الحشد الشعبي قوات الفيتكونغ العراقية

الحشد الشعبي قوات الفيتكونغ العراقية

أغسطس 7, 2017

محمد صادق الحسيني

لا خيار أمام العراقيين إلا التوسّل بدرّة التاج العراقي المتمثلة بالحشد الشعبي، بعد أن أصبح حبل النجاة الوحيد المتبقي لصناعة عراق ما بعد القهر والحرمان والتبعية والنفوذ الأجنبي…!

لا شك، ولا ريب، ولا ترديد أنه من المهمّ جداً أن نعطي المرجعية الدينية العليا في العراق بشخص آية الله العظمى السيستاني حقها، ونشير إلى فضلها الممتاز في إطلاق مشروع الحشد الشعبي العراقي في لحظة تاريخية فاصلة من تاريخ العراق لم يكن بالإمكان عبورها، إلا من خلال مثل هذه الفتوى المرجعية الرشيدة…

لكن ما لا يقلّ عنه أهمية أيضاً بتقديري هو التوقف طويلاً عند المخزون الشعبي الهائل من الذاكرة العراقية المتأجّجة تديّناً ووطنيةً وهمّةً، والتي كانت تبحث عن لحظتها أو فرصتها التاريخية لتعبّر عن نفسها بطريقة مختلفة ومتميّزة، فجاءت الفتوى بمثابة الشرارة التي أشعلت حقولاً وليس فقط حقلاً واحداً من الطاقات الكامنة في أجيال من عمر الإنسان العراقي الذي شكّل عملياً البيئة الحاضنة التي لولاها ما كان لأيّ كان ولا لأيّ تعليماتٍ مهما بلغت في قدسيتها أن تحرّك هذا الطوفان الهادر وباتجاه الأهداف العليا المنشودة بهذه السرعة وبهذا الزخم الذي رأيناه يشتعل على أرض الرافدين الطاهرة والمطهّرة كالنار في الهشيم…

لرسم بعض ملامح صورة ما حصل ومستمرّ في الحصول في العراق، يمكننا الاستعانة بقول إحدى أمّهات الشهداء، وهي تخاطب أهل الموصل بعد التحرير مباشرة بالقول:

«ترسناكم.. فرح، والحزن بينا يطوف..!».

أيّ لقد قدّمنا لكم كلّ هذا الفرح الكبير يا أهلنا الموصليين بكلّ فخر واعتزاز، بفعل عملية التحرير والتطهير التي أنجزها أبناء العراق لكم، لكن ذلك ينبغي أن لا يجعل أحداً ينسى أو يتناسى، بأنّ ذلك يحصل وحزام الحزن الكبير والواسع الذي يلفّ حولنا – نحن جمهور الناس – طولاً وعرضاً على امتداد جغرافيا العراق وتاريخه وأعماقه كان حاضراً على امتداد فعل التحرير والتطهير وما بعده…!

إنها خلطة وعجينة عجيبة وفريدة من نوعها قد تلخص ليس سيكولوجية فلسفة «طواف» الحزن العراقي فحسب، بل وربما يمكنها أن تشكل فلسفة القهر العام الذي تعيشه الجماهير العربية والإسلامية على امتداد وطننا الكبير وعلى امتداد قرون التاريخ الطويلة…

وإلا كيف ينام العراق والأمة معه على ضيم، في لحظة غفلة من الزمان، بفعل داعش وأخواته في العام 2014 على خلفية جيش متقهقر ودولة تائهة وعراق حزين، ليستفيق في العام 2017 على حشد يُضاهي أكبر جيوش المنطقة ويصبح واحداً من أعمدة النور التي ستغيّر وجه العالمين العربي والإسلامي إنْ لم يكن العالم، وليس العراق وحده…!؟

إنه ليس مجرد كمّ من البشر حملوا البنادق وتدرّبوا للدفاع عن وطنهم وخاضوا معارك الدفاع المقدّس عن دينهم وعرضهم وأرضهم، وهو ما حصل بالفعل أيضاً، وفي أكثر ميدان والموصل ليس آخرها وتلعفر وما بقي من أرض العراق الطاهر بالانتظار…!

إنه ليس تضافر جهود المخلصين من أبناء العراق لتعبئة الناس باتجاه القيام بالواجب الديني والوطني فحسب…!

إنه ليس فقط انصهار فصائل وكتل وتيارات وأحزاب وقوى وطوائف أو مذاهب من أجل الدفاع عن العراق واستعادة أرضه وقيمه وروحه النقية من الخصم المتوحّش المغمس بأشكال الرذيلة كافة..!

إنه بات حتى بمعنى من المعاني، كما أسلفنا أبعد وأعمق وأكثر تعبيراً وتجسيداً من مجرد تطبيق فتوى دينية خطيرة رغم أهميتها الكبرى ودورها المتميّز…!

إنّها صيرورة فعل وانفعال وجدان شعب بجمهوره ورجاله الممتازين وتراكم وتبلور عقل قيادة دينية ووطنية تاريخية، أثمرت ما بات يُعرَف عنه اليوم الحشد الشعبي العراقي…!

وعليه، فالحشد اليوم ليس جسماً عسكرياً تابعاً للقيادة العسكرية العراقية فحسب… ولا تشكيلاً أو مكوّناً مجتمعياً يضمّ ألوية وسرايا وكتائب وفصائل وتيارات شعبية عراقية فحسب… ولا هو مشروع إعادة صياغة الجسم الوطني العراقي بعد كلّ ما أصابه من كسور ورضوض وأمراض أو وعكات أو تعثر فحسب…!

إنه مشروع إعادة بناء العراق من جديد على أسس ومعايير وفلسفة بناء مشروع دولة مدنية دينية معاصرة أصلها ثابت وفرعها في السماء…!

بل قد يكون حتى أوسع وأبعد مدى من ذلك كله، إنّه يرقى إلى أن يكون مشروع حركة تحرّر وطني للعراق كما يمكن له أن يتحوّل مستقبلاً نموذجاً يُحتذى به من سائر بلدان العالم…!

تماماً كما لعب مثل هذا الدور مشروع حزب الله لبنان وأنصار الله اليمن وكلّ أشكال التعبئة والنهضة الحديثة في أمصارنا العربية والإسلامية، واذا ما تجاوزنا الفكر السياسي المحدود، قد نستطيع القول إنه حتى أهمّ من مشروع الحرس الثوري الإيراني وقوات الفيتكونغ الفيتنامية…!

إنه عين العراق التي بها سيتمّ الحفاظ على وحدته وانسجامه وقوامه الوطني والعقيدي، كما هو عين العراق على الأمة، بما يسير في لحظة مصيرية تاريخية، كما هي الآن حيث تتبلور وحدة الدم ووحدة الساحات لكلّ أشكال رجال الله الأمر الذي بات يشكل الواقع الأقوى الذي يفرض نفسه في ظلّ حراك حثيث دولي باتجاه إعادة صياغة نظام عالمي جديد وفرضه كبديل لمعادلة المنتصرين في الحرب العالمية الثانية…

نظام يفترض أن يكون لنا فيه نحن المسلمين والعرب ومحور المقاومة والعراقيين بشكل خاص، دور متميزّ وأساسيّ في العهود المقبلة..!

وعليه نستطيع القول إنّ فلسفة الحشد الشعبي استطاعت خلال الأشهر القليلة الماضية أن تسير بسرعة فائقة وهائلة نحو السمو والرفعة، ما جعل هذا الكيان الوليد الطري العود يبرز وسط تزاحم الأضداد بمثابة الرقم الصعب الذي سيلعب دوراً مركزياً مهماً ليس فقط في إعادة صناعة عراق مختلف ومتميّز يتجاوز فيه عثرات وعورات ما بعد ثورة العشرين العراقية العظيمة، بل سيرقى قريباً إلى مصاف القوى التي ستلعب دوراً في إعادة صياغة المجتمع الدولي الجديد على المستويين الإقليمي والدولي، مجتمع ما بعد سقوط معادلتي سايكس بيكو ومعادلة عالم ما بعد الدولار الأميركي قولاً واحداً…!

الحشد الشعبي ليس فقط لا يمكن لأحد، أيّ أحد حلّه، بل إنّ من يفكر بحلّه سيرحل مع الأميركيين وغيرهم ممن دخلوا العراق خلسة وتسلّلاً في لحظة غفلة من الزمن..!

العراق بالحشد الشعبي خرج من القمقم ولا يستطيع أحد، أيّ أحد، إعادته إليه من جديد…!

إنه قوات الفيتكونغ العراقية التي ليس فقط ستنجز مهمة إنهاء الدواعش التكفيريين، بل وستطهّر العراق من رجس المحتلين الأميركيين وكلّ أذنابهم المباشرين وغير المباشرين، ومنهم المرجفين في المدينة..!

القدر المتيقن من كلّ ما ذكرناه أعلاه، هو أنّ الحشد بات ركناً أساسياً من أركان مستقبل العراق، ومستقبل العراق لا يمكن لأحد بيعه أو المساومة عليه لا في سوق العرب ولا في بازار العجم، نقطة أول السطر…!

بحول الله وقوّته اليد العليا لنا.

بعدنا طيّبين، قولوا الله…

مقالات مشابهة

The Neoconservatives and the “Coming World”: A response to the questions of a virtual friend

July 31, 2017

by Amir Nour (1)

« In the emerging world of ethnic conflict and civilizational clash, Western belief in the universalityof Western culture suffers three problems: it is false; it is immoral; and it is dangerous »

Samuel Phillips Huntington

« The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order »

Dear friend, I have just read the The Neoconservatives and the “Coming World”: A response to the questions of a virtual friendgreat question you have asked me about the world’s future according to the American Neo-conservative’s vision. This question came quite naturally to your mind when reading the interview (2) given by one of the most impassioned advocates of this school of thought – Thomas Barnett – author of the controversial book “The Pentagon’s New map: War and Peace in the twenty-first century”.

Assuredly, we’re dealing here with a major issue whose understanding is a sine qua non condition for deciphering both the contingencies and the dominant trends characterizing the evolution of international relations, particularly since the end of the Cold War.

Indeed, the turmoil and convulsions the world is experiencing since the turn of the third millennium, more particularly in the region that should be of a paramount interest to you – i.e. the Arab-Muslim world – are one of the most significant manifestations of the process of multidimensional change underway. Most probably, they are harbingers of the “coming world”- in the words of Malek Bennabi- one radically different from that which we have known since the end of the Second World War to the fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet empire in 1992.

The ensuing new international reality -the emergence of the United States of America as the sole global superpower- has also been a long shot since it has in turn faded as a result of both the financial and economic crisis that erupted in 2007-2008 and continues to this day, and the rise of new assertive international actors, including the BRICS members (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa).

In all likelihood, this new “coming world” will be multipolar. This is a frightening prospect for the proponents of the perpetuation of the Old Order established by and for the West several centuries ago. And it is quite naturally therefore that the West, under the aegis of its American hegemon leader, is fiercely trying to hinder the realization of this inexorable prospect.

In the first chapter of my aforementioned book (3), I tried to analyze the reasons for this “fear”. At the core of those is undoubtedly the persistence of the imperial ideology that took over American policy after World War II: Neo-conservatism.

As explained in a related Wikipedia article, neoconservatism is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s of the twentieth century, among conservative-leaning Democrats who became disenchanted with the party’s foreign policy and the “New Left” culture. The first writings of the neo-conservative current appeared in the Jewish monthly New York Monthly Review Magazine Commentary, published by the American Jewish Committee. And the first neo-conservative theorist to have adopted this word and is considered therefore as the founder of this ideology is Irving Kristol (who was militant Trotskyist in his early days!). He is the founder of the famous neo-conservative think tank: Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

Neo-conservatism peaked in influence during the Republican presidential administration of Ronald Reagan whose doctrine was guided by anticommunism and opposition to the global influence of the USSR. It reached its climax at the turn of the last century with the Bush Doctrine of exporting democracy, including by means of military force if necessary. The prominent neo-conservative newspapers are Commentary and the Weekly Standard. There are also neo-conservative think tanks on foreign policy, including American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Heritage Foundation, JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) and, of course, the PNAC (4).

In foreign policy, the Neocons defend “the military power of Democratic States in international relations in order to establish a new international order”. In a PNAC manifesto published in 1996, they laid out their quintessential thought and principles as follows:

-Moral clarity and benevolent hegemony;
-Preventing the emergence of a rival power;
-End of “complacency” towards dictatorships;
-Refusal of the decline of the American power because it is the first democratic power of the world;
-Upgrading of the military tool to respond to aggression.

The Neo-conservatives say they want a new international order based on freedom, according to the designs that are not those of Kant and Wilson, to which they reproach the impotence, but which take their source in the writings of Moses Maimonides and Saint Augustine. They criticize the United Nations and international law in the name of morality. At major international conferences, they prefer smaller coalitions according to the “mission-defines-the-coalition” principle. They support Israel. Their creed is interventionism. Therefore, the United States “must be recognized as the flagship nation of human rights and export democracy and freedom all over the world if need be by force”.

Among the emblematic ideas of the Neo-conservatives, features prominently the theory of “creative chaos” -developed mainly by Michael Ledeen, a former correspondent in Rome of the New Republic. It is a project aiming to “establish a state of war and permanent instability in the Middle East that would enable the Americans and Israelis to preserve their geostrategic objectives in the region, even by re-redrawing it’s map”. Neo-conservatives do not consider the stability of the world a good to maintain but instead advocate the virtues of destabilisation.

Such was the opinion of Robert Kagan, co-founder with William Kristol of the PNAC. He was the originator of the letter of 26 January 1998 sent to Bill Clinton asking him to conduct another policy in Iraq, one with a view to toppling Saddam Hussein to preserve American interests in the Gulf. The same can be said about Robert Cooper, a British partisan of neoconservatism who advocated a doctrine of “imperialist liberalism” granting the “right” to “civilized countries” to use force against their “foreign ennemies” (5).

It was, however, President G. W. Bush who is notoriously known for having endorsed and put in practice these neo-conservative principles. He did so by invading Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 through an extreme instrumentalization of the unfortunate though “miraculous” events of 11 September 2001. In his 31 December 2005 State of the Union Address, he explained that there is no question of satisfying the “false comfort of isolationism”, which ends in “danger and decline”. America must “lead” the world. It’s a security imperative. “The alternative to American leadership is a much more dangerous and anxious world.” In his view, America must therefore continue to “act boldly in favour of freedom”. And as in 1945 “when she liberated the camps of death, she must accept the call of history to deliver the oppressed”, Half the world lives in a democracy, he said. “We do not forget the other half, in countries like Syria, Burma, Zimbabwe, North Korea and Iran because the demands of justice and the Peace of the world also require their freedom” (6).

To do so, the Security Council of a United Nations, although until then so decried by the neo-conservatives, becomes the privileged instrument for conducting hazardous military expeditions with chaotic consequences for some “recalcitrant” States and their peoples, particularly in the MENA region (7). George W. Bush named as his Ambassador to this important UN body John Bolton, a neo-conservative “hawk” who recounts his UN experience in a book with a very significant title (8).

Almost a decade later, and notwithstanding the debacles of unilateralism and military interventionism he has been preaching ceaselessly, Robert Kagan continues to exert a strong influence on the American establishment. In his book (9) published in 2012, he strived to refute the thesis of the “Decline of America”. This book is said to have become the bedside book of President Barack Obama, who stated in his State of the Union Address in January 2012: “America is back. Anyone who tells you otherwise, anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned doesn’t know what they’re talking about”.

This vision is shared by Steve Bannon, the mastermind of the new administration (before being excluded from it) of President Donald Trump. As explained in the excellent article by Pepe Escobar (10), Steve Bannon “a man who eats history and political theory essays for breakfast (…) a post-truth Machiavelli behind the most powerful of Princes”, sees our current geopolitical juncture as “the ultimate battle between Good and Evil (no, Nietzsche’s verdict, for him, does not apply) ‘Good’ in our case is Christian civilization and its history of two millennia – with a possible place of honor for the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution. Its opposite, ‘evil’ is conveyed by a whole series of ‘existential threats’ – from the post-modern, technocratic/secular elites (the inner enemy) to Islam (the enemy in general)”.

For more insight into the roots of this neo-conservative ideology and its impact on the policy that characterizes the United States today, I recommend reading the analysis written by Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould (11). Armed with a razor-sharp writing style and remarkably documented references, they dissect the history of the Neocon take over of the United States, through a four-step-process presented as follows:

– American Imperialism Leads the World into Dante’s Vision of Hell
– How Neocons Push for War by Cooking the Books
– How the CIA Created a Fake Western Reality for ‘Unconventional Warfare’
– The Final Stage of the Machiavellian Elites’ Takeover of America

The Neocons, the Arab World and Israel

Dear friend, after outlining this long but indispensable historic and geostrategic overview, I come to the other major question underlying the issue you raised: Why is the Arab-Muslim world the main victim of this American neo-conservative ideology, one that is supposedly the bedrock of the New World Order and the ultimate culmination of a long process of a history coming to an end – according to another neo-conservative theorist: Francis Fukuyama? We now know that History did not end; on the contrary, it is witnessing an unprecedented acceleration, and the American Empire, far from bringing peace and prosperity to the world, has led all mankind on the road to the great disorder in the world and destructive chaos in the Arab-Muslim world, especially through the ill-named “Arab Springs”.

Aided by a formidable “media compressor roller” in its enterprise of global domination on behalf of a so-called messianic “manifest destiny”, the American empire undertook to redesign the world map in order to be able to establish, in the long term, a kind of « World State » or a « World Government ». This presupposes the destruction of nations by dissolving them into regions and continental poles. This is probably what Herbert Marshall McLuhan, the Canadian sociologist and Vatican adviser – notably known for coining the expression « the medium is the message » – had in mind when he wrote in 1968 “War and Peace in the Global village” (12) his revolutionary book in which he depicted a planet made ever smaller by new technologies, and used the concept of “glocal”, a mixture of global and local, foreshadowing the fundamental architecture of the New World Order.

As is well explained in an article (13) published in 2012, after the fall of communism, the epicenter of this policy was set in the Middle East “where not only the great reserves of hydrocarbons are located, but also the State of Israel, the real mother house of Globalism, which has been impeding all attempts of peace in this region of the world since its creation”. The map of this part of the planet has long been redesigned within Judeo-American think tanks as well as by military commands whose ultimate goals are the fragmentation of nations on ethnic and religious bases (leaving Israel as the only regional superpower), but also by pushing Islam to operate its “Vatican II” so as to be integrated tomorrow into the vast global market in gestation. Because Europe « is being in Dormition, whether we like it or not, Islam is the only bulwark against the total stranglehold of the Tel-Aviv and Washington traders on the world”. This desire to subdue Islam also aims to “create a single religion” (which should bring together all religious currents). This will only be achieved through the division of Muslims, Sunnis and Shiites. In view of this, one can easily understand why the sacred Islamic State (14) is also planned, including Mecca and Medina, to better control Islam and integrate it into a new world order, which is not possible today. Indeed this religion does not have an identified hierarchy (15).

In his excellent book “Black Terror White Soldiers: Islam, Fascism & the New Age”, David Livingstone states that because they are far too ignorant of the histories of the rest of the world, and being aware of only the accomplishments of Greece, Rome and Europe, Westerners have been made to believe that their societies represent the most superior examples of civilization. This idea, he continues, derives from the hidden influence of those who believe in and teach that history would attain its fulfillment when man would become God, and make his own laws. Livingstone concludes that this is the basis of the propaganda which has been used to foster a Clash of Civilizations, whereby the Islamic world is presented as stubbornly adhering to the anachronistic idea of “theocracy”. Where once the spread of Christianity and civilizing the world were used as pretexts for colonization, today a new White Man’s Burden makes use of human rights and democracy to justify imperial aggression. And because, after centuries of decline, the Islamic world is incapable of mobilizing a defense, the Western powers, as part of their age-old strategy of Divide and Conquer, have fostered the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, to both serve as agent-provocateurs and to malign the image of Islam.

Few weeks after the Amercian invasion of Iraq, Ari Shavit wrote a thought-provoking piece in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz under the significant title « White Man’s Burden » (16). He stated that the war against Iraq was based on an « ardent faith disseminated by a small group of 25 or 30 neo-conservatives, almost all of them Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals (a partial list: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Elliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer), people who are mutual friends and cultivate one another and are convinced that political ideas are a major driving force of history. They believe that the right political idea entails a fusion of morality and force, human rights and grit. The philosophical underpinnings of the Washington neo-conservatives are the writings of Machiavelli, Hobbes and Edmund Burke. They also admire Winston Churchill and the policy pursued by Ronald Reagan ».

Quoting William Kristol, he added that this war was also based on « the new American understanding that if the United States does not shape the world in its image, the world will shape the United States in its own image ». At a deeper level, according to Kristol, it is « a greater war, for the shaping of a new Middle East. It is a war that is intended to change the political culture of the entire region. Because what happened on September 11, 2001, Kristol says, is that the Americans looked around and saw that the world is not what they thought it was. The world is a dangerous place. Therefore the Americans looked for a doctrine that would enable them to cope with this dangerous world. And the only doctrine they found was the neo-conservative one ».

This opinion is obviously shared by Charles Krauthammer for whom « the war in Iraq is being fought to replace the demonic deal America cut with the Arab world decades ago. That deal said: you will send us oil and we will not intervene in your internal affairs ». That deal effectively expired on September 11, 2001, Krauthammer says. Since that day, the Americans have understood that “if they allow the Arab world to proceed in its evil ways – suppression, economic ruin, sowing despair – it will continue to produce more and more bin Ladens”. America thus reached the conclusion that it has no choice: it has to take on itself the project of rebuilding the Arab world. Therefore, the Iraq war « is really the beginning of a gigantic historical experiment whose purpose is to do in the Arab world what was done in Germany and Japan after World War II ».

The article ends with a slightly divergent opinion expressed by Thomas Friedman, The New York Times columnist, who is not part of the group, although he didn’t oppose the war and was convinced that « the status quo in the Middle East is no longer acceptable. The status quo is terminal. And therefore it is urgent to foment a reform in the Arab world ». Friedman thought « it’s the war the neo-conservatives wanted. It’s the war the neo-conservatives marketed. Those people had an idea to sell when September 11 came, and they sold it. Oh boy, did they sell it. So this is not a war that the masses demanded. This is a war of an elite (…) I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened ». Still, he was of the opinion that « it’s not some fantasy the neo-conservatives invented. It’s not that 25 people hijacked America. You don’t take such a great nation into such a great adventure with Bill Kristol and the Weekly Standard and another five or six influential columnists. In the final analysis, what fomented the war is America’s over-reaction to September 11; the genuine sense of anxiety that spread in America after September 11. It is not only the neo-conservatives who led us to the outskirts of Baghdad. What led us to the outskirts of Baghdad is a very American combination of anxiety and hubris ».

Echoeing Ari Shavit, Stephen Green affirms (17) that since 9-11, a small group of neo-conservatives –many of whom are senior officials in the Defense Department, National Security Council and Office of the Vice President– have effectively gutted–they would say reformed–traditional American foreign and security policy. After reviewing the internal security backgrounds of some of the best known among them, he concludes that they had dual agendas, while professing to work for the internal security of the United States against its terrorist enemies.

Bill Christison (18) and Kathleen Christison reach the same conclusion (19). They say that since the long-forgotten days when the State Department’s Middle East policy was run by a group of so-called Arabists, U.S. policy on Israel and the Arab world “has increasingly become the purview of officials well known for tilting toward Israel”. These people, “who can fairly be called Israeli loyalists, are now at all levels of government, from desk officers at the Defense Department to the deputy secretary level at both State and Defense, as well as on the National Security Council staff and in the vice president’s office”.

An examination of the cast of characters in Bush administration policymaking circles, they say, reveals a “startlingly pervasive network of pro-Israel activists, and an examination of the neo-cons’ voluminous written record shows that Israel comes up constantly as a neo-con reference point, always mentioned with the United States as the beneficiary of a recommended policy, always linked with the United States when national interests are at issue”.

The two authors point out to a telling example of the drafting by Feith, Perle, and both David and Meyrav Wurmser of a policy paper issued, in 1996, by an Israeli think tank and written for newly elected Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. Through this document, they urged Israel “to make a ‘clean break’ from pursuit of the peace process, particularly its land-for-peace aspects, which the authors regarded as a prescription for Israel’s annihilation”.

The document’s authors saw the principal threat to Israel coming, we should not be surprised to discover now, from Iraq and Syria and advised that focusing on the removal of Saddam Hussein would kill two birds with one stone by also thwarting Syria’s regional ambitions.

According to the Christisons, Elliott Abrams is “another unabashed supporter of the Israeli right, now bringing his links with Israel into the service of U.S”, after his appointment as Middle East director on the NSC staff.

Interestingly enough, the Christisons were of the view that the dual loyalists in the Bush administration “have given added impetus to the growth of a messianic strain of Christian fundamentalism that has allied itself with Israel in preparation for the so-called End of Days”. These crazed fundamentalists, they say, see Israel’s domination over all of Palestine as a “necessary step toward fulfillment of the biblical Millennium, consider any Israeli relinquishment of territory in Palestine as a sacrilege, and view warfare between Jews and Arabs as a divinely ordained prelude to Armageddon”, which raises the horrifying but very real prospect of an apocalyptic Christian-Islamic war”.

Writing a commentary in a recent issue of Foreign Policy magazine (20), Elliott Abrams –in his capacity as a senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relation-, predicts that “even in the best-case scenario, with the Islamic State defeated and losing its control over a “state,” it may continue to exist as a terrorist group — and in any event al Qaeda and other jihadi groups will not disappear”. This, he concludes, “will not end our involvement in Middle East conflicts and may in fact lead it to increase. There will be no repeat of the Iraq wars, with vast American armies on the ground, but there will need to be a long continuation of the sort of commitment we see today”.

As is explained by Alison Weir in her book (21), « Few Americans today are aware that US support enabled the creation of modern Israel. Even fewer know that US politicians pushed

this policy over the forceful objections of top diplomatic and military experts ». Prodigiously documented, this book brings together « meticulously sourced evidence to illuminate a reality that differs starkly from the prevailing narrative. It provides a clear view of the history that is key to understanding one of the most critically important political issues of our day ».

All of the above fits perfectly with the thesis of the “New Sykes-Picot” that I develop in my book.

In conclusion, I believe I can assert that if Men are the main driving force of the events that make world history, they are certainly not the movers and shakers of its destiny. This -as the great Algerian thinker Malek Bennabi wrote in the past century in his flagship book “l’Afro-asiatisme” (22) – is realized “in spite of the will of men (for) human reason would be futile if it did not coincide with the processes of facts that impose God’s will on History. And it would be sacrilegious if it wanted to deflect the course of history as if it wanted to oppose God’s will and purposes”.

* *
*

Notes:

[1] Algerian researcher in international relations, author of the book « L’Orient et l’Occident à l’heure d’un nouveau Sykes-Picot » (“The Orient and the Occident in time of a new Sykes-Picot”), Editions Alem El Afkar, Algiers, 2014.  He is a fervent advocate of the henceforth vital “dialogue of civilizations”, the alternative option of which in today’s increasingly globalized and polarized world, is a catastrophic “clash of civilizations.
[2] “A future worth creating: Interview with Dr. Thomas Barnett“:
Http://www.checkpoint-online.ch/CheckPoint/Forum/For0078-InterviewBarnett.html
[3] Downloadable free of charge, in French and Arabic languages, by clicking on the following links: Http://www.mezghana.net/amir-nour.pdf  and
Http://www.mezghana.net/Sykes-Picot.jadeed-REAL.LAST.pdf
[4] Read the presentation made by l’Observatoire européen des think tanks:
Http://www.oftt.eu/think-tanks/monographs/article/pnac-project-for-the-new-american-century
[5] Robert Cooper “The Breaking of Nations: Order and chaos in the twenty-first century“, Atlantic Monthly Press, New York, 2003.
[6] Read the article in the French newspaper Le Monde of 01/02/2006 entitled ” L’Amérique doit conduire le monde, selon Bush» (America must lead the world, according to Bush).
[7] This episode is superbly analyzed by Hardeep Singh Puri, Permanent Representative of India in Geneva and New York (between 2002 and 2013) in his book “Perilous Interventions: the Security Council and the Politics of chaos“, Harper Collins, 2016.
[8] John Bolton, “Surrender is not an option: Defending America at the United Nations and abroad“, Threshold Editions, 2008.
[9] Robert Kagan, “The World America made“, Alfred A. Knopf, 2012.
[10] Pepe Ecsobar, “Will Andrew Jackson Trump Embody the Benno doctrine” Entelekheia, March 21, 2017.
[11] A four part analysis titled “The history of the Neocon takeover of America “, the Francophone Saker, 10 May 2017.
[12] “War and Peace in the global Village“, Bantam Books, New York, 1967.
[13] Read “Les coups tordus de l’Empire“, in the French magazine “Réfléchir et agir”, No. 40, Winter 2012.
[14] According to a readjustment of the boundaries of the Islamic geographical area imagined by Ralph Peters, member of the PNAC, in an article in the military journal Armed Forces newspaper of June 2006 entitled “How a better Middle East would look“.
[15] In “L’Iran, un pays en sursis “, French magazine ‘Nexus 66’, January-February 2010.
[16] See article « White Man’s Burden », Haaretz newspaper, April 3, 2003.
[17] See Stephen Green, « Neo-Cons, Israel and the Bush Administration », Counterpunch, February 28, 2004.
[18] Bill Christison was a senior official of the CIA. He served as a National Intelligence Officer and as Director of the CIA’s Office of Regional and Political Analysis.
[19] See « The Bush Neocons and Israel », Counterpunch, September 6, 2004.
[20] See « The United States Can’t Retreat From the Middle East », Foreign Policy magazine, July 10, 2017.
[21] Alison Weir, « Against Our Better Judgment: The hidden history of how the United States was used to create Israel », CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, February 2014.
[22] Malek Bennabi, «L’Afro-Asiatisme, conclusions sur la Conférence de Bandoeng », Cairo, Imprimerie Misr S.A.E, 1956.

America has authorized Russia in Syria! أميركا فوّضت روسيا في سورية

America has authorized Russia in Syria

أغسطس 1, 2017

Written by Nasser Kandil,

When the US – Russian cooperation becomes announced and dedicated at the level of the two presidencies the debate is no longer  about whether there is an understanding or not, and when the US reports talk publicly about the US recognition of the end of the dispute with Moscow over the future of the Syrian presidency despite the contradictory statements, sometimes in order to appease some of the allies which are financially generous towards Washington, the political dimension becomes clear in favor of the cooperation for a political solution with no obstacles, as long as the issue of the Syrian presidency which was the cause of the failure of all the previous Russian –American rapprochement endeavors was resolved, and when Washington which has adapted with the fall of its red line to prevent the Syrian army from reaching the borders with Iraq and the failure of its groups which reside in Tanf from reaching the borders, along with the inability of the Kurdish groups to resolve the war against ISIS, although this war has become resolved that its final and crucial part will be in Deir Al Zour and Mayadeen where the Kurdish groups do not have the ability to resolve, however the Syrian army is the one which it has, then the US – Russian cooperation will have another vocabulary other than the understanding on the staying of the Syrian President, it is the understanding on the pivotal role of the Syrian army.

After the US recognition of the failure of the chaos, its prolonging, and its controlling, and the failure of the division which it is a condition for the survival of ISIS, and with the fall of ISIS and the fall of the Kurdish state that hides under the plea of fighting ISIS, The US presence in Syria will end surely and the roads will become open in front of the Syrian army for having control on the international geography of Syria from the borders to the borders, while the armed areas between the borders become subject to calm agreements, this is in addition to the political solution for a government under the leadership of the Syrian President in preparation for elections, So the question becomes what will ensure the truce  after the failure of Astana in announcing control methods due to the refusal of Syria of the role of the Turks, and the refusal of Iranian observers  in the south by the armed groups. The US –Russian understanding came under the title of Russian observers, therefore, who will ensure a truce its first part is the Syrian army who is opposed with the militants of Homs and Ghouta, and who will ensure a truce with the Kurds in the north-east, and with the militias supported by Turkey in the north-west?

When the Americans and the Russians think of a second and a third truce, it will not be possible to talk about observers who ensure the truce and who were agreed upon by everyone, whether the Syrian army, its Iranians allies, and Hezbollah on one hand, or the Turks, The Kurds, and the Americans on the other hand but only the Russian military police. If politically the recognition of Washington was by the abandonment of the reason of its war on Syria and the recognition of the central demand of Moscow regarding the Syrian presidency, and militarily through the intensive Russian presence and the pivotal role of the Syrian army, and security through observers from the Russian military police who can ensure the truce, as well as the economic interests in oil and gas about which Moscow has long contracts with the Syrian government. Then what is left to say is that a US authorization to Russia in Syria has been settled in exchange of achieving the minimum level desired by America after the failure of its project, knowing that the ceiling of the minimum level has become too low as ensuring the return of stability to a strong unified central country, getting rid of ISIS, and disallowance of creating igniting situation on the Golan borders.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

(Visited 16 times, 1 visits today)

أميركا فوّضت روسيا في سورية

ناصر قنديل

يوليو 19, 2017

– عندما يصير التعاون الروسي الأميركي معلناً ومكرّساً على مستوى الرئاستين لا يعود النقاش حول وجود تفاهم أم عدمه. وعندما تتحدّث التقارير الأميركية علناً عن تسليم أميركي بزوال الخلاف مع موسكو حول مستقبل الرئاسة السورية، رغم التصريحات التي تعاكس ذلك أحياناً إرضاء لبعض الحلفاء الأسخياء مالياً على واشنطن، يصير البعد السياسي واضحاً لجهة التعاون لحلّ سياسي لا عقبة أمامه، طالما حُلّت مسألة الرئاسة السورية التي كانت سبب فشل كلّ مساعي التقارب الروسي الأميركي السابقة. وعندما تكون واشنطن قد تأقلمت مع سقوط خطها الأحمر لمنع الجيش السوري من بلوغ الحدود مع العراق، ومع فشل جماعاتها المقيمة في التنف من بلوغ الحدود، ومع عجز الجماعات الكردية من حسم الحرب على داعش. وهي حرب بات محسوماً أنّ حلقتها الأخيرة والحاسمة ستكون في دير الزور والميادين حيث لا تملك الجماعات الكردية قدرة الحسم، بل الجيش السوري هو الذي يملكها، يصير للتعاون الروسي الأميركي مفردة ثانية غير التفاهم على بقاء الرئيس السوري، هي التفاهم على محورية دور الجيش السوري.

– يبقى التسليم الأميركي بفشل الراهن على الفوضى وإدامتها وإدارتها، وفشل التقسيم الذي يشترط لبقائه بقاء داعش، ويسقط بسقوط إمارة التنظيم. ومع سقوط داعش وسقوط دويلة كردية تختبئ بظلال الحرب على داعش، يسقط البقاء الأميركي في سورية حكماً، وتصير الطريق ممهّدة للجيش السوري نحو إمساك الجغرافيا الدولية لسورية، من الحدود إلى الحدود، ويصير ما بين الحدود حيث جزر مسلحة تشملها اتفاقيات تهدئة، ويوازيها مسعى الحلّ السياسي لحكومة في ظلّ الرئيس السوري تمهيداً لانتخابات، يصبح السؤال عن ضامن الهدنة، بعدما فشل أستانة في إعلان آليات رقابة بسبب رفض سورية دور الأتراك، ورفض الجماعات المسلحة في الجنوب لمراقبين إيرانيين، وجاء التفاهم الروسي الأميركي وعنوانه مراقبون روس، فمن سيضمن هدنة طرفها الجيش السوري ومقابله مسلحون في حمص والغوطة ومَن يضمن هدنة مع الأكراد في الشمال الشرقي ومع الميليشيات المدعومة من تركيا في الشمال الغربي؟

– عندما يفكر الأميركيون والروس بهدنة ثانية وثالثة لن يكون ممكناً الحديث عن مراقبين ضامنين للهدنة يتمّ التوافق عليهم والتسليم بقبولهم من الجميع الجيش السوري وحلفاؤه الإيرانيون وحزب الله من جهة، والأتراك والأكراد والأميركيون من جهة مقابلة، إلا الشرطة العسكرية الروسية، فإذا كان التسليم سياسياً من واشنطن بالتنازل عن سبب خوضها الحرب على سورية والتسليم بمطلب موسكو المركزي حول الرئاسة السورية، ومعه عسكرياً بالحضور الروسي الكثيف وبمحورية دور الجيش السوري، وأمنياً بمراقبين يضمنون التهدئة من الشرطة العسكرية الروسية، وبالمصالح الاقتصادية في النفط والغاز التي ترتبط موسكو بعقود طويلة حولها مع الحكومة السورية، ماذا يبقى حتى يمكن القول إنّ تفويضاً أميركياً لروسيا قد تمّ في سورية مقابل تحقيق الحدّ الأدنى الذي ترضاه أميركا بعد فشل مشروعها، والحدّ الأدنى صار سقفه منخفضاً جداً عند حدود، ضمان عودة الاستقرار بدولة مركزية موحّدة وقوية، وإنهاء داعش، وعدم نشوء وضع متفجّر على حدود الجولان؟

(Visited 4٬208 times, 1 visits today)

العلاقة الروسيّة الأميركيّة وسورية: انقلاب الموازين

العلاقة الروسيّة الأميركيّة وسورية: انقلاب الموازين

يوليو 29, 2017

ناصر قنديل

– في بدايات ومنتصف الحرب الأميركية على سورية كانت معادلة العلاقة الأميركية الروسية حاضرة فيها، بحدود متواضعة تتصل بالسعي الأميركي لتذليل الفيتو الروسي على المشاريع التي تتقدّم بها واشنطن وحلفاؤها ومعها أغلبية عربية لتغطية التدخل العسكري على الطريقة الليبية. وفي مرحلة متقدّمة صارت الضغوط الأميركية لها عنوان السعي للتوصل لتسوية سياسية من دون الرئيس السوري ترتضيها موسكو مقابل حدّ معيّن من المكاسب والضمانات. وفي المرحلتين كانت المشاكل الأميركية الروسية الكبرى خارج سورية، وكان صمود روسيا ودعمها للموقف السوري ضمن السعي الروسي لإحداث توازن يحقق لموسكو وضعاً تفاوضياً على كامل قضايا الخلاف. وشيئاً فشيئاً صارت موسكو تتلمّس حجم الأخطار المترتبة على المشروع الأميركي لسورية، وتأثيره على مستقبل استقرار روسيا، سواء في مرحلة العنوان العثماني الإخواني للحرب أو في مرحلة العنوان الوهّابي لها، وبدأ يتشكّل موقف روسي منفصل لحماية سورية ومنع نجاح المشروع الأميركي فيها، بمعزل عن سائر ملفات الخلاف مع واشنطن، حتى صار الموقف من سورية رأس المواقف الروسية في التصادم مع واشنطن.

– من الزاوية الأميركية بقي الرهان على الضغط على روسيا بتحريك ملفات موجعة من أوكرانيا إلى حروب الأسعار في أسواق النفط والغاز لفرض تنازلات روسية تسهّل تقدّم المشروع الأميركي في سورية، انطلاقاً من تصرّف أميركي مدرك لمكانة سورية في المصالح الأميركية، سواء ما يخصّ حصار إيران وأمن «إسرائيل» أو ما يتصل بمستقبل سوق الطاقة ومواردها وأنابيبها، لكن في سياق المواجهة وتصاعد الحضور الروسي في سورية وتبلور موازين قوى محيطة بالملف النووي مع إيران تمنع تحقيق إنجازات أميركية، انتقل الأميركيون من السعي لتوظيف الملفات الأخرى في العلاقة الأميركية الروسية لتحسين وضعهم في سورية إلى الفصل بين الملفات، والخشية من سعي موسكو المتعاظم لصفقة على المستوى الدولي تضع موسكو واشنطن كندّ للندّ في تقرير الملفات الكبرى على مساحة العالم.

– مثلما انتقل الملف السوري من مصدر ضغط روسي لتعديل الموازين مع أميركا ليصير مصدر قوة روسية في الملفات كلّها، ثم يتقدّم ليصير رأس الملفات، انتقل الملف السوري أميركياً من أمّ الملفات والحروب ليصير منع موسكو من تحقيق الإنجاز هو الهدف ثم يصير السعي لفصل الملفات تفادياً لصفقة شاملة تضع موسكو نداً لواشنطن على مستوى العالم. فتغيّرت معادلة العلاقات الروسية الأميركية وصلتها بالحرب على سورية، وانقلبت توازناتها وتحوّلت سورية من مصدر قوة أميركي إلى عامل ضعف ومن مصدر ضعف روسي إلى عامل قوة، وتحوّلت من سعي أميركي لفصلها عن سائر الملفات إلى السعي لربطها والعودة بالسعي للفصل، بينما سار الروس عكساً من السعي للربط، إلى السعي للفصل مؤقتاً والعودة للسعي للربط في رحلة القوة.

– الآن وتبدو العلاقات الروسية الأميركية في مرحلة ضبابية يسعى الأميركيون، وربما يرتضي الروس لفصل الملف السوري عن سائر الملفات فترتضي واشنطن مكاسب روسية كبيرة في سورية وتفويضاً شبه مفتوح بإدارة التسوية بشروطها بعدما صار البديل الوحيد نصراً روسياً إيرانياً سورياً تشترك فيه المقاومة، وربما لا تمانع روسيا بهذا انطلاقاً من تحويله إلى رصيد تراكمي في صراع تعتبره مفتوحاً مع واشنطن حتى إنتاج توازن شامل يتيح تحقيق المرتجى على المستوى الدولي، وتحويل المثال السوري نموذجاً يُحتذى في التسويات اللاحقة في ملفات كثيرة مفتوحة.

(Visited 822 times, 822 visits today)
Related Videos

Interview with Flemish priest in Syria: “Putin and Assad saved my life” ~ The Western media coverage of Syria is [according to Father Daniël Maes] the greatest media lie of our time

Source

The Flemish Father Daniël Maes (78) lives in Syria in the sixth-century-old Mar Yakub monastery in the city of Qara, 90 kilometers north of the capital Damascus. Father Daniel has been a witness to the “civil war” and according to him, Western reports on the conflict in Syria are very misleading. In short: “the Americans and their allies want to completely ruin the country”. 


Interviewer: You are very critical of the media coverage on Syria. What is bothering you?

Father Daniel: “The idea that a popular uprising took place against President Assad is completely false. I’ve been in Qara since 2010 and I have seen with my own eyes how agitators from outside Syria organized protests against the government and recruited young people. That was filmed and aired by Al Jazeera to give the impression that a rebellion was taking place. Murders were committed by foreign terrorists, against the Sunni and Christian communities, in an effort to sow religious and ethnic discord among the Syrian people. While in my experience, the Syrian people were actually very united”.


Comment: Notice that Al Jazeera did the exact same thing in Libya:

Behind the Headlines: NATO Slaughter – James and Joanne Moriarty expose the truth about what happened in Libya

If you were a journalist in Libya during this time you were relatively safe; not because these animals respected journalists as neutral observers, but because the journalists were on their side. The Moriartys have evidence of embedded journalists, not least from Qatar-owned Al Jazeera, whose staff were among the terrorists from day one, personally calling in airstrikes and working side-by-side with the terrorists.


Father Daniel: Before the war, this was a harmonious country: a secular state in which different religious communities lived side by side peacefully. There was hardly any poverty, education was free, and health care was goodIt was only not possible to freely express your political views. But most people did not care about that.”

Interviewer: Sister Agnès-Mariam, the Lebanese-French prioress of your Mar Yakub (“Saint Jacob”) monastery, is accused of siding with the regime. She has friends at the highest level. 

Father Daniel: “Sister Agnès-Mariam helps the population: she has recently opened a soup kitchen in Aleppo, where 25,000 meals are prepared five times a week. Look, it is miraculous that we are still alive. We owe that to the army of Assad’s government and to Vladimir Putin, because he decided to intervene when the rebels threatened to take power.


Comment: See also: John Kerry admits that Russia entered Syrian war to stop ISIS, U.S. used ISIS to pressure Assad


Father Daniel: When thousands of terrorists settled in Qara, we became afraid for our lives. They came from the Gulf States, Saudi Arabia, Europe, Turkey, Libya, there were many Chechens. They formed a foreign occupation force, all allied to al-Qaeda and other terrorists. Armed to the teeth by the West and their allies with the intention to act against us, they literally said: “This country belongs to us now.” Often, they were drugged, they fought each other, in the evening they fired randomly. We had to hide in the crypts of the monastery for a long time. When the Syrian army chased them away, everybody was happy: the Syrian citizens because they hate the foreign rebels, and we because peace had returned.”

Interviewer: You say that the Syrian Army protects civilians, yet there are all sorts of reports about war crimes committed by Assad’s forces, such as the bombardments with barrel bombs.

Father Daniel: “Do you not know that the media coverage on Syria is the biggest media lie of our time? They have sold pure nonsense about Assad: It was actually the rebels who plundered and killedDo you think that the Syrian people are stupid? Do you think those people were forced to cheer for Assad and Putin? It is the Americans who have a hand in all of this, for pipelines and natural resources in this region and to thwart Putin.”

Saudi Arabia and Qatar want to establish a Sunni state in Syria, without religious freedom. Therefore, Assad must go. You know, when the Syrian army was preparing for the battle in Aleppo, Muslim soldiers came to me to be blessed. Between ordinary Muslims and Christians, there is no problem. It is those radical Islamic, Western-backed rebels who want to massacre us. They are all al Qaeda and IS. There are not any moderate fighters anymore.

Interviewer: You once mentioned Hillary Clinton to be a ‘devil in holy water’, because as foreign minister, she deliberately worsened the conflict.

Father Daniel: “I am happy with Trump. He sees what every normal person understands: That the United States should stop undermining countries which possess natural resources. The Americans’ attempt to impose a unipolar world is the biggest problem. Trump understands that radical Islam is a bigger threat than Russia.

What do I care whether he occasionally takes off his pants? If Trump practices geopolitics the way he has promised to do so, then the future looks bright. Then it will become similar to Putin’s approach. And hopefully then, there will be a solution for Syria, and peace will return.

Interviewer: You understand that your analysis is controversial and will encounter much criticism?

Father Daniel: “I speak from personal observation. And no one has to believe me, right? But I know one thing: The media can either contribute to the massacre of the Syrian people or help the Syrian people, with their media coverage. Unfortunately, there are too many followers and cowards among journalists”.


RELATED:

Father Daniël Maes (78):
“Western media spreading lies on Syria and Western governments are in alliance with radical Islamists who completely ruining the country”


http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=35.003003&lon=38.430176&z=7&m=bs

click on map to enlarge ~ here for the original link


SOURCES:
Sott.net for the English translation
Original version here 
Submitted by Flyingcuttlefish and SyrianPatriots
War Press Info Network at:
https://syrianfreepress.wordpress.com/2017/07/24/putin-assad-saved-life/
~
Re-publications are welcome, but we kindly ask you,
to facilitate the correct information's diffusion,
to cite all these original links and sources.

Trump Putin Up Against US Deep State

By Finian Cunningham

July 09, 2017 “Information Clearing House” –  It was pleasing to see Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin greet each other cordially at the G20 summit. After their breakthrough first meeting, one hopes the two leaders have a personal foundation for future cooperation.

At a later press conference in Hamburg, where the G20 summit was held, Russian President Vladimir Putin said he believed there was a chance for restoring the badly frayed US-Russia relations. He praised Trump for being thoughtful and rational. “The TV Trump is quite different from the real life one,” quipped Putin.

Meanwhile, the White House issued a statement hailing the two-hour discussion (four times longer than originally scheduled) between the two leaders as a good start to working together on major world problems.

“No problems were solved. Nobody expected any problems to be solved in that meeting. But it was a beginning of a dialogue on some tough problem sets that we’ll begin now to work on together,” said HR McMaster, Trump’s top national security adviser.

Trump deserves credit for the way he conducted himself. He met Putin on equal terms and with respect. “It’s an honor to meet you,” said the American president as he extended a handshake.

The much-anticipated encounter comes nearly seven months after Trump was inaugurated in the White House. Over that period, large sections of the US media have run an unrelenting campaign accusing Trump of being a Russian stooge and alleging that Putin ordered an interference operation in last year’s US election to benefit Trump.

Apart from innuendo and anonymous US intelligence claims, recycled endlessly by dutiful news organizations, there is no evidence of either Trump-Russia collusion or Putin-sanctioned cyber hacking. Trump has dismissed the claims as “fake news”, while Moscow has consistently rejected the allegations as baseless Russophobia.

Against this toxic background of anti-Russian propaganda, President Trump met Putin at the weekend. The two men were due to talk face-to-face for 30 minutes. As it turned out, their discussions went on for two hours. They reportedly exchanged views on pressing matters of Syria, Ukraine and North Korea among other things. Trump brought up the issue of alleged Russian meddling in the US elections, and Putin responded in detail to assure his American counterpart it was a fabricated brouhaha in which Russia had nothing to do with it.

Only days before the big meeting, US media editorialists and pundits were warning Trump to confront Putin in an aggressive manner. The Washington Post, one of the leading anti-Russia voices, exhortedTrump to rap Putin on “US election meddling” as if the claim was a proven fact. It also urged the president to give notice to Putin that Russia had to accede to regime change in Syria. It was a get-tough order.

To his credit, Trump did not allow the Russophobia in the US media to influence his manner with Putin. He was cordial, respectful and open to listening to the Russian viewpoint on a range of issues. So much so that it appears both leaders have agreed to work together going forward.

The question now is: what next? Trump and Putin have evidently got off to a good start despite the inordinate delay and toxic background. But what does Trump’s willingness to engage positively with Moscow actually mean in practice?

The US Deep State comprising the military-intelligence nexus and their political, media machine in Washington does not want to normalize relations with Russia. Russian independence as a powerful foreign state under President Putin is a problem that rankles US global ambitions. That’s why the Deep State wanted anti-Russia hawk Hillary Clinton to win the election. Trump’s victory upset their calculations.

Under immense pressure, Trump has at times appeared to buckle to the US political establishment with regard to projecting hostility towards Russia, as seen in the prosecution of the covert war in Syria and renewed sanctions on Moscow.

The day before he met Putin in Germany, Trump was in Poland where he delivered a barnstorming speech in Warsaw in which he accused Russia of “destabilizing countries”, among other topics.  The American president also inferred that Russia was undermining “Western civilization”. It was provocative speech bordering on hackneyed Russophobia. It did not bode well for his imminent meeting with Putin. A clash seemed to be coming, just as the US media had been cajoling.

However, the meeting the next day with Putin was surprisingly congenial. And the substance of discussions indicates a genuine desire from both sides to cooperate.

It is good that both presidents have struck up a rapport and personal understanding. Nevertheless, it is important to not bank too much on that.

Immediately following the constructive meeting between the leaders, the US media started cranking up the Russophobia again. The US media are vents for Deep State hostility towards Trump and his agenda for normalizing relations with Moscow.

The New York Times reported another breathless story about Trump’s election campaign having contact with “Kremlin-connected” people. CNN ran opinion pieces on how the president had fallen into a trap laid by Putin.

It is hard to stomach this outlandish confabulation that passes for journalism. And it is astounding that a friendly meeting between leaders of nuclear powers should not be received as a good development.

But it shows that Trump his up against very powerful deep forces within the US establishment who do not want a normalization with Russia. The US Deep State depends on confrontation, war and endless militarism for its existence. It also wants a world populated by vassals over which US corporations have suzerainty. An independent Russia or China or any other foreign power cannot be tolerated because that upends American ambitions for unipolar hegemony.

Trump’s encounter with Putin was commendable because he did not succumb to toxic Russophobia and adopt a stupid, mindless tough-guy posture. Instead, Trump reached out to Putin in a genuine way, as two human beings should do.

The US Deep State is not about humanity or understanding. It is about maintaining perceived dominance over other humans, where anyone seen to be an obstacle is disposed of in the most ruthless way.

President John F Kennedy was assassinated in broad daylight by the US Deep State because he dared to seek a normalization and peaceful coexistence with Moscow. The Deep State does not want normalization or peace with Russia or anyone else for that matter because there are too many lucrative vested interests in maintaining the war machine that is American capitalism.

This is not to predict a violent demise for Trump. The Deep State has other methods, such as the orchestration of media and other dirty tricks.

Trump’s friendly overtures to Russia are at least a promising sign. But given the power structure of the US, and its incorrigible belligerence, it is doubtful that Trump will be allowed to go beyond promises. If he attempts to, we can expect the dark forces to step up.

What needs to change is the US power structure through a democratic revolt. Until that happens, any president in the White House is simply a hostage to the dark forces of the Deep State.

This article was first published by Sputnik News 

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

Inside Aleppo

Click for SpanishGermanDutchDanishFrench, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.

إنه أمن «إسرائيل

اتفاق تعاون مسبق بين الأميركيين والروس: إنه أمن «إسرائيل» 

يوليو 10, 2017

روزانا رمّال

يتبدّل المشهد السياسي فجأة من السلبية «المطلقة» نحو الإيجابية الملحوظة خلال ساعات فقط، يحصل هذا استثنائياً عندما تقرّر الدول الكبرى بذل المزيد من الجهود باتجاه توفير مساحة من التحضير للإعلان عن مرحلة جديدة بعد مخاض طويل من التمسّك الأحادي الجانب لكل طرف بمواقفه السابقة من دون نيّة بالتقارب نحو نصف الطريق.

هو نصف الطريق، ربما الذي خرجت فيه قمة العشرين في هامبورغ بين الأميركيين والروس، والتي كانت في الواقع مظلة لقمة تاريخية أكبر بكثير من تفاصيل ما صدر عن اجتماع الدول الكبرى في 7 و8 تموز الحالي، فالرئيسان الأميركي دونالد ترامب والروسي فلاديمير بوتين التقيا في أول قمة تُعقد بينهما بعد انتخاب الرئيس ترامب وعاصفة الاستفزازت والاتهامات وصولاً حتى التهديد بالعزل، بسبب ما روّجته تقارير وأجهزة أمنية أميركية عن تعاون روسي مع حملة ترامب وتدخّل روسي جدّي في الانتخابات الأميركية.

لقاء نتجت عنه قرارات حيال العمليات العسكرية في سورية، خصوصاً جبهة الجنوب، حيث وافق الرئيسان على الإعلان عن بدء العمل بوقف اطلاق النار في 9 تموز الحالي ما شكّل تناقضاً بين الأجواء التي كانت سابقة بين واشنطن وموسكو والتي وصلت حد التصريحات الشديدة الحدة مؤخراً. فمسألة تحرر الرئيس الأميركي من الضغوط المحلية التي كان يواجهها مع عناصر وازنة في المؤسسة الأميركية كما أن استقالات وإقالات عدة طالت مسؤولين أميركيين رفيعي المستوى، بسبب ملف تدخل روسيا المزعوم بنتائج الانتخابات الأميركية.

كل شيء سار على ما يُرام في وقت كانت العيون شاخصة نحو مسألة أساسية. وهي هل ستحصل قمة بين الطرفين او لا؟ وإذ بالنتيجة قمة رسمية متفق على جدول أعمالها تؤكد ان الاجتماعات المعقودة في الاردن بين ضباط من الطرفين الروسي والأميركي، بخصوص الحديث عن مصير جبهة الجنوب السوري كانت جدية ومثمرة جداً.

الاتفاق بين بوتين وترامب يعني أن سلسلة اجتماعات بين الطرفين كانت قد جرت بين كواليس التصعيد الذي احتل الاعلام، في وقت كان العمل على قدم وساق بين دبلوماسيي الطرفين لإنجاح قمة الرجلين الاستثنائية.

الاتفاق هو تأكيد على أمر أساسي ألا وهو تعاون سوري مباشر مع روسيا في التوصل لهدنة في الجنوب، وهو أيضاً بطريقة أو بأخرى تعاون أميركي غير مباشر مع النظام السوري، وتنسيقاً عسكرياً وميدانياً معه. فالساعات الأولى من سريان العمل بوقف إطلاق النار تبدو واعدة لجهة التأسيس لأرضية عمل فعّالة بين الأميركيين والروس.

حالة من الهدوء على مختلف الجبهات الجنوبية بعد يوم واحد من إعلان بدء العمل بالهدنة. الجيش السوري هنا هو أحد أبرز العناصر القادرة على إنجاح أو إفشال هذا المخطّط وتبدو إيجابية كبيرة عند سورية في التوصل لحلول منطقية تحفظ سيادة البلاد بالتعاون مع الحليفة روسيا التي تحاول كسر الجليد مع الأميركيين وخلق مظلة روسية أميركية تحدّد مصير الأزمة، خصوصاً جبهة الجنوب التي تعني «إسرائيل» مباشرة وتكاد تفرض على الولايات المتحدة الخضوع لفكرة التعاون مع روسيا، لأن «لا حلّ» من دون هذا الخيار. فواشنطن تبدو بأمسّ «الحاجة» لخلق صيغة حلّ ينقذ «الإسرائيليين» او على الأقل يوضح مصير الحدود معهم أمنياً وعسكرياً، فتل أبيب التي تدرك أن حزب الله وإيران والجيش السوري كلّها قوى عزّزت حضورها مع حدود فلسطين المحتلة الجنوبية مع سورية تدرك أيضاً أنها عاجزة تماماً عن الدخول بأيّ حديث عن عملية سياسية أو معاهدة هناك من دون مساعٍ روسية.

هذه الحاجة ربما تفسّر وحدها منطق تقدم الأمور، كما رُسمت اليوم وتجاهل الأميركيين خطابات تصعيدية ضد روسيا أوحت بقطيعة ونسف كل ما عمل عليه الرئيس السابق باراك اوباما ومساعدوه في عهده مع روسيا.

حان الوقت للعمل البنّاء مع روسيا. كلام لترامب رافقه اعتراف من مستشار الامن القومي الأميركي هيربيرت مكانمستر بضرورة التعاون واصفاً الاتفاق بين بلاده وروسيا بالخطوة المهمة.

توجّه ترامب للقاء الرئيس الروسي، رغم تصويت مجلس الشيوخ الأميركي قبل ايام وبأغلبية ساحقة، لمصلحة قرار فرض عقوبات جديدة بحق روسيا، في ردّ على تدخلها في الانتخابات الأميركية أي أن مسألة إغلاق هذا الملف لا تزال صعبة في الشارع الأميركي. وهو الأمر الذي يفسّر أن المتغيرات العسكرية وتقدم محور روسيا في سورية وما يشكله من أخطار تواجد حزب الله وإيران على الحدود مع «إسرائيل» هو أكثر ما يمكنه أن يساعد ترامب كذريعة داخل المؤسسة الأميركية للتواصل مع روسيا.

فمصير «إسرائيل» هو المطروح على الطاولة هذه المرّة!

وزير الخارجية الأميركي، ريكس تيلرسون الذي يواظب على تكثيف تصريحاته تجاه سورية ونظامها، تقول المعلومات إنه كان الأكثر اهتماماً بالتحضير للقاء الرئيسين في هامبورغ وأكثر المهتمّين بنجاحه وهو أعلن بوقت سابق من عقد القمة أن الرئيس ترامب طلب منه العمل على إعادة بناء العلاقات مع روسيا عازياً ذلك لرغبة ترامب إلى «حرصه على الفصل بين قضية اتهام عدد من أعضاء فريقه بالارتباط مع جهات روسية، ومساعي تحسين العلاقات بين واشنطن وموسكو».

يمكن لواشنطن اذا الفصل بين المشاكل والمصالح بساعات وأيام قليلة، ويمكنها إعادة التموضع بشكل مدهش وتحويل الخلاف لتقارب عندما تقتضي المصلحة، حتى لو كان الحديث يمسّ سيادة وطنية أو خيانة كتلك المنوطة بالتدخل الروسي…

إنه أمن «إسرائيل»!

(Visited 63 times, 63 visits today)
Related Articles
%d bloggers like this: