Dehqan: Miserable Saudi Arabia Conspires With ‘Israel’ against Iran

09-05-2017 | 13:44

Local Editor

Iran’s defense minister Hossein Dehqan said Saudi Arabia, which has a history of teaming up with other regimes against Tehran, has now become so miserable as to ally itself with ‘Israel’ against the Islamic Republic.

 

Dehqan: Miserable Saudi Arabia Conspires With ‘Israel' against Iran


Dehqan made the remarks in an interview fully broadcast on Arabic-language Al-Manar TV on Monday.

Brigadier General Dehqan said that over the past 38 years since the establishment of the Islamic Republic, Saudi Arabia has gone out of its way to interfere in regional affairs to oppose Iran.

He said Riyadh spent lavishly to support the former Iraqi regime and the Persian Gulf littoral states against Iran in the eight-year Iraq-Iran war of the 1980s. He also referred to the Saudi intervention in Lebanese politics and said the Saudi rulers offered massive financial and political support to the groups they wanted in power in Lebanon. The Saudis also offered weapons to such groups.

“Then, let’s looks at what they have done in Iraq and Syria today. At what they are doing in Yemen today,” Dehqan said.

Saudi Arabia has been a known sponsor of extremist Wahhabi groups wreaking havoc in the region and beyond. It has also been leading a group of its vassal states in a war on impoverished Yemen since March 2015.

“Today, what we’re seeing is Saudi Arabia has become so miserable. So much so that it has convinced itself to curry favor with [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu and incite it [the ‘Israeli’ regime] against us,” Dehqan said.

Last Tuesday, the Saudi defense minister, Mohammed bin Salman, claimed in a televised interview that Saudi Arabia would fight what he called Iranian attempts to expand its influence in the region.

Dehqan responded by rejecting the accusation that Iran was after taking over territory.

“We have never been and will never be after occupying any Arab or Muslim country,” Dehqan said.

Responding to a question on how the Yemeni conflict could end, Dehqan said it was easy to think of a solution.

“First [should come] a Saudi withdrawal from Yemen. Second, a Saudi refusal to interfere in the affairs of other Islamic countries. Third, accepting the collective security order in the region, and the pullout of extra-regional forces. Fourth, submitting to people’s rule over their own fate.”

When asked if the ‘Israeli’ regime was capable of launching a war on Iran, Dehqan said he would respond by asking a question of his own.

“I answer your question with a question. Could ‘Israel’ successfully end the 33-Day War [on Lebanon]?” he said.

“Did Hezbollah, in a country limited [in terms of resources] as Lebanon [was], have access to massive financial and arms backup? Did ‘Israel’, in the 33-Day War, have any other means in its inventory not to have used?” he further rhetorically asked.

Once again asked if ‘Israel’ could attack Iran, Dehqan said, “Do not doubt that it would if it could.”

Dehqan said Iran has enough missiles to heavily target any and all aggressors.
Asked about how many missiles Iran had, he said, “Enough to heavily, seriously, and massively target everyone that is standing against us in a short period of time if, God forbid,” aggression is launched against Iran.

He advised ill-wishers, however, not to venture against Iran.

“We advise our enemies, the Americans and their other, feeble servants, not to test us,” Dehqan said.

He further stressed that the United States would not be able to effectively fight Daesh because the US itself “has created it for use as a tool.”

“It has in fact created a mobile ‘Israel’,” he said.

Dehqan said ‘Israel’ was best enjoying the situation.

“Israel is… laying back and does not face any threats. Daesh is fighting on its behalf and is providing it with security. Daesh is destroying the capacities of the Muslim world, which can otherwise be used to confront Israel’s acquisitiveness and aggression.”

Brig. Gen. Dehqan also had some advice for Turkey: “The Turks backed Daesh in a serious manner at first.”

“Their perception was that they could topple the legitimate government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad so that their favorite government would take over there.”

Source: Press TV, Edited by website team

Related Videos

Related Articles

USA Logic, Iran a sponsor of terrorism, Saudi a paragon of virtue. Turning the truth on its head

This week both ISIS & the USA has threatened Iran, what should we read into that, who exactly is supporting terrorists?

US general calls for military action against Iran

threatens for a hilarious reason- What ISIS & Al Nusra really are

US should use ‘military means’ against Iran: CENTCOM chief

US Central Command Commander Army General Joseph Votel testifies before the Senate Armed Services Committee in Washington, DC, March 9, 2017. (Photo by AFP) US Central Command Commander Army General Joseph Votel testifies before the Senate Armed Services Committee in Washington, DC, March 9, 2017. (Photo by AFP)

The United States should consider using “military means” against Iran, US Army General Joseph Votel says, calling Tehran “the greatest long-term threat to stability” in the Middle East.

Votel, who heads the US Central Command (CENTCOM), made the hostile remarks while speaking before the House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday.

“I believe that Iran is operating in what I call a gray zone, and it’s an area between normal competition between states — and it’s just short of open conflict,” he told the panel.

Votel went on to accuse Iran of “destabilizing” the region through “lethal aid facilitation,” using “surrogate forces” and cyber operations.

“We need to look at opportunities where we can disrupt [Iran] through military means or other means their activities,” he said. “We need to look at opportunities where we can expose and hold them accountable for the things that they are doing.”

The general’s statements fall in line with the anti-Iran rhetoric of US President Donald Trump, who has accused Iran of supporting terrorism and said “nothing is off the table” in terms of a response to the country’s defensive missile program. Trump has also said that his administration formally put Tehran “on notice” over its missile test.

As the commander of CENTCOM, Votel is tasked with leading Washington’s military efforts in Central Asia and the Middle East. More than 80,000 US soldiers are stationed across the area under Votel’s command.

The general also oversees the US-led coalition’s airstrikes and other military operations against purported terrorist targets inside Syria and Iraq, a campaign that began in 2014 and has led to the death of many civilians without any meaningful achievement.

Votel’s comments came less than two weeks after a deadly coalition strike that killed over 200 civilians in the Iraqi city of Mosul.

 

The Pentagon has admitted to carrying out such “unintentional” raids against civilian targets in Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen as well.

Relatives mourn as bodies of Iraqi children of west Mosul killed in an airstrike by the US-led coalition are covered with blankets, March 17, 2017. (Photo by AFP)

Additionally, Washington has come under pressure for forging a close military and political alliance with Saudi Arabia, ignoring the regime’s bloody war on Yemen and its clear support for extremist groups.

This is while the international community has constantly hailed Iran’s active role in curbing the terrorism threat plaguing the region.

Persian Gulf encounters

In his testimony before the lawmakers, Votel also discussed the recent surge in Iran-US military encounters in the Persian Gulf, saying his team was “paying extraordinarily close attention” to the issue.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC)’s Navy has on several occasions forced US Navy vessels to change course before wandering into Iranian territorial waters.

The last of such encounters occurred earlier this month, when a US Navy ship and three British Royal Navy boats steered out of the course approved for international naval transit in the Persian Gulf and came within 550 meters (0.3 nautical miles) of IRGC vessels, drawing serious warnings from them.

Iran has repeatedly warned that any act of transgression into Iran’s territorial waters would be met with an immediate and befitting response.

 

ISIS Threatens Iran for tolerating Jews, but considering ISIS cooperation with israel, is strange

ISIS Threatens Iran for Tolerating Jews

Rare Farsi Video Slams Iranian Govt for Offering Protection to Religious Minority

ISIS has released a new propaganda video, this one unusually in Farsi language and directed specifically at Iran, threatening to destroy the current government of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and declaring Khamenei a “cursed person.”

The video singles out Iran for criticism because of its tolerance for its Jewish minority, saying that they are trying to “deceive the Sunnis” by presenting themselves as against the US and Israel while tolerating Iranian Jews living safely under government protection and having temples in Iranian cities.

Iran has had a Jewish minority living in  its territory for some 3,000 years, and with estimates of as many as 25,000 Jews living there, is unique among Middle East nations in having such a community, with other nations in the region not tolerating their Jewish minorities after the establishment of Israel.

ISIS has been extremely hostile toward  Iran since their founding, as a Sunni jihadist group that got its start attacking an Iranian-backed Shi’ite government in Iraq, and while it’s not surprising to see ISIS singling out Iran as an enemy, it is surprisingly to see the nature of their narrative.

US Predictably Turns “Iran Deal” into Confrontation

March 2, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci – NEO) – The so-called “Iran Deal” was never meant to serve as a starting point for rapprochement between Washington and Tehran,  but rather as a pretext for greater confrontation.

US President Donald Trump’s administration capitalized on developments in Saudi Arabia’s losing war in Yemen, as well as a missile test conducted by the Iranian government, to portray Iran as ungrateful for a diplomatic deal the administration’s now resigned National Security Adviser Michael Flynn suggested should never have been made in the first place.

The Guardian’s article, “Trump administration ‘officially putting Iran on notice’, says Michael Flynn,” would state:

The Trump administration has said it was “officially putting Iran on notice” in reaction to an Iranian missile test and an attack on a Saudi warship by Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen but gave no details about how Washington intended to respond.

And while Flynn’s comments before his abrupt resignation sound like the genuine, if not hypocritical stance of Trump presidency, those who have followed the actual brokers of US foreign policy recognize the very familiar script Flynn is reading from – and it is a script written not by the Trump administration, but by unelected corporate-financier funded policy think tanks, years before “President Trump” took office.

Flynn’s resignation will have little impact on this policy, since it has been planned, and systematically implemented years before Donald Trump even began his presidential campaign. The fact that Flynn’s stance on Iran is reflected by those remaining in Trump’s administration is proof enough of this.

Brookings’ “Superb Offer” Circa 2009  

The Brookings Institution paper titled, “The Path to Persia: Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran” (.pdf), would explicitly lay out America’s regime change conspiracy arrayed against Tehran, stating (emphasis added):

...any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.

Brookings’ “superb offer” was clearly presented to both the public and Tehran in the form of the so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) or the “Iran Deal” in 2015. And while Washington attempted to convince the world it sought rapprochement with Tehran, even as it pursued this deal, it poured money, weapons, and even direct military support into the attempted overthrow of Iran’s ally, Syria – another prerequisite enumerated by the 2009 Brookings report ahead of war with Iran.
The deal then, was disingenuous from its inception, its betrayal all but inevitable when Washington felt the political and strategic climate was optimal for portraying Tehran as duplicitous, and justifying a wider confrontation – particularly with both Syria significantly weakened after 6 years of war, and Iran significantly tied up financially and militarily in Syria’s fate.

Trump Battered Saudi Arabia on the Campaign Trail, Defends it on the War Path 
Rhetoric emanating from Trump while campaigning in 2016 for the presidency, heavily revolved around fighting terrorism, and tough-talk with Saudi Arabia. In one infamous message over social media platform Twitter, Trump would proclaim:

Dopey Prince @Alwaleed_Talal wants to control our U.S. politicians with daddy’s money. Can’t do it when I get elected. #Trump2016 

Now as president, Trump’s stance regards Saudi Arabia as a friend, and is implying wider confrontation with Iran for allegedly arming and training fighters in Yemen who attacked a Saudi warship. The Trump administration and the media at large fail to mention that Saudi Arabia has – for years – been waging full-scale war on Yemen, by air, land, and sea – both directly, and through terrorist proxies – from Saudi territory and international waters, and within and above Yemeni territory itself via land invasion and airstrikes.

The prospect of the US reversing diplomatic rapprochement with Iran over Yemeni forces fighting against Saudi Arabia’s extraterritorial military aggression against their nation alone transgresses both international law and the interests of the American people.

However, considering Saudi Arabia’s admitted ties to terrorism in Yemen, across the region – particularly in Syria and Iraq in the form of Al Qaeda, its various affiliates, and the so-called Islamic State (ISIS) itself – and around the world, the US declaring Saudi Arabia a “friend and ally” and accusing Iran of “destabilizing behavior across the Middle East,” makes it clear that the US either condones Saudi Arabia’s state sponsorship of terrorism, or is directly involved in it itself.

Of course, Flynn, previously the director of the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), was aware of the DIA’s 2012 memo in which the creation of a “Salafist” (Islamic) “principality” (State) was sought after by not only the Persian Gulf monarchies, but also NATO-member Turkey, Europe, and the US itself. So was the rest of the Trump administration.

The memo read:

If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran). 

The DIA memo then explains exactly who this “Salafist principality’s” supporters are (and who its true enemies are):

The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime.

Iran is specifically stated as opposed to “the opposition” which included the then nascent Islamic State, as well as designated terrorist organization Jabhat Al Nusra (now Jabhat Fateh al-Sham).

In a display of surreal deception, the Trump administration attempts to portray themselves as “fighting terror” while edging closer to confrontation with Iran currently fighting it region-wide. The US does this in defense of Saudi Arabia, admitted by the US itself as sponsoring terrorism region-wide.

President Trump’s hypocrisy defies explanation unless the Brookings Institution paper is brought back to light, and current events put into the context of the conspiracy and continuity of agenda the paper represents.

The US media has attempted to portray President Trump’s hypocrisy toward Saudi Arabia as a personal and business-related conflict of interest. The US media apparently expects the public to believe it is just a coincidence the Trump administration is continuing decades of US foreign policy and a truly duplicitous relationship with Riyadh that has transcended multiple presidencies, left and right, Republican and Democrat, including the recently departed Obama administration.

To understand the geopolitical trajectory of global events, particularly in regards to US-Iranian relations, observers, analysts, and the general public alike would serve themselves well to read US policy papers instead of entertaining theories from the US media, or speeches and statements from the Trump administration.

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

From Kissinger’s Playbook: Flynn is Gone, His Russia Policy Lives On

Amid demonstrations against his first choice, President Donald Trump named Lieutenant General Herbert McMaster, whose book claiming the US was too soft on Vietnam is now required reading for US officers, as his new national security advisor this week.

McMaster’s appointment came after Michael Flynn, Trump’s original choice, was forced to resign earlier this month after it emerged that he had misled Vice President Mike Pence about his phone calls with the Russian ambassador back in December.

The Washington Post revealed that these conversations, which occurred before Flynn had taken up his government role, had involved discussions of US sanctions on Russia. Such a discussion not only broke the “one president at a time” protocol – that members of an incoming administration should not discuss policy with foreign powers, but also flatly contradicted his own earlier denials, made to both Pence and to the FBI.

As Flynn had supposedly been one of the key “pro-Putin” figures in Trump’s administration, his removal has been interpreted by some as a victory for the anti-Russia “hawks” in the US foreign policy establishment. This is a misreading of the situation on two levels.

First, characterising members of Trump’s team as “pro-Russia” is incorrect; rather, they have, as Tom Hardy’s character in Taboo might put it, a “use” for Russia. Secondly, this plan for Russia is likely to remain intact regardless of Flynn’s removal – or McMaster’s well-publicised anti-Russia stance.

Befriending Russia to isolate Iran

Improving relations with Russia was only one of Flynn’s two major foreign policy obsessions: the other was “regime change” in Iran. In his 2016 book The Field of Fight, he wrote that “Iran has been a major threat to the US for decades due to its sponsorship of international terrorism – but the US has prioritised diplomatic relations over national security.” Instead, he argued, “the US must change course. These countries must be prepared to face military action.”

In fact, it is highly likely that the so-called “pro-Russia” position of Flynn, and indeed Trump, is part of a broader foreign policy initiative aimed ultimately at destroying Iran. The broad outlines of this position could already be discerned in the testimony Flynn gave to the Joint Foreign Affairs and House Armed Services Committee back in June 2015. Like so many now in Trump’s team, he expressed his dissatisfaction with the nuclear deal negotiated the year before.

“Iran represents a clear and present danger to the region, and eventually to the world,” he told the committee. When asked what he believed should be done about the prospect of Iranian nuclear development, he was unequivocal, replying that regime change in Tehran “is the best way to stop the Iranian nuclear weapons programme”.

The so-called ‘pro-Russia’ position of Flynn, and indeed Trump, is part of a broader foreign policy initiative aimed ultimately at destroying Iran

Since then, of course, Syria has taught the West a painful lesson about “regime change”, namely that Russia can make it extremely difficult.

Later in his testimony, Flynn argued that there was an “anti-US” alliance being developed between China, Iran and Russia: “Just look at the [Iranian] cooperation with North Korea, China and Russia. Connect those dots and you get the outline of a global alliance aimed at the US, our friends and our allies.” He continued: “Russian assistance is part of a broader pattern. After all, the Iranian nuclear reactor at Bushehr is Russian-built, the two countries work very closely together in Syria, and Russia is providing Iran with an effective anti-aircraft system that could be deployed against any aircraft seeking to destroy the nuclear programme.”

The message is clear: if you want to attack Iran, you’d better break their alliance with Russia first. Michael Ledeen, who co-authored Flynn’s book, put it simply: “The issue is whether Putin is prepared to abandon Khamenei.” This is what those phone calls, and all Trump’s flattery of Putin, are really about: attempting to draw Russia away from its alliance with Iran (and China) – and ultimately to buy Russian acquiescence for the next war.

Adopting Kissinger’s playbook

The restoration of governmental authority in Syria currently underway, however, is not the first time that the US has suffered a military defeat at the hands of a foreign government supported by Russia. Nor is it the first time the US has responded to such a failure with a renewed attempt to split Russia from her allies.

In 1969, Richard Milhous Nixon became 37th president of the United States, and the fifth to lead US attempts to crush Vietnamese independence, inheriting a full-scale, and disastrous, military commitment. The Tet offensive the previous year had decisively blown apart the lie that the US was winning the war, and Nixon was elected on a promise to bring about “peace with honour”.

He would achieve neither, and in fact embarked on a massive escalation of the war, including a secret carpet bombing campaign in Cambodia, which led to famine and ultimately the rise of the Khmer Rouge. Yet the US’s ongoing defeat could not be abated. This led Nixon and his advisers towards a radical rethink of US strategy.

“By the time Nixon came into office,” wrote his own national security advisor, Henry Kissinger, “East-West relations were themselves in obvious need of reassessment.” Indeed, he said, the USA’s entire Cold War strategy “needed to be reconsidered in light of the trauma of Vietnam”.

The Vietnamese victory over the US was aided significantly by support, at different times, from both Russia and China, and Kissinger’s greatest fear was the restoration of “dreaded Sino-Soviet bloc … which had inspired so much fear in the 1950s.” He added that while it was “far from clear” that the USSR was “capable of realising so vast a project … what was obvious … was that the risk could not be run.”

“If the balance of power is taken seriously,” he continued, “then the very prospect of geopolitical upheaval must be resisted; by the time the change has occurred, it may well be too late to oppose it.”

The missing linkage

In today’s terms, this formula translates into two specific policy requirements for the US: 1) Russian-Chinese unity must be resisted and 2) Iran’s increasing influence in the Middle East must be reversed (ideally, one presumes, before the recapture of Mosul by largely Iranian-allied militias solidifies such influence).

Like Trump and Flynn today, Nixon and Kissinger sought nothing less than the breakup of the non-Western alliance spearheaded by Russia and China that had stymied US attempts to destroy governments challenging their hegemony. And, like today, they believed US cooperation with Russia to be both possible and desirable for both parties.

Said Kissinger: “America needed breathing room in order to extricate itself from Vietnam and to construct a new policy for the post-Vietnam era, while the Soviet Union had perhaps even stronger reasons for seeking a respite.” In particular, “the idea was to emphasise those areas in which cooperation was possible, and to use that cooperation as leverage to modify Soviet behaviour in areas where the two countries were at loggerheads,” a policy that became known as “linkage”.

The linkage being sought today – the deal Trump wishes to make with Russia – is to use potential “cooperation” over Syria, Ukraine and sanctions as “leverage” to secure Russian acquiescence for renewed hostilities towards Iran and China.

With this in mind, it is particularly interesting to note Kissinger’s role in shaping Trump’s foreign policy today. Germany’s Bild newspaper reported in December 2016 that Kissinger was a key architect of Trump’s “rapprochement” policy with Russia, advising him to lift sanctions and recognise Russian ownership of Crimea. These will not be free gifts – reciprocity will be expected and demanded, and Trump is making it abundantly clear that he wants a free hand in confronting Iran and China.

The linkage being sought today is to use potential ‘cooperation’ over Syria, Ukraine and sanctions as ‘leverage’ to secure Russian acquiescence for renewed hostilities towards Iran

Furthermore, as journalist Nafeez Ahmed has noted, “Kissinger’s ‘unofficial’ advisory role in the Trump regime is solidified through the direct influence of one of his longtime acolytes, KT McFarland, an aide to Henry Kissinger during the Nixon administration on the National Security Council from 1970 to 1976.”

McFarland was appointed by Trump as Michael Flynn’s deputy. Robert Harward, a former Navy seal, reportedly turned down the national security advisor post because Trump insisted that she stay on rather than allowing Harward to bring his own team.

In his book Diplomacy, Kissinger wrote that “Nixon had managed, despite the tragedy of Indochina, to maneuver his country into a dominant international position,” snatching a victory of sorts from the jaws of defeat, by playing Russia and China off against one another.

‘Russophobes’ are part of the plan

In this light, McMaster’s apparently conflicting views on Russia make sense. According to Frants Klintsevich, deputy head of the defence and security affairs committee of Russia’s Federation Council, McMaster is a “100 percent hawk” on Russia.

This appears to contrast with Flynn’s approach, putting him closer to other so-called “Russophobes” in the Trump team, such as ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, who told the Security Council last month that “Russian actions” in the Ukraine “demand clear and strong condemnation,” and Vice President Mike Pence, who condemned Russia at the recent Munich Security Conference.

Yet these figures and their threats are as much a part of the strategy as dangling the prospect of lifting sanctions. As Kissinger put it: “The statesman’s role is … to create a network of incentives and penalties to produce the most favourable outcome.”

To pull off his “deal,” Trump needs his “bad cops” just as much as he needs to flatter and offer inducements – to warn Russia of what they will be up against should they choose to ignore his overtures and maintain their existing alliances.

The question today is: will Russia snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Syria by allowing itself to be played off against Iran and China? The stakes could not be higher.

This article originally appeared on Middle East Eye.

Dan Glazebrook is currently crowdfunding to finance his second book; you can order an advance copy here: http://fundrazr.com/c1CSnd

More articles by:

Trump is a caricature version of Obama ترامب نسخة كاريكاتورية لأوباما

Trump is a caricature version of Obama

فبراير 28, 2017

Written by Nasser Kandil,

It is clear that the new US President Donald Trump has changed his electoral speech which based on the call to pay attention to the US interior, to reduce the degree of the engagement in the role of the global policeman, and the interventions and the wars with the exception of the priority of the war on ISIS which its entry is Russian US cooperation, knowing that these terms and vocabularies were quoted from Trump’s speeches in the elections, into the focus on a foreign policy that based on a speech that rebuilds what his electoral speech has affected his relation with the allies, and based on the recalling back the speech of the abstention from the involvement in the settlements which are imposed by the attempt to cooperate with Russia in preparation for a global alliance against the terrorism.

The era of the Former US President Barack Obama who was accused of failure by his opponents, and who was accused of extremism by Trump, because in his opinion he made ISIS and has implicated America with the war of Syria to change the regime in it, has been characterized with the attempt to combine the two policies of pleasing the allies in the NATO and in the region especially France, Britain, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel on one hand, and the attempt to proceed in settlements during the cooperation with Moscow on the other hand, after Obama spent his first mandate and half of his second mandate in leading the allies in the west and the region to the wars of the Arab Spring specially the war of Syria, and bringing the fleets in preparation for the war, but he was forced to retreat to avoid a full confrontation which America is not ready for it, then he discovered that he did not have ready allies for the settlements which he reached to their titles with Russia, so he fell in the waiting, slowdown, and the dual language, towards the vacancy.

Trump has succeeded in making a speech that was characterized with courage in running the settlements which Obama has hesitated in their running, since they are the only place in which the US President can test his bravery, because the field of escalation and wars is determined with the inability, this was before the Russians have positioned in the region and before the victories of Aleppo, so how after them. After the arrival of Trump to presidency he faced the complexities which prevent him from going on in the US political, diplomatic, legislative, and military policy towards qualitative step of change that is represented by the alliance with Russia. Trump has involved in wide confrontations in the US interior through improvised steps, speeches, and random positions that based on the racism and arrogance, that integrated with the abstention of the US institution, so he submitted quickly and was the resignation of his National Security Advisor Michel Flynn on the basis of a phone call with the Russian ambassador in Washington as an expression of that submission.

Trump who regressed from the choice of settlements through arrogant insolent speech inherits a president who has experienced all the opportunities to test the power, the pressures, and the sanctions, he has imposed exhausted sanctions on Russia, paved the way for the war of Ukraine, has brought the fleets to the Mediterranean Sea, moreover he has brought Al-Qaeda and sent ISIS, and has tried till the last moment through the sanctions and the negotiation to subdue Iran. He has left only two choices for the one who will come after him, the first choice is the further investment on ISIS and Al Nusra publicly and making the war on Syria prior to the war on terrorism, and the escalation against Russia on that basis. This choice has been represented by Hillary Clinton, while the second choice is the involvement with Russia and the cooperation and having an understanding with it on making the settlements in preparation for the participation in the war on Al Nusra and ISIS, this includes openness to the Syrian country. These are the titles foreshadowed by Trump.

Trump retreated in front of the abstention of the US intelligence, its military personnel, diplomats, and those who work in media, they are the elites which fought Trump to prevent his arrival, and this means that his fall is the inevitable exit from the international chaos not the fall of the choice of settlements. The choice of escalation for which Clinton has aspired and which was represented by her means Trump’s loss of his supporters without gaining his opponents, it is a choice that is determined with failure and with the high cost in the light of the direct Russian engagement in Syria and the strict Iranian position towards her.

Trump turns into a caricature version of Obama through the inability to take decision and the falling into stalemate with the difference that Trump has filled the vacancy with screaming, so his stage is characterized with some of the black comedy.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

ترامب نسخة كاريكاتورية لأوباما

فبراير 23, 2017

ناصر قنديل

– من الواضح أنّ الرئيس الأميركي الجديد دونالد ترامب قد انقلب على خطابه الانتخابي الذي قام على الدعوة للاهتمام بأميركا من الداخل وتخفيض درجة الانخراط بدور الشرطي العالمي، والتدخلات والحروب، باستثناء أولوية الحرب على داعش، ومدخلها تعاون روسي أميركي. وهذه مصطلحات ومفردات مقتبسة من خطابات ترامب في الانتخابات، إلى التركيز على سياسة خارجية تُبنَى على خطاب ترميم ما خرّبه الخطاب الانتخابي مع الحلفاء وتستعيد خطاب الممانعة في الانخراط بالتسويات التي يُمليها التوجّه للتعاون مع روسيا تمهيداً لحلف عالمي ضد الإرهاب.

– اتسمت مرحلة الرئيس الأميركي السابق باراك أوباما المتّهم بالتخاذل من خصومه، والمتّهم بالتطرّف من ترامب. فهو برأيه مَن صنع داعش ومَن ورّط أميركا بحرب سورية لتغيير نظام الحكم فيها، بمحاولة جمع سياسيتي إرضاء الحلفاء في الأطلسي وفي المنطقة، خصوصاً فرنسا وبريطانيا والسعودية وتركيا و»إسرائيل» من جهة، ومحاولة السير بالتسويات في طريق التعاون مع موسكو من جهة أخرى، بعدما أمضى أوباما ولايته الأولى ونصف ولايته الثانية في قيادة الحلفاء في الغرب والمنطقة لحروب الربيع العربي، خصوصاً حرب سورية وصولا لجلب الأساطيل تمهيداً للحرب، واضطر للتراجع تجنّباً لمواجهة شاملة ليست أميركا جاهزة لها، ليكتشف أن التسويات التي توصل لعناوينها مع روسيا ليس لديه حلفاء جاهزون لها، فوقع بالانتظار والتباطؤ واللغة المزدوجة، وصولاً للفراغ.

– صعد ترامب على كتف خطاب يعِد بالشجاعة في خوض غمار التسويات التي تردّد أوباما في خوضها، باعتبارها المكان الوحيد الذي يُتاح فيه للرئيس الأميركي أن يختبر شجاعته. فميدان التصعيد والحروب مسقوف بالعجز، قبل أن يكون الروس قد تموضعوا في المنطقة، وقبل انتصارات حلب، فكيف بعدهما، وبعد وصول ترامب ظهر أمامه حجم التعقيدات التي تحول دون السير بالآلة الأميركية السياسية والدبلوماسية والتشريعية والعسكرية نحو خطوة نوعية من التغيير تتمثل بالانتقال للتحالف مع روسيا، وتورّط ترامب في مواجهات واسعة في الداخل الأميركي وبخطوات مرتجلة وخطابات ومواقف عشوائية تتأسس على العنصرية والغطرسة، تكاملت مع ممانعة المؤسسة الأميركية فرضخ سريعاً وكانت استقالة مستشاره للأمن القومي مايكل فلين بناء على اتصال أجراه بالسفير الروسي في واشنطن تعبيراً عن هذا الرضوخ.

– ترامب المنكفئ عن خيار التسويات بخطاب متعالٍ ومتغطرس، يرث رئيساً لم تبقَ فرصة لاختبار القوة والضغوط والعقوبات لم يختبرها، فهو مَن ضيّق خناق العقوبات على روسيا ومَن فتح حرب أوكرانيا ومَن جلب الأساطيل إلى المتوسط ومَن جلب القاعدة وأرسل داعش، ومَن خاص حتى اللحظة الأخيرة من العقوبات والتفاوض محاولات تركيع إيران، وأبقى الباب مفتوحاً من بعده لخيارين لا ثالث لهما: الأول هو الذهاب لمزيد من الاستثمار على داعش والنصرة علناً، وجعل الحرب على سورية أسبقية للحرب على الإرهاب، والتصعيد بوجه روسيا على هذا الأساس. وهذا الخيار مثّلته هيلاري كلينتون أو الذهاب لخيار الانخراط مع روسيا والتعاون والتفاهم معها على صناعة التسويات تمهيداً للتشارك في الحرب على النصرة وداعش، وما يتضمّنه ذلك من انفتاح على الدولة السورية. وهذه هي العناوين التي بشر بها ترامب.

– تراجع ترامب أمام ممانعة مخابرات أميركا وعسكرييها ودبلوماسييها وإعلامييها. وهي النخب التي قاتلت ترامب لمنع وصوله، يعني سقوطه. وليس سقوط خيار التسويات مخرجاً حتمياً من الفوضى الدولية. فخيار السير بالتصعيد الذي كانت تبتغيه كلينتون وتمثّله بأصالة، يعني خسارة ترامب لمؤيّديه من دون كسب خصومه، وهو خيار مسقوف بالفشل وبكلفته العالية في ظل الانخراط الروسي المباشر في سورية، والموقف الإيراني الصلب تجاهها.

– يتحوّل ترامب لنسخة كاريكاتورية عن أوباما، بالعجز عن أخذ القرار والوقوع في الجمود، مع فارق ملء ترامب للفراغ بالصراخ، ما يمنح مرحلته بعضاً من الكوميديا السوداء.

(Visited 1٬361 times, 1٬361 visits today)
%d bloggers like this: