The American impasse is in Iraq not in Syria المأزق الأميركي في العراق وليس في سورية

The American impasse is in Iraq not in Syria

أبريل 9, 2019

Written by Nasser Kandil,

Many American reports including the speech that took place during the electoral campaign of the President Donald Trump reveal that ISIS was born to justify the American return to Iraq in addition to many other goals, and that the management of  the war on ISIS depended on the remaining of the Americans in Iraq for a long time. The few years of ISIS’s age compared with what was predicted by the former US President Barack Obama say that the alert of the resistance forces in Iraq and Iran especially the General Qassim Soleimani refused the American way of getting rid of ISIS which depended on restricting the battle with the Iraqi army and refusing any role of the Popular Crowd on  one hand and on the other hand, it depended on opening corridors  for the withdrawal of ISIS and refusing any tight besiege on it, under the pretext of facilitating the winning in the battles, but the fact was  to prevent ending these battles. The battle of Mosul was a witness of the size of the pressures to exclude the Popular Crowd from the battle of Tal Afar where America and Turkey converged on raising the red card. Iraq refused to obey and the Popular Crowd continued its challenge and closed the corridors in front of ISIS. Therefore, the American plan to prolong the war and the transition from one region to another has failed and the bet on keeping the Syrian army away from the Iraqi borders which become under the control of the Popular Crowd has failed too.

The complete American failure in Syria and in order to avoid the collision with the Syrian army and its allies when the battle of Idlib will finish, the Americans started talking about the withdrawal and its deadline, but they discovered what is more dangerous than the collapse of the front of the Arab, Israeli, Turkish, and Kurdish allies and the rashness of its parties between Moscow and Syria in order to get a bill of insurance. The linkage between the withdrawal and the end of the battle with ISIS paved the way for the battle of getting them out of Iraq as long as the battle is over or about to end. America was thinking that the difference of its legitimate presence covered by the Iraqi government from its non-legitimate presence according the Syrian government is enough to make a difference. The reports of the strategic studies centers in Washington agree that the American concern from the future of the presence in Iraq is the cause of stopping the withdrawal from Syria despite its awareness that the moment of the withdrawal from Syria is not so far and it is not selective or under control.

The campaigns of getting the Americans out of Iraq will not stop; the Popular Crowd raised the slogan to the parliament, and the Prime Minister left the matter to the parliament; the President of the Republic announced that he would not accept the remaining of US bases in Iraq. The US President showed his intentions to create a role for the presence in Iraq entitled observing Iran. In best cases, the Iraqis do not want to be a title used by the Americans in the confrontation with Iran, including the opponents of Iran from the Iraqis. The campaign of ousting the occupation troops embarrasses many people from being neutral and accuses them in their patriotism; it attracts the Iraqi street and reunites its sects.

The American presence in Syria became a secondary issue comparing with the American presence in Iraq, knowing that there is a US talk about the withdrawal from Afghanistan which is approved by the government, therefore, the resistance may resort to force if Washington insists on its staying. The balances of forces show that Washington does not bear the return to face the bleeding of its forces against the resistance which possesses the capacities now. Many Iraqi leaders say that this year will be the last year for the American presence in Iraq.

The strategic dynamic range of the resistance, its countries, and its forces are on a date at the end of this year with a true linkage of the capacities of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. So, Israel has to think very well.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

المأزق الأميركي في العراق وليس في سورية

مارس 8, 2019

ناصر قنديل

– تكشف الكثير من التقارير الأميركية بما فيها الكلام الذي قيل أثناء حملة الرئيس دونالد ترامب الانتخابية، أن اختراع داعش كان بهدف تبرير العودة الأميركية إلى العراق، إضافة لأهداف أخرى عديدة أيضاً، وأن إدارة الحرب على داعش كانت تتم بطريقة تراعي التمهيد لبقاء الأميركيين في العراق إلى أمد طويل. وتقول وقائع السنوات القليلة من عمر داعش قياساً بما بشر به الرئيس الأميركي السابق باراك اوباما، أن تنبّه قوى المقاومة في العراق ومعها إيران، وخصوصاً الجنرال قاسم سليماني، وقفا وراء رفض المنهجية الأميركية للحرب على داعش التي كانت تقوم أولاً على حصر المعركة بالجيش العراقي ورفض أي دور للحشد الشعبي، وتالياً بفتح ممرات انسحاب لداعش ورفض أي حصار محكم على مجموعاتها، بداعي تسهيل الفوز بالمعارك، ولكن بهدف عدم بلوغ نهاية لهذه المعارك. وكانت معركة الموصل شاهداً على حجم الضغوط لاستبعاد الحشد الشعبي من معركة تلعفر، حيث تلاقى الاميركي والتركي على رفع البطاقة الحمراء، ورفض العراق الانصياع ومضى الحشد الشعبي بالتحدي وأغلق طرق الانسحاب أمام داعش، وفشلت الخطة الأميركية بإطالة أمد الحرب والانتقال بها من منطقة إلى منطقة، كما فشل الرهان على إبقاء الجيش السوري بعيداً عن الحدود مع العراق التي باتت تحت سيطرة الحشد الشعبي.

– مع الفشل الأميركي الكامل في سورية وسعياً لتفادي لحظة تصادم قادمة مع الجيش السوري وحلفائه عندما تنتهي معارك إدلب، بدأ الأميركيون يتحدثون عن الانسحاب ومهل الانسحاب والتدرج وعدم التدرج في الانسحاب، لكنهم اكتشفوا ما هو أخطر من انهيار جبهة حلفائهم العربية والإسرائيلية والتركية والكردية وتسابق أطرافها للبحث بين موسكو ودمشق عن بوليصة تأمين. فقد فتح الربط بين الانسحاب ونهاية المعركة مع داعش الباب واسعاً للبدء بمعركة إخراجهم من العراق طالما أن المعركة انتهت أو توشك، بينما كان الظن الأميركي أن الفارق بغطائهم الشرعي من الحكومة العراقية عن وجودهم غير الشرعي بنظر الحكومة السورية سيكون كافياً لإحداث الفارق بين الحالتين العراقية والسورية، وتجمع التقارير التي تصدرها مراكز الدراسات الاستراتيجية في واشنطن أن القلق الأميركي من مستقبل الوجود في العراق هو وراء قرار تجميد الانسحاب من سورية وجدولته، رغم إدراكهم أن لحظة الانسحاب من سورية ليست بعيدة، وليست انتقائية، وليست تحت السيطرة.

– انطلقت حملة إحراج الأميركيين من العراق ولم ولن تتوقف، فقوى الحشد الشعبي تحمل الراية وتنتقل بها إلى مجلس النواب، والأغلبية ماضية بهذا التوجه، ورئيس الحكومة ترك الأمر لما يقرّره المجلس النيابي، ورئيس الجمهورية يعلن أن لا أحد سيقبل ببقاء قواعد أميركية في العراق. وجاء كلام الرئيس الأميركي عن نيات ابتكار دور للوجود في العراق اسمه مراقبة إيران، ليمنح حملة الدعوة لإخراج الأميركيين من العراق زخماً إضافياً، فالعراقيون لا يرغبون بأحسن الأحوال أن يكونوا عنواناً يستخدمه الأميركيون في المواجهة مع إيران، بمن في ذلك خصوم إيران من العراقيين، وحملة إخراج قوات الاحتلال تُحرج الكثيرين من الوقوف على الحياد وتطعن في وطنيتهم، وتستقطب الشارع العراقي وتعيد توحيد طوائفه.

– يتحوّل التمركز الأميركي في سورية إلى قضية ثانوية بالقياس لقضية التمركز الأميركي في العراق، ويكسب دعاة إخراج الأميركيين سبباً إضافياً مع الحديث الأميركي عن الانسحاب من أفغانستان التي يحظون بموافقة حكومتها، لأنهم يخشون أن يتعرّضوا للأذى هناك، ما يجعل التلويح بمقاومة هذا الوجود بالقوة إذا أصرت واشنطن على البقاء عنوة، وتقول موازين القوى إن واشنطن لا تتحمل العودة لمواجهة النزيف بين قواتها بوجه مقاومة تملك من المقدرات هذه المرة ما لم يكن متاحاً للمقاومة التي عرفها الأميركيون قبل سنوات، ويتحدث الكثير من قادة العراق عن أن العام الحالي هو آخر سنة للبقاء الأميركي في العراق.

– المدى الحيوي الاستراتيجي لمحور المقاومة ودوله وقواه على موعد نهاية هذا العام مع ربط حقيقي لمقدرات إيران بالعراق بسورية ولبنان، وعلى «إسرائيل» أن تعيد حساباتها كثيراً ولعلها تفعل ذلك.

Related Videos

Related Articles

Advertisements

سلفيت تحيي حرب استنزاف عبد الناصر والهجوم الاستراتيجي مستمرّ!

مارس 19, 2019

محمد صادق الحسيني

1 ـ انّ محاولة الاجهزة الأمنية الإسرائيلية، ومتعاونين محليين في فلسطين المحتلة، فرض توقيت ايّ حرب على المقاومة الفلسطينية وربما على قوات حلف المقاومة، عبر إطلاق الصواريخ المشبوهة من قطاع غزة باتجاة تل أبيب باءت بالفشل الذريع…!

ومع انكشاف المخطط الإسرائيلي بشكل فوري وضبط النفس الذي تحلت بة فصائل المقاومة، بالاضافة الى عجز نتن ياهو عن دخول مواجهة عسكرية واسعة مع المقاومة الفلسطينية، كل هذة الظروف مجتمعة ادّت ليس فقط إلى فشل المخطط بل إلى اشتعال حرب الجنرالات المسعورة داخل عصابات الصهاينة…!

2 ـ انّ العملية التي نفذها فدائي فلسطيني، عمره 19 عاماً بالقرب من مستوطنة ارئيل المقامة على اراضي بلدة سلفيت المصادرة، جاءت لتكشف عجز الجيش الإسرائيلي التامّ، ليس فقط في مواجهة حلف المقاومة أو أحد مكوّناته، بل حتى عن مواجهة فدائي واحد، لم يكن مسلحاً وإنما غنم سلاحه، بندقية من طراز M 16 من جنود الاحتلال الذين اشتبك معهم في موقعين بعد العملية الأولى وأثناء عمليات المطاردة والتي شارك فيها قرابة أربعين ألف جندي «إسرائيلي»، علماً انّ مساحة المنطقة التي تجري فيها المطاردة لا تزيد عن مائة كيلومتر مربع.

لذلك لكم ان تتخيّلوا ما الذي سيواجهه الجيش «الإسرائيلي»، في حال حصول حرب على الجبهة الشمالية… حيث ستكون خطوط إمداده تحت رحمة الفدائيين الفلسطينيين، الذين سبق لهم ان طبّقوا هذا التكتيك في ستينيات وسبعينيات القرن الماضي.

3 ـ فقبيل البدء بحرب الاستنزاف المصرية، على جبهة قناة السويس 1968 ـ 1970، عقد الرئيس جمال عبد الناصر اجتماعاً مع الشهيد ياسر عرفات، الذي كان قائداً لحركة فتح ولم تكن التنظيمات الفدائية قد دخلت منظمة التحرير بعد، سأل خلاله الرئيس عبد الناصر الشهيد أبو عمار عما إذا كانت حركة فتح قادرة على تثبيت لواء قوة «إسرائيلية» بحجم لواء في غور الأردن غرب النهر حيث انّ الغور يسمّى كذلك نسبة الى النهر الذي اسمة نهر الأردن وذلك للتخفيف من الضغط العسكري «الإسرائيلي» على جبهة القناة عند الضرورة. فأجاب أبو عمار بأنّ قوات الثورة الفلسطينية قادرة على تثبيت فرقة الى فرقتين حوالي ثلاثين الف جندي وليس لواءً واحداً فقط. فقال له عبد الناصر: إذاً، توكلنا على الله.

وكان ما كان آنذاك.

4 ـ وعليه نستطيع القول انّ من الممنوع على نتن ياهو وحكومته وجنرالاته ان يفرضوا على قوات حلف المقاومة توقيت البدء بتنفيذ المرحلة النهائية من الهجوم الاستراتيجي، الذي بدأ في حلب، والذي لن يتوقف الا بتحرير القدس وإعادتها عاصمة لكلّ فلسطين.

وإذا كان صحيحاً القول بأنّ كلّ ما يلزم للبدء بتنفيذ المرحلة النهائية من الهجوم الاستراتيجي قد أصبح جاهزاً، كصواريخ حزب الله الدقيقة التي تغطي كلّ فلسطين المحتلة وجيش من القوات الشعبية، على اهبة الاستعداد في كلّ من سورية والعراق، يبلغ تعداده ما يربو على مائتي ألف مقاتل، كما صرّح يوم أمس الأول اللواء محمد جعفري قائد الحرس الثوري الإيراني.

5 ـ لكن قرار بدء المعركة لن يتخذه نتن ياهو وإنما قادة أركان جيوش كلّ من إيران والعراق وسورية المجتمعين في دمشق لمناقشة تفاصيل ذلك ووضع الخطط الاستراتيجية اللازمة للمستقبل والكفيلة بتغيير خارطة المنطقة باتجاه إنهاء الوجود الاستعماري الأميركي والأوروبي منها بشكل كامل. الأمر الذي سيساهم بشكل كبير في إعادة تشكيل ميزان القوى الدولي وإنهاء سيطرة وهيمنة القطب الواحد، أيّ الولايات المتحدة، على مقدرات شعوب العالم.

6 ـ وها هو رئيس أركان الجيش العراقي، الذي شارك في كلّ الحروب العربية ضدّ الاحتلال «الإسرائيلي» لفلسطين، يعلن من دمشق عن قرب فتح معبر حدودي بين العراق وسورية بشكل كامل ودائم. وهو الأمر الذي يعني فتح الطريق البري الرابط بين موسكو وبيروت، عبر كلّ من طهران وبغداد ودمشق، وما يعنيه ذلك من أبعاد استراتيجية في المنطقة سيكون لها ما بعدها في أقرب الآجال، خاصة أنّ من أعلن عن قرب فتح المعبر ليس وزيراً للمواصلات وانما رئيساً لجيش العراق البطل، الذي تسانده عشرات آلاف الوحدات العسكرية المقاتلة والمنضوية تحت لواء الحشد الشعبي العراقي.

ولمزيد من التوضيح فمن الواجب القول بأنّ هذا التطوّر يشكل رسالة واضحة لقوات الاحتلال الأميركي في كلّ من سورية والعراق… مؤداها: ارحلوا وإلا…!

7 ـ هذا في الوقت الذي تقف فية الولايات المتحدة عاجزة عن الدخول في حروب جديدة، سواء في سورية والعراق أو غيرها من مناطق العالم، رغم أنها لا زالت قادرة على إشعال الفتن والحروب الداخلية في مناطق عديدة من العالم. ولكنها وعلى الرغم من ذلك ستواجة هزيمة ساحقة، أمام روسيا والصين، في أي حرب قادمة كما ورد في دراسة نشرتها مؤسسة راند الأميركيةRAND Corpoation قبل أيّام، علماً أنّ هذة المؤسسة تعتبر من المؤسسات المحافظة والقريبة جداً من الرئيس ترامب.

8 ـ من هنا يجب النظر إلى الزيادة التي طرأت على ميزانية البنتاغون، للعام 2019، التي بلغت سبعمائة وخمسين مليار دولار، ليس فقط على أنها زيادة تهدف الى مزيد من الاستعدادات لشنّ حروب جديدة في العالم وإنما أيضاً من أجل تصحيح الكثير من الخلل الذي تعاني منه الجيوش الأميركية في مجال التسليح.

فها هي البنتاغون تطلب قبل أيّام قليلة، حسب ما نشره موقع Task and Purpose الأميركي، شراء 10193 عشرة صاروخاً مدفعية صاروخية موجهة في موازنة 2020، ما يعني زيادة 26 عن عدد الصواريخ التي تمّ شراؤها في ميزانية 2019، والتي كان عددها 8101، بينما الرقم المطلوب شراؤه للعام 2020 زيادة تبلغ 43 عن ما تمّ شراؤة في ميزانية 2018، حيث كان عدد الصواريخ التي تمّ شراؤها آنذاك 6936 صاروخاً فقط.

وحسب ما ورد في حيثيات طلب البنتاغون، التي نشرها الموقع الأميركي المشار اليه أعلاه، فإنّ البنتاغون تخطط لتوجيه هذة الصواريخ الى كلّ من روسيا والصين.

9 ـ كما يجب على المرء ان لا يتجاهل الأوضاع السيئة التي تعاني منها القوات الجوية والبحرية الأميركية، بما فيها المشاكل الهائلة التي تواجه طائرة أف 35 وانكشافها تماماً أمام سطوة شبكات الدفاع الجوي الروسية من طراز «أس 400» و «أس 500».

كما لا بدّ من الانتباه الى الاوضاع المشابهة والتي تعاني منها جيوش دول حلف الشمال الأطلسي الرئيسية، مثل بريطانيا وألمانيا وفرنسا. اذ نشرت صحيفة «فيلت ام سونتاغ» الألمانية المحافظة يوم الأحد الفائت تقريراً حول التقييم السرّي لقدرات الجيش الألماني العسكرية جاء فيه انّ 6.11 فقط من مروحيات الجيش من طراز تايغر النمر ، وعددها 53 مروحية، جاهزة للعمل، بينما هناك 5.17 فقط من مروحيات النقل الثقيلة، من طراز NH، جاهزة للعمل.

وهو الأمر الذي أثار جدلاً واسعاً في ألمانيا، رغم محاولة المفتش العام للجيش الألماني، ايرهارد تسرون، التخفيف من وقع التقرير على الرأي العام وذلك من خلال تصريحه بأنّ 70 من قوات ومعدات الجيش الألماني قادرة على العمل بشكل عام.

عالمهم ينهار رويداً رويداً فيما عالمنا ينهض ساعة بعد ساعة.

بعدنا طيّبين قولوا الله…

Hezbollah-linked Analyst on reality of Russia’s alliance with Iran/Hezbollah – English Subs

Source

Hezbollah-linked Analyst on reality of Russia’s alliance with Iran/Hezbollah – English Subs

Here’s our first video translation after YouTube terminated our channel:

Description:

Senior political analyst Anees Naqqash, who has very close ties to Hezbollah and enjoys an authoritative status on various Lebanese, Syrian and Arab media outlets, was asked in a recent interview on Lebanese television: how can Iran & the ‘Resistance Axis’ be strategically allied to Russia while Moscow’s officials repeatedly announce their commitment to Israel’s security?

The ‘Resistance Axis’ here broadly refers to a strategic anti-Israel/anti-US imperialism alliance composed of, but not limited to, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Iraq’s Hashed al-Shaabi, Yemen’s Ansarullah, and various Palestinian armed factions.

Source: OTV Lebanon (YouTube)

Date: 20 February, 2019

Transcript:

Host:

However there is something that remains unclear till now, and that is the Russian-Iranian relationship. I’d like you to shed some light on this, and to clarify some ambiguities if they exist. How do you describe the relationship between Iran and Russia and its continuation in the region, especially in Syria?

Naqqash:

This ambiguity that can be seen is a media plan. Meaning that there is a ‘media kitchen’ whose aim is to portray as if there are contradictions, in order to undo this alliance. We can see that some of the political objectives of some Americans is to undo the Chinese-Russian alliance. Some (Americans) such as Trump, say that we must get closer to Russia in order to isolate China, while others say we must work with China to isolate Russia.

In this region here, some (Americans) believe that the Russian-Iranian alliance is a great threat, firstly because it brought a power – that is an adversary of the United States – to the Middle East region. Secondly, because (this alliance) strengthened the Resistance Axis – without (Russia) becoming a (formal) part of the Resistance Axis. The Resistance Axis became stronger because it now had air cover, air defence, (greater) intelligence (data), coordination e.t.c. According to (reliable) information, the ones who brought the Russians to the region – to Syria – were the Iranians, and not the other way around. (The Iranians) brought them, meaning they convinced them to come – ‘brought’ is probably not a nice word – what convinced them to come is the following, and these are the words of Jalili to President Putin – (Saeed) Jalili was the head of (the Supreme) National Security (Council):

‘The main weak point of the United States in the world is the Middle East region, and we are able to weaken it to a greater extent if we were to cooperate, because we have clear evidence that demonstrates how we have already weakened the United States (in the Middle East)’. This is the specific point that ‘clicked’ for President Putin, and so he took the decision at that time to come to Syria, after he took guarantees that the Resistance (Axis) is the one that will work on the ground, while (Putin) is to take care of the air power.

The second point which convinced (Putin) of this alliance is the issue of terrorism. This terrorism is not limited to Syria or Iraq, but rather, could (even) reach the Fergana Valley: the border region between Afghanistan and Russia (i.e. the Soviet Union), and it is well known that Chechnya was ablaze before President Putin came and ended this armed rebellion, you also have Tatarstan, Dagestan, and 7-8 Muslim republics in the Russian Federation, the British, American, and Saudi intelligence work day and night on (these republics) in order to ignite this region. Hence there is an interest (to fight terrorism), and so President Putin had said on many occasions that ‘we are fighting them in Syria so that they do not come to us’. This issue even extended to China, with the Uyghurs and the separatist threat, and today (China) has a problem, money is being pumped (into this region), and you have 4,000 Uyghurs who came to fight in Syria, I don’t know who brought them here from China and trained them…

Therefore these (Iranian-Russian) understandings are strategic. As for geopolitics, today the Chinese-Russian-Iranian understanding regarding Afghanistan, which is the heart of Central Asia, and which forms an intersection for more than one border and state, (this understanding) is in place and continues very strongly. Meaning that the Russian-Iranian strategic understanding does not stop at the Syrian file, but rather extends to international (geopolitical) equations related to confronting the United States’ influence, and relates to the safeguarding of the security of Russia and China. If you are protecting a state’s internal security, this is very important for such (major) states. For this reason (Russia) is a strategic ally in more than one way. Now in Syria on the ground, if you have differences like whether to start with Idlib first as opposed to Deir az-Zour, or should we suffice ourselves with (this or that)…all this goes back to the varying perspectives of both (Iran and Russia).

Iran is a first-degree regional power, which views (things) as a regional power, and Russia is a global power that views (things) as a global power. For this reason, the Iranians cannot say ‘I can attract the Turks 100% to my axis’, because there is a certain balance (of power) between the Turks and the Iranians. The Russians can dream, work on, and achieve this result, in the sense that they have the ability to pull the Turks out of NATO and bring it into the Shanghai (Organisation). The Iranians are unable to do this…and this (sometimes) causes a difference – to some extent – between Russian and Iranian tactics. With regards to Israel, the Russians are not with the liberation of Palestine in the sense that we talk about. However, (Russia) is not against the ‘Resistance Axis’ being strong (and capable) of confronting Israel, and the Israeli army, which is an American and Western tool, all its weapons are Western-made, when Russian weapons are victorious over Western weapons – we saw how the Kornet (anti-tank missile) began to be sold throughout the world, we saw how Saudi Arabia and the Emirates are buying today the S-400 and how everyone is rushing towards Russian weapons – all this is because of the manifestation (of the effectiveness) of Russian weapons in the region, beginning with the resistance Hezbollah, and ending with the (direct) Russian presence in the (Middle East).

Host:

But sorry…Russia, according to the words of prominent (Russian) officials, has pledged to safeguard the security of Israel. How does Iran reconcile between its strong alliance or partnership with Russia who in turn pledges to safeguard Israel’s security? And the Russians have said this and announce it every day. The Russians say we are committed to Israel’s security. It is as if the (Russians) reached an agreement with the Americans, telling the (Americans) ‘not to worry, you could leave Syria, leave the security of Israel to us. You don’t talk to Iran and (Hezbollah), but we’ll talk to them, you guys don’t worry’….

——————–

A commitment to the security of Israel, is different to defending Israel. The United States says ‘we are committed to ensuring that Israel remains stronger than all Arab states, and we are committed to its security and defending it’. Russia does not (tell Israel) I am committed to defending you, because (Russia) acts within international law. Any state that respects international law and is a member of (the UN) – Israel is a recognised member (of this body) and hence (Russia) says that it abides by this. Meaning that (Russia) does not (officially support) a full-scale regional war. (However) is (Russia) able to prevent the Resistance Axis or Syria from taking a decision to retake the Golan (Heights)? No he is not, because this also falls under international law.

Host:

So why did (the Russians) move Iran and Hezbollah away from southern Syria?

Naqqash:

I take you back to President Putin’s statement that ‘we must go back to the ceasefire agreement, and to remind (all sides) that the Golan (Heights) is occupied land’. (Putin) did not forget to say this last part. Whether (the Russians) moved the Iranians away from the Golan (Heights) or brought them closer to it, these are really just details. Why are they just details? Let me tell you what the Israelis (themselves) say today, after Netanyahu got all happy, the Israelis today say that: ‘we now have intelligence that (the Iranians & Hezbollah) took off their military uniforms and put on Syrian army uniforms’.

Host:

Oh okay, I get it.

Naqqash:

The (Israelis) are saying this, not me. Secondly, (it is a fact) that the Resistance Axis is present in Syria, and that it has committed itself – in an official Iranian-Syrian agreement – to rebuilding the Syrian Armed Forces to the highest level, such that it can thwart all dangers. What does this mean? It means we wish to make the Syrian army stronger than what it was, and we want it to have a missile capability – what kind of missile capability? If Israel is afraid of the Lebanese missile capability (of Hezbollah), what about if this same capability was also now present in Syria? Despite the fact that – and I don’t hide things from our people, things that the Israelis already know – that 90% of the missiles in Lebanon are Syrian-made, or come via Syrian capabilities, so if (the Syrians) are giving me, does that mean they don’t have (such missiles)?

Host:

Are they Syrian-made or Iranian-made in Syria?

Naqqash:

No no, today technology can be transferred, just like when you get the ‘under license’ right you can manufacture yourself.

Host:

Franchise..

Naqqash:

Yes franchise, or through cooperation, sometimes you have experience in something and I have experience in something – they are openly cooperating, (Iran & Syria) made an agreement, they officially signed it between the two states, with the aim of building up the Syrian Armed Forces.

So today Israel’s problem is that you have a Resistance Axis whose presence has extended, between Syria and Lebanon, and so things have now changed. Where do the Russians stand regarding these developments? Will they tell (President) Assad you are not allowed to arm yourself, or you are not allowed to retake the Golan (Heights), or that you must become weaker?

Ofcourse, if some think that the Resistance Axis was going to come and place the flag of Hezbollah in Dara’a or on the Syrian borders with the Zionist entity, this would be considered as a type of incitement for the international community…yet who will prevent a Syrian decision today to militarily take back the Golan (Heights)? International law allows them to do this, international law! And Russia allows (the Syrians) to do this and (in fact) wish they actually do (retake it). And the Resistance Axis does not want from Syria anything more than this. The issue of the liberation of Palestine will be pursued by the Resistance Axis via other contexts.

Therefore, there are no real (Iran-Russia) contradictions…to the contrary, coordination, especially between the Russian forces and Hezbollah, is at its highest level. And the Russians are greatly impressed by Hezbollah’s fighters, as resistance fighters who fought in 50-degree Celsius temperatures in the (Syrian) deserts, and they fought in -14 degree Celsius temperatures during the snowstorms in the mountaintops. This all occurred under the eyes of the Russians, who saw (Hezbollah’s) coordination abilities, and (Hezbollah’s) ability to move not only small groups of guerrilla forces but also an entire ground force brigade.

When Sayyed Hassan (Nasrallah) said that they brought him the news that ‘we liberated a (Syrian) land mass five times the size of Lebanon’, it is true, (Nasrallah) said he was abit surprised at this news, but it is true, 50,000 square kilometres, (Hezbollah) was able to liberate and take control of this whole land area.

Host:

That’s right, using armoured and tactical brigades and…

Naqqash:

Yes all types of forces – thus huge, fundamental transformations have occurred.
For this reason when I say today (Nasrallah commands) half a million (trained) fighters (within the Resistance Axis), I am not exaggerating, and (the resistance enjoys) tactical, command, and operational capabilities much greater than what they were during the 2006 (war). For this reason (Nasrallah) said that we have 40 (military) regions in Lebanon today, just one of these regions contains within it more capabilities than the entire capabilities of (Hezbollah) in the year 2000. Thus there are very great transformations occurring in the balance of power.


The best way to stay up to date with MEO’s content is to subscribe to its website mailing list (see below), and/or to be following as many of its media channels as possible (also below).

Support MEO on Patreon: Help their work continue and grow with as little as $1/month: https://www.patreon.com/MiddleEastObserver

Subscribe – Website Mailing List: http://middleeastobserver.net/subscribe/

Follow – Daily Motion channel: https://www.dailymotion.com/MiddleEastObserver

Like – Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/MEO.Translation/

Assad’s Tehran Visit Signals Iran’s Victory in Syria

March 9, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci – NEO) – For the first tiirme since war broke out in Syria in 2011, Syrian President Bashar Al Assad has travelled to Iran to meet Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.

President Assad had only travelled outside of Syria on two other occasions during the war – both times to Russia.

The significance of the trip cannot be understated – it was a message sent to those who orchestrated the proxy war against Syria that Damascus has prevailed and instead of driving a wedge between it and its allies in Moscow and Tehran – it has only drawn these regional powers closer together.

The symbol of solidarity between Syria and Iran comes at a time when Washington finds itself vacillating between a full withdrawal from Syria, a redeployment to Iraq, or an attempt to drag out the conclusion of the Syrian conflict for as long as possible by keeping US forces there indefinitely.

The Washington Post in its article, “Syria’s Assad visits Iran in rare trip abroad,” would admit:

U.S. officials said Trump’s decision authorizing a small number of U.S. troops to stay is a key step in creating a larger multinational observer force that would monitor a so-called safe zone along Syria’s border with Turkey. The buffer zone is meant to prevent clashes between Turkey and U.S.-backed Kurdish forces. It is also aimed at preventing Assad’s forces and Iran-backed fighters from seizing more territory.

The US will also seek to preserve militants – many of which are openly aligned with designated terrorist organizations – still occupying the northern Syrian governorate of Idlib.

While the US has certainly failed in its goal of regime change in Syria and even as it appears weak and confused regarding its policy in Syria and the Middle East in general – its potential to prolong the Syrian conflict and leave the nation more or less permanently divided persists.

Iran is in Syria for Good 

President Assad’s visit to Iran was not only a symbolic gesture of gratitude for Iran’s role in helping Syria prevail over US aggression – it is also a clear sign that Iranian influence has only grown in Syria. Iranian-backed militias have spread across both Syria and Iraq to confront US and Persian Gulf-backed terrorists including various factions of Al Qaeda and the self-proclaimed Islamic State (ISIS) itself.

Washington’s gamble banked on what it had hoped would be a relatively quick regime change operation following along the same lines as the US-backed proxy war in Libya. The Syrian government was meant to fold quickly – the US appears not to have anticipated its resilience nor the eventual Russian military intervention in 2015. Washington may also not have anticipated the scale and efficacy of the commitment made by Tehran.

Instead of liquidating one of Iran’s allies thus further isolating Tehran ahead of US-backed regime change efforts aimed directly at Iran – the terrorist proxies the US and its regional partners sponsored in Syria served as impetus for Tehran to broaden and deepen the presence of its forces – including militias sponsored by Iran – across the region, and specifically in Syria and Iraq.

US policy papers predating the 2011 proxy war against Syria – including the RAND Corporation’s 2009 publication titled, “Dangerous But Not Omnipotent : Exploring the Reach and Limitations of Iranian Power in the Middle East,” noted that much of Iran’s domestic and regional policies revolved around self-defense.

The RAND paper itself would note:

Iran’s strategy is largely defensive, but with some offensive elements. Iran’s strategy of protecting the regime against internal threats, deterring aggression, safeguarding the homeland if aggression occurs, and extending influence is in large part a defensive one that also serves some aggressive tendencies when coupled with expressions of Iranian regional aspirations. It is in part a response to U.S. policy pronouncements and posture in the region, especially since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The Iranian leadership takes very seriously the threat of invasion given the open discussion in the United States of regime change, speeches defining Iran as part of the “axis of evil,” and efforts by U.S. forces to secure base access in states surrounding Iran.

RAND also noted Iran’s preference for asymmetrical warfare over conventional military forces and the use of resistance militias across the region. The report would note:

Some of Iran’s asymmetric capabilities are threatening. Because of its inferior conventional military forces, Iran’s defense doctrine, particularly its ability to deter aggressors, relies heavily on asymmetric warfare. Iranian strategists favor guerilla efforts that offer superior mobility, fighting morale, and popular support (e.g., the Hezbollah model in Lebanon) to counter a technologically superior conventional power— namely, the United States.

These militias would end up playing a significant role in neutralizing both asymmetrical forces sponsored by the US and its regional partners, as well as conventional military forces deployed by the US and Europe in both Syria and Iraq. It is clear that US policymakers were aware of Iran’s capabilities – and either ignored them or believed their own plans had sufficiently accounted for them.

Iran’s significant and long-term investments in sponsoring resistance forces including Hezbollah and Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) across the Middle East coupled with Russia’s significant conventional military capabilities left little chance for success for US-sponsored militants – with Russia’s role in Syria preventing a more muscular conventional military response from the US when its proxy forces began to crumble.

The US and its regional partners – particularly Israel – have expressed a determination to dislodge the growing Iranian presence their own proxy war on Syria necessitated. However, despite repeated Israeli airstrikes on Syrian territory – it is clear that such airstrikes alone will accomplish very little and in the long-term even signals weakness that will only further rally Iran’s allies, justify their continued expansion across the region, and further broaden and deepen their positions well beyond Iran’s own borders – making a US-led regime change war against Iran itself a more remote possibility than ever.
America’s Flagging Unipolar Order 

The US faces an ignominious retreat from the Middle East – as well as from other areas around the globe. Its refusal to shift from its 20th century unipolar hegemonic ambitions to a constructive 21st century multipolar player may be closing permanently windows of opportunity that will cost it significantly as others displace its influence and reach in regions like the Middle East.

Russia and Iran are clearly benefactors of Washington’s stubbornness. But as Russia and Iran have both repeatedly expressed a desire for more constructive relations with the United States – perhaps policymakers in Washington believe they can risk pursuing destructive hegemonic ambitions to carve out or coerce from the region the best position possible in the Middle East before coming to the table to negotiate.

More likely though – the world is witnessing a 21st century rendition of the British Empire’s withdrawal from around the globe, stubbornly being thrown out of one corner of its realm after the other until relegated as Washington’s subordinate. For Washington, there is no other Western power for it to hand the torch of Western imperialism over to. Once it is evicted from around the globe, it will struggle to find a relevant or more constructive role to play in these regions ever again.

By virtue of Washington’s shortsightedness and its inability to adapt to the world as it really is versus how Washington desires it to be – Washington has proven itself unfit to lead the “international order” it presumes dominion over.

In a global order predicated on “might makes right,” Washington is now faced with the reality of no longer being mightiest, and thus no longer “right.”

Iran’s patient and measured resistance has proven capable of challenging and rolling back American hegemony in the Middle East and serving the ultimate goal of Tehran’s asymmetrical strategy – the defense of Iran itself.

While the prospect of US war with Iran can never be fully ruled out, it is a possibility that appears to be fading into the distance as US power wanes regionally and globally. But a flagging empire is a desperate empire. While the days of US regime change wars burning a path of destruction across the Middle East appear to be over, continued patience and persistence must be maintained by Syria and its Russian and Iranian allies to ensure the victories they are celebrating today endure and are expanded upon well into the future.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook”.

Prof. Tim Anderson to ST: Britain’s move against Hezbollah appeases US, assists Netanyahu and the Zionist lobby

ST

Monday, 04 March 2019

The Australian political economist and author Prof. Tim Anderson has asserted that  Britain’s proscription of the Lebanese Hezbollah as “terrorist” is first an attempt to fabricate some domestic support for the May government, second to appease Washington and third to assist both Netanyahu and the Zionist lobby in Britain.

He made it clear that Hezbollah expelled Israel from Lebanon, and helped restore some pride in the country, so too the Popular Mobilization Forces (Hashid al Shaabi), which saved Iraq from DAESH, have led the 2018-2019 agitation to expel US forces from Iraq, after 15 years of military occupation.

The professor’s remarks came during an interview with the Syria Times e-newspaper over the goal and effects of Britain’s recent move against Hezbollah besides the absence of western demand for fighting against the black-listed Al-Nusra Front terrorist in Syria’s Idlib.

Following is the full text of the interview:

ST-Why has Britain proscribed Hezbollah as a “terror” group, at this time??

Prof. Anderson: This move by the British government to proscribe Hezbollah as ‘terrorist’ does not come in response to any particular incident, nor any particular threat to Britain. Nevertheless, Britain’s traditional support for the zionist colony in Palestine has led it, from time to time, to adopt Israel’s enemies as its own. In the past Britain, recognising the influence of Hezbollah as a political party in Lebanon, had tried to distinguish between its ‘military’ and ‘political’ wings, and at times its ‘external wing’. Upgrading the aggression, by trying to brand the entire organisation as ‘terrorist’, at this time, must be seen in current political circumstances. The current British government, led by Theresa May, does not have a majority in the parliament and has been fighting for its survival by, amongst other things, trying to brand Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn as ‘anti-semitic’ for his support of Palestine. The Israeli lobby in Britain has been central to this campaign. At the same time, President Trump has led a new wave of support for the apartheid state, backing the annexation of Jerusalem; and Zionist leader Benjamin Netanyahu is fighting for his own political survival, facing an Israeli election and a criminal indictment. It is most likely that the move against Hezbollah is first an attempt to fabricate some domestic support for the May government, second to appease Washington and third to assist both Netanyahu and the zionist lobby in Britain.

ST-What will be the effect of this step on Hezbollah and Lebanon taking into account that the EU refuses to brand Hezbollah as terror entity?

Prof. Anderson: The move is certainly a British slap in the face to Lebanon, as Hezbollah is more than ever a central part of the Lebanese government. Last year’s elections saw an expansion in support for Hezbollah (‘The Resistance’) mainly in Christian and Sunni Muslim communities. It already held overwhelming support in the Shi’a community. Britain’s move also supports the US economic ‘sanctions’ against Hezbollah, which threaten Lebanese banking. The position of the EU is slightly different, reflecting the somewhat more diverse positions within Europe on relations with the Arab and Muslim world. Nevertheless, the EU did upgrade its listing of Hezbollah’s ‘military wing’ in 2013, a move which Hezbollah officials described as “written with an American hand in Zionist ink” (https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/23/world/middleeast/european-union-adds-hezbollah-wing-to-terror-list.html). Israel lobbyists have been trying to achieve a blanket ban on the Resistance group across all western countries. They have made some gains.

ST-Who will be affected by this recognition, and who will get benefit from it?

Prof. Anderson: Looking at the bigger picture, Britain has been following the USA in virtually all forms of aggression against the West Asian region; that includes the nine current wars against the peoples of Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Bahrain, Iran and Yemen. The economic ‘sanctions’ imposed by Washington, including economic blockades, affect almost all those same countries. Britain has been playing catch up. The aim has been to fragment and weaken the independent Arab and Muslim states, so as to more easily dominate the region and control access to its resources. Lebanon has not escaped this economic war, which will affect all parties. Hezbollah claims it is not much affected, but ordinary economic activities in the country will suffer through manipulation of and controls over finance and trade. The up side is that extreme pressures coming from Washington are driving the creation of alternative trade and finance mechanisms, the latest of which is the BRICS payments system (https://www.rt.com/business/452737-brics-own-payment-system/). There is a European version of this, in particular to maintain links with Iran, but it remains weak due to excess European commercial dependency on the USA (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/06/european-clearing-house-to-bypass-us-sanctions-against-iran).

ST- Why do Britain and its master not call for fighting against the black-listed Al-Nusra Front terrorist in Idlib?

Prof. Anderson: The wars and economic siege measures, carried out by the imperial powers, are inextricably combined. Siege and propaganda weaken what terrorist proxy armies attack. Of course, the USA and Britain have armed and funded all the terrorist groups in the region, but they only openly do this for what they call the ‘moderate’ groups and affiliates like the al Qaeda public relations front the White Helmets

Britain and France funded a range of other terrorist affiliates, including the Ghouta Media Centre and the Aleppo Media Centre (https://21stcenturywire.com/2016/09/20/exclusive-aleppo-media-centre-funded-by-french-foreign-office-eu-and-us/), then used them to ‘verify’ their own propaganda (https://counter-hegemonic-studies.net/humanitarian-war-rp-1-18/).

More than four years ago senior US officials admitted that their ‘major Arab allies’ were funding and arming the internationally proscribed terrorist groups, al Nusra and ISIS/DAESH

So, in summary, the would-be imperial power in Washington and the former colonial powers Britain and France, from the beginning, have played a double game: condemning al Nusra and ISIS while covertly supporting them, to advance their strategic objective of destroying independent political will in the region. It follows that they will try to sustain ISIS/DAESH and/or the SDF, in eastern and northern Syria, and the al Nusra linked groups in Idlib, for as long as possible. It is only the resistance of Syria, Iran, Iraq and Hezbollah, with allies including Russia, that have been able to eliminate this terrorism.

ST-Would you like to add anything?

Prof. Anderson: It is important to recognize that, just as Hezbollah expelled Israel from Lebanon, and helped restore some pride in the country, so too the Popular Mobilization Forces (Hashid al Shaabi), which saved Iraq from DAESH, have led the 2018-2019 agitation to expel US forces from Iraq, after 15 years of military occupation.

For example, Sheikh Qais al-Khazali, leader of Asaib Ahl al-Haq (League of the Righteous) called for US military withdrawal in 2017 (https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2017/10/24/539730/Iraq-Hashd-alShaabi-US), and repeated that call in 2019. He said there was no longer any justification for the presence of US forces, asserting his belief that more than half the new National Assembly “reject the presence” of US troops. “If the United States wants to impose its presence by force, and to bypass the Iraqi constitution and parliament, Iraq can treat it the same way and drive it out by force… But the first phase is political,” al-Khazali said (https://apnews.com/109a9aabe987430cbe63e4a668711833).

The colonial states smear and sanction both Hezbollah and Hashid al Shaabi, with lies that they are ‘terrorists’ or extreme sectarians who do not care about their own people. Coming from the sponsors of al Qaeda, al Nusra and DAESH, that is hard to stomach. The sectarian accusation, from western and Zionist sources, has more to do with the frustration of ‘divide and rule’ strategies, as also their dismay in seeing a revival of political will amongst their opponents. Yet the region has seen an alliance of the downtrodden (mustadafin) which, with mature leadership, has built wider alliances.

It is worth mentioning that University of Sydney Provost Stephen Garton has chosen- as a pretext- one tiny, buried image in the background of info graphic, shown during advisory analysis made by professor Tim Anderson  about the Israeli attacks on Gaza, to suspend him from his position as a senior lecturer and to ban him from entering the university at which he has worked for more than 20 years.

At the beginning of this month, lawyers lodged an application in the Fair Work Commission, contesting the professor’s dismissal by the University of Sydney.

Interviewed by: Basma Qaddour

From Lebanon to Iraq: US-Iran escalation shows no sign of abating

Lina Khatib is the Head of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Chatham House.
Both the United States and Iran are sending messages of no compromise to one another
Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei greets Syrian President Bashar al-Assad (L) in Tehran on 25 February during a rare visit (AFP)

On Monday, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad visited Tehran, only his third trip abroad since the start of the Syrian conflict in 2011, following trips to Russia in 2015 and 2017.

Assad’s Tehran visit is largely symbolic, marking the declared “victory” of his forces with the support of Iran, but it can also be read as part of an escalating American-Iranian showdown that is playing out in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon.

Iran’s narrative

The visit came shortly after US President Donald Trump declared victory against the Islamic State group (IS). Trump boasted on Twitter that: “We have defeated ISIS”, with the “we” referring to the US-led international anti-ISIS coalition.

Of course, Iran is not part of that coalition, but it has been justifying its own military intervention in Syria as being about countering what it calls “takfiri jihadis”, of which IS is a component. Trump’s statement- indirectly – completely dismisses this Iranian narrative.

Iran is widely viewed in the West as a destabilising force in Syria, even by countries that remain committed to the nuclear deal with Tehran, which the United States withdrew from last year.

Iran – like Russia – firmly believes that IS and other “takfiri” groups are part of an American plot to destabilise the Middle East

Iran-backed militias, led by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Hezbollah, have been fighting alongside the Syrian Arab army since at least 2012.

Iran’s support has enabled Assad to survive the conflict, although whether Iran would have managed to achieve this outcome without Russia’s own intervention remains questionable.

Iran – like Russia – firmly believes that IS and other “takfiri” groups are part of an American plot to destabilise the Middle East. Both Russia and Iran say they are intervening to stand up to American meddling and to stabilise the region.

American plots

During Assad’s visit, Ayatollah Khamenei praised what he referred to as Syria’s “victory”, presenting it as another example of Iran’s victory – not against IS, but against American “plots” in the Middle East, according to Khamenei. The choice of the word “victory” is a direct response to Trump’s “victory” statement about IS.

US soldiers in Syrian city of Manbij in March 2018(AFP)
While the US is withdrawing its forces from Syria, many are due to be redeployed to the Iraq-Syria border (AFP)

The tension between Iran and the US is not rising in the Syrian context alone. In Iraq, Iran-backed militias from the Popular Mobilization Units (PMUs) have recently started questioning the continued presence of American troops there now that the Iraqi government has also declared military victory against IS.

Qais al-Khazali, a prominent PMU militia leader and politician, said in an interview with Reuters that he sees no reason for US troops to remain in Iraq.

The tension between Iran and US is not rising in the Syrian context alone. In Iraq, Iran-backed militias have recently started questioning the US presence in the country

PMU fighters have been deploying in larger numbers to the Iraqi-Syrian border, saying they need to be there to support the Iraqi Army in securing the border and preventing an IS resurgence.

Although President Trump announced that the United States is to withdraw all but 400 American troops from Syria, the troops that are leaving Syria are mainly going to be re-deployed in the Ayn al-Assad military base in Iraq near the Syrian border.

Keeping some troops in north-eastern Syria and augmenting the numbers present in Iraq is a way for the United States not just to continue the battle against IS insurgents but also to “watch Iran” from Iraq, as Trump declared in late January.

This was not lost on Khamenei, who declared during Assad’s visit that the US plan to be actively present on the Syria-Iraq border “must be decisively rejected and resisted”.

The escalation in Lebanon

The escalation in US-Iranian tensions also extends to Lebanon. Coinciding with Assad’s Tehran visit, the UK announced on Monday that it was designating Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation. Previously, the UK had made a distinction between the military and political wings of Hezbollah.

The UK is now following in US footsteps on the status of Hezbollah. UK Home Secretary Sajid Javid has announced that: “We are no longer able to distinguish between the already banned military wing and the political party”, while Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt added that the UK government’s action is a signal that Hezbollah’s “destabilising activities” in the Middle East “are totally unacceptable and detrimental to the UK’s national security”.

Hezbollah: The real winner of the Syrian war?

Read More »

The UK designation comes four months after the US announced it was imposing further sanctions targeting “foreign persons and government agencies that knowingly assist or support Hezbollah and Hezbollah-affiliated networks”, in the words of White House press secretary Sarah Sanders.

Trump emphasised that the Hezbollah sanctions are part of the larger plan to increase pressure on Iran.

Another major event coinciding with Assad’s trip and the UK’s designation of Hezbollah is the surprise resignation of Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif.

Many have linked the timing of his resignation to Assad’s visit to Tehran, which Zarif did not take part in, while noting the prominence of the leader of al-Quds Force and the architect of Iran’s interventions in Syria and Iraq, General Qassem Soleimani, in Assad’s meetings in Tehran.

Soleimani’s rising public profile is an indicator that Iran’s response to pressure by the United States and its allies is going to be in the direction of taking a harder line rather than engaging in international diplomacy regarding its foreign policy and interventions in other countries in the Middle East.

With both the United States and Iran standing firm in sending messages of no compromise to one another, it is likely that the nuclear deal will all but unravel further down the line and that prospects of engaging Iran in diplomatic talks on Syria or other Middle Eastern files are going to be dim.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

الأسد في طهران المشهد الدمشقي ما بعد بعد الانتصار…!….محمد صادق الحسيني

محمد صادق الحسيني

كلّ المؤشرات والعلامات تفيد بأنّ الفصل الأخير من الهجوم الاستراتيجي للوصول الى القدس قد بدأ، وأنّ القيادة العليا في محور المقاومة قرّرت كتابة الصفحات الأخيرة من كتاب النصر الناجز…

المشهد الدمشقي في طهران يُعيد رسم الخريطة السياسية لتحالف المنتصرين على الوهابية الإرهابية والصهيونية العالمية…

إنه عناق ربع ساعة الأخيرة من زمن الصعود إلى القمم، قمم جبل الشيخ والجليل الأعلى وكلّ روابي فلسطين…!

هكذا يفسّر المتابعون لزيارة الأسد التاريخيّة المفاجئة وغير المعلنة مسبقاً لطهران ولقائه الحميم والمطوّل بالإمام السيد علي الخامنئي.

لقد أظهر الحليفان باجتماعهما الاستثنائي على بوابات طهران صورة الانكسار الأميركي على بوابات دمشق، وكتبا سوياً الفصل الأخير من فقه الصعود إلى النصر…!

نصر مؤكد ليس فقط على واشنطن وتل أبيب، بل وأيضاً على عواصم الأسر الآيلة الى الانقراض من غربان وعربان وعثمان…!

حزب الله كان حاضراً بالجنرال الحاج قاسم سليماني وكذلك عصائب الحشد الشعبي وأنصار الله والفاطميون والزينبيون وكلّ رجال الله المخلصون من أقصى الأرض إلى أقصاها من أسوار الصين إلى جبال الأطلس وكذلك أصدقاؤهم البوتينيون…!

بانتظار المزيد من مفاجآت النصر الكبرى وعلائم انكسار الإمبريالية والصهيونية والرجعية العربية ستظلّ أعيننا مشدودة إلى فلسطين التي نقاوم كلّ أشكال الطغيان والعدوان في حضرتها وبزخم عدالة قضيتها ونبل الأهداف التي تمثل وهي تشدّنا الى قمم الانتصار تلو الانتصار..!

اليد العليا لنا ونحن مَن سيعيد رسم صورة العالم الجديد…!

بعدنا طيّبين، قولوا الله…

البناء

Related Videos

Related Articles

%d bloggers like this: