Reflecting on Zionism during Ashura

Hussein Samawarchi

Zionists have always been controlling the politics of European strongholds through both, economy and terror. Where the first fails to twist arms, the second ensures success. They are, by far, the masters of this pair of dark practices.

The manipulation of key economic factors in a country can bring it to its knees; depending on how they (the Zionists) assault the system, they can have the general population indulge in bloody revolutions or become so preoccupied with making ends meet that citizens ignore politics and the wrongdoings of their government – bread is more precious than gold when your children cry of hunger.

When the government is the target, the highest official is assaulted in such a grotesque fashion that he ends up serving as an example to any other leader who dares contemplate, even remotely, challenging the will of Zionists.

The royal children of Tsar Nicholas II were shot and stabbed to death before mutilating their bodies when it would have been enough to just hang him alone. This was a strong and clear message to all the other royals who weren’t under the control of the Rothschilds, telling them that safeguarding their children and dynasty meant adhering to the politics of the deep “state of Zion”.

Zionists are ruthless. There is no known ethical philosophy that they follow. As individuals, they are born into different religions but are sworn to uphold the best interest of their organization – in their doctrine, religious teachings may and shall not restrict murder where deemed necessary to further the cause of global domination. Murder has been deemed necessary by them for centuries and in some instances, murder was on a mass scale. World War II is an example of that. 50 to 80 million humans perished directly and indirectly during that war. The reader can answer the question of how do we know it was the Zionists who orchestrated that war by researching which banks and mega-financial establishments had funded it and which excessively rich European royalty lent money to the Third Reich. A good starting point of the research would be looking into the historical financial ledgers of the United States’ Federal Reserve bank; the amount of transactions in favor of Nazi Germany is stunning. There is, however, a debate among historians as to which financial institution had funded Adolf Hitler more, some say The Bank of England was the bigger investor in the Third Reich’s agenda.

Contrary to the general belief that the most powerful mafia in the US is the Italian one, the real mafia muscle is the Jewish one. The film industry in Hollywood, being yet another powerful device of Zionism, brainwashed people into thinking that the Italians made up the mafia with movies like The God Father and shows like the Sopranos introducing iconic Italian mafia figures to the world.

The Jewish mafia is the one and only superpower within the United States. It is a multi-billion dollar operation that yields trillions for the Zionist movement. It is what President Kennedy was scheming to bring down. The fathers of the American mafia, the likes of Meyer Lansky and Gurrah Shapiro were not Sicilian; they were Jewish born Zionists who employed men with Italian names to be a front for their crimes so as to divert attention from them. They were the predecessors of those who killed JFK and ran the government by means of, again, economy and terror. They threatened those they could not bribe. Bankers, CEOs, Pentagon officials, judges, police chiefs, and even presidents are among the people under the Jewish mafia umbrella.

So, who is the father of Zionism? It is thought to be Theodor Herzl. They would like for the world to think so. They chose a well versed, highly educated, and charismatic young man to bring the centuries-old terrorist movement to light. Very few know that his speeches were inspired by the words of his masters during his preparation and that one of them was actually present in the first congress held in Basle in the year 1897 to give him the necessary confidence. His masters were the Rothschilds.

The father of Zionism has always been a Rothschild; at least during the past two centuries. They own the Jewish mafia and the thrones of many kings and queens. They own the generals of the armies of many countries. They own the secret societies that recruit future Zionist leaders. They own a Christian sect of over 300 million worshippers being programmed to bring down the Vatican from within.

They have systematically hijacked the message of Moses, battled the message of Jesus, and defamed the message of Mohamed. They used the star of David on warplanes that kill children, they spread slanderous stories about Mary of Nazareth, and they picture Islam to look like the opposite of what it really is.

Theodor Herzl was nothing but a spokesman for the Rothschilds. He was a higher-level member of their terrorist secret society on whose shoulders fell the responsibility of unifying and mobilizing their European lodges (the choice of the word LODGE was chosen very carefully here.)

Theodor Herzl spoke a lot and he meant what he said. He prophesized events that had been planned for at least two decades before the first World Zionist Congress took place in 1897. That very first congress was where the declaration of the rollout of their plan was made. They wanted a country of their own so as to, finally, operate under their own institutions. It was time for Zion to become a nation out in the open. Their movement had the chance to incubate within the Jewish society and so, most of the Zionists were Jews. It should be kept in mind though, as mentioned earlier, they don’t really believe in any religion. Should Moses and David come back to defy them, they would have them beheaded.

One should stop and think for a second. If those claiming Palestine to be the one true land of the Jews were so biblically set on it, why did they try to turn Uganda into their promised land? The truth is plain and simple. They occupied Palestine as a second and perhaps a third option. And, here comes the rarely spoken of revelation.

The Arab Jews, the ones who are originally Jewish in identity and belief were aware of the Zionist plans. As in any other religious group, they have the good and the bad. Some went ahead with the demonic plans in exchange for financial gains and promises of higher positions. Others remained true to their country and religion even though they had suffered for decades at the hands of the Ottomans. Those Jews comprehended the fact that if they allowed the Zionists to hijack the Jewish faith, that their religion would lose its authenticity. Those Jews were taken care of, one way or another.

Many of them were forced to flee the land of their ancestors. They traveled mostly to Europe and some to the United States. Those who stayed and resisted were killed without remorse. In their place, Zionist families began immigrating to Palestine under the pretense of making Aliyah. So as to give their gradual theft of Palestine some kind of credibility.

The Jews of Palestine were the victims of the Zionist terror just as much as the Muslims. It was all hinted in Herzl’s speeches. He said it clearly several times; namely that those Jews not going along with the Zionist plan will be made to do so. Just as he prophesized the Holocaust decades before it occurred. Herzl stressed the importance of such a catastrophic event so as to ensure and haste the plan of creating a Zionist country. He praised Anti-Semitism publicly and repeatedly because it was the catalyst for the creation of the terror nation that Zionists needed in order to formally house their gangs. They succeeded – the Mossad became the name of the union of their gangs.

It is obvious that, had the primary Zionist supporting superpower at the time not invaded Palestine, the Zionists would have created “Israel” in another geographical location. If Uganda was the first option, then any other spot on Earth would have been the second option. It just happened that Palestine was an easier bite to swallow. They would have misinterpreted the bible they hijacked again and perhaps even modified every copy to give them the false authenticity they needed to occupy the land they could put their hands on.

The ethnic cleansing of Jews in Europe and Palestine earlier in the previous century was done exclusively by Zionists. The ethnic cleansing of Palestinians now is also done exclusively by them. They are the terrorists of our planet.

The so-called state/entity of “Israel” is not the home of the Jews, it is the home of the Zionist global movement. Zionists are thugs. Human life is worth nothing to them. They feed on human misery.

In a world where it is becoming increasingly difficult to own a house and feed your family, they offer free houses and secured job opportunities to those who would agree to leave their countries on the expense of Palestinians. The lie has become so old that some Jews actually believe that Palestine is the “Promised Land”. They believe that Palestinian children are “goyim” and that killing one of them is equal to slaying a chicken for lunch.

For those readers who doubt that European Jews were actually killed by Zionists, they can look up the names of Oppenheimer and Warberg. For those who doubt that America was and still is run by the Zionist Jewish mob, dig into the history of George Bush the father who is a known Zionist and his mafia accomplices who, by the way, were the real assassins of President Kennedy. To centralize the research though, just read the transcripts of Herzl’s speeches.

Lenin, who gave the order to stab the royal children of the Russian Tsar and then shoot them right before cutting them to pieces, made his Bolshevik revolution declaration only five days after the Belfour one. Lenin had Jewish roots. A coincidence? The manner of the killing of the Romanov’s was done in a very similar way to the current killings done by ISIS who were created by Zionists. A bigger coincidence?

There is no defeating Zionism as a macro counter movement because it is what they have prepared themselves for. The wars of ‘48, ‘67, and ‘73 prove that. The only way to end their terror is by organizing micro resistance movements that rely on values unfathomable to Zionists and hence, values they cannot prepare against. Those values would become the essence of the defense strategy.

It is no secret that the Zionist organizational body comprises highly educated terrorists – they hold doctorate degrees in one thing or another from the most prestigious and exclusive universities. After all, terror includes, but is not limited to, physical violence. They have always studied others and have succeeded, to a great extent, in developing a system of intelligently guessing reactions. They have a whole science dedicated to forecasting human character patterns. This shows through their historical skill of reeling in target victims into situations where the outcome of the fight is ensured.

Hezbollah did to “Israel” what a coalition of huge armies failed to do on several occasions. The humble Lebanese resistance depended on being small in size and more importantly, depended on the kind of love that Zionist textbooks don’t teach and, hence, can’t possibly counter – the love of the grandson of the Prophet Mohamed. The grandson who knew that he would be martyred in his campaign against corruption and immorality but still pressed ahead. Imam Hussein understood that the future of humanity needed powerful examples of selfless sacrifice. The men of the Lebanese resistance recognize Imam Hussein’s victory over the earlier version of Zionism; they walked in his steps and turned the “Israeli” army’s infamous might into a joke.

Doubting Imam Hussein’s victory or arguing against it is a sign of Zionist mental conditioning. Imam Hussein’s legacy lives to our day and his message, written with his blood almost fourteen centuries ago, is still read and memorized by those fighting global Zionism. Victory is not living in shame; it is dying with pride in defense of righteousness: a concept keeping the successors of the masters of Herzl from global domination.

The martyrdom of Imam Hussein made him live in the hearts of hundreds of millions and with him, live the desire to stand up against all forms of injustice and terrorist organizations like Zionism.

Source: Al-Ahed News

Advertisements

ادلب رهينة أميريكية في الخطة (ج) .. لكنها جسر روسيا الى نطاقها النظيف .. بقلم نارام سرجون

( الخميس 2018/09/13 SyriaNow)

الحكايات التي تبحث شخصياتها عن كنز أو سر أو خريطة أو حب تخبئه لنا حتى النهايات والأسطر الأخيرة وربما الأحرف الأخيرة تبقى الحكايات الأثيرة لدينا .. تأسرنا منذ الكلمات الاولى ونبقى معلقين بأحداثها بالسلاسل المقفلة بالاقفال حتى الصباح .. ونظل نمشي مع الأحداث شئنا ام ابينا الى أن تفتح الأقفال ونفك الأسرار ..

والحكاية الروسية في سورية هي من ذلك النوع من الحكايات التي تشد السامع لأن اللغز الذي يحيره هو ذلك السر الذي يجعل دولة تقاتل في معركة أخرى لبلد آخر وكأنها تخوض معركتها الوطنية أو كأن روحها معلقة بها .. وفي حالة روسيا وسورية يظن الناظر الى المشهد السياسي ان روسيا تقاتل بضراوة كما لو أنها تستعيد لحظات معركة ستالينغراد بكل ضراوة في ادلب ..

وقد كثيرا ماسمعنا عن مبررات قرار روسيا بأنها اضطرت للخروج من سيبيرية للقتال في سورية قبل ان تضطر لقتال الارهابيين داخل حدودها .. وهي في حالة الضربة الاستباقية قبل ان تعاجلها الخطة الغربية باطلاق الوحوش الاسلامية داخل روسيا بعد ان تزنرها بحزام عملاق من الدول الاسلامية الفاشلة التي تصبح مصانع وقواعد واسعة لاطلاق موجات من الارهابيين نحو روسيا ..

وسمعنا كذلك عن ان روسيا في مبررات أخرى تعتبر سورية منطقة نفوذ تاريخية وحيوية وحصرية لها لن تسمح لأحد بالاستيلاء عليها .. وأنها تحمي خطوط غازها عبر الامساك بالعقدة السورية لنقل أنابيب النفط من الخليج الى اوروبة .. وسمعنا الكثير من التفسيرات التي حاولت ان تقارب الحالة التي تجعل روسيا تقاتل كما تقاتل الأم دفاعا عن ابنتها وحلت محل فرنسا في الشرق التي كانت تعتبر نفسها الأم الحنون للمسيحيين الشرقيين .. فاذا بالام الحنون الفرنسية تترك الشرق ومسيحييه نهبا للاسلاميين والاسرائيليين والاميريكيين ينكلون بهم بالمسلمين .. واذا بروسيا تندفع للدفاع عن الشرق كله بمسيحييه ومسلميه ..

الحقيقة ان كل التفسيرات قابلة للحياة وللبقاء والقبول .. ولكن السلوك الروسي يدل على ان القضية أبعد كثيرا من أهداف آنية وقصيرة المدى ومناطق نفوذ .. ولا نجانب الصواب ان قلنا ان المعركة الحالية في سورية هي الفصل التالي للحرب الباردة بين السوفييت والغرب بعد أن استفاق الروس على حقيقة انهم خسروا معركة الحرب الباردة .. ولذلك فانهم اندفعوا نحو الهجوم المعاكس في رد على أول مواجهة مع الأميريكيين في سورية .. ورغم ان الرئيس فلاديمير بوتين يقول في خطابه للشعب الروسي انه لم يأخذهم في مغامرة من مغامرات الشيوعيين القدامى بل كان عليه ان يقاتل على اسوار دمشق كيلا يضطر الشعب الروسي للقتال على تخوم موسكو لأن دمشق هي خط دفاعه الحيوي والأخير ..

الا ان معركة فلاديمير بوتين في معركة سورية كان قرارا في غاية الخطورة لأنه وضعه وجها لوجه مع أشرس عتاة الشر في العالم وفلاسفة الحروب من الغربيين ومن حلفائهم العرب الذين جندوا العالم الاسلامي وساقوه كالقطيع في مواجهة روسيا بكل مشاعره وطاقاته الارهابية وانضم الى الحفلة الماسونية العالمية اتحاد علماء المسلمين والحرم المكي والأزهر والاخوان المسلمون وورثة العثمانيين وكل ممثلي الحقب الاسلامية مجتمعين .. حتى ان الحج في احدى السنوات خصص الدعاء فيه على جبل عرفات يوم العيد لاهلاك روسيا التي “تقتل المسلمين في سورية”.. ومع ذلك فان بوتين لم يتزحزح قيد شعرة عن تحالفه المتين مع السوريين .. وثبت أكثر حتى عندما صارت طائراته المدنية العسكرية تستهدف في تهديد صريح له من انه سيدفع الثمن غاليا .. وهذا كله لايفسره منطق المصالح الروسية وحده لان المساومات والعروض التي وضعت على طاولة بوتين تكاد لاتصدق ويسيل لها لعاب اي رجل يبحث عن المصالح والصفقات الكبرى ..

بوتين طبعا ليس تحت تأثير لوبي سوري يعاكس اللوبي الصهيوني في أميريكا .. لكن بوتين كان يتحدث أحيانا بانفعال وغضب وهو يدافع عن الموقف السوري ضد املاءات الغرب مستندا في تبريراته الى انه يدافع عن الأخلاقيات والمبادئ البسيطة في السياسة من أن من حق الشعوب حصريا حق تقرير مصيرها وشكل حكمها وليس للأمم المتحدة ولا للولايات المتحدة أي دور في ذلك ولايجوز ان يكون لها دور .. وهو في الحقيقة استند الى موقف أخلاقي صلب جدا في هذا .. ولكن اللوبي الذي يحرك بوتين ليس سوريا طبعا وهو أكثر صلابة من أخلاقيات الموقف الظاهر .. فالرئيس الروسي يرى في معركة سورية من وجهة نظر قائد يستأنف معركة قديمة مع أميريكا العدو الأزلي الذي لن يهدأ حتى تموت روسيا .. وهي ليست معركة ثأر بل هجوما معاكسا تشنه روسيا بكل معنى الكلمة .. يهدف الى تحييد قوة اميريكا كثيرا في المحيط الروسي .. أي تنظيف النطاق المحيط بالأمن الروسي لأن أميريكا لن تخرج من محيط روسيا الا بتحييدها في الشرق الاوسط أولا كي تتوقف عن حصار روسيا .. لأن الشرق الأوسط هو نقطة ارتكاز أميريكا الأقوى التي تستند اليها كل نقاط ارتكازها حول فضاء روسيا .. ولذلك لاشيء يعادل الهجوم المضاد في أقوى نقطة ارتكاز أميريكية .. وهذه المعركة بدأت في سورية ولن تتوقف .. وادلب هي معركة صغيرة تلت معارك في الحرب الكبرى التي وضعتها روسيا في مشروعها الكبير الذي التقى مع المشروع السوري الايراني الكبير في بناء جدار مقاوم ..

اليوم وبعد ان عشنا هذا التجاذب الغربي في معركة سورية ومعركة شد الحبل في آخر متر في ادلب بين الغرب وبين الروس صارت الأمور تتبلور أكثر .. وهي ان روسيا تخوض في سورية واحدة من أهم معاركها التاريخية بعد معارك الحرب العالمية الثانية حتى آخر متر وهي معركة تحجيم قوة أميريكا كليا في الشرق الاوسط والمحيط الروسي متكئة في ذلك على تحالف ايران وسورية اللتين التقطتا اللحظة الروسية المناسبة في توقيت دقيق جدا ومهم جدا لهما وعملان مع روسيا بشكل يكمل كل منهما الآخر .. ولكن أمريكا تستميت في محاولة البقاء والتشبث بالشرق الأوسط الذي يتم دفعها خارجه بالتدريج .. ولذلك فانها كانت تعد نفسها للانتقال للخطة (ج) بعد انهيار الخطتين (أ) و (ب) .. لأن الخطة ( أ ) كانت تهدف الى اسقاط الدولة السورية عبر الربيع الاسلامي الاخواني وتحويلها الى دويلات ممزقة فاشلة تخضع لأمراء حرب تحركهم الدول المجاورة انتهت .. وهاهم كل أمراء الحرب يتجمعون في ادلب قبل طحنهم .. واما الخطة (ب) المتمثلة في عملية تقسيم سورية – وهو تقسيم أقل ايلاما يتمثل بسلخ بعض المناطق من جسد الدولة المركزية – عبر تقاسمها مع الروس الذين سيترك لهم مابقي من سورية وحكومتها التي وصلوا اليها عام 2015 بحكم الأمر الواقع وتثبيت نقاط التماس .. وهذه الخطة انتهت كليا من لحظة تحرير حلب وتآكل المناطق المنسلخة عن الدولة .. واليوم يلجأ الاميريكوين الى الخطة (ج) وهي التثبت في الشرق السوري وفي ادلب لأطول فترة ممكنة وانتظار أي تحول في معادلات المنطقة المتغيرة .. فقد تتغير موسكو أو طهران أو تتغير دمشق .. وعندها تتم العودة الى الخطة (ب) .. ومنها الى الخطة (أ).. لأن الهدف لايتغير بل تتغير و سائل الوصول اليه وطرق التنفيذ وآلياتها ..

ولذلك فان القبول بالمماطلة مع الغرب وتركيا في تحرير ادلب ريثما تهيأ ظروف تتغير فيها معادلات ومعطيات الصراع سيعني للسوريين وحلفائهم الروس والايرانيين ان كل ماانجز من تحرير في حلب والغوطة وتدمر والجنوب سيظل ناقصا وكأنه لم يتم كمن يبني جسرا من عدة كيلومترات ويبقى المتر الاخير فيه (ادلب) غير متصل بالضفة الاخرى .. فهو لايستطيع استعمال الجسر وكأن كل مابناء بلا فائدة .. فادلب ان بقيت من غير تحرير فانها ستكون نقطة باردة تنتظر معادلات جديدة وفرصة جديدة لابقاء كل السياسة السورية القادمة رهينة في ادلب .. بل وماهو أهم من ذلك ستتعثر عملية اخراج الاميريكيين من الشرق السوري ومن التنف لأن ادلب ستشكل مسمارا للوجود الاميريكي يثبته بابقائها نقطة ملتهبة ترد على اي تحرك او ضغط لاسترداد الشرق السوري سلما او حربا .. كما هو جيب داعش الباقي حول التنف والذي تم تحريكه نحو السويداء في توقيت ما حول معركة الجنوب ودرعا .. أي ان جيب ادلب الكبير سيتم تحريكه باستفزازات ورسائل ضاغطة وابتزازبة اذا ما تحركت سورية وحلفاؤها في اي اتجاه لا يريح اميريكا واسرائيل .. فهي بؤرة ابتزاز يصل تأثيرها الى كل قضايا الشرق .. في لبنان والعراق وفلسطين .. ستبقى كل سورية رهينة بسببها .. وستبقى الخطة (أ) أو الخطة (ب) قابلة للتنفيذ والحياة بسرعة في أي لحظة اختلال توازن سياسي تحت اي مستجدات .. ولكن اذا ما خرجت اميريكا من ادلب بخروج مسلحيها فانها لاتقدر الا على ان تتلو ذلك بخروج من الشرق السوري لأن قواتها هي التي ستتحول في الشرق الى رهائن .. وهذا يعني تدحرجها الى الخطة (د) التي تعني أن عليها أن تحمي مابقي لها في الشرق .. لأن ما سيتلو الخروج من سورية اخراجها نهائيا من العراق في المدى المنظور او المتوسط .. ومن ثم الخوف من الخروج مما بعد العراق !! .. وهو يتماشى مع الهدف البعيد لروسيا الناهضة من بين حطام الاتحاد السوفييتي ..

من هذا كله .. نجد انه لامناص لروسيا قبل سورية من خوض معركة ادلب من أجل تعبيد الطريق نحو الفضاء الروسي النظيف والذي قد يتعرقل ببقاء مشروعها رهينة في ادلب وشرق سورية .. والحفاظ على بقاء حيوية ومرونة الخطتين القديمتين أ – ب .. التي يمكن أن تنتقل اميريكا بينهما وفق الظروف المتاحة .. أما الخروج من الخطة (ج) .. فهو يعني التقهقر نحو الخطة د ..

ولذلك يجب الاستعداد لأي استماتة أميريكية لجعل التحرك نحو ادلب متعثرا ولكن في نفس الوقت يجب ألا نعطي تهديدات الغرب اي اعتبار هام يغير من عزمنا وتحركنا لأن الغرب يدرك ان معركة ادلب ليست معركة سورية فقط .. بل معركة في مشروع فضاء روسيا الحيوي .. الذي تبنيه روسيا للقرن القادم .. الذي سيعني لها الانطلاق نحو فضاء أوراسيا الذي من أجله تبني تحالفاتها مع الصين والهند وباكستان وايران وسورية والعراق .. وبمعنى أخر يقوم الروس بعملية كنس ناعمة وخشنة معا وتدريجية للنفوذ الاميريكي في الفضاء الروسي .. وقد لا يصدق البعض ان سورية -وبالتالي ادلب – هي في صلب هذا الفضاء لأن معركتها ستحدد عملية خروج ونزوح اميريكة كبرى من سورية ومن ثم العراق خلال السنوات القليلة القادمة .. مما يجعل المعركة في ادلب صعبة ديبلوماسيا وسياسيا رغم انها عملية سهلة عسكريا لانها تستعد بحشود سورية هائلة وكثافة وازدحام للسلاح الروسي لم يسبق لها مثيل .. ستجعل مسلحي اميريكا وتركيا في ادلب مثل جيش ابرهة الأشرم .. كعصف مأكول ..

أنني لا أبالغ ان قلت ان ما أعد للمسلحين في ادلب سيحولهم الى عصف مأكول .. وأتمنى أن تسمى هذه العملية عملية العصف المأكول .. ولن تفعل أميريكا شيئا سوى أنها ستدرس التكتيكات والسلاح والذخائر الروسية المستعملة لتدرسها في اكاديمياتها العسكرية .. ولمعرفة تأثيراتها على أجساد المسلحين وتحصيناتهم وحجم الخسائر التي ستسببها في الجسد الارهابي المسلح .. فهؤلاء المسلحون فئران التجارب الاميريكية .. فئران اسلامية للتجارب لكل مشاريع أميريكا .. والحكايات ستحكي عن الأسرار التي تحشد العالم على ارضنا وتتداول الأحداث .. وستؤرخ لكل شيء .. الا لفئران التجارب .. التي ستحترق وتموت أو ستغادر ادلب أفواجا الى جحورها في تركيا قبل أن تصبح .. العصف المأكول ..

إدلب: النهاية الفعلية لـ «تامبر سيكامور»

سبتمبر 11, 2018

ناصر قنديل

– مصطلح «تامبر سيكامور» أي «خشب الجميز» ليس غريباً على المعلقين والمحللين والمتابعين في أميركا والغرب، وهو الرمز الذي منحته المخابرات الأميركية عام 2012 للعملية التي تهدف لأوسع خطة أميركية لتعبئة الأفراد والسلاح والأعمال الاستخبارية والعمليات الخاصة، منذ حرب أفغانستان. والهدف هذه المرة هو إسقاط سورية ورئيسها وتدمير جيشها، وتحويلها ساحة تشبه ما انتهت إليه العملية التي سبقتها في أفغانستان، وكما الأداة هي نفسها أي تنظيم القاعدة ومتفرّعاته ومنتجاته، الشريك في التعبئة والتمويل والإدارة والتشغيل هو نفسه، المملكة العربية السعودية. وهنا لا نزال في استعراض المعلومات الأميركية الرسمية التي يسهل الحصول عليها من مواقع وزارة الخارجية ووزارة الدفاع الأميركيتين، ومن التقارير التي قدّمها مايك بومبيو بصفته رئيساً للمخابرات الأميركية عام 2017 أمام الكونغرس ولجانه في سياق الإعلان عن تصفية المشروع، الذي تقول التقارير الرسمية إنه كلف الخزانة الأميركية مليار دولار، وأنه تسبب بوقوع أسلحة نوعية بيد تنظيم القاعدة.

– ما يجب أن ننتبه إليه هو أن ما تقوله واشنطن عن البرنامج هو بعض الحقيقة، وما تقوله عن أسباب الإعلان عن الإنهاء هو عكس الحقيقة. ففي المنشور عن البرنامج أنه تمويل ميليشيات وتسليحها وتدريبها، كذب واختزال للمشروع ببعض بنوده. فالمشروع يتضمن إنشاء غرفة عمليات سميت بالـ»موك» وهي اختصار لعمليات خاصة تنفذها القوات الخاصة الأميركية، التابعة للمخابرات الأميركية ووكالتها الأهم صاحبة البرنامج سي آي أي. وقد بات معلناً أن الهدف الحقيقي هو إسقاط الدولة السورية ورئيسها وجيشها، وبات معلوماً أن ضمن الخطة عمليات خاصة تنفذها السي آي اي، على الأرجح أن بينها وأولها كانت عملية استهداف مقر الأمن القومي في دمشق الذي استشهد فيه كبار الضباط السوريين العسكريين والأمنيين يومها، وبات معلوماً أيضاً أن كذبة تسليح ميليشيات مثل كذبة اكتشاف أن السلاح وصل لجبهة النصرة، مثل كذبة أن الحرب على داعش استدعت وقف البرنامج، فتسليح وتمويل واستجلاب تنظيم القاعدة اصل البرنامج، كما صمّمه الجنرال ديفيد بتريوس المؤسس الحقيقي لجبهة النصرة كفرع سوري عراقي لتنظيم القاعدة، وابتكار تنظيم داعش كان الحلقة الثانية من البرنامج. وكل الوقائع قائمة لإثبات إدارة واشنطن لداعش. وبالمقابل إدارة الحرب المبرمجة والمدروسة عليها، لخدمة التموضع في سورية بحجة الحرب، ومنع قيام حرب جدية تنهي وجود التنظيم الذي رعت ولادته واشنطن، كما قال الرئيس دونالد ترامب يوم كان مرشحاً.

– من الأكاذيب التي يجب الانتباه لها في الرواية الرسمية الأميركية أن موازنة المشروع هي مليار دولار فقط. بينما تقول الوقائع المنشورة عن إنشاء تنظيم القاعدة برعاية مستشار الأمن القومي الأميركي في عهد الرئيس رونالد ريغان زبيغينيو بريجنسكي، أن مليار دولار مشابه أنفقتها واشنطن عام 1980، كان مقابلها قرابة مئة مليار دولار أنفقتها السعودية على تنظيم القاعدة، لإسقاط الحكم الحليف لروسيا السوفياتية آنذاك تمهيداً لإسقاط الاتحاد السوفياتي، وها هي تكرر المحاولة هذه المرة مع روسيا وإيران انطلاقاً من سورية، لكنها تفشل. فالذي حصل حتى تاريخه ليس الاكتشاف المتأخر لوصول الأسلحة ليد متطرفين وإرهابيين، بل العجز عن تحقيق الهدف، وانتقال زمام المبادرة إلى يد الحلف المواجه أي سورية وإيران وروسيا، ليصير الواقع وفقاً لوصف بعض الخبراء الأميركيين، انتقاماً روسياً من تجربة أفغانستان.

– من الأكاذيب أيضاً الحديث عن إنهاء البرنامج، وقد كانت ركيزته غرفة الـ»موك» ولم تقفل بإعلان تصفية البرنامج رسمياً، ما يعني تغيير المهام لا إنهاءها. والمتوقع أن التغيير يهدف لاستبدال المهمة من إسقاط سورية ورئيسها وجيشها إلى منع انتصار سورية ورئيسها وجيشها، وعرقلة هذا الانتصار لفرض واشنطن شريكاً إلزامياً في أي تسوية مستقبلية في سورية. والتهديدات كما التصريحات الرئاسية والوزارية الأميركية، كما التفاهمات والخلافات، بوجود برنامج تعتمده المخابرات، تخضع لمقتضيات هذا البرنامج، «تامبر سيكامور» في معركته السرية الأخيرة في إدلب، حيث الضباط الأميركيون الذين تولوا مهام القيادة خلال سنوات مضت، وحيث الهزيمة وحدَها ستنهي البرنامج وتضيع معه مئات مليارات الدولارات التي تحدّث عنها ذات يوم نائب الرئيس الأميركي جو بايدن أمام جامعة هارفرد.

– «خشب الجمير» الذي استوحى منه بتريوس اسم البرنامج هو الخشب الذي استخدمه الفراعنة في صناعة توابيت الرجال العظام، والواضح أن القصد كان الإشارة إلى هدف البرنامج بصناعة تابوت لسورية ودولتها ومكانتها، وربما لإيران وروسيا معها. لكن التاريخ يدور دورته، وفي إدلب اليوم يستعدّ صانع التابوت لتجربته.

Related Videos

Related Articles

Back in the (Great) Game: The Revenge of Eurasian Land Powers

Back in the (Great) Game: The Revenge of Eurasian Land Powers

EDITOR’S CHOICE | 30.08.2018

Back in the (Great) Game: The Revenge of Eurasian Land Powers

Pepe ESCOBAR

Get ready for a major geopolitical chessboard rumble: from now on, every butterfly fluttering its wings and setting off a tornado directly connects to the battle between Eurasia integration and Western sanctions as foreign policy.

It is the paradigm shift of China’s New Silk Roads versus America’s Our Way or the Highway. We used to be under the illusion that history had ended. How did it come to this?

Hop in for some essential time travel. For centuries the Ancient Silk Road, run by mobile nomads, established the competitiveness standard for land-based trade connectivity; a web of trade routes linking Eurasia to the – dominant – Chinese market.

In the early 15th century, based on the tributary system, China had already established a Maritime Silk Road along the Indian Ocean all the way to the east coast of Africa, led by the legendary Admiral Zheng He. Yet it didn’t take much for imperial Beijing to conclude that China was self-sufficient enough – and that emphasis should be placed on land-based operations.

Deprived of a trade connection via a land corridor between Europe and China, Europeans went all-out for their own maritime silk roads. We are all familiar with the spectacular result: half a millennium of Western dominance.

Until quite recently the latest chapters of this Brave New World were conceptualized by the Mahan, Mackinder and Spykman trio.

The Heartland of the World

Mackinder

Halford Mackinder’s 1904 Heartland Theory – a product of the imperial Russia-Britain New Great Game – codified the supreme Anglo, and then Anglo-American, fear of a new emerging land power able to reconnect Eurasia to the detriment of maritime powers.

Nicholas Spykman’s 1942 Rimland Theory advocated that mobile maritime powers, such as the UK and the U.S., should aim for strategic offshore balancing. The key was to control the maritime edges of Eurasia—that is, Western Europe, the Middle East and East Asia—against any possible Eurasia unifier. When you don’t need to maintain a large Eurasia land-based army, you exercise control by dominating trade routes along the Eurasian periphery.

Even before Mackinder and Spykman, U.S. Navy Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan had come up in the 1890s with his Influence of Sea Power Upon History – whereby the “island” U.S. should establish itself as a seaworthy giant, modeled on the British empire, to maintain a balance of power in Europe and Asia.

It was all about containing the maritime edges of Eurasia.

In fact, we lived in a mix of Heartland and Rimland. In 1952, then Secretary of State John Foster Dulles adopted the concept of an “island chain” (then expanded to three chains) alongside Japan, Australia and the Philippines to encircle and contain both China and the USSR in the Pacific. (Note the Trump administration’s attempt at revival via the Quad–U.S., Japan, Australia and India).

George Kennan, the architect of containing the USSR, was drunk on Spykman, while, in a parallel track, as late as 1988, President Ronald Reagan’s speechwriters were still drunk on Mackinder. Referring to U.S. competitors as having a shot at dominating the Eurasian landmass, Reagan gave away the plot: “We fought two world wars to prevent this from occurring,” he said.

Eurasia integration and connectivity is taking on many forms. The China-driven New Silk Roads, also known as Belt and Road Initiative (BRI); the Russia-driven Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU); the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB); the International North-South Transportation Corridor (INSTC), and myriad other mechanisms, are now leading us to a whole new game.

How delightful that the very concept of Eurasian “connectivity” actually comes from a 2007 World Bank report about competitiveness in global supply chains.

Also delightful is how the late Zbigniew “Grand Chessboard” Brzezinski was “inspired” by Mackinder after the fall of the USSR – advocating the partition of a then weak Russia into three separate regions; European, Siberian and Far Eastern.

All Nodes Covered

At the height of the unipolar moment, history did seem to have “ended.” Both the western and eastern peripheries of Eurasia were under tight Western control – in Germany and Japan, the two critical nodes in Europe and East Asia. There was also that extra node in the southern periphery of Eurasia, namely the energy-wealthy Middle East.

Washington had encouraged the development of a multilateral European Union that might eventually rival the U.S. in some tech domains, but most of all would enable the U.S. to contain Russia by proxy.

China was only a delocalized, low-cost manufacture base for the expansion of Western capitalism. Japan was not only for all practical purposes still occupied, but also instrumentalized via the Asian Development Bank (ADB), whose message was:

We fund your projects only if you are politically correct.

The primary aim, once again, was to prevent any possible convergence of European and East Asian powers as rivals to the US.

The confluence between communism and the Cold War had been essential to prevent Eurasia integration. Washington configured a sort of benign tributary system – borrowing from imperial China – designed to ensure perpetual unipolarity. It was duly maintained by a formidable military, diplomatic, economic, and covert apparatus, with a star role for the Chalmers Johnson-defined Empire of Bases encircling, containing and dominating Eurasia.

Compare this recent idyllic past with Brzezinski’s – and Henry Kissinger’s – worst nightmare: what could be defined today as the “revenge of history”.

That features the Russia-China strategic partnership, from energy to trade:  interpolating Russia-China geo-economics; the concerted drive to bypass the U.S. dollar; the AIIB and the BRICS’s New Development Bank involved in infrastructure financing; the tech upgrade inbuilt in Made in China 2025; the push towards an alternative banking clearance mechanism (a new SWIFT); massive stockpiling of gold reserves; and the expanded politico-economic role of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

As Glenn Diesen formulates in his brilliant book, Russia’s Geo-economic Strategy for a Greater Eurasia, “the foundations of an Eurasian core can create a gravitational pull to draw the rimland towards the centre.”

If the complex, long-term, multi-vector process of Eurasia integration could be resumed by just one formula, it would be something like this: the heartland progressively integrating; the rimlands mired in myriad battlefields and the power of the hegemon irretrievably dissolving. Mahan, Mackinder and Spykman to the rescue? It’s not enough.

Divide and Rule, Revisited

The Oracle still speaks

The same applies for the preeminent post-mod Delphic Oracle, also known as Henry Kissinger, simultaneously adorned by hagiography gold and despised as a war criminal.

Before the Trump inauguration, there was much debate in Washington about how Kissinger might engineer – for Trump – a “pivot to Russia” that he had envisioned 45 years ago. This is how I framed the shadow play at the time.

In the end, it’s always about variations of Divide and Rule – as in splitting Russia from China and vice-versa. In theory, Kissinger advised Trump to “rebalance” towards Russia to oppose the irresistible Chinese ascension. It won’t happen, not only because of the strength of the Russia-China strategic partnership, but because across the Beltway, neocons and humanitarian imperialists ganged up to veto it.

Brzezinski’s perpetual Cold War mindset still lords over a fuzzy mix of the Wolfowitz Doctrine and the Clash of Civilizations. The Russophobic Wolfowitz Doctrine – still fully classified – is code for Russia as the perennial top existential threat to the U.S. The Clash, for its part, codifies another variant of Cold War 2.0: East (as in China) vs. West.

Kissinger is trying some rebalancing/hedging himself, noting that the mistake the West (and NATO) is making “is to think that there is a sort of historic evolution that will march across Eurasia – and not to understand that somewhere on that march it will encounter something very different to a Westphalian entity.”

Both Eurasianist Russia and civilization-state China are already on post-Westphalian mode. The redesign goes deep. It includes a key treaty signed in 2001, only a few weeks before 9/11, stressing that both nations renounce any territorial designs on one another’s territory. This happens to concern, crucially, the Primorsky Territory in the Russian Far East along the Amur River, which was ruled by the Ming and Qing empires.

Moreover, Russia and China commit never to do deals with any third party, or allow a third country to use its territory to harm the other’s sovereignty, security and territorial integrity.

So much for turning Russia against China. Instead, what will develop 24/7 are variations of U.S. military and economic containment against Russia, China and Iran – the key nodes of Eurasia integration – in a geo-strategic spectrum. It will include intersections of heartland and rimland across Syria, Ukraine, Afghanistan and the South China Sea. That will proceed in parallel to the Fed weaponizing the U.S. dollar at will.

Heraclitus Defies Voltaire

Voltaire

Alastair Crooke took a great shot at deconstructing why Western global elites are terrified of the Russian conceptualization of Eurasia. It’s because “they ‘scent’…a stealth reversion to the old, pre-Socratic values: for the Ancients … the very notion of ‘man’, in that way, did not exist. There were only men: Greeks, Romans, barbarians, Syrians, and so on. This stands in obvious opposition to universal, cosmopolitan ‘man’.”

So it’s Heraclitus versus Voltaire – even as “humanism” as we inherited it from the Enlightenment, is de facto over. Whatever is left roaming our wilderness of mirrors depends on the irascible mood swings of the Goddess of the Market. No wonder one of the side effects of progressive Eurasia integration will be not only a death blow to Bretton Woods but also to “democratic” neoliberalism.

What we have now is also a remastered version of sea power versus land powers. Relentless Russophobia is paired with supreme fear of a Russia-Germany rapprochement – as Bismarck wanted, and as Putin and Merkel recently hinted at. The supreme nightmare for the U.S. is in fact a truly Eurasian Beijing-Berlin-Moscow partnership.

The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has not even begun; according to the official Beijing timetable, we’re still in the planning phase. Implementation starts next year. The horizon is 2039.

(Wellcome Library, London.) 

This is China playing a long-distance game of go on steroids, incrementally making the best strategic decisions (allowing for margins of error, of course) to render the opponent powerless as he does not even realize he is under attack.

The New Silk Roads were launched by Xi Jinping five years ago, in Astana (the Silk Road Economic Belt) and Jakarta (the Maritime Silk Road). It took Washington almost half a decade to come up with a response. And that amounts to an avalanche of sanctions and tariffs. Not good enough.

Russia for its part was forced to publicly announce a show of mesmerizing weaponry to dissuade the proverbial War Party adventurers probably for good – while heralding Moscow’s role as co-driver of a brand new game.

On sprawling, superimposed levels, the Russia-China partnership is on a roll; recent examples include summits in Singapore, Astana and St. Petersburg; the SCO summit in Qingdao; and the BRICS Plus summit.

Were the European peninsula of Asia to fully integrate before mid-century – via high-speed rail, fiber optics, pipelines – into the heart of massive, sprawling Eurasia, it’s game over. No wonder Exceptionalistan elites are starting to get the feeling of a silk rope drawn ever so softly, squeezing their gentle throats.

consortiumnews.com

Book Review: The Russian Peace Threat by Ron Ridenour

August 24, 2018

[This article was written for the Unz Review]

The Russian Peace Threat: Pentagon on Alert
by Ron Ridenour
Publisher: Punto Press, LLC
ISBN-10: 0996487069
Amazon link: https://www.amazon.com/Russian-Peace-Threat-Pentagon-Alert/dp/0996487069/

*******

Ron Ridenour’s latest book (this is his 10th book on international relations and politics) takes a direct shot at one of the most prevailing myths in the western political discourse: the thesis that Russia, then the Soviet Union, and, since 1991, Russia again have been uniquely aggressive and generally bellicose states. At a time when rabid russophobia is the order of the day (again – chronic russophobia has been a regular feature of western political culture for many centuries now), this is a very timely and important book which I highly recommend to those interested in history.

The book is separated into three parts. In the first part of the book (The Great Capitalist Socialist Divide), Ridenour looks at the Cuban Missile Crisis in some detail and uses it to debunk the many myths which the “official” US historiography has been presenting as dogma for decades. In this first section, Ridenour also provides many fascinating details about Captain Vasili Arkhipov “the man who prevented WWIII”. He also recounts how the US propaganda machine tried, and still tries, to blame the murder of JFK on the Russians. The second part of the book (Peace, Land, Bread) goes back in history and looks into the ideological and political struggle between the collective West and the Soviet Union from the revolution of 1917 and well into the Cold War. The third part of the book (Russia At the Crossroads – the Putin Era) conclude with very recent events, including the western backed coup d’etat in the Ukraine and the Russian intervention in Syria.

The first and the third parts of the book are extremely well researched and offer a rock-solid, fact-based, and logical analysis of the Cuban Missile Crisis and its modern equivalent, the AngloZionist “crusade” against modern Russia. This is a very important and good choice because the two crises have a lot in common. I would even argue that the current crisis is much more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis because of the extremely low personal and intellectual qualities of the current US ruling elites. Ridenour shows that in 1962 it was not the Soviets, but the US which pushed the world to the edge of a nuclear war, and in the third section of his book he shows how, yet again, the Empire is cornering Russia into a situation which, again, very much risks resulting in a nuclear conflict.

For those who would have a knee-jerk rejection of Ridenour’s crimethink, the book, on page 438-444, offers a list of governments the USA has overthrown since WWII (50), countries which the USA has bombed (30), foreign leaders it has murdered (50+), suppressed populist/nationalist movements (20), and subverted democratic elections (30). Ridenour then asks how it is that with a tally like that the US gets to moralize about Russia. He is absolutely right, of course. Compared to the USA, the Soviet Union was a peace-loving, non-interventionist and generally international law respecting country. Oh sure, the USSR had its share of horrors and evil deeds, but compared with the “land of the free and the home of the brave” these are minor, almost petty, transgressions.

The book is not without its faults. Sadly, in the second part of his book Ridenour repeats what I can only call the “standard list of western clichés” about the 1917 Revolution, it’s causes and effects. Truth be told, Ridenour is most certainly not to be singled out for making such a mistake: most of the books written in English and many of those written in Russian about this period of Russian history are basically worthless because they are all written by folks (from all sides of the political spectrum) with a vested ideological interest in presenting a completely counter-factual chronology of what actually took place (Russian author Ivan Solonevich wrote at length about this phenomenon in his books). Furthermore, such a process is inevitable: after decades of over-the-top demonization of everything and anything Soviet, there is now a “return of the pendulum” (both in Russia and outside) to whitewash the Soviet regime and explain away all its crimes and atrocities (of which there were plenty). For these reasons I would recommend that readers skip chapter 7 entirely (the description of the 1905 and 1917 revolutions are particularly bad and sound like a rehash of Soviet propaganda clichés of the early 1980s).

This weakness of this historical analysis of the two Russian revolutions is, of course, rather disappointing, but it in no way affects the pertinence of the fundamental thesis of this book: that, for all its very real faults, the “Evil Empire” was a gentle and timid regime when compared to the AngloZionist “Axis of Kindness” and its never-ending violent rampages all over the world (literally) and its orgy of subversion and violence in the name of democracy, freedom, human rights and all the rest of the western propaganda buzzwords.

The book’s afterworld begins with the following words “WAITING AND WAITING! Waiting for the end of the world! Waiting for Godot! Although, unlike in Samuel Beckett’s Theater of the Absurd play, in which Godot never arrives, the mad men and mad women leaders of the US, France and UK (and Israel) are bringing us their bombs”. Having been warning about the very risks of war for at least 4 years now, and having, along with others, posted a special “Russian Warning” to warn about this danger, I can only wholeheartedly welcome the publication of an entire book aimed at averting such a cataclysmic outcome.

My other big regret with this book is that it does not have an index. This is particularly frustrating since the book is packed with over 500 pages of very interesting information and can be used as a very good reference book.

Still, these criticisms should not distract from the very real value of this book. One of the most frightening phenomena today is that the Empire and Russia are currently headed directly for war and that, unlike what took place during the Cuban Missile Crisis, almost nobody today speaks about this. The western corporate media is especially guilty in this regard, as it encourages a constant escalation of rabid anti-Russian rhetoric (and actions) without ever mentioning that if brought to its logical conclusion such policies will result in a devastating war which the West cannot win (neither can Russia, of course, but that is hardly much of a consolation, is it?).

There have been courageous voices in the West trying to stop this crazy slide towards a nuclear apocalypse (I especially think of Professor Stephen Cohen and Paul Craig Roberts) but their’s were truly “cries in the wilderness”. And it doesn’t matter one bit whether somebody identifies himself as a conservative, liberal, progressive, libertarian, socialist, anarcho-capitalist or by another other (mostly meaningless) political label. What matters is as simple as it is crucial: preventing the Neocons from triggering a war with Russia or with China, or with Iran, or with the DPRK, or with Venezuela, or with… (fill in the blank). The list of countries the US is in conflict with is very long (just remember Nikki Haley berating and threatening the entire UN General Assembly because the vast majority of its members dared to disagree with the US position on Jerusalem), but Russia is (yet again) the designated arch-villian, the Evil Empire, Mordor – you name it! Russia is the country which wants to murder everybody with poison gas, from the Skripals in the UK, to the innocent children of Syria. Russia is the country which shoots down airliners and prepares to invade all her western neighbors. Finally, Russia is the place which hacks every computer in the “Free World” and interferes with every single election. The longer that list of idiotic accusations stretches, the bigger the risk of war becomes, because words have their weight and you cannot have normal, civilized relations with the Evil Empire of Mordor which is “highly likely” to invade, nuke or otherwise subvert the peace-loving peoples of the West.

Except that there never was any such thing as a “peace loving West” – that is truly a self-serving and 100% false myth. The historical record shows that in reality the collective West has engaged in a 1000 year long murderous rampage all over the planet and that each time it designated its victim as the culprit and itself as the defender of lofty ideals. Ridenour’s The Russian Peace Threat: Pentagon on Alert (alongside with Guy Mettan’s “Creating Russophobia: From the Great Religious Schism to Anti-Putin Hysteria”, whose original French edition I reviewed here) does a long way towards debunking this myth.

With the few caveats mentioned above, I highly recommend this book.

The Saker

‘Cultural’ & ‘Permanent Revolution’ in Iranian Revolutionary Shi’ism

August 03, 2018

by Ramin Mazaheri for The Saker Blog‘Cultural’ & ‘Permanent Revolution’ in Iranian Revolutionary Shi’ism

Trotsky was and, in as much as he lives in his writings, remains the foremost strategist of world socialist revolution. Hence the indissoluble association of his name with the theory and strategy of Permanent Revolution—an association familiar even to those like Mazaheri….”

That is a quote from the World Socialist Web Site’s 3-part series designed to rebut my work popularising the concept of “Iranian Islamic Socialism”, and by extension to also rebut “Islamic Socialism”, “Christian Socialism”, “Hindu Socialism”, etc.

Well, a supremely important association which I think is not at all familiar even to those like the World Socialist Web Site is that, for Shia, Imam Ali “remains the foremost strategist of world cultural revolution”. Nor are they likely at all familiar that the conscious martyrdom of his son, Imam Hossain (spelled Husayn or Hussein or Hussain in Arabic), makes him “the foremost strategist of world permanent revolution”.

This article will show that there is room for all of them in socialism, and in the fight against capitalism and imperialism.

The reason for this is because Prophet Mohammad, unlike Jesus son of Mary, undoubtedly led the greatest, most immediate and most sweeping religious and political revolution ever. This undeniable fact of humankind’s history can certainly continue to be ignored, but it will remain a historical fact.

This should be quite relevant to the WSWS in 2018 because the messages of Imam Ali and Imam Hossain have been combined, over many decades, with socialism to arrive at the unique culture proclaimed in the 1980s and which I refer to as “Iranian Islamic Socialism”.

That is a on an undeniable socio-political-cultural level. On an intellectual level it is just as crystal-clear: 20th/21st century Iranians re-examined Islam through the intellectual lenses provided by Marxism, Trotskyism, Maoism and all the other socialist schools of thought, and this led to the intellectual concept known as Revolutionary Shi’ism.

All of these facts can certainly continue to not be discussed outside of Iran, but Iran will keep adding layer upon layer of solder upon these two ideas from two different historical eras – the early Islamic era and the modern era of socialism – and certainly all without me clarifying it or commenting upon it.

It is unfortunate – because it shows their lack of crucial & objective historical knowledge – that just as Western leftists do not appreciate the political-economic-social revolutionary aspects of Prophet Mohammad, even fewer appreciate the similar qualities of Imam Ali. That will be the basis of this part, while Part 9 will discuss the related political qualities of Imam Hossain. These are not two figures I have plucked from obscurity – they are the two key leaders of the Shia religion, as well as successful revolutionary political beacons in two eras separated by 1300 years.

For the WSWS, Western leftists, and many Western rightists, religion is not and should not be political. People keep telling this to Iranians as if we have not heard it before…and quite obviously totally ignored it!

“It is surprising! For what purpose then, was the Prophet fighting? For what purpose was Imam Ali fighting? Is it not the question of politics? Is it not the fact that criminals are ruling over the people?”

In these two articles on Ali and Hossain I will often quote from Revolutionary Shi’ism proponent Ali Shariati and his Martyrdom and Martyrdom, a collection of his lectures on this issue.

Westerners may believe that religion and politics must be separated in a government: to use their sacred, inviolable and individualistic phrase, they “have that right” in their own countries. What they cannot believe – unless they willingly wish to remain in error – is that politics and religion are somehow two fundamentally unrelated socio-intellectual domains: both endeavour to tell us how to live, after all. It is notable that the Western view also lacks the democratic majority in a global sense – perhaps one finds that significant.

What is certain is that if one side does not give up…we will just go around in circles endlessly: Westerners with their dogmatic secularism and rabid laïcité (both of which latently support Christianity), and on the other side people like Shariati, myself and countless billions of others with: It is surprising! For what purpose then….

How imperialism dies: Learning from socialism’s mistakes and unlearning capitalist propaganda

The WSWS seems to think that I have invented something new:

“He again insists that socialism in Iran can galvanize the masses only if fused with Shia Islam. This argument is far easier to make if one ignores, as Mazaheri does, any consideration of the pivotal role of the Stalinist Tudeh Party in the development of the Iranian workers’ movement.”

I am not insisting anything about the galvanising power of Shia Islam in Iran – this is what has already happened. Truly, I am a journalist just reporting the facts. These are facts which are, unfortunately, not reported by many others.

However, this article will provide some new scholarship on Iran: I will show how there is a clear parallel between the aims of Imam Ali and Mao, both of whom attempted Cultural Revolutions after they perceived their initial political revolutions to be failing.

This is of vital interest, precedent and perspective to all political revolutionaries, and not just Shia and Chinese ones.

Now, I don’t want much credit here because I will use Shariati’s own scholarship to show that he essentially proved this…but he did not know it. The likely reason is that people like Shariati (died 1977) did not have the chance to unlearn the anti-socialist propaganda about China’s Cultural Revolution, which I helped debunk here. Furthermore, Shariati was so powerful because he was incredibly and uniquely adept at employing Marxist perspectives on Islam, but he was also anti-Marxist in the sense that he did not want formal communists to come to power in Iran – he was not inclined to openly laud Chinese communists, perhaps. Indeed, much of Shariati’s writing on communism is negative and filled with now-outdated ideas that communism is inescapably totalitarian, whereas modern socialist countries are not the USSR in 1942.

While there is much writing on Marxism and socialism on the Farsi-language internet, there is apparently no claim like the one I am making. Nor is there much on the claims of the next part in this series – the link between Imam Hossain and the need for “Permanent Revolution”, but it is not the desert of the Imam Ali-Cultural Revolution claim. However, I feel certain these links are easily proven, and that they likely were made in the revolutionary heyday of the 1970s…back when Revolutionary Shi’ism was disseminated via cassette tapes of Shariati and Khomenei lectures and flimsy mimeographs. I’m glad the internet makes the registration of such ideas seemingly permanent.

The continued moral failures of capitalism and imperialism mean that socialism – from an economic and democratic perspective – is the only way forward. Iran, and others, will never give up religion, so that is a non-issue, but understanding historical parallels shows the universality of the human economic-political experience. The ability to appreciate Prophet Mohammad, Ali, Hossain, Jesus, Moses, Mao, Trotsky and others as common socio-political liberators draws us all closer together, and closer to the goal of peace and shared prosperity.

This what’s makes the above claim by the WSWS rather pernicious, and it marks a turning point in their tract: it’s when the WSWS tries to appropriate the credit for the 1979 Iranian Revolution away from Revolutionary Shi’ism in order to give it to the Iranian Communist Party. And to give it lock, stock and barrel, furthermore. This is why the bulk of their series discusses the history of the Tudeh Party. Both ideologies existed, but one obviously prevailed; both ideologies existed, and to completely ignore one of them is obviously bad history. This appears like the rather common modern practice of rewriting Iranian history by Westerners, which is misleading, dangerous and self-serving. Of course, Iran is not alone in being victimised like this.

Certainly, it was not communism which ultimately galvanised the masses: by the late 1970s communism had already been present for decades, just as it was in every other nation in the world. Indeed, as Iran was never subject to colonial domination, it is a fact that communism had far more latitude and influence than in many colonised nations. But the truly-atheist Tudeh party members (which were truly few in Iran, where polls show less than 5% are atheists today) faced the same problem the WSWS does today: you may educate the Iranian masses all you want on Trotskyism, but that doesn’t mean they will also renounce viewing Imam Ali as a religious and political model.

While their series was informative on the topic they preferred – although it was clearly exaggerated – WSWS readers would have learned much more about Iran if they had instead talked about the enduring political influence of Imam Ali.

Indeed, the refusal to even consider the possibility that Ali, Islam or religion can have a positive and enduring political influence is what dooms Western leftism to political marginalisation in Iran, and elsewhere. It is also creates obvious enmity, discord, sanction & murder.

Imam Ali’s failed Cultural Revolution: the ideological schism between Shia and Sunnis

It is impossible to understand Iran without at least passing familiarity with Ali and with his son Hossain.

In short: Imam Ali, the very first male Muslim, Mohammad’s son-in-law, the 4th Caliph to Sunnis and the 1st to Shia –in the historical context of a perceived slackening in Islam’s revolutionary, political and moral integrity – cemented the ideological Sunni-Shia schism by trying to implement a Cultural Revolution after the initial political Revolution of Islam.

(The schism was officially created decades before: Mohammad repeatedly & openly declared Ali to be his successor at the event of Ghadir Khumm, but this decision was surprisingly reversed on the very day of the Prophet’s death at the Saqifah. This decision installed tribal dominance instead of the will and house of Mohammad, and Ali was not able to resist this decision. Ghadir Khumm is why Shia consider Ali to be the first Caliph, and is truly the root of the split, but Ali’s future actions – described here – would considerably exacerbate it.)

Perhaps all peoples of all times have reinterpreted religion to better understand and to improve the times in which they have lived?

It’s certain that many reinterpret religion to make their times more reactionary: drive through the United States and you will hear on radio station after radio station the combination of Christian fundamentalism and anti-government / pro-capitalist ideology. This is no exaggeration – for them the “beast” of the Bible is actually a symbol for the government, which is inherently evil. It obviously fits perfectly with the neoliberal view. There is also plenty of airspace reserved for “prosperity gospel”, where faith in God is only needed to make you rich. These are obviously not distortions of a failed Christian creed, but of a failed capitalist-imperialist one.

Instead of delusionally reinterpreting Jesus as a way to make money, the application and promotion of leftist perspectives on Ali and Hossain provided more inspiration for the common masses than the Tudeh Party ever did or possibly ever could.

Leftists fail to see that Prophet Mohammad was a political revolutionary

Don’t worry: This section will not be long, nor will it involve quoting the Koran.

I could do that, but many leftists have closed ears, and “God confounds whom He will” (couldn’t resist that one short, oft-repeated quote!).

What this section will recap is the political humanitarian revolution which Prophet Mohammad created. These basic historical, sociological and political aspects of Islam are facts which cannot be denied, and should be of intellectual interest to atheists at the very least.

As I have said often before: Shariati was just one of many, many similar Iranian political thinkers who was / are intensely Muslim and also politically leftist. His work is marked by superb political insights combined with an intensely urgent and open concern for morality.

For an example of his political insights, Shariati noted that the social origins of Jesus and Mohammad – the two Abrahamic prophets of whom we have definitive historical proof – were not the aristocratic ones of Buddha, Confucius, Lao Tzu, Zoroaster, Aristotle, Plato, etc. Indeed, all the founders of schools of pre-Enlightenment thought in Europe, China, Iran and India fundamentally supported their aristocratic, elitist, hyper-conservative political establishments. However, the primary Abrahamic messengers (including Moses, who was born to an enslaved people and then orphaned) were drawn from the People and openly opposed the existing power structure.

This helps explain why the main Abrahamic prophets were explicitly sent to free people not just spiritually and morally but politically as well. Unlike Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism or Taoism, “Abrahamism” has always been decidedly political and decidedly against the establishment: Abraham against the ruling polytheists and his father the idol-maker; Moses against Pharaoh; Jesus son of Mary against a slave-owning, imperial Rome which lacked political compassion; Mohammad against the oppression inherently imposed by polytheism (the humorous and sad delusion that God or gods are actually working against you), the meagre cynicism of materialism (scientific, not material), aristocratic privileges, social castes and tribal divisions.

Indeed the Western-created “Sunni-Shia divide” could only be created by non-Muslims because Mohammad ENDED tribalism, sectarianism and nationalism ,and every Muslim is aware of this. This is easily proven: Watch any gathering of Muslims and you see people of all hues and ethnicities – it is beautiful, politically, and the direct result of the humanitarian revolution espoused by Islam. This is absent among the insular “chosen” Jews, and far less present among Christians; indeed, the presence of multiple races in Christianity is largely due to their legacy of forced conversion, a practice barred in Islam.

All of this helps show why Islam is the undoubted political updating of Abrahamic thought. Mohammad had a mission of unification because he repeatedly confirmed the previous Scriptures of Judaism and Christianity (the Torah (Old Testament) and New Testament), and because he also created a unification of time and space by pointedly declaring Islam to NOT be a “new” religion – it is simply a continuation of the one true religion of monotheism.

This idea (tawhidis the indispensable base of Islam: it is the oneness of God, which implies the oneness of all things (from atoms to people to galaxies, as everything is under the direction of a limitless, all-knowing, all-seeing God). This is a fundamentally unitarian concept, accommodates both Western and Eastern concepts, and is also fully in accordance with the last great confirmed scientific theory, the Theory of Relativity.

A fun scientific sidebar!

The Theory of Relatively is far from being just the equation E = mc2 – that’s just the part to say to appear smart. Its theoretical importance is this: when observing the universe no one place is any better or different than another – the laws of nature are universal no matter where or by whom they are described, i.e. there is this egalitarian tawhid on a galactic level.

When scientists inevitably find a “theory of everything”, that too will logically confirm tawhid.

There is one scientific and cosmological debate left which, I must concede, still threatens the victory of tawhid and which could prove the polytheists correct: What is the true nature of the universe’s continual expansion?

If expansion never stops, that implies an eventual thinning out of matter, and thus cooling, and thus death – in theological terms, the Day of Judgement. But what if there is never a day when the universe stops expanding but – instead of thinning out – a day when it actually contracts upon itself? And if that occurs, does it then expand again?

The latter is posited by Hinduism, which believes that the universe has an infinite number of deaths and rebirths; Big Bang, contraction and reversal, then back to the same Big Bang; have all been here before, and we will all be here again. Does time run backwards during a contraction?

This is all scientifically plausible because it has not yet been disproven.

The key appears to lay in solving the mysteries of black holes, if that possible.

Another key lays in the possibility of being able to discover the nature of matter by finding the truly “smallest particle” – we may just keep subdividing forever: molecules into atoms into quarks into…. If we subdivide forever, that seems to support tawhid, because God is limitless. If we reach an end, that seems to support Hindu cosmology.

So for all the opprobrium Muslims and monotheists heap on Hinduism for their idolatry (known as shirk), we still cannot scientifically reject their cosmology. For now, the answer is a question of faith.

I think religious honesty requires us to be open and honest about the limitations of our scientific knowledge – the Koran repeatedly states that one who makes up lies about God is among the most reprehensible of sinners. Indeed, a mind that demands total certainty and cannot tolerate doubt is a fanatical one. I also think every religious person agrees that atheists are far more fanatical in their alleged cosmological certainties than either monotheists or polytheists.

We may never find out, but I have faith in the galactic applicability of tawhid. Fortunately, the Koran forbids forcing a Hindu into accepting tawhid. Nor can you force a Muslim to become a Hindu because Hinduism – it is often said – is not a religion but a culture: there is no process to “convert” to Hinduism – one can only live it. So…Muslims have no problem allowing Hindus to remain peacefully confounded in whatever hundred billion-year cycle they are currently in, and the same goes for Hindus regarding Muslims who refuse to practice Hindusim.

I do not seek to upset the peace of the Hindus, because solving the most difficult astronomical and cosmological questions are far beyond the ken of a daily hack journalist like myself. And maybe there is tawhid in Hinduism which I am perhaps missing?

What this sidebar makes clear is: capitalist-imperialist Western societies have been totally unable to incorporate 20th-century scientific advances into their cultural philosophies. Their People are encouraged in identity politics (where one viewpoint is superior to another, depending on the situation), supporting foreign wars and in exacerbating economic inequalities, all of which contradict the social corollaries of modern science.

They remain quite stuck in their unmodern bourgeois conceptions of humanity, society & science, and this should be expected: they have rejected socialism, which was directly inspired by such modern scientific advances, and which has always sought to reflect it.

Back to something far easier to explain: Iranian Islamic Socialism.

This inviolable unity of all things proclaimed by Mohammad necessary implies a call for socio-political-economic-cultural unity. To say that it does not is to take us back to, “It is surprising! For what purpose then….”

Shariati’s genius was to take Islamic concepts like tawhid and make correlates with them in Marxist socio-economic thought. He did this over and over, and this is why he was so wildly popular and why Iran was so successfully inspired to create a truly modern revolution in 1979. This is also why all of the politics and structures I have described in this 11-part series do not have historical parallels; are decidedly not capitalist; nor are they a return to the 7th century – what has been created in Iran since 1979 is entirely unique (revolutionary).

And I’d say he was right: Tawhid clearly is more politically revolutionary than the insufficient “chosen people” unity of the Jews. Even China’s I Ching explicitly warns of this, in Chapter 13 “Seeking Harmony” – “Seeking harmony within a clan, it is selfish and stingy”.

It is also more progressively uniting than the Holy Trinity of Christianity, which Islam explicitly rejects: God is not three – He is one, and one is all.

In the Abrahamic religion Islam is obviously the most concerned with this idea of egalitarian unity. Indeed, Prophet Mohammad “cornered the market on unity” for all-time and for every time: In Islam (as I alluded to earlier by saying that Islam unified time and space), anyone who has ever believed or will ever believe in monotheism is essentially a Muslim. This insistence also makes it an undeniable reality that there can never be another monotheistic religion in the Abrahamic line – Islam has effectively co-opted all monotheism.

Therefore, the next Abrahamic prophet can only appear on the Day of Judgment… because what else could possibly be offered more than an Islam which offers everything there always has, is, and will be offered regarding monotheistic belief? This is why the Koran begins with praise after praise for monotheistic Jews & Christians as well as plea after plea for Jews & Christians to join this intellectual, social and cultural updating of Abrahamism provided by its latest prophet.

Because another monotheistic prophet is thus a logical impossibility, Muslims believe a “Hidden Imam” (or Mahdi) walks the earth until the Day of Judgment, when he will walk hand-in-hand with Jesus to defeat the false messiah (or Antichrist to Christians) and establish peace and justice on earth This doctrine is not essential in Sunni, but popular, while for Shia it is an essential doctrine.

Many have falsely claimed to be the Mahdi over the centuries, including the fore-runner of the Bahai – that claim was obviously false, because peace and justice clearly do not reign globally. That is why the Bahai are not tolerated in Iran (and this fact predates 1979, of course): there is a rather enormous, Islam-jeopardizing claim which is being made and not fulfilled.

But the galactic nature of tawhid and the realisation that Islam owns all monotheism aside, what needs to be appreciated by non-Muslims is how Mohammad overturned the political order and broke with aristocratic and sectarian values. Just as bus drivers became bosses in 1979 Iran, so in the time of Mohammad slaves with noble natures became higher than aristocrats. From Shariati:

“This is why the Prophet of Islam marked the turning point for slaves who, throughout history, were certain that their fate was slavery…they believed that they existed solely to experience suffering, to carry heavy loads, and to go hungry so that others might receive pleasure. They were born and created for this.

This deprived class, who were convinced that the gods or God were their enemy…. The Prophet of Islam had been appointed in order to complete the movement which had existed throughout history against deception, falsehood, polytheism, creation of discord, hypocrisy, aristocracy and class differences which were all made an object of the spiritual struggle; and by announcing that all of humanity is of one race, one source, one nature and one God, to declare equality for all, with philosophical explanation, and by fighting an economically powerful regime to maintain social equity.”

Clearly, the lenses, ideas and language of Marxism, socialism, class struggle, democratic equality and economic equality are present and have been combined with Islam in 20th century Revolutionary Shi’ism. Combine this by many volumes and you have only Shariati’s output on an issue which captivated Iranian society. “Iranian Islamic Socialism” is not new – it just an apt journalistic catchphrase.

Certainly, the political impact of Jesus son of Mary was only felt after his death, while Prophet Mohammad created political revolutions in land after land, tribe after tribe, ethnicity after ethnicity, and race after race with his creed of total social equality.

Many Christians openly hold Mohammad’s political conquests against him from a moral point of view: this because they clearly fail to realise the revolutionary socio-political demands of Islam, due to their often total ignorance of Islam’s doctrines. Priests in Islam simply are fighters for God and social justice. Islamic preachers are not monks, nor celibate, nor divorced from society, nor unconcerned with society in order to worship God all alone, nor encouraged to live in isolation, nor obsessed with performing rites and rituals, nor plying magic to make it rain (or to do whatever polytheistic / folk shamans do), etc. They are ordered to create social justice.

However, to Shariati and to Shia, this very real socio-political revolutionary aspect of Islam was diminished due to the failure of 2nd and 3rd-generation Islamic revolutionaries to heed Imam Ali’s message.

Imam Ali and his call for Cultural Revolution to preserve the leftist political gains

Because Islam was a political revolution of still unparalleled global consequence, there is much for everyone to study on a historical-political level in the period immediately after Mohammad, who passed in 632. We can view this era from an areligious historical perspective, and it is politically quite enlightening.

This is not the exact same thing as what Shariati and others did – they applied a modern political lens on Islam itself as well as its history. What I am saying here is: Non-Muslims can apply a modern historical lens on the early Islamic era, and we will find the results are almost identical.

We must realise that in 656, when Imam Ali became the 4th Caliph, it was a dire situation for the now-aged first generation of political revolutionaries of Islam.

After all, how many political revolutions haven’t lasted more than a few years before reverting back to the previous & reactionary status quo?

From a purely political perspective, and as Shariati recounts: In 656 it was nearing the end for that first generation of revolutionaries. Ali, the only person ever born in the Kabaa, was 55 years old and had fought in nearly every major battle. He had also retired from politics to work as a farmer – he still mended his own shoes. He had to be pushed into becoming Caliph, and only did so because the revolution was starting to eat its children: His predecessor had been assassinated, factions had appeared, once-liberated areas were rebelling due to poor political governance, while some new converts may have converted for political gain and were thus possible opportunists with questionable grounding in Islam.

It is as if Raul Castro was seeing the growth of parties who want Guantanamo Bay to be legally part of the USA, that the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution were no longer holding meetings, and that state-ownership of the mother industries of the economy were being sold off to Floridians.

Imam Ali assumed the Caliphate and did what he thought was needed – he restored the political revolution of equality initiated by Mohammad.

Ali waged a war against financial corruption and unfair privileges – he was a politically-enlightened (as well as religiously enlightened) revolutionary, after all. He gave the same wages for politicians as he did to slaves, levelled taxes and opposed the reigning nepotism in favor of seniority. There is no doubt that such leftist ideas rarely reign supreme now, either, and that they were just as opposed by the same unenlightened forces back in the 7th century.

Ali’s message of political piety was obviously not appreciated by everyone, least of in largely-Christian Damascus. The governor there was Muawiyah I, the eventual founder of the Umayyad dynasty. After a political marriage to a powerful Christian tribe and many military successes, Muawiyah was powerful enough to not recognise Ali as the 4th Caliph.

The Christian makeup of Damascus was not the problem: the problem was that the anti-reactionary blaze of the Revolution of Islam had so very much to burn. From Shariati, in that typically overstuffed-yet-somehow-not-unnecessary style of Persian carpets and minatures:

“The traditions, rules, etiquette of society, economic and aristocratic systems, thoughts, ideas, tastes, literature, poetry, music, dance, amusements, social relations, ethics and manners of ‘civilized’ Rome and Iran, the social class system and aristocratic regime, the political system of the Caesars and Kings, the type and form of monastic and clerical traditions, the properties which are hierarchical and bureaucratic, the official and classical system of rule, and finally, the progressive (meaning less austere) Iranian and Roman civilizations certainly had an influence upon the simple Islamic communities.

The wealth, power, position and countless ‘spoils’ which had been earned in the Muslim victories make people grow fat and it is because of this that they are no longer listening to Ali’s advice, his goal and his sufferings. The majority of the people are quite happy with the situation. They are no longer fond of such problems. They show no sensitivity whatsoever to them. These people have now changed into being the servants of wealth and power.”

Shariati has clearly recounted a lessening of political fervour which can be seen in seemingly all political revolutions.

Also for Shariati, Ali is so vital in large part because the power centre in Damascus began to manipulate Islam for its own political conquests, fostering a quietism among the religious authorities.

Comparisons of the post-Mohammad-era political culture with the USSR after Stalin and China in the 1960s show obvious parallels…as they must, because all three were the supremely-modern political revolutions of their respective eras.

After the first generation of revolutionaries passed with Stalin, Khrushchev pursued revisionist policies in the name of individualistic anti-Stalinism; then, when the USSR had pulled itself up to the level of the dominant Western imperialists, they preferred the calm Brezhnev era, which was totally stagnant from a revolutionary perspective; finally, Gorbachev’s era had become so estranged from Russian socialist ideals that he foolishly embraced massive tolerance of counterrevolutionary thought (glasnost), which played a major role in subverting the Russian Revolution. Revolutionaries became “the servants of wealth and power,” instead of the deprived classes.

Following 1949’s victory, after many years of similar revolutionary stagnation and at least seven failed official anti-corruption campaigns, Mao and his fellow first-generation revolutionaries listened to the demands of their youth in the 1960s and empowered them to institute the Cultural Revolution in order to restore revolutionary integrity. Thus when Mao died in 1976 the younger generations had personally witnessed the regeneration of revolutionary ideals, and ones extremely similar to those which Imam Ali was espousing 1,300 years earlier. In 2018, when China is close to returning a socialist nation to the same economic status as the dominant Western imperialists, books such as China is Communist, Dammit by Jeff J. Brown are necessary reading not just in the West but inside China itself – rust never sleeps, after all.

Iran instituted the world’s only other official Cultural Revolution immediately after the 1979 Revolution. Even though it expressly rejected anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist thought, as in China, it came at a very different revolutionary period of revolutionary history. This is a vital nuance, but one which does not overshadow the kinship between the world’s only two official Cultural Revolutions. There was talk of a second one in 2005 with the election of Ahmadinejad, the first Basiji president.

In my 8-part series on China I showed how constant Western pressures (blockade, Vietnam War, Indonesian communist genocide) were key additional reasons for China’s Cultural Revolution – it would thus not be historically surprising if the constant Western pressure on Iran does eventually produce a 2nd Cultural Revolution more exactly similar to the first one in China.

The appetite for and unprecedented success in Cultural Revolution is one of the many, many cultural and political similarities between modern Iran and modern China, as I discussed in part 4 of this series.

Perhaps it is not surprising that the non-Semitic Iranians have been so insistent in their accusation that the Arab early Sunnis turned Islam into an imperialist war machine instead of being content to morally improve their own backyards. But it seems historically verifiable: Instead of the values being determined by the Koran and Islam, the values were being decided by Damascus…unless Ali’s ideas prevailed. Did they?

To Shia: The counter-revolution in Islam in generations after Mohammad

No they did not. Ali’s Cultural Revolution created major opposition from the Byzantine elites in Damascus. Governor Muawiyah openly rebelled, demanding autonomy, refusing diplomacy, and thus sparking the First Fitna (Muslim Civil War).

Muawiyah’s army had become accustomed to war, with regular battles against the Byzantines (or Romans, as they called themselves – North European historians apparently insist on this false distinction). The militarily-innovative Muawiyah had just established Arab naval supremacy over the Byzantine / Eastern Roman Empire in the Battle of the Masts of 654, two years prior to Ali’s assumption of the Caliphate. The death of the Zoroastrian Yazdgerd III, Sassanid Iran’s last ruler, occurred in 651 and thus both East and West presented plenty of war booty for thousands of kilometers.

So, in 656, for Imam Ali to come in with his revolutionary piety instead of worldly gain at a historical time when all roads to conquest were wide open….

War between the partisans of Ali (the word “Shia” means “partisans of Ali”) and Muawiyah ensued and, about to be defeated, Muawiyah famously instructed his soldiers to put Korans on the tip of their lances. Inspiration or blasphemy? The soldiers themselves did not know, either, and the confusion stopped the fighting and saved Muawiyah. Diplomacy resumed, arbitration was unsatisfactory and confusion reigned for several years…which was the obvious goal of Muawiyah.

It was his goal because during this break in the First Fitna the powerful new elites in all directions certainly did not grow to appreciate pious Ali’s views. It’s as if Muawiyah was betting on the continued decreasing of revolutionary fervour and increasing of capitalist-imperialist desires. Ali’s soldiers began to be poached and bought off by Damascus. Infighting and discord increases among Ali’s own partisans. Eventually, Ali could not consolidate his position in Iraq, where Muawiyah’s army began invading.

In 661 Imam Ali is assassinated in in Kufa, Iraq – stabbed in the back while prostrated in prayer.

Ali’s legacy is summed up by Shariati thusly:

“The Prophet is the manifestation of Islamic victory on the foreign front – over outright atheism and polytheism – whereas Ali is the manifestation of Islamic defeat within the ranks, at the hands of hypocrisy.”

Thus we have a major cause of the root of the Iranian obsession with hypocrisy, which is essentially the same thing as “corruption” to the Chinese or “opportunism” to Cubans. Of course, capitalists cannot be called “hypocrites” because capitalism is synonymous with hypocrisy, corruption & opportunism in every sense of the words and their practices & applications.

Equal to Iranian hatred of hypocrisy is “arrogance”, which is used synonymously with “imperialism” in everyday Iranian political discourse: imperialists arrogantly believe that they know better than the conquered locals, after all.

In the same way but with none of the same logic, Americans use “imperialism” and “capitalism” interchangeably, even though they are two very separate (but related) practices. Falsely using these two as synonyms explains why Western media essentially instructs (“read: capitalism”) in the rare case they actually even print the word “imperialism”.

“The political, social and international make-up of Ali was the representative par excellence of a new struggle, a struggle between the leaders and the loyalists of the new set of values, of the new faith, who rose up with new and true slogans of Islam and found themselves confronting the greed and worst elements of the revival of the rule of ignorance…. Ali is the manifestation of an age in which an internecine struggle took place between a loyal faithful and anti-movement elements who donned the masks of faith.”

Ali did not represent “only Iranians” or “only Iraqis” or “only Mohammad’s Banu Hashim clan of the Quraysh tribe” – he represented the idea of moral improvement: that is what true socio-political revolutions must be based on, while forgetting it means the revolution is nearing its end.

This is why Iranian Islamic Socialism has been proven to be not just some petty nationalist, sectarian or racist creed but a true, progressive revolution. The message of Imam Ali is open to all peoples; his political message is open to non-Muslims, if they would only look….which is rather the point of this article.

“Confronting the ‘neo-ignorance’ and ‘neo-aristocracy’, which comes to life within the context of Islam under the cover of truth and the very heart of the justice-seeking Revolution of Islam, Ali is the base of resistance.”

It is not surprising that a “resistance base” – has been chose as the term for the smallest unit of Iran’s Basij – there are 60-80,000 such small bases nationwide, comprising 10-25 million Basiji.

We also see here how Shia view Ali’s opponents as a “neo-aristocracy” which mistakenly installed an era of “neo-ignorance” (“neo” because it is post-Mohammad, but “ignorance” because they opposed the social revolutionary Ali).

Ali resisted the unjust, and this resistance is most certainly the cause of his still-galvanising legacy in 2018. The Tudeh Party, for all their decades of progressive activity, never approached the impact of Ali in Iran- not in politics, nor in culture, nor in morality, nor in anything. Iranian socialists succeeded because they subverted themselves to Ali, and thus won over the masses.

The effects of Ali’s failed ‘Cultural Revolution’ – revolution devolves to empire

Upon Ali’s assassination his son, Hassan, becomes the next caliph, but he is obviously dominated by Muawiyah. Muawiyah is declared Caliph with the promise that upon his death the Caliphate will return to Hassan or, if Hassan has passed, his brother Hossain.

But infamously, upon his death in 680 Muawiyah reneges on this promise and appoints his son Yazid for his successor as Caliph. The Umayyad dynasty is declared.

Thus, not only is Mohammad’s will disregarded, but the house of the Prophet has been deeply marginalized, and the democratic, consultative government of Islam has ended with the re-establishment of monarchy.

Some say that Muawiyah told his son to be gentle with Hossain, the grandson of Prophet Mohammad, but it should be clear that this will not be the case.

The Umayyad dynasty, while it was religiously tolerant – indeed, it was officially secular and Christians held top posts – it was ethnically intolerant, as it was pro-Arab. It was also an imperialist war machine which conquered from Spain to Afghanistan. Its legacy is almost universally considered to be negative among all Islamic historians (except by Syrian nationalists). How could it be otherwise? Given its imperialist nature, it was obviously not revolutionary nor sufficiently Islamic.

(Like Alexander, the Umayyads mistakenly thought they could do anything remotely significant to the continent and perpetual superpower of India – claims of victories there by Greeks or Muslims are woefully & shamefully exaggerated, and serve only to amuse Indians. Unfortunately, the belief of such false claims undermine the amazing achievements of India, and thus have produced a huge Western and Muslim under-appreciation for their singular importance and dominance throughout human history.)

While the actual Sunni-Shia schism undoubtedly started on the day Mohammad died, with the refusal to honor Mohammad’s appointment of Ali as the first Caliph, it might have been averted if Ali’s Cultural Revolution had been implemented.

So…we can say this intellectual schism was a cultural conflict between the Byzantine and Persian cultures in early Islamic society – that would seem to rest upon the belief in some sort of native Persian austerity which lays in opposition to a native Mediterranean belligerence. Or we can say that the Umayyads created a wholly new Islamic culture which preferred tolerance and imperialism (how very modern European) to the socio-political revolutionary Islam of Mohammad. Or we can take a political-ideological view – the Umayyad Dynasty only was able to take power because the Revolution of Islam had weakened in its fervour and integrity.

This weakening was not just by the new Islamic elite like Muawiyah, but with the People themselves – to believe otherwise seems to accept a view that history is controlled by the 1%: why did the 99% not rise up with Ali? Clearly, many preferred Muawiyah’s promises, his larger army, his richer allies, his less pious worldview. Islam was a political revolution and people do tire of revolution, after all – not everyone is a seemingly tireless Lenin or “Mr. Dyanmo” Mehdi Ben Barka of Morocco (assassinated in France in 1965, likely with aid from the Moroccan monarchy).

Of course, while under the reign of the Umayyads many would regret this decision – and these are called “Shia” today.

While they would initially headquarter in Iraq and become culturally rooted in the “Shia crescent” (Lebanon east to Iran), Shia are significantly present in nearly every Asian country from Turkey eastward until Bangladesh & China. Thus, Shi’ism is not just a small regional affair as portrayed in the West; this vast presence helps explain why there never any sort of ideological-fuelled war with Sunnis like beween Protestants and Catholics…until Zionism gained the upper hand, that is.

If the Umayyad reign had been more politically enlightened, then they would have likely superseded Ali, correct? Instead, as time went on, Imam Ali obviously became appreciated for the true & just revolutionary he was. Despite nearly 70 years of rather appalling ritual cursing of Ali – the first male Muslim – in public prayers, as ordered by the Umayyad Islamic authorities, Ali’s message grew and now his picture is all over Iran and elsewhere.

I rather doubt Mao knew the story of Ali, but as he was also an undoubtedly poetic soul I’m sure he would have appreciated it…assuming he had dispensed with the blinding anti-religious hatred of early socialists.

Conclusion:

I hope this historical recounting clearly shows how, for Shia, Ali represents a Cultural Revolution within Islam after the original Revolution of Islam. As I said, my terms and historical parallels may be new, but the ideas were present before I was even born. This will become even more clear in the next part of this series, on Imam Hossain. 20th/21st century revolutionary Shi’ism is largely based around the combination of Prophet Mohammad, Imam Ali & Imam Hossain and the political ideas of modern socialism.

The split between Iran and the rest of the Muslim world is not based on religious doctrine, but on political-economic doctrine. Iran was always fortunate to escape the capitalist-imperialist domination nearly all other Muslim nations have been and are still subjected to.

It is unfortunate that it must be tirelessly repeated to combat the dominant propaganda: The “Sunni-Shia divide” is a concoction of Washington and Tel Aviv designed to further their imperialist capitalism. That is very clear from Netanyahu’s 2016 interview with the US television news program 60 minutes: Simply look at the chilling way he responds to the journalist’s question, “Israel and Saudi Arabia: Are you actually developing an anti-Iran alliance in the Middle East?” It’s clear that he has put plenty of time into thinking about this from the way he tries to persuasively respond: “It doesn’t have to be developed – it’s there anyway.” (here at the 4:30 mark) To me it is clear that he is talking about “developing” the Sunni-Shia split, in defiance of nearly all of its 1400+ years of history.

These two articles should illustrate that the so-called “divide” is nothing compared to the Western European Catholic-Protestant divide but much closer to the Theravada-Mahayana discussion in Buddhism, where things were heated temporarily after the split, but then calmed down into peaceful mutual coexistence. Of course, if the Americans had defeated socialism in Vietnam I’m sure they would have exacerbated this difference and would have manipulated the Vietnamese into waging war on the minority Theravada nations of Sri Lanka, Cambodia, Laos, Burma and Thailand….

Yet Ali does represent a different school of Islamic thought in politics, culture and economics – many would say “the original school”.

Ali poses the question: What is to be done in the face of decreased revolutionary commitment and political counter-revolution? His son Hossain provided the answer: constant self-sacrifice for the benefit of a political-social-moral-cultural-religious goal.

Islam, like communism and Confucianism, views humans as perfectible via correct efforts and beliefs. Thus the martyrdom of Hossain inspires a Permanent Revolution in all Muslims, but especially Shia, and one which is simultaneously personal-moral & social-political.

In my experience, open-minded & religiously-searching Sunnis know, appreciate and are inspired by Hossain and Ali, but more than a few Sunnis seem to have no idea. Of course, how many Christians can truly parse the differences between the apostles of Jesus? Let’s not be harsh – we’re all united here under God (and the concept of tawhid).

However, “martyrdom” is not only about suicide – to believe this obviously extreme idea is to assume so many, many things incorrectly about the Muslim concept of “martyrdom”, and most of which reduce Iranians and Muslims to non-humans.

Clarifying the martyrdom of Hossain, the Western and Muslim views of martrydom, the cultural effects of the promotion of selflessness, and the Iranian governmental policies which have been inspired by this culture, are the subject of the next part in this series.

***********************************

This is the 8th article in an 11-part series which explains the economics, history, religion and culture of Iran’s Revolutionary Shi’ism, which produced modern Iranian Islamic Socialism.

Here is the list of articles slated to be published, and I hope you will find them useful in your leftist struggle!

The WSWS, Irans economy, the Basij & Revolutionary Shiism: an 11-part series

How Iran Got Economically Socialist, and then Islamic Socialist

What privatisation in Iran? or Definitely not THAT privatisation

Parallels between Irans Basij and the Chinese Communist Party

Irans Basij: The reason why land or civil war inside Iran is impossible

A leftist analysis of Irans Basij – likely the first ever in the West

Irans Basij: Restructuring society and/or class warfare

Cultural’ & ‘Permanent Revolution’ in Iranian Revolutionary Shi’ism

‘Martyrdom and Martyrdom’ & martyrdom, and the Basij

‘The Death of Yazdgerd’: The greatest political movie ever explains Iran’s revolution (available with English subtitles for free on Youtube here)

Iran détente after Trump’s JCPOA pull out? We can wait 2 more years, or 6, or…

Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for PressTV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. His work has appeared in various journals, magazines and websites, as well as on radio and television. He can be reached on Facebook.

The Essential Saker II
The Essential Saker II: Civilizational Choices and Geopolitics / The Russian challenge to the hegemony of the AngloZionist Empire
The Essential Saker
The Essential Saker: from the trenches of the emerging multipolar world

The 1943 Volyn Massacre and Ukrainian Nazis Today

The 1943 Volyn Massacre and Ukrainian Nazis Today

July 12, 2018

By Rostislav Ishchenko
Translated by Ollie Richardson and Angelina Siard
cross posted with http://www.stalkerzone.org/rostislav-ishchenko-the-1943-volyn-massacre-and-ukrainian-
nazis-today/

source: https://ukraina.ru/opinion/20180711/1020593387.html

Today [at the time of writing – ed] is a gloomy anniversary – the 75th anniversary of the Volyn massacre. Its start is counted from July 11th, 1943 rather arbitrarily. Excesses with the mass extermination of Poles happened in February 1943, and even in 1942…

It is simply that on July 10th Zygmunt Jan Rumel – the envoy of the Polish government in Volyn, who tried to hold negotiations with Banderists over the peaceful settlement of the conflict – was killed, and on the next day (July 11th) UPA attacked over 150 Polish villages at the same time.

It is precisely from this day onwards that hope for some form of compromise settlement in Banderist-Polish contradictions was lost and events definitively took the form of the mass genocide of Poles.

In recent years the history of the Volyn massacre is described in all details. The refusal of Kiev to admit the guilt of Banderists in the genocide of Poles in Western Ukraine became the reason for a sharp political conflict between modern Ukraine and Poland, which is far from being exhausted and still hasn’t reached its peak. I want to especially highlight that it is thanks to the inadequate policy of the current Ukrainian authorities that the old half-forgotten Banderist-Polish conflict became an actual Ukrainian-Polish one. I.e., the modern Ukrainian State and its people, without there being any need to do so, assumed responsibility for the actions of monsters 75-years ago.

After all, Kiev was only required to condemn absolutely obvious criminals who committed crimes against humanity, to distance themselves from them and thus close the question. But the authorities decided that the formal Ukrainian-ness of murderers can turn criminals into heroes.

This is now already common Ukrainian guilt and common Ukrainian shame, and whitewashing this will not be simple at all. Actually, the official government of the country, with the full non-resistance and even partial support of the people, at the high international level declared that from its point of view the murder of unarmed people – mainly women and children – is justified if it is done in the interests of Ukrainian statehood.

Now the Ukrainian authorities are sincerely surprised by the Polish reaction. After all, they quite recently said (and did) the same thing concerning Russians and received the hot approval of the collective West, and Poland in particular. Naive Ukrainian leaders decided that “if there is no Nazism in Ukraine” when it is aimed against Russians, then it “won’t exist” concerning the Poles too. Now they accuse the West and Poland of double standards.

After all, the standards are, of course, double, but nobody especially tried to hide this. There was a need to take this into account when developing domestic and foreign policy. Pathological russophobia is an indulgence in the opinion of the West only if crimes are committed against Russians. But it doesn’t mean at all that the West is ready to tolerate the same thing in relation to itself.

Once, even before the collapse of the USSR, the president of a Croatia that had just declared its independence Franjo Tuđman came to Kiev on a visit. Now that he has long been dead, and Croatia tries to obtain a “human face”and turn into a “normal democracy”, even the West tries not to remember his regime as being too dirty to shake hands with. But back then the establishment of a totalitarian dictatorship and the ethnic cleansing of Serbians were still ahead, and Tuđman was considered to be a democrat dissident.

In the schedule of Tuđman’s visit to Kiev there was a speech in front of university students. In his speech he called Croatia “the Ukraine of the Balkans”. The parallel was clear enough. Croatians don’t like their Serbian “elder brother”in the same way that Ukrainians don’t like their Russian one. It is necessary to say that as of that moment Tuđman was deeply mistaken concerning Russian-Ukrainian relations. 25 years of extreme propaganda were needed in order to bring the matter to the Russian-Ukrainian civil war in Ukraine.

But even now, if not to take into account the several tens of thousands of ideological descendants of Banderists, in the broad masses of the population there aren’t any of those who have become gripped by the pathological hatred that forced Croatians to invent the srbosjek in the years of World War II, and at the beginning of the 90’s to stage the most large-scale ethnic cleansing on the European continent in the last 70 years. Indifference and apathy are quite characteristic for the citizens of Ukraine, thanks to which the pathetic 1% of the total number of the population can stage maidans, launch war in Donbass, and in the end – exterminate their own State.

And here we arrive at the second mistake of Tuđman. He overestimated the common sense of Ukrainian nationalists, who already back then were actively moving into power in Kiev. Let’s look at the same Croatia. Croatians don’t like not only Serbians. If the Americans didn’t forbid them, they would commit genocide against Bosnians too. They also can’t forgive the Hungarians for the fact that in 1102 Coloman the Learned liquidated the independent kingdom of Croatia. After this only Hitler in 1941 allowed the creation of an independent Croatia.

So in general, in the same way as Ukrainians, Croatians, should they have the desire, could turn their nationalism against their neighbors. But they preferred to concentrate on Serbians, because it is impossible to create a State if all your neighbors are enemies, since they will suffocate it in its cradle via collective efforts.

During this same speech at the Kiev university, Tuđman, answering a question about his attitude towards Tito – someone who he was an irreconcilable political opponent of, said: “Tito, of course, was a communist, but he was Croatian”. This is another noteworthy point. Croatian nationalists, even such radical ones as Tuđman, were able to restrain their ardor not only in foreign policy, but also in the domestic political arena. Being in conflict with the large Serbian community that they finally were able to force out beyond the borders of Croatia, they tried to avoid other serious conflicts, including for ideological reasons.

Only thanks to this did they manage to create a State in rather difficult conditions. Even in the West there was no consensus concerning the expediency of the disintegration of Yugoslavia at the beginning of the 90’s. It is Germany that acted as the locomotive of the process, but there was no guarantee that it would manage to convince its partners in the EU and that the Americans, who Milosevic quite suited at first, would agree to it [disintegration of Yugoslavia – ed]. I.e., the external situation didn’t favor the builders of an independent Croatia. Inside the country, as was already said, there was a strong Serbian community that compactly lived on its historical lands, and which sought to maintain State unity with Serbia. If in these conditions the Croatians started laying down historical claims to all its neighbors, and inside the country a witch-hunt on ideological grounds would be arranged, then independent Croatia would disappear without having ever appeared.

This is exactly what Ukrainians did. Having received independence on a plate and having a quite loyal population, nationalists immediately started to create lines of division in society. Either a pathetic small group of Galician-speaking enthusiasts tries to “Ukrainise” (or to be more exact – Galicianise) all of Ukraine, 83% of which speak Russian, or a small group of “fascistising” marginals try to impose Bandera and Shukhevych being heroes on the grandchildren of the winners [Red Army – ed], and to almost present collaborators from OUN and UPA as the only winners in World War II, during which they allegedly fought against both Germany and the USSR.

It is clear that all of this didn’t make them more popular inside the country. That’s why they were able to come to power only via a coup and remain in power only via open violence: arbitrary arrests and murders. Naturally, they see their main enemy as Russia, just because a Russophobic regime that also openly calls the West for war against Russia can’t please Moscow.

It would be logical to expect that Kiev will try not to irritate other neighbors (Poland, Hungary, Romania, Moldova, Belarus). After all, the strongest internal conflict multiplied by disgusting relations with Russia, which definitively declared itself as a superpower, already practically doesn’t give the Ukrainian state any chances of succeeding. But the Ukrainian leadership went in another direction. It managed to attack literally all ethnic minorities, to touch the sore points of literally all their neighbors, and to make the idea of partitioning Ukraine extremely popular in the Eastern European countries that border it.

Moreover, by trying to acquit Banderists for the Volyn massacre, Kiev put forward the concept of a local Ukrainian-Polish war in Volyn. The Ukrainian point of view is that in the region there were clashes between UPA and Armia Krajowa, a by-product of which were attacks on Polish and Ukrainian settlements as potential places of basing enemy forces.

But this in its root contradicts the legend of the simultaneous fight of Banderists against Hitler and Stalin. Armia Krajowa was subordinated to the Polish government in exile in London and was equally negative about both Berlin and Moscow. Here, it would seem, is a natural ally in the “fight” on two fronts, which was allegedly carried out by Banderists. But instead, UPA, relying on the support of the Nazis who they allegedly are at war with, massacred with rapture the Poles who are actually at war with the Germans.

This isn’t just the full collapse of the legend about UPA being an anti-Hitler force. The fact is that by entering into a senseless and doomed in advance discussion with the Poles, Ukrainians stimulate the national memory of the same Poland. Moreover, they force Warsaw, defending its position in the international arena, to actively release into the public domain documents and materials about the true nazi and collaborationist essence of OUN and UPA.

I will emphasise that Poland, which for a long time pretended that it doesn’t see the development of Nazism in Ukraine, is now forced to support the Russian position that Warsaw earlier tried to ignore and even disavow. The long-term propaganda activities of Poland based on a mass of real documents are much more dangerous for Kiev than Hungary’s demonstrative blockade of events in NATO and the EU with the participation of Ukrainians, as well as the feeble efforts of Romania to return the territories that it lost in 1940.

Hungary will withdraw its objections when Kiev becomes reasonable and stops threatening the Hungarian community in Transcarpathia. I.e., the key to an instant solution of this conflict is in the hands of Kiev, and as soon as Ukraine satisfies the fair demands of Budapest the conflict will be settled without any political consequences. Romania alone doesn’t constitute a danger and can’t dream about lands for at least another 100 years. But Poland’s forced exposure of the true essence of Ukrainian nationalism will have long-term consequences that are harmful for Ukraine.

Once launched, the propaganda machine can’t be immediately stopped. Poland has positioned itself as the “lawyer of Ukraine” in the EU and NATO for too long. In the West there is the opinion that Warsaw’s politicians have a better grasp of the Ukrainian perspective than their colleagues from other European countries. If Russia isn’t trusted very often and is suspected of forging aggressive plans, then Poland is excluded from suspicions. If Poland affirms that in Ukraine the ideological followers of the collaborators who served Hitler are today in power, then it means that this is indeed the reality. And suddenly in recent months articles written by journalists who “started to see clearly” and discovered Nazism in Ukraine started appearing in the western press one after the other.

I think that the information activities of Poland very much assisted in such “enlightenment”. Its indirect result is that the West is obliged to recognise with shame that Russia, which already for the 5th year has pointed out the nazi essence of the Kiev regime, appeared to be right. And now the Poles — the main western specialists on Ukraine – also confirmed it. And further there is a logical question: so maybe Russia was right about everything else too?

After this Kiev even dares to be surprised that Merkel so desperately fights for “Nord Stream-2” and the Bulgarians dream of returning to the construction of South Stream. After all, if in Kiev it is indeed nazis who are in power, and Russia is right about everything, then it is for sure that Europe can’t cope without the [gas – ed] “streams”. After all, Europe isn’t Ukraine, and it doesn’t plan to buy “reverse” Russian gas from China extremely expensively.

In general, by glorifying Nazis under the applause of the West to spite Russia, Ukrainian politicians, due to their narrow-mindedness, decided that if the US and NATO are against Russia and Hitler was against Russia, so public solidarisation with Nazi lackeys from OUN and UPA will be met in the West with approval. Having rushed to the gaping heights ahead of the locomotive, Kiev, as is usually the case for it, deceived itself.

Along the way, Ukrainian statehood once again practically lost any chance of being successful. A regime that is officially recognised as being Nazi – and everything is heading towards this [vis-a-vis the junta in Kiev – ed] – isn’t needed by anybody neither in Europe nor in the world. Even by those who share the views of Adolf. Having split and submerged their own country in civil war, nationalists now hammer the last nail into the lid of its coffin, ensuring international isolation for Ukraine.

%d bloggers like this: