US holding Iranians ‘in gruesome prisons’: judiciary chief

US Holding Iranians ‘in Gruesome Prisons’: Judiciary Chief

NEW YORK, NY – JULY 17: Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif discusses current developments in the Middle East with Richard Haass at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) on July 17, 2017 in New York City. Spencer Platt/Getty Images/AFP

 TEHRAN: Iran’s judiciary chief on Monday accused the United States of holding Iranians “in gruesome prisons”, as the two countries trade charges of illegally jailing each other’s citizens.

“You are keeping our innocent citizens in gruesome prisons. This is against the law and international norms and regulations,” said Sadegh Larijani, head of the judiciary, quoted by Iran’s state broadcaster.

“We tell them that you must immediately release Iranian citizens locked up in US prisons.”

Washington reacted angrily to news last week that Xiyue Wang, a Princeton University researcher, had been sentenced in Iran to 10 years in prison for espionage.

President Donald Trump warned of “new and serious consequences” unless US nationals held in the Islamic republic were released.

Iranian officials have in turn responded by criticizing the detention of Iranians in the US.

Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif accused Washington of holding Iranians on “charges of sanction violations that are not applicable today… for bogus and purely political reasons”, at a meeting of the Council on Foreign Relations think-tank in New York last week.

Larijani also criticized the seizure of Iranian assets in the United States, such as a recent ruling to seize a Manhattan skyscraper to compensate victims of terrorism.

“They confiscate the assets of the Islamic republic. This is a blatant robbery. Americans behave as a bully and they want to oppress people of other countries,” he said.

At least three US nationals are currently being held in Iran, including father-and-son businessmen Samak and Baquer Namazi

Iranians will never forget US downing of passenger plane

Did you know that on July 3rd 1988, a US warship downed an Iranian plane and killed 290 passengers onboard?

Iran is commemorating the 29th anniversary of the downing of its passenger plane by a US Navy guided-missile cruiser in the Persian Gulf waters in 1988.

The civilian aircraft, an Airbus A300B2, was flying in Iranian airspace over the Strait of Hormuz from the port city of Bandar Abbas to Dubai, carrying 274 passengers and 16 crew members on July 3, 1988, when USS Vincennes fired two SM-2MR surface-to-air missiles at it.

One of the missiles hit the plane, killing all the 290 onboard.

On Monday, the Iranian Foreign Ministry issued a statement to commemorate the victims and once again censure the US Navy’s “horrific crime.”

Read More:

U.S. Buildup All About Iran

Requiring an American wedge between Syria and Iraq.

DAMASCUSAs the drive to push ISIS out of its remaining territories in Syria and Iraq rapidly advances, the U.S. and its allied forces have entrenched themselves in the southeastern Syrian border town of al-Tanaf, cutting off a major highway linking Damascus to Baghdad.

Defeating ISIS is Washington’s only stated military objective inside Syria. So what are those American troops doing there, blocking a vital artery connecting two Arab allied states in their own fight against terrorism?

“Our presence in al-Tanaf is temporary,” says Col. Ryan Dillon, spokesman for the Combined Joint Task Force of Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTF-OIR), the U.S.-led campaign against ISIS, via phone from Baghdad. “Our primary reason there is to train partner forces from that area for potential fights against ISIS elsewhere…and to maintain security in that border region.”

Dillon adds for emphasis: “Our fight is not with the (Syrian) regime.”

But since May 18, when U.S. airstrikes targeted Syrian forces and their vehicles approaching al-Tanaf, American forces have shot down two Syrian drones and fired on allied Syrian troops several times, each time citing “self-defense.” In that same period, however, it doesn’t appear that the al-Tanaf-based U.S.-backed militants have even once engaged in combat with ISIS.

Bouthaina Shaaban, political and media advisor to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, is left bemused by that rhetoric:

“When asked what they’re doing in the south of Syria, they say they’re there for their ‘national security,’ but then they object to the movements of the Syrian army – inside Syria?”

She has a point. Under international law, any foreign troop presence inside a sovereign state is illegal unless specifically invited by the recognized governing authority – in this case, Assad’s government, the only Syrian authority recognized by the UN Security Council. Uninvited armies try to circumvent the law by claiming that Syria is “unable or unwilling” to fight ISIS and the threat to international security it poses. But “unwilling and unable” is only a theory, and not law, and since the Russians entered the Syrian military theater to ostensibly fight ISIS with the Syrians, that argument thins considerably.

Colonel Dillon acknowledges the point but argues that the Syrian army

“only just showed up recently in the area. If they can show that they are capable of fighting and defeating ISIS, then we don’t have to be there and that is less work for us and would be welcome.”

It’s not clear who made the U.S. arbiters of such a ruling. Syria’s fight against ISIS has picked up considerably in recent months, since four “de-escalation zones” were established during May negotiations in Astana among Russia, Turkey, and Iran. Reconciliation agreements among government forces and some militant groups in those zones – and the transfer of other militants to the northern governorate of Idlib – has meant that Syrian allied forces have been able to move their attention away from strategic areas in the west and concentrate on the ISIS fight in the east of the country.

An April 2017 report by IHS Markit, the leading UK security and defense information provider, asserts that the Islamic State fought Syrian government forces more than any other opponent over the past 12 months.

“Between 1 April 2016 and 31 March 2017,” says the organization, “43 percent of all Islamic State fighting in Syria was directed against President Assad’s forces, 17 against the U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and the remaining 40 percent involved fighting rival Sunni opposition groups – in particular, those who formed part of the Turkey-backed Euphrates Shield coalition.”

In other words, during the period when IS territorial losses were most significant, Syrian forces fought ISIS more than twice as often as U.S.-backed ones.

An American Wedge Between Syria and Iraq

So what’s with the continued U.S. presence in al-Tanaf, an area where there is no ISIS presence and where the Syrian army and its allies have been making huge progress against their militant Islamist opponents?

The above map commissioned by the author.

If you look at the map commissioned by the author above, there are approximately three main highway crossings from major Syrian centers into Iraq. The northern-most border highway is currently under the control of U.S.-backed Kurdish forces who seek to carve out an independent statelet called Western Kurdistan.

The Homs-to-Baghdad highway in the middle of the map cuts through ISIS-besieged Deir ez-Zor, where up to 120,000 civilians have been protected by some 10,000 Syrian troops since ISIS stormed its environs in 2014. While that border point to Iraq is currently blocked by the terror group, Syrian forces are advancing rapidly from the west, north, and south to wrest the region back from ISIS control.

The Damascus-to-Baghdad highway in the south of the country, which allied Syrian forces have largely recaptured from militants, could have easily been the first unobstructed route between Syria and Iraq. Until, of course, U.S.-led forces entrenched themselves in al-Tanaf and blocked that path.

The Syrians cleared most of the highway this year, but have been inhibited from reaching the border by a unilaterally-declared “deconfliction zone” established by U.S.-led coalition forces.

“It was agreed upon with the Russians that this was a deconfliction zone,” says CJTF spokesman Dillon.

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov begs to differ: “I don’t know anything about such zones. This must be some territory, which the coalition unilaterally declared and where it probably believes to have a sole right to take action. We cannot recognize such zones.”

Since regime-change plans fell flat in Syria, Beltway hawks have been advocating for the partitioning of Syria into at least three zones of influence – a buffer zone for Israel and Jordan in the south, a pro-U.S. Kurdish entity along the north and north-east, and control over the Syrian-Iraqi border.

But clashes with Syrian forces along the road to al-Tanaf have now created an ‘unintended consequence’ for the U.S.’s border plans. Syrian allied troops circumvented the al-Tanaf problem a few weeks ago by establishing border contact with Iraqi forces further north, thereby blocking off access for U.S. allies in the south. And Iraqi security forces have now reached al-Waleed border crossing, on Iraq’s side of the border from al-Tanaf, which means U.S.-led forces are now pinned between Iraqis and Syrians on the Damascus-Baghdad road.

When Syrians and Iraqis bypassed the al-Tanaf area and headed northward to establish border contact, another important set of facts was created on the ground. U.S. coalition forces are now cut off – at least from the south of Syria – from fighting ISIS in the northeast. This is a real setback for Washington’s plans to block direct Syrian-Iraqi border flows and score its own dazzling victory against ISIS. As Syrian forces head toward Deir ez-Zor, U.S.-backed forces’ participation in the battle to liberate that strategic area will now be limited to the Kurd-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) from the north, while Syrian forces have established safe passage from the north, south, west – and potentially from the east, with the aid of allied Iraqi forces.

Why Washington Wants That Border

Re-establishing Syrian control over the highway running from Deir ez-Zor to Albu Kamal and al-Qaim is also a priority for Syria’s allies in Iran. Dr. Masoud Asadollahi, a Damascus-based expert in Middle East affairs explains: “The road through Albu Kamal is Iran’s favored option – it is a shorter path to Baghdad, safer, and runs through green, habitable areas. The M1 highway (Damascus-Baghdad) is more dangerous for Iran because it runs through Iraq’s Anbar province and areas that are mostly desert.”

If the U.S. objective in al-Tanaf was to block the southern highway between Syria and Iraq, thereby cutting off Iran’s land access to the borders of Palestine, they have been badly outmaneuvered. Syrian, Iraqi, and allied troops have now essentially trapped the U.S.-led forces in a fairly useless triangle down south, and created a new triangle (between Palmyra, Deir ez-Zor, and Albu Kamal) for their “final battle” against ISIS.

“The Americans always plan for one outcome and then get another one that is unintended,” observes Iran’s new envoy to Syria, Ambassador Javad Turk Abadi.

He and others in Damascus remain optimistic that the border routes long been denied to regional states will re-open in short order.

“Through the era of the Silk Road, the pathway between Syria, Iran, and Iraq was always active – until colonialism came to the region,” explains Turk Abadi.

In the same way that Western great powers have always sought to keep Russia and China apart, in the Middle East, that same divide-and-rule doctrine has been applied for decades to maintaining a wedge between Syria and Iraq.

“In the history of the last half century, it was always prevented for Syria and Iraq to get close, to coordinate. When (former Syrian president) Hafez al-Assad and (former Iraqi president) Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr almost reached a comprehensive agreement, Saddam Hussein made a coup d’etat and hung all the officers who wanted rapprochement with Syria,”says Shaaban, who has just published a book on Hafez Assad’s dealings with former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

Saddam then launched an eight-year war against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the latter lost road access through Iraq for more than two decades.

In early 2003, U.S. troops invaded Iraq, deposed Saddam, and occupied the country for the next nine years. During that era, Iranian airplanes were often ordered down for inspections, instigated by U.S. occupation forces interested in thwarting Iran’s transfer of weapons and supplies to the Lebanese resistance group Hezbollah and other allies.

By the time U.S. troops exited Iraq in late 2011, the Syrian conflict was already under way, fully armed, financed, and supported by several NATO states and their Persian Gulf allies.

“When those borders are re-opened,” says Asadollahi, “this will be the first time Iran will have a land route to Syria and Palestine” – though others point out that the Iranians have always found ways to transport goods undetected.

“Our army is now almost at the border and Iraqis are at their border – and we are not going to stop,” insists Shaaban.

Syrian and Iraqi forces have not yet checkmated American forces operating in their military theaters. There is still talk of an escalation that may pit the United States against Syria’s powerful Russian ally, a dangerous development that could precipitate a regional or global war.

But in Baghdad, the U.S.-led coalition spokesman Colonel Dillon struck a slightly more nuanced tone from the more belligerent threats sounded in Washington:

“We’re not in Syria to grab land. If the Syrian regime can show they can defeat ISIS, then we’re fine with that. The Waleed border crossing is a good sign that shows these capabilities. We are open to secure borders both on the Syrian and Iraqi side. We’re not there with the intent to block anything, we’re there to defeat ISIS and train forces for that.”

The fact is, US-trained militants in the al-Tanaf garrison are not fighting ISIS today, and they suffered a “crippling defeat” in June 2016 when they last launched a major offensive against the terror group, 200 miles from al-Tanaf. Factoring in geography, balance of field forces and momentum, it is implausible that US troops and their proxies on the southern Syrian-Iraqi border can achieve their stated objectives. It is time for them to surrender their positions to the Syrian state.

Sharmine Narwani is a commentator and analyst of Mideast geopolitics, based in Beirut.

نصرالله: محور المقاومة يتمدّد

هدّد إسرائيل بمقاتلين يمنيين وعراقيين وإيرانيين وأفغان وباكستانيين في أيّ حرب على سوريا ولبنان

نصرالله للسعوديين: غيّروا المناهج التربوية وأوقفوا تصدير الوهابية ليتوقف الإرهاب (مروان طحطح)

وجّه الأمين العام لحزب الله السيد حسن نصرالله رسائل قاسية لإسرائيل والنظام السعودي، متّهماً هذا النظام بفتح الطريق أمام إسرائيل للتطبيع مع العالم العربي. وأكّد نصرالله أن محور المقاومة يزداد قوّة وإسرائيل ستدفع أثماناً غالية في حال خاضت حرباً ضدّه، وأن المحور لن يتخّلى عن فلسطين

حسم الأمين العام لحزب الله السيّد حسن نصرالله قرار محور المقاومة في مواجهة حملات التطبيع العربية مع العدوّ الإسرائيلي، محذّراً من التسويات التي ترتّب على حساب فلسطين والشعب الفلسطيني.

ووجّه نصرالله أمس، في مناسبة يوم القدس العالمي، رسائل قاسية للعدو الإسرائيلي والنظام السعودي، مهدّداً بأن حرباً تنوي إسرائيل شنّها على لبنان وسوريا لن تبقى محصورة في هذين الميدانين، بل إنها ستفتح الباب أمام انضمام آلاف المقاتلين من العراق واليمن وإيران وأفغانستان وباكستان وبقاع أخرى في العالم إلى جانب سوريا والمقاومة. ولفت نصرالله إلى أن الحرب الدائرة في الإقليم أضافت إلى محور المقاومة قوتين كبيرتين، هما اليمن والمقاومة العراقية.

في بداية خطابه، ذكّر نصرالله بأن يوم القدس، أو «آخر يوم جمعة من شهر رمضان، هو أفضل يوم اختاره الامام الخميني ليكون يوماً عالمياً لأقدس قضية تتحمل مسؤوليتها اليوم الانسانية كلها والأمة جمعاء»، مشيراً إلى أن «يوم القدس هذا العام يتزامن مع الذكرى الـ50 لاحتلال الصهاينة للقدس. لقد كانوا في الأمس يحتفلون بسيطرتهم وهيمنتهم على القدس».

وشرح نصرالله كيف أن «منطقتنا دخلت مؤخراً في مرحلة مختلفة تماماً، وهذا مفصل صعب ومؤلم»، معتبراً أن «الولايات المتحدة وأدواتها الاقليمية حوّلت مسار الحراك الشعبي في العالم العربي باتجاه إعادة سيطرة قوى الهيمنة على منطقتنا وأموالنا ونفطنا وخيراتنا، ومن أهم الأهداف إنهاء القضية الفلسطينية والوصول إلى تسوية بين الكيان الصهيوني والدول العربية والاسلامية».

وتابع أن «الشعب الفلسطيني يتعرّض لحصار وتجويع وقطع الكهرباء واعتقالات وسجون وقتل على الشبهة وتقطيع أوصال الضفة الغربية والاستيطان وتهويد للقدس وهدم المنازل وتجريف الاراضي»، وأن الهدف الإسرائيلي من هذه الممارسات «أن ييأس الشعب الفلسطيني وقياداته ليقبلوا بالقليل». وقال إن المحاولات اليوم والضغوط السياسية والمؤامرات هدفها عزل إيران وتحويلها إلى عدو بدل إسرائيل واستنزافها في الحروب، ونقل الحرب الى داخلها بواسطة الجماعات التكفيرية».

وفي السياق ذاته، أكّد أن «سوريا دولة مركزية في محور المقاومة، وهي جبهة مع العدو، ولها أرض محتلة، كما أنها داعم أساسي للمقاومة في لبنان وفلسطين، وعقبة كبيرة أمام أي تسوية عربية شاملة على حساب المصالح العربية»، وعلى هذا الأساس «عملوا خلال السنوات الماضية على إسقاط نظامها السياسي وتدمير جيشها واستبدال ذلك بقيادات هشة نراها في المناسبات والمؤتمرات تتزلف لإسرائيل وأميركا».

وسأل نصرالله في تعليق على القمّة السعودية ــ الأميركية أخيراً في الرياض: «أليس من الهوان أمام 50 رئيس دولة عربية وإسلامية أن يقف دونالد ترامب ليتّهم حركات المقاومة بالإرهاب؟».

ثمّ تحدّث عن دور العراق، مشيراً إلى أنه «بعد أن أظهر العراق إرادة سياسية واضحة من خلال الانتخابات والحكومات المتعاقبة، أنه لن يكون جزءاً من العملية السياسية الأميركية العربية لتصفية فلسطين، وبعد ظهور تيارات شعبية وجهادية وثقافة مقاومة وروح مقاومة واستعداد عال لمساندة حركات المقاومة، أرسلوا داعش الى العراق، ولا تنسوا أن داعش هو صناعة أميركية»، مذكّراً بما كان يقوله ترامب قبل انتخابه، عن مسؤولية باراك أوباما وهيلاري كلينتون والسعودية عن صناعة «داعش». وأكّد نصرالله أن «داعش صناعة أميركية وتمويل سعودي وخليجي وتسهيلات تركية».

وتابع أنه «بفعل تضحيات العراقيين وثباتهم، اليوم نشهد الانتصارات الحاسمة، والمسألة في الموصل مسألة وقت، وداعش في العراق إلى زوال. وفي العراق وعي كبير وإحساس قوي بأنهم جزء من هذه المعركة على مستوى المنطقة، وهذا خبر سيّئ لإسرائيل».

أمّا عن اليمن، فأشار إلى أن «الحرب على الشعب اليمني سببها أنه يقف بجانب فلسطين» وأن «اليمن لا يمكن أن يكون جزءاً من عملية بيع فلسطين والتخلي عن القدس، لا من أجل عرش ولا سلطان ولا من أجل ترامب»، مؤكّداً أنه «أصبحت للمقاومة اليوم قوة شعبية وسياسية ووطنية وعسكرية وجهادية حقيقية وصلبة في اليمن، ونحن نفتخر أن يكونوا جزءاً من هذا المحور وأن ننتمي اليهم».

وعاد نصرالله إلى الخلاصة والتأكيد أن «المستهدف المركزي هو الشعب الفلسطيني»، لافتاً إلى أن «الاسرائيلي الآن يرفض أي مفاوضات مع الفلسطينيين، لأنه يعلق آماله على الدول العربية، فهذا مشروعهم وخططهم ومعاركهم ووسائلهم». وأشار إلى أن «المفاوض الفلسطيني في الماضي كان يتمسّك بالعلاقة مع الدول العربية لجرّ إسرائيل إلى التنازلات، أما الآن فقد انقلبت الآية، إسرائيل تريد كل شيء من الدول العربية ولاحقاً ترى إن كانت مستعدة لتقديم أي شيء للفلسطينيين والعودة إلى التفاوض». وشرح كيف أنه «في المشهد السياسي الاقليمي الحالي، النظام السعودي هو الذي يقوم بتقديم الأثمان لإسرائيل ويفتح الأبواب لها من أجل علاقات وتطبيع، فالسعودية بما تملكه من موقع متقدم ومال ونفوذ، تفعل ذلك كله باسم الدين».

ودعا نصرالله «الأمة إلى مواجهة هذا النظام، لأنه مدان، وهو نظام سيبيع كل شيء لترامب والأميركي وإسرائيل»، مقترحاً على السعوديين «تغيير المناهج التربوية في السعودية وإيقاف تصدير الوهابية، وعندها يتوقف الإرهاب»، مشدّداً على أن «الفكر الإرهابي يأتي من السعودية وعلمائها»، و«محاسبتها اليوم لجيرانها فضيحة».

وحول الهجوم على إيران، أكّد نصرالله أن «إيران لم تعزل، وصمدت أمام العقوبات وازدادت قوة وطوّرت صناعاتها وأصبحت أقوى حضوراً في الاقليم، والذين يريدون محاربتها في الارهاب، فهي لن تتسامح مع الارهاب وستردّ بقوة، وفعلت ذلك، ومعركة الارهاب مع إيران خاسرة وفاشلة، وستكون لها نتائج عكسية، إذ ستصبح أشد حضوراً»، مشيراً إلى أن «النظام السعودي أجبن من أن يشنّ حرباً على إيران»، وأن «إيران ستبقى داعمة لفلسطين وللقضية الفلسطينية ولحركات المقاومة في المنطقة مهما كانت الظروف أو الضغوط. وموقف إيران هو موقف عقائدي».

وأشار إلى أن «سوريا بفضل الصمود والثبات والمقاومة تجاوزت خطر إسقاط النظام، وهي ستتجاوز خطر التقسيم، ومحاولات عزلها جغرافياً فشلت بعد وصول الجيش السوري إلى الحدود العراقية، وهي ثابتة في موقفها السياسي في محور المقاومة».

وتطرّق نصرالله إلى خطابات بعض المسؤولين الإسرائيليين في مؤتمر هرتسيليا المنعقد في الكيان خلال الأسبوع الحالي، مشيراً إلى أن الخطباء «أجمعوا في مؤتمر هرتسيليا على رفض عودة لاجئ فلسطيني واحد إلى فلسطين». ولفت إلى أن «ليبرمان قال إن إسرائيل لم تنتصر منذ حرب 1967»، وأن وزير الحرب الإسرائيلي أكد أنه «لا نية لإسرائيل للقيام بحرب لا في الخريف ولا الصيف ولا الشتاء ولا في الشمال أو الجنوب»، مشيراً إلى أن «ليبرمان يعلم أن الحرب على غزة وعلى لبنان لن تصل به إلى نصر».

وفي رسالة يوم القدس، قال نصرالله إن على «الشعب الفلسطيني والمعنيين بهذه القضية ألا ييأسوا، رغم كل الصعوبات، وألا يملّوا ولا يتعبوا، بل أن يصبروا ويواصلوا، لأن هناك الكثير من الآمال والإنجازات، ولا يجوز أن نستسلم». مضيفاً أن «على الجميع أن يعرف أن محور المقاومة قوي جداً وأثبت ذلك، ولم يسقط، ولم ينهر، ولم يتداعَ، واستعاد زمام المقاومة في أكثر من ميدان. إن محور المقاومة لم ولن يخلي الساحة». وهدّد نصرالله إسرائيل، في حال تجرّأت على القيام بعدوان على سوريا ولبنان، بأن الحرب لن تنحصر بهذين المحورين، و«من يضمن أن لا تتوسّع الحرب؟». وقال «أنا لا أؤكّد أن هناك دولاً ستشترك في الحرب، لكن أيّ عدوان على محور المقاومة سيفتح الباب أمام انضمام مئات آلاف المجاهدين لقتال إسرائيل من العراق واليمن وأفغانستان وباكستان وإيران وأماكن أخرى في العالم».

وطمأن نصرالله الشعوب العربية إلى أن «الأوضاع في المنطقة لن تبقى هكذا، ومخططات الأعداء ستفشل. لقد فشلوا في تحقيق أهم الاهداف السياسية، والذين صمدوا وواجهوا سيواصلون العمل لتغيير الاوضاع، فالوجوه والدول والانظمة باتت مكشوفة بالكامل، ولعبة النفاق انتهت»، مضيفاً أنه «أياً تكن التطورات، على أميركا وإسرائيل أن تعرفا أن الشعب الفلسطيني وشعوب أمتنا لن يعترفوا بإسرائيل التي ستبقى غريبة عن المنطقة ودولة احتلال وإرهاب»، مجدّداً إيمانه بـ«القدس والقضية الفلسطينية والتزامه بمحور المقاومة وبالمقاومة». وقال: «بتقديم التضحيات نحمي لبنان ونصون المنطقة وندفع عن بلادنا وحشية داعش وأمثاله. وسنكون حيث يجب أن نكون، وبالصبر نمشي إلى النصر الآتي».

Related Articles

Bin Salman as A Crown Prince: Adventurer in A Chaotic Kingdom!

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman
Mohammad  Bin Salman has become deputy King of his father Salman after the ousting of Mohammad Bin Nayef, and stripping him of all his positions and deposing him out of power.
The major development in Saudi internal politics is hardly internal. It is an established fact in the kingdom that a king to be, should first take the blessings of the White House, and after that comes the consent of the royal  family. As such goes also the story of MBS.
It was during the March visit to Washington and with the heavy lobbying، grooming and mediation of Emirates strongman Mohammad Bin Zayid that Bin Salman has had the opportunity to finalize a strategic deal with the White House to become the acting King of Saudi Arabia after his sick father Salman.
Bin Salman has emerged to be the strongest man in Saudi Arabia due  his father sickness though he is only 31 years old.
All the levers of power are now in the hands of a young, inexperienced and risk-taking man, who in his short time in power as defense minister has established a reputation for recklessness and irresponsibility.
He launched a war against Yemen and went in a tourist visit to the Maldives. When the White House wanted him it took days to find him.
Each file bin Salman has handled found its way into total failure.
The war against Yemen reached a deadlock, Riyadh is engulfed in a vicious cycle and cannot make any breakthrough and has turned to be a war of attrition.
The war against Syria, which Saudi Arabia took part in, has equally come to a failure as the Syrian government and its allies have been able to stand steadfast and gain major successes in battlefields and politics.
The Saudi-backed war against Iraq has failed completely to achieve any of its goals and the Iraqis have been able to liberate most of the territories controlled by Daesh (Arabic acronym for ISIL Takfiri group).
Even his last siege and crackdown against Qatar has turned to the latter’s favor and presented Doha as a victim of Bin Salman’s childish and reactionary policies.
On the economic level,  the results he yielded are no better. He made drastic pay cuts to government employees, warning the country would be bankrupt in five years. Then he reversed the cuts, claiming financial stability had been created. Then he committed himself to up to $500bn of military purchases from America. This all came at a time when the oil prices have come to its lowest  level in years.
The vision 2030 of Bin Salman has proved so far to be an amateurish short- sighted one. It is not anticipated at all that his economic plans would do his country any good.
The young crown prince is playing all  his cards at one time, counting on the American help to sustain his power. History lessons would not last long or fall on hearing ears when it comes to dynasties. Counting on USA did not help Iran’s shah to stay in power when the Islamic revolution erupted back in 1979. Iran was then the number one US-backed state in the Gulf. Would the US care more for the Saudi sinking ship under Bin Salman? Only the future would answer such question. Most probably the answer is not going to be a good one for Riyadh.

Source: Al-Manar

The open war: Tehran and Ankara or Riyadh and Tel Aviv? الحرب المفتوحة: طهران وأنقرة أم الرياض وتل أبيب؟

The open war: Tehran and Ankara or Riyadh and Tel Aviv?

يونيو 15, 2017

Written by Nasser Kandil,

الحرب المفتوحة: طهران وأنقرة أم الرياض وتل أبيب؟

Everything witnessed can be included in the title of the Saudi war on Iran. The summits which were held in Riyadh and in which the US President Donald Trump participated as a guest of honor with a cost of his attending card of five billion dollars are just an interpretation of the US joining to the Saudi war, even they can be considered as a US decision to humiliate the Arabs and a new occupation by taking the money of Saudi Arabia and then departing. The facts say that the Saudi funding laundering for terrorism and showing Saudi Arabia by the US Presidential tweets on Twitter as a leader of the war on terrorism have been put in Trump’s pockets. Saudi Arabia has substituted the international and the US accusations that are documented by the Congress and the courts about its responsibility of sponsoring the terrorism and financing it with agreed scapegoat which is Qatar that can be considered as a compensation for the money paid to the US President, so with a green light from him the campaign against Qatar can be considered as the beginning of the end of terrorism.

According to Iran there is no American issue worth the war in the logic of the direct interests, the interest of Israel and the interest of Saudi Arabia have become the high US interest, one by the force of command, and one by the force of money. The outcome is recruiting Washington in serving the Saudi-Israeli war on Iran. The battle of Qatar is just what the Americans call it militarily the closeness to the castle and cleaning the house from the problems. Some of the punishment of Qatar is because it stood in the middle in the relationship with Iran, even as a political opportunism, as the crisis with Turkey in Washington nothing can explained it but the logic of the war with Iran, which Ankara does not  pay attention to it after the defeat of the joint alliance with Riyadh, Washington , and Tel Aviv on Syria, so it accepted the partnership with Iran from Astana gate, even the Syrian Iraqi Kurdish file towards the separation is an interpretation of disabling the formation of a strong state in Syria and Iraq from within the concept of the Saudi Israeli war, and the far goal which is Iran.

When Washington appoints the professional killer who has arranged the assassination of the leader in the resistance the martyr Imad Mughniyah as a responsible for the file of Iran  directly after the summits of Riyadh, then it is an announcement of a war, and when ISIS takes the responsibility of implementing major security operations  in the Iranian capital Tehran that were not possible before forming the US-Gulf operations room that puts all the information, agents, eavesdropping devices, money,  geography , the relation with the terrorist groups, and the ability to move and to follow-up closely on one table, then it is exactly as the process of the assassination of the martyr Imad Mughniyah with the same operations room. It is formal detail to behold ISIS the task and to facilitate the access of its groups to the goals and to supply its leaders with information, details, money, weapons, and explosives. The history of the US intelligence is full of similar examples about how these actions implemented by proxy, they call it “sleeping with the devil”.

Michael Diandria is the direct responsible for the implementation of Tehran’s military operations, while Mohammed Bin Salman is the responsible for the provision of ammunition and money, and many others in the Gulf who have a long history of security in the process of the martyr Mughniyah have the responsivity of supplying with information and the logistical details, while ISIS which announced its responsibility is just a tool, it says in its statements that all their claims about the war on terrorism are false because they are the operators and the financers and we are still the victims.

The US raids on the Syrian Badia near Al Tanf were the field message which says to Tehran about the desired goal to stop the targeting, as the Kurdish announcement in Iraq about the referendum on the separation, it says to Ankara what is required from the message of Qatar. Tehran has to accept to hand over the borders between Syria and Iraq to militias run by the US intelligence, otherwise the destabilization will continue in Iran. Ankara has to accept the recognition of a Kurdish privacy on its borders with Syria otherwise it will surrender and Qatar will fall.

The response was not delay in Tehran, but at least it resolved the matter. In Ankara there are preliminary indicators that worth observing after the ratification of the joint defense treaty with Qatar by the Turkish parliament, it allows the deployment of Turkish troops in military bases in Qatar, but the matter in Tehran is unambiguous. The announcement of beholding the responsibility to Washington and Riyadh about the terrorist operations and the promise to respond, and the statement of the allies in Syria to respond to the US raids near Al Tanf towards targeting the US gatherings in Syria and the region.

The conflict is open between two bilateral to form the new regional system in the Middle East. The bilateral of Astana which is sponsored by Russia between Tehran and Ankara, and the bilateral of Riyadh and Tel Aviv after offering Qatar depending on the Saudi-Israeli understanding and under US sponsorship, while the Saudi-Israeli bilateral is weaker, but it is more cohesive and resolute. The Iranian-Turkish bilateral is stronger but it needs Turkish’s resolving of the options. The Turks must pay attention that the war does not want to overthrow Iran from the new system but to legitimatize Saudi Arabia instead of Turkey as a partner of Iran, and to improve the conditions of Israel.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

 

(Visited 7 times, 7 visits today)

الحرب المفتوحة: طهران وأنقرة أم الرياض وتل أبيب؟

الحرب المفتوحة: طهران وأنقرة أم الرياض وتل أبيب؟ناصر قنديل

– كل ما نشهده يمكن إدراجه تحت عنوان الحرب السعودية على إيران، فالقمم التي عُقدت في الرياض وشارك فيها الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب بصفة ضيف شرف ثمن بطاقة حضوره خمسمئة مليار دولار، ليست إلا ترجمة لانضمام أميركي إلى حرب سعودية ولو أحبّ البعض اعتبار القمة استحماراً أميركياً للعرب واستعماراً جديداً أخذ أموال السعودية ورحل. فالوقائع تقول إن غسيل التمويل السعودي للإرهاب وتظهير السعودية بتغريدات تويتر أميركية رئاسية قائداً للحرب على الإرهاب قد تمّ في جيوب ترامب شخصياً، واستبدلت السعودية اتهامات دولية وأميركية موثقة في الكونغرس والمحاكم بمسؤوليتها عن رعاية الإرهاب وتمويله بكبش فداء متفق عليه هو قطر، يصلح لأن يكون تعويضاً عن المال المدفوع للرئيس الأميركي بضوء أخضر منه حمله على اعتباره الحملة على قطر بداية نهاية الإرهاب.

– لا قضية أميركية عند إيران تستحق الحرب بمنطق المصالح المباشرة. مصلحة «إسرائيل» ومصلحة السعودية الحليفتين هي التي صارت مصلحة أميركية عليا، واحدة بقوة الإمرة وثانية بقوة المال، والحصيلة تجنيد واشنطن في خدمة الحرب السعودية «الإسرائيلية» على إيران، وليست معركة قطر إلا ما يسمّيه الأميركيون عسكرياً بالتقرّب من القلعة وتنظيف البيت من المشاكل، فبعض عقاب قطر لوقوفها في منتصف الطريق في العلاقة مع إيران، ولو من باب الانتهازية السياسية، ومثلها الأزمة مع تركيا. في واشنطن لا شيء يفسرها إلا منطق الحرب مع إيران، التي لم تقم لها أنقرة حساباً في استدارتها بعد هزيمة الحلف المشترك مع الرياض وواشنطن وتل أبيب على سورية، فارتضت شراكة مع إيران من بوابة أستانة. وحتى الملف الكردي السوري والعراقي والنفخ بهما نحو الانفصال بعض من ترجمة تعطيل قيام دولة قوية في سورية والعراق، ضمن مفهوم الحرب «الإسرائيلية» السعودية، والهدف الأبعد إيران.

– عندما تُعيّن واشنطن القاتل المحترف الذي دبّر اغتيال القيادي في المقاومة الشهيد عماد مغنية مسؤولاً لملف إيران في المخابرات الأميركية، بعد قمم الرياض مباشرة، فهي تترجم ما تقرّر بإعلان الحرب، وعندما يتولى تنظيم داعش تنفيذ عمليات أمنية كبرى في العاصمة الإيرانية طهران، ما كانت ممكنة قبل تشكيل غرفة عمليات أميركية خليجية تضع كل المعلومات والعملاء وأجهزة التنصّت والأموال والجغرافيا والعلاقة بالمجموعات الإرهابية والقدرة على تحريكها والمتابعة عن قرب، على طاولة واحدة، فإن الأمر يشبه تماماً عملية اغتيال الشهيد مغنية بعد غرفة عمليات مشابهة، ويصبح تفصيلاً شكلياً إسناد المهمة لداعش وتسهيل وصول جماعتها للأهداف وتزويد المعنيين بقيادتها بالمعلومات والتفاصيل والأموال والسلاح والمتفجرات، وتاريخ المخابرات الأميركية حافل بالأمثلة المشابهة عن كيف يحدث مثل هذا النوع من العمليات بالواسطة، ويسمّونه بالنوم مع الشيطان.

– مايكل دياندريا بتوقيع مباشر وراء تنفيذ عمليات طهران، وتوقيع محمد بن سلمان على توفير الذخائر والأموال، ومعهما آخرون في الخليج باعهم الأمني طويل في عملية الشهيد مغنية، بالتزويد بالمعلومات والتفاصيل اللوجستية، وداعش الذي أعلن مسؤوليته أداة تنفيذ يقول في بيانه إن كل إدعاءاتهم بالحرب على الإرهاب كاذبة، فهم المشغّلون والمموّلون ولا زلنا نحن الضحايا.

– الغارات الأميركية في البادية السورية قرب التنف هي الرسالة الميدانية التي تقول لطهران عن الهدف المطلوب ليتوقف الاستهداف، كما الإعلان الكردي في العراق عن الاستفتاء على الانفصال يقول لأنقرة عن المطلوب من وحي رسالة قطر فعلى طهران ارتضاء تسليم الحدود بين سورية والعراق لميليشيات تديرها المخابرات الأميركية، وإلا سيستمرّ مسلسل زعزعة الاستقرار في إيران، وعلى أنقرة ارتضاء التسليم بخصوصية كردية على حدودها مع سورية وإلا ستستسلم أو تسقط قطر.

– الردّ لم يتأخر في طهران. على الأقل حُسم الأمر، وفي أنقرة مؤشرات أولية تستحق المتابعة بعد تصديق معاهدة الدفاع المشترك مع قطر في البرلمان التركي وما تتيحه من نشر قوات تركية في قواعد عسكرية في قطر، لكن في طهران الأمر لا لبس فيه، الإعلان عن تحميل المسؤولية لواشنطن والرياض عن العمليات الإرهابية والتعهّد بالرد، وبيان الحلفاء في سورية بالتوعّد بالردّ على الغارات الأميركية قرب التنف، وصولاً لاستهداف التجمّعات الأميركية في سورية والمنطقة.

– الصراع مفتوح بين ثنائيتين لصياغة النظام الإقليمي الجديد في الشرق الأوسط: ثنائية استانة ترعاها روسيا بين طهران وأنقرة، وثنائية الرياض وتل أبيب بعد تقديم قطر قرباناً على مذبح التفاهم السعودي «الإسرائيلي»، برعاية أميركية. وبينما الثنائي السعودي «الإسرائيلي» أضعف، لكنه أشدّ تماسكاً وحسماً، يبدو الثنائي الإيراني التركي أقوى، لكنه يحتاج حسماً تركياً للخيارات، وأن ينتبه الأتراك أن الحرب لا تريد إسقاط إيران من النظام الجديد، بل إحلال السعودية بدلاً من تركيا كشريك لإيران وتحسين شروط «إسرائيل».

(Visited 489 times, 489 visits today)
Related Videos

Related Articles 

The Sordid History Of State Sponsored Terrorism Against Iran

The Sordid History Of State Sponsored Terrorism Against Iran

For decades, Western empires have waged a silent war against Iran, using tactics ranging from supporting known terrorist groups to deposing the country’s leaders and leveraging regional rivalries. The war continues today, even as the U.S. condemns Iran for sponsoring terrorism itself.

By

The Sordid History Of State Sponsored Terrorism Against Iran

People gather around a car as it is removed by a mobile crane in Tehran, Iran, Jan. 11, 2012. Two assailants on a motorcycle attached magnetic bombs to the car of an Iranian university professor working at a key nuclear facility, killing him and wounding two people. The assassination was later confirmed to be a joint effort by the MEK and Israeli intelligence by U.S. officials. (AP/Meghdad Madadi)

NEW YORK (Opinion)– With blood still fresh on the streets of Tehran after last week’s deadly terror attack, the U.S. was quick to condemn the attacks. But in a sadly predictable move, President Donald Trump’s White House also blamed the victim, condemning Iran as a sponsor of terrorism.

While this may seem like merely the latest instance of insensitivity on Trump’s part, it is, in fact, emblematic of the strategy of supporting terrorism against Iran that Washington has employed for decades.

The official White House statement, while expressing grief over the attacks, was noteworthy for implying that Iran itself was responsible for the tragedy. “We underscore that states that sponsor terrorism risk falling victim to the evil they promote,” reads the second sentence of the statement.

Aside from the sheer tastelessness and callous disregard for the victims of the attack, the irony of the official statement was obviously lost on Trump. Perhaps if Trump would’ve chosen to pull his head out of the posteriors of Saudi oil executives, he might realize that it is the U.S., not Iran, that has a long history of sponsoring terrorism to which it later falls victim

Moreover, if Trump had a sense of history beyond having watched all ten seasons of Ice Road Truckers, he would know that Iran has, for decades, been the victim of a terror campaign backed both directly and indirectly by the United States in the hopes of bringing regime change to the Islamic Republic, returning the country to its place as energy footstool of the West.

Perhaps, Mr. President, you could consider reading on.  You might learn something.

 

The recent history of terrorism against Iran

The subject of terrorism directed against the Islamic Republic of Iran would likely need a dissertation-length analysis well beyond the scope of this article. However, even a cursory examination of the use of terror against Iran reveals a number of worrying trends, with all roads leading West.

Put another way, terrorism against Iran is as American as apple pie; as British as shepherd’s pie; as Israeli as stolen Palestinian pie.

For instance, take the oft-touted “freedom fighters” of the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK; also known as MKO), a terrorist group hailed as heroes by the U.S. neoconservative establishment, despite having been officially recognized by the U.S. government as a terrorist organization from 1997 through 2012.  Indeed, so warm and cozy were these terrorists with policymakers, including key government officials, that through an intensive lobbying campaign, including advocacy from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the MEK was officially removed from the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations.

Senator John McCain has meets with the head of the US-designated terrorist organization, Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK), Maryam Rajavi, in the Albanian capital, Tirana, April, 2017.

Senator John McCain has meets with the head of the US-designated terrorist organization, Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK), Maryam Rajavi, in the Albanian capital, Tirana, April, 2017.

Never mind the fact that MEK was implicated by the Obama Administration itself as having colluded with Israel in assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists, a blatant violation of international law. But of course, this was nothing for MEK, whose history is one of assassination and terror against Iran.

As Anthony Cordesman and Adam C. Seitz noted in their book “Iranian Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Birth of a Regional Nuclear Arms Race?”:

“Near the end of the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War, Baghdad armed the MEK with heavy military equipment [provided by the US] and deployed thousands of MEK fighters in suicidal, mass wave attacks against Iranian forces…In April 1992, the MEK conducted near-simultaneous attacks on Iranian embassies and installations in 13 countries…In April 1999, the MEK targeted key Iranian military officers and assassinated the deputy chief of the Iranian Armed Forces General Staff…The pace of anti-Iranian operations increased during “Operation Great Bahman” in February 2000, when the group launched a dozen attacks against Iran.”

It should also be remembered that the U.S. opened its military base in Iraq to MEK, which used Camp Ashraf (also known as Camp Liberty) as a safe haven and staging area until it was closed (and MEK members killed) by former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.


Related: ISIS Strikes Again, Attack On Iran’s Capital Kills 12, Dozens Wounded


Perhaps a hundred other examples of MEK terrorism against Iran, sponsored and backed by the U.S., could be provided. Suffice to say that the removal of MEK from the U.S. government’s official terror organization list was the result of a well-funded and well-orchestrated lobbying campaign with many key allies on Capitol Hill and the Beltway, including some of the most influential neoconservative figures, such as Max Boot, Daniel Pipes, David Horowitz and Rudy Giuliani.

Another way of looking at this relationship would be to say that the U.S. has been the principal sponsor of one of the most violent and prolific anti-Iranian terrorist groups.  And they are certainly not alone.

Washington has long been seen by many as a backer of, and potential handler for, the organized crime and terror organization known as Jundallah. This notorious terror organization, which has operated on both sides of the Iran-Pakistan border in the region of Sistan-Baluchestan, has been led for decades by the Rigi family, a well-known anti-government crime family, and has been linked a number of high-profile terror attacks in recent years, including a deadly October 2009 bombing that killed over 40 people, including 15 Iranian Revolutionary Guard members.

During a funeral ceremony, people mourn next to flag-draped coffins of victims of two bomb blasts in the city of Zahedan, Iran, July 17, 2010. Jundallah, which has carried out several other bombings in southeast Iran over the past few years, claimed responsibility for the blasts, which killed 27. (Fars/Ali Azimzadeh)

During a funeral ceremony, people mourn next to flag-draped coffins of victims of two bomb blasts in the city of Zahedan, Iran, July 17, 2010. Jundallah, which has carried out several other bombings in southeast Iran over the past few years, claimed responsibility for the blasts, which killed 27. (Fars/Ali Azimzadeh)

Counterterrorism experts have long been aware of Jundallah’s historic ties to both U.S. and Israeli intelligence.  As Foreign Policy reported in 2012, Israeli Mossad and U.S. CIA operatives essentially competed with one another for control of the Jundallah network for years. The report noted that:

“The [U.S. government] memos also detail CIA field reports saying that Israel’s recruiting activities occurred under the nose of U.S. intelligence officers, most notably in London, the capital of one of Israel’s ostensible allies, where Mossad officers posing as CIA operatives met with Jundallah officials.”

Consider for a moment the reality of what the report illustrated: U.S. intelligence officials were livid that their Israeli counterparts would meet with Jundallah while posing as CIA agents. Not only does this signal a turf war between the two ostensible allies, it indicates a much deeper and more intimate relationship between Western intelligence agencies and the anti-Iranian terror group. Considering Jundallah became the battleground between the CIA and Mossad, it’s not a stretch to say that the organization is, to some degree, influenced or even directly controlled by the U.S.


Related: Covert attacks on Iran may lead to overt war


Like Jundallah, Jaish al-Adl is a terror group operating in Iran’s southeastern province of Sistan-Baluchestan, as well as Pakistan’s Balochistan Province. The group has carried out numerous attacks against Iranian government institutions, including one infamous incident in March 2014 in which five Iranian border guards were kidnapped, with one being executed later.

According to the Terrorism Research and Analysis Consortium:

“[Jaish al-Adl is] an extremist Salafi group that has since its foundation claimed responsibility for a series of operations against Iran’s domestic security forces and Revolutionary Guards operating in Sistan and Balochistan province, including the detonation of mines [link added] against Revolutionary Guards vehicles and convoys, kidnapping of Iranian border guards and attacks against military bases… Jaish al-Adl is also opposed to the Iranian Government’s active support of the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, which they regard as an attack on Sunni Muslims…Jaish ul-Adl executes cross-border operations between the border of Iran and Pakistan and is based in the Baluchistan province in Pakistan.”

Jaish al-Adl is certainly not riding alone on the terror train, as their cousins Ansar al-Furqan – a fusion of the Balochi Harakat Ansar and Pashto Hizb al-Furqan, both of which have been operating along Iran’s eastern border with Pakistan – have entered the anti-Iran fray in recent years.

According to the Terrorism Research and Analysis Consortium:

“[Ansar al-Furqan] characterize themselves as Mujahideen aginst [sic] the Shia government in Iran and are linked to Katibat al Asad Al ‘Ilamiya; Al-Farooq activists; al Nursra Front (JN), Nosrat Deen Allah, Jaysh Muhammad, Jaysh al ‘Adal; and though it was denied for some time, appears to have at least personal relationships with Jundallah…The stated mission of Ansar al Furqan is ” to topple the Iranian regime…”

Here one sees the intersection of the war against Iran and the ongoing war in Syria.  Sunni extremist organizations such as Jaish al-Adl and Ansar al-Furqan see their war against Iran as an extension of the war against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, itself part of the broader jihad against Shia Islam.

 

Weaponizing Iraq’s Kurds against Iran?

Thanks to WikiLeaks, it is well-documented fact that Israel, as well as the U.S., have long attempted to use Kurdish groups such as PJAK (an Iraqi Kurdish terror group) to wage continued war against Iran for the purposes of destabilizing its government.  At the same time, however, both Washington and Tel Aviv have been involved on the ground with the Kurdish Special Forces by attempting to use them against Iran.

As Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh noted in 2004:

“The Israelis have had long-standing ties to the Talibani and Barzani clans [in] Kurdistan and there are many Kurdish Jews that emigrated to Israel and there are still a lot of connection. But at some time before the end of the year [2004], and I’m not clear exactly when, certainly I would say a good six, eight months ago, Israel began to work with some trained Kurdish commandoes, ostensibly the idea was the Israelis — some of the Israeli elite commander units, counter-terror or terror units, depending on your point of view, began training — getting the Kurds up to speed.”

Ethnic Kurdish Israelis protest outside the Turkish embassy in Tel Aviv, Israel, July 8, 2010.

Ethnic Kurdish Israelis protest outside the Turkish embassy in Tel Aviv, Israel, July 8, 2010.

Iran’s leaders have been keenly aware of the presence of Israeli special forces and intelligence on the ground in Kurdistan, knowing that ultimately it is Tehran in the crosshairs. And indeed, that has been the recent history of relations between Israel and the Barzani/Talabani-led Iraqi Kurds.  As pro-Israeli blogger Daniel Bart noted:

“During most of that time there were usually some 20 military specialists stationed in a secret location in southern Kurdistan. Rehavam Zeevi and Moshe Dayan were among Israeli generals who served in Kurdistan…The Israelis trained the large Kurdish army of Mustafa Barzani and even led Kurdish troops in battle…The “secret” cooperation between Kurdistan and Israel is mainly in two fields. The first is in intelligence cooperation and this is hardly remarkable as half the world including many Muslim states have such relationships with Israel. The second is influence in Washington.”

Here again one sees the rich diversity of tactics employed by the U.S. and Israel against Iran. And while no one should be surprised that Washington and Tel Aviv would use regional antipathy and rivalries to gain leverage over and ultimately destabilize Iran, the use of terrorist groups as a weapon might come as a surprise to the uninitiated. But indeed, terrorism has been perhaps the most potent weapon in this war.

 

A new chapter in an old story

For Iran, the last seventy years have demonstrated that so-called “Western democracies” are actually anti-democratic and function as state sponsors of terrorism – precisely the terms hurled at Iran on a near-daily basis in the corporate media. From the CIA and MI6’s “original sin” of deposing Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq in a coup d’etat in 1953, to imposing the U.S. puppet Shah with his secret police, torture chambers and forced disappearance of dissidents, the U.S. and its allies have been waging a terror war against the people of Iran for decades.

And what exactly is the great sin of the Iranian people? For one, they had the misfortune of residing in a country that sits atop trillions of dollars in energy reserves, making it a prime target for empires throughout the last century. Additionally, with its large, well-educated population, Iran is a lucrative market for Western corporations, so long as the pesky democratically elected government can be removed as an obstacle. And Iran, strategically located along both the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea, bordering the Middle East and South Asia, forms a critical node in the projection of power for all Western empires, including the U.S.


Related: Trump Team Promises To ‘Deal With Iran’ Before New Administration Comes To Power


For these reasons, the Islamic Republic is rightly seen by Tel Aviv and Riyadh as a regional rival, a growing power that challenges Israeli-Saudi hegemony in the region. So it should come as no surprise that Iran has been repeatedly victimized by Western-sponsored terrorism.

And  so, when the Orange Buffoon currently occupying the White House, or any of the neocons who have held the reins of US foreign policy for years, blasts Iran as a sponsor of terror at precisely the moment the country is reeling from a national tragedy, it is rather revealing. Because, indeed, it is the US and its closest allies that have the long and sordid track record of sponsoring terrorism, not Iran.

So when Trump or any of the neocons who have held the reins of U.S. foreign policy for years blasts Iran as a sponsor of terror at precisely the moment the country is reeling from a national tragedy, it is rather revealing.

It is the U.S. and other Western powers that have allowed the ISIS (Daesh) to proliferate, backed al-Qaeda, and sponsored myriad terror groups in waging war against Iran. It is Washington, Tel Aviv and Riyadh that have cast Iran as the villain and painted terror groups as legitimate resistance against the “mullocracy.”

Here again, when it comes to terrorism and U.S. foreign policy, we see the pot calling the kettle black. However, given Iran’s unwillingness to be cowed by terror, no one should be surprised if the kettle finally boils over.

%d bloggers like this: