What the mid-term elections tell us about US interior conflict

The US mid-term elections have been interpreted by the major medias in terms of the partisan divide between Republicans and Democrats. However, continuing his in-depth analysis of the social fabric, Thierry Meyssan sees a clear retreat of the Puritans faced with the Lutherans and the Catholics. Donald Trump’s political realignment, just as that of Richard Nixon before him, is close to succeeding.

 | DAMASCUS (SYRIA)  

JPEG - 26 kb
The Republican Party has lost the House of Representatives, but Donald Trump has imposed his ideas.

During the US mid-term elections, voters were asked to pronounce themselves collectively for the renewal of all members of the Federal House of Representatives and one third of the members of the Federal Senate. Besides that, at the local level, they nominated 36 governors with numerous other local responsibilities, and answered 55 referendums.

These elections are considered far less catalysing than the Presidential elections. US politologists take little notice of the voter turnout, since it is possible to participate only in certain elections and not others.

While since the end of the Cold War, the turnout for Presidential elections has been between 51 % and 61 % (with the exception of the vote for Bill Clinton’s second mandate, which interested only a minority of electors), the mid-term elections attract between 36 % and 41 % (with the exception of 2018, which apparently reached 49 %). So, from the point of view of citizen participation, the rules of the game are democratic – however, in practice they are anything but. If there were a quorum [1], the members of Congress elected would be few and far between. Representatives and Senators are usually chosen by less than 20 % of the population.

The researchers who analyse election results with a view to predicting the careers of the candidates do so through the lens of partisan differences. This time, the majority in the House of Representatives will be Democrat, and in the Senate, mostly Republican. This analysis makes it possible to anticipate how much elbow room the President will have when dealing with Congress. But in my opinion, it is of no use whatever in attempting to understand the evolution of US society.

During the Presidential campaign of 2016, an ex-Democrat, Donald Trump, presented himself as a candidate for the Republican Party. He represented a political current which had been absent from the US landscape since the resignation of Richard Nixon – the Jacksonians. A priori, he had no chance of obtaining the Republican investiture. Nonetheless, he eliminated his 17 rival candidates one by one, won the nomination, and then won the election in opposition to the opinion poll favourite, Hillary Clinton.

JPEG - 35.6 kb
Andrew Jackson, whose portrait is shown on the 20 dollar bill, is the most controversial President of the United States.

The Jacksonians (from the name of President Andew Jackson, 1829-1837) are the defenders of popular democracy and individual freedom against both political and economic power. On the contrary, the dominant ideology of the time, both for the Democrat and the Republican Parties, was that of the Puritans – moral order and imperialism.

During this campaign, I observed that the powerful ascension of Donald Trump marked the resurgence of a fundamental conflict – on one side the descendants of the « Pilgrim Fathers » (the Puritans who founded the British colonies of America) and on the other, the descendants of the immigrants who fought for the independence of their country [2].

The first historical component of the United States (the Puritans) intended to create colonies based on a « pure » way of life (in the Calvinist meaning of the term) and to pursue England’s foreign policy. The second (the Anglicans, the Lutherans and the Catholics) were fleeing the misery of which they had been the victims in Europe, and hoped to better their situation by their own work.

These two groups found a consensus around their Constitution. The major landowners who drew up the fundamental laws explained exhaustively that they wanted to reproduce the political system of the English monarchy, but without creating an aristocracy [3]. However, the second group who added the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution), wanted to pursue the « American dream » without running the risk of being crushed by some sort of « raison d’état ».

Over the last few years, the Democratic and Republican Parties have evolved to become the spokespersons of Puritan thought, defending moral order and imperialism. The Bushes are the direct descendants of the « Pilgrim Fathers ». Barack Obama composed his first cabinet by relying massively on the members of the Pilgrim’s Society (the transatlantic club presided by Queen Elizabeth II). Hillary Clinton was supported by 73 % of Judeo-Christians » [4] etc. On the contrary, Donald Trump represented, on his own, the other component of US political history. In no more than a few months, he managed to take control of the Republican Party and steer it towards his own convictions, at least in appearance.

Currently, approximately a third of the population of the United States has become violently polarised between pro- and anti-Trump factions, while the other two thirds, much more moderate, are holding back. Many observers consider that the country is now as divided as it was in the 1850’s, just before the civil war known as the « War of Secession ». Contrary to the myth, that conflict did not oppose a slave-owner South to an Abolitionist North, since at that time, both sides practised slavery. The war was more about economic policy, and opposed an agricultural Catholic South and an industrial Protestant North. During the War, both sides attempted to enrol slaves in their armies. The North was quickly ready to free them, while the South was waiting to seal its alliance with London. Historians have demonstrated that, from a cultural point of view, the conflict was a prolongation, in the United States, of the English civil war, known as the « Great Rebellion » (which opposed Lord Cromwell and Charles the First). However, unlike England, where the Puritans finally lost the war, it was their descendants who prevailed in the USA.

JPEG - 42.7 kb
The methods of the criminal Richard Nixon have unfortunately made us forget his political successes.

It was this conflict that threatened to manifest again under Richard Nixon, and which today has become clear to all. It is not without note that the best historian on this question [5] is Kevin Phillips, the ex-electoral strategist who helped Nixon to gain the White House. Nixon rehabilitated the electors from the South, recognised the Peoples’ Republic of China, and ended the Vietnam war (which had been triggered by the Democrats). He entered into conflict with the Washington establishment, which forced him to resign (the Watergate affair).

Of course, it is possible to read the results of the mid-term elections according to the Republican / Democrat split, and conclude that the Democrats have managed a small breakthrough. But above all, they should be understood according to the Lutheran / Calvinist split.

In this case, we have to note that not only did President Trump participate intensively in the campaign, but so did his predecessor Obama. The objective was either to support the cultural realignment operated by Donald Trump, or to carry the majority in Congress in order to destitute him whatever the pretext. The result is clear – impeachment is impossible and Donald Trump has the support of a majority of the governors, which makes his reelection possible.

The new Democrat representatives are young, supporters of Bernie Sanders, and very hostile to the establishment of their party, particularly Hillary Clinton. Above all, among the Republican candidates, EVERY ONE of those that President Trump went out on the campaign trail to support were elected. Those who refused his help were beaten.

The losers of these elections – primarily the Press and Barack Obama – did not fail because they are Republicans or Democrats, but because they are Puritans. Contrary to the comments of the dominant medias, we are obliged to note that the United States are not in the process of tearing themselves to pieces, but in the process of reformation. If this trend continues, the medias will have to abandon their rhetoric of moral order, and the country should return sustainably to a policy of hegemony rather than imperialism. In the long term, the United States should be able to recover their Constitutional consensus.

[1] The quorum is the minimum number of participants required for an election to be valid. The countries that ask for a quorum before their elections based on universal suffrage generally fix this number at half of the electorate.

[2] “United States – reformation or fracture?”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete Kimberley, Voltaire Network, 26 October 2016.

[3How Democratic Is the American Constitution ?, Robert A. Dahl, Yale University Press, 2002.

[4] By « Judeo-Christians », I mean people who have based their lives on the Jewish scriptures (Old Testament) and the Christian scriptures (New Testament) without pointing out the contradictions between the two.

[5The Cousins’ Wars, Kevin Philipps, Basic Books, 1999.

Advertisements

UNO : birth of the post-Western world

Thierry Meyssan

Thierry MeyssanPolitical consultant, President-founder of the Réseau Voltaire (Voltaire Network). Latest work in French – Sous nos Yeux. Du 11-Septembre à Donald Trump (Right Before our Eyes. From 9/11 to Donald Trump).

DAMASCUS (SYRIA)
The administration of the UNO had been hoping for a clash between the pro- and anti-Trump factions during the General Assembly. What actually happened was very different. While several States, including France, denounced the methods of the resident of the White House, Russia undertook an analysis of the Western alliance. According to Moscow, most of our current problems are due to the desire of the old colonial powers to conserve their domination of the rest of the world – at whatever the cost. In order to overtake them, a formidable coalition has been born.
JPEG - 77.2 kb

The hearing of the 73rd session of the United Nations General Assembly.

Despite appearances, the procession of the heads of State and government, or Ministers for Foreign Affairs, at the General Assembly of the United Nation was not without purpose. It’s true that most of them, having little to say, addressed their interior public opinions by blaming UNO incompetence and calling for a respect for the law. But many of their interventions went straight to the heart of the matter – how to resolve the disputes between States and guarantee peace?

The first three days were marked by the speech by Donald Trump (United States) and the responses by Emmanuel Macron (France) and Hassan Rohani (Iran). But all these complications were shattered on the fourth day with the intervention by Sergueï Lavrov (Russia), when he presented the map of the post-Western world.

World collapse according to Donald Trump

President Trump, whose speeches are usually extremely disorganised, had on this occasion prepared a finely structured text [1]. Distinguishing himself from his predecessors, he affirmed that he gave privilege to « independence and cooperation », rather than « governance, control and international domination » (in other words, his national interests rather than those of the « American Empire »). He followed by enumerating the readjustments of the system he had set in motion.

- The USA has not declared commercial war on China, but is in the process of re-establishing its balance of payments. Simultaneously, the US is trying to restore an international market founded on free market competition, as demonstrated by their position in the energy sector. The US has become a major exporters of hydrocarbons, and would therefore benefit from high prices, but it opposes the existence of an intergovernmental cartel, the OPEC, and is calling for lower prices.
- It is opposed to the structures and treaties of globalisation (that is to say, from the point of view of the White House, transnational financial imperialism), notably the UN Human Rights Council, the International Criminal Court, and UNRWA. Of course, this is not a claim for torture (which was legitimised by George Bush Jr. in his day) nor crime, nor starving the Palestinians, but the destruction of the organisations which instrumentalise their object in order to achieve other goals.
- Concerning the migrations from Latin America to the United States, and also within the interior of the South American continent itself, the US intends to end them by treating the problem at its roots. For the White House, the problem results from the rules imposed by globalist Treaties, notably NAFTA. President Trump has therefore negotiated a new agreement with Mexico which links exports to respect for the social rights of Mexican workers. He intends to return to the original Monroe doctrine – meaning that the multinationals will no longer be able to interfere in the governing of the continent.

The reference to the Monroe doctrine merits an explanation, since the expression suggests US colonialism at the beginning of the 20th century. Donald Trump is an admirer of the foreign policies of two very controversial personalities, Presidents Andew Jackson (1829-1837) and Richard Nixon (1969-74). The Monroe doctrine (1823) was elaborated during the intervention of a man who at that time was no more than General Jackson in the Spanish colony of Florida. At that time, James Monroe wanted to protect the American continent from European imperialism. It was the « era of good feelings ». He therefore pledged that the United States would not intervene in Europe if Europe stopped intervening in the Americas. It was only three quarters of a century later, notably with Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909), that the Monroe doctrine would be used as a screen to hide US imperialism in Latin America.

The defence of the old world by Emmanuel Macron and Hassan Rohani

In a strange inversion of roles, French President Emmanuel Macron presented himself as the European Barack Obama facing up to the US Charles De Gaulle, as played by Donald Trump. Macron symbolically declared war, stating: « Let us sign no more commercial agreements with powers which do not respect the Paris Agreement » (which means no more agreements with the United States) – an odd way to defend multilateralism!

The French President began with Donald Trump’s implicit assessment – the crisis of the current « liberal Westphalian order » [2]. This means the crisis of nation-States who are badly shaken by economic globalisation. But this strategy was only intended to more efficiently oppose the solution proposed by the White House, which he qualified as the « law of the strongest ». He therefore described the French solution, « based around three principles – the first is the respect for sovereignty, the very foundation of our charter; the second is the reinforcement of our regional cooperation; and the third is the implementation of more robust international guarantees ».

But then his speech zoomed off into the stratosphere to end in a lyrical exaltation, during which Emmanuel Macron allowed himself a moment of juvenile hypocrisy reaching to the limits of schizophrenia.

- As an example of « the respect for sovereignty », he called for a refusal to « substitute oneself for the Syrian people » when we decide who will become their leader… while at the same time forbidding President el-Assad to present himself for election by his compatriots.

- Concerning the « reinforcement of regional cooperation », he mentioned the support offered by the African Union to the French anti-terrorist operation in the Sahel. But this operation was in reality only the land-based wing of a larger plan directed by AfriCom, for which the US army supplied the airborne wing. The African Union itself has no real army as such, and acts only to legalise a colonial operation. Similarly, the sums invested for the development of the Sahel – which the French President quoted not in Euros, but in dollars – mixes true African projects with foreign aid for development. The impotence of this endeavour has long been clear to all.

- Concerning « the implementation of more robust international guarantees », he announced the struggle against inequalities which should be addressed by the G7 summit in Biarritz. This was simply a way of affirming, once again, Western leadership over the rest of the world, Russia and China included. He claimed that « the time when a club of rich countries could alone define the balance of the world is long over », and promised to … present a report of the decisions taken by the major Western powers before the next General Assembly. Again, he proclaimed that the « G7 should be the motor » of the struggle against inequality undertaken by the UNO.

Speaking in his turn, Iranian President Cheikh Hassan Rohani described in detail the way in which the White House is destroying, one by one, the principles of international Law [3].

He reminded us that the 5+1 agreement (JCPoA) had been validated by the Security Council, which had called upon numerous institutions for their support (resolution 2231), and that Donald Trump’s USA had withdrawn from the agreement, negating the signature of his predecessor and the principle of the continuity of state. He emphasised that, as attested by twelve consecutive AIEA reports, Iran has conformed and is still conforming to its obligations. He expressed his indignation at President Trump’s call to disobey the UNO resolution and the threat he has addressed against those who respect it.

He finished by recalling a few facts – Iran fought Saddam Hussein, the Taliban and Daesh before the United States (which was at that time supporting them) – one way of emphasising the fact that for a long time, the about-faces by the USA do not correspond to the logic of Law, but to the logic of its own hidden interests.

Sergueï Lavrov presents the post-Western world

This debate, not for or against the United States, but for or against Donald Trump, was organised around two main arguments:
- The White House is destroying the system which has so well benefited the international financial elites (Macron).
- The White House is no longer even pretending to respect international Law (Rohani).

For the Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Sergueï Lavrov, this debate hides a problem which goes even deeper. « On one hand, we see the reinforcement of the polycentric principles of the world order , (…) the aspiration of the people to preserve their sovereignty and work with models of development which are compatible with their national, cultural and religious identities. On the other, we see the desire of several Western states to preserve their self-proclaimed status as “world leaders” and to hinder the objective and irreversible process of the establishment of multipolarity », he stated [4].

From that point, it is no longer pertinent for Moscow to argue with President Trump, nor even the United States, but with the Westerners in general. Sergueï Lavrov went as far as drawing a parallel with the Munich Agreements of 1938. At that time, France and the United Kingdom signed an alliance with Germany and Italy. It’s true that this event is remembered today in Western Europe as an act of cowardice on the part of France and Britain faced with the demands of the Nazis, but it remains engraved in Russian memory as the decisive step which triggered the Second World War. While Western historians seek to decide who took this decision and who followed the movement, Russian historians note only one thing – that none of the Western Europeans assumed their responsibilities.

Extending his study, Sergueï Lavrov no longer denounced the infringements to the Law, but to international structures. He observed that the Westerners attempt to force the people to enter into military alliances against their will, and threaten certain States who wish to chose their partners themselves. Alluding to the Jeffrey Feltman affair [5], he denounced the attempts to control the administration of the UNO, and force it to assume the role which should be played by the member-States, and finally, to use the General Secretariat to manipulate them.

He noted the desperate nature of these attempts, observing, for example, the inefficiency of fifty years of the US blockade of Cuba. He stigmatised the British desire to judge and condemn without trial by using their rhetoric of « highly probable ».

Sergueï Lavrov concluded by emphasising that all this Western disorder did not prevent the rest of the world from cooperating and developing. He recalled the « Greater Eurasian Partnership », mentioned at the Valdaï Forum in 2016 by President Putin to complete President Xi’s « Belt and Road Initiative ». This vast initiative, which was at first given a chilly reception by China, is now supported by the Collective Security Treaty, the Eurasian Economic Union, the Commonwealth of Independent States, BRICS, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. Counter-propositions by Australia, Japan and the European Union were still-born.

While Western representatives have the habit of announcing their projects in advance, and discussing them, Russian diplomats only speak of them when they are already under way and are sure to succeed.

To sum up, the strategy of the containment of Russia and China, dreamed up by British deputy Halford J. Mackinder [6] and clarified by US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzeziński [7], has failed. The world’s centre of gravity is being displaced to the East, not against the Westerners, but by their fault [8].

Drawing the first practical conclusions from these analyses, Syrian Vice-Prime Minister, Walid al-Moallem, demanded on the following day at the tribune of the General Assembly the immediate withdrawal of the occupying troops of the United States, France and Turkey [9].

Translation
Pete Kimberley

[1] “Remarks by Donald Trump to the 73rd Session of the United Nations General Assembly”, by Donald Trump, Voltaire Network, 25 September 2018.

[2] « Discours d’Emmanuel Macron devant la 73e séance de l’Assemblée générale des Nations unies », par Emmanuel Macron, Réseau Voltaire, 25 septembre 2018.

[3] “Remarks by Hassan Rohani to the 73rd Session of the United Nations General Assembly”, by Hassan Rohani, Voltaire Network, 25 September 2018.

[4] “Remarks by Sergey Lavrov to the 73rd Session of the United Nations General Assembly”, by Sergey Lavrov, Voltaire Network, 28 September 2018.

[5] “Germany and the UNO against Syria”, “How the administration of the UNO is organising the war”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete Kimberley, Voltaire Network, 28 January 2016 and 5 September 2018.

[6] “The geographical pivot of history”, Halford J. Mackinder, The Geographical Journal, 1904, 23, pp. 421–37.

[7The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, Zbigniew Brzeziński, Basic Books. 1997.

[8] “The Geopolitics of American Global Decline”, by Alfred McCoy, Tom Dispatch (USA) , Voltaire Network, 22 June 2015.

[9] “Remarks by Walid Al-Moualem to the 73rd Session of the United Nations General Assembly”, by Walid Al-Moualem, Voltaire Network, 29 September 2018.

Will London, Paris And Tel-Aviv Be Sanctioned By Moscow And Washington?

Image result for nasser, assad

 

On 17 September 2018, France, Israël and the United Kingdom carried out a joint operation against Syrian targets. During the brief moments of combat, a Russian reconnaissance plane was brought down by Syrian ’friendly fire’. Study of the recordings shows that an Israëli F-16 had flown hidden behind the Ilyushin Il-20 in order to confuse the Syrian Air Defences.

The destruction of a Russian military aircraft by the fault of Israël, during a joint operation by the United Kingdom, France and Israël, caused consternation in all the chancelleries. Since the start of hostilities in Syria seven years ago, if there were a ’red line’, it was that the different protagonists should never endanger Russian, US, or Israëli forces.

We are sure about very little of what actually happened, except that :

- a British Tornado took off from Cyprus to land in Iraq. During the flight, it violated Syrian air space in order to scan the Syrian defences and make the allied attack possible.
- less than an hour later, four Israëli F-16s and a French frigate, L’Auvergne, fired on targets in the Syrian governorate of Lattakia. The Syrian air defences protected their country by firing their S-200s against the French and Israëli missiles.
- During the battle, an F-16 used a Russian Ilyushin Il-20 as a shield. The Ilyushin was flying a surveillance mission over the area, localising jihadist drone launch sites. The Syrian defences fired a missile, aiming for the thermal signal of the Israëli aircraft. Theoretically, therefore, it could have destroyed the Russian plane by mistake.

This is, however, implausible, because S-200 missiles are equipped with a reconnaissance system able to distinguish between friendly and enemy targets, which the Russian Minister for Defence successively confirmed, then denied. In any case, the Ilyushin was destroyed, without our knowing for certain how, or by whom.

The cowardice of the British and French leaders led them to censor all information concerning their responsibility in this operation. London made no comment, and Paris denied the facts. Neither the BBC, nor France-Television dared to mention the subject. For these two countries, more than ever, the reality of external politics is excluded from the democratic debate.

Immediate interpretation of the events

We do not know if the destruction of the Russian aircraft (causing the death of the 15 men on board) can be blamed on the Israëli pilot – which seems highly unlikely – on the Israëli army, or on the alliance which carried out the attack.

Il-20
Russian aircraft  Ilyushin Il-20

On the answer to this question hangs the possibility of conflict between four nuclear powers. The situation is therefore extremely serious. It has no precedent since the creation of the Russian Federation, at the end of 1991.

The British-French-Israëli aggression is the response by these three countries to the Russian-Turkish agreement signed only a few hours earlier at Sotchi. It came into play after the US refusal, at the beginning of September, to bomb Syria under false pretences, and the sending of a US delegation into the Arab world in order to express its disagreement with the British-French initiatives.

The Sotchi agreements were signed by Turkey under intense pressure from Russia. In Teheran, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan had refused to sign the Memorandum concerning the withdrawal of the jihadist and Turkish forces in Idlib. This had not pleased President Vladimir Putin, who answered first of all by reaffirming the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria and, furthermore, by underlining for the first time the illegitimacy, under international law, of the Turkish military presence in the country. Ten days later, a very unsettled Mr, Erdoğan accepted an invitation to Russia.

The Sotchi agreement, while distancing Turkey a little further from NATO with its energy contracts, forced Ankara de facto to withdraw from a part of the territory that it occupies, allegedly to better protect the pseudo-« rebels » gathered in the governorate of Idlib. Besides this, Turkey only has one month in which to confiscate the heavy weaponry of its friends from Al-Qaïda and Daesh in the demilitarised zone.

This agreement was obviously unacceptable for London, Paris and Tel-Aviv :

- in the end, it plans for the disappearance of the jihadists as an army, while London has been supervising, training and manipulating them for decades;
- the end of the dream of a French mandate over Syria and of the creation of a new French colony in the North of the country, under the phoney name of Kurdistan (Kurdistan is legitimate only within the frontiers which were recognised by the Sèvres Conference, in 1920.) In other words, not in Iran, nor Iraq or Syria, but only in what is now known as Turkey).
- the end of the regional domination of Israël, faced with a stable Syria under Russian protection.

Mid-term interpretation of the events

The British-French-Israëli military alliance has not entered into action since the Suez Canal crisis in 1956.

Image result for Suez Canal crisis in 1956

At that time, Anthony Eden, Guy Mollet and David Ben Gourion joined their forces in order to humiliate the Arab nationalists, particularly the Egyptian Gamal Abdel Nasser, and to re-establish the British and French colonial empires (« Operation Musketeer »).

This is exactly what happened with this new attack : as was confirmed by the Secretary General of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, none of the targets under attack were linked in any way to Iran or Hezbollah. This British-French-Israëli action had nothing to do with the international struggle against the jihadists in general and Daesh in particular. It also had no connection with the overthrow of the Syrian Arab Republic or its President, Bachar el-Assad. Its main objective was to kill military scientists, in particular the rocket specialists from the Institute of Technical Industries in Lattakia.

This is therefore the resumption and continuation of the policy of targeted assassinations waged by Israël for the last twenty years, successively against the Iraqi, Iranian, and now Syrian scientists. It is one of the pillars of colonial policy : to prevent the submitted populations from attaining the same level of education as their masters. In former times, the Westerners forbade their slaves from learning to read under pain of death. Today, they eliminate their scientists.This policy was relaunched with the British-French-US bombing of 14 April 2018, in which the only target destroyed was the Scientific Research Centre in Barzeh, then with the breakdown of the 5+1 agreement with Iran (JCPoA) which forced the country to close its nuclear physics faculties (May 8, 2018).

It was a joint initiative : the jihadists destroy the past, the Westerners destroy the future.

Long-term interpretation of the events

Since the deployment of Russian troops in Syria, on 13 September 2015, to help Syria in its fight against the terrorists, the allies of the United States have understood the impossibility of carrying out the US plan without risking a world war. With the arrival of Donald Trump at the White House, they have progressively questioned their war objectives, abandoned the plans of the « Friends of Syria » and fallen back on their respective historical strategies.

It is this logic that led them to reform the alliance which provoked the Suez crisis, and it is this same logic which pushed Germany to distance itself from them.

At the beginning of the First World War, the British, French and Russian empires decided on the partition of the world which they would implement as soon as they had gained victory. The treaty was negotiated by Mark Sykes, Georges Picot and Sergueï Sazonov. During the course of the World War, however, the Tsar was overthrown by the Bolcheviks, which meant that the areas of the world originally reserved for the Russian empire were once again up for grabs. Finally, at the end of the World War, only the part of the plan relative to the Middle East was applied, under the name of the « Sykes-Picot » agreement.

The return of Russia to the international game obviously brings into question the British-French colonial sharing of the Middle East. The foreseeable clash has just occurred, either accidentally or deliberately, with the destruction of the Ilyushin Il-20 during the joint British-French-Israëli military operation.

How to react

The bewilderment of the international community in the face of this brutal awakening of a century-old conflict can be measured by the Twitter silence from the White House.

During the Suez crisis, the Israëli troops engaged were twice as numerous as all the British and French forces together. The total number of coalition forces was about 250,000 men. This was therefore a very large-scale operation compared to that of Lattakia. But it remains true that the two sequences work from the same diplomatic logic, and may lead to the same developments.

During the Suez crisis, in the middle of the Cold War, the Soviet Union threatened the United Kingdom, France, and Israël with a nuclear riposte if they refused to withdraw from Egypt. At first, NATO supported the Europeans in threatening Moscow with a World War, before changing its mind. In the middle of the Cold War, therefore, the United States temporarily supported the USSR in order to halt the European folly.

For Washington, allowing the Europeans to pursue their plans was the equivalent of pushing all the Arab nations into the arms of the Soviets. Apart from that, it simply was not feasible to accept the French-British intervention at the same time as they were denouncing the repression of the Hungarian revolution by the Warsaw Pact.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Vice-President Richard Nixon launched a monetary attack against the pound sterling, sent their naval and airborne forces to interfere with the British-French-Israëli complex, and forbade the use of French military material financed by US funds.

International peace was preserved thanks to certain third parties such as the Secretary General of the UNO, Dag Hammarskjöld (who was assassinated three years later, and was posthumously awarded the Nobel Peace Prize); the Canadian Minister for Foreign Affairs Lester B. Pearson (who also received the Nobel Peace Prize); and the leader of the non-aligned nations and Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru.

The Suez crisis profoundly upset not only international political life, but also the national reality of the United Kingdom, France and Israël.
- Circumventing the European vetos at the Security Council, the UNO General Assembly called for the withdrawal of the invaders and created the first United Nations intervention force.
- In the United Kingdom, the House of Commons demanded the end of colonial politics to the profit of the promotion of the economic interests of London via the Commonwealth.
- In France, the Communists, the Gaullists and the Poujadists (including Jean-Marie Le Pen) united against the Centrists and the Socialists; a configuration that has never been seen since. Six years later, President De Gaulle considered that by recognising the independence of Algeria, he would put an end to military collaboration with the colonial state of Israël and restore the policy of friendship and collaboration with the Arab peoples, which had always characterised France, apart from its colonial period.

The position of the Western powers concerning the aggression on Lattakia is all the more difficult because, in violation of their agreement with Russia, the Israëlis only informed Moscow of their operation a long time after it had begun, and only one minute before they began firing. As for the Pentagon, they affirmed that they had not been warned at all. But let us not forget that the Israëli-Russian mutual non-aggression pact in Syria only exists because Israël is the US arsenal for the Middle East, housing (with Italy) the stocks of US weaponry for the entire region. If Israël truly did not inform the Pentagon of its actions in advance, then it can not benefit from US protection, and consequently the mutual non-aggression pact may be called into question by Russia.

The Russian response depends on the position of the White House, which we do not know for the moment. It must be guided by a desire to lessen tension, if possible, and also to maintain dissuasion by punishing the guilty party or parties as soon as the Kremlin names them. It is not necessary for Russia to make this sanction public as long as the chancelleries concerned are informed.

The Russian response

Russia has the choice of seeing in the destruction of their aircraft nothing more than a mistake by an Israeli pilot, or by the Israëli army, or again, by all three of the states implicated (the United Kingdom, France and Israël). The Russian Minister for Defence, Sergueï Choïgou, telephoned his Israëli counterpart, Avigdor Lieberman to inform him that he held Israël responsible for the accident, and reserved the right to riposte. A little later, President Putin declared « This is a series of tragic events, because our plane was not shot down by an Israëli aircraft ». He was careful to distinguish this situation from that of the deliberate destruction of a Sukhoï 24-M by Turkish fighters in November 2015. We are therefore heading towards the public designation of Israël as the sole responsible and a secret sanction against the three states involved.

The Israëli chargé d’affaires in Moscow, Keren Cohen Gat, was summoned by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, while in a knee-jerk reaction, Israëli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attempted to shovel the responsibility for the accident onto Iran. An Israëli delegation, led by the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General Amikam Norkin, rushed off to Moscow with unprecedented haste. They contested the claims of the Russian Minister for Defence, affirmed that Israël was innocent, and that all the blame belonged to the negligence of the Syrians.

General Amikam Norkin in Moscow
Moscow, 20 September 2018 – the Chief of Staff for the Israëli Air Force, General Amikam Norkin, arrives in a hurry to present his version of events. Once these proofs were checked and compared with other recordings, it transpired that Israël was lying straight-faced.

President Donald Trump, a great admirer of Richard Nixon’s foreign policy, was thus provided with the perfect occasion to finish with the British-French-Israëli support for the US deep state. However, in the middle of his election campaign, he can not afford to give the impression of supporting the Russian rival while he beats up his allies. He is therefore seeking a way of presenting his internal public with this major change of direction. From this perspective, during an interview with Hill TV, he condemned the US engagement in the Greater Middle East which was decided by his predecessor George Bush Jr after the attacks of 11 September 2001.

On 23 September, the spokesman for the Russian Ministry of Defence, General Igor Konashenkov, presented the synthesis of Russian intelligence and the information transmitted by Syria and Israël.

- He accused the Hebrew state of having deliberately violated the mutual non-aggression agreement of 2015 by not giving Russia advance notice of its attack and by lying about its targets.
- He accused it of having endangered civilian flights present in this zone of the Mediterranean, and of being responsible for the destruction of the Ilyuchin Il-20.
- He denounced its non-assistance to the Russian soldiers when their plane stalled.
- He also accused General Amikam Norkin of lying by pretending that the Israëli jets had already returned to Israël when the Russian plane stalled and crashed.
- Finally, he deflected the accusations of amateurism laid at the door of the Syrian Anti-Air Defence System.

However, he abstained from publicly blaming the United Kingdom and France, who were nonetheless just as concerned by his remarks against Israël.

In case the White House should find an acceptable narrative of the facts for its electors, Russia could forbid the United Kingdom, France and Israël from making any intrusion into the maritime, terrestrial and aerial space of Syria without the authorisation of Damascus. London and Paris would have to cease their threats of bombing under whatever pretext at all (false chemical weapons) and withdraw their special forces. This measure would be valid for all protagonists in general, except for the United States and, in Idlib, for Turkey.

Source: Voltaire Network

Finding a way out of the war against Syria

Image result for war against syria

by Thierry Meyssan

The White House is unable to extricate itself from the war in Syria. President Trump is hindered both by the self-proclaimed « stable state » (according to the anonymous op ed in the New York Times), which continues to pursue the Rumsfeld-Cebrowski strategy, and by the reactivated ambitions of his Israëli, French, British and Turkish allies. The logic of these interests could displace the war instead of resolving it.

Although the White House and Russia have agreed to end the proxy war fought by jihadists in Syria, peace is a long time coming. Why?

Why is there a war against Syria?

Contrary to the idea carefully sown by seven years of propaganda, the war against Syria is not a « revolution which went wrong ». It was decided by the Pentagon in September 2001, then prepared for many years, admittedly with a few difficulties.

A war in preparation for a decade

JPEG - 38.6 kb
The preparation of the war is explained in depth in Thierry Meyssan’s latest book. It is already available in French, Spanish, Russian and Turkish. It will be published in September in English, Arab and Italian.

A reminder of the main stages of the planning of the war:
- In September 2001, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld adopted the strategy of Admiral Arthur Cebrowski, which specified that the state structures of half of the world had to be destroyed. For those states whose economy is globalised, the United States would control the access to the natural resources of those regions not connected to the global economy. The Pentagon commenced its work by « remodelling » the « Greater Middle East » [1].
- On 12 December 2003, George Bush Jr. signed the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act. From that moment on, the President of the United States enjoyed the right to go to war with Syria without having to ask Congress for approval [2].
- The Lebanese civil war (1978-90) ended with the Taif Agreement. At the request of the Arab League, and with the approbation of the UN Security Council, the Syrian Arab Army came to the assistance of the Lebanese army in disarming the militias, then, acting as a Peace Force, stabilised the country. Thereafter, Israël accused Syria of having occupied Lebanon, which makes no sense at all. [3]
- In 2004, during the summit of the Arab League in Tunis, President Ben Ali attempted to push through a motion authorising the League to legitimise the use of force against member states who refused to respect the League’s brand new Human Rights Charter.
- In 2005, the CIA organised the Cedar revolution in Lebanon. By assassinating Sunni leader Rafic Hariri and blaming the Christian President of Lebanon and the Alaouite President of Syria, they hoped to trigger a Sunni uprising against the Syrian Peace Forces. With the Marines ready to disembark in Beïrut, Syria withdrew on its own initiative, and the tension was dissipated [4].
- In 2006, Dick Cheney tasked his daughter Liz with creating the « Iran Syria Policy and Operations Group ». They organised the Israeli attack against Hezbollah, thinking that they would be unable to resist for long. US Marines were then intended to disembark in Beïrut and continue their march of « liberation » on Damascus. However, the operation failed, and after 33 days of combat, Israël had to retreat [5].
- In 2008, Washington once again tried to create conflict with Lebanon as its flash point. Prime Minister Fouad Siniora decided to cut the internal communications of the Resistance and to interrupt air transport with Teheran. Within a few hours, Hezbollah had inverted the Western military system and replaced all of its infrastructures.
- In 2010, Washington adopted the strategy of « leading from behind ». The Obama administration handed the attacks on Libya and Syria to France and the United Kingdom respectively (Lancaster House agreements).
- In 2011, beginning of military operations in Syria.

It is therefore absurd to speak of the war against Syria as a spontaneous event sui generis [6].

Indirect war

The original feature of the war against Syria is that although it was declared by states (the « Friends of Syria »), it was in reality fought almost exclusively by non-state armies, the jihadists.

During the seven years of this war, more than 250,000 combatants arrived from overseas to fight against the Syrian Arab Republic. They were without doubt little more than cannon fodder, and insufficiently trained, but during the first four years of the conflict, these soldiers were better armed than the Syrian Arab Army. The most important arms traffic in History was organised in order to keep the jihadists supplied with war materials [7].

The Western powers had not used mercenaries on this scale since the European Renaissance [8].

It is therefore absurd to speak of a « revolution that went wrong ».

JPEG - 27.4 kb

A war supervised by allies who have their own objectives

By asking Israël to attack Lebanon on their behalf, then by handing over the wars on Libya and Syria to France and the United Kingdom, and finally by using the NATO installations in Turkey, the Pentagon allowed its plan to be confounded by its allies.

Just as in all wars, the leading country has to promise its obedient allies that they will be awarded a return on their investment. However, with the entry of Russia into the war, Western victory became impossible. Every one of the United States allies turned progressively back towards its own strategy in the region. With time, the war objectives of the allies gained the upper hand over those of the United States, who refused to invest as much as they should have done, militarily speaking.

Israël

Pursuing the colonial ideology of some of its founding fathers, Israël implemented a policy of division intended to split its larger neighbours into a collection of small countries which were to be ethnically or religiously homogeneous. It therefore supported – in vain – the division of Lebanon into two states, one Muslim and one Christian, or again the creation of a Kurdistan in Iraq, then later in Syria. We do not have the Israëli strategic documents, but retrospectively, the line followed by Tel-Aviv corresponds to the « Yinon plan » of 1982 [9] or that of the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies of 1996 [10].

The Israëli strategy stayed within the limits of the « remodelling of the Greater Middle East » designed by Rumsfeld and Cebrowski. However, it did not have anything like the same objective – the Pentagon wanted to control the access to the region’s riches by the developed countries, while Israël wanted to ensure that none of its neighbours could become strong enough to challenge it.

The United Kingdom and France

The United Kingdom and France fell back on their colonial policy, as it was defined at the moment of the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the division of the Middle East (the Sykes-Picot agreements).

The British used a replay of the « Great Arab Revolt of 1915 » that Lawrence of Arabia had set up against the Ottomans. At that time, they had promised freedom to all Arabs if they would throw off the shackles of the Ottoman Empire and place the Wahhabites in power, This time they promised freedom if they would overthrow all their national governments and replace them with the Muslim Brotherhood. But neither in 1915, when the British Empire replaced the Ottoman Empire, nor in 2011, did the Arabs find their liberty. That was the « Arab Spring » plan of 2011 [11].

The French were seeking to re-establish the mandate on Syria which had been handed to them by the League of Nations. This was explained by Picot’s great-nephew (as in the Sykes-Picot agreements), ex- President Giscard d’Estaing [12]. And that is what President Hollande demanded during his visit to the United Nations, in September 2015. Just as in 1921, when France stood for the ethnic separation of the Kurds from the Arabs, it therefore defended the creation of a Kurdistan, not on its historic territory in Turkey, but anywhere, so long as it was on Arab land in Syria.

Turkey

As for Turkey, it dreamed of realising the promise of its founder, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the « National Pact » (Misak-ı Millî) [13], adopted by the Ottoman Parliament on 12 February 1920. Its intention was to annex Northern Syria, including Aleppo, and also to eliminate the Christians, including the Catholics in Maaloula and the Armenians in Kessab.

Turkey entered into conflict with the other allies – with the Israëlis because they sought to annex Northern Syria rather than making it autonomous – with the British because they wanted to re-establish the Ottoman Caliphate – and with the French because they sought to create an independent Kurdistan in Syria. Above all, it entered into conflict with the United States themselves because they made no secret of wanting to destroy Syria after having dismantled it [14].

How to escape from this war?

After seven years of combat, the Syrian state is still standing. The Syrian Arab Republic and its allies, Russia, Iran and the Hezbollah, are victorious. The foreign armies (the jihadists) have suffered a crushing defeat, but not their commanders – the United States, Israël, the United Kingdom, France and Turkey.

Not only has the war re-awoken the ambitions of the beginning of the 20th century, but none of the protagonists who have not paid for their defeat in blood are ready to abandon the fight.

It may seem stupid to want to start over with a war which has already been lost by the jihadists. The presence of the Russian army makes impossible any direct confrontation. Far from being eliminated, the Syrian population is now battle-hardened, ready to suffer even more hardship, and is much better armed than before. Above all, it has given the situation some serious thought, and is less manipulable than it was in 2011. However, just as before, Western political rhetoric has once again taken up its refrain « Bachar must go ».

Logically, therefore, the conflict will have to start again on another battle-field. While in the past, Admiral Cebrowski had planned to take the next stage of the war to Central Asia and the South-East, his successors will first have to finish the job in the Greater Middle East. They are currently studying the possibility of relighting the fire in Iraq, as we see with the spectacular about-face of the Rohani administration and the riots in Bassorah.

 

The Trump administration and Iran

Like President Reagan, President Trump seems to be anti-Iranian. But perhaps this is only in appearance. While the former drew up a secret alliance with Imam Khomeiny, the latter may be dealing with ex-President Ahmadinejad in the same way. This is Thierry Meyssan’s heterodox theory.

JPEG - 69.5 kb

Mike Pompeo announces the creation of the « Iran Action Group »

On 16 August 2018, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced the creation of the « Iran Action Group » tasked with coordinating US policies after their withdrawal from the 5+1 nuclear agreement (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) [1].

This announcement was made as President Trump decided to postpone sine die the implementation of his plan for the Middle East (The Deal of the Century). But nothing can change in Palestine without the support of Iran.

Let’s remember, by the way, that Barack Obama’s JCPoA Treaty was not conceived only to guarantee that Iran is not making nuclear weapons. This was only the pretext. Its true aim was to prevent Iran from having access to high-level scientists and developing state of the art techniques [2]. Incidentally, the agreement forced Iran to close several faculties.

According to the US Democratic opposition, the Trump administration is reprising the neo-conservative policy of régime change, as indicated by the choice of the date of the announcement – the 65th anniversary of the Anglo -US coup d’etat against Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. However, although « Operation Ajax » of 1953 did indeed inspire the neo-conservatives, it occurred years before their movement was born, and has no connection with them. Besides which, the neo-conservatives served not only the Republican Party, but also the Democrats.

During his electoral campaign and for his first few days in the White House, Donald Trump continually stigmatised the globalist thinking of the neo-conservatives, and swore that the United States would no longer seek to change the régimes of foreign countries by force. As for the Secretary of State, he claimed that the coincidence of dates was simply fortuitous.

The people known as « neo-conservatives » form a group of Trotskyist intellectuals (thus opposed to the concept of nation-states), militants of Social Democrats USA, which worked with the CIA and MI6 to fight the Soviet Union. They were associated with Ronald Reagan’s power structure, then followed through all the US political mutations, remaining in power under Bush Senior, Clinton, Bush Junior and Obama. Today they conserve the control of a common Intelligence agency connected with the « Five Eyes » (Australia, Canada, New-Zealand, UK, USA) – the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) [3]. Partisans of the « World Revolution », they have popularised the idea of « democratising » régimes by way of « Colour Revolutions », or directly by means of war.

In 2006, they created the Iran Syria Policy and Operations Group within the Bush Junior administration. It was directed by Elizabeth Cheney, the daughter of Vice-President Dick Cheney. At first, they were housed with the Secretariat of Defense, then transferred to the Vice-President’s offices. The group had five sections.
- The transfer of weapons to Iran and Syria from Bahreïn, the United Arab Emirates and Oman ;
- The support for the Trotskyists and their allies, in Iran (the Peoples’ Mujaheddin) and Syria (Riad al-Türk, Georges Sabra and Michel Kilo) ;
- The surveillance of Iranian and Syrian bank networks ;
- The infiltration of pro-Iranian and pro-Syrian groups in the « Greater Middle East » ;
- The penetration of the medias in the region in order to broadcast US propaganda.

In 2007, this group was officially disbanded. In reality, it was absorbed by an even more secret structure tasked with the strategy for global democracy (Global Democracy Strategy). This unit, under the command of neo-conservative Elliott Abrams (who was involved in the « Iran-Contras affair »), and James Jeffrey, spread this sort of work to other regions of the world.

نتيجة بحث الصور عن ‪Elliott Abrams‬‏

It is this Group which supervised the planning for the war against Syria.

When the new President had a long meeting with Abrams at the White House, the US Press, which is violently anti-Trump, presented him as the first possible Secretary of State for the Trump administration. It obviously came to nothing.

However, the fact that ambassador James Jeffrey has just been nominated as a special representative for Syria makes the accusation that the Trump administration was attempting to resuscitate this strategy more credible.

JPEG - 31.3 kb
Special representative for Syria, James Jeffrey, takes the oath before Mike Pompeo

Jeffrey is a career « diplomat ». He organised the application of the Dayton agreements in Bosnia-Herzegovina. He was on post in Kuwaït during the Iraqi invasion. In 2004, under the orders of John Negroponte, he supervised the transition from the Coalition Provisional Authority (which was a private company [4]) to the post-Saddam Hussein Iraqi government. Then he joined Condolleezza Rice’s cabinet in Washington, and participated in the Coalition Provisional Authority. He was one of the theorists for US military redeployment in Iraq (the Surge), implemented by General Petraeus. He was also the assistant of National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley during the war in Georgia, then Bush Junior’s ambassador in Turkey and Obama’s ambassador in Iraq.

If we look a little closer, we may note that his entire career since the collapse of the USSR has been centred around Iran, but not necessarily in opposition to it. For example, during the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Iran fought alongside Saudi Arabia under the orders of the Pentagon. On the other hand, in Iraq, Jeffrey opposed the influence of Teheran. But when Georgia attacked South Ossetia and Abkhasia, he did not defend President Saakachvili, since he knew that he had rented two airports to Israël to facilitate an attack on Iran.

JPEG - 51.7 kb
Brian Hook

Mike Pompeo named Brian Hook as the head of the Iran Action Group. He is an interventionist who was the assistant for Condoleezza Rice, working with international organisations. Until now, he was tasked with elaborating strategies for the State Department.

According to Pompeo, the aim of this new group is not to change the régime, but to force Iran to change its politics. This strategy appears while the Islamic Republic is navigating a major economic and political crisis. While the clergy (doubly represented by the Cheikh President and by the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution) is clinging to power, there are demonstrations against it all over the country. Contrary to the image we were presented in the West, Ayatollah Khomeiny’s revolution was not clerical, but anti-imperialist. The protests can therefore either lead to a change of the régime, or to the continuation of the Khomeinist Revolution, but without the clergy. It is this second option which is represented by ex-President Ahmadinejad (today under house arrest) and his ex-Vice-Ppresident Baghaie (imprisoned for 15 years and held incommunicado).

On 21 May last, before the Heritage Foundation, Mike Pompeo presented his 12 objectives for Iran [5]. At first glance, this seemed to be a long list of demands which are impossible to satisfy. However, when we look closer, points 1 to 3 relative to the nuclear question do not go as far as the JCPoA. Point 4 concerning ballistic missiles is unacceptable. Points 5 to 12 aim to convince Iran to give up the idea of exporting its revolution by force of arms.

On 15 August, in other words, on the day before Pompeo’s announcement, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, recognised that he had been in error when he allowed Cheikh Hassan Rohani’s team to negotiate the JCPoA agreement with the Obama administration [6]. Note that the Supreme Leader had authorised these negotiations before Rohani’s election, and that he – and the eviction of Ahmadinejad’s movement – had been part of the preparatory discussions.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who makes a distinction between the policies of Presidents Obama and Trump, wrote to the new President just after his election [7]. He demonstrated that he shared Donald Trump’s analysis of the Obama-Clinton global system and its painful consequences for the rest of the world and also for the citizens of the United States.

When the demonstrations began in December 2017, the Rohani government accused Ahmadinejad of being responsible. In March 2018, the ex-President clinched his break with the Supreme Leader by revealing that Khamenei’s office had misappropriated 80 billion rials belonging to humanitarian and religious foundations [8]. Two weeks before Pompeo’s announcement, although he was under house arrest, he called for the resignation of President Rohani [9].

Everything therefore points to the idea that although the Obama administration supported Rohani, Trump’s administration supports Ahmadinejad’s party. Just as when President Carter and his advisor Brzeziński launched «Operation Eagle Claw » against the Revolution, while President Reagan supported Imam Khomeiny (October Surprise).

In other words, the White House could be quite comfortable with a return to power of Ahmadinejad’s party, on the condition that Iran agrees to export its Revolution only by the debate of ideas.

Translation
Pete Kimberley

The author lived in Iran for six months. He advised President Ahmadinejad during his speech before the UNO in 2010.

[1] “Remarks on the Creation of the Iran Action Group”, by Michael R. Pompeo; “Briefing on the Creation of the Iran Action Group”, by Brian Hooks, State Department, August 16, 2018.

[2] “Who’s afraid of Iran’s civilian nuclear programme?”, by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network, 27 July 2010.

[3] “The networks of “democratic” interference”, “NED, the Legal Window of the CIA”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Anoosha Boralessa, Оdnako(Russia) , Voltaire Network, 22 January 2004 and 16 August 2016.

[4] “Who Rules Iraq?”, by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network, 13 May 2004.

[5] “Mike Pompeo at The Heritage Foundation”, by Mike Pompeo, Voltaire Network, 21 May 2018.

[6] “The Supreme Leader of the Iranian Revolution Rectifies his Views”, Voltaire Network, 18 August 2018.

[7] “Letter by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Donald Trump”, by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Voltaire Network, 26 February 2017.

[8] “Ahmadinejad accuses Ayatollah Khamenei of embezzling funds”, Translation Anoosha Boralessa, Voltaire Network, 24 March 2018.

[9] “Iran: Former President Ahmadineyad exhorts President Rohani to resign”, Translation Anoosha Boralessa, Voltaire Network, 10 August 2018

Towards a « Latino Spring »?

by Thierry Meyssan

Anxiety is growing in Latin America – the United States and the United Kingdom are preparing a « Spring » for them on the model of the « Arab Springs ». Of course, this time, it will not be a case of spreading war and dividing the populations along religious lines – Latino citizens are practically all Christians – but by using elements of their local identities. The objective will, however, be the same – not to replace the governments with other governments, but to destroy the States in order to eradicate any possibility of resistance to imperialism.

| CARACAS (VENEZUELA) | 16 MAY 2017

JPEG - 42 kb

With time, many political leaders throughout the world have reinterpreted the « Arab Springs ». What at first seemed to be spontaneous revolutions against authoritarian governements is today perceived for what it is – an Anglo-Saxon plan for the destabilisation of an entire region of the world in order to put the Muslim Brotherhood into power. The memory of the « Arab Revolt of 1916 » – during which Lawrence of Arabia raised the whole region against the Ottoman Empire by feeding the People dreams of liberty in order, finally, to submit them to the British Empire – shows that London has the know-how.

It seems that the Anglo-Saxons are preparing a new wave of pseudo-revolutions in Latin America. Everything began with a decree by Barack Obama, on 9 March 2015, declaring a state of emergency in view of the extraordiary menace that the situation in Venezuela could bring to bear on the United States. This document caused an upsurge of indignation on the continent, forcing the US President to apologise during an international summit. But the decree was not cancelled, and the preparations for a new war continue.

Different from the Syrian Accountabilty Act by George W. Bush (2003), the text by Obama on Venezuela is a presidential decree, not a law. Consequently, the Executive does not need to account for the preparations to the Legislative body. It took eight years for the Anglo-Saxons to pass this act in the Arab world in general, but numerous elements lead us to believe that it will not take them as long to launch a programme for the destruction of Latin America.

At the time of the Olympic Games, trouble broke out in Brazil, aimed against President Dilma Rousseff. She was destituted after a parliamentary procedure which, although it was perfectly legal, was totally contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. This coup d’Etat was carried out under the control of the Central Bank – whose n°2 was a Brazilo-Israëlian – by deputies, many of whom have been shown to be guilty of corruption. The State security services remained curiously passive during the coup. This may be because, during the Olympic Games, they had been placed under the coordination… of Israëli experts. Currently, the new President, Brazilo-Lebanese Michel Temer, is now widely contested.

The situation in Mexico is hardly any better. The country is currently divided, de facto, into four. The North is enjoying strong expansion, while the South is in full recession. The political leaders have sold the national oil company, Pemex, and all its reserves, to the United States, who therefore have no further need of Middle East oil. Only the army seems to persist in believing in their homeland.

Exploiting the economic errors of the government, the Venezuelian opposition has managed to organise a few major peaceful demonstrations. Simultaneously, it also organised some small and extremely violent demonstrations during which several police officers and demonstrators were killed. Creating confusion, the international Press agencies are giving the impression that an anti-Chavez revolution has now begun, which is not the case at all.

Thus, the three main Latin-American states are destabilised at the same time. It seems that the US neoconservatives are anticipating the possibility of peace in Syria, and are pushing forward their Latin-American projects.

On Friday, during a televised speech, Venezuelian President Nicolás Maduro warned his people about the Anglo-Saxon project for a « Latin Spring ». He frequently mentioned and repeated the previous cases of Libya and Syria, speaking before an audience of intellectuals from the region, with whom, Syrian of heart, I was associated.

Translation
Pete Kimberley

Source
Al-Watan (Syria)

Thierry Meyssan

Thierry MeyssanPolitical consultant, President-founder of the Réseau Voltaire (Voltaire Network). Latest work in French – Sous nos Yeux. Du 11-Septembre à Donald Trump(Right Before our Eyes. From 9/11 to Donald Trump).

France caught up in terrorism, victim of her own NATO allies

by Thierry Meyssan

France has just become the victim of a new terrorist attack, three days before the first round of her Presidential election. For Thierry Meyssan, Paris needs to stop talking rubbish and realise the importance of what this means. International terrorism, in which France herself participates, is commanded and used – even against her – by certain of her NATO allies.

JPEG - 44.3 kb

Attack on the Champs-Elysees, 20 April 2017.

At the beginning of 2017, we were informed that jihadists were preparing actions which were intended to force France and Germany to postpone their elections. It was not easy to discern:

- whether the aim was to postpone the French Presidential election (April-May), or the French parliamentary elections (June), or both;
- whether France was a target in itself, or if the actions in France were a preparation for future actions against Germany.

Among the candidates for the Presidential election, only François Fillon and Marine Le Pen have criticised the support offered by France to the Muslim Brotherhood. Fillon has even made it one of the recurring themes of his campaign.

Speech at Chassieu (Lyon), 22 November 2016.

We alerted our readers that the Press campaigns and the legal affairs launched against Donald Trump in the United States, and against François Fillon in France, were commanded by the same groups. We wrote that according to Messrs. Trump & Fillon,

« … it will not be possible to restore peace and prosperity without first putting an end to the instrumentalisation of Islamic terrorism, without freeing the Muslim world from the ascendancy of the jihadists, and without attacking the true source of terrorism: the Muslim Brotherhood. » [1]

At that time, the French, believing wrongly that the Muslim Brotherhood was just a movement within the Muslim religion, did not react. Later, I published a book , Right Before our Eyes. From 9/11 to Donald Trump, whose second part describes in detail, and for the first time, how this secret organisation, created and controlled by MI6, is run by the British secret services. It is this Brotherhood which, since the Second World War, has been attempting to transform Sunni Islam into a political instrument. All the leaders of jihadist groups without exception came from the Brotherhood – from Oussama Ben Laden to Abou Bakr al-Baghdadi.

On 26 February, without explanation, François Fillon published a communiqué which was widely criticised:

« We find ourselves in an unprecedented situation: less than two months from the Presidential election, we are in a state of quasi civil war which is disturbing the normal course of the campaign (…) I say again that we are in a state of emergency, and yet the government does nothing (…) Today, in my rôle as ex-Prime Minister, as an elected member of the Nation, I solemnly accuse the Prime Minister and the government of failing to guarantee the conditions for a serene exercise of democracy. They have a very heavy respnsibility in allowing a state of almost civil war to develop, and which can only profit the extremes (…) Whoever the candidates are, they must have the right to express themselves, and the government must take the necessary measures so that the rioters and the enemies of democracy cease disrupting the Presidential campaign » [2].

On 17 April, the Police Nationale informed the four main candidates that there were threats to their security, and reinforced their protection.

On 18 April, M. (29 years old) and Clement B. (23 years old) were arrested while they were preparing an attack during a meeting in support of François Fillon.

On 20 April, a policeman was killed and two others seriously wounded during an attack on the Champs-Elysées.

François Fillon and Marine Le Pen cancelled the journeys they had planned for the 21 April. Following the movement, and althought here was no real threat to him at all, Emmanuel Macron did the same.

The responsibility of the next President of the French Republic

The security of the French people will be a central issue for the next five-year Presidential term. This question is all the more complex in that the recent terrorist attacks perpetrated on French soil have implicated three of France’s NATO allies – the US deep state, the United Kingdom, and Turkey.

I have widely covered the question of the attacks in Paris (13 November 2015) and Brussels (22 March 2016). [3]. In my latest book, I indicate that while the responsibility for these attacks was claimed by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his Press, they were carried out by « independent commandos, with the exception of a common operator, Mohammed Abrini of MI6 » (p. 231) [4].

For years, the successive governments of Nicolas Sarkozy and Alain Juppé, and also the government of François Hollande and Laurent Fabius, have hidden their criminal activities from the French people, and the consequences for which they are responsible – terrorism intra muros.

It is absurd to believe that al-Qaïda and Daesh could be in possession of so much money and weaponry without the support of major states. It is absurd to believe that France could have participated in the remodelling operations in the « Greater Middle East » without suffering the counter-attacks. It is absurd to believe that it will be easy to fight international terrorism when it is commanded by our own NATO allies.

Translation
Pete Kimberley

%d bloggers like this: