracy, the rule of law, and promoting a secure environment for Iraq’s upcoming elections in October.

Visual search query image
US President Joe Biden and Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa Al-Kadhimi in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC | AFP

United States President Joe Biden met with Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa Al-Kadhimi to discuss strengthening bilateral coordination under the Strategic Framework Agreement. The two parties discussed expanded initiatives on climate, energy, education, and combatting the COVID-19 pandemic.

The White House stated Tuesday “the two parties are committed to a continued security partnership to ensure that ISIS can never resurge and to allow communities recovering from terror to rebuild with dignity even as the United States shifts to a purely advisory role.”

Today President Biden met with Prime Minister Mustafa Al-Kadhimi of the Republic of Iraq. Together they discussed initiatives on climate, energy, education, combatting the COVID-19 pandemic, and their commitment to maintaining a strong partnership between the U.S. and Iraq. pic.twitter.com/b06fIOVHu5— The White House (@WhiteHouse) July 26, 2021

“The leaders reaffirmed their respect for Iraq’s democracy, the rule of law, and promoting a secure environment for Iraq’s upcoming elections in October. The leaders agreed on the vital importance of holding these elections on time and welcomed the UN monitoring mission to support their full transparency and fairness,” the White House added.

“They discussed the important role of Iraq in the region and the significant diplomatic efforts led by Prime Minister Al-Kadhimi to improve and strengthen Iraq’s relationships in the region,” the readout of the meeting continued.

The two parties concluded by saying that Iraq’s stability was central to the stability of the entire region.

US President Joe Biden and Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa Al-Kadhimi sealed an agreement on Monday, which formally ends the US combat mission in Iraq by the end of 2021, but US forces will still operate there in an advisory role.

“Our role in Iraq will be … to be available, to continue to train, to assist, to help, and to deal with ISIS as it arises, but we’re not going to be, by the end of the year, in a combat mission,” said Biden.

Al-Kadhimi expressed his happiness with the continued cooperation with the United States, stating that the relationship with Washington has many aspects.

Ex-CIA Agent: US Wasted Trillions on Wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, Achieved Nothing

July 26, 2021

Visual search query image

By Staff, Agencies

The US has squandered trillions of dollars on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq while failing to achieve any objectives, former US counter-terrorism specialist and CIA military intelligence officer Philip Giraldi wrote in an op-ed for Strategic Culture Foundation.

In an article, Giraldi made the remarks as US soldiers leave Afghanistan after an almost twenty-year war and pressure mounts on the Biden administration to withdraw all troops from Iraq.

“Not only did the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq make bad situations worse, but the fact that no one in Washington was able to define ‘victory’ and think in terms of an exit strategy has meant that the wars and instability are still with us,” Giraldi wrote. “In their wake has been hundreds of thousands of deaths and trillions of dollars spent to accomplish absolutely nothing.”

He also lamented the development of a situation where, in his opinion, Iraq now has a stronger connection to “Iran than it does to Washington.”

“The Iraqi Parliament has, in fact, asked US forces to leave the country, a request that has been ignored both by Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Trump actually threatened to freeze Iraqi bank assets to pressure the Iraqis into accepting the continued US occupation,” he added.

The former CIA agent also criticized the American presence in Syria, which takes place despite the fact that the current government of President Bashar al-Assad did not ask the United States to intervene in the long civil conflict.

“At the same time, American troops illegally present in neighboring Syria, continue to occupy that country’s oil fields to deprive the government in Damascus of much needed resources. Neither Iraq nor Syria threatens the United States in any way,” Giraldi noted.

According to the former military spy, given that history, it should come as “no surprise that the withdrawal from the twenty-year-long nation-building project in Afghanistan, long overdue, is not quite going as smoothly as the Pentagon and White House apparently planned.”

“US forces pulled out of their principal base in the country, Bagram Air Base, in the middle of the night without informing the incoming Afghan base commander. A frenzy of looting of the left-behind equipment followed,” Giraldi wrote.

And in general, the Taliban movement in Afghanistan “is racking up victory after victory against US and NATO trained Afghan government forces who have the disadvantage of having to defend everywhere, making them vulnerable to attacks on an opportunity basis.” He also noted that the Taliban “plausibly” claim to control at least 85% of the countryside, including numerous significant towns and provinces as well as crossing points into Pakistan.

“The US government is quietly expecting a similar fate for the thousands of Afghans who collaborated with the regime installed by Washington and is hurriedly arranging for visas to get the most vulnerable out, eventually seeking to resettle them in friendly Middle Eastern countries as well as in the US,” he commented on the issue of evacuating Afghans who collaborated with the US forces from the country in light of the growing threats against them.

Given that some 18,000 local residents working for the US have requested evacuation from Afghanistan and that they will certainly take their families with them, Giraldi notes that there exists “particular concern” that former translators “will be most particularly targeted.”

All in all, the author reckoned that the US involvement in Afghanistan in “the struggle to rid the world of the wrong kind of terrorists” has left the country “weaker and more unfocused” than it was in 2001.

“A recent 23-page report suggests that since ‘Defense Secretary’ Lloyd Austin’s February order to ‘stand down’ the entire US military for commanders to address “extremism” in its ranks has sunk morale and many top soldiers have either retired or quit in disgust,” he explained. “During his confirmation hearings, Austin pledged that he would ‘rid our ranks of racists and extremists’ but the reality is quite different, with the witch hunt in the ranks and endless promotion of diversity even hurting normal military readiness training.”

As President Biden pledged to complete the military withdrawal by the end of August, and the whole military presence in the war-torn nation will be reduced to a battalion of soldiers to secure the Embassy and CIA station in Kabul, Giraldi notes that the situation in itself is “not sustainable unless some kind of workable Afghan government coalition can be achieved.” However, referring to the Taliban’s successful offensive, he figures that this “appears to be increasingly unlikely.”

And thus the US will have to maintain a vital direct link to the city’s airport, for which the administration is negotiating with Turkey to maintain a contingent. Although Turkey has agreed to this mission, the Taliban have already stated that the presence of the Turkish military on the territory of the airport is unacceptable and will lead to retaliatory military actions by the group.

In addition, the US is trying to negotiate with Afghanistan’s neighbors on the deployment of its military for the possibility of over-the-horizon military strikes on the country, and according to Giraldi, there “are few options as the US would not be able to launch cruise missile or airstrikes through the neighboring countries that surround Afghanistan to the south, east and west, though a long-distance strike from warships in the Persian Gulf is technically possible.”

Furthermore, the former Soviet republics of Central Asia, according to the former CIA agent, are closed to the US presence due to Russia’s dominance in the CSTO, which includes most of the former Union’s republics in the region, and Russia will certainly veto a US request for a military base. A possible US presence is not generating much enthusiasm from the countries of the region because “Washington’s bullying in Iraq, Syria and also against Iran has failed to convince anyone that the US Air Force would make a good neighbor.”

“So getting out of Afghanistan will be a lot trickier than going in,” Giraldi concluded. “And there is no escaping the fact that the entire Afghan adventure was one hell of a waste of lives and resources. Next time, maybe Washington will hesitate to charge in, but given the lack of any deep thinking going on in the White House, I suspect we Americans could easily find ourselves in yet another Afghanistan.”

Al-Kadhimi: Iraq Doesn’t Need US Combat Troops

 July 25, 2021

Iraq’s Prime Minister said that his country no longer requires US combat troops to fight “ISIS”.

Visual search query image
Iraq’s Prime Minister Mustafa Al-Kadhimi

Ahead of a planned trip to Washington, Iraq’s Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi said that “the US and Iraq agreed in April that the US transition to a train-and-advise mission meant the US combat role would end.”

During an interview for AP, al-Kadhimi said that “there is no need for any foreign combat forces on Iraqi soil. “

“Iraq’s security forces and army are capable of defending the country without US-led coalition troops”, he added.

Al-Kadhimi went on to say that “the war against ISIS and the readiness of our forces require a special timetable, and this depends on the negotiations that we will conduct in Washington.”

Furthermore, al-Kadhimi said that “Iraq is not Afghanistan, and the US withdrawal from Iraq is not comparable to its withdrawal from Afghanistan,” emphasizing that “Iraq has succeeded in gaining the trust of neighboring countries, and accordingly, it is working toward the stability of the region.”

Iraqi Prime Minister headed an official delegation to the United States on Sunday, to discuss US-Iraqi relations.

Before departing for Washington, al-Kadhimi affirmed that his visit comes within the framework of Iraq’s efforts to consolidate a close relationship with the US, stressing that “the visit culminates long efforts of intensive work during the strategic dialogue sessions period, to organize the security relations between the two countries in a way that serves Iraq’s interest.”

US sources did not rule out the possibility of Washington maintaining its military presence in Iraq at the current level. The New York Times quoted sources in the US Defense Department and the White House as saying that Washington could maintain its military forces in Iraq by reclassifying their roles on paper.

It is notable that on Thursday, an Iraqi delegation headed by Iraqi Foreign Minister Hussein Fuad arrived in Washington to meet with US officials.

US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said during his meeting with his Iraqi counterpart that “we will discuss with the Iraqi delegation the fight against ISIS so that we can establish security and stability, which indicates close relations with Iraq.”

For his part, the Iraqi foreign minister said, “We are here to conduct dialogue and discussion with the American side,” hoping that the dialogue will “deepen the joint cooperation between Washington and Baghdad.”

Hussein added that “the premises of the dialogue are based on joint action, mutual respect, and cooperation in broad areas, including security, military, economic, energy, health, combating COVID-19, and many other fields.”


Iraqi Resistance Lambasts FM’s Remarks on Need for US Troops

 July 24, 2021

Blinken
Secretary of State Antony Blinken at the State Department (February 4, 2021 / photo by Reuters).

Iraqi Foreign Minister Fuad Hussein’s recent statements about the need for US forces in the Arab country have drawn strong criticism from anti-terror resistance groups and political leaders.

Speaking at a joint press conference alongside his American counterpart Antony Blinken in Washington on Friday, the Iraqi foreign minister said that Baghdad still required Washington’s help, and called for maintaining bilateral security cooperation.

“We need to work with the International Coalition, led by the United States, against the terrorists of Daesh,” Hussein alleged. “We need cooperation in the field of intelligence. We need help with training. We need troops to help us in the air.”

The comments came at a time when American and Iraqi officials are finalizing a shift in the US military mission in Iraq to what they call “a purely advisory role” by the end of the year.

Citing a US official and two people familiar with the matter, Politico reported on Thursday that the change is planned to be announced on Monday after Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi meets with US President Joe Biden at the White House.

In response, the Iraqi Resistance Coordination Committee, which consists of representatives of anti-terror factions within the Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) or Hashd al-Sha’abi, underlined the need for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from the country.

In a statement carried by Lebanon’s al-Mayadeen TV channel, the committee warned that the meddling of foreign forces in Iraq’s security is meant to spy on the work of the country’s security agencies, adding that the mission of the US Air Force in Iraq is to defend the security of the Zionist regime and spy on the resistance.

“We stress the resistance’s conditions not to allow the presence of any foreign military personnel on Iraqi soil,” it added. “The pullout of foreign occupying forces from Iraq must be done completely from all Iraqi territory in order for the process to be real.”

The secretary general of the Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq movement, a subdivision of Hashd al-Sha’abi, said FM Hussein’s remarks are “very unfortunate and unacceptable” for all Iraqis who are proud of their military and security institutions.

Ammar Hakim, Iraqi Shia cleric and head of National Wisdom Movement (Hikma), expressed hope that the Iraqi delegation’s talks with the US would take into account the country’s interests through their professional conduct.

Source: Press TV

Related Videos

Related News

Russian Foreign Ministry on Nord Stream 2, Britain, and US Support for ISIS

By Stephen Lendman

Source

From beneath the Baltic Sea, Russia’s 745-mile pipeline will supply 55 billion cubic meters of gas annually to Germany and Europe.

Nearly completed, it’ll soon be operational despite US efforts to undermine the project.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova (MZ below) stressed that the project “is in full accord with norms of international law, EU regulatory requirements and laws of littoral states” Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Germany.

It’ll greatly enhance European energy security, not undermine it as US dark forces claim.

According to Gazprom Export head Elena Burmistrova, European consumers will save at least 7.9 billion euros in annual energy costs over 30% more expensive US LNG.

MZ stressed that Russia never uses “energy supplies or the transit issue as a weapon and has no intention to do this in the future.” 

Moscow is “committed to politics-free energy cooperation and its development with all countries based on the principles of respect for partners’ interests and mutual benefit.”

Despite Russia’s good faith in dealings with Germany on the project important to its energy security, an unacceptable joint US/German agreement didn’t reciprocate, Moscow’s US envoy Anatoly Antonov explained, saying:

Its “hostile tonality directed at our country fundamentally contradicts the spirit of” what bilateral and multilateral relations should be all about, adding:

“The attempts to present us as an aggressor and a country involved in ‘malign’ activities have long become the calling card of Russophobes.” 

“The threats against us are groundless and futile.”

“We’ve never inflicted our deliveries on anyone, never used our energy resources as a weapon of political pressure, nor tried to resolve by these means any opportunistic goals ascribed to us.” 

“We reject any accusations on that score.” 

“We view these attempts as nothing else but unscrupulous competition.”

“Russia is ready to deliver as much” energy to recipient countries as they wish to recieve.

According to what the Biden and Angela Merkel regimes agreed on, US sanctions on Nord Stream 2 will be rescinded in return for US/German investments in Ukraine’s energy security.

Berlin also pledged to demand that Russia extend the gas pipeline to Ukraine so its US-controlled ruling regime will get $3 billion in annual transit fees.

Germany will support renewed sanctions on Russia if accused of “aggression” the Kremlin abhors by any nations against others.

According to an unnamed State Department Russophobe:

“Should Russia attempt to use energy as a weapon or commit further aggressive acts against Ukraine (sic), Germany will take action at the national level and press for effective measures at the European level, including sanctions to limit Russian export capabilities to Europe in the energy sector.”

Nord Stream 2 is a commercial project. Yet Biden/Merkel regime dark forces continue to unacceptably politicize it.

MZ stressed that the pipeline “will function reliably (by) providing affordable energy to European consumers. 

It will “strengthen energy security of (recipient) European countries.”

Totalitarian Britain partners with Washington’s diabolical war on Russia by other means.

MZ slammed Big Lies by MI5 head Ken McCallum.

He falsely accused Russia of threatening UK security by cyber attacks — a US, UK, EU, Israeli specialty, not how Russia operates against any nations.

No evidence suggests otherwise, none by McCallum.

Like other Johnson regime hardliners, he’s hostile to all things Russia, inventing things to accuse the Kremlin of. No legitimate ones exist.

MZ: If Britain has concrete facts, not “empty talk,” reveal it. 

Otherwise its remarks are baseless like many times before.

“Moscow is guided by the principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of other countries” — polar opposite how the US-dominated West operates. 

The Kremlin “repeatedly warned London that the anti-Russia hysteria that has been launched in the UK will eventually have a backlash against its masterminds.”

Russian Special Presidential Representative for Afghanistan Zamir Kabulov has indisputable evidence of the US/ISIS connection.

MZ explained that Russia repeatedly raised this issue with other world community member states.

It “provided evidence multiple times…based on (credible) data,” adding:

“We have many questions about unmarked helicopter flights, recorded since 2017, over the areas of activity of ISIS militants” where they’re deployed as proxy US foot soldiers.

Afghan sources explained that US helicopters are “used to deliver reinforcements, weapons and munitions, and remove killed and wounded terrorists from battlefields.” 

“We made this information public and said that (it) should attract serious attention from specialized bodies and all involved parties.” 

“We spoke about this before, and, I should stress once again, this kind of activity was not possible without the knowledge of the US and NATO that control Afghan air space.”

The same thing has gone on in Syria throughout at least most of the past decade.

The US and its imperial partners use ISIS and likeminded jihadists as proxies in Washington’s war theaters.

Russia supplied this information to the UN — ignored by pro-Western secretary general Guterres and his predecessor. 

Nord Stream 2 ‘Deal’ Is Not an American Concession, It’s Admission of Defeat

See the source image

July 23, 2021

Source

All in all, Washington’s virtue-signaling is one helluva gas!

After much arm-twisting, bullying and foghorn diplomacy towards its European allies, the United States appears to have finally given up on trying to block the giant Nord Stream 2 project with Russia. What an epic saga it has been, revealing much about American relations with Europe and Washington’s geopolitical objectives, as well as, ultimately, the historic decline in U.S. global power.

In the end, sanity and natural justice seem to have prevailed. The Nord Stream 2 pipeline under the Baltic Sea will double the existing flow of Russia’s prodigious natural gas to Germany and the rest of Europe. The fuel is economical and environmentally clean compared with coal, oil and the shale gas that the Americans were vying with Russia to export.

Russia’s vast energy resources will ensure Europe’s economies and households are reliably and efficiently fueled for the future. Germany, the economic engine of the European Union, has a particular vital interest in securing the Nord Stream 2 project which augments an existing Nord Stream 1 pipeline. Both follow the same Baltic Sea route of approximately 1,222 kilometers – the longest pipeline in the world – taking Russian natural gas from its arctic region to the northern shores of Germany. For Germany’s export-led economy, Russian fuel is essential for future growth, and hence benefiting the rest of Europe.

It was always a natural fit between Russia and the European Union. Geographically and economically, the two parties are compatible traders and Nord Stream 2 is merely the culmination of decades of efficient energy relations.

Enter the Americans. Washington has been seething over the strategic energy trade between Russia and Europe. The opposition escalated under the Trump administration (so much for Trump being an alleged Russian stooge!) when his ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell, fired off threatening letters to German and other European companies arrogantly warning that they would be hit with sanctions if they dared proceed with Nord Stream 2. Pipe-laying work was indeed interrupted last year by U.S. sanctions. (So much for European sovereignty and alleged meddling in internal affairs by Russia!)

The ostensible American rationale was always absurd. Washington claimed that Russia would exploit its strategic role as gas supplier by extracting malicious concessions from Europe. It was also claimed that Russia would “weaponize” energy trade to enable alleged aggression towards Ukraine and other Eastern European states. The rationale reflects the twisted Machiavellian mentality of the Americans and their supporters in Europe – Poland and the Baltic states, as well as the Kiev regime in Ukraine. Such mentality is shot-through with irrational Russophobia.

The ridiculous paranoid claims against Russia are of course an inversion of reality. It is the Americans and their European surrogates who are weaponizing a mundane matter of commercial trade that in reality offers a win-win relationship. Part of the real objective is to distort market economics by demonizing Russia in order for the United States to export their own vastly more expensive and environmentally dirty liquefied natural gas to Europe. (So much for American free-market capitalism!)

Another vital objective for Washington is to thwart any normal relations developing between Russia and the rest of Europe. American hegemony and its hyper-militaristic economy depend on dividing and ruling other nations as so-called “allies” and “adversaries”. This has been a long-time necessity ever since the Second World War and during the subsequent Cold War decades, the latter constantly revived by Washington against Russia. (So much for American claims that Russia is a “revisionist power”!)

However, there is a fundamental objective problem for the Americans. The empirical decline of U.S. global power means that Washington can no longer bully other nations in the way it has been accustomed to doing for decades. The old Cold War caricatures of demonizing others have lost their allure and potency because the objective world we live in today simply does not make them plausible or credible. The Russian gas trade with the European Union is a consummate case in point. In short, Germany and the EU are not going to shoot themselves in the foot, economically speaking, simply on the orders of Uncle Sam.

President Joe Biden had enough common sense – unlike the egotistical Trump – to realize that American opposition to Nord Stream 2 was futile. Biden is more in tune with the Washington establishment than his maverick predecessor. Hence Biden began waiving sanctions imposed under Trump. Finally this week, the White House announced that it had come to an agreement with Germany to permit Nord Stream 2 to go ahead. The Financial Times called it a “truce” while the Wall Street Journal referred to a “deal” between Washington and Berlin. (Ironically, American non-interference is presented as a “deal”!)

The implication is that the United States was magnanimously giving a “concession” to Europe. The reality is the Americans were tacitly admitting they can’t stop the strategic convergence between Russia and the rest of Europe on a vital matter of energy supply.

In spinning the eventuality, Washington has continued to accuse Russia of “weaponizing” trade. It warns that if Russia is perceived to be abusing relations with Ukraine and Europe then the United States will slap more sanctions on Moscow. This amounts to the defeated bully hyperventilating.

Another geopolitical factor is China. The Biden administration has prioritized confrontation with China as the main long-term concern for repairing U.S. decline. Again, Biden is more in tune with the imperial planners in Washington than Trump was. They know that in order for the United States to have a chance of undermining China as a geopolitical rival the Europeans must be aligned with U.S. policy. Trump’s boorish browbeating of Europeans and Germany in particular over NATO budgets and other petty issues resulted in an unprecedented rift in the “transatlantic alliance” – the euphemism for American dominance over Europe. By appearing to concede to Germany over Nord Stream 2, Washington is really aiming to shore up its anti-China policy. This too is an admission of defeat whereby American power is unable to confront China alone. The bully needs European lackeys to align, and so is obliged to offer a “deal” over Russia’s energy trade.

All in all, Washington’s virtue-signaling is one helluva gas!

Sayyed Nasrallah’s Full Speech in the “Renewing Media Discourse and Managing Confrontation” Conference

July 23, 2021

Visual search query image

Translated by Staff

The Secretary-General of Hezbollah, His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, delivered a speech at the opening session of the Renewing Media Discourse and Managing Confrontation Conference on July 5th, 2021

I seek refuge in Allah from the accursed Satan. In the name of Allah the Most Gracious the Merciful. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds, and prayers and peace be upon our Master and Prophet, the Seal of Prophets, Abi al-Qassem Muhammad Bin Abdullah and his good and pure household and his good and chosen companions and all the prophets and messengers.

Peace, mercy, and Allah’s blessings be upon you all. Welcome to you all.

To begin with, I would like to welcome everyone attending this honorable and blessed conference. God willing, we will benefit from the dialogs, discussions, and outcomes of this conference to be used in our media battle, which is an essential and the main part of the great battle – the battle of the comprehensive confrontation. I would also like to thank the organizers of this conference, who made an effort to complete it today, and thanks to all the participants.

My speech will focus on the conference. But at the end of the speech, I will leave a small window, to discuss the political situation. Nevertheless, the bulk of the time will be dedicated to this conference.

First: The importance of the media and media discourse in this confrontation is very clear, and we do not need to talk to the media professionals, and the leaders of the media front in the resistance about this matter.

Second: The necessity and importance of developing and renewing the media discourse in this confrontation is also clear, precisely now and in principle. This is the circle of life; everything must develop and progress. There should be no stagnation. Since the conflict’s capabilities and methods of confrontation in its other forms developed so did the military, security, and political confrontations. It is natural that the media confrontation also develops. Firstly, because it is an integral part of the battle. And secondly, to keep pace with the developments in other arenas.
Another factor requiring this renewal in discourse is the steadfastness of the axis of resistance for ten years and its victory in more than one arena and field. When we say: the steadfastness of the axis of resistance within countries, governments, movements, parties, and peoples, people may see it as simple or small. But a huge number of martyrs, wounded, tears, blood, and pain were given and dangers, challenges, difficulties, obsessions, and battles of existence were fought.

Another reason is the resounding victory of the Palestinian resistance in the Al-Quds Sword battle and the new equations it imposed, in addition to the existing challenges as the battle continues. The battle is not over yet. Rather, it is on the rise and facing new dangers, new challenges, new hopes, and new equations.

Third: The media discourse that we want to renew and develop is in the face of whom? Here, we are not talking about internal problems of internal, local, or national nature. We are talking about a confrontation with the “Israeli” occupation and the American hegemony, with the Zionist project and the American project in the region, the “Israeli” occupation of Palestine, all of Palestine – Gaza is outside the circle of occupation – the occupied Syrian Golan, the Shebaa Farms, the Kafr Shuba Hills, and the Lebanese part of the town of Ghajar, the “Israeli” occupation as well as the American hegemony. 

In this confrontation, dismantling is not correct. The American hegemony is the basis and the most dangerous because this hegemony is, first and foremost, a problem for our countries and people. It is based stealing the decision-making process, plundering goods, imposing regimes, and preventing our people from deciding their fate in any field. This American hegemony is the one that is protecting “Israel.” Palestine cannot be liberated without confronting the American hegemony in our region because it has transformed the regimes and armies into dead structures – there is no movement, no will, and no action. This hegemony provides support and all the survival elements of this usurper entity.

Can you imagine, brothers and sisters, that after only 11 or 12 days of the Al-Quds Sword battle, voices in the Zionist entity began to rise and appeal to the United States of America to support it with what the Iron Dome needs in terms of missiles to confront the missiles of the resistance? After 12 days only! This entity is basically dependent on its existence, survival, continuity, arrogance, and superiority. It depends on American hegemony and support. Therefore, we cannot dismantle or isolate during our speeches and confrontation. Every massacre committed by the “Israeli” army is an American and an “Israeli” massacre as it is. Every “Israeli” aggression is an American as well as an “Israeli” aggression.

So here we are talking about a confrontation with the “Israeli” occupation and the Zionist project with its ambitions, threats, and challenges to all countries and people in the region. We are also facing an American hegemony, which sometimes turns into a direct occupation as in Afghanistan that extended for nearly twenty years. And it is now over, with a humiliating, weak, and failed withdrawal. The US was unable to achieve anything. [The US occupation] turned into a direct occupation in Iraq. The American forces now in Iraq are occupying forces. They claim that they came at the request of the Iraqi government, but they are behaving as occupation forces, with their hegemony over Iraq’s skies, attacks against the Iraqi people, and in its recent aggression against the Popular Mobilization Forces at the Iraqi-Syrian border. These are the practices of occupying forces and not friendly or supportive forces. They also occupied east of the Euphrates in Syria. Hence, we are facing a hegemony that sometimes turns into an occupation, as well as other areas, as it is now said about the presence of US forces in southern Yemen. The speech, then, aims to confront the Zionist project, the American project, the “Israeli” occupation, and the American hegemony.

4- The media rhetoric in the axis of resistance was and still is based on main elements of power, and when we want to develop this discourse or renew it, we must renew and develop it based on these main elements of power, which the other media, the hostile media, lacks most of them. 

First: Relying on righteousness. The media of the resistance and the resistance axis as well as the media discourse here express righteousness, the right to Palestine, the right of the people of Palestine to their land from the sea to the river, Syria’s right to the Golan, and Lebanon’s right to the rest of its occupied territories. I always used to say that one of the features of the Palestinian cause is that today if we go around the world, we will find that the most important and clearest cause when it comes to righteousness, the legal right, the religious right, the humanitarian right, the moral right is the Palestinian cause. We find that the standards of righteousness that we use as a reference is the clearest in the Palestinian cause and in this conflict.

Hence, we rely on righteousness in our discourse and in our position. You stand for righteousness, while the other media outlets express falsehood by all standards – legal, religious, moral, and humanitarian standards. It is the right for our people to decide their fate away from American hegemony. America and the West must not impose on these people regimes and options. It is the right for our people to benefit from their wealth, while America and international actors loot these goods. So, first we rely on righteousness.

Second: We also rely on strength, and this is one of the developments in the struggle with the enemy today. The resistance’s media does not recite poems of lament and reminisce, but rather it recites poems of glory from victories and changing the equations. This is the truth.

Hence, today we also rely on the element of strength. When we talk about the resistance and its discourse, we are talking about achievements and victories, especially in the last two decades, in the past 20 years – the liberation of the south in 2000, the victory in 2006, the liberation of the Gaza Strip, the victories and steadfastness of Gaza in the face of several “Israeli” wars, and finally the last battle of Al-Quds Sword against the Zionists. There are also the achievements and victories of the axis of resistance against the global war and the biggest strife in our region, the rules of engagement imposed by the resistance in Lebanon and Palestine, on the “Israeli” enemy as well as the Americans in Iraq and elsewhere.

The resistance imposed rules of engagement and balance of deterrence in more than one arena and area. The enemy’s army was considered the strongest and an invincible army that assaults, bombs, kills, and commits massacres without taking anyone into account. The resistance imposed new equations in protecting Al-Quds. The project I am talking about is liberating Palestine, and I will return to this point later. Therefore, reliance on strength and from a position of strength, and the media’s contribution in creating victory.

Third: Relying on external facts and realities. This is one of the strengths of the resistance’s media and media discourse. It relies on external facts and realities at the political, cultural, and emotional levels of the nation, its people, the resistance, and the resistance’s environments, and the enemy.

Knowing the enemy is one of the most important features of the discourse of the axis of resistance during the past 20 years. It was not gibberish discourse. I will use the expression scientific discourse, an objective discourse, a discourse based on numbers, facts, realities, studies, and research. Knowing the enemy’s points of strength and weakness, acknowledging them, confronting them, absorbing them, overcoming them, and weakening them. We should also know the enemy’s weaknesses to create victories.

The most important matter in the media discourse for 40 years, since 1982 when the resistance began in Lebanon; then, it escalated in Lebanon and Palestine, even though the Palestinian resistance came before. But now we are talking about our experience. The most important thing in this stage and in our psychological warfare is that it was based on facts, not illusions, fantasies, inventions, dreams, or lies. Of course, we must continue in this manner.

Fourth: Based on the third point, we come to the fourth point. One of the most important elements of strength in the media and the resistance axis is honesty. Honesty, which led to credibility, and credibility does not come for free. Credibility is not created by money, by the abundance of media outlets, or by the increasing expertise of media outlets.

True credibility is made by honesty – honesty in several areas:

1- Honesty in conveying the news of what the resistance is saying to the people and what the resistance’s media and its discourse are saying to the people. Honesty in conveying facts must continue regardless of the difficulties and challenges because this honesty accumulated and led to real credibility. Today, the enemy, its leaders, and settlers – because there is no people. There are occupying settlers, occupation army, and occupied people. There are no real civilians. These people today trust and believe the resistance’s media more than they believe their own leaders and media. How did we reach this conclusion? It is as a result of honesty, the long experience, and the facts that appeared before their eyes. Hence, honesty in conveying news.

2- Honesty in the promise. During all these decades, the resistance did not make promises that are far from reality and far from being achieved. When the resistance in Lebanon was founded – with all its parties and factions whose roles we appreciate – it promised liberation. It fulfilled its promise on May 25, 2000, and before that in 1985. When the resistance promised that we are a people who do not leave our prisoners in prisons, it waged wars for their release. The Palestinian resistance also entered into serious confrontations and challenges until it was able to release large numbers of prisoners, and the Palestinian prisoners are still at the top of the Palestinian resistance’s priorities. The resistance in Gaza promised to defend Al-Quds and start a battle with the enemy if it threatened the Maqdisis, the holy city, and the sanctities. Many in the nation were waiting [for this promise]. Some considered it a worthless threat. Hence, the resistance in Gaza began its battle starting with the defense of Al-Quds to create a new equation. Therefore, honesty in fulfilling a promise is also an element of strength. 

There is also honesty in the hopes you give.     The resistance does not promise dreams as a way of deception or false hopes. Today, when the resistance promises something, sets goals, or talks about equations of protection, it accomplishes the equations, as it did in Lebanon by establishing the rules of engagement and the balance of deterrence. The brothers in Palestine are now trying to do so too.

When we talk today in the axis of resistance about the liberation of Palestine – allow me to be very clear, and this disturbs many in the world – about the removal of this usurping entity that occupies, the cancerous gland, and the main enemy from existence, we are not talking about dreams, fantasies, or false hopes. And when we say that Al-Quds today is closer, yes, it is closer. The Al-Quds Sword battle brought Al-Quds closer, closer than ever before.

So, we’re talking about real hopes. We’re not exaggerating. This is one of the most important elements of the resistance’s strength: not exaggerating, not exaggerating in conveying the facts, being accurate, not exaggerating in portraying events, not exaggerating in describing achievements and victories, not exaggerating the goals achieved or the ones we seek to achieve, and not exaggerating hopes and distant goals.

Fifth: The popular base – on which the resistance media and the resistance discourse are based – is the broad popular base in our Arab and Islamic world and in the world as well. Among the characteristics of this base is that it is religiously diverse – Muslims, Christians, and even Jews who reject Zionism and have a real presence – intellectually, culturally, ideologically, nationally, and ethnically diverse. It extends throughout the region and in the world and is united by Al-Quds, its sanctities, and the grievances of the Palestinian people. It is the most important common denominator upon which followers of religions and ideas can agree because they agree on truth, justice, and confronting injustice. This broad base receives the discourse, accepts it from you, and interacts with it on more than one level.

Interaction can happen through the media or the people. It may be by being present in the field, by expressing a position in the media or on social media, by financial support, by going to the border with occupied Palestine, by participating in the battle fronts, by the willingness to sacrifice all that is precious and valuable, or by martyrdom.

There are people whose houses were destroyed, and yet they stand patiently over the wreckage, expressing their determination to continue resisting.

There are those whose family members are killed, as we have recently seen in Gaza and see every day in Al-Quds and the West Bank in Palestine as well as in the occupied Palestinian territories in 1948. There are similar scenes in Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and many places. Therefore, this base exists. It needs your discourse, the facts that you report, as well as your interaction because the word that comes from the heart enters the heart. In many events, battles, and wars, when we used to see, for example, the commentator, the analyst, or the broadcaster emotionally interacting and shedding tears, the fighters on the battlefronts cried.

So, this level of interaction exists. When media outlets are launched, they search and want to establish an audience for themselves. I always used to say that when the resistance’s media was launched, it was based on an existing audience base. But the media must address the audience, preserve it, develop its culture and awareness, strengthen its will, respect its emotions and feelings, and increase its strength, momentum, and determination. It is also the responsibility of the media here to address the others who are still neutral, expanding this base. It should also address the others who lined up behind the enemy, championing it, normalizing with it, or conspiring against the resistance. This is a hard and difficult task, but it is possible. No one must despair, not those who are neutral or those who stood with the enemy.  

The historical facts in many wars show us – there is not enough time to mention examples – how true, honest, and logical discourse bring or push large numbers of people from the enemy’s front to join the front of the friend. This transformation was caused by logical and scientific discourse, truthful and persuasive discourse. This also falls under the domain of strength that bears responsibility.

Sixth: The great human and material capabilities that the axis of resistance enjoys these days. This, of course, has no precedent. It is as they say: It is what it is. If we compare between the resistance’s media in the past and now, there is a very big development – compared to the capabilities of the enemy is another research. There is no proportionality in quantity. Yes, there is a balance. The axis of resistance can sometimes dominate in its influence because it is based on elements of real strength. These capabilities include the television, radio, magazines, newspapers, social networking sites, popular platforms, various popular discourse platforms, and all other means. This, of course, today is one of the important points of strength of the resistance axis and in the battle of the resistance. These means were able, during all wars, to participate in creating victory.

Allow me to say that it did not only report or cover news of the victory, but it also participated in creating victory in every sense of the word. There is no exaggeration in it at all. In the latest battle, the Al-Quds Sword, the unbeatable enemy supported by the first superpower in the world, after days of military failure in the face of the besieged resistance and the besieged people in Gaza, what was it looking for? It was looking for an image of victory, an image of victory, and not for a real achievement of victory. As for the resistance front, there were real achievements of victory and real images of victory, and the media of the resistance participated in creating this victory. During all the previous stages, I believe that the media participated in creating victory, preserving it, and showing it. Without the media, victory would have been lost. This is one of the challenges that I will return to talk about shortly. This is possible thanks to the elements of strength as well as the human and material capabilities available to the resistance today, in addition to your blessed presence – there are distinguished human minds, experiences, and capabilities; there are creative people. This is a fact and not a compliment. We say this knowing that there is no proportionality between the material and financial capabilities available to the resistance media and the other camp’s media. We must be objective since we are examining. 

Unfortunately, we sometimes rush to focus on the elements of weakness, on the negatives, on the gaps, on the mistakes, and this is not objective. Objectivity in any evaluation assumes that we talk about achievements and failures, and not only about failures. We must talk about elements of strength and elements of weakness. We must talk about everything. Hence, we confirm, strengthen, and develop our strengths and achievements, address the weaknesses, and fill in our shortcomings and gaps.

Putting ourselves down as we always do is wrong. In the military field, there have always been gaps and mistakes, but they usually do not appear. What appears is the achievement, which is the field victory. The same applies to the security field where everything is even more concealed. When a failure occurs, only those concerned know about it. In the media, however, since it is clear and is public, yes, the failures, gaps, and errors appear and are highlighted. I tell you that the achievements of the resistance’s media are great and very important during the past decades. We must build on them. Focusing on the weaknesses only and beating down oneself does not lead to an objective evaluation nor does it open up prospects for development and renewal. Rather, it leads us to frustration, despair, and weakness. We can’t do anything; we’re weak and powerless – if we always think like this in the fields of media, the military, politics, and economy, we are choosing death, demise, and loss for ourselves. This should not happen at all. The first and most important sign of the influence of these media outlets is the position of the enemy front. Why are they taking down channels from satellites? If these channels have no effect, let them be.

There are hundreds of satellite channels, maybe thousands of satellite channels, I don’t know. Here, there is a hundred on the cable, at the very least. There is a thousand or more elsewhere. There are many satellite channels in the world. Let them forget and ignore these satellite channels the way they do with the rest of the channels in the world. But they take certain satellite channels, I will not name any so as not to leave some of the channels out, in more than one Arab and Islamic country and take them down. Today, the rest of the satellite channels live under the threat of being taken down from the satellites. The same goes for radio stations. Newspapers are prohibited from entering, even if we are now in the age of the Internet, because the issue is difficult. The same goes for the websites of some media outlets. A few days ago, the Americans shut down more than 33 websites. If these had no influence and were ineffective, why would the enemy bother taking them down?

This is evidence of influence, that it has a positive effect on the nation and is a source of disturbance to the enemy, regardless of the degree of disturbance. I’m getting close to the last part. We need to strengthen these means. They should complement each other. There should be positive not negative competition between them. We need to benefit from each other’s experiences in the media field the way we are doing it in the military field. One of the most important strengths in the armed resistance today is that there is an exchange of experience and expertise. There is no dismantled military front, but rather there is a continuous, cooperating, and integrated military front that will expand in terms of integration, God willing, in the future. The same goes for media.

What we need today which also requires your guidance and your expertise is to make the most of the great potential available via social media platforms and whatever reasons the enemy has in opening this door to the world. This is because we can turn threats into an opportunity. I looked over some statistics that asked why the world interacted more with the Al-Quds Sword battle than any other battle. Some studies credited the effectiveness of social media platforms for this. You can ban satellite channels, radio stations, and newspapers and bring them down. But you can’t do that with social media since it reaches the whole world today. It was able to transmit images and sounds of the battle in a way that wasn’t possible during past confrontations, injustices, and massacres in occupied Palestine.

This is a very great opportunity in which every human being, every individual, not only the elites, thinkers, analysts, intellectuals, and the media, but every individual in this axis and in this nation can become a creator and address the whole world and convey images, facts, and positions. Brothers and sisters, today we are waging the battle of revealing righteousness, reviving the people, and resurrecting sincere hopes. On the other hand, in the media, we are waging a battle against misinformation, distortion, fake news, and deception. This is a harsh battle.

This needs a plan on its own. This is in the defensive field, and all we talked about is included in the attack plan. Yes, today there are a lot of capabilities invested in this, especially in Lebanon, the Arab world, and the Islamic world. These people cannot defend the enemy. They cannot talk about the right of the enemy because it is false; they cannot talk about the humanity of the enemy, even if some Gulf media outlets tried to do so during the past year. However, the Al-Quds Sword battle erased these lies. Thus, they cannot defend the enemy, its behavior, brutality, crimes, falsehood, massacres, ugly face, past, or its present. And they cannot convince the nation that this enemy has no ambitions in the future. Hence, they turn their weapons toward the resistance in order to distort its image, distort its truth, falsify its positions. But the central focus is distortion, distortion in every sense of the word. So, today we see when we keep up with other hostile media outlets, I am not saying the opposite [media outlets], but hostile, that they are waging a media war day and night. Many human cadres and billions of dollars are provided for them, by their own admission. What for? For the purpose of distortion.

But in general, the focus is first on the Palestinian cause – intellectually, culturally, and religiously. We have been hearing lately – here it also needs a cultural and religious effort –  from some Gulf media outlets, especially religious theorizations that yes, Palestine is a right of the Jews, it is the right of the “Israelites” – Allah Almighty says they believe in part of the Scripture and disbelieve in part.

Focusing on the ability of the enemy – this enemy cannot do anything, so we have to accept the wreckage – and the inability of the nation. But the most dangerous is the focus on distorting the image of the resistance. Today, for example, the resistance fighters in Iraq are accused of being Iran’s tail by some hostile Iraqi media outlets and on social media. When you are a jihadi resistance fighter and want the sovereignty, independence, and freedom of Iraq and Iraq’s oil to belong to the Iraqi people, you are a tail. But when you are an agent of the American embassy and a servant at its gates, you are a patriot. The same applies to the resistance in all the region, in Lebanon, in Palestine – you are tails, you are agents, you are Iran’s agents, you are an Iranian community, etc.

This is all easy – communities and agents, especially in this time. Accused of being an agent has become a normal thing. But the worst is when the resistance movements are accused of being mafias, mafias that steal, drug-trafficking mafias, crime mafias, without presenting a single evidence. They work on this night and day, and some people believe it. They even hold the resistance movements responsible for the dangerous situations in their countries – the economic and living conditions in Lebanon and elsewhere – even though they have nothing to with them. In any case, they even deny the victories created by the resistance and work to deny them. This happened in Lebanon in 2006. 

But after the Al-Quds Sword battle, I was watching some Arab satellite channels. While the Palestinians were talking about their victory and how the world and the Zionists recognized their victory. These channels were focusing on the numbers of the wounded, on the job opportunities that were lost, and on the pain and suffering of the people, even though the owners of the destroyed homes and the families of the martyrs and those who lost job opportunities were expressing their belief and their pride in victory. Just like what happened in Lebanon. The enemy was unable to create an image of victory. Yet, the hostile Arab media outlets created an image of a victory for it out of the bones and limbs of children, women, martyrs, and the wounded in the Gaza Strip and in occupied Palestine. This, of course, needs to be confronted. This is a tough battle that needs to a planned and follow up. But, first, allow me to say we need self-confidence. First, we must not be shaken by this distortion. We must have great confidence in ourselves, in our brothers and sisters, in our environment, in our people, in the resistance movements. These people are not infallible. They make mistakes, but the resistance movements enjoy credibility, sincerity, a high level of willingness to sacrifice, and loyalty. But these qualities do not prevent them from having some who make mistakes and commit sins. We must work to address mistakes and sins. They exaggerate the mistakes, but in general, they are fabricating lies and fake news that have nothing to do with the resistance and the resistance movements.

Today, you are invited to study this discourse on the basis of these elements of strength and to develop and renew it on every level in line with all the developments taking place in our region, with all the capabilities available in our hands – militarily, politically, culturally, socially, financially, etc. Development should also be in accordance with the threats, challenges, and opportunities. We must work to transform threats into opportunities. We need to review our rhetoric, our discourse, our literature, the terminology, methods, means, tools, ideas based on these constants. We do not want to start from scratch, but we want to take this great amount of quantitative and qualitative achievements in the axis of resistance, including achievements in the media, as a basis. We all must benefit from the results of your discussions and dialogues, God willing.

I would like to personally ask you for your own effort to help consolidate the new regional equation that we are proposing, to make it the regional equation for the protection of the Holy City. The resistance in Gaza wanted to indicate that they will meet any threat against al-Quds. The entire region will protect Al-Quds against any threat. This talk is not for media consumption, not for scoring points. We didn’t do that in the past, and we won’t do it now. This is a serious and real project that can be used as a basis. It is now being used as a basis – even if it has not yet been translated into practice. When the Zionists are convinced, and they are convinced, that threating the Holy City as well as the Islamic and Christian sanctities in the Holy City will lead to a regional war, they will reconsider and tread carefully when taking such a step. Launching the equation can impose a deterrent rule, let alone working to stabilizing it or even translating it into reality in the near or medium future.

We are working to link the elements of strength – states, governments, movements, and people – to this equation in the axis of resistance. We stay up at nights, hold meetings, coordinate, communicate, study, make plans, and put possible and hypothetical scenarios and various plans, etc. But this also needs the creating of a new public opinion, as we are emerging from a difficult stage during the past ten years. We need a new public opinion. If we were talking about an equation that will protect a geographical area in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, or Yemen, the idea of a regional equation or a regional war might not be acceptable to many of our people. But when we talk about the Holy City and the sanctities that concern everyone – the entire nation, the governments in the nation, all the free people of the world, and all the followers of the heavenly religions – this idea must be accepted and appreciated and has fertile ground, and we must work strongly for it. This requires focused effort during the next stage.

The last part of my speech is a look into the local situation. It will be said that O Sayyed and brothers – the speech can be addressed to you and me – now you are gathered to discuss the media discourse and its renewal in the face of occupation and domination, assessment, investment, and appreciation of the victory in Palestine.  We were expecting you to talk to us about the queues at gasoline stations, absence of medicines and baby formula, and the internal problems we suffer from. I would like to comment on this point and conclude with a couple of words.

In fact, it is required of those who conspire and lay plans in the region, in our Arab and Islamic world is to make all the people of this region preoccupied with internal issues, political problems, bread, gasoline, fuel, a bottle of gas in their homes and the milk of their children, their salary, and the national currency, so that there will be no place in their minds and hearts nor will they have the will, determination, concern, planning, and following on matters that concern the nation, including Palestine and Al-Quds. This is well known, and there is nothing new. But I am only reminding you. This has been in the works for decades, in one form, other than regional wars, wars between brothers, wars between friends, tearing up the nation, tearing up countries, etc. This is what is taking place in every country; the siege and economic sanctions on our countries, especially on countries and people belonging to the axis of resistance. In fact, their goal is for us to reach the point where there is no place for Palestine – in our minds, hearts, emotions, sentiments, our media follow-ups, our interests, our participation in the battle at any level. This is where they wanted people to be, and they are relatively successful. Let’s be realistic, and they are relatively successful. We have to acknowledge this and face it.

The correct thing to do is to work on two tracks or paths at the same time. The first path is to remain fighting this main conflict, not to lose sight of it, not to leave it, not to neglect it. The second path is to address our internal problems in our local, national society. We must do our utmost to address our political, living, financial, and economic crises and not abandon them. But we have to – here is our problem – work on both tracks, and I admit to you that working on both tracks is stressful, tiring, confusing, and difficult. However, with will and determination, we can advance. The first path does not make us abandon our internal interests, and the second path should not drown us and cause us to fall into our internal problems at the expense of the first path. This is the complexity of our battle that we must continue and fight.

Today, the Lebanese people and all those who queue in front of petrol stations and pharmacies must know what is happening with their currency and salaries. They must not lose sight of all the real causes of the crisis. The same goes for the countries in the region. Yes, there are real reasons that are frankly related to the crisis of the system in Lebanon. We are not only facing a government crisis. The government crisis in Lebanon expresses the crisis of the system. It is the product of the crisis of the system. There is a crisis of the system in Lebanon. There is a political crisis in Lebanon. There is rampant corruption. There are a lot of thefts. There is limitless monopoly. Until now, it is incomprehensible what is happening with the  gasoline and diesel and in renewing its causes. Sometimes some reasons are being exaggerated. They talk to you about smuggling. Control the issue of smuggling. How much is the percentage of smuggling? But look at the percentage of protected and abandoned monopoly. Well, we have a problem. True! It is a political crisis, corruption, a crisis of administration, a crisis of government, monopoly, a crisis in responsibility. Allow to speak at the popular level. There is a crisis of awareness among the people. We are not beating our people down. There are many people who are aware. But there are people take things where the enemy really wants. We need a little patience. It doesn’t make sense for people to shoot and attack each other with knives at the gasoline station. This is ignorance. This is ignorance beyond ignorance.

In any case, there is another reason, a real reason, a very big reason –  it’s America and its policies. It besieges, punishes, and prevents any help that can come from anyone in the world, whether it comes in the form of deposits in the Central Bank, donations, or loans. The US is the one that is preventing [them from reaching Lebanon]. You are America’s friends in Lebanon, don’t you know that? Aren’t you ashamed of that? The US ambassador makes appearances every day and sheds crocodile tears. Isn’t her government and administration the one preventing any country in the world from providing assistance, gifts, a deposits, or loans to Lebanon for political goals that are not related to Lebanon? Rather, it they are in the service of the “Israeli” occupation, in the service of the project to stabilize “Israel”, in the service of the settlement project, in the service of usurping gas and oil from our territorial waters, in the service of for “Israel’s” security. Isn’t it? Is it not the US administration that is preventing Lebanese banks from bringing their money and dollars from abroad? Is it not the US administration that is imposing sanctions and threatening sanctions? Is it not the US administration and its policies that are preventing the Lebanese, the Lebanese governments, the Lebanese state from seeking the assistance of any friend from the East? It is forbidden to ask assistance from China. Here, we are not just talking about arguments. There are real opportunities to address the economic and living situation in Lebanon. Real opportunities. Lebanon needs investments. This does not require a lot of philosophizing, either deposits to strengthen the Lebanese pound a little, gifts, aids, loans, or investments. The best are gifts and investments because they do not have effects on the budget and the Lebanese people. There are major Chinese and Russian companies that are ready to invest in Lebanon based on the BOT method, and without the Lebanese state paying anything. Then, these companies are told: No, no, no.

Don’t the Lebanese officials know that this will revive the Lebanese economy and the country, address a large part of our crisis, and secures tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of job opportunities? They know, but I tell you frankly, there is the American veto and fear of the Americans. They do not fear that the US will include the Lebanese state and the Central Bank on the list of sanctions. Rather, there is personal fear – they fear that they, their people, their wives and children, be included in the list of sanctions. 

The Lebanese people in various areas and from various parties and factions offered their best youth, men, and women, as martyrs to save Lebanon and liberate it. In order to save them financially and economically, don’t Lebanon and the Lebanese people deserve that the politicians in Lebanon sacrifice and bear, even if that means they will be included in America’s list of sanctions? Why don’t we have the courage?!

Otherwise, tell me what are the solutions? What are we waiting for? The Lebanese are waiting for a slow death; everyone is talking about collapse. They only differ on the timing of the collapse. Well, these are real solutions, these are realistic solutions. America is threatening to put Lebanon, the officials, or political figures in Lebanon on the sanctions lists. Reality is telling us that all of Lebanon is heading toward death. What will you do? How will you act?

This should not be forgotten while facing the internal confrontation. This is part of the main conflict. This is basically their goal. They tried for years in Gaza to incite the people against the resistance. They besieged Gaza. 

After more than two years of calm, stability, and security in most of the Syrian regions and governorates, and when Syria was calling on companies from all over the world, from the east and elsewhere, from the Arab world, even Lebanese companies to invest, America’s Caesar Act came to impose a siege on Syria. It threatened any company that invests in Syria within a certain scope with sanctions. So, the companies retreated. They got frightened and retreated, even countries friendly to Syria. This is in order to put pressure on Syria.

Iraq is still suffering. Iran is still suffering. Yemen is besieged. Gaza is still under siege. This is the logic of the sanctions in Lebanon. The Americans are frankly saying that our goal in Lebanon is to incite the Lebanese people against the resistance in general and specifically the environment of the resistance against it. These people have no shame. They do not hide their goals. They said years ago that we spent 500 million dollars in 2005 and 2006 just to tarnish the image of Hezbollah. Today, the Americans are saying we want to incite the Lebanese people and the environment of resistance against the resistance.

O Lebanese, the main partner in destroying your national currency, the reason for the crises and calamities you are also experiencing, the high prices, hunger, and the loss of job opportunities is the US administration, the US policies, and the US embassy in Lebanon, which deceives you by giving you two or three masks here and malicious smiles. Yes, there are other problems – I don’t want to defend – but other problems have always been there, corruption, banditry, wrong policies for decades. But the difference is that these practices were protected by American policies and by successive American administrations. The most prominent thieves, spoilers, and corrupt people in Lebanon are America’s friends in Lebanon as well. Why did America remain silent about them during all the past years and now came out to fight corruption? It is not even honest when it talks about corruption. This is a cover for the real economic battle.

Today, we find them clearly speaking in “Israeli”-American discussions. Following their failure in the July 2006 war – so far, they have failed, and we are in 2021 – they threatened us with war. They threatened us with bombing, bombing our places, our camps, and our factories if we do not stop with precision missiles. All their threats were in vain because they know the nature of the equation. They know that war with Lebanon is not a picnic. They keep on threatening, but they also know the price in return. Well, what are they betting on? Today, all the “Israeli” enemy’s research centers are pinning their hopes om the economic and living crisis in Lebanon. So, I tell our people to, first, arm yourselves with awareness, patience, and determination – yes, with hard work, you can address these crises – to, at the very least, persevere during these crises.

In conclusion, the issue of the government. Now, the prime minister-designate has returned. These days are supposed to be decisive. I do not want to say anything now because there are meetings that will be held today, tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow that can clearly paint a picture of the government scene.

We also have the news that we heard in the media about allegations against the caretaker prime minister, a number of former ministers, and a number of military and security leaders. We did not read names of judges, and it was not said that there were judges. Of course, it is unfortunate that the defendants find out about the allegations against them from the media. Until this moment, I think – at least this morning – no one has been officially informed that they are the defendants or wanted for investigating over the Beirut Port case. Of course, this is one form of political exploitation of the issue. We previously rejected this, and we reiterate our rejection of this issue.

Today, I will not comment. I will leave the comment for a later time until the real judicial information comes out to see whether the information circulated and leaked in the media is true or not. We previously talked about the standards and the difference in standards. What we are seeking as the anniversary of the explosion and this horrific massacre nears is justice and truth. Until now, justice is still far away, and the truth is hidden. For a year and for months, we called on the former investigative judge and the current judge to publish the file of the technical investigation regarding this horrific incident. So far, our demands have fallen on deaf ears. Was what happened an explosion? Was it intentional? Was it caused by negligence? Were there rockets owned by the resistance in the Beirut Port? Were there resistance weapons stores Beirut Port as was said in the first few days and weeks?

This is part of the campaign of lies that we did not spare time to give evidence for. And you know it doesn’t need evidence. So far, no one told the truth yet, not even to the families of the martyrs. We do not want you to hold a press conference, my brother. Just gather the families of the martyrs and tell them how their children were martyred. Was there an “Israeli” missile? Was there an “Israeli” aggression? Were there explosives? Did the resistance use the warehouses in the port? Was there negligence? And secondly, we want to see whether there is a unity of standards or not, a real judicial action or political targeting. Then based on this, action will be taken.

As for the living conditions, we must all continue to work towards real solutions, effective solutions, not small or simple actions. This can only happen through a courageous will and a high willingness to sacrifice to open the doors to save the Lebanese economy.

Thank you for giving me your attention. You are used to listening to me for an hour and maybe I go further to an hour and a quarter. I wish that your conference will be productive and useful, God willing. And we will certainly benefit from all your ideas, opinions, and creations. May God grant you wellness. Thank you for all your efforts from now and in the past. And thank you, in advance, for your sincerity and loyalty in this battle. 

May the peace, mercy, and blessings of Allah be upon you.

Does Resisting “Israel” and the US Benefit People of the Region?

22 Jul 21

Source: Al Mayadeen

Nassim Mansour

To address this issue, we need to breakdown a few key concepts to understand the interests of both the people and the governments in the region.

Does Resisting
Does Resisting “Israel” and the US Benefit People of the Region?

The answer to this question is the core focus in the ongoing media war between the Resistance Axis and the American-led Axis in the region.  All the countries that are within the Resistance Axis are facing dire economic difficulties, social divisions, and security issues (Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Yemen). At a first glance, without digging too deep, one might ask that indeed, why not just make peace with “Israel” and the US and end all the chaos? Wouldn’t making peace end all the sanctions and economic pressure and make everyone’s lives easier? These are valid questions that young people in particular ask. To address this issue, we need to breakdown a few key concepts to understand the interests of both the people and the governments in the region.

Relationship between the West and the region

Let’s go back 100 years ago. The Ottoman empire that ruled the region for around 500 years was crumbling. This took place during the second industrial revolution in Europe. Cars, airplanes, ships, electricity, gas, oil, and communication systems were being created. The end of the Ottoman Empire led to the split of the region between France and Britain with the Sykes-Picot agreement. These events prevented various countries in the Middle East from engaging in the industrial revolution as their own independent nations. The owners of the technologies and the infrastructure builders were mainly France and Britain. They viewed the region as an investment for their own projects and a market for their industries. They built most of the region and became the main providers of various technological products. After World War 2, the Israeli entity was created by Western powers to be used as a foothold to project their power and protect their interests. Fast forward to the cold war, the leadership of the region was transferred from Britain and France to the United States of America. This was ratified in the 50’s with the creation of ARAMCO (Arabian-American Oil Company) and the Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement with Saudi Arabia, the Consortium Agreement of 1954 with Iran, which gives American, British, and French oil companies 40% ownership of the nationalized oil industry after overthrowing Mohammed Mosaddegh that nationalized the Britain-owned Anglo-Persian Oil Company, and other similar type of deals across the region. The US became the main weapons provider for the armies in the region, including “Israel”. This was in exchange for natural resources and compliance with American national security interests. Because of “Israel’s” usurper nature and its history of instigating friction, the USA had to make sure that “Israel” always had the upper hand over the rest of its regional allies. As a result, “Israel” became the policeman of the region. As Joe Biden has said before; “If there were not an Israel, we would have to invent one to make sure our interests were preserved”. By that time, the first world was engaging in the third industrial revolution (electronics, telecommunications, and computers).

Our region never took part in these industrial revolutions, as it relied on importing products and technologies from abroad rather than producing them. The capital required to import products and technologies coming from the sale of natural resources. With all this in mind, we can conclude that the relationship between the Middle East and the West is a relationship of “the buyer and supplier”. The West supplies technology, products, and armament while the region provides natural resources in return. This relationship exposes the region to extortion as it is unable to survive without foreign technology and products because it doesn’t have the industries or the knowledge. The Middle East region completely depends on the Americans and their allies to function. 

The Iranian revolution and independence

A major change came into the region with the Iranian Islamic revolution coming into play. Iran became the first country to break free from the “buyer and supplier” relationship by engaging in a local industrial revolution across many sectors, with the military sector being the most important one. Having an indigenous military industry is the key to true independence. It allows countries to truly rely on themselves for their security instead of relying on foreign powers that always impose conditions which limits sovereignty. 

Iran today creates its own vehicles, weapons, medicine, robots, satellites, food, energy, along with various other resources. Iran reverse-engineered what it could, sent students abroad to study technology and return to Iran with full knowledge and capability. The entire nation is engaged in being self-built. Iran is in the process of creating its own civilization, just like the US, China, and Russia are also doing. Any nation that breaks free from its client-status and elevates itself to self-sufficiency is seen as a threat to the United States’ dominance over markets across the globe. It is the reason why the US views China and Russia as enemies. 

The regional resistance

Regional resistance groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces were created by locals in response to the foreign Israeli and American invaders. Naturally, the only country that could supply them with weapons is Iran since its weapons are locally produced and not under the jurisdiction of the US like the rest of region. They also have the same interests as Iran, which is to break free from the American-Israeli hegemony. The initial stage in these resistance groups is always “The Armed-Struggle” which is necessary to their survival. 

The next stage of the resistance is working towards a revolutionary approach to gain independence from the foreign imposed buyer and supplier system. This quest for independence directly clashes with American security and economic interests in the region and the world. Given the buyer and supplier relationship between the US and the countries in the region, it automatically puts those countries in a collision course with Iran and any group or country that is seeking independence. Syria was one of the very few Arab countries that had local civilian industries – and they got intentionally dismantled by the NATO-backed mercenaries during the war; especially in Aleppo where thousands of factories were lost. 

The interest of the people

With the previous concepts in mind, we understand that the ultimate interest of any nation should be working towards as much self-sufficiency as its capability (utilizing the available resources it has, and working with other nations that are seeking the same goals). This is how nations contribute to humanity, share their cultures, and limit foreign powers from deciding their fate. 

Seeking these goals however comes at a great cost: the people must be ready to face sanctions and possible military actions. To limit the effect of sanctions, all the nations of the region that decide to take this path would have to fully co-operate with each other; to share resources and support each other. The region has enough natural and human resources to become independent from foreigners. A lot of sacrifices have to be made, but this is the key to long-term development, security, and prosperity. 

Role of the media

The media plays a large part in influencing and educating people about their own interests, which people are often unaware of. To achieve this revolution for independence, the people need to understand why they’re resisting “Israel” and the United States. Apart from the humanitarian and religious reasons, the ultimate goal of this resistance is to start the process of civilization and nation-building. The goal of the American hegemony is to prevent the rise of nations that will become future competitors in the international arena. There is still a big lack of awareness on such important subjects because the region is engulfed in religious, tribal, and ethnic wars. 

A lot of work needs to be done to raise awareness and to unite people towards these goals, which are way beyond religious, humanitarian, and justice considerations. These are goals that can unite the multi ethnic and multi religious region. It is definitely in the best interest of the people of the region to resist “Israel” and the United States. Although the revolution will take a long time, and although it comes at a great cost; if the revolution is achieved, the final outcome will be the rise of the Middle East and North Africa as global competitors.   The opinions mentioned in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Al mayadeen, but rather express the opinion of its writer exclusively.

Lebanon: Saad Hariri steps down as prime minister-designate

Future Movement leader unable to agree with President Michel Aoun on government formation

Lebanese Prime Minister-Designate Saad al-Hariri speaks as he abandons cabinet formation, after meeting with Lebanon’s President Michel Aoun at the presidential palace in Baabda (Reuters)

By MEE and agencies

Published date: 15 July 2021 13:35 UTC | Last update: 4 mins 42 secs ago

Saad Hariri announced on Thursday that he would no longer try and form a Lebanese government, renouncing his role as prime minister-designate.

Hariri, who has had two spells as prime minister and was tasked with forming a cabinet after Hassan Diab’s government resigned following the 4 August Beirut port explosion, said he was unable to come to an arrangement with President Michel Aoun over its lineup.

“It is clear we will not be able to agree with his excellency the president,” Hariri told reporters after a meeting with Aoun that lasted just 20 minutes.

“That is why I excuse myself from government formation.”

The Future Movement leader was made prime minister-designate in October. However, reaching an agreement over which political parties would recieve which ministries quickly became a problem.

Related Videos

Entranced Earth: the hegemonic dispute engulfs Brazil

July 13, 2021

Entranced Earth: the hegemonic dispute engulfs Brazil

By Fabio Reis Vianna for The Saker Blog

Even if the rhetoric and the interim security strategy of the Joe Biden administration itself tries to give a multilateralist veneer to the idea that the benevolent hegemon would be back, the reality imposed by the increase in competitive pressure, which deepens after the outbreak of the pandemic, and acquires dramatic contours in the so-called “vaccine war”, reveals a challenging scenario for the coming years.

The gradual increase in competitive pressure, symptom of a phenomenon justified in the theory of the Expanding Universe, would have its origins after the September 11 attacks, when the “universal war on terrorism” unveils a world where the power of an omnipotent hegemon revealed itself in the need for the permanent expansion of power through the use of its military infrastructure.

Then arises the figure of the “terrorist enemy”, which could be any person or group, inside or outside the United States, a universal enemy that could be destroyed anywhere, even if that meant violating individual rights or the sovereignty of other states.

The unilateral power expansionism carried out by the Americans after September 11 would therefore have generated the seed of escalation in conflicts, leading to increased destabilization and consequently to a reactive movement of the other states in the world system.

As if in a movement of self-protection, former powers of the interstate system return to a game that seemed dead, but in practice was only sleeping: the old geopolitics of nations, where national interest and the resumption of sovereignty would return to play the cards against the dogmas of globalization and liberal order.

The return of Russia, which in 2015 intervened in the Syrian war – demonstrating a warlike power not seen for some time – represented a turning point, which apparently began with the reelection of Vladimir Putin himself in 2012, but also with the coming to power of the current Chinese president Xi Jinping in 2013. From then on, the interstate dispute would have accelerated considerably with the rise of these two Eurasian giants.

The spread of international competition and instability would be, therefore, in line with the idea that for international political actors the effort for changes in the system would be preponderant for the achievement of their own interests.

The appearance of new emerging actors in the world system, even if considered a destabilizing factor of the system itself, on the other hand, would boost in the hegemonic state the expansionist impulse necessary for it to remain at the top of the system.

The global instability caused by the clash between the powers that would be benefiting from the instituted international order, and those states that would aim to climb the power ladder, would suggest the end, or at least an interruption of the minimum consensus necessary for harmonious coexistence within what Hedlley Bull would call a “society of states”.

From this perspective, the hypothesis of war would emerge as an almost inevitable expedient to resolve the tensions caused by power imbalances and global instability. It is from war, therefore, and especially from the so-called hegemonic war, that the state or coalition of states that would lead the new international order would emerge.

At the moment in which the crisis or the end of the so-called liberal order created in the 20th century and led by the United States of America is being discussed, what seems evident is the occurrence of an increasingly deeper questioning of the current international order by other nations.

In this sense, the global instability reflected in the increase of competitive pressure would be explicit in the context of a generalized conflictive ambience, or on the way to generalization.

To better conceptualize this idea, Robert Gilpin’s Theory of Hegemonic War would indicate that a generalized conflictive environment, even if not configured in an apparent hegemonic war, would already suggest such a situation if we think that what differs a hegemonic war from other categories of war would be precisely the systemic conception existing in the relations between individual states. This being so, and given that it is a systemic relationship, the whole structure itself would be affected by it.

What has been happening internally in a country like Brazil is a very peculiar and local-scale example of this global phenomenon that has spread throughout the interstate system.

Therefore, just as the pandemic accelerated and deepened the global systemic crisis, internally it had a devastating effect by fusing conflicts and contradictions within societies in many countries around the world.

At a time when the parliamentary commission investigating the pandemic crisis is exposing the viscera of corruption in the Bolsonaro administration, exposing the Armed Forces to a public embarrassment not seen for some time, the repudiation note of the three military commands in a clear threat to the National Congress confirms the thesis that the internal war within the institutions and oligarchic elites is something real and increasingly out of control.

The strange visit of the CIA director to Brasilia, and his meeting behind closed doors with Bolsonaro and the head of Brazilian espionage, General Augusto Heleno, sounded like an intimidating message to Brazilian civil society that the Biden administration would endorse a hypothetical regime closure in Brazil.

As it happened during the Jimmy Carter administration – when the military dictatorship was strongly pressured by the United States -, even if the pressure of American public opinion may lead the Biden administration to abandon the nefarious Bolsonaro administration, it is still very useful for the current American security strategy that a vassal government like the Brazilian one ensures the removal of the Eurasian presence in the “Western Hemisphere”, and even contributes to the destabilization of hostile countries like Argentina, Bolivia, Venezuela and Cuba.

The erratic way in which the privatization of Eletrobrás is being carried out – which will lead to an unprecedented increase in costs – as well as the energy crisis that is looming, signal a growing distancing of powerful sectors of the business elites from a government that reveals an openly militarized, authoritarian face that is oblivious to reality.

The fraying, therefore, of social relations at the top of the Brazilian pyramid reveals a scenario that finds historical precedent only in that period that led to the so-called Revolution of 1930, when the dispute between the oligarchies of the time reached its peak.

Following the example of what is happening at this very moment in Cuba and South Africa, the escalation of systemic social conflicts seems to have no end, and even if for different reasons, it would be the result of the pandora’s box opened by the pandemic.

Even if at first glance it doesn’t seem relevant, certainly the deepening of tensions at a global level – within the universe of the great hegemonic dispute – will be decisive for the future of the much debilitated Brazilian democracy.

The classic “Entranced Earth”, by the great filmmaker Glauber Rocha, never came so handy for the Brazilian reality.


Fabio Reis Vianna, lives in Rio de Janeiro, is a bachelor of laws (LL.B), MA student in International Relations at the University of Évora (Portugal), writer and geopolitical analyst. He currently maintains a column on international politics at the centennial Brazilian newspaper Monitor Mercantil.

الترابط بين الأزمة والتبعية لواشنطن وخطتها الانقلابية بعد فشلها في استغلال الاحتجاجات الشعبية..

14/07/2021

حسن حردان

أكدت التطورات الأخيرة جملة من الحقائق التي يجب ان يعيها اللبنانيون ويدركوا من خلالها مَن هو المسؤول عن أزماتهم المتفاقمة ومنع الحلول لها مما أدى الى لإذلالهم في البحث عن الدواء والوقوف في طوابير على محطات البنزين، وتدهور قدرتهم الشرائية على نحو غير مسبوق مما أدّى إلى سحق الفقراء وانضمام الطبقة الوسطى إلى صفوف الفقراء حتى يمكن القول إننا بتنا في مجتمع مكوّن من طبقتين، طبقة الأربعة في المئة من الأثرياء، وطبقة الفقراء الذين باتوا يشكلون الغالبية العظمى من الشعب…

فما هي هذه الحقائق:

الحقيقية الأولى، انّ الرئيس الحريري، ومنذ بداية انفجار الازمة، لم يقدم على أيّ خطوة من تلقاء نفسه وبإرادته، بل كانت قراراته استجابة للتوجيهات الأميركية وخضوعاً لها، وسعياً لنيل رضا ولي العهد السعودي محمد بن سلمان، رغم انّ الأخير اعتقله في الرياض وأهانه، ومع ذلك فإنّ الرئيس الحريري لا يزال يسعى إلى كسب ودّ ابن سلمان ودعمه، ويوسّط الرئيس المصري عبد الفتاح السيسي، والسفيرتين الأميركية والفرنسية، ولهذا بات الرئيس الحريري في وضع لا يُحسد عليه، يبحث عن مخرج بعد أن أبقى البلاد نحو عشرة أشهر رهينة مأزقه، من دون أن يشكل حكومة، أو يعتذر، رامياً بالمسؤولية على رئيس الجمهورية للتغطية على عجزه وارتهانه…!

الحقيقة الثانية، انّ هذا الخضوع والارتهان من قبل الرئيس الحريري لكلّ من واشنطن والرياض، إنما كان ولا يزال يندرج في سياق تنفيذ مخطط أميركي استهدف شلّ الحكم في لبنان، ومنع الخروج من أزمته، والعمل على خنق لبنان اقتصادياً ومفاقمة أزماته النقدية والاجتماعية والمعيشية من ضمن خطة تشترك فيها بعض القوى السياسية، والمؤسسات المالية وفي المقدمة حاكم مصرف لبنان، وكبار المصارف، والشركات الاحتكارية، للأدوية ومشتقات النفط، التابعة لواشنطن والمرتبطة مصلحياً بالرأسماليات الغربية الاستعمارية.. إنْ كان عبر الدعم المالي الذي تحظى به هذه القوى السياسية، أو عبر الوكالات الحصرية التي تتحكم بحياة اللبنانيين.. خطة جعلت اللبنانيين يغرقون في أزماتهم الحياتية ليتمّ تحريضهم ضدّ مقاومتهم وحلفائها وفي الطليعة عهد الرئيس ميشال عون، والتيار الوطني الحر… لإضعاف التأييد الشعبي والسياسي للمقاومة، التي باتت منذ انتصاراتها عام 2000، وعام 2006، تشكل مصدر القلق الأساسي للعواصم الغربية، لأنّ المقاومة أصبحت تهدّد أمن ووجود الكيان الصهيوني، المرتكز الاستعماري الغربي الذي زرعه في قلب الوطن العربي لمنعه من التوحّد والتحرّر واستغلال ثرواته، وبالتالي ضمان استمرار نهب الشركات الغربية للثروات العربية وفي مقدمها النفط.. فحماية أمن ووجود هذا الكيان الصهيوني أصبح هو الهاجس الذي يحرك الحكومات الغربية، التي تضع لبنان في رأس سلّم أولوياتها، لكون مقاومته نجحت في هزيمة “إسرائيل” وردع عدوانيتها ومنعها من تحقيق أطماعها في لبنان… لا سيما في مياه لبنان الإقليمية الخالصة التي اكتشفت فيها ثروة غازية هامة تمكن لبنان، في حال أحسن استغلالها من معالجة أزماته وتعزيز اقتصاده وقوّته المستندة إلى معادلة قوة لبنان المتمثلة بـ “الجيش والشعب والمقاومة”.

الحقيقة الثالثة، انّ لبنان لا يمكن له أن يخرج من أزماته الاقتصادية والمالية، ويحقق الاستقرار الاقتصادي والاجتماعي، ما لم يتحرّر من التبعية السياسية والاقتصادية للدول الغربية الاستعمارية، ويبني سياساته انطلاقاً من مصالحه.. التي تمكّنه من بناء اقتصاد إنتاجي غير ريعي، اقتصاد يحقق نمواً فعلياً وينتج الثروة، ويستغلّ ويوظف ثروات لبنان في خدمته، كما يستفيد من كلّ المشاريع والمساعدات المعروضة عليه من دون شروط لحلّ أزماته الخدماتية المزمنة حلاً جذرياً، لا سيما المشاريع والمساعدات التي عرضت من إيران والصين وروسيا، إلى جانب الاتجاه نحو تحقيق التكتل المشرقي مع سورية والعراق وإيران الذي يحقق التكامل الاقتصادي، وربط شبكات النفط والغاز والكهرباء وسكك الحديد، ويجعل من لبنان محطة هامة في مشروع طريق الحرير…

الحقيقة الرابعة، انّ استكمال معركة تحرير الأرض، وحماية لبنان وثرواته من العدوانية والأطماع الصهيونية مرتبط ارتباطاً وثيقاً بالتمسك بالمقاومة وسلاحها الرادع، والمعادلة الذهبية، الجيش والشعب والمقاومة، وبخوض معركة التحرّر الاجتماعي من السياسات الريعية النيوليبرالية التي أدّت إلى زيادة حدة التفاوت الاجتماعي، وزيادة أعداد الفقراء، وتمركز الثروة بيد قلة قليلة من الأثرياء والشركات الاحتكارية والمالية.. وهذه المعركة الاجتماعية غير منفصلة عن معركة التحرّر من الوصاية والهيمنة الأميركية الغربية التي تستند من النظام الطائفي الذي زرع بذرته الاستعمار لضمان عدم استقرار لبنان واستمرار تدخلاته في شؤونه الداخلية.. كما يفعل حالياً..

في خلاصة الكلام، إذا أجاب الرئيس عون اليوم بالموافقة على تشكيلة الحكومة التي قدّمها له الرئيس الحريري، فهذا يعني انّ الرئيس المكلف حصل على موافقة ودعم إقليمي ودولي لتشكيل حكومته الجديدة، دعم يمكنه من تحقيق انفراجات تخفف من الأزمات التي يعاني منها لبنان بهدف تعزيز الوضع الشعبي للرئيس الحريري وتحالفاته عشية الانتخابات النيابية، بحيث يتمكن تيار المستقبل وحلفاؤه من قوى 14 آذار من حصد الأغلبية النيابية وإعادة تشكيل السلطة بما يحقق الأهداف الأميركية…

أما إذا رفض الرئيس عون التشكيلة باعتبارها لا تنسجم مع التوافقات التي تمّ التوصل إليها، وتعكس إصرار الرئيس الحريري على فرض حكومة اختصاصيين من خارج أيّ تفاهم مع الرئيس عون والقوى السياسية الأساسية المكوّنة للبرلمان، فإنّ الرئيس الحريري يكون قد تعمّد ذلك لتبرير إقدامه على سلوك خيار الاعتذار… الأمر الذي يعني انّ الأزمات سوف تستمرّ بهدف زيادة حدة الضائقة المعيشية للمواطنين إلى أن نصبح على مقربة من موعد إجراء الانتخابات، ليجري تحميل المسؤولية عن الأزمة إلى الرئيس عون وتياره الوطني وحزب الله في محاولة للنيل من شعبيتهما والحصول على الأغلبية النيابية من قبل القوى التابعة للولايات المتحدة وبالتالي تنفيذ الأجندة الأميركية سياسياً واقتصادياً لمحاولة محاصرة المقاومة..

في الحالتين، فإنّ تحالف حزب الله والقوى الوطنية والتيار الوطني، مطالب بوضع خطة مواجهة لإحباط هذه الخطة الأميركية الانقلابية عبر الانتخابات بعد أن فشلت بواسطة ركوب موجة الاحتجاجات الشعبية في الشارع…

فيديوات متعلقة

مقالات متعلقة

Why did Saudi Arabia wage a war on Yemen?

12 July 2021

Visual search query image

To say the war on Yemen was a major development in the history of West Asia might be an understand. It will certainly go down In history, perhaps not in favor of the Saudis though.

TEHRAN (Iran News) –  Why did Saudi Arabia wage a war on Yemen? To say the war on Yemen was a major development in the history of West Asia might be an understand. It will certainly go down In history, perhaps not in favor of the Saudis though.

In March 2015, Saudi Arabia declared that it and some allies had formed a coalition led by Riyadh and began a military operation. At the time, this was something unheard of, especially in the Arab world; that the Arabs had formed a military alliance for the first time in many decades and were conducting wide-scale bombing campaigns with such energy and such enthusiasm. The military campaign was dubbed Operation Decisive Storm. Many in the region had jokingly highlighted what exactly happened that we are suddenly witnessing this courageous will and heroic leadership among a handful of Arab states.

The Storm of the Arabs! In fact it was quite unfortunate. For decades, since 1948, the Palestinians had witnessed one massacre after the other and we never got to see an Arab storm. Not even a breeze of this storm on Yemen. The Palestinians and the Lebanese who also suffered from Israeli occupation had dreamt to only smell an Arab storm of this magnitude. The reasons or excuses at the time, Saudi Arabia offered to wage a war to this extent on another country were THREE. Firstly, the Saudis claimed that the former government of Yemen led by former President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi had requested the military intervention. By the way, the Palestinians had also requested such an intervention and is still requesting such an intervention today but to date, their appeals have fallen on death ears. Instead the Saudis and their allies are accused of conspiring against the Palestinians and sold the third holiest site in Islam in occupied Jerusalem al-Quds to the Israelis.

The Saudis claimed they sensed a threat from Yemen, where peace talks between the former Saudi backed government in Sana’a and the new National Salvation Government broke down and clashes ensued between the two sides. Here it’s important to note, former President Hadi allied with Riyadh, naturally took sides with Riyadh. Whereas the new National Salvation Government backed by a popular public revolution on the ground expressed opposition to Saudi Arabia’s decades old control on Yemen and was seeking independence from the Kingdom.

As Hadi lost grip on the country, so did the Saudis and Hadi quite naturally fled to Riyadh. For arguments sake, even if Hadi’s term had not expired and he was overthrown by a popular  revolution, was this enough to wage such a devastating war? even if Riyadh had claimed it wanted to reinstate what it considers or claims to be the legitimate President of Yemen. Here, again important to note, many other Saudi allies like former Tunisian President, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, who was toppled during the Islamic Awakening in 2011 by the Tunisian Revolution also fled to Saudi Arabia. Where was the Saudi war on Tunisia to reinstate Ben Ali? Likewise Saudi Arabia’s neighbor, Egypt with Hosni Mubarak which Saudi Arabia tried its best to reinstate but not to the extent that it waged a war or militarily intervened. Not only does this prove the Saudi reasoning is false in nature but also puts the spotlight on Yemen. Why only a war on Yemen? Why this quick decisive action to wage war on Yemen, why no talks first, no dialogue or other non-lethal attempts?

The second reason Riyadh stated for this very surprising yet very unfortunate war on its southern neighbor is that the new situation on the ground (the popular revolution spearheaded by Ansarullah alongside the Yemeni army and many legal and popular institutions and committees) poses a threat to Saudi Arabia, the Persian Gulf as well as the security of the Red Sea. Was this accurate? Did Saudi Arabia present any evidence (even a verbal statement by a Saudi official) to back this accusation to the region or the world. Was the presentation of evidence to back up this claim not necessary to wage a deadly devastating war? It is well known that Yemen is the poorest nation in the region. It was also well known that Yemen had many challenges ahead from legal issues to public issues to security issues for example writing a new constitution, bringing back basic services to its people, fighting Takfiri terrorist cells operating on its land such as al-Qaeda. This needed time for the new Yemeni government. Can a new born country in this state pose a threat to Saudi Arabia, the richest Kingdom in the region or the Persian Gulf or the Red Sea. This also proved to be false. The third and most important reason that was circulating on Saudi media and all Saudi sponsored media in the region and the world at the time, perhaps the most serious allegation by the Saudis is that Yemen has become ‘occupied’ by Iran, ‘controlled‘ by Iran and military intervention is required to return Yemen back to an ‘Arab state’.

In other words, Yemen became Iranian overnight. When you study Yemeni history, literature, culture and recent pride, dignity, resistance and willpower and steadfastness against the Saudis; If the Yemenis are not Arabs, then who are the Arabs?

However, as this was a major accusation, it needs to be documented and examined carefully and with logic. When the Saudis said occupation, let’s tackle the simple aspects first. Where is the evidence that Iran ‘occupies’ Yemen? An occupation tends to have a presence, as with every occupation in the world. Was Iran’s army or Iranian forces occupying Yemen or parts of Yemen. Were there any Iranian military bases on Yemeni territory? The accusation was so absurd it was actually laughable. Let’s assume the Saudis actually didn’t mean a military occupation but some form of Iranian control over Yemen. This also needs to be addressed to understand the misconception not just in Yemen but the entire region.

Here, one has to understand the mentality of the tribal ruling monarchy of Saudi Arabia that is backed by the United States and widely believed to be backed by Israel. This ruling monarchy has an issue with something called independent democratic states in West Asia. An independent Tunisian state or Syrian state or for arguments sake an independent Egyptian state or independent Persian Gulf States or even an independent Saudi Arabian state with democratic institutions. The monarchies in West Asia where one tribe rules an entire population with an iron fist views any form of independence as a form of resistance to its rule of power.

That’s in a nutshell.

The facts and reality on the ground is that this logic by these ruling tribes leads to regular foreign policy miscalculations, losses and diplomatic blunders. It’s difficult to find the last time Saudi Arabia made a real foreign policy achievement. More than six years of Saudi Arabia’s war on Yemen, which Riyadh predicted would end in a couple of weeks has been a failure, a defeat and a quagmire for the Kingdom.

These are the same statements that we hear again and again and again from regional states like Iraq, like Syria, like Palestine, like Lebanon and others. The lack of a strong Saudi leadership in the region despite all its rich resources and home to the two holiest sites in Islam, this lack of leadership or failed policies is what leads nations to request help from an independent nation in West Asia such as the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Here is where Riyadh needs to change its mentality and be a source of inspiration for West Asia. For example, Lebanon 1982, when Israeli forces invaded and reached Beirut. All the Arab monarchies and dictatorships ignored Lebanon. The only two states that supported Lebanon during its darkest era was Iran and Syria. Both countries under blockade and siege or war and terrorism. Despite that, Lebanon requested help from Iran, a country that itself was facing a war from Saddam’s regime but Iran fulfilled its duty to another oppressed nation by sending a team of military advisors.

However, it’s very important to highlight, despite western and regional propaganda, that the Lebanese resistance that was formed against Israeli occupation was a Lebanese resistance; made up of Lebanese men; commanders and soldiers not Iranian. Until today, the Saudis describe the Lebanese resistance in its media as Iranian without a shred of evidence while there are thousands of shreds of evidence proving otherwise. The same again with Palestine, if Saudi Arabia supported the Palestinians against the Israeli occupation with the same willpower and money and hundreds of billions of dollars worth of weapons it spent on the war on Yemen, the Palestinians may not have turned to Iran for support. The same goes for Iraq and Syria during the era of Daesh’s occupation. Where were the Arab monarchies? had it not been Iranian military advisors, Daesh would have taken over both countries. More important than this, to make the picture clearer (and counter American/Israeli/Saudi propaganda) never once have these nations stated in their history, that Iran ordered us to do something in return for Tehran’s support.

This reality, where independent states, or those still looking to liberate their lands from occupation, can form an alliance and be free or independent at the same time poses a danger to Saudi Arabia and its allies. Elections in Iran, Iraq, Syria or Lebanon or Palestine or Yemen poses a threat to monarchical rule. Saudis nationals are asking (quite rightly) why don’t we have elections, but analysts argue this is why American support for these monarchies (whether Saudi Arabia knows it or not) allows it to maintain its hegemonic presence in West Asia and serve Israeli interests.

Returning to Yemen, prior to March 2015, Saudi Arabia had been interfering in Yemen for decades and in literally every aspect; controlling its governance, policies, army, economy and even faiths and sects. What has Saudi Arabia offered to Yemen after all those years? Where was the infrastructure in Yemen? where was the state of the economy? where was the security? Did Saudi Arabia include Yemen in the Persian Gulf Security Council, considering its alleged staunch support for the country? Saudi Arabia kept Yemen as the region’s poorest nation. The Yemeni people are the ones that reached the conclusion based on their will and took a decision to part ways with Riyadh and reclaim their country, borders, sovereignty, independence and most importantly dignity.

Al Mayadeen Sources: Ambassadors’ Actions Prelude Lebanese State Failure Announcement

11 Jul 2021

Source: Al Mayadeen net

In light of the continuation of the stifling political and economic crisis that Lebanon is experiencing, sources express their fear to Al-Mayadeen Net about the dangerous slide that Lebanon is heading towards.

The foreign ministers of the US, France and KSA discuss the Lebanese crisis during the G20 summit
The foreign ministers of the US, France, and Saudi Arabia discuss the Lebanese crisis during the G20 summit

Lebanese political sources have expressed to Al-Mayadeen net their fear of the dangerous path Lebanon is heading towards, in light of the existing difficulty in forming a government, and the difficulty of producing local facilitations that secure the minimum level of political, economic, security, and social stability, to deal with the challenges and risks facing this country. 

The sources saw the escalating international movement, and the US-French-Saudi meetings devoted to the Lebanese situation, which took place on the sidelines of the G-20 summit, as a “preparation for a stronger and more dangerous rerun of the 2005 scene, following the assassination of former PM Rafik Hariri, which was followed by the coup against Syria and the expulsion of its forces from Lebanon, seizing power and besieging the resistance, in preparation for its isolation, and the consequences of this path on an internal level, as well as the July Israeli aggression in 2006.”

The same sources considered that “the same scene is being rehearsed, but with different tools, circumstances, and personalities, and with more insidious and influential titles, including tightening the financial and economic noose, pushing the country to collapse, ensuring the explosion of local contradictions, all while giving sensitive files, such as the explosion of the Beirut port on August 4, 2020, corruption and responsibility for the collapse, sectarian dimensions which would, in turn, dismantle the state and strengthen the disuniting logic of the cantons,” as the sources put it.

According to the sources, the American-French-Saudi movement “suggests a readiness to deal with the upcoming expected economic and social collapse in light of the political crisis, disintegration, and division, and the economic crisis and its effects on citizens and their choices, to invest in it, direct it towards opponents and hold them responsible for the collapse ahead of the parliamentary elections. The elections are expected to take place next year, which will allow them, according to their outlooks, to recover Lebanon from Hezbollah and its allies,” as they put it.

They added, “this expression is an initial title for the project of the new guardianship over Lebanon, and its inclusion in the maps of international-regional influence that are being redrawn on the shores of the Mediterranean, from Libya to Syria, where Western military bases are linked to sources of oil and wealth, while the people of the country quarrel among themselves,” according to the sources. 

What reaffirms the solemnity of this movement, according to the same sources, is “the international claim that it is impossible to form a government, despite the aforementioned trio’s ability to help in this matter, and talking about this political deadlock being a strictly internal issue is pure deception.” 

They went on to say that “whoever knows the Lebanese scenery is aware of the extent of overlap between internal and external factors, and anyone who is aware of the Lebanese economic formula knows that it is in the grip of the outside,” going even further in describing it as “a literal reflection of the external will, despite the responsibility of the Lebanese corrupt politicians for decades of poor governance and management and looting of public money.”

The sources considered that “neglecting to talk about consensus between the Lebanese and pushing them towards understandings that would reconfigure power dynamics, deal with challenges and alleviate the crisis, confirming that the (American-French-Saudi) trio does not want to help the Lebanese to overcome internal obstacles, but rather wants to invest politically in convolutions, as it thinks and works to manage them for its own benefits, rather than working to solve them.”

The sources wondered: “Otherwise, what does it mean to talk about the apparatuses of “humanitarian, health and educational aid for the Lebanese people?” Doesn’t this talk confirm the transition of these foreign forces towards the option of crisis management through further involvement in local affairs, under the humanitarian, nutritional, and health headings? Isn’t this an acknowledgment of the imminent collapse of institutions and the announcement of the state’s failure? 

In this context, the same sources consider that the recommendation issued by the Defense and National Security Council of the French Parliament is a “prelude to a sort of guardianship and external military intervention under humanitarian headings, regardless of its feasibility, and the possibilities of its success in achieving the desired goals, given the local balance of power.”

The sources added, “With the approaching PM-designate Saad Hariri’s resignation, the insane rise in the dollar exchange rate against the Lebanese pound, and the electricity and fuel crisis, there are those who are preparing for Lebanon to move to a new level of crisis and danger entitled: (A broken, divided and helpless country), and it is suffering from severe economic crises, social chaos, and more intervention and regional international involvement in the crisis.”

The sources confirmed to Al-Mayadeen Net that “the form reflects the content, as it has never occurred in the history of diplomatic relations that an ambassador assigned to one country traveled to another country to discuss issues related to the country in which they serve!” -referring to the travel of the American and French ambassadors in Lebanon to Saudi Arabia-, considering that “this is an indirect announcement of the fall of institutions, the state, presidencies and ministries, and a declaration of the country’s entry into the orbits of internationalization by establishing (consuls) as a reference point for the state.” 

The sources concluded by saying: “Never have these people met and discussed Lebanese affairs without storms and crises lurking behind their meeting.” 

Biden Regime Escalates War on Russia and China by Other Means

July 11, 2021

By Stephen Lendman

Source

Hostile to peace, stability, cooperative relations with other countries, and rule of law principles, Biden regime hardliners escalated illegal sanctions war on Russia and China.

On Friday, a US Commerce Department press release said the following:

Its Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) “added 34 entities to the (illegal US) Entity List,” falsely claiming:

It’s “for their involvement in, or risk of becoming involved in, activities contrary to the foreign policy and national security interests of the US (sic),” adding: 

“Of these 34 entities, 14 are based in…China.”

The Biden regime falsely accused them of “enabl(ing) Beijing’s campaign of repression (sic), mass detention (sic), and high-technology surveillance against Uyghurs, Kazakhs, and members of other Muslim minority groups in” Jinjiang (sic).  

Claiming the “PRC continues to commit genocide (sic) and crimes against humanity (sic)” is unsupported by evidence because there is none. 

“Commerce added another five” Chinese firms to its Entity List — on the phony pretext of “supporting the PRC’s military modernization programs related to lasers and C4ISR programs.” 

In response to the above hostile actions, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin said the following:

“The so-called (US) ‘entity list’ is in essence a tool for suppressing specific companies and industries in China under the pretext of human rights, and means the US uses to destabilize Xinjiang and contain China.” 

“China firmly opposes this.”

“China will take all necessary measures to resolutely safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese companies and foil US attempts to interfere in China’s internal affairs.”

Three Russian firms and six nationals were also illegally targeted.

According to the Biden regime, they’re blacklisted for “attempt(ing) to procure items, including US-origin items, for activities contrary to the national security and foreign policy interests of the US (sic).”

In response to the hostile action, Russia’s US envoy Anatoly Antonov said the following:

“This is another confrontational step as part of Washington’s deliberate efforts to restrict the access of domestic enterprises to high-precision technologies from abroad,” adding: 

“This fundamentally contrasts with the statements of US authorities, including during…Geneva (talks last month), about the need to normalize the entire range of bilateral relations.”

The Biden regime blacklisted “Moscow-based companies engaged in microelectronics.” 

“At the same time, the US side again did not provide any specifics (on alleged) violations.

“They used the notorious ‘likely,’ saying that our companies allegedly bought electronic components from the USA for some Russian military programs.”

“This approach does not stand up to scrutiny.”

According to Eurasia Group analyst Ali Wyne:

“A tightening nexus of military frictions, technological competition and normative clashes will reinforce the momentum behind selective disentanglement between the United States and China,” adding:

“While the economic and security risks of an unconstrained embrace have come into sharper view in recent years, the risks of a wholesale rupture merit closer consideration.”

The same goes for Russia, Iran and other US targeted countries for refusing to yield to a higher authority in Washington.

Separately, White House press secretary Psaki said the Biden regime is assessing whether so-called ransomware attacks on US businesses occurred with Kremlin knowledge or “approval.”

On Thursday, Sergey Lavrov explained the following:

“We are constantly accused of hacking, undermining interests of almost all Western countries, but so far our multiple proposals to seriously start a joint work – in order to substantially…solve the emerging issues and deal with real difficulties – have been left without a specific response” by Washington.

Despite both countries agreeing to work cooperatively on this issue, the US side did nothing to fulfill its pledge. 

It’s further proof that it can never be trusted, and that diplomatic outreach to its regimes is a colossal waste of time virtually always.

On Friday, Putin spoke with Biden’s double by phone, an exercise of futility like Geneva talks that accomplished nothing positive.

Reportedly, Biden’s impersonator told Putin “we will respond” against so-called ransomware attacks regime hardliners falsely accuse Russia of ignoring or endorsing.

Putin reportedly said that despite Russia’s outreach to work with the Biden regime cooperatively on his issue and others, the US side stonewalled Moscow’s outreach.

Since undemocratic Dems usurped power by the most brazen election fraud in US history, Biden regime relations with Russia sank to a post-WW II low.

Nothing in prospect suggests improvement ahead. Just the opposite is most likely.

A Final Comment

On Thursday, Russia’s Foreign Ministry accused the Biden regime of serious human rights abuses domestically and abroad — in breach of core international law and its own Constitution.

One of the most egregious examples abroad is Washington’s trade embargo and other hostile actions against Cuba for the past six decades with no relief in prospect.

For the 29th straight year last month, the US voted against lifting its de facto blockade of the island state.

So did apartheid Israel — in defiance of support for Cuba by 184 other nations.

US hostility toward the island state is all about its independence from hegemonic control, the same thing true for Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea and other nations for the same diabolical reason.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry also accused the Biden regime of racial and other discriminatory policies against Americans, notably of African, Latin, and Asian ethnicity, adding:

US “citizens’ rights of access to information are being violated by large (domestic) private corporations” in breach of their legal obligations.

Systemic violations of fundamental human rights and freedoms” persist throughout the West.

Yet their ruling regime refuse “to bring the (unacceptable) situation under control.”

Sayyed Nasrallah Asks Lebanese Statesmen Rejecting Eastern Economic Offers for Fear of US Sanctions: Why Don’t You Make Sacrifices for Sake of Lebanon?

July 5, 2021

manar-06796110016254914483

Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah stressed on Friday that the US sanctions and pressures on Lebanon aim at pushing the Lebanese to concentrate on their living conditions away from all their responsibilities towards the conflict with the Israeli enemy.

“Although it is s a tough and complicated task, we have to focus on the both tracks (addressing the internal crisis and assuming the responsibilities towards the conflict with the Zionist enemy),” Sayyed Nasrallah maintained.

Addressing the opening session of the conference held to discuss the renovation of the media rhetoric and administering the confrontation, Sayyed Nasrallah indicated that the US policy in the Middle East has been based on stirring internal sedition in the countries which belong to the axis of resistance and besieging them economically in order to let their people on their daily-life concerns, not the strategic ones.

“They have relatively succeeded.”

Hezbollah Secretary General pointed out that the governmental deadlock in Lebanon is caused by the Constitutional flaws, attributed the socioeconomic crisis in Lebanon to the US siege which prevents any country from aiding Lebanon, state corruption, money embezzlement, and the monopoly phenomenon.

Sayyed Nasrallah also blamed some citizens whose hasty actions at the gas stations help the enemy ti achieve its goal, wondering about the causes which push them to open fire at such popular places.

Hezbollah leader asked the US allies in Lebanon, “Isn’t it the USA that prevents all countries from helping Lebanon in order to secure its own interests and serve those of ‘Israel’, regarding the naturalization of the Palestinian refugees and plunder of the Lebanese oil resources, and threatens to impose sanctions on the Lebanese officials if they approve economic deals with any Eastern country, including China and others?”

In this regard, Sayyed Nasrallah mentioned that Lebanon has major chances to cope with the socioeconomic crisis, adding that Russian and Chinese firms have offered the Lebanese authorities several investments.

Lebanese officials have rejected all those offers for fear of the US sanctions, according to Sayyed Nasrallah who asked those official, “Does not saving Lebanon from the socioeconomic crisis deserve some sacrifices?”

In this concern, Sayyed Nasrallah recalled the human sacrifices made by all the factions of the Lebanese resistance in order liberate the nation from the Israeli occupation.

Sayyed Nasrallah added that the US ambassador to Lebanon sheds crocodile tears and deceives the Lebanese by providing some masks, noting that Washington has been the main supporter of the corrupts and money embezzlers in Lebanon.

Indicating that the US administration has been adopting the same policy against Gaza, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Iran, Sayyed Nasrallah explained that Caesar Act has banned all the countries from investing in Syria reconstruction.

“Even Syria allies dd not dare to start such investments.”

Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that the US policy aims at instigating the Lebanese people, especially the resistance supporters, against the resistance itself, calling for patience, sacrifice, and perseverance.

Regarding the Lebanese cabinet formation, Sayyed Nasrallah pointed out that the upcoming days will witness several meeting and developments.

Meanwhile, Sayyed Nasrallah reiterated Hezbollah rejection of any attempt to politicize the investigation into Beirut Port blast, repeating his call on the judiciary to announce the outcomes of the probe.

Sayyed Nasrakllah considered that leaking the subpoena issued against a number of Lebanese politicians politicizes the investigations, underling the importance of adopting unified criteria in this regard.

The Conference

Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah highlighted the importance of the held conference and its outcomes to support the media warfare against the enemy, hailing the efforts of the conferees and the organizers.

Sayyed Nasrallah underlined the role of media in the overall confrontation against the Zionist enemy, underscoring the importance of renovating the content and form of the media rhetoric in order to follow up the military, security, and political developments witnessed in our and the enemy’s arenas.

Hezbollah Chief said that “there is a bad need for renovating the media rhetoric due to the  stormy developments witnessed in the region, including the loss of Palestine, the steadfastness of the axis of resistance for 10 years in face of the sedition plot which cost a large number of martyrs and injuries as well as much sacrifices, and the victory gained by the Palestinian resistance over the Israeli enemy in “Al-Quds Sword” battle with its new formulas of deterrence whose repercussions are still ongoing”.

Sayyed Nasrallah added that the resistance media must address its audience about the US hegemony in the region and the Israeli occupation of Palestine, Golan Heights, Shebaa Farms, KfarShuba Hills, and the Lebanese part of Al-Ghajar town.

Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that the US hegemony in the region is based on plundering the region’s resources, preventing its peoples from deciding their destiny, turning the regional armies into dead bodies, and sustaining the survival of the Zionist entity.

It is impossible to liberate Palestine without confronting the US hegemony in the region which supports the usurping entity as well as the allied regimes, according to Sayyed Nasrtallah who recalled how the Israeli officials pleaded the US support to the ‘Iron Dome’ just 12 days after the start of “Al-Quds Sword” battle.

“US military presence in Iraq is a mere occupation despite Washington’s claim of deploying troops there upon the request of the Iraqi government.”

Sayyed Nasrallah indicated that the resistance media is characterized by honesty which has contributed ti its accumulated credibility, adding that the enemy’s public trusts the resistance media outlets more than Israeli ones.

Sayyed Nasrallah noted that the resistance makes realistic promises in light of its capabilities and circumstances, mentioning how the Lebanese resistance kept its promise to liberate Southern Lebanon from the Israeli occupation in 2000 and the Lebanese prisoners held by the Zionist enemy.

“The Palestinian resistance also kept the liberation of hostages as a top priority and imposed, during ‘Al-Quds Sword’ battle, a new formula on the Zionist enemy, which has made Al-Quds closer than ever to liberation.”

Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that when the Resistance vows to obliterate ‘Israel’ and regain Palestine’ , it relies on established facts, not dreams.

Hezbollah Leader pointed out that the audience of the resistance media is diverse with respect to its intellectual, ideological, national and backgrounds, yet gets unified in support of Al-Quds, Palestine and the rights of the Palestinians against the Zionist oppressors.

Sayyed Nasrallah added that these grassroots interact with the resistance media to the extent of vowing sacrifices despite losing children and properties.

Hezbollah Secretary General indicated that the capabilities of the resistance media have developed remarkably, noting that this media has contributed directly to the field victories gained by the axis of resistance by relying on facts, studies and researches.

“Resistance media must rely also on objective realities in a way that acknowledges the strengths of the enemy and utilizes its weaknesses,” Sayyed Nasrallah said, “Resistance media reflects the field victories gained by power and does not recite poems to over lament defeats .”

Sayyed Nasrallah emphasized that the US seizure of websites which belong to the resistance media indicates their vital role, calling on the resistance media outlets to cooperate, exchange expertise and utilize the social media platforms to pervade their message, “just as what happened during ‘Al-Quds Sword’ battle”.

Sayyed Nasrallah pointed out that the Gulf media has been involved in distorting the image of the resistance groups in the region by naming the mujahidin (fighters) as Iran ‘tails’ and highlighting the losses the Palestinians in Gaza and the socioeconomic crises in the region.

Resistance media must confidently face the slander and hypocrisy promoted by the enemy media which tries to distort the image of the resistance and undermine its victories

Sayyed Nasrallah called on the conferees and all the media professionals, who belong to the axis of resistance, to exert extra efforts in order to consecrate the new regional formula aimed at protecting Al-Quds, adding that when the Zionists know that any threat to Al-Quds will cause a regional war, they will reconsider their calculations and remain deterred.

Source: Al-Manar English Website

Sayyed Nasrallah: US Has Major Role in Destroying Lebanon, Its Economy

06/07/2021

By Zeinab Essa

Beirut – Hezbollah Secretary General His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah delivered on Monday a speech in the opening session of “Palestine Emerges Victorious” Conference, held by the National Media Gathering.

Sayyed Nasrallah: US Has Major Role in Destroying Lebanon, Its Economy

In his speech, Sayyed Nasrallah highlighted the role of the media rhetoric behind displaying and conveying the ongoing events.

“The advancement of media confrontation is a must, just like the advancement of the military confrontation,” His Eminence stressed, noting that “Had it not been for the victory of the resistance, one of the black strife’s goals was to make the Palestinian cause a forgotten matter.”

He further underscored the importance of confronting the US-“Israeli” front by saying: “When confronting the ‘Israeli’ occupation and the American hegemony, we cannot divide this confrontation.”

“The US hegemony turned all resources in the region to serve the ‘Israeli’ enemy’s interests,” Sayyed Nasrallah clarified, pointing out that “The Zionist entity’s both existence and arrogance rely on the US support.”

According to the Resistance Leader, “We’re facing the US hegemony and its occupation of Iraq, its attacks against the Hashd Al-Shaabi [Popular Mobilization Forces] and its occupation of eastern Syria.”

“The media rhetoric of the Axis of Resistance is based on the right of the Palestinian people in their land, and the Syrian people in the occupied Golan Heights,” His Eminence mentioned.

Hailing the efforts of the Resistance’s media, he underlined that “We find the standards of righteousness in the Palestinian Cause and in the media rhetoric of the Axis of Resistance.”

“The resistance media relies on the victories of the Axis of Resistance and this axis’ imposing the rules of engagement on ‘Israel’ and the US,” Sayyed Nasrallah emphasized, praising the fact that “The resistance’s media contributed to making victory by relying on facts, studies and researches.”

To the enemy, His Eminence said: “We’re fully aware of the points of the enemy’s weakness, from which we can triumph against it.”

On this level, he stressed that “In our psychological warfare, we didn’t rely on illusions or lies as one of the most important elements of the resistance’s strength is not exaggerating the goals.”

“Among the most important points of strength the Axis of Resistance possesses is honesty in reporting news and facts,” His Eminence elaborated, pointing out that “There is a great development in the capabilities of the axis of resistance.”

In parallel, Sayyed Nasrallah highlighted that “The enemy today trusts the media of the resistance more than it believes its leaders, this is thanks to the credibility of our media.”

Listing some aspects of the Resistance’s media honesty, His Eminence stated: “The Resistance promised to liberate the land and fulfilled its promise, and promised to release the detainees and so it did. The Resistance in Palestine promised to defend al-Quds and so it did.”

He went on to say: “The popular basis of the Axis of Resistance are ideologically and religiously diverse, but they are united by al-Quds, the sanctities and the unjustness against the Palestinian people.”

“Within the Resistance media, there are experts and innovations despite the lack of the suitable [resources] the other media outlets are being provided with,” Sayyed Nasrallah underscored, noting that “The achievements made by the Resistance media in the last decades is a major thing upon which things should be based to develop more.”

According to His Eminence: “The popular base of the Resistance needs a media rhetoric that interacts with them wherever they are, and with which they can also interact.”

“Social media participated in making the resistance’s victories,” he viewed, noting that “The enemy can take down satellite channels, but not social media platforms, so we must take advantage of them.”

Meanwhile, Sayyed Nasrallah predicted that “‘Israel’ will reconsider its calculations when it gets convinced that its threatening of Islamic and Christian holy sites will lead to a regional war.”

“When the Palestinians were displaying the victories in Operation al-Quds Sword, which were admitted by the world and the Zionist, some Arab satellite channels were concentrating on the images of sorrow and sufferings,” he added.

In response, the Resistance Leader underlined that “The resistance’s rhetoric and strategy of the new deterrence equation must be adopted and established, which is that al-Quds is in exchange for the entire region.”

Urging the resistance media to exchange experiences and expertise so that they take advantage of social media platforms, Sayyed Nasrallah explained that “The enemy bans some satellite channels and blocks some websites due to its influence.”

“The enemy could ban some satellite channels, but it could not stop social media platforms; this is why we should take advantage of them,” he said, noting that “There is a media warfare against the Resistance, for which billions of dollars are dedicated to distort the image of the Resistance.”

According to His Eminence, “There should be a media plan to confront fabrications and fake news being published by some sides, especially regarding the cause of Palestine and al-Quds.”

“Developing the media rhetoric of the Resistance must be convenient with the regional transformations and threats,” he stated, advising the resistance axis to “revise the language of our rhetoric and literature based on the major achievements.”

On another level, Sayyed Nasrallah warned that “Those setting conspiracies for the region aim at keeping people busy making their living, and this is happening indeed. The reason behind the ongoing conspiracies is to remain busy from supporting Palestine.”

Moving to the internal front, His Eminence explained that “The governmental crisis in Lebanon is a result of the regime crisis.”

“We have to work on two parallel tracks; the first is to work upon Lebanon’s crises, and the second is not to stay busy from what is happening to the nation,” he said.

As His Eminence reiterated that “The US bans any aid to solve the crisis in Lebanon; this is to serve the ‘Israeli’ enemy,” he wondered: “Isn’t the US administration the side behind banning Lebanese banks from bringing their cash from outside the country?”

Sayyed Nasrallah also slammed some Lebanese people who fear being blacklisted by the US: “The fear being blacklisted by the US while the entire country is heading to death.”

“The goal behind the American blockade is to provoke the Lebanese people and the people of Resistance against it,” he said, pointing out that “The US Embassy in Lebanon is partner in the collapse of the Lebanese currency.”

On this level, His Eminence emphasized that “Wrong policies are among the reasons behind the crisis in Lebanon, but the US is the main reason because it is a partner of the corrupt.”

Denouncing the US ambassador “who is shedding crocodile tears over the Lebanese,” Sayyed Nasrallah underscored that “Major companies want to invest in Lebanon without costing the Lebanese state anything, but they are being told “No” because some are afraid of the Americans.”

On another level, Sayyed Nasrallah lamented the fact that the defendants in the Beirut Port Blast issue learned their names in the case through media outlets

Rejecting the political blackmail in Beirut port blast case, he wondered whether the investigation is a true judicial work or a political targeting. “Justice is still distant and the truth is still concealed,” he said, announcing that the coming days are decisive regarding the new government.

Related Videos

Related Articles

%d bloggers like this: