Ansarullah: UAE Pulling Forces Out of Yemen

TEHRAN (Tasnim) – The United Arab Emirates has apparently withdrawn its military forces from certain parts of Yemen, the Houthi Ansarullah movement announced.

July, 12, 2019 – 17:1

Ansarullah: UAE Pulling Forces Out of Yemen

In an interview with Al-Alam News Network, Mohamed al-Bukhaiti, a member of the political bureau of Ansarullah, said monitoring of the situation suggests that the UAE has pulled its troops out of certain regions of Yemen, although the Abu Dhabi government has not adopted any formal or clear stance on the issue.

It is not clear whether the Emirati withdrawal from Yemen will be partial or complete, he added.

Ansarullah is closely monitoring the situation, and the Yemeni drones and missile are prepared for response to any intensification of the UAE’s stances, Bukhaiti underlined.

He also noted that Ansarullah insists on the full withdrawal of all foreign forces from Yemen, and regards any foreign troops remaining on the Yemeni soil as aggressors and occupiers.

Ansarullah calls for a sustainable peace that would guarantee the security and dignity of all regional nations, and urges respect for the sovereignty and independence of Yemen and the other countries, Bukhaiti concluded.

Yemen’s defenseless people have been under massive attacks by a coalition led by the Saudi regime for more than four years but Riyadh has reached none of its objectives in Yemen so far.

Since March 2015, Saudi Arabia and some of its Arab allies have been carrying out deadly airstrikes against the Houthi Ansarullah movement in an attempt to restore power to fugitive former president Abd Rabbuh Mansour Hadi, a close ally of Riyadh.

Official UN figures say that more than 15,000 people have been killed in Yemen since the Saudi-led bombing campaign began.

The Saudi war has impacted over seven million children in Yemen who now face a serious threat of famine, according to UNICEF figures. Over 6,000 children have either been killed or sustained serious injuries since 2015, UN children’s agency said. The humanitarian situation in the country has also been exacerbated by outbreaks of cholera, polio, and measles.

UAE Pulls Most Forces from Yemen in Blow to Saudis

ST

Created on Friday, 12 July 2019 21:08

The United Arab Emirates has pulled most of its forces from the Yemen “quagmire” in a “face-saving” decision that has deeply upset its Saudi allies, The New York Times has said.

UAE officials have been saying for several weeks that they have begun a phased and partial withdrawal of forces, estimated at 5,000 troops a few years ago.

However, significant reduction has already occurred, the Times quoted Western and Arab diplomats briefed on the drawdown as saying.

Over the past month, the UAE has cut its deployment around the strategic Red Sea port of Hudaydah by 80 percent to fewer than 150 men, according to people briefed on the drawdown. They have pulled out their attack helicopters and heavy guns, effectively precluding a military advance on the city.

The UAE, according to a senior Emirati official, says the drawdown is intended to support a shaky United Nations-brokered ceasefire in Hudaydah that came into effect in December.

PRESS T.V

R.S

Related Videos

Related News

Advertisements

Hezbollah Parliamentary Bloc Confronts US Sanctions, Stresses Saudi, ‘Israel’ to Pay Heavily for Any War on Iran

July 11, 2019

manar-01933570015453172022

The Loyalty to Resistance parliamentary bloc held Thursday at its headquarters in Haret Hreik its weekly meeting chaired by its head Hajj Mohammad Raad, tackling the latest developments in Lebanon and the region.

In a statement issued after the meeting, Hezbollah bloc considered that the US sanctions on its head MP Hajj Mohammad Raad and member MP Hajj Amin Sherri as well as the party’s security official Wafiq Safa as a persistence on the aggression against the Lebanese, stressing that they may never affect the resistance in face of the Israeli enemy and the terrorist groups.

The statement also reiterated Hezbollah support to the Yemeni people in face of the Saudi ongoing aggression, pointing to the looming victory of the Yemenis whose intensified military operations have pushed the coalition states to start withdrawing from Yemen.

Hezbollah parliamentary bloc further highlighted Iran’s right to increase the Uranium enrichment and back the resistance groups in the region in face of the US policy based on withdrawing from the nuclear deal and tightening sanctions on the Islamic Republic.

In this regard, the statement warned that any US war on Iran would lead the region and the whole would into a major turmoil, stressing that Saudi and the Zionist entity would pay heavily during such a confrontation.

Locally, the Loyalty to Resistance bloc called on the political parties to adopt the reconciliatory approach in coping with the Qabrshmoun incident, highlighting Hezbollah insistence on protecting the poor from any financial pressure that may be exerted by the 2019 state budget law.

Source: Al-Manar English Website

Related

‘Israeli’ Journalist Quits TV Debate to Protest against the ‘Saudi King’s Abuse’

By Staff, Agencies

Advisor to Zionist Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office and ‘Israeli’ political analyst Eddie Cohen withdrew from a television debate in protest against the ‘blasphemy of Saudi King Salman bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud.’

This incident happened during a daily debate on the Zionist “i24news” screen, with the guest Hassan Merhej, a Middle East expert who insulted the Saudi monarch, saying that the king cursed the Saudi red line prompting Cohen to withdraw.

Cohen also claimed that the positions of the King of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the rulers of the UAE represent true Islam, and that they do not practice a policy against the interests of their country.

The debate also dealt with the imposition of sanctions by the United States against Hezbollah Members of the Lebanese Parliament.

«استراتيجية الخروج» من اليمن: الإمارات تستغيث بإيران

 وفيق قانصوه

الخميس 11 تموز 2019

 طهران ترفض عرضاً إماراتياً للانسحاب: تخطّيتم الخطوط الحمر 

 «أنصار الله» لأبو ظبي: سنحيّد منشآتكم الحيوية 

 إبن راشد لإبن زايد: صاروخ يمني واحد في دبي يدمّر كل ما بنيناه

 

«الإمارات تنسحب من اليمن». حتى اللحظة، يجري التعامل مع الحدث الذي أُعلِن قبل أيام بالكثير من التشكيك. لكن المعلومات المستقاة من مصادر واسعة الاطلاع تُظهر قراراً استراتيجياً اتخذه حكام أبو ظبي نتيجة التهديد بوصول الحريق إلى داخل «دارِهم». ولأجل إبعاد هذه الكأس عنهم، استنجدوا بطهران وموسكو

«لا شيء لدينا نتفاوض حوله معكم بعدما تخطّيتم الخطوط الحمر». كان هذا الرد الحاسم الذي سمعه وفد أمني إماراتي رفيع المستوى زار طهران قبل أسابيع قليلة، عقب التفجيرات التي استهدفت سفناً تجارية وناقلات نفط في ميناء الفجيرة الاماراتي في 12 أيار الماضي.

الوفد الرفيع (الذي يتردد أنه زار طهران مرتين) حمل معه، وفق مصادر دبلوماسية مطلعة، ما اعتقد الاماراتيون يومها أنه «عرض لا يُقاوم». ثلاثة بنود واضحة: الأول، إعادة العلاقات بين البلدين إلى طبيعتها. الثاني، تأمين حماية مشتركة من البلدين للممرات البحرية لتأمين تدفق النفط من كل الدول المطلّة على الخليج. الثالث، والأهم: نحن مستعدون لمغادرة اليمن!

لم ييأس الاماراتيون بعد الردّ الايراني الصارم، فتوسّلوا وساطة روسية مع طهران اثناء زيارة وزير الخارجية الاماراتي عبدالله بن زايد لموسكو في 25 حزيران الماضي. لكن الجواب كان واحداً: لا شيء لدينا لنفاوض حوله. كان واضحاً لدى الايرانيين أن أبو ظبي تبحث عن «استراتيجية خروج» من المستنقع اليمني، وتريد بيعها. بضاعة كاسدة كهذه لا تُسوّق في بازار طهران، «ويمكنهم أن يخرجوا كما دخلوا».

ولكن، ما هي خلفيات هذا التحوّل الاماراتي؟

(أرشيف)

بصرف النظر عمّن يقف خلف هجوم ميناء الفجيرة الواقع على خليج عُمان (جنوب مضيق هرمز)، بدا واضحاً للجميع أن أي حظر على تصدير النفط الايراني يعني ان الدول الخليجية لن تكون قادرة على تصدير نفطها متجاوزة السيطرة الايرانية على المضيق. قُرئ الهجوم على انه تحدّ غير مسبوق واستفزاز افترضت الرياض وأبو ظبي انه سيشعل شرارة الحرب الأميركية المنتظرة على الجار الايراني المزعج. خيّبت واشنطن هذه الآمال، تماماً كما خيّبتها بعد إسقاط قوات الدفاع الجوي التابعة للحرس الثوري طائرة تجسس أميركية في 20 حزيران الماضي. أُريد للحدثين أن يشكّلا زلزال «14 شباط ايراني» على شاكلة زلزال «14 شباط اللبناني» (اغتيال رئيس الحكومة اللبناني رفيق الحريري)، وما تلاه من تغييرات اقليمية ودولية. لكن الأميركي كان في واد آخر.

أدرك الاماراتيون أن الأميركيين إذا لم يهاجموا ايران الآن فقد لا يهاجمونها أبداً. لذا جاءت انعطافة أبو ظبي الأخيرة «بالانتقال من استراتيجية القوة العسكرية أولاً إلى استراتيجية السلام أولاً»، بعد أربع سنوات ونصف سنة من انخراطها في الحرب على الشعب اليمني. إرهاصات القرار بدأت مع زيارة وزير الخارجية الاماراتي لموسكو وإعلانه أن التحقيق في حادث الفجيرة لم يشر بدقة الى الجهة الفاعلة، مشيراً الى أن بلاده غير معنية بأي تصعيد مع طهران.

وفق المصادر المطلعة، فإن «شبه الانسحاب الاماراتي هو، عملياً واستراتيجياً، قرار بالانسحاب يجري تظهيره كخروج ملطّف حتى لا تكون له تبعات الهزيمة». وقد حتمّت هذا القرار جملة اسباب، داخلية وخارجية، أولها وصول «قدرة التحمّل الاماراتية» لتبعات التورط في اليمن الى حدّها الأقصى على صعد عدة:

1) النزيف البشري الذي نجحت الامارات على مدى اربع سنوات ونصف سنة في التغطية عليه، وتمكنت أخيراً من الحد منه عبر الابتعاد عن المواجهات المباشرة واستخدام «أطر بديلة» تتمثل بمجموعات ميليشيوية يمنية جنّبت الجيش الاماراتي مزيداً من الخسائر، ولكن بعدما طالت هذه الخسائر معظم أبناء الطبقات الوسطى والفقيرة، ووصلت الى بعض أبناء العائلة الحاكمة.

2) النزيف الاقتصادي الذي بات يسبّب تململاً ليس في أبوظبي فحسب، وانما في بقية الامارات مع شعور بأن تبعات الحرب بدأت تترك تأثيرات استراتيجية على الاقتصاد القائم اساساً على التجارة والخدمات.

3) النزيف السياسي: مع التيقن بأن سقف الحرب بات مقفلاً على إمكان تحقيق انتصار واضح وناجز، وتخلخل الحلف الذي تقوده السعودية بخروج شركاء منه، شعر الاماراتيون بأنهم قادمون على تحمّل جزء أساسي من تبعات الهزيمة السياسية ويريدون تجنّب دفع جزء معتبر من هذا الثمن.

إلى ذلك، بدا أن وضع الاتحاد الاماراتي بات على المحك مع تصاعد تململ حكام الامارات الست من التماهي الكامل لرجل أبو ظبي القوي محمد بن زايد مع رجل الرياض القوي محمد بن سلمان في توتير العلاقات مع الجيران الخليجيين والجار الايراني، ومن التورط في الحرب اليمنية وأثمانها الاقتصادية. وفي المعلومات أن اجتماعاً عقد قبل أسابيع بين ثلاثي «أولاد زايد» (محمد وهزاع وطحنون) وحاكم دبي محمد بن راشد الذي تمثل إمارته «درّة النموذج الاماراتي»، أبلغهم فيه الأخير، بوضوح، أن هناك ضرورة ملحّة للخروج من هذا المستنقع. ولفت إلى ان «نزول صاروخ يمني واحد في واحد من شوارع دبي كفيل بانهيار الاقتصاد والتضحية بكل ما حققناه». كما سمع «أولاد زايد» كلاماً مماثلاً من حكام الفجيرة، أبدى فيه هؤلاء خشيتهم من ان السياسة الحالية قد تجعل إمارتهم ساحة أي معركة مقبلة، كونها واقعة على بحر عُمان، وخارج مضيق هرمز.

مصادر دبلوماسية: معلومات عن طلب إماراتي من القاهرة التوسط لإعادة تفعيل العلاقة مع دمشق

الأهم من كل ما سبق أن الاماراتيين لمسوا أن الاندفاعة اليمنية النوعية الأخيرة باتت قادرة على قلب الموازين الاستراتيجية للصراع بعد تفعيل أسلحة جديدة واستهداف منشآت حيوية كخط ينبع ومطار أبها وغيرهما، فيما أخفقت كل «الجدران الاستراتيجية» (كالباتريوت) في وجه هذه الهجمة. ووفق معلومات «الأخبار» فإن الامارات تلقّت رسالة واضحة من «أنصار الله»، بعدما لاحت بوادر انعطافتها الأخيرة، مفادها أن منشآتها الحيوية لن تكون هدفاً للقصف «ومعركتنا ستكون حصراً مع السعوديين»، ما يفسر حصر القصف الأخير بالأهداف الحساسة السعودية.

في المحصلة، تؤكد المصادر أن التحول الاماراتي «ليس مناورة. هم أخفقوا أولاً في هجوم خليفة حفتر على طرابلس الغرب. وأخيراً أيقنوا أن واشنطن ليست جاهزة لمواجهة مباشرة مع ايران». لذلك، «ستكمل الامارات استدارتها لتشمل الموقف من سوريا». وتلفت في هذا السياق الى «معلومات عن طلب إماراتي من القاهرة بالتوسط مع دمشق» لإعادة تفعيل العلاقة من حيث توقفت بعدما فرملها الأميركيون مطلع هذه السنة.

Related Videos

Related News

To Think Outside the Box, It Helps First to Understand What’s IN the Box

Image result for To Think Outside the Box, It Helps First to Understand What’s IN the Box

Alastair Crooke
July 8, 2019

Daniel Levy, an erstwhile Israeli negotiator with the Palestinians, writes, “what Manama [Kushner’s presentation on the economic aspects of the ‘Deal of the Century’] tells us about the Kushner approach to the broader region beyond Israel-Palestine, may be more worrying yet for American and global well-being in the next 18 months …”:

“[The] ongoing American misdiagnosis of the region, including this White House’s naïveté, combined with an absence of bullsh[*]t detectors when it comes to what Israelis and certain Gulf states are spinning, were on dangerous display in Bahrain. The Trump administration has not succeeded in creating a new way forward on Palestine and the region. It has however bought into a project in which Israel and certain Gulf parties cooperate not in stabilizing the region, but in goading the White House into doing their bidding on Iran. The preference in Jerusalem and Riyadh is that, rather than come to terms with a necessary balancing of regional interests, including the legitimate interests of Iran, it is better to have America in maximum confrontation with Iran.

“Manama showed the limitations (let alone desirability) of any supposed new regional alliance [configured against Iran] … The gathering certainly brought into focus their shallow grasp of the Israel-Palestine portfolio. (One very senior participant privately confided that while it is nice that this US team prides themselves on thinking outside the box, it would be good if they first understood what was actually inside the box.) It was a jaw-dropping display of how completely they are being played by various regional actors in ways highly detrimental to American interests.”

So what exactly is it that is ‘inside the box’? Well firstly, ‘what exactly is it’ that the regional actors fear? Not an Iranian nuclear weapon – for sure. That is a ‘bogey’ conjured up by Israel to frighten and mobilise American officials in support of Israel. Even were Iran to develop such a weapon (which all US intelligence agencies say Iran is not so doing), how could it be used against Israel, whose population, between the river and the sea is 6.5 million Palestinians and 6.5 million Israelis? Nuclear weapons don’t discriminate by ethnicity.

Long ago, senior Israelis were quite open in saying to me that it was Iran’s conventional weaponry (and unconventional forces) that concerned them – they never believed Israel’s twenty-year narrative of Iran being a year away from having an ‘Islamic bomb’.

A year or two ago, I spent a week as guest of the two holy mosques at Karbala (Iraq). I saw there, in the Imam Hussein shrine something unforgettable. Inside that place, literally seething with humanity, was the spectre of fluid energy. It was a people who were mobilised – hugely energized, and for whom Hussein’s grim killing (the grandson of the Prophet) was unfolding at that very instant. They were living it, then and now, in a way that westerners simply cannot fully fathom.

What does this mean?

Related image

What frightened the Gulf states then in 1979 – and what frightens them now – was the revolutionary, insurgent impulse of Iran’s Revolution. Shi’ism from the very outset has been somehow at odds with domineering, worldly power-plays: always seeking something – some deeper ‘within’. Kerbala showed me that if the revolutionary impulse in Iran had quietened to a smolder, it was not extinguished. And rather, that Shi’a religiosity is still igniting at the periphery.

Of course the 1979 Revolution – and the seizure of the Grand Mosque at Mecca by Wahhabi (Sunni) revolutionaries in the same year – frightened the Gulf states. The latter – in spite of their predilection towards launching religious Jihad against their enemies – at home, have embraced a secular, neo-liberalism. But the legitimacy of a security-autocracy or monarchy has been waning, and there is a lack of any credible system of governance (or even of any system for stable succession). There is in short, no compelling ‘vision’.

This is the point. These grand ‘dynamics’ of the Muslim world are none of America’s business, and more than that, they will not be settled by foreign intervention (any more than the bloody European ‘Reformation’ could have been arbitrated by a foreigner). In short, Shi’ism is experiencing a renaissance, just as the Arab ‘system’ continues its downward trajectory in terms of its popular legitimacy and credibility. For the US to think that the Gulf States are capable of confronting Iran – of quenching this Shi’a renaissance – is, as Levy says, naïve.

No, they cannot. Yet the Gulf States and Israel do however share a common interest. They would like America to destroy Iran on their behalf, in the hope that this would somehow prolong the longevity of Gulf monarchies. And, as it were, inoculate them too from internal civil unrest (with the region’s revolutionary ‘gene’ dispatched). But even so, some Gulf leaders see the danger that such a project might not be confined to Iran, but would immolate the entire region. For Israel, these security states provide the compliant – if inadequate – strategic depth in which a Greater Israel might, one day soon, be actualised.

So, what then is the nature of this Iran crisis? Well, there are two components: Firstly, the crisis between Iran and Washington is only nominally about nuclear issues. It is rather, a political crisis between Iran and America, which reaches back to the humiliation of US President Carter in the context of the US embassy siege in Tehran. The nuclear wrangle is just the pretext for this bitter struggle. When Secretary Pompeo speaks of negotiations being only possible – as and when – Iran were to become a “normal nation”, he plainly means only ‘when Iran abjures its revolution’. Again, this reflects a complete lack of understanding of ‘that’ which makes Iran precisely what it is.

This US-Iranian antagonism also explains why Iran rejects to negotiate on the JCPOA with Trump. The Supreme Leader understands that the nature of the crisis is one of deep political hostility, rather that of the parties needing to agree some technical download ‘patch’ to the JCPOA software (such as an extension to the ‘sunset clauses’).

A short term ‘sticking plaster’ applied to the JCPOA solves little. The antagonism remains unresolved. Instead, Iran intends to raise the stakes for Trump by giving him the choice: Risk your Presidential election prospects for 2020 through entangling yourself in ratchetting escalation with Iran, or back-off on oil and banking sanctions. The Iranian leadership will mount its own counter-measures against “regime collapse” pursued by economic strangulation. Trump may find he becomes obliged to choose either the military way – or retreat.

The second crisis is that inside Israel. Observe what a leading Israeli political commentator, Ben Caspit, wrote (in Hebrew, for Ma’ariv – 24 May) as a cri de cœur, prior to the large march called by the opposition to Netanyahu, just prior to the recent Israeli elections:

“It is imperative that to come to the Tel Aviv Museum of Art tomorrow evening. Come by car, come on foot, bring your bike, bring your scooter, come together, come alone. Bring your friends, your parents, your children, your wife, your husband, your caretaker. Come running, come walking, come with your walker or your wheelchair. Come as you are: from the left, right, up, down or center. What matters is that you come. It’s happening here, it’s happening now. You will have no excuses later. When you ask yourselves where you were when it happened, say that you were there. You came. You volunteered to save the State of Israel that we knew. You will know that you did not give up, that you did not complain, that you did not accept the decree, that you came to fight for your home. That’s not a cliché. This is a war for our home.

“This is not the war of Blue and White or the Labor Party or “the left” or the center or the liberals or the conservatives … It’s the war of every Israeli who believes in freedom, equality, the values of the Declaration of Independence and Israel’s character as the founding fathers envisioned it. Of everyone who is unwilling to accept a tyrannical government, who recognizes the slippery slope that we will be pushed towards when the Knesset places the government above the law and revokes the courts’ ability to perform their accepted function in any democratic country: oversight of the government.

“This is the war of everyone who is unwilling to let the Knesset turn into a city of refuge for criminals. This is also the war (as the polls have proven) of the right wing, of religious Zionists, of people who wear knitted and black skullcaps, of the Likud’s registered party members and its voters.”

Yes, the crisis of secular liberalism to which President Putin referred in his interview with the Financial Times is not confined to Europe. It is in Israel too.

Laurent Guyénot has written an erudite book, From Yahwey to Zion, that traces the path from biblical Yahweyism to secular, (yet still ‘biblical’) Zionism, as exemplified in the person of Ben Gurion. But what we can observe frightening Caspit so in his Ma’ariv pleading, is his fear that Israel may be transiting now, from liberal Zionism (of the early Kibbutzim stalwarts) back towards Yahweyism.

The Gulf States certainly have an inkling of this. And Iran certainly does. This constitutes the unspoken second strand. In a Washington Post piece headlined Trump’s Envoys take a Hammer to Middle East Peace, the Posthighlighted a photo of US envoy David Friedman hoisting a sledge hammer a few days ago to open an ancient passage way to “what some archaeologists and a right-wing Jewish nationalist organization believe to be an ancient thoroughfare that led to Jerusalem’s holy sites (but which passes directly beneath the ancient Palestinian neighbourhood of Silwan). Friedman was accompanied by Trump donor, Sheldon Adelson, Jason Greenblatt, Sara Netanyahu, the prime minister’s wife and former mayor of Jerusalem, Nir Barkat.

This may play well with Trump’s and Netanyahu’s bases, but do Trump and his advisers understand what they may be unleashing, through the emboldening of the religious Right in Israel (i.e. Yahwehism with all its biblical connotations of domination and even Empire)? Does Team Trump, Daniel Levy asks, really understand “how completely they are being played by various regional actors, in ways highly detrimental to American interests”?

Probably not – which is why the region is so on edge. The actualization of a biblical Israel – which US evangelicals clearly desire – represents a provocation far, far more potent than the ‘Deal of the Century’.

Europe Freaks Out Over Minuscule Iranian Uranium Enrichment

Global Research, July 09, 2019

Leave it to CBS News and all the other establishment propaganda mills to spin the obvious.

CBS and the others know the Iran nuke deal is a dead letter.

Trump refused to honor the agreement while Europe pretends the deal is still valid, mostly because it needs Iranian oil. EU apparatchiks understand all bets are off now that the US has reimposed sanctions.

They have no choice but to fall in line.

CBS News

@CBSNews

Iran ignores Trump’s warning, breaks another nuclear deal limit on uranium enrichment https://cbsn.ws/2S3sB8i 

132 people are talking about this

In true Pavlovian fashion—following the lead of Trump and his coven of neocons and Israel-firsters—the Europeans have threatened to trigger the JCPOA’s “dispute resolution mechanism” allowing the EU to impose sanctions. This will result in the issue of Iran enriching low-grade uranium going before the neoliberal lapdog, the United Nations Security Council.

Iran’s foreign minister summed it up:

Javad Zarif

@JZarif

Iran is neither a member of the EU nor subject to any European oil embargo.

Last I checked, EU was against extraterritoriality.

UK’s unlawful seizure of a tanker with Iranian oil on behalf of is piracy, pure and simple.

It sets a dangerous precedent and must end now.

1,580 people are talking about this

Iran is incrementally enriching uranium as a wedge to force Europe to fully abide by the deal and ignore Trump’s ultimatum. Zarif said Iran’s enrichment is “reversible” if the European signatories of the deal fulfill their end.

Javad Zarif

@JZarif

Today, Iran is taking its second round of remedial steps under Para 36 of the JCPOA. We reserve the right to continue to exercise legal remedies within JCPOA to protect our interests in the face of US . All such steps are reversible only through E3 compliance.

1,226 people are talking about this

Meanwhile, clod Trump tells us there is only one purpose for the low-grade enrichment of uranium.

Embedded video

The Hill

@thehill

President Trump: “Iran better be careful. Because you enrich for one reason and I won’t tell you what that reason is. But it’s no good. They better be careful.”

112 people are talking about this

Trump, thoroughly zombified by his neocon manipulators and his Orthodox Jewish, settler-friendly Likudnik son-in-law, doesn’t realize uranium enrichment at the current level—more than 85 percent below what is needed to make an effective nuclear bomb—is at best useful for nuclear power plant fuel. 

But you wouldn’t know this if you’re the average headline skimmer. The neocons and Israel want you to believe Iran will have a thermo-nuke tomorrow and will immediately target Israel and US “assets” in the Middle East.

The propaganda is working, even though a majority of Americans, according to corporate polls, support the nuclear deal. At the same time, they believe Iran is a threat to America, never mind there is zero evidence of this.

In fact, the opposite is true: the United States, Israel, and Saudi Arabia are a threat to Iran.

But then most Americans are not very good at history and really don’t show much interest in truth, preferring instead to skim deceptive corporate media headlines on social media between episodes of The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site: Another Day in the Empire.

Kurt Nimmo is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Iran’s battle strategy in Syria and its impact

BEIRUT, LEBANON (5:30 A.M.) – At the start of 2013, the Syrian War was looking unfavorable for the Syrian Arab Army (SAA), as a militant offensive in Aleppo cutoff the city from all government supply lines and the strategic East Ghouta region had all but fallen to Jaysh Al-Islam and the Free Syrian Army (FSA).

Making matters worse, the government had lost most of Syria’s northern border with Turkey and their western border with Lebanon. This would later prove to be a major issue for the military as foreign militants were pouring into the country from these regions.

Enter Hezbollah and Iran

The Spring of 2013 would prove to be an important period in the Syrian War. Both Hezbollah and Iran would enter the conflict on the side of the government and help the Syrian military regain the initiative in Homs, Aleppo, and Damascus.

Hezbollah’s deployment to Syria helped the government regain the Lebanese border by capturing the strategic crossing at Al-Qusayr, followed by Tal Kalakh and the majority of the Qalamoun Mountains.

The Lebanese group also provided reinforcements to several areas across the country in order to help stabilize these fronts.

While Hezbollah’s entry into the Syrian conflict is often viewed as the first time foreign fighters had entered the war, this is indeed false. Militants from several countries across the world had already entered Syria and began fighting alongside the rebel forces.

Several of these foreign fighters would later join jihadist groups like Jabhat Al-Nusra and the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL/IS/Daesh).

However, unlike Hezbollah, Iran would play a pivotal role behind the scenes in 2013, offering their military advisers to help Damascus concoct a new battle plan.

The plan would focus on a four-corners strategy that would see the Syrian military maintain a presence in four corners of the country, giving the government an area of influence despite the absence of supply routes.

Four Corners Strategy

From 2013 to 2017, the Syrian government maintained a presence in several parts of the country. Since it was difficult to maintain control over the vast desert and mountainous regions, the strategy was to focus on the major cities and spreading out the militants so that the army could regain critical areas around the capital city.

It may appear a bit unorthodox, but the strategy ultimately helped the Syrian military maintain a presence in eastern Syria, where the U.S. and its allies attempted to expand across during the war with ISIS.

For example, the Syrian military kept a presence in the Al-Hasakah Governorate, despite the fact they were surrounded by the Kurdish-led People’s Protection Units (YPG)

While the Syrian military and the YPG were not fighting each other and their presence in Al-Hasakah was only threatened by ISIS, the army’s decision to stay inside Deir Ezzor city after losing their supply lines from Homs raised a few questions at the time.

Thousands of Syrian troops were besieged in Deir Ezzor and ordered to continue fighting ISIS from 2015 to 2017 when the siege was finally lifted. Prior to the arrival of the Russian Armed Forces in September of 2015, the Deir Ezzor front was under daily attacks by the Islamic State, leaving many to fear for the lives of the people and troops inside the city.

Had the army made the decision to retreat from Deir Ezzor city, ISIS could have sent their forces to other fronts and expanded their presence inside of Syria. Furthermore, it allowed the Syrian Army to maintain control of the city once the U.S.-led Coalition began expanding south of Al-Hasakah.

Finally, the entry of the Russian Armed Forces would play a decisive role in the conflict, as the Syrian Arab Army was able to finally launch multiple offensives to regain most of the country.

Present Day

Iran still desires a complete military victory in Syria, but with the continued Israeli attacks on their positions in the country and U.S. economic pressure through sanctions, the Islamic Republic has been forced to take a more defensive role in the region.

This defensive role has allowed Russia to champion the recent Syrian military operations, while they concentrate on other matters, including the proxy war in the eastern part of the country.

Related Videos

ALSO READ

%d bloggers like this: