Anti-Donald Trump: war propaganda

Our previous articles concerning President Trump have caused some fierce reactions from our readers. Some of them have been wondering about the naïvety apparently displayed by Thierry Meyssan despite the warnings issued by the international Press and the accumulation of negative signals. Here is his response, well-reasoned as always.

| DAMASCUS (SYRIA) | 7 FEBRUARY 2017
JPEG - 18.8 kb

Two weeks after his investiture, the Altantist Press continues with its work of disinformation and agitation against the new President of the United States of America. Trump and his new collaborators are multiplying declarations and gestures which are apparently contradictory, so that it is difficult to understand what is going on in Washington.

The anti-Trump campaign

The bad faith of the Atlantist Press can be verified for each of these four main themes.

- 1. Concerning the beginning of the dismantling of Obamacare (20 January), we are obliged to report that, contrary to what is being announced in the Atlantist Press, the underprivileged classes who should have benefited from this system have avoided it en masse. This form of «social security» turned out to be too expensive and too directive to attract them. Only the private companies who manage this system have been truly satisfied by it.

- 2. Concerning the prolongation of the Wall at the Mexican border (23 to 25 January), there is nothing xenophobic about it – the Secure Fence Act was signed by President George W. Bush, who began its construction. The work was continued by President Barack Obama with the support of the Mexican government of the time. Beyond the fashionable rhetoric about «walls» and «bridges», reinforced border systems only work when the authorities of both sides agree to make them operational. They always fail when one of the parties opposes them. The interest of the United States is to control the entry of migrants, while the interest of Mexico is to prevent the import of weapons. None of that has changed. However, with the application of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), transnational companies have delocalised, from the United States to Mexico, not only non-qualified jobs (in conformity with the Marxist rule of «the tendency of the rate of profit to fall (TRPF)», but also qualified jobs which are performed by under-paid workers («social dumping»). The appearance of these jobs has provoked a strong rural exodus, destructuring Mexican society, on the model of what happened in 19th century Europe. The transnational companies then lowered wages, plunging part of the Mexican population into poverty – which now only dreams of being correctly paid in the United States itself. Since Donald Trump has announced that he intends to remove the US signature from the NAFTA agreement, things should return to normal in the years to come, and satisfy both Mexico and the United States [1].

- 3. Concerning the abortion issue (23 January), President Trump has forbidden the payment of federal subsidies to specialised associations which receive funds from abroad. By doing so, he has warned those specific associations that they must choose between their social objective to help women in distress or being paid by George Soros to demonstrate against him – as was the case on 21 January. This decree therefore has nothing to do with abortion, but with the prevention of a «colour revolution».

- 4. Concerning the anti-immigration decrees (25 to 27 January), Donald Trump announced that he was going to apply the law – inherited from the Obama era – in other words, to expel the 11 million illegal foreigners. He has suspended federal aid to those cities which announced that they would refuse to apply the law – where will we get our cleaning ladies if we have to declare them? He specified that among these illegal immigrants, he would begin by expelling the 800,000 criminals who have been the object of criminal proceedings, in the United States, Mexico or elswhere. Besides this, in order to prevent the arrival of terrorists, he has suspended all the authorisations for immigration to the United States, and has placed a three-month ban on people from countries where it is impossible to verify their identity and their situation. He did not draw up the list of such countries himself, but referred to a previous text from President Obama. For example, here in Syria, there is no longer a US embassy or Consulate. From the point of view of the administrative police, it is therefore logical to put Syrians on this list. But this can only concern a minimal number of people. In 2015, only 145 Syrians managed to obtain the US «green card». Aware of the numerous special cases which might arise, the Presidential decree allows all liberty to the State Department and Homeland Security to issue dispensations. The fact that the application of these decrees was sabotaged by civil servants opposed to President Trump, who applied them with brutality, does not make the President either a racist or an Islamophobe.

The campaign led by the Atlantist Press against Donald Trump is therefore unfounded. To pretend that he has opened a war against Muslims, and to evoke publicly his possible destitution, even his assassination, is no longer simply bad faith – it’s war propaganda.

Donald Trump’s objective

Donald Trump was the first personality in the world to contest the official version of the attacks of 9/11, on television that very day. After having noted that the engineers who built the Twin Towers were now working for him, he declared on New York’s Channel 9 that it was impossible that Boeings could have burst through the steel structures of the towers. He continued by stating that it was also impossible that Boeings could have caused the towers to collapse. He concluded by affirming that there had to be other factors of which we were as yet unaware.

From that day on, Donald Trump has never ceased to resist the people who had committed those crimes. During his inaugural speech, he emphasised that this was not a passage of power between two administrations, but a restitution of power to United States citizens, who had been deprives of it [for sixteen years] [2].

During his electoral campaign, once again during the transitional period, and again since he took office, he has repeated that the imperial system of these last years has never benefited US citizens, but only a small clique of which Mrs. Clinton is the emblematic figure. He declared that the United States would no longer attempt to be the «first», but the «best». His slogans are – « Make America great again» and «America first»

This 180° political turn has shaken a system which has been implemented over the last 16 years, and has its roots in the Cold War, which, in 1947, only the United States wanted. This system has gangrened numerous international institutions, such as NATO (Jens Stoltenberg and General Curtis Scaparrotti), the European Union (Federica Mogherini), and the United Nations (Jeffrey Feltman) [3].

If Donald Trump is to reach his objective, it will take years.

Towards a peaceful dismantling of the United States Empire

In two weeks, many things have begun, often in the greatest discretion. The booming declarations of President Trump and his team deliberately spread confusion and enabled him to ensure that the nominations of his collaborators were confirmed by a partially hostile Congress.

We must understand that it’s a fight to the death between two systems that has just begun in Washington. Let’s leave the Atlantist Press to comment on the often contradictory and incoherent statements by this one or that, and look at the facts on their own.

Before anything else, Donald Trump made sure that he had control over the security apparatus. His first three nominations (National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, Secretary of Defense James Mattis and Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly) are three Generals who have contested the «continuity of government» since 2003 [4]. Next, he reformed the National Security Council to exclude the inter-army Chief of Staff and the director of the CIA [5]

Even though the latter decree will probably be revised, it still has not been. Let us note in passing that we announced the intention of Donald Trump and General Flynn to eliminate the post of Director of National Intelligence [6]. However, this post has been maintained and Dan Coats has been nominated for it. It transpires that talk of its supression was a tactic to demonstrate that the presence of the Director of National Intelligence in the Council was enough to justify the exclusion of the Director of the CIA.

The substitution of the word «best» for «first» leads to the engagement of partnerships with Russia and China, rather than a tentative to crush them.

In order to hobble this policy, the friends of Mrs. Clinton and Mrs. Nuland have relaunched the war against the Donbass. The important losses they have experienced since the beginning of the conflict have led the Ukrainian army to withdraw and put paramilitary Nazi militia in the front line. The combats have inflicted heavy civilian casualities on the inhabitants of the new popular Republic. Simultaneously, in the Near East, they have managed to deliver tanks to the Syrian Kurds, as planned by the Obama administration.

In order to resolve the Ukrainian conflict, Donald Trump is looking for a way to help to eject President Petro Porochenko. He therefore received at the White House the head of the opposition, Ioulia Tymochenko, even before he accepted a phone call from President Porochenko.

In Syria and Iraq, Donald Trump has already begun operations in common with Russia, even thought his spokesperson denies it.The Russian Minister for Defence, who had imprudently revealed it, has ceased to say anything on the subject.

Concerning Beijing, President Trump has put an end to US participation in the Trans-Pacific Treaty (TPP) – a treaty which had been conceived in order to inhibit China. During the period of transition, he received the second richest man in China, Jack Ma (the businessman who confirmed – «No-one has stolen your jobs, you spend too much on war»). We know that their discussions touched on the possible adhesion of Washington to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). If this were to be the case, the United States would agree to cooperate with China rather than hindering it. They would participate in the construction of two Silk Roads, which would make the wars in Donbass and Syria pointless.

In matters of finance, President Trump has begun the dismantling of the Dodd-Frank law which attempted to resolve the crisis of 2008 by averting the brutal collapse of the major banks («too big to fail»). Although this law has some positive aspects (it’s 2,300 pages long), it establishes a guardianship of the Treasury over the banks, which obviously hinders their development. Donald Trump is also apparently preparing to restore the distinction between deposit banks and investment banks (Glass-Steagall Act).

Finally, the clean-up of international institutions has also begun. The new ambassador to the UNO, Nikki Haley, has requested an audit of the 16 «peace-keeping» missions. She has made it known that she intends to put an end to those which seem to be inefficient. From the point of view of the United Nations Charter, all such missions will be audited without exception. Indeed, the founders of the Organisation had not foreseen this type of military deployment (today, more than 100,000 men and women). The UNO was created to avert or resolve conflicts between states (never intra-state conflict). When two parties conclude a cease-fire, the Organisation may deploy observers in order to verify the respect of the agreement. But on the contrary, these «peace-keeping» operations are aimed at enforcing the respect of a solution imposed by the Security Council and refused by one of the two parties involved in the conflict – in reality, it is the continuation of colonialism.

In practice, the presence of these forces only makes the conflict last longer, while their absence changes nothing. So the troops of the United Nations Interim Force (UNIFIL) deployed at the Israëlo-Lebanese border, but only on Lebanese territory, do not prevent either Israëli military operations or military operations by the Lebanese Resistance, as we have already seen many times. They serve only to spy on the Lebanese on behalf of the Israëlis, thus prolonging the conflict. In the same way, the troops of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, or UNDOF, deployed at the demarcation line in the Golan have been chased away by Al-Qaïda, without that changing anything at all in the Israëlo-Syrian conflict. Putting an end to this system means returning to the spirit and the letter of the Charter, renouncing colonial privileges, and pacifying the world.

Behind the media controversy, the street demonstrations, and the confrontation between politicians, President Trump is holding his course.

Translation
Pete Kimberley

[2] “Donald Trump Inauguration Speech”, by Donald Trump, Voltaire Network, 21 January 2017.

[3] “Germany and the UNO against Syria”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete Kimberley, Al-Watan (Syria) , Voltaire Network, 28 January 2016.

[4] “Trump – enough of 9/11!”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete Kimberley, Voltaire Network, 24 January 2017.

[5] “Donald Trump winds up “the” organization of US imperialism].]”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Anoosha Boralessa, Voltaire Network, 31 January 2017.

[6] “General Flynn’s Proposals to Reform Intelligence”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Anoosha Boralessa, Contralínea (Mexico) , Voltaire Network, 1 December 2016.

The National Endowment for Democracy (NED): The Legal Window of the CIA

Global Research, August 25, 2016
Voltaire Net
166549-1-3-3977e

In 2006, the Kremlin denounced the proliferation of foreign associations in Russia, some of which would have participated in a secret plan, orchestrated by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), to destabilise the country. To prevent a “colour revolution”, Vladislav Surkov drew up strict regulation over these non-governmental organizations (NGOs). In the West, this administrative framework was described as a “fresh assault on freedom of association by Putin the “Dictator” and his adviser”.

This policy has been followed by other States who in their turn, have been labelled by the international press as “dictators”.

The US government guarantees that it is working towards “promoting democracy all over the world”. It claims that the US Congress can subsidize NED and that NED can, in turn and wholly independently, help directly or indirectly, associations, political parties or trade unions, working in this sense anywhere in the world. The NGOs being, as their name suggests, “non-governmental” can take political initiatives that ambassadors could not assume without violating the sovereignty of the States that receive them. The crux of the matter lies here: NED and the network of NGOs that it finances: are they initiatives of civil society unjustly repressed by the Kremlin or covers of the US Secret Services caught red-handed in interference?

In order to respond to this question, we are going to return to the origins and function of NED. But our first step must be to analyze the meaning of this official US project: “exporting democracy”.

The puritans that founded the United States wanted to create a “radiant city” whose light would illuminate the whole world. They considered themselves the missionaries of a political model.

The puritans that founded the United States wanted to create a “radiant city” whose light would illuminate the whole world. They considered themselves the missionaries of a political model.

What Democracy?

The US, as a people, subscribes to the ideology of their founding fathers. They think of theJPEG - 20.3 kbmselves as a colony that has come from Europe to establish a city obeying God. They see their country as “a light on the mountain” in the words of Saint Mathew, adopted for two centuries by most of their presidents in their political speeches. The US would be a model nation, shining on top of a hill, illuminating the entire world. And all other people in the world would hope to emulate this model to reach their well-being.

For the people of United States, this very naïve belief implies without more that their country is an exemplary democracy and that they have a messianic duty to superimpose it on the rest of the world. While Saint Mathew envisaged propagating faith exclusively through the example of a righteous life, the founding fathers of the United States thought of illumination and propagating their faith in terms of regime change. The English puritans beheaded Charles I before fleeing to the Netherlands and the Americas, then the patriots of the New World rejected the authority of King George III of England, proclaiming the independence of the United States.

Impregnated by this national mythology, the people of the United States do not perceive their government’s foreign policy as a form of imperialism. In their eyes, it is all the more legitimate to topple a government that has the ambition to take the form of a model which is different from theirs and thus evil. In the same way, they are persuaded that due to the messianic mission that has been thrust upon them, they have arrived to impose democracy by force in the countries that they have occupied. For example, at school they learn that GIs brought democracy to Germany. They do not know that history indicates quite the opposite: their government helped Hitler to topple the Republic of Weimar and set up a military regime to fight the Soviets. This irrational ideology prevents them from challenging the nature of their institutions and the absurd concept of a “forced democracy”.

Now, according to President Abraham Lincoln’s formula, “democracy is the government of the people, by the people for the people”.

From this point of view, the United States is not a democracy but a hybrid system where executive power is returned to the oligarchy, while the people limit its arbitrary exercise through legislative and judicial powers that can check it. Indeed, while the people elect Congress and some judges, it is the states of the federation that elect executive power and the latter appoints the high judges. Although citizens have been called to determine their choice of president, their vote on this matter only operates as a ratification, as the Supreme Court pointed out in 2000, in Gore v. Bush. The US Constitution does not recognize that the people are sovereign, because power is divided between them and a federation of states, in other words, between the leaders of the community.

As an aside, we observe that in contrast, the Russian Federation’s Constitution is democratic – on paper at least. It declares: “the holder of sovereignty and the sole source of power in the Russian Federation is its multinational people.” (Title I, Ch. 1, art.3).

This intellectual context explains that the US supports its government when it announces that it wants “to export democracy”, even if, its own constitution signals that it is not one. But it is difficult to see how it could export something it does not possess and does not wish to have at home.

For the last thirty years, this contradiction has been supported by NED and given specific form through destabilizing a number of States. With a smile that a clean conscience blesses upon them, thousands of activists and gullible NGOs have violated the people’s sovereignty.

JPEG - 27.8 kb

A Pluralist and Independent Foundation

In his famous speech on 8 June 1982 before the British Parliament, President Reagan denounced the USSR as “the empire of evil” and proposed to come to the aid of dissidents over there and elsewhere. He declared: “We need to create the necessary infrastructure for democracy: freedom of the press, trade unions, political parties and universities. This will allow people the freedom to choose the best path for them to develop their culture and to resolve their disputes peacefully”.

On this consensual basis of the struggle against tyranny, a commission of bipartisan reflection sponsored the establishment of NED at Washington. This was established by Congress in November 1983 and immediately financed.

The Foundation subsidizes four independent structures that redistribute money abroad, making it available to associations, trade unions and members of the ruling class, and parties on the right and left. They are:

Free Trade Union Institute (FTUI), today renamed American Centre for International Labour Solidarity (ACILS), managed by the trade union AFL-CIO;

Centre for International Private Enterprise (CIPE), managed by the US Chamber of Commerce;

International Republican Institute (IRI), run by the Republican Party;

National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI), run by the Democratic Party.

Presented in this manner, NED and its four tentacles appear to be anchored in civil society, reflecting social diversity and political pluralism. Funded by the US people, through Congress, they would have worked to a universal ideal. They would be completely independent of the Presidential Administration. And their transparent action could not be a mask for secret operations serving undeclared national interests.

The reality is completely different.

JPEG - 23.6 kb

In 1982, Ronald Reagan established NED in partnership with the United Kingdom and Australia to topple the “Empire of Evil”.

A Drama produced by the CIA, MI6 and ASIS

Ronald Reagan’s speech in London took place in the aftermath of scandals surrounding revelations by Congressional Committees enquiring into the CIA’s dirty-trick coups. Congress then forbids the Agency to organize further coups d’etat to win markets. Meanwhile, in the White House, the National Security Council (NSC) looks to put in place other tools to circumvent this prohibition.

The Commission of Bipartisan Reflection was established prior to Ronald Reagan’s speech, although it only officially received a mandate from the White House afterwards. This means it is not responding to grandiloquent presidential ambitions but precedes them. Therefore, Reagan’s speech is only rhetorical dressing of decisions already taken in principle, and meant to be implemented by the Bipartisan Commission.

The Chair of the Bipartisan Commission was the US Special Representative for Trade, who indicates that she did not envisage promoting democracy but, according to current terminology, “market democracy”. This strange concept is in keeping with the US model: an economic and financial oligarchy imposes its political choices through the markets and a federal state, while parliamentarians and judges elected by the people protect individuals from arbitrary government.

Three of NED’s four peripheral organizations were formed for the occasion. However, there was no need to establish the fourth, a trade union (ACILS). This was set up at the end of the Second World War even though it changed its name in 1978 when its subordination to the CIA was unmasked. From this we can extract the conclusion that the CIPE, IRI and NDI were not born spontaneously but were engineered into being by the CIA.

Furthermore, although NED is an association under US law, it is not a tool of the CIA alone, but an instrument shared with British services (which is why Reagan announced its creation in London) and the Australian services. This key point is often glossed over without comment. However, it is validated by messages of congratulations by Prime Ministers Tony Blair and John Howard during the 20th anniversary of the so-called “NGO”. NED and its tentacles are organs of an Anglo-Saxon military pact linking London, Washington and Canberra; the same goes for Echelon, the electronic interception network. This provision can be required not only by the CIA but also by the British MI6 and the Australian ASIS.

To conceal this reality, NED has stimulated among its allies the creation of similar organizations that work with it. In 1988, Canada is fitted out with a centre Droits & Démocratie, which has a special focus first on Haiti, then Afghanistan. In 1991, the United Kingdom established the Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD). The functioning of this public body is modelled on NED: its administration is entrusted to political parties (eight delegates: three for the Conservative Party; three for the Labour Party; and one for the Liberal Party and one for the other parties represented in Parliament). WFD has done a lot of work in Eastern Europe. Indeed in 2001, the European Union is equipped with a European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR), which arouses less suspicion than its counterparts. This office is EuropAid, led by a high official as powerful as he is unknown: the Dutchman, Jacobus Richelle.

Presidential Directive 77

When US parliamentarians voted for the establishment of NED on 22 November 1983, they did not know that it already existed in secret pursuant to a Presidential Directive dated 14 January.

This document, only declassified two decades later, organizes “public diplomacy” a politically correct expression to designate propaganda. It establishes at the White House working groups within the National Security Council. One of these is tasked with leading NED.

JPEG - 14.6 kb

Henry Kissinger,

administrator of the NED.

A “representative of civil society”?

Consequently, the Board of Directors of the Foundation is only a transmission belt of the NSC. To maintain appearances, it has been agreed that, as a general rule, CIA agents and former agents could not be appointed to the board of directors.

Things are nonetheless no more transparent. Most high officials that have played a central role in the National Security Council have been NED directors. Such are the examples of Henry Kissinger, Franck Carlucci, Zbigniew Brzezinski, or even Paul Wolfowitz; personalities that will not remain in history as idealists of democracy, but as cynical strategists of violence.

The Foundation’s budget cannot be interpreted in isolation because it receives instructions from the NSC to lead action as part of vast inter-agency operations. It merits mention that funds are released from the International Aid Agency (USAID), without being recorded in NED’s balance sheet, simply for “non-governmentalizing”. Furthermore, the Foundation receives money indirectly money the CIA, after it has been laundered by private intermediaries such as the Smith Richardson Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation or even the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.

To evaluate the extent of this programme, we would need to combine the NED’s budget with the corresponding sub-budgets of the Department of State, USAID, the CIA and the Department of Defense. Today, such an estimation is impossible.

Nonetheless, certain elements we know give us an idea of its importance. During the last five years, the United States has spent more than one billion dollars on associations and parties in Libya, a small state of 4 million inhabitants. Overall, half of this manna was released publicly by the State Department, USAID and NED; the other half had been secretly paid by the CIA and the Department of Defence. This example allows us to extrapolate the US’s general budget for institutional corruption that amounts to tens of billions of dollars annually. Furthermore, the equivalent programme of the European Union that is entirely public and provides for the integration of US actions, is 7 billion euro per year.

Ultimately, NED’s legal structure and volume of its official budget are only baits. In essence, it is not an independent organization for legal actions previously entrusted to the CIA, but it is a window through which the NSC gives the orders to carry out legal elements of illegal operations.

The Trotskyite Strategy

When it was being set up (1984), NED was chaired by Allen Weinstein, then by John Richardson for four years (1984-88), finally by Carl Gershman (from 1998).

These three men have three things in common:

They are Jewish;

They were active in the Trotsky party, Social Democrats USA; and

They have worked at Freedom House.

There is a logic in this: hatred of Stalinism led some Trotskyites to join the CIA to fight the Soviets. They brought with them the theory of global power, by transposing it to the “colour revolutions” and to “democratisation”. They have simply displaced the Trotsky vulgate by applying it to the cultural battle analysed by Antonio Gramsci: power is exercised psychologically rather than by force. To govern the masses, the elite has to first inculcate an ideology that programmes their acceptance of the power that dominates it.

The American Centre for the Solidarity of Workers (ACILS)

JPEG - 14.8 kb

Known also as Solidarity Centre, ACILS, a trade union branch of NED, is easily its principal channel. It distributes more than half the Foundation’s donations. It has replaced the previous organizations that served during the Cold War to organize non-communist trade unions in the world, from Vietnam to Angola, by-passing France and Chile.

The fact trade unions were chosen to cover this CIA programme is a rare perversity. Far from the Marxist slogan, “Proletariats from all countries – unite”, ACILS brings together US working class trade unions in an imperialism that crushes workers in other countries.

JPEG - 18 kb

In 1981, Irving Brown places Jean-Claude Mailly as an assistant to André Bergeron, the Secretary General of the Force Ouvrière (FO). The latter will acknowledge financing its activities thanks to the CIA. In 2004, Mailly becomes the Secretary General of the FO.

This subsidiary was led by Irving Brown, a flamboyant personality, from 1948 until his death in 1989.

Some authors swear that Brown was the son of a white Russian, a companion of Alexander Kerensky. What we know for sure, is that he was an OSS agent, (i.e. an agent of the US intelligence service during the Second World War); and he participated in establishing the CIA and NATO’s Gladio network. However, he refused to lead it, preferring to focus on his area of expertise, trade unions. He was based at Rome, then Paris and never at Washington. So he had a significant impact on Italian and French public life. At the end of his life, he also boasts that he did not stop directing the French trade union, Force Ouvrière behind the scenes, and that he pulled the strings of the Student trade union UNI (where the following are active: Nicolas Sarkozy and his ministers François Fillon, Xavier Darcos, Hervé Morin and Michèle Alliot-Marie, as well as the President of the National Assembly, Bernard Accoyer and the President of the majoritarian parliamentary group, Jean-François Copé), and to have personally formed on the left, members of a Trotsky-ite break away group which included Jean-Christophe Cambadelis and the future Prime Minister Lionel Jospin.

At the end of the nineties, members of the confederation AFL-CIO requested accounts of ACILS’s actual activity, while its criminal character had been fully documented in a number of countries. One could have thought that things would have changed after this great outpouring. Nothing of the sort occurs. In 2002 and 2004, ACILS has participated actively in a failed coup d’Etat in Venezuela to oust President Hugo Chavez and in a successful one in Haiti in toppling Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

Today, ACILS is directed by John Sweeney, the former president of the confederation AFL-CIO, which itself also originates from the Trotskyite Party – Social Democrats USA.

The Centre for International Private Enterprise (CIPE)

JPEG - 15.2 kb

CIPE focuses on the dissemination of liberal capitalist ideology and the struggle against corruption.

The first success of CIPE: transforming in 1987 the European Management Forum (a club of CEOs of big European companies) into the World Economic Forum (the club of transnational ruling class). The big annual meeting of the world’s economic and political who’s who in the Davos Swiss ski resort contributed to creating a class membership that transcended national identity. CIPE makes sure that it does not have any structural ties with the Davos Forum, and it is not possible – for the moment – to prove that the World Economic Forum is an instrument of the CIA. On the contrary, the heads of Davos would have much difficulty explaining why certain political leaders have chosen their Economic Forum as the locus for acts of the highest importance if there were not operations planned by the US NSC. For example:

1988: it is at Davos – not the UN – that Greece and Turkey made peace.

1989: it is at Davos that the two Koreas on the one hand held their first summit at the ministerial level and the two Germany’s on the other hand held their first summit on the reunification.

1992: it is again at Davos that Frederik de Klerk and the freed Nelson Mandela come together to present their common project for South Africa for the first time abroad.

1994: still more improbable, it is at Davos, after the Oslo Accord, that Shimon Peres and Yasser Arafat come to negotiate and sign its application to Gaza and Jericho.

The connection between Washington and the Forum is notoriously through Susan K. Reardon, former director of the Association of Professional Employees of the Department of State, having become director of the Foundation of the US Chamber of Commerce which manages CIPE.

The other success of the Centre for International Private Business is Transparency International. This “NGO” was officially established by Michael J. Hershman, an officer of US military intelligence. He is furthermore, a CIPE director and today Head of Recruitment of FBI informants as well as Managing Director of the private intelligence service Fairfax Group.

Transparency International is first and foremost a cover for economic intelligence activities by the CIA. It is also a media tool to compel states to change their legislation to guarantee open markets.

To mask the origin of Transparency International, the CIPE makes and appeal to the savoir-faire of the former press officer of the World Bank, the neo-conservative Frank Vogl. The latter had put in place a Committee of individuals that have contributed to creating the impression that it is an association born of civil society. This window-dressing committee is led by Peter Eigen, former World Bank Director in East Africa. In 2004 and 2009, his wife was the SPD candidate for the Presidency of the German Federal Republic.

Transparency International’s work serves US interests and cannot be relied upon. Thus in 2008, this pseudo NGO denounced that PDVSA, Venezuela’s public oil company, was corrupt; and on the basis of false information, placed it last in its global rankings of public companies. The goal was evidently to sabotage the reputation of a company that constitutes the economic foundation of the anti – imperialist policy of President Hugo Chavez. Caught in the act of poisoning, Transparency International refused to respond to questions from the Latin American press and to correct its report. Furthermore, it is astonishing when we recall that Pedro Carmona, the CIPE correspondent at Venezuela, had been briefly put in power by the USA, during a failed coup d’Etat in 2002 to oust Hugo Chavez.

To some extent, focussing attention on economic corruption enables Transparency International to mask NED’s activities: corrupting the ruling elite for Anglo-Saxon advantage.

The International Republican Institute (IRI) and the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI)

JPEG - 10.7 kb

The goal of IRI is to corrupt the parties of the Right, while the NDI deals with left wing parties. The first is chaired by John McCain, the second by Madeleine Albright. So these two personalities should not be considered ordinary politicians, a leader of the opposition and a retired dean. Rather, as active leaders of the NSC programmes.

To contextualize the principal political parties in the world, IRI and NDI have renounced their control over l’Internationale libérale and l’Internationale socialiste. They have thus created rival organizations: the International Democratic Union (IDU) and the Alliance for Democrats (AD). The first is chaired by the Australian, John Howard. The Russian, Leonid Gozman of Just cause (Правое дело) is its vice-president. The second is led by the Italian Gianni Vernetti and co-chaired by the Frenchman, François Bayrou.

JPEG - 17 kb

IRI and NDI are also supported also by political foundations linking them to big political parties in Europe (six in Germany, two in France, one in the Netherlands and another one in Sweden). Furthermore, some operations have been sub-contracted to mysterious private companies such as Democracy International Inc which has organized the recent rigged elections in Afghanistan.

JPEG - 13.8 kb

Tom McMahon: former vice head of Rahm Emanuel and currently head of NDI. He came to France to organise the primaries of the Socialist Party.

All this leaves a bitter taste. The US has corrupted most of the big political parties and trade unions all over the world. For sure, the “democracy” that they promote consists in discussing local questions in each country – hardly ever societal questions such as women’s rights or gay rights – and it is aligned with Washington on all international issues. The electoral campaigns have become shows where NED picks the cast by providing the necessary financial means to some and not to others. Even the notion of variation has lost meaning since NED promotes alternatively one camp or another provided it follows the same foreign and defense policy.

Today, in the European Union and elsewhere, one laments the crisis of democracy. Those responsible for this are clearly NED and the US. And how do we classify a regime such as the US regime where the Leader of the Opposition, John McCain, is in fact a leader of the National Security Council? Surely not as a democracy.

The Balance of the System

Over time, USAID, NED, their satellite institutions and their intermediary foundations have produced an unwieldy and greedy bureaucracy. Each year, when Congress votes on the NED’s budget, animated debates arise on the inefficiency of this tentacular system and rumours that funds have been appropriated to benefit US politicians in charge of administering them.

To achieve sound management, a number of studies have been commissioned to quantify the impact of these financial flows. Experts have compared the sums allocated in each state and the democratic ranking of these states by Freedom House. Then they calculated how much they needed to spend (in dollars) per inhabitant to improve the democratic ranking of a State by a point.

JPEG - 16.8 kb

Tomicah Tillemann, adviser to Hillary Clinton for civil society and emerging democracies, supervises NED’s apparatus in the State Department.

Of course, all this is only an attempt at self-justification. The idea of establishing a democratic mark is not scientific. In some ways, it is totalitarian, for it assumes that there is only one form of democratic institutions. In other ways, it is infantile for it established a list of disparate criteria which it will measure with fictional coefficients to transform a social complexity into a single figure.

Furthermore, the vast majority of these studies conclude that it is a failure: although the number of democracies in the world has increased, there would be no link between democratic progress and regression on the one hand and the sums spent by the NSC on the other. On the contrary, it confirms that the real objectives have nothing to do with those indicated. However, those running USAID cite a study by Vanderbilt University, according to which only the NED operations co-financed by USAID have been effective because USAID manages its budget rigorously. Thus it is not surprising that this individual study has been financed by …. USAID.

Be that as it may, in 2003, on its twentieth anniversary, NED drew up a political account of its action, evidencing that it has financed more than 6,000 political and social organizations in the world, a figure that has not stopped increasing from that time. NED claims to have single-handedly set up the trade union Solidarnoc in Poland, Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia and Otpor in Serbia. It was pleased that it had created from scratch Radio B92 or the daily Oslobodjenje in the former Yugoslavia and a series of new independent media in the “liberated” Iraq.

JPEG - 25.6 kb

In December 2011, Egyptian authorities search the offices of the NDI and IRI in Cairo. The documents that were seized are most important to understand US interference since the “nest of spies” was removed from Teheran in 1979. Charged with spying, the NED leaders are tried. Here: Robert Becker (Director of NDI, Cairo) at the opening of the trial. The documents prove that NED is wholly responsible for and manipulated the pseudo revolution that took place in Tahrir Square. This resulted in more than 4,000 deaths to hoist the Muslim Brotherhood to power.

Changing Cover

After experiencing global success, the rhetoric of democratization no longer convinces. By using it in all circumstances, President George W. Bush has depleted it of meaning. Noone can seriously claim that the subsidies paid by NED will make international terrorism go away. The claim that the US troops have toppled Saddam Hussein to offer democracy to Iraqis, cannot be asserted more persuasively.

Furthermore, citizens all over the world that fight for democracy have become distrustful. They now understand that the aid offered by NED and its tentacles is in fact aimed at manipulating and snaring their country. This is why they are increasingly refusing the contributions “with no strings or sticks attached” offered to them.

Also, US heads from different channels of corruption have tried to silence the system once again. After the CIA dirty tricks and the transparency of NED, they envisage creating a new structure that would replace a discredited package. It would not be managed by trade unions, management and the two big parties, but by multinationals on the model of the Asia Foundation.

In the eighties, the press revealed that this organization was a CIA cover to fight communism in Asia. It was then reformed and its management was entrusted to multinationals. (Boeing, Chevron, Coca-Cola, Levis Strauss etc…). This re-styling was enough to give the impression that it was non- governmental and respectable – a structure that never stopped serving the CIA. After the dissolution of Russia, it was replicated: the Eurasia Foundation, whose mandate extends covert action to the New Asian states.

Another issue that sparks debate is if the contributions for “promoting democracy” would have to take the exclusive form of contracts to carry out specific projects or subsidies with no duty to reach targets. The first option offers better legal cover but the second is a much more efficient tool of corruption.

Given this panorama, the requirement laid down by Vladimir Putin and Vladisl Surkov to regulate the funding of NGOs in Russia is legitimate even if the bureaucracy they have set up for doing so is outrageous and difficult to satisfy. The instrument of NED, put in place under the authority of the US NSC not only fails to support attempts at democracy all over the world but poisons them.

Towards the collapse of the evil Saudi Arabia dictatorship

Towards the collapse of Saudi Arabia

While the Saud family enjoys the last few moments of its dictatorship, the decapitation of the leader of the opposition, Nimr al-Nimr, deprives half of the Saudi population of all hope. For Thierry Meyssan, the fall of the kingdom has become inevitable. It will probably be accompanied by a long period of extreme violence.

JPEG - 57.4 kbPrince Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud, 30 years old, substitute Crown Prince, second substitute Prime Minister, State Minister, Minister for Defence, General Secretary of the Royal Court, President of the Council for Economic Affairs and Development.

n one year, the new king of Saudi Arabia, Salman, 25th son of the founder of the dynasty, has managed to consolidate his personal authority to the detriment of other branches of his family, including the clan of Prince Bandar ben Sultan and that of the old King Abdallah. However, we don’t know what Washington has promised the losers in order to dissuade them from making attempts to regain their lost power. In any case, certain anonymous letters published in the British Press lead us to believe that they have not abandoned their ambitions.

Forced by his brothers to nominate Prince Mohamad ben Nayef as heir, King Salman quickly isolated him and restricted his powers to the advantage of his own son, Prince Mohammed ben Salman, whose reckless and brutal nature is not restrained by the family Council, which no longer meets. De facto, he and his father govern alone, as autocrats with no counter-power, in a country which has never elected a Parliament, and where political parties are forbidden.

So we have seen Prince Mohammed ben Salman take over presidency of the Council for Economic Affairs and Development, force a new direction on the Ben Laden Group, and seize control of Aramco. Each time, the goal is to distance his cousins from power and place liegemen at the head of the kingdom’s major companies.

JPEG - 39.3 kb
This is how Sheikh al-Nimr described the life of the Shiites in Saudi Arabia – « From the moment you are born, you are surrounded by fear, intimidation, persecution and abuse. We are born into an atmosphere of intimidation. We are even afraid of the walls. Who among us is not familiar with the intimidation and injustice to which we have been subjected in this country ? I am 55 years old, more than half a century. From the day I was born until today, I have never felt safe in this country. You are always being accused of something. You are always under threat. The Director of State Security admitted as much to me. He told me when I was arrested – “All of you Shiites should be killed”. That’s their logic. »

In terms of its interior policy, the régime favours only the Sunni or Wahhabi half of the population, and discriminates against the other half. Prince Mohammed ben Salman advised his father to have Sheikh Nimr Baqir al-Nimr decapitated because he had dared to defy him. In other words, the state condemned to death and executed the leader of the opposition, whose only crime was to have formulated and repeated the slogan – « Despotism is illegitimate ». The fact that this leader was a Sheikh of the Shia movement only reinforces the feeling of apartheid against non-Sunnis, who are forbidden a religious education, and also forbidden to enter into public service. As for non-Muslims, about a third of the population, they are not allowed to practise their religion and can not hope to receive Saudi nationality.

JPEG - 15 kb
Saad Hariri, double national Lebano-Saudi. Leader of the Movement of the Future. Officially the son of Rafic Hariri, unofficially a prince of the Saudi royal family.

On the international level, Prince Mohammed and his father, King Salman, are implementing policies based on those of the Bedouin tribes of the kingdom. This is the only way of understanding both their continued financing of the Afghani Taliban and the Lebanese Movement of the Future, the Saudi repression of the Revolution in Bahreïn, their support for the jihadists in Syria and Iraq, and the invasion of Yemen. The Saudis always support the Sunnites – whom they consider to be closest to their state Wahhabism – not only against the Shiites of the twelver Ja’fari school, but primarily against enlightened Sunnis, then against all other religions (Ismaelians, Zaydis, Alevis, Alawites, Druzes, Sikhs, Catholics, Orthodox, Sabateans, Yazidis, Zoroastrians, Hindus, etc.). Above all, and in all cases, they support exclusively leaders from the major Saudi Sunni tribes.

Incidentally, we should note that the execution of Sheikh al-Nimr follows the creation of a vast anti-terrorist Coalition of 34 states led by Riyadh. Since we know that the victim, who always stood against the use of violence, was convicted for acts of « terrorisme » (sic), we may conclude that this Coalition is in fact a Sunni alliance against all other religions.

Prince Mohammed took it upon himself to launch the war against Yemen on the pretext of helping President Abd Rabbo Mansour Hadi, who had been overthrown by an alliance between the al-Houthi movement and the army of ex-President Ali Abdallah Saleh. In reality, the war was waged in order to seize the oil fields and exploit them with Israël. Predictably, the war went wrong, and the insurgents launched incursions inside Saudi Arabia, where the army fled, abandoning its equipment.

Saudi Arabia is therefore the only state in the world which is the property of a single man, governed by this autocrat and his son, who refuse any form of ideological debate, who will not tolerate any form of opposition, and who accept only tribal serfdom. What has for many years been considered a residue of the past called to adapt to the modern world has thus progressively congealed until it has become the very definition of an anachronistic kingdom.

The fall of the House of Saud may be provoked by a reduction in the price of oil. Incapable of reforming its life-style, the kingdom is borrowing hand over fist, to the point that according to financial analysts, it will probably collapse within two years. The partial sale of Aramco may temporarily postpone its demise, but this will only be possible at the cost of a loss of autonomy.

The decapitation of Sheikh al-Nimr will have been the straw that broke the camel’s back. The fall of Saudi Arabia is now inevitable because there is no hope left for the people who live there. The country will be plunged into a mixture of tribal revolts and social revolutions which will be far more murderous than the previous Middle-Eastern conflicts.

Far from acting to prevent this tragic end, the US protectors of the kingdom are awaiting it with impatience. They continually praise Prince Mohammed’s « wisdom », as if encouraging him to make even more mistakes. Already in September 2001, the US Committee of the Chiefs of Staff were working on a map for the re-modelling of the « wider Middle East », which planned for the separation of the country into five states. In July 2002, Washington was considering ways of getting rid of the Saud family, during a famous session of the Defense Policy Board. From now on, it’s just a matter of time.

Keep in mind : The United States have managed to solve the question of the succession of King Abdallah, but today, they are attempting to lead Saudi Arabia into error. Their objective is now to divide the countrry into five states. Wahhabism is the state religion, but the power of the Saud family, both interior and exterior, depends exclusively on Sunni tribes, while it subjects all other populations to apartheid. King Salman (80 years old) leaves the exercise of power to one of his children, Prince Mohammed (30 years old.) The Prince has seized control of his country’s major companies, has declared war on Yemen, and has just executed the leader of the opposition, Sheikh al-Nimr.

Are NATO Forces “Blind” In Syria?

nato-eagle-background

By Brandon Turbeville

As Western media circulates reports accompanied with exactly zero evidence to back up claims that Russian cruise missiles crashed in Iran or that Russia has engaged in a hospital bombing spree, there is a notable silence about the capabilities of the Russian military, particularly when it relates to the question of how effective it is in preventing NATO and the United States from achieving its goals in Syria.

Recent reports in the alternative media, however, are suggesting that, at least in the coastal areas of Syria and in a number of locations controlled by the Assad government and backed by Russian forces, the NATO forces are essentially blind.

Noted and respected researcher Thierry Meyssan of the Voltaire Network recently stated on Webster Tarpley’s World Crisis Radio program that the Russians have deployed a new “secret weapon” in Syria that is capable of jamming American and NATO satellites and radar transmissions, essentially creating a space where the interlopers are incapable of using radar, sonar, or directional systems. The system, according to Meyssan, is also capable of preventing opposing forces from even being able to monitor and observe what is happening inside the area in which the jamming devices are operating.

Meyssan, who is currently living in Damascus and is functioning as an advisor to the Assad government, stated,

In fact, nobody knows what is really happening now in Syria. Because now there is something totally new, totally different from the past. The Russians [military] has deployed a special system to scramble, to jam all the communications in Syria. So, right now, all the military communications – the radar, the satellites, everything is jammed, is scrambled. And the result is that NATO [doesn’t] know what is happening inside Syria since three weeks [ago].

[…]This means that Russia has a new weapon able to stop all the communications system of NATO and this means that Russia is now the main military power in the world. You understand what I’m saying? Because right now NATO is totally blind. Because if NATO tries to do something inside Syria they can’t do it.

For those who question the claims of Meyssan, it should be noted that Russia has already deployed a sophisticated system of radar, sonar, and directional jamming that has caused some consternation amongst the NATO and American militaries.

In April, 2015, a public version of this alleged “secret” weapon was unveiled and reported on by Sputnik. The Russian media organization stated,

The Richag-AV system, mounted on the Mi-8MTPR1 (a variant of the Mi-8MTB5-1 helicopter) is said to have no global equivalent. Its electronic countermeasures system is designed to jam radar, sonar and other detection systems in the aims of defending aircraft, helicopters, drones, ground and naval forces against air-to-air and surface-to-air defense systems within a radius of several hundred kilometers. It can be mounted on units from any branch of the armed forces, including helicopters and airplanes, as well as ground and ship-based forces. The Mi8-MTPR1-based Richag-AV platform, using multi-beam antenna arrays with DRFM technology, is designed to actively jam and thus ‘blind’ radar systems in order to defend against radio-electronic guided weapons systems. In a combat situation, the system would operate as part of an aviation shock attack group aimed at breaking through virtually any defense system, blinding everything up to and including the US MIM-104 ‘Patriot’ anti-aircraft missile system.

The new Russian system seems to be functioning via a similar concept but at a much higher capacity.

It should also be noted that, in late September of this year, NATO Supreme Commander Gen. Phillip Breedlove warned that Russia was creating an A2/AD bubble over the Syrian coast and the eastern Mediterranean. Breedlove also mentioned that similar bubbles were already created by Russia over the Baltic Sea near Kaliningrad and the Black Sea near Crimea. A2/AD is an abbreviation for Anti-Access and Area Denial.

As the Washington Post reported,

While Russia’s stated goal in moving into Syria is to fight the Islamic State, NATO’s top commander believes Russia’s new presence includes the first pieces of an intricate layer of defensive systems deployed to hinder U.S. and coalition operations in the region. “As we see the very capable air defense [systems] beginning to show up in Syria, we’re a little worried about another A2/AD bubble being created in the eastern Mediterranean,” said Breedlove to an audience at the German Marshall FundMonday. A2/AD stands for anti-access/area denial. During the early stages of warfare, A2/AD could have been a moat around a castle, or spikes dug into the ground—anything to keep the enemy off a certain swathe of territory. In the 21st century, however, A2/AD is a combination of systems such as surface-to-air missile batteries and anti-ship missiles deployed to prevent forces from entering or traversing a certain area—from land, air or sea. According to Breedlove, the introduction of an A2/AD bubble in Syria would be Russia’s third denial zone around Europe. The first and oldest he said, was in the Baltics where the Russian naval base in Kaliningrad has robust anti-air capabilities. The second zone—originating from Russian-occupied Crimea—covers the Black Sea. “Russia has developed a very strong A2/AD capability in the Black Sea,” said Breedlove. “Essentially their [anti-ship] cruise missiles range the entire Black Sea, and their air defense missiles range about 40 to 50 percent of the Black Sea.

Hints of the effectiveness of the Russian technology was demonstrated in a tense standoff between a Russian fighter jet and an American Destroyer in the Black Sea in 2014 when the Russian jet turned toward the Destroyer (who was stationed in the Black Sea in violation of the Montreaux Convention) and completely jammed the radar and directional systems on board the ship. While the silencing of the US systems was impressive enough, the fact that the jet did so for a total of 12 times was a clear message.

Considering the nature of the conflict taking place in Syria, we can only hope that the Russians continue to blackout access to visuals, communications, and the ability to launch a coordinated assault against the Assad forces by NATO powers and any other force attempting to destroy Syria and its people. However, we must also hope that the US ruling elite soon begins to keep its hubris in check before we find ourselves engaged in a worldwide conflagration.

Brandon Turbeville – article archive here – is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of six books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom7 Real ConspiraciesFive Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, and The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President. Turbeville has published over 500 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST atUCYTV. He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian 

  

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

The End of the Regime of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan

 

By Thierry Meyssan

Failure in the legislative elections

The results of the Turkish legislative elections not only pose a threat to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s personal projects, since he already viewed himself as the new Sultan, but the very power of his party, the AKP. Each of the three other parties (MHP conservatives, CHP socialists and HPD left-wingers) made it clear that they refused to form a coalition government with him, and preferred, on the contrary, to form a coalition between themselves. In case they were unable to reach an agreement within 45 days, they would give the socialists the job of forming a governmental coalition – an option already rejected by the AKP – or else to convene a new round of legislative elections.

This scenario still seems improbable, just as the election results seemed impossible to almost all political commentators until the ballot of the 7th June. However, by signing, on the 1st December 2014, an economic agreement with Vladimir Putin which would enable Russia to circumvent the European Union sanctions (Turkish Stream), Mr. Erdoğan defied the implicit rules of NATO. By doing so, he has become a public enemy both for Washington and Brussels. As a result, the United States have secretly used their influence during the electoral campaign to make make the downfall of the AKP possible.

For this election, Mr. Erdoğan had decided that he needed 400 seats out of 550. In reality, in order to impose the adoption of a carefully-designed constitution which would allow him full executive powers, he hoped for 367 seats. Failing that, he would have accepted 330 seats, which would have enabled him to convene a referendum which would have adopted his project for a constitution by simple majority. In any case, he needed 276 seats in order to enjoy parlementary majority, but will only gain 258, which is insufficient for him to hold on to power alone.

The domination of the AKP since 2002 may be explained by its positive economic results and by the division of its opposition. But the Turkish economy is now collapsing – its growth rate, which remained close to 10 % for a decade, dropped during the war on Libya, and dropped again during the secret war on Syria. It currently stands at 3 %, but could rapidly become negative. Unemployment has grown rapidly, and has now reached 11 %. These wars have been waged against allies of Turkey and its indispensable economic partners. Concerning the division of the opposition, the CIA, who had worked hard in the past to encourage it, is now busy trying to repair the damage.

This was not a difficult task, given the many griefs created by Mr. Erdoğan’s authoritarianism. The union of the opposition was already a fact established at the base, in June 2013, during the demonstrations at Taksim Gezi Park. But the movment failed, first of all because at the time, Mr. Erdoğan was supported by Washington, and also because the demonstration was restricted to urban areas. At that time, the demonstrators were of course protesting against a building project, but mainly against the dictatorship of the Muslim Brotherhood and the war against Syria.

Since it was clear that the movement had been unable to overthrow the AKP, the party wrongly thought it was undefeatable. It therefore attempted to force through its Islamist programme – headscarves for women, prohibition of cohabitation between members of the opposite sex, etc. At the same time, the virginal image of the Sultan was suddenly compromised by the revelation of his family’s corruption. In February 2014, via what seems to have been a telephone interception, Mr. Erdoğan was heard asking his son to hide 30 million Euros in cash before a police search [1].

All this goes without mention of the purge against those who remained faithful to his ex-ally Fethullah Gülen [2], the massive incarceration of Turkey’s generals, lawyers and journalists [3], the non-respect of the promises made to the Kurds, and the construction of the largest Presidential palace in the world.

This failure is the consequence of his foreign policy

The failure of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is not due to his interior decisions, it’s the direct consequence of his foreign policy. The exceptional economic results of his early years would have been impossible without the secret assistance of the United States, who wanted to make him the leader of the Sunnite world. They were stopped in 2011, by Ankara’s alliance with the operation launched to destroy the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, which, until then, had been his second economic partner. Turkey revived the historic links it had with the Misrata tribes, mainly the Aghdams, in other words Turkish Jews who had converted to Islam and settled in Libya during the 18th and 19th centuries.

Turkey was aware that by attacking Libya, it would lose a very important market, but it hoped to take control of the governments held by the Muslim Brotherhood, already present in Tunisia, then probably in Libya, Egypt and Syria. This in fact came to pass in the two former states in 2012, but did not last.

Ankara joined the war against Syria, and NATO based its headquarters for the coordination of operations on Turkish soil. During the first war (the 4th generation war), dating from February 2011 to the Genva Conference of June 2012, NATO transferred its al-Qaïda fighters from Libya to Turkey in order to create a « Free Syrian Army ». Mr. Erdoğan supplied rear bases disguised as « refugee camps », while the blind Western press saw nothing other than a « democratic revolution » (sic) along the lines of the « Arab Spring » (re-sic).

In June 2012, the electoral victory of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt might have seemed to predict a radiant future for the Brotherhood. So Mr. Erdoğan followed the programme designed by Hillary Clinton, General David Petraeus and François Hollande to re-launch the war against Syria, but this time on the Nicaraguan model. It was no longer a question of supporting a secret operation by NATO, but playing a central role in a classic war of huge proportions.

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, coordinator of international terrorism

When, in July 2012, the Axis of Resistance reacted to the assassination of members of the Syrian National Security Council by attempting to assassinate Saudi prince Bandar ben Sultan, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan siezed his opportunity, and substituted Turkey for Saudi Arabia in the manipulation of international terrorism .

In the space of two years, more than 200,000 mercenaires arrived from all over the world and transited byTurkey in order to wage jihad in Syria. The MIT, or Turkish secret services, set up a vast system for the circulation of arms and money to feed the war, mainly paid for by Qatar and supervised by the CIA.

Mr. Erdoğan installed three al-Qaïda training camps on his soil at Şanlıurfa (Syrian frontier), Osmaniye (next to the Nato base of Incirlik), and Karaman (near Istanbul), where he organised a terrorist academy in the tradition of the School of the Americas. [4] [5].

The Turkish police and Justice system have shown that Mr. Erdoğan – like ex-US Vice President Dick Cheney – was a personal friend of Yasin al-Qadi, the « al-Qaïda banker ». In any case, that was how he was described by the FBI and the United Nations until he was taken off the international terrorist list in October 2012. During the period when he was being hunted all over the world, Yasin al-Qadi took a secret trip to Ankara in a private plane. Mr. Erdoğan’s bodyguards came to pick him up at the airport, having first de-activated the surveillance cameras. [6].

On the 18th March 2014, a recording broadcast on YouTube featured a director of Turkish Airlines, Mehmet Karataş, who complained to one of Mr. Erdoğan’s councillors, Mustafa Varank, that his company had been used by the government to secretly transfer armament to Boko Haram in Nigeria. This highly-placed civil servant was not particularly worried about having violated international law, but deplored the fact that these weapons might serve to kill not only Christians, but also Muslims.

In May 2014, the MIT transferred to Daesh, by special train, a quantity of heavy weapons and new Toyota pick-ups offered by Saudi Arabia. The Islamic Emirate, which at that time counted only a few hundred combattants, developed in the space of one month into an army of tens of thousands, and invaded Iraq.

During the last four months of 2014, Turkey prevented the Kurds of the PKK from rushing to the aid of their own people in Kobane (Aïn al-Arab) when the town was attacked by Daesh. On the contrary, many journalists attested to the fact that the jihadists were able to cross the fontier with impunity [7].

On the 19th January 2015, at the request of the public prosecutor’s department, the police intercepted a convoy transporting weapons intended for Daesh. However, the search was interrupted when it was discovered that the convoy was being led by agents of the MIT. Following that, the public prosecutors and the police colonel were arrested for « treason » (sic). During the preliminary investigation, a magistrate made it known that the MIT had chartered a total of 2,000 truckloads of weapons for Daesh [8].

The core of the Turkish terrorist system is easy to identify – in 2007, the Military Academy of West Point revealed that men from the Islamic Emirate in Iraq came from al-Qaïda in Libya (GICL). These same mercenaries were used to overthrow Mouamar el-Kadhafi in 2011 [9], and then to create the Free Syrian Army (the « moderates ») [10]. The Syrian members of the Islamic Emirate in Iraq created al-Qaïda in Syria (al-Nusra Front). Many of the Libyan and Syrian combattants came back to join the Islamic Emirate in Iraq when it renamed itself « Daesh » and sent senior personnel to Boko Haram (Nigeria).

The public implication of Turkey in the conflict

Turkey made a huge profit from the war against Syria. Firstly by organising the pillage of its archeological treasures. A public market was even set up in Antioch so that collectors from all over the world could come and buy the stolen objects and place orders for works to be stolen. Secondly, by organising the industrial pillage of Aleppo, the economic capital of Syria. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Aleppo revealed how their factories had been systematically dismantled, and the machines-tools transferred to Turkey under the vigilant eye of the MIT. The Syrians lodged a complaint with the Justice department, but their Turkish lawyers were immediately arrested by the Erdoğan administration and are still in prison.

The Turkish Army has for a long time been sending its Special Forces troops into Syria – several Turkish soldiers have been taken prisoner by the Syrian Arab Army. However, it coordinated the attack on the Christian village of Maaloula, in September 2013 – a village which has no strategic interest, but is the oldest site of Christianity in the world. Above all, in March 2014, the Turkish Army entered Syria in order to escort jihadists from the Al-Nusra Front (Al-Qaïda) and the Islamic Army (pro-Saudi) as far as the Armenian town of Kassab, with the mission to massacre the inhabitants whose grand-parents had fled the genocide perpetrated by the Ottomans [11]. Unsurprisingly, France and the United States opposed a condemnation of this aggression by the Security Council. Following that, the Turkish Army entered Syrian territory several times, but without joining any other battles.

The weight of the crimes of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan

The Turkish press has widely dealt with the crimes of the Erdoğan administration, which has definitively alienated the Alevist populations (close to the Alawites) and the Kurds. The former massively support the CHP, and the latter support the HPD. But this was insufficient to defeat the new Sultan.

The error was made on the 1st December 2014, when Mr. Erdoğan signed a gigantic economic agreement with President Putin, whom he perceives wrongly as a Tsar, and therefore as a model. Perhaps he feared that the United States would turn against him once Syria had fallen, just as they had turned against Saddam Hussein once Iran was exhausted. In any event, by pretending to play on both sides, the East and the West, Mr. Erdoğan has lost the support with which the CIA had been providing him, unfailingly, since 1998.

The career path of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan

As an adolescent, Mr. Erdoğan thought of undertaking a career as as professional footballer. A leader with a charismatic personality, he lived in the streets at the head of a group of delinquants. He quickly joined Necmettin Erbakan’s movement, Millî Görüş (literally « National Vision », to be understood in the context of censorship as « Political Islam ») whose project was the re-Islamisation of Turkish society. He was a militant of an extreme-right anti-communist group, and participated in various anti-Jewish and anti-Masonic demonstrations.

Elected to Parliament in 1991, he was forbidden to occupy his functions because of a coup d’état and the repression to which the Islamists were submitted. Elected mayor of Istanbul in 1994, he execised his functions without imposing his Islamist vision. However, at the moment when his party was banned, he was condemned for having recited a pan-Turkish poem during one of his speeches. He served 4 months in prison and was forbidden to present himself in the elections.

Once released, he claimed to have broken with his past errors. He abandoned his anti-Western rhetoric, provoking the division of Necmettin Erbakan’s movement. With the help of the US embassy, he founded the AKP, a party which was at the same time Islamist and Atlantist, into which he integrated not only his friends from Millî Görüş, but also the disciples of Fetullah Güllen and the ex-partisans of Turgut Özal. The latter was a Sunnite Kurd who was President from 1989 to 1993. The AKP won the 2002 elections, but the results were cancelled. He also won the 2003 elections, which enabled Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, finally, to become Prime Minister, since his political exile was now over.

Now in the seat of power, Mr. Erdoğan forgot to impose his Islamist views. He developed the economy with the help of the United States, then, from 2009, applied the theory of professor Ahmet Davutoğlu (a disciple of Fetullah Güllen) – « zero problems with our neighbours ». The aim of this theory was to resolve, a century late, the conflicts inherited from the Ottoman Empire. Amongst other things, he set up a common market in 2009 with Syria and Iran, causing a regional economic boom.

The AKP and the Muslim Brotherhood

Although they have a different history, Millî Görüş had always manifested an interest for the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. They translated the books of Hassan el-Banna and Saïd Qotb.

The AKP officially drew closer to the Muslim Brotherhood during Israel’s war against the people of Gaza in 2008 – 2009. This led Erdoğan’s government to support and participate in the Freedom Flotilla project organised by the Brotherhood under the cover of a humanitarian association, the IHH, and under the vigiilant eye of the CIA [12].

From the first days of the Arab Spring, the AKP supported Rached Ghannouchi in Tunisia, Mahmoud Jibril in Libya and Mohamed Morsi in Egypt. The party furnished the Muslim Brotherhood with specialists in political communication and advised them in order to impose their common vision of Islam in their respective societies.

In September 2011, as a sign of this alliance, Mr. Erdoğan helped to create the Syrian National Council in Istanbul, which was slated to become the Syrian government in exile – an instance which was entirely under the control of the Muslim Brotherhood [13].

In 2012, Mr. Erdoğan welcomed to the AKP congress the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood now in power, the Egyptian Mohamed Morsi and the Palestinian Khaled Meschal.

He also organised a conference for the Brotherhood on the 10th July 2013, among whose particpants were Youssef Nada, Mohammad Riyad al-Shafaka (the Brotherhood’s guide in Syria) and Rached Ghannouchi. By precaution, it was his old friends from Millî Görüş, and not the AKP, who delivered the invitations.

When, in September 2014, Qatar avoided war with Saudi Arabia by inviting the Muslim Brotherhood to leave the Emirate, Mr. Erdoğan seized the opportunity and became the Brotherhood’s only « godfather » on the international stage.

The future of Turkey

It is only by facility that Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is considered to be a neo-Ottoman. His project was never to rebuild the Empire, but to create a new Empire abiding by his own rules.

He believed that he could rely alternatively on the fanatism of the Califate (with the Hizb ut-Tahrir, then with Daesh) or pan-Turkism (« the valley of wolves »).

It is also a mistake to describe him as an authoritarian politician. In truth, he has always behaved like a leader of the pack, and nobody labels a mob boss as authoritarian. Whenever he has been caught red-handed in numerous criminal affairs, he has always reacted by denying the evidence and sacking or arresting the policemen and magistrates who were applying the law.

Even if Recep Tayyip Erdoğan manages to bribe the MHP, or at least 18 of his deputies, to form a governmental coalition, his party will not remain in power for long.

In order to be certain that they will no longer have to deal with the AKP, the United States will probably favour its division by encouraging the disciples of Fetullah Güllen and the partisans of deceased President Turgut Özal to form their own party.

The government which succeeds the AKP will have to quickly release the political prisoners, prosecute the corrupt Islamist leaders, and then abrogate various Islamist laws in order to satisfy public opinion. It will put an end to Turkey’s implication in the war of aggression against Syria, but will have to facilitate the exfiltration of jihadists, by the CIA, from Iraq and Syria to another destination. It will benefit from the financial support of the United States as soon as it questions the Treaty signed by President Erdoğan with President Putin.

The fall of the AKP should provoke the retreat of the Muslim Brotherhood to Qatar, the only state which still supports them. It should also clear the horizon in Tunisia and Libya, and favour peace in Syria and Egypt.


Notes:

[1] “30 million dollars and Erdogan’s voice”, Voltaire Network, 26 February 2014.

[2] “Erdoğan attacks Gülen publicly”, Translation Alizée Ville, Voltaire Network, 28 November 2013.

[3] “Turkey : The AKP’s Judiciary Coup”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Roger Lagassé, Voltaire Network, 19 August 2013.

[4] “Israeli general says al Qaeda’s Syria fighters set up in Turkey”, par Dan Williams, Reuters, 29 janvier 2014.

[5] The Schools of the Americas was a school of torture, created in Panama by the CIA during the Cold War.

[6] “Erdoğan received Al-Qaeda’s banker in secret”, Translation Alizée Ville, Voltaire Network, 6 January 2014.

[7] “Kobane: the object of all lies”, Voltaire Network, 4 November 2014.

[8] “Turkey arrests the prosecutors who were investigating the Islamic Emirate”, Translation Pete Kimberley, Voltaire Network, 8 May 2015.

[9] “Once NATO enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan, now NATO allies in Libya”, by Webster G. Tarpley,Voltaire Network, 24 May 2011.

[10] “Free Syrian Army commanded by Military Governor of Tripoli”, by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network, 19 December 2011; “Libyan Islamists go to Syria to “help” the revolution”, by Daniel Iriarte, ABC(Spain), Voltaire Network, 22 December 2011.

[11] “For Ankara, is massacre a policy option?”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Roger Lagassé, Voltaire Network, 27 October 2014.

[12] “Freedom Flotilla: The detail that escaped Netanyahu”, by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network, 8 June 2010.

[13] The Council was initially presided by professor Burhan Ghalioun, presented by the Western press as a « secular militant », while since 2003 he was the political advisor to Abbassi Madani (President of the Islamic Salvation Front in Algeria). The Council is today presided by Georges Sabra, presented as a « Christian Marxist », although he has just made his pilgrimage to Mecca.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

The fall of Palmyra upsets geopolitical balance in the Levant

The situation has considerably worsened in the Levant since the Islamic Emirate cut the ancient « Silk Road », the route which links Iran to the Mediterranean. There remain only two possible options : either via Deir ez-Zor and Aleppo, or else via Palmyra and Damascus. The first route has been disabled since the beginning of 2013, the second has just been cut. The fall of Palmyra will therefore have considerable consequences for the balance of the whole region.

JPEG - 51.8 kb

Lately, the Western press has dedicated its headlines to Syria – a situation that we haven’t seen for two years, during the affair of the chemical bombing of Ghouta and the NATO project for intervention. The journalists are worried about the progression of the Islamic Emirate and the possible destruction of the ancient city of Palmyra.

However, those who are familiar with the story of Queen Zenobia are few and far between. Profiting from the weakness of Rome, whom the Gauls had recently expulsed, she proclaimed her son Emperor and herself Regent, and went on to free not only Syria, but also the peoples of Egypt, Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, part of Turkey and even what is now Iran. Her capital, Palmyra, was a city of great refinement, open to all religions, a shining stage on the Silk Road which linked the Mediterranean to China. However, general Aurelian managed a coup d’etat in Rome and was able to restore the unity of the empire, crushing first of all Empress Zenobia, then the Gallic empire, before ending religious freedom, imposing the cult of the Sun and proclaiming himself God. This prestigious story makes Palmyra the symbol of Levantine Resistance to the Western imperialism of its day.

We may be surprised by the importance given to the fall of Palmyra by the Western press, particularly since the most important progression of Daesh this week was not in Syria, nor Iraq, but in Libya, with the fall of Sirte, a town whose population is five or six times greater than that of Palmyra. And yet the same journalists who had written at great length over the last two months about the chaotic situation in Libya, and called for a military intervention by Europe in order to staunch the flow of refugees, did not even mention it. It is true that in Libya, Daesh is commanded by Abdelhakim Belhaj, who was named military governor of Tripoli under the auspices of NATO, and officially recieved on the 2nd May 2014 in Paris by the Quai d’Orsay.

Reaching for a little extra drama, Western journalists affirm in unison that « Daesh now controls half of Syria » (sic). But their own maps contradict them, because they only show the control of a few towns and some roads, not whole regions.

Clearly, media treatment of the situation in the « wider Middle East » is not intended to provide an account of reality, but to instrumentalise certain elements which have been carefully selected to justify politicy.

Daesh and the importance of Palmyra

We would hope that the emotion caused by the fall of Palmyra is sincere, and that the Western powers, after having massacred several million people in the region over the last decade, have finally decided to halt these crimes. But we are not stupid. This ready-to-wear emotion is aimed at justifying a military reaction against, or concerning, Daesh.

Such a reaction is indispensable if Washington still wants to sign the agreement that it has been negotiating for the last two years with Teheran.

Indeed, Daesh was created by the United States with the support of Turkey, the Gulf monarchies and Israel, as we have always said, and as a partially declassified document released this week by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) confirms. The reader can download this document at the bottom of the page.

Contrary to the nonsense published by certain journalists accusing the « Bachar régime » (sic) of having created this organisation in order to divide the opposition and force it towards radicalism, the DIA attests that the Islamic Emirate is a function of US strategy. The report, dated 12th August 2012, and widely distributed throughout the Obama administration, clearly announced Washington’s plans –

« If the situation resolves itself, there will arise the possibility of establishing a Salafist principality, recognised or not, in Eastern Syria (Hassake and Deir ez-Zor), which is exactly the objective of those who support the opposition [the Western states, the Gulf states and Turkey], in order to isolate the Syrian régime, considered to be the strategic spearhead of Chiite expansion (Iraq and Iran) ».

As we have always said, the Islamic Emirate was developed in January 2014 by a decision of the United States Congress, meeting in a secret session tasked with realising the Wright plan. The goal was to create a « Kurdistan » and a « Sunnistan » straddling Syria and Iraq, and designed to cut the « Silk Road » after the sale of Deir ez-Zor (the town was bought from corrupt officials without combat).

From the deepest Antiquity, a network of communication routes linked Xi’an (the ancient Chinese capital) to the Mediterranean. The route links Iran through the desert to the sea, either via Deir ez-Zor and Aleppo, or else via Palmyra and Damascus. Today, it is used for the transit of weapons to Syria and the Lebanese Hezbollah, and will probably be used to transport gas from the Fars field (Iran), to the port of Latakia (Syria).

Palmyra, the « desert city », is therefore not simply a vestige of a glorious past, it is also a strategic point for regional balance. That is why it is grotesque to pretend that the Syrian Arab Army did not attempt to defend it. In truth, the Army acted as it always has since the arrival of mercenaries in the country – in order to minimise civilian casualties, it withdraws when the mercenaries advance in small coordinated groups (thanks to means of communication supplied by the Western powers) and then strikes when they regroup.

The International anti-Daesh Coalition, created by the United States in August 2014, has never fought the jihadists. On the contrary, it has attested – not just once, but at least forty times – that Western aeroplanes have dropped weapons and munitions to the Islamic Emirate.

Moreover, the supposed Coalition of 22 states claims to dispose of a superior number of soldiers, who are better-trained and materially better-eqipped than Daesh. Yet they have never forced the Islamic Emirate to retreat, on the contrary, it continues to advance and conquer new routes.

The evolution of United States interests

In any event, Washington has changed its strategy. This is what the nomination of Colonel James H. Baker as the new Pentagon strategist demonstrates – the page of Chaos Strategy has been turned. The United States have reverted to a more classical imperial concept, founded on stable states – and in order sign their agreement with Iran, they now have to evacuate the Islamic Emirate before the 30th June.

The extravagant press campain about the fall of Palmyra may be the preparation of public opinion for a true military engagement against Daesh. That would be the meaning of the meeting of the 22 members of the Coalition (and 2 international organisations) in Paris, set for the 2nd June. Until then, the Pentagon will have to decide whether they are going to destroy the Islamic Emirate or displace them and use them for other tasks. Three possible destinations may be under consideration – move the jihadists to Libya, to black Africa, or to the Caucasus.

If they do not act, Iran will not sign, and the war will grind on to its paroxysm, because the fall of Palmyra under the action of the jihadists – fabricated by the West – will have the same consequences as the seizure of the region by Aurelin’s legions. Already, the survival of the « Axis of Resistance » is threatened – meaning the coalition Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon-Palestine. Hezbollah is considering a decree for general mobilisation.

Translation

Pete Kimberley

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

The Future of the Middle East

For several months, Barack Obama has been trying to change US policy in the Middle East in order to eliminate the Islamic Emirate with the help of Syria. But he cannot do this, partly because he has been saying for years that President Assad must go, and secondly because his regional allies support the Islamic Emirate against Syria. However, things are slowly evolving so he should be able to do so soon. Thus, it appears that all States that supported the Islamic Emirate have ceased to do so, opening the way for a redistribution of the cards.

JPEG - 18.8 kb

The world awaits the conclusion of a comprehensive agreement between Washington and Tehran -under the ridiculous pretext of ending a military nuclear program that has not existed since the end of the war waged by Iraq (1980-1988) -. It would focus on the protection of Israel in exchange for recognition of Iranian influence in the Middle East and Africa.

However, this should only take effect after the Israeli elections of March 17, 2015. The supposed defeat of Netanyahu would renew ties between Washington and Tel Aviv and facilitate agreement with Tehran.

In this context, the US elite are trying to agree on future policy, while the European allies of the United States are preparing to align with what will be the new US policy.

The search for consensus in the US

After two years of inconsistent policy, Washington is trying to develop a consensus on what should be its policy in the “extended Middle East”.

- 1. On October 22, 2014, the Rand Corporation, main think tank of the military-industrial lobby, dramatically changed its position. After campaigning for the destruction of the Syrian Arab Republic, it said that now, the worst thing that can happen to the United States and Israel is the fall of President Assad. [1]

- 2. On January 14, 2015, Leslie Gleb, the president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, the club of the US elite, warned against divisions of the Obama administration that threaten its authority in the world. He advocated a kind of new “Baker-Hamilton Commission” to review foreign policy top to bottom. [2]

- 3. On January 24, the New York Times published an editorial supporting the new direction of the Rand Corporation and calling for a complete policy change vis-à-vis Syria [3].

- 4. On February 6, the Obama administration published its new strategic doctrine. It would no longer guarantee Israel’s security by destroying Syria but by creating a regional military alliance with zionist Muslim monarchies. At most, the Islamic Emirate (“Daesh”) could be used to prevent Syria from holding its head high and replaying a regional political role. [4]

- 5. On February 10, the National Security Network (NSN), a bipartisan think tank that tries to explain geopolitics in the United States, published a report on all the possible options regarding the Islamic Emirate. It reviewed forty expert opinions and concluded the need to “contain and destroy” the Islamic Emirate first by relying on Iraq, then Syria’s Bashar el Assad. NSN was founded by Rand Beers, a former adviser to John Kerry, today Secretary of Homeland Security. [5]

- 6. On February 11, the Obama administration introduced to Congress a request to use military force against the Islamic Emirate which relegated to oblivion the idea to overthrow President Assad and destroy Syria [6].

- 7. On 23 February, the new Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, brought together experts for a working dinner. He took their advice for 5 hours without revealing his own point of view. Mr. Carter intended to investigate for himself the work of the CSN. Among his guests were not only former US ambassador to Syria, Robert S. Ford, and oldies think tanks, but Clare Lockhart, known for her links with the world of finance; as well as the president of the Columbia School of Journalism, Steve Coll, to assess possible media reactions. [7]

What has changed on the ground

During the last months, several factors have changed in the field.

- The “moderate Syrian opposition” has completely disappeared. It has been absorbed by Daesh to the point that the United States cannot find fighters to train to build a “new Syria.” The former ambassador, Robert S. Ford (now an employee of the AIPAC think tank), who organized the 2011 protests and supported to the end the “moderate opposition” has officially changed his position. He now thinks the only real opposition in Syria is composed of jihadists that it would be extremely dangerous to arm further. [8] In retrospect, it appears that the terminology “moderate opposition” meant, not civilized fighters, but the Syrians ready to betray their country in alliance with Israel. They in fact made no mystery of this. [9] From the beginning, this opposition was led de facto by members of al-Qaeda (as the Libyan Abdel Hakim Belhaj, and the Iraqi Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi) and indulged in the worst atrocities (including cannibalism) [10]. Now all these leaders are responsible for the Islamic Emirate.

- On January 28, 2015 (Hezbollah response to the assassination of several leaders in Syria), Israel stopped support for jihadi organizations in Syria. For three and a half years, Tel Aviv supplied them with weapons, nursed their wounded in military hospitals, supported their operations with its aviation – all the while pretending to fight against arms transfers to the Lebanese Hezbollah – and, ultimately, entrusting to them the security of its border in the Golan to the detriment of the UN forces.

- The new king of Saudi Arabia, Salman, dismissed Prince Bandar on January 30, 2015 and forbade any person to support the Islamic Emirate. The Kingdom has thus ceased to play a role in the handling of international terrorism; a role that had been entrusted to it by the CIA after the Iranian Islamic revolution of 1979 and which was its mainstay for 35 years.

- Identically, Turkey also appears to have stopped supporting the jihadists since February 6 and the resignation of the head of MIT, its secret services, Hakan Fidan. Moreover, on the night of February 21st to 22nd, the Turkish army illegally entered Syria, about thirty kilometers, to remove the ashes of Suleiman Shah, the grandfather of the founder of the Ottoman Empire, the reliquary it holds by virtue of the Treaty of Ankara (1921). Despite an impressive display of force, the Turkish army did not fight the Islamic Emirate which controls the area. The remains of Suleiman Shah were not repatriated but deposited a little further, still in Syrian territory. In this way, Turkey showed that it does not intend to take action against the Islamic Emirate and retains its anti-Syrian ambitions.

Possible US Options

Six options are being discussed in Washington:

- Destroy the Islamic Emirate and destroy Syria; this is the point of view of the Raytheon firm, the world’s leading producer of missiles, defended by its lobbyist Stephen Hadley, former national security adviser to George W. Bush. The idea is to wage war for war without regard to national interests. This maximalist view is not supported by any political leader; it’s just formulated in the media to tip the scales in favor of the widest possible war.

- Building on the Islamic Emirate to destroy Syria, on the model of alliances concluded during the Vietnam War. This is the view of the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, John McCain, despite the memory of the fall of Saigon in 1975. It is extremely expensive (20 to 30 billion dollars a year for very long years), risky and unpopular. Immediately there would be a direct intervention of Iran and Russia and the conflict would go global. No one, not even Mr. McCain, is able to explain why the United States should engage in such an operation which would benefit only the state of Israel.

- To weaken and destroy the Islamic Emirate, coordinating US bombings and allied ground troops, including groups of the “moderate Syrian opposition” (which no longer exists). Then use these opposition groups (?) just to maintain pressure on Syria. This is the current counter-terrorism position in the Obama administration. It is budgeted at 4 to 9 billion per year. However, assuming that it created a “moderate Syrian opposition” is not clear how the US Air Force could successfully eliminate Daesh when it found itself unable to destroy the Taliban in Afghanistan despite already 13 years of war, not to mention the examples of Somalia or the current French stalemate in Mali.

- To weaken and destroy the Islamic Emirate, coordinating US bombing with the only forces capable of defeating it on the ground: the Syrian and Iraqi armies. This is the most interesting position because it can be supported by both Iran and Russia. It would restore the US global leadership position, as in “Desert Storm” against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and win without fail. However, this would require stopping the demonization campaigns against Syria, Iran and Russia. This option is supported by the CSN and clearly corresponds to what the Obama administration would like to do.

- Containment of the Islamic Emirate and its progressive degradation to reduce it to an acceptable size. In this option, the priority would be to protect Iraq, the major fighting would be moved to Syria.

- The siege. The idea would no longer be to fight the Islamic Emirate, but to isolate it to avoid its spread. People under its control would then be left to their fate. It is the most economical solution, but the least honourable, defended by Kenneth Pollack.

Conclusion

These elements allow one to easily predict the future : in a few months, maybe even as early as late March, Washington and Tehran would reach an overall agreement. The United States will renew contact with Syria, closely followed by the European states, including France. We will discover that the el-Assad is neither a dictator nor a torturer. Therefore, the war against Syria will come to an end, while the main jihadist forces would be eliminated by a true international coalition. When this is all over, the surviving jihadists would be sent by the CIA to the Russian Caucasus and Chinese Xinjiang.

Translation
Roger Lagassé

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

%d bloggers like this: