The Real Syria Story No One Wants You to Know About


The conflict in Syria and the flashpoint of Daraa, a town near the Syria-Jordan border where the CIA, working with the Muslim Brotherhood, attacked police and set the stage for a conflict that has so far claimed the lives of more than 400,000 Syrians. The proxy war is designed to take down a secular government and replace it with a Salafist principality controlled by the Brotherhood, a longtime CIA and British intelligence asset. ~ Notes HERE

Sixty Years Ago: Nasser’s Message to Syria



Related Videos

Behind the regional scene: the collapse of Saudi Arabia خلف المشهد الإقليمي: انهيار السعودية

Written by Nasser Kandil,

The successive vote in the Senate and the US House of Representatives to overthrow the presidential veto on Gesta Law alerts the unwary about what is going on to Saudi Arabia and putting it within an appropriate context to help in understanding what is going on in the region, so the puzzle of many scattered, especially the Deputy Walid Jumblatt in the interpretation of the hurrying of Saad Al-Hariri to have a strange re-positioning in his opinion, that is similar according to Jumblatt’s point of view to the re-positioning of the father of Sheikh Saad Al-Hariri the date Prime Minister Rafik Al-Hariri with the option of extension for the President Emile Lahoud eleven years ago, as it explains what is going on in Saudi Arabia for those who wonder about the reason of the acceleration of the concessions in search for a political government by the government of Masour Hadi in Yemen.

Many can interpret what is going on in Syria and the speech of the Turkish about the visit of the President Recep Erdogan to Moocow and Tehran after he waited for months the achievement of the Saudi promise of compensating the losses resulted from the Russian sanctions at least in the agricultural sector but in vain.

Erdogan went to Moscow but his eye on Jarblos after he has lowered the ceilings of his expectations even if his screaming remained high, what is happening in the eastern of Aleppo under his sight is an accurate reflection about the limits of his ability to move and the size of the allowable steps to take comparing with what he would have been done and said if a similar thing had happened a year ago.

In the memory of Erdogan there is Fethullah Gulen who was behind the military coup and who lived in Washington, while Al Hariri goes to Haret Hreik after he has a tour as a bride from Bnashii to Rabieh to Ain Al Tineh while his eye is on Tripoli where is the political line which targets Al Mustqbal Movement, Fethullah Gulen is Rifi who stood behind the municipal coup against Al-Hariri and prepares to make a parliament coup against him while he lives in the Saudi bosom.

All of this from Jarablos to Tripoli and from Gulen to Rifi can be understood in knowing what is happening in Saudi Arabia, where the US democracy and the US judiciary are two means to end everything in its Muslim Brotherhood and Wehabbi versions after a marriage of decades and bets on strategic and fateful options which all of them have failed and brought the disasters.

The beginning is from the Saudi Turkish failure in encircling the tripartite Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah, then the repetitive rapid failure in winning a war of overthrowing this tripartite in the Syrian war and the completion with the US penalty on the Turkish Saudi bilateral, and the re-positioning at the lines of the direct interests which are protected by the force of what America has of money, weapons, information pipes and communication technology, towards the inevitable status in making the diplomatic legitimacy and the UN resolutions for negotiations that it imposes surely as an indispensable partner by Russia, China, and Iran. A US wall of pipes of money, information, technology, and energy which America hides behind it as the cement wall which the Israeli leadership decided to hide behind and prepared to make it a diplomatic, political legal wall by dramatic steps under the slogan of entering in negotiations for peace process under American Russian sponsorship.

Saudi Arabia enters the last stage of the path of the collapse which its first episode was breaking the Israeli military superiority in the Middle East which gave Saudi Arabia after the year 1967 and the defeat of the project of the noble liberating Arab leader Gamal Abdul Nasser the opportunity of stabilizing its leadership of the Arab world since 1970 and its consolidation by the force of the rise of the oil prices after the war of October 1973.

Since the fall of the Israeli prestige and its emergence to be weaker than the cobweb, the Saudi leadership started to collapse in a path that started in 2000 with the Israeli compulsory withdrawal from the southern of Lebanon towards the war of July 2006 which targeted Lebanon to crush the resistance, but it has ended with Israeli resounding defeat. The second episode started with the Saudi failure in overthrowing Syria and having control over it, despite the size of the financial and the intelligence embroilment and mobilizing Al-Qaeda organization with direct understandings to turn into the only authorized army to overthrow Syria and its president according to the description of the US Vice President Joe Biden in front of Harvard University.

The third episode started with the collapse through the Saudi failure in stopping the US thrust toward signing the understanding on the Iranian nuclear program, after the inability to exert pressure on the Americans to carry out the military strike by their fleets against Syria, towards the unexpected  Saudi failure in their considerations in their war in Yemen and its turn sequentially into existential security strategic dilemma  that exhausts them financially and threatens of the unity of the social and the geographical structure which the Yemenis are forming an essential part of it, towards the last dual.

The Saudis face the first unique challenge since their entry as a feared force in the stock of the financial abilities; they are in front of a variable that was not into consideration. For the first time the House of the representatives and the Senate vote to topple the presidential veto on a law that is dedicated to Saudi Arabia in a majority reaches to consensus. the law allows the families of the victims of the events of the eleventh of September to sue the governments of the countries from where the suicide bombers came to ask for compensation,  the matter is neither for compensation itself, nor for the symbolism of the political abandonment only, nor related to the moral humiliation only, it is related to what will happen by blocking all the Saudi assets in the US banks with instating the first lawsuit under the law, up to the time of  setting the lawsuit which will be followed by lawsuits.

This means the Saudi preparation to keep approximately seven hundred billion dollars, this is all of what is left of their wealth and which are in US banks frozen indefinitely, after the Saudis involved too much in the war of prices to push Russia and Iran to bankruptcy during two years ago or to the political surrender, so this has led to the decline of the Saudi income annually nearly three hundred dollars with the decline of the price per barrel from one hundred twenty -four dollars to reach to the thirty dollars and then to be settled between forty and fifty dollars according to a country that the oil forms the semi only source of its income, it sells twelve million barrels daily, but the low –income and the direct and the indirect of costs of the Syrian and the Yemeni wars have led to an annual deficit of nearly one hundred billion dollars in the Saudi budget, having no hope but to spend from the deposited funds in the US banks and the return to the policy of raising the oil prices by holding the market with the cooperation of Russia and Iran.

The Saudis have proposed the cooperation on the Russians they have asked an integrated political oil deal starts from Syria, they went to Algeria for OPEK Meeting asking for an Iranian cooperation, the answer was that Iran after the understanding has restored its status in the oil markets and will not accept to reduce its production in exchange of Saudi reducing to raise the demand for oil and raise its prices. Now the role of Iran is to respond fight back.

Iran said that it has the right to ask for raising its share to seven million barrels daily for ten coming years to compensate what has left of its share which was agreed upon as a result of the sanctions and after the others have used it at their forefront and most notably Saudi Arabia, they have reached to a suggestion that Saudi Arabia must decrease its production to five million barrels daily in exchange of five million barrels for Iran.

This means that Saudi Arabia will not achieve any improvement in its income but more loss, hoping that this decrease will lead to an improvement in the price that returns to it what it gets today, but after the price reaches nearly hundred dollars per barrel, it will bear additional bleeding that may last for a year or more. Once the meeting of Algeria for OPEK organization failed, the price of the oil barrel has declined 10 % and the stocks of the Gulf and the prices of the shares stated to collapse with ratios that range during hours between 5 and 10 %.

According to the description of the US presidential candidate Donald Trump Saudi Arabia is a purse of money only. By the way Trump has met his rival Hillary Clinton in supporting the veto against the presidential veto, so there is no hope for Saudi Arabia to improve their financial positions after the US presidential elections but they have only one hope, its gate is the understanding with Iran in oil market and other things.

Image result for ‫سعد الحريري وعون‬‎Sheikh Saad Al-Hariri is one of the family members, he knows what to discuss of concerns and interests in the evenings of the royal bureaus, but in front of the anguish and the lament there is no place to talk about his concerns but to let him bear what he did, everything in Saudi Arabia is money, but this purse of money is depleted, but saving Al-Hariri has only one gate it is the Sarai and its key is Harel Hreik passing by AL Rabieh, as it is the Turkish security gate in Moscow and Tehran, and Aden security gate in Sanaa, where the pressure are escalating, so what if Erdogan delayed of the repositioning and the Kurdish line remained, and what if the group of Mansour Hadi delayed of the settlement and the Saudis surprise them after they expelled them from Riyadh to Aden by announcing the stopping of the war unilaterally and without coordination, and what if Al-Hariri delayed and the supports of Aoun went down to the streets, and Ashraf Rifi or other decided to implicate Al-Hariri with going to the streets and Hezbollah obliged to move?

The phase of the Saudi era ends, so everyone has to reconsider his affairs on that basis sooner or later.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

خلف المشهد الإقليمي: انهيار السعودية

ناصر قنديل

– يدق التصويت المتتابع في مجلسَي الشيوخ والنواب الأميركيين لإسقاط الفيتو الرئاسي على قانون جستا، جرس الاستيقاظ للغافلين عما يجري للسعودية ووضعه في سياق مناسب للمساعدة على فهم ما يجري في المنطقة، فتتبدّد حيرة الكثيرين، وخصوصاً النائب وليد جنبلاط، في تفسير مسارعة الرئيس سعد الحريري لتموضع غريب عجيب في رأيه، يشبه برأي جنبلاط تموضع والد الشيخ سعد الرئيس الراحل رفيق الحريري مع خيار التمديد للرئيس إميل لحود قبل إحدى عشرة سنة، كما يفسّر ما يجري للسعودية للذين يتساءلون بحيرة عن سبب تسارع التنازلات بحثاً عن حلّ سياسي من جانب حكومة منصور هادي في اليمن، ويمكن أن يفسّر الكثير مما يجري حول سورية، والكلام عن التركي عن تفسير توجه الرئيس رجب أردوغان نحو موسكو وطهران بعدما انتظر شهوراً تحقيق وعد سعودي بتعويض الخسائر الناجمة عن العقوبات الروسية، على الأقلّ في القطاع الزراعي، ولكن دون نتيجة.

– ذهب أردوغان إلى موسكو وعينه على جرابلس، بعدما خفض سقوف توقعاته ولو بقي صراخه عالياً، وما يجري في شرق حلب تحت عينيه أدق تعبيراً عن حقيقة حدود قدرته على الحركة وحجم الخطوات المتاح له القيام بها قياساً بما كان يمكن أن يفعله ويقوله لو حدث شيء مشابه قبل عام، وفي ذاكرة أردوغان فتح الله غولن الواقف وراء الانقلاب العسكري عليه والقابع في واشنطن، فيما يذهب الحريري إلى حارة حريك بعدما يطوف جولة العروس من بنشعي إلى الرابية وعين التينة، وعينه على طرابلس، حيث الشريط السياسي الذي يستهدف تيار المستقبل، وفتح الله غولن ريفي الذي وقف وراء الانقلاب البلدي على الحريري ويستعدّ للانقلاب النيابي عليه، والقابع في الحضن السعودي، وهذا كله من جرابلس إلى طرابلس ومن غولن إلى ريفي، يمكن فهمه في معرفة ماذا يجري للسعودية، حيث تبدو الديمقراطية الأميركية والقضاء الأميركي آلتين لتصفية الحساب بنسختيه الأخوانية والوهابية، بعد زواج عقود ورهانات على خيارات مصيرية واستراتيجية، خابت جميعاً وجلبت الكوارث.

– البداية من الفشل التركي السعودي في تطويق الثلاثي سورية وإيران وحزب الله، ومن ثم الفشل المكرر والذريع في الفوز بحرب إسقاط هذا الثلاثي في الحرب السورية، والتتمة بالعقوبة الأميركية للثنائي التركي السعودي، والتموضع عند خطوط المصالح المباشرة المحمية بقوة ما تملكه أميركا في حقول المال والسلاح وأنابيب المعلومات وتكنولوجيا الاتصالات، وصولاً للمكانة الحتمية في صناعة الشرعية الدبلوماسية والقرارات الأممية لمفاوضات تفرضها حكماً شريكاً لا يمكن أن تستغني عنه روسيا ولا الصين ولا إيران، جدار أميركي من أنابيب المال والمعلومات والتكنولوجيا والطاقة، تحتمي وراءه أميركا يشبه حدار الاسمنت الذي قرّرت القيادة الإسرائيلية الاحتماء خلفه وتستعد ربما لخطوات دراماتيكية لتحويله جداراً دبلوماسياً سياسياً قانونياً، تحت شعار الدخول في مفاوضات لعملية سلام برعاية أميركية روسية.

– تدخل السعودية المرحلة الأخيرة من مسار الانهيار الذي كانت حلقته الأولى بتكسر رماح التفوق الإسرائيلي العسكري في الشرق الأوسط، الذي منح السعودية بعد العام 1967 وهزيمة مشروع القائد التحريري العربي الكبير جمال عبد الناصر، فرصة تثبيت زعامتها للعالم العربي منذ العام 1970 وتوطيدها بقوة ارتفاع أسعار النفط بعد حرب تشرين العام 1973، ومنذ سقطت الهيبة الإسرائيلية وظهرت أوهن من بيت عنكبوت، بدأ تداعي الزعامة السعودية، في مسار بدا عام 2000 بالانسحاب الإسرائيلي القسري من جنوب لبنان وصولاً لحرب تموز 2006 التي استهدفت لبنان لسحق المقاومة وانتهت بهزيمة إسرائيلية مدوية. وجاءت الحلقة الثانية مع الفشل السعودي في إسقاط سورية ووضع اليد عليها رغم حجم التورط المالي والمخابراتي وتوظيف تنظيم القاعدة بتفاهمات مباشرة ليتحوّل إلى الجيش المعتمد الوحيد لإسقاط سورية ورئيسها، وفق وصف نائب الرئيس الأميركي جو بايدن أمام جامعة هارفرد. وجاءت الحلقة الثالثة للانهيار في الفشل السعودي بإيقاف الاندفاعة الأميركية نحو توقيع التفاهم حول الملف النووي الإيراني، بعد العجز عن الضغط على الأميركيين لتنفيذ الضربة العسكرية التي جاؤوا بأساطيلهم لتنفيذها ضد سورية، وصولاً لفشل سعودي غير متوقع في حساباتهم في حربهم على اليمن وتحولها بالتتابع إلى مأزق أمني استراتيجي ووجودي، يستنزفهم مالياً، ويهدّد وحدة النسيج الاجتماعي والجغرافي الذي يشكل اليمينون جزءاً عضوياً منه، لتصل الحلقة الأخيرة مزدوجة.

– يواجه السعوديون أول تحدّ من نوعه منذ دخولهم كقوة مهابة الجانب بورصة القدرات المالية، فهم أمام متغيّر لم يكن في الحساب، فللمرة الأولى يصوّت مجلسا النواب والشيوخ الأميركيين لإسقاط الفيتو الرئاسي على قانون يخص السعودية، وبغالبية تصل حدّ الإجماع، والقانون يتيح لأهالي ضحايا أحداث الحادي عشر من أيلول مقاضاة حكومات الدول التي يحمل الانتحاريون جنسياتها طلباً للتعويض، والأمر ليس بالتعويض، ولا برمزية التخلي السياسي فقط، ولا بالمهانة المعنوية وحسب، إنه بما سيحدث من تجميد لكلّ الأرصدة السعودية في البنوك الأميركية مع رفع أول دعوى بموجب القانون، ريثما يبت بالدعوة، التي تليها دعاوى، وهذا يعني الاستعداد السعودي لبقاء قرابة السبعمئة مليار دولار هي كل ما تبقّى من ثروتهم، والموجودة في المصارف الأميركية، مجمّدة إلى أجل غير مسمّى، بعدما تورّط السعوديون كيداً في حرب أسعار لدفع روسيا وإيران للإفلاس خلال عامين ماضيين، او الاستسلام السياسي، ما أدّى إلى انخفاض الدخل السعودي سنوياً قرابة الثلاثمئة دولار بهبوط سعر البرميل من مئة وأربعة وعشرين دولاراً ليلامس سعر الثلاثين ويستقرّ بين الأربعين والخمسين، بالنسبة لدولة يشكل النفط مصدر دخلها شبه الوحيد وتبيع اثني عشر مليون برميل يومياً، وترتب مع تدني الدخل وإنفاق الحربين السورية واليمنية، المباشر وغير المباشر، تسجيل عجز سنوي يقارب المئة مليار دولار في الموازنة السعودية، من دون أمل سوى الإنفاق من الأرصدة المودعة في البنوك الأميركية والعودة لسياسة رفع أسعار النفط بضبط السوق بالتعاون مع روسيا وإيران.

– عرض السعوديون على الروس التعاون فطلبوا صفقة متكاملة سياسية نفطية تبدأ من سورية، وذهبوا إلى الجزائر في اجتماع أوبك يطلبون تعاوناً إيرانياً، فكان الجواب أنّ إيران بعد التفاهم استعادت مكانتها في الأسواق النفطية ولن ترتضي السير بتخفيض إنتاجها مقابل تخفيض سعودي لرفع الطلب على النفط ورفع أسعاره، فقد جاء دور إيران لردّ الصاع صاعين، وقالت إيران إنّ من حقها أن تطلب رفع حصتها إلى سبعة ملايين برميل يومياً لعشر سنوات مقبلة لتعويض ما فاتها من حصتها المتفق عليها بسبب العقوبات واستعمله الآخرون وأولهم وأهمّهم السعودية، وصولاً لاقتراح أن تخفض السعودية إنتاجها إلى خمسة ملايين برميل يومياً مقابل خمسة مثلها إيران. وهذا يعني عدم تحقيق السعودية لأيّ تحسين في دخلها، بل المزيد من الخسارة أملاً بأن يترتب على الخفض تحسّن في السعر يعيد لها ما تناله اليوم، ولكن بعدما يبلغ السعر قرابة المئة دولار للبرميل، وتحمل نزف مالي إضافي قد يتواصل لسنة وأكثر، وبمجرد فشل اجتماع الجزائر لمنظمة أوبك تراجع سعر برميل النفط 10 وبدأ الإنهيار في بورصات الخليج وأسعار الأسهم بنسب تراوحت خلال ساعات بين 5 و10 .

– السعودية وفقاً لوصف المرشح الرئاسي الأميركي دونالد ترامب كيس مال فقط، وبالمناسبة تلاقى ترامب مع منافسته هيلاري كلينتون، في دعم التصويت ضدّ الفيتو الرئاسي ما يسقط أيّ آمال سعودية في تحسين أوضاعهم المالية ما بعد انتخابات الرئاسة الأميركية، ويبقي لهم أملاً وحيداً، بوابته التفاهم مع إيران في سوق النفط وأشياء أخرى.

– الشيخ سعد الحريري واحد من العائلة ويعرف ما يناقش من هموم واهتمامات في سهرات دواوينياتها وأمام حجم الكرب والندب لا مكان للحديث عن همومه، إلا بالانصراف لقلع شوكه بيديه، فكلّ شيء في السعودية مال، وكيس المال ينضب، وتعويم الحريرية له بوابة واحدة هي السراي، ومفتاحها في حارة حريك مروراً بكأس الرابية المرّة، مثلما هي بوابة الأمان التركي في موسكو وطهران، وبوابة الأمان العدني في صنعاء، كيف وأنّ الضغوط تتسارع، فماذا لو تأخر أردوغان عن التموضع وتواصل الشريط الكردي، وماذا لو تأخرت جماعة منصور هادي عن التسوية وفاجأهم السعوديون بعدما طردوهم من الرياض إلى عدن، بإعلان وقف الحرب من طرف واحد ودون تنسيق، وماذا لو تأخر الحريري ونزل العونيون إلى الشارع، وقرر أشرف ريفي أو غيره توريط الحريري بنزول شارع، واضطر حزب الله للتحرك؟

– زمن الحقبة السعودية ينتهي، وعلى الجميع ترتيب أمورهم على هذا الأساس عاجلاً أم آجلاً.

Related Videos


How Shimon Peres Stole the Nuclear Bomb with a Bluff, and Why Military Censor Doesn’t Want Israelis to Know about It

Global Research, September 23, 2016
Richard Silverstein 16 September 2016

Shimon Peres had a severe stroke two days ago and while his health has improved since he entered the hospital, at age 93, he is in the twilight of his years.  It’s appropriate to take stock of his legacy as an epochal figure who spans the founding of the State to the present day.  I can’t think of another active Israeli politician with that length of service or span of history.

When Peres dies, an entire nation will mourn him as a founding father of the state.  Someone who served it faithfully and diligently for nearly seven decades.  The accolades will pour forth.  Newscasters will show historic footage of him with his political mentor, David Ben Gurion, and intone solemnly about the deeds of the Great Man.

But, as is often the case in these matters, the truth lies elsewhere.  Peres began his career as Ben Gurion’s errand boy.  He was diligent and inventive.  What the boss needed done, he always figured out a way to accomplish.  Eventually became his chief fixer.  That’s how he was assigned the monumental task of getting Israel the Bomb.  Such a task is no small feat and it required immense amounts of grit, determination, invention, and even outright thievery.  Peres was more than up to the task.

israeli censorship nuclear bomb

Uncensored version of Wall story which describes Peres’ bluff which enabled French to circumvent international nuclear prohibition against selling uranium to Israel

From almost the first moment after the State was founded Ben Gurion aspired to create a nuclear weapon.  He saw it as his Doomsday device.  The ace he could draw from the deck if all the cards were stacked against him.  Though Israel’s actual strategic strength was quite robust, Ben Gurion suggested otherwise.  In a famous episode of that era, he’s reputed to have looked at a map of the Middle East spread upon the wall of his study and exclaimed to those around him:

“I didn’t sleep a wink last night because of this map.  What is Israel?  A single tiny speck.  How can it survive amidst this Arab world?!”

This was part and parcel of the Israeli strategy of portraying itself as the eternal victim, the weaker party to every conflict, who required moral and military support to prevent its destruction.  None of it was true.  But in the aftermath of the Holocaust, the world felt it couldn’t to take a chance that it might happen again.  That’s how Israel became little David to the Arab Goliath in the eyes of much of the world after 1948.

Though the conventional Israeli belief is that Israel’s  WMD was meant to protect Israel from imminent destruction should  it suffer a catastrophic defeat, that theory is wrong either in whole or in part.  In actuality, Israel never faced such a threat.  It always maintained military superiority over its enemies in every war from 1948 through 1967 (and after).

Ben  Gurion’s real goal in obtaining nukes was political.

He wanted to ensure Israel would never have to negotiate away the gains it made on the battlefield.  He wanted a weapon he could hold over the heads of any enemy, that would ensure he never had to renounce anything that was rightfully Israel’s (in his mind at least).  So Israel’s Bomb has enabled it to reject virtually every peace initiative offered going all the way back to 1967.  Israel’s leaders knew that the U.S. would never gamble that it wouldn’t use WMD if it had to.  So American presidents already had one hand tied behind their backs in such negotiations.  In a card game, when one party holds the ace of spades in his pocket and everyone else playing knows this, it’s not much of a game, is  it?

Israeli Opponents of the Bomb

It would be a misnomer to believe that Ben Gurion and Peres were lionized by their peers for their visionary project.  Opposition to an Israeli Bomb was strong and crossed party lines.   Among those who were against were future prime minister Levi Eshkol, Pinchas Sapir, Yigal Alon, Golda Meir, and Israel’s leading weapons developer, Yisrael Galili.  Even then IDF chief of staff Chaim Leskov opposed the Bomb.  Prof. Yeshayahu Leibowitz, in his typically prophetic fashion created an NGO that called for making the Middle East a nuclear-free zone (it was called in Hebrew “the Public Committee to Demilitarize the Middle East of Nuclear Weapons”).  It was probably the first such call anywhere in the world.  In one matter, he turned out to be wrong.  He predicted that by building the nuclear reactor Israel would tempt its enemies to bomb and destroy it.  Afterward, Lebowitz predicted, they would call Dimona: “Shimon’s Folly.”

The sheer chutzpah that Peres employed to get what he wanted was astonishing.  He played on the heartstrings of German guilt to obtain funding for the  nuclear arms project.  He recruited Arnon Milchan as a covert operative to organize a conspiracy to steal highly enriched uranium from the U.S. depository where it was stored.  Peres negotiated with the French a complex deal to build the Dimona plant, which to this day produces the plutonium for Israel’s WMD arsenal.

The defense ministry director general traveled extensively to France in those days and cultivated the entire political leadership in pursuit of the necessary agreements to build the Dimona plant.  On the very day he flew to France to sign the final deal, the government in Paris fell.  Though Ben Gurion saw Peres’ trip as wasted, the latter refused to give up.  He went to the resigning prime minister and suggested that they back-date the agreement to make it appear as if it had been signed before the resignation.  The French leader agreed.  And so, Israel’s Bomb was saved by an audacious bluff.  When someone asked Peres afterward how he thought he could get away with such a stratagem, he joked: “What’s 24 hours among friends?”

Peres facilitated outright theft as well.  If Israel waited to produce the highly enriched uranium it would need to create a Bomb on its own, it would’ve taken years longer than it did.  If it could procure the uranium by other means it would immensely speed the process.

That’s how the father of the Israeli Bomb recruited future Hollywood film producer Milchan to steal hundreds of kilos of nuclear materials from a warehouse in Pennsylvania with the connivance of American officials who were pro-Israel Jews recruited to the task.

Roger Mattson recently published a book on the subject, Stealing the Atom Bomb: How Denial and Deception Armed Israel.

This article summarizes his findings. Among them, are that a group of American Jewish scientists and engineers founded the company which likely embezzled and transferred to Israel enough material to make six nuclear bombs. Several officers of this company later became national officers in the Zionist Organization of America. A founder of the company fought in the Haganah during the 1948 War and was a protege of future Israeli intelligence chief, Meir Amit. Key figures in U.S. intelligence even suggested that the company itself was established by Israeli intelligence in order to steal U.S. materials and technological expertise in the service of Israel’s nuclear weapons project. All of this means that leaders of one of the key organizations in the Israel Lobby aided and abetted a huge national security breach which gave Israel the bomb.

If you’re a pro-Israel advocate you likely see such figures as heroes. If so, consider this: Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed in 1956 for doing far less harm to America’s nuclear program than these individuals did.

Israel Lobby’s Covert Fundraising Program

The WMD project was extraordinarily expensive.  The new State, saddled with huge expenses to feed and house millions of  new immigrants, had no budget to fund it.  That’s where Peres turned to wealthy Diaspora Jews like Abe Feinberg to covertly raise funds for the Israeli bomb.  Feinberg spearheaded a fundraising campaign which raised $40-million, equivalent to $260-million in today’s dollars.  Feinberg also conspired through his Democratic Party connections to secure from Pres. Johnson Israel’s right to refuse to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation pact.

Nasser announces the nationalisation of the Suez Canal

The Israeli news portal Walla describes the brilliant stratagem Ben Gurion and Peres concocted that drew France to Israel’s side in the effort to make a Bomb.  It began in 1956 with a secret meeting at a French villa outside Paris with a high-level British and French contingent.  The goals of the French and British were aligned with those of Israel, but not completely so.  The British and French wanted to give Egypt’s new firebrand leader, Gamal Nasser a black eye for nationalizing the Suez Canal and offering aid to the Algerian resistance.  They hatched a plan to attack Nasser and carve up Egypt’s strategic assets for themselves.  Israel was happy to go along for the ride.  But it had a separate goal–to garner European support for its nuclear effort.

After getting the go-ahead sign from Ben Gurion, Peres approached his French counterparts and announced Israeli agreement to join in the attack which later came to be known as Operation Kadesh.  But Israel, he told them, faced far more danger in the venture than either the British or French.  If Israel lost, its very existence could be threatened.  That’s why it needed a strategic weapon that could prevent its annihilation in the event of a disastrous defeat.

As negotiations proceeded with the French, they warned the Israelis that there were prohibited from selling them uranium under international agreements.  Peres came up with a typically brilliant and devious solution:

“Don’t sell it to us, lend it to us,” he said.  “We will return it to you after our mission is completed.”

So began the real effort to build an Israeli Bomb.  The reactor was completed in 1960 and by 1967 Israel had its first primitive nuclear weapon to use in case it lost the 1967 War.

For some strange reason, the Israeli military censor disapproved of Walla talking about Peres’ “bluff” regarding back-dating the French-Israeli nuclear agreement. In the censored version, you won’t find any reference to it. Nor will you find the story about Peres’ suggestion that the French “lend” the uranium to Israel, since it was illegal to sell it.  My guess is that with Peres’ demise likely, they preferred not to tarnish the Old Man’s reputation any more than necessary. Which raises the question: why is a censor stooping to protect Israeli politicians’ reputations rather than protecting the security of the state, which is its putative mission?”

Netanyahu celebrates 23 July Revolution at Egyptian Embassy

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and his wife, Sara, attended the ceremony held at the Egyptian Embassy in Tel Aviv to commemorate the 64th anniversary of the Revolution of July, led by the legendary leader Gamal Abdul Nasser.

Several photos have been released showing Netanyahu and his wife accompanied by Hazem Khairat, Egypt’s ambassador to Israel, and his wife during the ceremony.

In a short speech he delivered, Netanyahu praised Egypt as a ‘leading country in the Middle East’ that ‘undertakes a central role in the Palestinian issue’. He also thanked President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi, offering the Egyptian people his ‘sincere congratulations’ in celebrating the anniversary.

جمال عبد الناصر… القضية ليست الوحدة

ناصر قنديل
– لسبب لا يفسّره سوى المفهوم الرومنسي للعروبة أو الطابع السجالي للخطاب العروبي دفاعاً عن المفهوم القومي لها، أو الميل لدى البعض لتبرير مفهوم التضامن العربي السيّئ الذكر وربطه بصورة مشرقة بحجم عبد الناصر، يركز القوميون العرب أو منتحلو صفتها على البعد الوحدوي لشخصية ومرحلة جمال عبد الناصر، ويصلون إلى حدّ اعتبارها القضية المركزية في مشروعه، والسبب الجوهري لتصادمه مع الغرب، ويربطون بها جاذبية خطابه وشعبيته الساحرة على مساحة الوطن العربي، بينما يكشف التدقيق في سيرة جمال عبد الناصر أنه على مستوى الحركة الخارجية نحو البلاد العربية، منح قضية التغيير في أنظمة الحكم والصدام مع الرجعية الأولوية على مفهوم الوحدة الذي صار بعد رحيل عبد الناصر تحت مسمّى التضامن العربي، أيّ القول بأنّ تلاقي حكومات الأنظمة العربية بحدّ ذاته نعمة، مهما كان مضمونه، بينما منح عبد الناصر للوحدة بعداً مشروطاً بمفهومها ومضمونها التقدّمي والتحرّري، فقاتل الأنظمة الرجعية وعلى رأسها السعودية ورفض مهادنتها، بينما صارت المهادنة مع السعودية ومن معها من الرجعيين والتابعين للغرب بين العرب شرطاً لمفهوم التضامن الذي قدّم كأنه تعبير عن الحدّ الأدنى من الوحدة، أو الترجمة الواقعية للمفهوم القومي.

– ها هي تجربة سورية التي قدّمت الكثير من التنازلات داخل الجامعة العربية للحفاظ على وحدة موقف عربي بالحدّ الأدنى، وتبنّت لزمن غير قصير مفهوم التضامن العربي تكتشف أنها أهدرت جهودها بلا جدوى، وأنه عندما صار وجودها عبئاً على الوظيفة السياسية الرجعية والملتزمة بالمشاريع الغربية للجامعة العربية وضعت سورية خارجها، واستخدمت الجامعة غطاء لطلب التدخل الخارجي في ليبيا وسورية دون أن يرفّ جفن للقيّمين عليها، حتى توصلت سورية مؤخراً للتصريح بأنها غير معنية بالعودة إلى الجامعة، ولا تتطلع إلى هذه العودة، مصحّحة مجدّداً مفهوم الوحدة المشروط بمضمون تقدّمي وتحرّري، هو الذي جعل عبد الناصر يذهب إلى الوحدة مع سورية، رغم تواضع التجربة، أو ما تلاها مع ليبيا والسودان، وما أدّى تالياً لفشل هذه التجارب، مقابل المواجهة مع حكم نوري السعيد في العراق حتى سقوطه وسقوط حلف بغداد الذي شكلته واشنطن، وحرب مع السعودية في اليمن.

– الإنطباع بأنّ أيّ شكل من التضامن والتنسيق بين الحكومات العربية يثير حفيظة الغرب، لأنه لا يتحمّل سماع كلمة وحدة مبالغة كبيرة، فالمملكة العربية السعودية ولدت بحاصل توحيد إمارات ثلاثة وليبيا بحصيلة توحيد أربعة، وتحت عين الغرب، وبشراكته غالباً، وحدها بلاد الشام لحقها التقسيم وفقاً لاتفاقية موثقة اسمها سايكس بيكو، وزرع فيها كيان غريب غاصب هو الكيان الصهيوني الذي انتزع منها فلسطين، وها هو الغرب يرعى قيام مجلس تعاون خليجي يملك مستويات من التنسيق السياسي والاقتصادي والعسكري بتشجيع من الغرب، والأكيد أنّ جامعة الدول العربية التي قدّمت الغطاء لغزو ليبيا وتقدّمت بطلب رسمي لغزو سورية لا تشكل مصدر إزعاج للغرب، خصوصاً عندما يحتاجها لتبرير تسويق صفقات تقوم على تضييع فلسطين وتشريع احتلالها، وكانت وستبقى مشكلة الغرب هي أيّ شكل من القوة، والوحدة أحد أشكال وأدوات وأسباب القوة، يمتلكها مشروع تحرّري تقدّمي عربي، كالذي مثله جمال عبد الناصر، ومن بعده حافظ الأسد، ومن بعدهما حملت سورية بقيادة الرئيس بشار الأسد رايته.

– الممنوع هو الاستقلال والتحرّر والانتماء لقضية الشعب وقواه الحية، وحقوقها بنظام تقدّمي يعيد النظر بتوزيع الثروة ومفهوم التنمية، ويسيطر على الموارد، ويضع فلسطين في سلّم الأولوية، ويرفض الإملاءات الأجنبية، وهذا الممنوع يصير ممنوعاً بقوة أكبر إذا امتلك مشروعاً للوحدة، لأنها تزيده خطراً، وتمنحه فرصاً لتشكيل قوة تتخطى حدوده، وتلعب دوراً إقليمياً وربما عالمياً يهدّد بالإخلال بالتوازنات والمعادلات.

– تبدو المعادلات المحيطة بالوضع العربي محبطة لزاوية مشاريع وحدوية تلتقي مع المفهوم الذي جسّده جمال عبد الناصر، بربطها بالتقدّم والتحرّر اللذين تسبّبا بتصادمه مع الغرب والرجعية، وتالياً التآمر على حكمه والسعي لتفخيخ مشروعه الوحدوي، فمصر في حال مخاض طويل، والجامعة العربية لا تليق بأن تبقى فيها الجزائر ولا فلسطين خصوصاً، لكن يقدّم المثال السوري العراقي فرصة لاختبار فرص تنسيق متقدّمة، في ظلّ تقارب في التموضع على خطوط أمامية في المواجهة مع الإرهاب ومصالح واقعية اقتصادياً، وعلاقات متشابكة اجتماعياً وجغرافياً وسكانياً، وروابط مميّزة مع إيران وقوى المقاومة، رغم تفاوت وتباين الموقع والمسافة والصلة مع واشنطن، التي تقف بقوة ضدّ كلّ تكامل في مقدرات العراق وسورية، ليس رفضاً مبدئياً للوحدة، التي أقام تنظيم «داعش» نواة لها برعاية أميركية، بل لأنّ مثل هذا التكامل السوري العراقي سيضعف القبضة الأميركية في العراق، ويعزز مكانة سورية كقلعة للمقاومة، ويأخذ بيد العراق نحو الدولة المدنية بعيداً عن العصبيات الطائفية التي أنتجتها وترعاها واشنطن، لتدير عبر إشعال الفتن صراعات العراق وسياساته.

– في ذكرى ثورة جمال عبد الناصر، وسحر الزعامة العربية التي جسدها، ونموذج القائد الشعبي المتميّز بالأخلاق والتواضع والصدق، ومستوى الالتزام الوجودي بالصراع مع الكيان الغاصب لفلسطين، وانتمائه الحازم لمعسكر المقاومة، يتبدّى الوفاء بتذكر مقولتين حاكمتين في سياساته، الأولى ما قاله بحق حكم آل سعود، والثانية ما قاله عن سورية قلب العروبة النابض، من لا يقف مع سورية ويتخندق بوجه السعودية وحروبها والفتن التي تقودها، لا يشبه عبد الناصر ولا ينتمي إليه، ومنافق بالاحتفال في ذكراه، فمن يحب جمال عبد الناصر، يحب من احبهم ويكره من كرههم وكرهوه.

ناصر قنديل

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant: A genocidal campaign – part 2: The rise of Wahhabism and the formation of a bastion of terror.

July 14, 2016

by Aram Mirzaei

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant: A genocidal campaign – part 2: The rise of Wahhabism and the formation of a bastion of terror.

In the previous article, we examined the history of the concept of Takfir, Muslims who engage in excommunication of other Muslims. We also examined the history of the first great split within Islam.

In this part we will examine the second surge of Takfir, one that originated in the Arabian Peninsula during the 18th century. Before we examine this surge closer, a short introduction to Islamic jurisprudence, also known as Fiqh is needed.


Islamic Jurisprudence the human understanding or rather interpretation of Sharia, the divine law. Sharia is developed through interpretations of the Quran and the Sunnah (the teachings and practices of Prophet Muhammad) by Islamic jurists (Ulema). As the Islamic community went through several Fitna’s (divisions) several schools of jurisprudence (madhab) developed with different understandings of the concept of Sharia. Among the Sunni schools of thought, four main branches have gained prominence among the Sunni community. These branches are: Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i and Hanbali schools of thought.

The Hanbali school of thought stands out as it is not only the smallest of the four main schools but also the most extreme one. Founded by Ahmad ibn Hanbal (780-855) who was a disciple of Al-Shafi’i (founder of the Shafi’i school), he was deeply concerned with “reinterpretations” of the doctrines of the Quran and the Hadiths. Ibn Hanbal was a strong advocate of a return to the literal interpretation of the Quran and the Hadiths, rejecting several religious rulings which he considered to be mere speculations. As he gained followers (Hanbalites), the relations with the Abbasid Caliphate became more and more strained as Ibn Hanbal’s successors such as Al-Hasan ibn Ali Al-Barbahari advocated violence against those deemed to be sinners. Soon, armed mobs were formed, attacking Shiites and fellow Sunnis who were suspected of sinful behaviour.

As chaos began to spread in the Caliphate, Caliphh Ar-Radi publicly condemned the Hanbali school and ended its patronage by state religious bodies. Thus, the Hanbali school had been marginalized.


18th century: The rise of Wahhabism

Wahhabism, is named after the 18th century preacher and scholar, Muhammad ibn Abd-Al Wahhab who started what he saw as a revivalist ideology in the Arabian region of Najd, today part of Saudi Arabia. His ideology advocated a purging of practices he considered to be idolatry (shirk) and the “cult of saints”, referring to the visitation of shrines and tombs of important figures in Islam, something he considered to be impurities and innovations. Thus, his main mission became to spread what he believed to be a call for restoration of true monotheistic worship.

Abd Al-Wahhab began to attract followers, including the ruler of Uyayna (a village in the Najd region) Uthman ibn Muammar. Abd Al- Wahhab came to an agreement with Ibn Muammar to support Ibn Muammars political ambitions of expanding his rule over Najd and beyond, in exchange for Ibn Muammars support for Abd Al-Wahhabs religious teachings. Abd Al-Wahhab began to implement his ideas in the region, forbidding what he considered grave worshipping, organizing stoning of women who were accused of adultery and destroying the grave of Zayd ibn al-Khattab, a companion of Prophet Muhammad.

These actions were however not left without attention from other influential rules in the Najd region, one of them being Suleiman ibn Muhammad ibn Ghurayr who threatened ibn Muammar with denying him the ability to collect taxes in the Najd region if he did not kill or exile Abd Al-Wahhab. Thus, Ibn Muammar forced Abd Al-Wahhab to leave Najd.

Abd Al-Wahhab did not stop his quest there, instead he was invited by a ruler of a nearby town in Diriyah, Muhammad ibn Saud.

In 1744 they met and engaged in a pact where Ibn Saud would protect and propagate the doctrines of Abd Al-Wahhab while he in turn would champion Ibn Saud’s claim to rule the entire Arabian Peninsula. This agreement was confirmed with a mutual oath of loyalty (bayah) and that same year marked the emergence of the first Saudi state, the Emirate of Diriyah.


Wahhabist doctrine and the Salafist movement

The Wahhabi movement can be said to have been inspired by the writings of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, founder of the Hanbali school of thought. Although this question is much of for debate as the Wahhabis do not consider themselves to be part of any school of thought. Wahhabis have always rejected all jurisprudence that in their opinion did not adhere strictly to the letter of the Quran and the Hadiths, still despite this claim, they follow the Hanbali methodology of extreme conservativism in applying Sharia law.

The Salafist movement

The Salafi movement is an ultra-conservative movement within the Sunni branch of Islam. The doctrine of Salafism is one that takes a fundamentalist approach to Islam, focusing on emulating the Prophet Muhammad and his earliest followers the Al-Salaf Al Salih (Pious forefathers). Much like Wahhabism and the Hanbali school, they reject innovations and support a strict implementation of Sharia law. Although it shares many similarities with the Wahhabi doctrine, Salafists still reject the term Wahhabi as derogatory. Still, modern Salafists tend to consider Abd Al-Wahhab as a Salafist, and his book Kitab al-Tawhid is still read and cited frequently by Salafi followers and scholars. Although they share a different past since Wahhabism originated in the Arabian Peninsula and Salafism originated in Egypt, they share the same doctrine of purging practices deemed by them to be idolatry such as shrine and tomb visitation and other “impurities”.

One could break down the Wahhabi doctrine into these defining aspects:

  1. Strict adherence to the Quran, and the prophetic traditions. This means a literal interpretation of the Quran and opposition to Tawil, meaning metaphorical interpretations.
  2. Strict opposition to the act of Tawassul through other than Allah, meaning to ask Allah for things by the means of using a deceased saint or pious man as an intermediary. This part refers to their opposition to tomb visiting and a “cult of saints” belief. This act is viewed by the Wahhabis as Shirk(Polytheism).
  3. Embracing the ideas of Ibn Tayyima, which allows a self-professed Muslim who do not follow Islamic law to be declared non-Muslim— in order for the “true muslim” to justify their warring and conquering of those deemed to be non-Muslims.


The Wahhabi Mission

When Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab applied to the rulers of Dar’iyya with the view of disseminating his heresies easily through them, they willingly cooperated with him with the hope of extending their territories and increasing their power. They strove with all their might to disseminate his ideas everywhere.

They declared war against those who refused joining the army of Muhammad ibn Saud when it was said that it is halal to plunder and kill non-Wahhabis. Muhammad ibn Saud and Muhammad ibn Abd Al-Wahhab reached the conclusion, that those who wouldn’t accept Wahhabism were kafirs and mushriks (Polytheists) and it was halal to kill them and confiscate their possessions, publicly announcing this declaration seven years later.

This unholy alliance between the Wahhabi ideology and the Al-Saud family has endured for more than two and half centuries, surviving both defeat and collapse. The two families (that of Abd-Al Wahhab and Al-Saud) have intermarried multiple times over generations and it is no coincidence that in modern Saudi Arabia, the minister of religion is always a member of the Al-Sheikh family, descendents of Ibn Abd-al Wahhab.

One of the most notable and cruel attacks by the Wahhabis, was on Karbala in 1802. There, they entered the city and killed the majority of its population in the markets and their homes. They destroyed the dome placed over the grave of Imam Hussein, the third infallible Imam in the Shia faith, and looted the grave completely. This act was and still is considered to be one of the most heinous crimes committed against the city of Karbala and the Shia population as a whole. It is also noteworthy that this act was legitimized by the Wahhabi aggressors since they did not consider the Karbala population to be Muslims at all. This crime was followed up by several other heinous assaults around the region, including the attack on Taif, in the Hejaz region in the Arabian Peninsula where they massacred the entire male population and enslaved the women and children of the city in 1803.

Al-Saud managed to establish his rule over southwestern Syria between 1803 and 1812 before being driven out by Egyptian forces acting under the Ottoman Empire, led by Ibrahim Pasha. In 1818 they defeated Al-Saud, levelling the capital Diriyah and executed the Al-Saud emir. However, they failed to destroy the political and religious leadership of the House of Saud and the Wahhabi ideology. A second Saudi state soon rose from its ashes (Emirate of Najd) and lasted from 1819 to 1891. Since it was isolated within the region of Najd, a desolate place lacking any resources and with limited communication and transportation at the time, the Ottomans were not prompted to conduct further campaigns in the region, and so the Wahhabi ideology survived, albeit severely weakened.

But this would all change with the fall of the Ottoman Empire after World War One as the British administrators would look for divisive collaborators in the Arab World, just as they had on the Indian Subcontinent in previous years. They found the perfect collaborators with the sectarian Wahhabi doctrine. The Saudis horrified and fascinated the British at the same time with Winston Churchill writing that the Wahhabis

“hold it as an article of duty, as well as of faith, to kill all those who do not share their opinions and to make slaves of their wives and children. Women have been put to death in Wahhabi villages for simply appearing in the street”. [1]

Churchill nevertheless also expressed admiration for Ibn Saud for his “unfailing loyalty” to the British. A British government memo from the mid-1940s noted that

“Ibn Saud’s influence in the Middle East is very great, and it has been used consistently for a number of years in support for our policy”. [2]

Syrian President Shukry El Kuwatly (left) and Egyptian Premier Gamal Abdel Nasser shake hands, as Saudi Arabia's King Saud looks on smilingly after the signing of the joint communique. The declaration, which climaxed a series of meetings of the Arab States' 'Big Three' here, announced that the three had agreed on a plan to safeguard Arab security and defend the Arab world against 'the danger of Zionist aggression and foreign domination.'

Syrian President Shukry El Kuwatly (left) and Egyptian Premier Gamal Abdel Nasser shake hands, as Saudi Arabia’s King Saud looks on smilingly after the signing of the joint communique. The declaration, which climaxed a series of meetings of the Arab States’ ‘Big Three’ here, announced that the three had agreed on a plan to safeguard Arab security and defend the Arab world against ‘the danger of Zionist aggression and foreign domination.’

With the rise of Egyptian President Jamal Abdul Nasser, a hero of Arab nationalism, the US also began to take an interest in the house of Saud.

US President Eisenhower was also looking for a plan to split the Arabs and defeat the aims of their enemies (the Soviet Union), by building up the Saudi king as a counterweight to Nasser. This close US-Saudi relationship was highly successful during the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, where the Saudis and the US closely cooperated in arming, supporting, training and promoting jihadism against the “infidel Soviets”. This relationship is as Professor Tim Anderson describes it

“not just a relation between a global power and an oil supplier, but rather that of the great power with a principal political collaborator in the region, and one with a long record of sectarianism”. [3]

This alliance still stands today and in the next part of this article series, we will explore their collaboration in the Syrian conflict and the project that is called “The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant”.

  1. Tim Anderson, The Dirty War on Syria, Chapter 5, Page 42
  2. Ibid
  3. Ibid

Related Articles

%d bloggers like this: