Video: israel Wants War with Iran. Penetrating Historical Analysis of israeli-CIA Meddling

Video: Israel Wants War with Iran. Penetrating Historical Analysis of Israeli-CIA Meddling

By Steve Pieczenik

Steve Pieczenik brings us a carefully documented analysis focussing on the history of the Middle East.

“Allow me to explain the Iran situ, its complicated and yes, Israel is involved.”

We created the Iran-Iraq war with the support of Israel.  Both Iraq and Iran were supported by the US. 

Israel has also maintained that it can attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. That is false. 

Steve Pieczenik served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. 



Does Trump dare to withdraw from the nuclear understanding? هل يجرؤ ترامب على الانسحاب من التفاهم النووي؟

Does Trump dare to withdraw from the nuclear understanding?

أكتوبر 17, 2017

Written by Nasser Kandil,

هل يجرؤ ترامب على الانسحاب من التفاهم النووي؟

Many people avoid answering this question lest the developments do not reflect their expectations, or make them lose some of the credibility and confidence which they accumulated among the readers and observers, especially in the light of the escalating positions which  are launched by the US President Donald Trump towards Iran and the understanding on its nuclear file, foreshadowing of the end of the era of this understanding which he perseveres in  describing it with the worst understanding, while many do not consider it far that Trump may do such a step putting the international and the regional relations in front of what he called as the forthcoming storm, many people considered it far  that Iran has the intention and the ability for escalating strong reactions, whether Trump abolishes the agreement or imposes sanctions on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, putting the Iranian threats within the context of the psychological warfare.

It is certain that Trump will not dare to announce the abolishment of the agreement because first his powers do not include such of that announcement, what he has is to ask the Congress to revoke the law of ratification of the agreement if he wants to withdraw from it, but the results will be subjected to balances where neither Trump not his dividing team can control. Despite this power which does include the abolishment, it puts Trump in withdrawing position from the agreement beholding the Congress the responsibility. Trump will not use it but he will search for a maneuver that will show him upset from the agreement without getting involved in the call to withdraw from it, this will be through restricting to what is stated by the law of ratifying the agreement by the Congress, such as asking for an annual report from the administration that shows the degree of Iran’s compliance with the agreement. He said that Iran is restricting with the literal obligations which were stated by the agreement, but it does not apply its essence. Trump does not withdraw from the agreement, but he withdraws his confidence in the ability of the agreement to prevent Iran from possessing nuclear weapons, calling the Congress to discuss the ways in order to improve the agreement and to achieve more guarantees. This means getting involved in discussions that last for sixty days, where the Congress will give recommendations to Trump’s administration that will include calls as the seeking with the partners in the agreement as Russia, China, France, Britain, Germany, the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the European Union to formulate more effective understandings to oblige Iran to commit to new obligations, along with going in for separated sanctions system that does not violate the nuclear understanding system, but it pursuits what is called by Washington as the Iranian missile program and what is being discussed by Trump and his team under the title of the interventions of Iran in the region and accusing it with destabilizing the allied regimes of Washington, where Hezbollah will get the main share of sanctions.

Will Trump dare to impose sanctions on the Revolutionary Guard as an organization, after he was allocated them to the Corps of Jerusalem within the Revolutionary Guard?

Trump will not dare to do so; he will choose instead the missile system in the Guard as what he did with the Corps of Jerusalem. He will avoid the challenge of Iran by putting its threats which were issued by the highest governmental and military levels towards the Supreme Leader of the Republic, as in the case of the nuclear understanding and the escape from losing of Europe and the International Atomic Energy Agency through  finding the solution which does not lead to major confrontation, and which preserves the tension and the pressure paper for Trump under the ceiling of small confrontations within a big negotiation, because the decisions concerning the relationship with Iran are decisions issued by the US country not by the sidelines of the President’s movement. The US country which evaded from the major confrontation entitled the prevention of Hezbollah from being present in Syria especially on the Southern and eastern borders, and after seeing that its red lines were violated it knows that the opportunities of a confrontation entitled Hezbollah is greater than the opportunities of a confrontation entitled the Iranian nuclear program, the halting from  the least due to the weakness ensures the inability to proceed towards the most by the illusion of ability

To those who are possessed by the power of America we say: let’s wait and see. Tomorrow is another day

The position of Trump is similar to the positions of the two heads of Kurdistan and Catalonia regions by the calling to hold referendum on the secession then to replace the announcement of the independence with the call for dialogue. These wrong considerations involve their owners, with the difference that Trump lives his presidency as a TV commentator rather than a decision-maker.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,


هل يجرؤ ترامب على الانسحاب من التفاهم النووي؟


أكتوبر 11, 2017

ناصر قنديل
هل يجرؤ ترامب على الانسحاب من التفاهم النووي؟– يتفادى الكثيرون الخوض في الإجابة عن هذا السؤال كي لا تأتي التطورات عكس توقعاتهم، ويخسرون بعضاً من المصداقية والثقة التي راكموها لدى قراء ومتابعين، خصوصاً في ظلّ المواقف التصعيدية التي يطلقها الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب تجاه إيران والتفاهم حول ملفها النووي، مبشّراً بنهاية عهد هذا التفاهم الذي دأب على وصفه بالأسوأ. وفيما لا يستبعد كثيرون أن يقدم ترامب على هذه الخطوة واضعاً العلاقات الدولية والإقليمية أمام ما أسماه بالعاصفة المقبلة، يستبعد كثيرون أن يكون لدى إيران النية والقدرة على ردود قوية تصعيدية، سواء إذا أقدم ترامب على إلغاء الاتفاق أو على وضع عقوبات على الحرس الثوري الإيراني، واضعين التهديدات الإيرانية في دائرة عضّ الأصابع والحرب النفسية.

– الأكيد أنّ ترامب لن يجرؤ على الإعلان عن إلغاء الاتفاق أولاً، لأنّ صلاحيته لا تطال هذا الإعلان، وما يملكه هو الطلب للكونغرس إبطال قانون التصديق على الاتفاقية إذا أراد الانسحاب منها. وهذا يخضع بالنتيجة لتوازنات لا يتحكم بها ترامب وفريقه المنقسم حول الموقف أصلاً، ورغم هذه الصلاحية التي تقع دون مستوى الإلغاء، لكنها تضع ترامب في موضع المنسحب من الاتفاق ملقياً المسؤولية على الكونغرس، فترامب لن يستعملها، بل سيبحث عن مناورة تظهره كغاضب من الاتفاق من دون التورّط بالدعوة للانسحاب منه، وذلك عبر التقيّد بحدود ما ينصّ عليه قانون تصديق الكونغرس على الاتفاق، من طلب تقرير سنوي من الإدارة يشير إلى درجة تقيّد إيران بموجباتها بالاتفاق، فيقول إنّ إيران تتقيّد بالموجبات الحرفية التي نصّ عليها الاتفاق لكنها لا تطبّق روحيته، وهو لا ينسحب من الاتفاق بل يسحب ثقته بقدرة الاتفاق على منع إيران من امتلاك سلاح نووي، داعياً الكونغرس لمناقشة سبل تحسين الاتفاقية وتحقيق المزيد من الضمانات. وهذا يعني الدخول في مناقشات تمتدّ لمدة ستين يوماً يخرج بحصيلتها الكونغرس بتوصيات لإدارة ترامب، ستتضمّن دعوات من نوع السعي مع الشركاء في الاتفاق وهم الدول الخمس، روسيا والصين وفرنسا وبريطانيا وألمانيا، والأمم المتحدة والوكالة الدولية للطاقة الذرية والاتحاد الأوروبي، لصياغة تفاهمات أشدّ قوّة وقدرة على إلزام إيران بموجبات جديدة، وبالتوازي السير بنظام عقوبات منفصل لا يخرق منظومة التفاهم النووي، لكنه يلاحق ما تسمّيه واشنطن البرنامج الصاروخي الإيراني، وما يتحدّث عنه ترامب وفريقه تحت عنوان تدخلات إيران في المنطقة، واتهامها بالتسبّب بزعزعة استقرار أنظمة حليفة لواشنطن، وسيحظى حزب الله هنا بالحصة الرئيسة من العقوبات.

– هل سيجرؤ ترامب على الذهاب لعقوبات على الحرس الثوري كمؤسسة بعينها، بعدما كان قد خصّصها لفيلق القدس ضمن الحرس الثوري؟

– لن يجرؤ ترامب على ذلك، بل سيختار منظومة الصواريخ في الحرس، أسوة بما فعله مع فيلق القدس، ويتفادى تحدّي إيران بوضع تهديداتها التي صدرت عن أعلى المستويات الحكومية والعسكرية وصولاً للمرشد الأعلى للجمهورية، كما في حال التفاهم النووي والتهرّب من خسارة أوروبا والوكالة الدولية للطاقة النووية، بإيجاد الالتفاف المناسب الذي لا يؤدّي لإشعال المواجهة الكبرى، ويحفظ لترامب أوراق التوتر والضغط واللعب بها، تحت سقف مواجهات صغيرة ضمن التفاوض الكبير، لأنّ القرارات على مسرح العلاقة مع إيران هي قرارات بحجم الدولة الأميركية وليست من هوامش حركة الرئيس. والدولة الأميركية التي تهرّبت من مواجهة كبرى عنوانها منع حزب الله من الوجود في سورية، خصوصاً على الحدود الجنوبية والشرقية، وهي ترى خطوطها الحمراء تداس، تعلم أنّ فرص مواجهة عنوانها حزب الله أكبر من فرص مواجهة عنوانها الملف النووي الإيراني، والإحجام عن الأقلّ بسبب الضعف يؤكد عدم الإقدام على الأكثر بوهم القدرة، فمن لا يستطيع الأقلّ لا يستطيع الأكثر.

– للموهومين بالقوة الأميركية نقول فلننتظر ونرَ، ومَنْ يعِش يرَ، وإن غداً لناظره قريب!

– كم يشبه موقف ترامب موقف رئيسَيْ إقليمي كردستان وكتالونيا، بالدعوة للاستفتاء على الانفصال ثم استبدال إعلان الاستقلال بالدعوة للحوار، هي الحسابات الخاطئة تورّط أصحابها، مع فارق أنّ ترامب يعيش رئاسته كمعلّق تلفزيوني لا كصانع قرار.

Related Videos


إيران في زمن بدر وخيبر وترامب في «شِعب أبي طالب

أكتوبر 14, 2017

محمد صادق الحسيني

تمخّض الجبل فولد فأراً…

أو أراد أن يكحّلها فعماها…

كما يقول المثل العربي الشهير…

هكذا ظهر ترامب في خطابه المتشنّج والعصبي ضدّ إيران بأنه فعلاً خسر الرهان على حرب ربع الساعة الأخير في معركة العلمين في دير الزور والحويجة والقائم…!

فقد خرجت سورية والعراق من يديه ومسمار جحا البرزاني في طريقه للقلع، وصفقة القرن الغزاوية ستغرق في رمال مخيم جباليا على أيدي «القسام» و«سرايا الجهاد» و«ألوية الناصر» و«أبو علي مصطفى»، وآخرين لم تسمع بهم بعد يا ترامب…!

«الأميركيون غير جديرين بالثقة وناقضو عهود من الدرجة الأولى»… هذه هي أهمّ حصيلة يخرج بها المتتبّع لخطاب ترامب سواء كان المتتبّع إيرانياً أو عربياً أو أوروبياً أو لأيّ ملة أو قوم انتمى، وهو ما سيزيد في وهن وعزلة أميركا…!

ودونالد ترامب أثبت أنه شخصياً لا يمتلك الجرأة ولا الشجاعة على الخروج من الاتفاق النووي، ولا إعلان الحرب على إيران، رغم حجم الاتهامات الهائل الذي وجّهها إليها…!

وكما توقعنا تماماً فقد ثبت أنه مجرد طبل فارغ أطلق ضجيجاً لا يعتدّ به مطلقاً غاية ما تولد منه جملة اتهامات وزعها يميناً ويساراً يحتاج لإثبات كلّ واحدة منها الى مفاوضات أطول وأعقد من مفاوضات الاتفاق النووي الشهير…!

في هذه الأثناء، فإنّ ما أطلقه ترامب من تصريحات نارية حول إيران وصفه متابعون متخصّصون بأنه ليس أكثر من وصفة طبية يُصدرها طبيب فاشل لا يستطيع أحد صرفها في أيّ صيدلية حتى في الصيدلية «الإسرائيلية»…!

حملة تهويل وتزمير وحرب نفسية لمزيد من الابتزاز لإيران والأوروبيين والعرب…

لقد ظهر كما توقعناه بائساً وعاجزاً وجباناً ورعديداً كمن يسير في زقاق مظلم، فيصرخ باستمرار ليخفي وحشته في الطريق وحتى لا يقترب منه أحد أيضاً…!

الإسرائيليون أيضاً في ردود فعلهم الأولية فقد ذهب معظمهم للقول: لا جديد في خطاب ترامب ولا جوهر فيه ولا قيمة تذكر له…!

في الخلاصة نستطيع القول إنّ خطاب ترامب ولد ما يلي:

 ـ كرّس إيران دولة إقليمية عظمى في «الشرق الأوسط»، عندما لم يتجرّأ على التطرّق لأيّ من المطالب «الإسرائيلية»، بشأن الحدّ من دور إيران في سورية ولبنان والمنطقة. أيّ أنّ هذا الوجود أصبح من المسلمات غير الخاضعة للنقاش…! وهذا تطوّر له بعد استراتيجي هامّ ذو أبعاد عملياتية مباشرة على جميع ميادين المواجهة بين المحور الأميركي «الإسرائيلي» ومحور المقاومة.

 ـ لم يتجرّأ ترامب على توجيه أية تهديدات عسكرية لا لإيران بشكل عام، ولا للحرس الثوري بشكل خاص، على الرغم من أنّ قائد الحرس الثوري كان قد هدّد الولايات المتحدة وجيوشها في «الشرق الأوسط» قبل أيام قليلة عندما طالبه بالابتعاد بنحو 2000 كلم عن الحدود الإيرانية…!

 ـ أما العقوبات التي قال إنّ وزارة الخزانة الأميركية ستتخذها ضدّ الحرس الثوري وداعميه فهي إجراء باهت ولا قيمة له، وهو يعلم أنّ الحرس لا يتسلّم موازنته من وزارة المالية الإيرانية، وعليه فلا قيمة لإجراء كهذا…!

 ـ إنّ الخطاب قد أدّى إلى جعل نتن ياهو يشعر بأنه يتيم تماماً، وأنّ صراخه الذي ملأ واشنطن وموسكو لم يؤدّ إلى أية نتيجة، وهو نتن ياهو قد تحوّل الى قاروط القاروط هو يتيم الأب الذي يبقى مضطراً لخدمة أعمامه والآخرين بعد وفاة والده بشكل نهائي ودائم. أيّ أنه مرغم على القبول بدور الخادم للمصالح الأميركية التي هي فوق مصالح القاعدة العسكرية الأميركية في فلسطين والتي يطلق عليها اسم «إسرائيل».

 ـ ومن بين الخائبين من أذناب أميركا في الجزيرة العربية، والذين كانوا بسبب جهلهم وبؤس تفكيرهم ينتظرون قيام ترامب بإعلان الحرب على إيران في هذا الخطاب، فقد باؤوا بغضب من الله وتاهوا في صحراء بني «إسرائيل»…!

 ـ تركيز ترامب على أنّ الاتفاق النووي قد أكسب الأوروبيين كثيراً من الصفقات يشي بأنه يرنو إلى الحصول على جزء من المكاسب التجارية والصفقات مع إيران من خلال تفاهمات معينة مع روسيا .

ـ الخطاب يوازي في أهميته ما حققته إيران بتوقيع الاتفاق النووي، وبكلمات أخرى فهو تكريس لمحاسن الاتفاق النووي كلّها…!

من جديد تبقى اليد العليا لمحور المقاومة في الميادين كلها، بعد أن أصبح واضحاً كوضوح الشمس، بأنّ مركز ثقل العالم لم يعد في واشنطن وقد انتقل من الغرب الى الشرق…

إنه موسم الهجرة إلى مضيق مالاقا وخليج البنغال وبحر الصين…

بعدنا طيبين، قولوا الله.

Related Videos

مقالات مشابهة

The whole notion that Iran is a national security threat and state sponsor of terrorism is just as bogus as the Russian meddling

The Deep State’s Bogus ‘Iranian Threat’

David Stockman says they’re no danger at all

Thursday we identified a permanent fiscal crisis as one of the quadruple witching forces arising in October 2017 which will shatter the global financial bubble. Today the Donald is on the cusp of making the crisis dramatically worse by decertifying the Iranian nuke deal, thereby reinforcing another false narrative that enables the $1 trillion Warfare State to continue bleeding the nation’s fiscal solvency.

In a word, the whole notion that Iran is a national security threat and state sponsor of terrorism is just as bogus as the Russian meddling story or the claim that the chain of events resulting from the coup d’ etat fostered by Washington on the streets of Kiev in February 2014 is evidence of Russian expansionism and aggression.

Likewise, it’s part of the same tissue of lies which led to Washington’s massive, destructive and counterproductive interventions in Syria and Libya – when neither regime posed an iota of threat to the safety and security of the American homeland.

To the contrary, all of these false narratives are the cover stories which justify the Warfare State’s massive draw on the nation’s broken finances. We will get to the Big Lie about Iran momentarily, but first it is useful to demonstrate just how enormously excessive the nation’s defense budget actually is, and why the denizens of the Imperial City – especially the neocon ideologues – find it necessary to peddle such threadbare untruths.

Spoiler alert: Iran has actually never attacked a single foreign nation in modern history whereas Washington has chosen to unilaterally intervene in or arm virtually every surrounding country in the region.

Here’s some historical context that dramatizes our point about Washington’s hideously excessive spending on defense. Back in 1962 on the eve of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the US defense budget was $52 billion, which would amount to $340 billion in today’s (2017$) purchasing power.

Needless to say, the world came to the brink of nuclear Armageddon at a time when the Soviet Union was at the peak of its power and was armed to the teeth. In addition to thousands of nuclear warheads deliverable by missiles and bombers, it had 50,000 tanks facing NATO and nearly 4 million men under arms.

The now open Soviet archives, of course, show that the Soviets had far more bark than bite and never conceived of attacking the US or even western Europe; they didn’t remotely have the wherewithal or the strategic nerve.

Nevertheless, by 1962 false moves and provocations by both sides had created a state of “cold war” that was real. Yet even then, the $340 billion military budget was more than adequate to deter the Soviet threat. Nor is that our view as an armchair historian.

The 1962 defense budget was essentially President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s budget, and it is one that he had drastically slashed from the $500 billion (in today’s dollars) he had inherited from Truman at the end of the Korean War.

That is to say, the greatest general who ever led American forces had concluded that $340 billion was enough. And that came as he left office warning about just the opposite – the danger that the military/industrial complex would gain inordinate political power and pursue foreign policies which required ever larger military spending.

Unlike standard cold warriors, Ike believed that the ultimate national security resource of America was a healthy capitalist economy and that excessive government debt was deeply inimical to that outcome.

That’s why he balanced the Federal budget three times during his tenure and presided over a fiscal consolidation – thanks to sharply reduced defense spending – that generated an average deficit of hardly 1 percent of GDP. That’s an outcome scarcely imaginable at all in the present world.

Even then, the Soviet empire with all the captive republics that have become independent nations since 1991 (e.g. Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan etc.) had a GDP in 1960 that was estimated to be 50 percent the size of the US. So Ike’s bet was that capitalist growth over time was the ultimate source of national strength; that a healthy domestic economy would eventually leave the centralized command-and-control Soviet economy in the dust; and that ultimately the Kremlin’s brand of statist socialism and militarism would fail.

He was right. Russia today is a shadow of what Ronald Reagan called the Evil Empire. Its GDP of $1.3 trillion is smaller than that of the New York metro area ($1.6 trillion) and only 7 percent of total US GDP.

Moreover, unlike the militarized Soviet economy which devoted upwards of 40 percent of output to defense, the current Russian defense budget of $60 billion is just 4.5 percent of its vastly shrunken GDP.

So how in the world did the national security apparatus convince the Donald that we need the $700 billion defense program for FY 2018 – 12X bigger than Russia’s – that he just signed into law?

What we mean, of course, is how do you explain that – beyond the fact that the Donald knows virtually nothing about national security policy and history; and, to boot, is surrounded by generals who have spent a lifetime scouring the earth for enemies and threats to repel and reasons for more weapons and bigger forces.

The real answer, however, is both simple and consequential. To wit, the entire prosperity and modus operandi of the Imperial City is based on a panoply of “threats” that are vastly exaggerated or even purely invented; they retain their currency by virtue of endless repetition in the groupthink that passes for analysis. We’d actually put it in the category of cocktail party chatter.

For crying out loud. Why is Russia considered a threat to the American homeland when it doesn’t even have a blue water navy or any other basis to project offensive power to the North American continent?

Indeed, its “attack” fleet consists of a single, 40-year old smoke-belching aircraft carrier that could never get out of the Mediterranean bathtub ringed by overwhelming US forces.

Beyond conventional offensive power there is the non-power of its 1500 or so deployable nuclear warheads. Whatever you may think of Vlad Putin’s kleptomania and hard-edged suppression of internal dissent, he is surely the “Cool Hand Luke” of the modern world. Do you think he would be rash or suicidal enough to threaten the US with nuclear weapons?

Or for that matter that Russia with its pipsqueak $1.3 trillion GDP and limited military capacity actually intends to invade and occupy Europe, which has a GDP of $17 trillion and sufficient military force – even without the US – to make such a project unthinkable

Likewise, so what if the Chinese want to waste money building sand castles (i.e. man-made islands with military uses)in the South China Sea. It’s their backyard – just as the Gulf of Mexico is ours.

Besides, the great Red Ponzi is utterly dependent upon exporting $2 trillion per years of goods to the US, Western Europe, Japan, South Korea etc. Without those markets its massively leveraged, speculation-ridden, malinvested bubble economy would collapse in 6 months or less. So does anyone really think that the PLA (People Liberation Army) will be bombing 4,000 Wal-Marts in America any time soon?

The truth is, the US defense budget is hideously oversized for a reason so obvious that it constitutes the ultimate elephant in the room. No matter how you slice it, there just are no real big industrialized, high tech countries in the world which can threaten the American homeland or even have the slightest intention of doing so.

Indeed, to continue with our historical benchmarks, the American homeland has not been so immune to foreign military threat since WW II. Yet during all those years of true peril, it never spent close too the Donald’s $700 billion boondoggle.

For instance, during the height of LBJs Vietnam folly (1968) defense spending in today’s dollars was about $400 billion. And even at the top of Reagan’s utterly unnecessary military building up (by the 1980s the Soviet Union was collapsing under the weight of its own socialist dystopia), total US defense spending was just $550 billion.

That gets us to the bogus Iranian threat. It originated in the early 1990s when the neocon’s in the George HW Bush Administration realized that with the cold war’s end, the Warfare State was in grave danger of massive demobilization like the US had done after every war until 1945.

So among many other invented two-bit threats, the Iranian regime was demonized in order to keep the Imperial City in thrall to its purported national security threat and in support of the vast global armada of military forces, bases and occupations needed to contain it (including the Fifth Fleet in the Persian Gulf and US bases throughout the region).

The truth, however, is that according to the 2008 NIE ( National Intelligence Estimates) of the nation’s 17 intelligence agency, the Iranian’s never had a serious nuclear weapons program, and the small research effort that they did have was disbanded by orders of the Ayatollah Khamenei in 2003.

Likewise, what the Imperial City claims to be state sponsored terror is actually nothing more than Iran’s foreign policy – something that every sovereign state on the planet is permitted to have.

Thus, as the leader of the minority Shiite schism of the Islamic world, Iran has made political and confessional alliances with various Shiite regimes in the region. These include the one that Washington actually installed in Baghdad; the Alawite/Shiite regime in Syria; the largest political party and representative of 40 percent of the population in Lebanon (Hezbollah); and the Houthi/Shiite of Yemen, who historically occupied the northern parts of the country and are now under savage attack by American weapons supplied to Saudi Arabia.

In the case of both Syria and Iraq, their respective governments invited Iranian help, which is also their prerogative as sovereign nations. Ironically, it was the Shiite Crescent alliance of Iran/Assad/Hezbollah that bears much of the credit for defeating ISIS on the ground in Mosul, Aleppo, Raqqa, Deir ez-Zor and elsewhere in the now largely defunct Islamic State.

In tomorrow’s installment we will address the details of the Iran nuke agreement and why the Donald is making a horrible mistake in proposing to decertify it. But there should be no doubt about the consequence: It will reinforce the neocon dominance of the Republican party and insure that the nation’s $1 trillion Warfare State remains fully entrenched.

Needless to say, that will also insure that the America’s gathering fiscal crisis will turn into an outright Fiscal Calamity in the years just ahead.

David Stockman has agreed to send every reader a free copy of his newest book, Trumped! when you take his special Contra Corner offer. Click here now for the details.

David Stockman was a two-term Congressman from Michigan. He was also the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan. After leaving the White House, Stockman had a 20-year career on Wall Street. He’s the author of three books, The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed, The Great Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America and TRUMPED! A Nation on the Brink of Ruin… And How to Bring It Back. He also is founder of David Stockman’s Contra Corner and David Stockman’s Bubble Finance Trader.

Netanyahu positively salivating over the thought of the USA attacking Iran

Trump’s speech on Iran deal is an orgy for Israel and its US friends

“Israel embraces this opportunity,” Netanyahu says. And so should every leader responsible for “the security of the world.”

So it is clear as ever who is against the deal. Israel and its lobby. That’s all, folks. The other night on NBC, Andrea Mitchell said that Trump would gladden “his base” by decertifying the deal, but this is simply a lie. Trump’s base of disaffected white voters in red states don’t care about Iran. The pro-Israel wing does. Trump’s “billionaire donors”– three rightwing Israel supporters– care. The media’s evasion of this central question is more transparent than ever.

The leading Israel lobby group AIPAC was quick to adore the president on his speech. “POTUS policy objectives: Confront Iran’s regional aggression and fix dangerous flaws in the nuclear deal.”

Too bad that Susan Rice didn’t openly confront AIPAC when she had power, as national security adviser to Obama, and ambassador to the U.N. Though Obama tried to call out Israel, in his great, I’d be abrogating my constitutional duties speech, when he said he couldn’t defer to Netanyahu.

Israel runs through all arguments on the deal. Mark Dubowitz of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, which is funded by Paul Singer, Sheldon Adelson and Bernard Marcus and is all about Israel, stole Netanyahu’s line on PBS last night–“Fix it or nix it”– without crediting the Israeli p.m. The Republican Jewish Coalition promptly declared that Trump has bolstered Israel’s security. The Israel Project at least tells us what the real problem with Iran is: It helps Hamas and Hezbollah, Israel’s pesky enemies. That’s an existential threat to the west?

While supporters of the deal also have to salute Israel in order to seem plausible. Rob Malley cited “Prime Minister Netanyahu” approvingly last night on the News Hour– Netanyahu described Iran’s “existential threat” back in 2014 and we have addressed it. Fred Kaplan invokes “the vast majority of Israeli military and intelligence officers.”  Trudy Rubin cites Ami Ayalon and other Israeli “security experts.” So does J Street: “Killing the JCPOA would also increase the threat to Israel – which is why the majority of the Israeli security establishment believes the agreement should be maintained.”

So Israel’s security interest is what matters– the establishment agrees. South Korea and Japan should have it so good when it comes to North Korea. But they don’t.

The lobby’s friends in the Senate are very happy. Tom Cotton wants regime change.  While Marco Rubio says the deal is “Munich” for the 21st century. Iran is going to take over Europe, cracks Ben Rhodes. We really are going nuts.

Thanks to Max Blumenthal and James North

The Iraqi Kurdistan is neither the Western Sahara nor the Southern of Sudan كردستان العراق ليست الصحراء الغربية ولا جنوب السودان

The Iraqi Kurdistan is neither the Western Sahara nor the Southern of Sudan

أكتوبر 8, 2017

Written by Nasser Kandil,

Despite the interconnectedness which is made by many people between the movements of the secession and the division of the region entities, and the colonial projects which Israel is not far from, and despite the reverse linkage which other people make between these movements and the historical aspirations of the nations which suffered historically from the persecution due to their identity, and looked for a suitable timing for independence, the experiences which were witnessed by the entities which were created by the external projects that encourage fragmentation, and the local aspirations for the dream of independence and the formation of a state do not seem livable or successful experiences, whether regarding what it seemed at the moment of birth driven by a national anti-western option as the experience of the declaration of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic in the Western Sahara of Morocco, or what was publicly depended on the coordination and the cooperation with Israel as the southern of Sudan, or  which its experience was suffered from the lack of resources and population as the Western Sahara, or whose its experience was full of population capacities and natural wealth as the Southern of Sudan.

Those who look at the map of the region will see in its south the southern of Sudan and in its west the Western Sahara, in its north-east the Iraqi Kurdistan and will see the occupied Palestine where the occupation entity is in the middle, and will find that there is a link between the projects on the sides and the project which is in the middle, thus cannot ignore the image of the encircling of the Arab countries with three states that have seceded from their surrounding and link them with one virtual plan. The question which comes immediately into the mind is about the contradiction of the political identities of their governments. Despite the separatist aspect of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, it did not turn into an entity that is affiliated to the West or has any relationship with Israel, but it is still has a good relationship with Algeria and Mauritania, the positions of the two countries are known through their supporting the Palestinian cause, the sticking to the independence from the West, and resisting its projects and its wars in the region, while the Southern of Sudan is boasting of its distinctive relation with Israel, and the Kurdish leaderships which led the secession movement have historical relations with Israel but they do not boast of it publicly as the southern of Sudan.

The course of the experiences of the Western Sahara and the Southern of Sudan declines politically, economically, and morally during the years that followed the declaration of independence. The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic has lost more than three-quarters of the diplomatic recognition which it knew during the declaration, it lived harsh socio – economic conditions despite its limited population, and it does not seem that it is capable of going on so long in the steadfastness. While despite the mineral and oil resources of  the Republic of the Southern of Sudan it got involved in conflicts, wars, and coups, so the life of its people was so bad, furthermore, it was classified by the United Nations among the worst countries concerning poverty, health, education ,and the human rights, which means that the size of support for its formation did not grant it the feature of the strategic project for the major countries, however, it puts the support of the secession in the field of the tactic political employment, and it does not grant the other secession projects which the current project of Kurdistan forms an encouraging example, the conditions to last or the actual support, despite all the analyses about its representation as a base for the American and Israeli positioning on the borders of Iran. So it seems a dream rather than a realistic verifiable opportunity.

Despite the similarities between the situation of Iraqi Kurdistan and the Southern of Sudan, the situation of the Iraqi Kurdistan is more difficult and worse than the southern of Sudan, and surely more difficult and worse than the Western Sahara implicitly. The radical difference between Kurdistan and the two experiences of the Western Sahara and the southern of Sudan is the size of readiness to recognize the new state, and the formation of commercial and diplomatic relationships with it in general, and its relationship with the neighboring countries, their position, and the degree of their tension against the formation of the state of secession in particular, in addition to the status of these countries, their influence, and the deterrent reaction which stems from their positions regarding the opportunities of the openness to the state of secession. Sudan as the first concerned country along with the Organization of African Unity as a regional concerned party, and supported by the United Nations were the forefront welcoming parties of the Southern state of secession, while Mauritanian and Algeria which are the closest neighboring countries to the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic were the main supporters of the establishment of the state of secession supported by the Organization of the African Unity as a regional concerned party, and more than eighty countries have taken the lead in recognizing immediately the emerging state. While in the situation of Kurdistan we are in front of closed borders of four important, effective, active, sensitive countries namely Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran, they object strongly the formation of the state of separation, knowing that there is no regional linkage or international framework that will dare to deal with the state of secession, since the size of the siege imposed by the neighboring countries is suffocated and existential towards its entity.

The Kurdish separatist movement comes in a context that does not foreshadow of success on one hand, and it will be accompanied by conditions and data more severe than its previous ones, so this makes it mere a project of political suicide.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,


خسائرُ محقَّقة بأرباحٍ وهمية

كردستان العراق ليست الصحراء الغربية ولا جنوب السودان

سبتمبر 27, 2017

ناصر قنديل

– ربما يكون الاستفتاء على انفصال كردستان كخطوة نحو ولادة كيان جديد في المنطقة، كوعدٍ من زلماي زادة السفير الأميركي السابق في العراق الذي وضع الدستور يشبه وعد بلفور قبل مئة عام تماماً، وبدعم «إسرائيلي» غير مستور، مصدرَ قلق لكلّ حريص على استقرار المنطقة وحرية شعوبها وكلِّ من يريد لانتصارات محور المقاومة في سورية والعراق ومعادلات القوة الجديدة التي تمثل روسيا عنوانها دولياً أن تأخذ مداها في رسم معادلات دولية وإقليمية جديدة.

– ما يجب التنبّه إليه هنا هو أنّ الأكراد ليسوا كالمستوطنين الصهاينة، فهم مكوّن أصيل بين شعوب المنطقة، وهذا بقدر ما يستدعي لغة الأخوة مع الشعب الكردي، يستدعي الانتباه إلى أنّ مغامرة مسعود البرزاني مهما كانت قادرة على تحريك العواطف، فهي عندما تتسبّب بكارثة ستنتج معادلة كردية جديدة تُطيح البرزاني. فالقضية هنا لا تشبه ما قاله «الإسرائيليون» للبرزاني افعل ما فعله بن غوريون، حيث مقامرته تضع مصير مستوطنيه بين الفوز بالكيان أو الموت، وقبل الاستفتاء يقوم صراع سياسي كردي كردي سيكبر وتتسع فجواته وشقوقه، كلما تبيّنت نتائج الكارثة التي جلبها البرزاني على الأكراد، وسيكون أول برلمان كردي مناسبة لظهور هذه التكتلات وتحوّل صراعاتها لمصدر تغيير في وجهة الأكراد سياسياً.

– بعقل بارد يمكن لمحور المقاومة التعامل مع هذا الحدث واعتماد السياسات التي تشتغل على الداخل الكردي بعناية، وفي مقدّمتها الإجراءات القانونية والاقتصادية. ويكفي الحكومة العراقية حسم كركوك ومنع السيطرة عليها لتتمكّن من الانتظار ما لا يملك البرزاني القدرة على دعوة الأكراد للانتظار مثلها، وبعقل بارد سيكون بمستطاع محور المقاومة احتساب معادلة ما يمكن أن يقدّمه الأميركيون والسعوديون و»الإسرائيليون» لمشروع الانفصال ليكون الحاصل صفراً.

الأميركي بين معادلات صعبة. فالإعلان عن دعم الحكم الانفصالي سيعني العداء مع حكومتي بغداد وأنقرة فوراً، والبقاء بلغة التنديد والتحذير لكردستان سيجلب الإحباط لجمهور كردي وعده البرزاني بأنّ الأمر الواقع سيفرض نفسه، وأنّ الأميركيين سيعاجلون لتبني القرار الكردي، والمال السعودي باعتباره الشيء الوحيد الذي يمكن للسعوديين تقديمه، لا يملك طريقاً للوصول إلا عبر بغداد أو أنقرة، والحسابات المصرفية والفروع البنكية دخلت مرحلة الرقابة والتجميد، أما «إسرائيل» فما تريده هو أن يفرض الأكراد بعذاباتهم وتضحياتهم وجود كيان يُعادي بغداد وطهران ويقع على حدود مؤثرة، لتستثمره «إسرائيل» بلا أكلاف. وبالتالي فهي لا تملك أن تقدّم شيئاً سوى التشجيع على الانتحار بكلام وأوهام.

تركيا لا تملك خيارات للمناورة وهوامش للحركة، فقضيتها وجودية مع الكيان الكردي، وربع سكان تركيا من الأكراد وهم أكبر تجمع كردي في المنطقة، وسيكون تصرف أنقرة مع كردستان العراق نموذجاً تقدّمه أنقرة لما سيكون عليه تصرفها مع مشروع انفصالهم، والسباق بين الحكومة التركية والقيادات الكردية في تركيا على معادلة ما بعد انفصال كردستان العراق فإذا نجح أكراد العراق بتجربتهم سيكون اليوم التالي في تركيا مواجهة خطر الانفصال الكردي، وإذا فشلت التجربة الكردية في العراق، فسيكون اليوم الثاني في تركيا صيغاً حوارية لمعادلة علاقة جديدة، لذلك تتصدّر تركيا المواجهة، ولذلك سيكون مصير التجربة قضية وجود لتركيا، بينما تملك تركيا كلّ شرايين الحياة لكردستان، بعدما كانا الشريكين في الحلف الذي تقوده واشنطن ضدّ إيران وسورية والعراق، وجاء أوان الفراق. فأصاب البرزاني بوضع بيضه كله في السلة التركية ما أصاب «الإسرائيليين» يوم وضعوا كلّ منشآتهم الحيوية على الحدود مع لبنان باعتباره «الجار» الأقلّ خطراً، وها هم يعيشون القلق منه اليوم أكثر من أيّ حدود أخرى.

الأهمّ الذي أصاب الأميركيين و»الإسرائيليين» والسعوديين، هو أنّ الاستقطاب الجديد الذي خلقته الأزمة الكردية، تكفل بإنهاء خطوط الفتنة المذهبية في المنطقة، فتوحّدت جهود سنة وشيعة العراق لحفظ وحدة بلدهم، وليس لديهم المجال لترف التفرقة، وتوحّدت بمصالح وجودية عليا الدولتان الأهمّ في الإقليم، أكبر دولة شيعية وأكبر دولة سنية، إيران وتركيا. وهما تتصدّران خط الاشتباك مع ولادة الكيان الجديد، وتملكان داخل المجتمع الكردي العراقي الكثير من الخيوط والخطوط. وهذا تحوّل هائل الأهمية وعظيم التأثير في معادلات المنطقة وإسقاط سياسات التخريب والعبث بنسيجها الاجتماعي، ليصحّ القول في هذا الزلزال، ربّ ضارة نافعة، خصوصاً أنّ أميركا التي تراهن عليه لشراء الوقت لا تستثمر على خطة هجوم وقد فقدت قوة الدفع اللازمة للتقدّم، بل كقتال تراجعي ومثلها «إسرائيل»، والتاريخ يقول إنّ مناورات المهزوم تؤخّر هزيمته، لكنها لا تحوّلها نصراً.

– وحده غباء وجشع القيادة الكردية يفسّر قبولها لعب هذه المقامرة.

كتب ناصر قنديل


داعش للصخب والدولة لكردستان

– ليس جديدا التأشير على حجم الصخب الذي أحدثه ويحدثه تحرك داعش

– داعش يتشبه بإسرائيل بكسر المعادلات ويلقى دعمها الخفي لكن ليس إسرائيل ثانية

– دولة الخلافة فيل في مخزن الخزف يكسر كل شيئ ثم يخرجونه

– لا مصلحة لأحد بتحويل ساحل المتوسط لسيرك للفيلة

– كائن مثل داعش لا يمكن تحمله في تورا بورا فكيف ببوابة أوروبا والخليج ؟

–  المتزامن الوحيد مع ولادة داعش الذي يتسم بالجدية هو ولادة كردستان المستقلة عدا عن الفرصة التي يوفرها التفاهم على مواجهته من تبرير لقاء وتحالف الخصوم الذين بلغت  بينهم المواجهة حد إحراق السفن وكسر الجسور دون ان يبدو أحدهم مهزوما

– خطوات إنفصال كردستان جدية وثابتة و مدروسة

– إعلان نتنياهو دعم دولة كردية مستقلة جدي ومدروس أيضا

– رفض إيران سياسي وليس وجودي فالدولة الكردية لا تهدد بتقسيمها وكذلك سوريا فالجاليات الكردية فيهما بفعل النزوح وحصلت على حقوق المواطنة بينما المشكلة في تركيا وجودية فهل تقلع تركيا أوشاكها بيديها أم أن إمبراطورية بني عثمان باتت عبئا على حلفائها ؟

ناصر قنديل

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.  

Written by Eric Draitser

%d bloggers like this: