هل اقتربت نهاية «إسرائيل» الوظيفية

نوفمبر 8, 2019

محمد صادق الحسيني

أكثر من علامة ومظهر ومؤشر في الأفق تفيد كلها بأنّ ثمة تحوّلات كبيرة في مسرح عمليات المواجهة بيننا وبين عدونا التاريخي المركزي في حالة حصول تجعل من الأخير يقترب كثيراً من خط النهاية…

وفي ما يلي بعض من علامات وأعراض ذلك الانقراض الذي بدأ يحيط بعدونا الإسرائيلي :

عندما يصف المحلل في صحيفة هآرتس، روغل الفير، يوم أمس الأول، التصريحات التي نشرها السفير الإسرائيلي السابق في واشنطن، مايكل أورين، في مجلة ذي أتلانتيك الأميركية، والتي تحدث فيها عن سيناريو الحرب، الذي ناقشه مجلس الوزراء الإسرائيلي المصغر، في آخر اجتماعاته، بأنه سيناريو رعب… ويقول للإسرائيليين انّ لديهم كلّ الحق بالشعور بالرعب وذلك لأنّ حرب 1973 ستبدو كلعبة أطفال أمام ما ستتعرّض له إسرائيل في أيّ حرب قادمة مع حزب الله وإيران وبقية أطراف حلف المقاومة…

نقول انّ هذه التوصيفات لا تدلّ إلا على تشكّل شعور جمعي، في داخل الكيان، بأنّ وجود الدويلة قد شارف على الانتهاء، وانّ ذلك المجتمع لم يعد يشعر بأنه مجمّع محمي، لا من جيشه ولا حتى من جيش الولايات المتحدة…!

وعندما يردّ الرئيس الأميركي، على طلب نتن ياهو منه بضرورة رصد أموال إضافيه لتمويل الأجهزة الأمنية التابعة للسلطة الفلسطينية، كي تتمكّن من الاستمرار في القيام بدورها في التنسيق الأمني مع إسرائيل ، خدمة للاحتلال، ويردّ ترامب قائلاً: إذا كان هذا مهمّاً التنسيق الأمني فعليه هو أيّ نتن ياهو أن يدفع…!

فهذا يعني أنّ الولايات المتحده لم تعد تضع أمن إسرائيل على رأس سلّم أولوياتها، وأنها عملياً قد أعلنت تخليها عن نهج أوسلو، الذي أنتج التنسيق الامني الفلسطيني ـ الإسرائيلي .

وهو ما يمكن اعتباره تقييماً أميركياً سلبياً للدور الذي اضطلعت به تل أبيب وفشلت في تحقيقه. ونعني بالتحديد فشلها في الوصول الى أية نتائج إيجابية أيضاً من خلال انخراطها في مساعدة عصابات داعش والنصرة وغيرهم، سواء في سورية او في العراق أو في غيرهما.

أما الفشل الأكبر فهو الصدمة الاستخباراتية الإسرائيلية، في موضوع صاروخ المقاومة اللبنانية، الذي أطلق قبل أيام ضدّ المسيَّرة الإسرائيلية في جنوب لبنان، والذي لا يمكن إلا أن يكون عاملاً جديداً في زيادة السلبية في تقييم الولايات المتحدة لأداء إسرائيل وجيشها في المنطقة، وهي التي لم يكن يغيب عنها لا شاردة ولا واردة كما ظلت تزعم طوال عقود مضت!

أخيراً وليس آخراً فإنّ تل أبيب ورغم انخراطها في التخطيط والتنفيذ لمحاولات الانقلاب الحاصلة في كلّ من لبنان والعراق فقد أثبتت بأنّ قدراتها الاستخبارية رغم كلّ استعراضاتها الشكلية والخارجية، أثبتت أنها ضحلة جداً، بدليل أنّ الوضع في البلدين على الرغم من كلّ التدخلات القوية جداً والضغوط الهائلة وبإسناد مدفعي إعلامي قلّ نظيره فإنّ الوضع في هذين البلدين ما زال يخضع للسيطرة التامة لقوى حلف المقاومة، علاوة على انّ من يمسك بالأرض، عسكرياً، هي قوات حلف المقاومة التي لا تزال تعيش حالة الاكتفاء الذاتي في تسيير حتى أمورها المعاشية والمالية، وشاهدنا على ما نقول هو قول سيد المقاومة بأنه ومهما حصل من تهافت في الوضع الاقتصادي العام للبنان فإنّ المقاومة لن تتأثر بهذا الأمر وأنها ستظل قادرة على دفع معاشات مقاتليها…

وهو ما يعني أنه حتى مع ذهاب واشنطن بعيداً في الضغط على دول المنطقة، فإنّ أيّ انهيار مالي محتمل أيضاً لن يكون له تأثير على عمل هذه القوات التي لا تعتمد على تمويلات حكومية، لا في لبنان ولا في العراق كذلك…

وحده الكيان الدخيل والطارئ والقاعدة الأميركية المقامة على اليابسة والمياه الفلسطينية هو الذي سيتأثر في لعبة عضّ الاصابع، لانه كيان طفيلي وظيفي يخبو ويأفل نجمه مع تراجع سيده واقتراب موسم هجرته من غرب آسيا الى مضيق مالاقا وبحر الصين تاركاً أذنابه يتامى حروب البقاء المستحيل!

بعدنا طيّبين قولوا الله…

Related Videos

Related Articles

Protesting Israel Is a “Hate Crime” in U.S. Universities

By Philip Giraldi

Source

US Universities Bow to Pressure bf0cb

The Israel lobby in the United States and its counterparts in Europe have been paying particular attention to curtailing the activities of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement (BDS). This is because BDS, which is non-violent and based on established human rights principles, is extremely appealing to college students, who will be tomorrow’s leaders. Israel, which promotes its own largely fictional narrative about itself, is reluctant to allow any competing stories about its foundation and current activities, so it has worked hard to exclude any and all criticism of its practices on college campuses and even among students in public high schools.

Unfortunately, many colleges and universities are all too ready to compromise their principles, such as they are, whenever a representative of Israel or of Jewish groups comes calling. A popular line that has proven to be particularly effective is that Jews on campus feel threatened whenever anyone advocates for the Palestinians or Iranians, intended to convey that their civil rights are being violated.

Even if that type of allegation is actually relevant to whether or not one allows free speech and association, one wonders how violated the Palestinians and Iranians must feel when confronted by the endless stream of hostility emanating from the U.S. media and Hollywood as well as from select politicians representing both parties and the White House.

In the most recent manifestation of suppression of views critical of Israel, the federal government’s Department of Education has ordered Duke University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to reorganize the Consortium for Middle East Studies program run jointly by the two colleges based on their failure to include enough “positive” content relating to Christianity and Judaism. The demand came with a threat to suspend federal funding of Title VI Higher Education Act international studies and foreign language grants to the two schools if the curriculum is not changed.

Of course, the demands have nothing to do with Christian groups demanding inclusion and everything to do with organized Jewish pressure to present Israel in a positive light while also casting aspersions on the Jewish state’s perceived enemies in the region and also on university campuses. Anyone who has even cursory knowledge about the Middle East knows that Christians and Jews constitute only a tiny minority in the region, so the emphasis on teaching about Islam, the Arabs, and the Persians makes sense if the instruction is to have any actual relevance.

One particular event that apparently led to an earlier investigation in June launched by the Education Department consisted of a conference in March called “Conflict Over Gaza: People, Politics, and Possibilities.” A Republican congressman was outraged by the development and asked Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to investigate because the gathering was full of “radical anti-Israel bias.”

Even The New York Times acknowledged in their coverage of the story that “Betsy DeVos, the education secretary, has become increasingly aggressive in going after perceived anti-Israel bias in higher education.” Her deputy—who has served as a focal point for the effort to root out anti-Israel sentiment—is Assistant Secretary of Civil Rights Kenneth L. Marcus, who might reasonably be described as “a career pro-Israel advocate.”

Marcus is the founder and president of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, a foundation that he has used to exclusively defend the rights of Jewish groups and individuals against BDS and other manifestations of Palestinian pushback against the Israeli occupation of their country. He has not hesitated to call opponents anti- Semites and has worked with Jewish students to file civil rights complaints against college administrations, including schools in Wisconsin and California. In an op-ed that appeared, not surprisingly, in The Jerusalem Post, he observed that even when student complaints were rejected, they created major problems for the institutions involved. “If a university shows a failure to treat initial complaints seriously, it hurts them with donors, faculty, political leaders, and prospective students.”

Last year Marcus reopened an investigation into alleged anti-Jewish bias at Rutgers University that the Obama administration had closed after finding that the charges were baseless. Marcus indicated that the re-examination was called for, as his office in the Education Department would henceforth be using the State Department definition of anti-Semitism that includes “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination,” making much criticism of Israel a hate crime.

In the current North Carolina-Duke case, DeVos and Marcus expressed concern over course content that had “a considerable emphasis placed on understanding the positive aspects of Islam, while there is an absolute absence of any similar focus on the positive aspects of Christianity, Judaism, or any other religion or belief system in the Middle East.” The complaint called for balancing content relating to “the historic discrimination faced by, and current circumstances of, religious minorities in the Middle East, including Christians, Jews, Baha’is, Yazidis, Kurds, Druze, and others.”

Zoha Khalili, a staff lawyer at Palestine Legal, explained how the message coming from Washington is actually quite simple and has nothing to do with balance: “They really want to send the message that if you want to criticize Israel, then the federal government is going to look very closely at your entire program and micromanage it to death. . . . [It] sends a message to Middle Eastern studies programs that their continued existence depends on their willingness to toe the government line on Israel.”

The possible consequences are very clear. If you are an educational institution that criticizes Israel in any way, shape or form, you will lose any funding you receive from the federal government. The move has nothing to do with budgetary demands or the national security of the United States or even with the efficacy of the programs that are being funded. It has everything to do with promoting Israeli interests. That a demonstrated and outspoken Israeli advocate like Marcus should be placed in a key position to decide who gets what based on his own biases is a travesty, but it is something that we should all be accustomed to by now, as there is apparently no limit to what the Trump administration is willing to do for Israel and for that monstrous country’s powerful, wealthy, and incessantly vocal supporters in the United States.

A Panicked Israel Is a Dangerous Israel — Astute News

Former US Presidential Candidate, Pat Buchanan has written, “the Middle East and world, have been awakened to the reality that, when Trump said he was ending everlasting commitments and bringing U.S. troops home from “endless wars,” he was not bluffing. The Saudis got the message when the U.S., in response to a missile and drone […]

via A Panicked Israel Is a Dangerous Israel — Astute News

Haaretz Criticizes Russia, Supports US/Israeli Aggression

By Stephen Lendman

Source

Among major powers, Russia is the leading proponent of peace and stability worldwide — its geopolitical agenda polar opposite how the US, NATO, Israel, and their imperial partners operate, an unprecedented global menace Haaretz and Western media support. 

According to the Israeli broadsheet, Dems have little appetite for “Middle East entanglements and many of them have little love for Israel.”

Fact: On issues of war and peace, corporate empowerment, serving privileged interests exclusively, neoliberal harshness for ordinary Americans, and cracking down hard on resisters, there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between both right wings of the US war party.

Fact: As for virtually anything involving Israel, nearly the entire Congress and executive branch support the Jewish state one-sidedly, uncaring about Palestinian rights. Rare exceptions prove the rule.

Haaretz: “The days of unconditional US defense aid may be numbered. In the future Israel will have to give something back.”

Haaretz has things backwards for the near and longer-term. The power of the Jewish lobby in the US and West assures continued support for the worst of Israeli high crimes. The Jewish state partners with the US and NATO in waging them. 

Haaretz claiming “Putin is the new king of the Middle East” greatly exaggerates Russia’s regional influence, gaining on the West, way short of surpassing it so far.

Saying he has “economic goals” is true of all nations. Russia pursues its geopolitical aims without attacking or exploiting other nations and their people — seeking peace, stability, mutual cooperation with other countries, and multi-world polarity.

Washington’s agenda is polar opposite, the same true for NATO and Israel — at war with other nations while exploiting their own ordinary people for maximum wealth and power.

Haaretz repeated the Big Lie that won’t die about Russian US election meddling no credible evidence proved happened because none exists, adding:

“Moscow operates hacker teams specializing in political interference in ways that leave no trace of official involvement.”

Like Western media, accusations against Russia by Haaretz include no evidence proving them, showing they’re groundless.

The broadsheet quoted an unnamed Israeli official claiming with no corroborating evidence that Russia “engage(s) in political subversion all over the world. They see it as legitimate and Israel is no exception,” adding:

“Like the Chinese, the Russians want to show that the democratic system doesn’t work anywhere. They prefer to deal with leaders and hierarchical systems without institutions that balance and restrain power.” 

“So they challenge democratic structures everywhere, interfere in elections and create economic pressure via investments by oligarchs that serve the Kremlin.”

Fact: Russian democracy is real, polar opposite US-led Western and Israeli fantasy versions.

Fact: Israel spies on allies and adversaries alike, notably the US.  Washington’s Government Accountability Office (GAO) earlier accused Israel of “conduct(ing) the most aggressive espionage operation against the United States of any US ally.”

The Pentagon accused Israel of “actively engag(ing) in military and industrial espionage in the United States.”

An unnamed US official once said “(i)t is one thing for the US and Israel to spy on each other.”

“It is another thing for Israel to steal (its) secrets and play them back to (congressional) legislators to undermine US diplomacy.”

I’ve stressed that the nuclear armed and dangerous Jewish state is run by fascist extremists, Zionist ideologues, and religious fundamentalists — representing an unprecedented regional menace along with Washington’s pernicious presence.

No “challenge from Russia” to Israel exists, no “Russian sheriff in town,” no Kremlin threat to any countries.

Polar opposite is true. Moscow seeks cooperative relations with other nations, not confrontation or exploitive designs.

Haaretz a broadsheet producing credible reports at times on some issues, usually domestic ones — spoiled by the above rubbish appearing much too often.

As for all things geopolitical, the broadsheet supports US, NATO, and Israeli aggression. 

It pretends the Jewish state faces cross-border threats — despite none since the October 1973 Yom Kippur war.

It’s militantly hostile to Iran, Syria, Lebanon’s Hezbollah, Hamas, and other Palestinian liberation organizations — nonbelligerent states and groups threatening no one.

Except at times by noteworthy columnists, it hasn’t come to terms with Israeli apartheid ruthlessness, its fantasy democracy, fascist rule, neoliberal harshness, and imperial aims.

All of the above pose a regional and global menace — second only to US-dominated NATO.

Iran…..The World’s Biggest Exporter of Terrorism?

By Prof. Anthony Hall

Source

Reflections on Global Geopolitics, on an Iranian Conference in Beirut, and on a Canadian Federal Election

Tony and New Horizon in Black and White a8f76

I was out of the country for two weeks during the opening phase of the political contest that will culminate in a Canadian national election on October 21. In late September I took part in a controversial conference in Beirut Lebanon. Since ancient times Beirut has been a pivotal city in the strategic zone on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea where Asia, Africa and Europe converge. Beirut has been dramatically rebuilt in an atmosphere of relative stability over recent years, but especially since the turning back of the Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon in 2006.

The conference was organized by the Iran-based New Horizon organization. My time with the distinguished members of the international group assembled in Lebanon has helped me to see more clearly some of the core issues in the rapidly changing configurations of global geopolitics. It has also helped me to appreciate better the nature of problems closer to my Canadian home.

Looking outward from the perspective of the Beirut conference I have garnered many new insights on a variety of issues. In particular, I gained fuller appreciation of the problems plaguing the vitality of public discourse in my own North American country. I have had to face a heightened appreciation of the stunted and parochial character of public discourse in Canada even during a national election campaign. It seems there is a dearth of thoughtful commentary emerging to address the possibility of new roles for Canada in rapidly changing configurations of global power. It seems there is little willingness to consider the possibility of a dramatic reshaping of the political, economic, cultural and military interactions that help define Canada’s place in the global community of communities.

I found Lebanon to be an environment much more conducive than Canada to the exercise of free speech. The discussions in which I took part in Lebanon helped confirm for me the tight censorship of permissible public discourse in Canadian institutions these days. The formal and informal censorship extends to harsh repression of thought, discussion and publication in, for instance, agencies of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Canadian universities and the core institutions in our failing parliamentary democracy.

Tony and Lebanese Flag 3c4af

The pattern is not unique to Canada. The repression of public discourse is fast reaching crisis proportions throughout the Occident. The clampdown of free speech is manifest especially in the rush by powerful political lobbies to censor the Internet.

Much of the rush to control the Internet’s content and search mechanisms is going forward in the name of a seemingly benevolent opposition to “hate speech.” It is important to bring skeptical eyes to appreciate the true priorities of arbitrarily-appointed censors who claim the want to wrestle “hate speech” into insignificance. It seems the ill-conceived war on terror is giving rise to a similarly ill-conceived war on hate speech.

In far too many cases the zeal by elites to decide what people can read, watch and hear on the Internet is being carried out in the name of a censorious war on hate speech. In the final analysis, the zeal to filter, constrain and reconfigure the Internet’s content and motifs of digital interaction is tightly aligned with the self-serving agendas of some of society’s most ruthless power brokers.

The Yemeni Connection to the New Horizon Conference of 2019 in Beirut

As the New Horizon conference got going, one of the delegates shared with us early news about the startling events taking place inside the southern boundary of Saudi Arabia around the town of Narjan. Assan Al-Emad, a Yemeni leader, shared with the attendees at the Beirut conference insights and information that, to the best of my knowledge, has been sparse and misleading in the zealously policed content of the Occident’s mainstream media.

Even before the circulation of some international reports about the military breakthrough being executed by the Yemeni army together with the organized Houthi resistance, Mr. Al-Emad shared with the conference delegates a running commentary on the remarkable news emerging from his home region. The new developments had as their background the Saudi Arabian military assault beginning in 2015 on the civilian population of its Yemen in the southwest corner of the Arabian Peninsula. Part of that aggressive warfare has involved the Saudi attempt to blockade all Yemeni land, air, and seaports in order to starve the indigenous population into submission.

The Saudi war is directed at returning Yemen to the status of a subordinate satellite of the world’s wealthiest and notorious Petro tyranny. The Saudi attempt to obliterate the vital infrastructure supporting the lives of the Yemen civilian population is backed by a large coalition of Occidental and Arab powers. These powers include Canada, Israel, the United States, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates.

In recent years the Saudi assault on Yemen has been widely recognized as the basis of the largest humanitarian crisis in the world. The invasion has directly affected about 80% of Yemen’s 24 million people where starvation in running rife. As a high-level UNICEF official put it, “Yemen has become today a living hell for children…. with 400,000 children suffering acute malnutrition.”

Those engaged in the Yemeni resistance to Saudi Arabia’s assault on their country began in the summer of 2019 to demonstrate increasingly sophisticated forms of self-defense especially through the deployment of unmanned aerial vehicles including drones. In mid-September this strategy of targeting Saudi installations in the cause of undermining the strength of the imperial predator extended to hitting oil-producing and oil-refining installations of the Saudi corporate giant, Aramco.

As the New Horizon delegates learned in Beirut, the Yemeni resistance forces followed up this action in late September by capturing about 2,000 Saudi officers and their mercenary soldiers who hail from many locations including Sudan, Pakistan, and Iraq. The Yemeni resistance also captured hundreds of Saudi military vehicles including some light armored vehicles made in Ontario by a Canadian-based unit of General Dynamics.

The turnaround in the military balance of power in the Arabian Peninsula in September of 2019 has many global implications. There is no doubt this turnaround is a game-changer with many far-reaching implications. The Yemeni resistance demonstrates that the world’s biggest importer of armaments emanating mostly from the United States cannot repel a concerted attack on the Saudi Arabian Armed Forces within Saudi territory. The attack comes from highly-skilled fighting units hailing mostly from one of the poorest and most aggressively assaulted countries in the world.

In 1945 Saudi Arabia was effectively taken over by the United States and its oil and gas sector. The USA claimed the lion’s share of Arabia’s fossil fuel wealth as one of the main fruits of victory for intervening to help shift the balance of power towards the allies in the Second World War. The family of Ibn Saud was entrusted to play the role of custodian of the massive Saudi oil fields largely on behalf of the emerging US superpower with its imperial headquarters in the Pentagon.

Now in 2019, the balance of world power is shifting again, this time to the disadvantage of the United States. The drone attacks on Aramco followed by the humiliation of the Saudi Armed Forces captured en masse in their own territory demonstrates once again that the Saudi royal dynasty is in dire trouble. The monarchical system of Saudi Arabia does not serve the largest majority of its own people. Nor is Saudi Arabia capable of carrying on the protection for the Zio-American empire of one of the world’s primary caches of the black gold that fuels this extended era of dirty industrialization.

The royal dynasty established by Ibn Saud with British and then US-backing is showing itself to have been outmaneuvered and outsmarted by poor but determined regional enemies. These enemies have been generated over several generations through the now-legendary ineptitude of corrupt Saudi leadership that is widely resented by millions both inside and outside the petrodollar’s heartland.

The absurd dependence of the Occident on the Wahabi Kingdom run by mentally-unstable billionaire princes is becoming increasingly obvious. The Kingdom’s vulnerability to the growing sophistication of the Yemeni resistance exposes many of the internal contradictions plaguing the corrupt constitution of the most zealous drivers of imperial globalization.

The logistical sophistication embodied in the victories of the Yemeni resistance should not be underestimated. The operation demonstrates that the Yemeni resistance has much support within Saudi Arabia. The resistance has agents and collaborators inside the Saudi Kingdom that are obviously ready, willing and able to supply vital intelligence of developments on the ground.

Among the many elements of the victory by the Yemeni resistance is the shutting down of Jizan airport and the targeting of nearby Saudi bases so that reinforcements could not be sent into battle. A particularly bold maneuver was aimed at sidelining Apache helicopters parked at King Khalid International Airport near Riyadh. The Yemeni resistance deployed missiles, drones and anti-aircraft systems to prevent Saudis from supporting their troops in the air. They used various electronic jamming devices to disrupt Saudi systems of command and control.  Yemeni resistance demonstrated its ability to blind the expensive Patriot radar system sold to the Saudis at great expense by US war profiteers.

Why are the startling developments in the Arabian Peninsula not generating significant political discussion here in Canada during our federal election? Can it even be said that there is sufficient objective reporting reaching the heavily censored airwaves and print reporting in the Occident to enable even a modicum of informed commentary on the recent developments? What obstructions are being put in the way of wider recognition that the balance of power in the Arabian Peninsula and in global geopolitics is being inalterably affected by dramatic turnarounds in a very significant theatre of military conflict?

In spite of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s war of words with the Saudi government, Canada maintains extremely close relations with the leadership and business sector of the Saudi Kingdom. This close relationship goes back at least to 1984 when the Saudi plutocrat, Adnan Kashoggi, met in Toronto with top officials of the then-ruling Ontario government of Bill Davis. In those days this Saudi “playboy” and “arm’s merchant” was often billed as the world’s richest man.

Until he was offered up as a fall guy in the Iran-Contra scandal based on the discovery of a covert supply line largely running largely through Canada, the late Jamal Khashoggi’s uncle, Adnan, was an ideal candidate for star coverage. Adnan Khashoggi’s ostentatious lifestyle perfectly fit the dominant plotline of the hit TV series, “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.”

Khashoggi’s close partner was Peter Munk who some have described as an agent charged to advance the financial interests of Canada’s Bronfman family dynasty. Khashoggi and Munk teamed up in Toronto with the aim of preparing a public offering of Barrick Gold shares. The history of Barrick Gold in Canada is deeply intertwined with the rising importance of the Munk School of Global Affairs at the University of Toronto. The Barrick Gold Company has been used as a primary commercial base for the Conservative and Republican parties of former Canadian Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney, and former US President, George H.W. Bush.

On the other side of Canada’s main electoral rivalry is the large international engineering firm, SNC-Lavalin. This corporate entity has been fashioned as one of the primary commercial platforms cultivated as a base of operations for the Liberal Party of Canada. The covert merger of public and private interests in the corporatocracy embodied by the international operations of SNC has been an important pillar in the rise of the Trudeau family dynasty.

The changing situation in Saudi Arabia is deeply integrated into the substance of the SNC-Lavalin fiasco, a complex scandal that has created a significant political problem menacing Justin Trudeau’s quest for re-election. Canada’s SNC scandal has some of its major roots in the company’s efforts to gain multiple engineering contracts in Libya through wholesale bribery of the Gaddafi family, but especially Muammar’s son, Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi.

The scandal swirling around SNC is this election no doubt also involves Saudi Arabia where the company employs 9.000 individuals. This number is comparable to the number of people employed in the SNC’s Montreal headquarters. Justin Trudeau speaks often about the need to protect SNC jobs in his own Montreal riding. The current Prime Minister, however, never elaborates on the Libyan and Saudi Arabian background of the company’s effort to exploit its Liberal Party connections in order to evade multiple criminal charges including some emanating from the World Bank.

The failure to even notice the dramatic military turnaround being suffered by Canada’s Saudi ally during the height of our national election is reminiscent of a similar case in 2011. During the federal election of 2011 the Canadian Armed Forces began to play a large role in NATO’s bombing campaign aimed at an illegal and ill-considered regime change in Libya.

This military intervention culminated in the vigilante-style murder/sodomy of Muammar Gadaffi. The murder was executed by a well-armed mob left free by NATO and the UN to commit a ruthless act of lethal violence against a sitting head-of-state and against what remains of the degraded viability of anything resembling an international rule of law. “We came, we saw, he died” exclaimed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a now-notorious statement that succinctly sums up the nature of her strategic understanding of how power is exercised.

In 2011 the leaders of all the major political parties in Canada conspired with the mainstream media to make sure no significant opening was allowed for significant electoral debate on Canada’s role in the Occident’s treatment of the government and people of Libya. It seems that our political masters increasingly want to sideline the big issues of war and peace, life and death, as eligible subjects for formal debate in national elections. National elections in which corrupt media venues deny citizens the basic information we require to make informed decisions are of dubious legitimacy.

Navigating Relations Between USA, Israel, Iran and Saudi Arabia

On September 29 when I was still in Beirut, the US TV network, CBS, broadcasted an interview with Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad Bin-Salman. The interview was recorded several days before the item was televised. It was the first English-language interview granted by the Crown Prince since reports emerged in October of 2018 that Saudi government officials had gruesomely murdered in Istanbul’s Saudi consulate a prominent Saudi journalist, Jamal Khashoggi.

The exchange between the hands-on ruler of the Saudi Kingdom and journalist Norah O’Donnell appeared on CBS’s 60 Minutes. There might have been some real rhetorical fireworks generated in Canada by the 60 Minutes telecast if our electoral process was a genuinely open exercise in candid political interaction rather than a televised spectacle scripted to adhere to the narrow boundaries of permitted debate.

Generally speaking, national electorates are frequently discouraged by the experts in media spin from looking beyond a few well-marked subjects of domestic concern. In my view, this systemic sabotaging of democratic spontaneity in elections– this betrayal of the rights and responsibilities of free speech– is contributing significantly to Canada’s increasingly anemic role in the international arena.

Abdel Bari Atwan, the Editor-In-Chief of Rai al-Youmoffered up the following characterization of the televised performance of the man pulling most of the strings of Saudi monarchical rule. Mr. Atwan wrote that bin Salman was

unusually conciliatory towards Iran and its allies, completely abandoning the hawkish escalatory tone that has characterized most if not all his previous interviews…. The most plausible explanation for this sudden outbreak of dovishness is that the Saudi Crown prince feels betrayed and deceived by his Western allies, especially the US. They left him standing alone to face a succession of Iranian or Iranian-backed attacks and failed to retaliate after key Saudi oil facilities were targeted three times in succession — including the very nerve center of its petroleum industry in Abqeiq and Khreis, slashing its output by half.

Prince bin Salman conducted the taped interview with CBS prior to the circulation of news that the Saudi land forces had suffered a major defeat on Saudi territory at the hands of the Yemeni resistance. Nevertheless, the change in the military balance of power was already well advanced when the Saudi leader made his comments.

I am more skeptical than is Mr. Atwan about the sincerity of the Crown Prince’s sudden “dovishness.” Since the exchange on 60 Minutes was the first interview Prince bin Salman had granted since the murder by Saudi officials of Jamal Khashoggi, the prevailing mood of the Saudi leader was animated by his need to eat some humble pie on American TV. His tone of light contrition affected his way of talking about Iran. Under the circumstances, bin Salman pulled back from engaging in his usual sword rattling rhetoric highlighting the military dimension of Saudi Arabia’s conflict with its Iranian opponent.

By appointing itself as a harbinger of war, the CBS network afforded Crown Prince bin Salman considerable latitude to feign the role of a sensible friend of peace among nations. I for one did not find bin Salman at all credible in this personae. When seeking a response from the Crown Prince about drone strikes on Aramco, Norah O’Donnell declared sharply, “Iran struck Aramco.” Not surprisingly the journalist offered up no evidence or explanation to back CBS’s attempt to advance the interests of the war party that seeks to incite public support for a US-led invasion of Iran.

On behalf of his Liberal federal government, Justin Trudeau has aggravated the conditions that have rendered Canada a foe of Iran and a friend of Saudi Arabia including in its recent history of genocidal incursions into Yemen. Trudeau had promised in the last federal election of 2015 to re-establish with Iran formal diplomatic relations.

In 2012 Stephen Harper strongly took the side of the anti-Iranian war party. Harper implemented the Israel Lobby’s request that Canada should withdraw from diplomatic relations with Tehran. Not only did Trudeau fail in his first term to make good on this election promise to the Canadian people. Trudeau added insult to injury by adding to the weight of antagonisms with Iran. He carried through with Harper’s plan to appropriate Iranian property in Canada in order to redistribute it to “victims of terrorism.”

“The New Horizon conferences has been a platform where many of the world’s most formidable dissident intellectuals can meet in person”

I began attending New Horizon conferences in Tehran in 2014. Since then, the New Horizon conferences have given rise to a New Horizon movement. In partnership with our Iranian colleagues, the New Horizon group is made up largely of independent-minded skeptics based widely throughout the Occident. A common denominator informing many participants in the New Horizon movement is a significant loss of confidence in the capacity of Western governments, media cartels, universities, and political lobbies to operate within a framework of relative honesty, integrity and respect for the requirements of law and due process.

An example of the kind of understanding that animates many who have attended the New Horizon conferences is a willingness to engage in clear condemnation of the audacious misrepresentations of the events of September 11, 2001. The wrongheaded notions concerning who did what to whom on 9/11 and why have been followed up by the perpetration of subsequent acts of false flag terrorism. This Deep State engineering of Islamophobic responses to 9/11 has helped in the creation of public support for US invasions of Muslim-majority countries including Iraq and Iran.

An overriding preoccupation of the Israel Lobby and of many Israel First partisans is to persuade the leadership of the US government to invade Iran. This agenda has been promoted relentlessly since the 9/11 false-flag terror event of 2001. As President Donald Trump’s National Security Adviser, John Bolton was one of the most obsessive promoters of a US-led war on Iran in order to serve Israel’s expansionistic agenda. Was Bolton fired because Donald Trump discovered that one of his key advisers on international and strategic affairs was first and foremost serving Benjamin Netanyahu as a White House spy?

It seems Trump has attempted to offer up some red meat to the hawks demanding an invasion of Iran. The US President has expanded the frontiers of so-called “sanctions” on Iran. The term, “sanctions,” that has become a kind of code for many-faced forms of economic warfare. The effort to expand the field of sanctions targeting Iran’s economy has had its base in the US Treasury branch and in particular in the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. Created in the wake of 9/11, the keepers of this Office have consistently been zealous Israel First neoconservatives from Stuart Levy to David Cohen to Sigal Mandelker.

Mandelker, a current or past Israeli citizen, became part of the wave of Israel First partisans who flooded into high-ranking positions in the administration of US President George W. Bush after 9/11. She became an economic hit woman as the Global War on Terror coalesced to become the US government’s top strategic priority.

During her quick rise up the ladder of administrative power within the US government, Mandelker served as a clerk for ultraconservative Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas and as a lawyer representing Homeland Security czar, Michael Chertoff. Apparently Mandelker played a role on behalf of the federal Justice Department in arranging the sweetheart deal extended to Jeffrey Epstein in Florida in 2008 for various infractions including child sex trafficking. There is much literature suggesting that a big part of Epstein’s operation involved creating the conditions for Mossad and other related intelligence agencies to blackmail key politicians.

Like so many of her Israel First colleagues, Mandelker became obsessed with heaping recriminations on Iran. She was prominent among the Israel First partisans who were inducted en masse into the deep bowels of the international affairs branches of the US government after 9/11. In spite of much evidence to the contrary, she regularly charges Iran with trying to obtain nuclear weapons. At the same time, she remains completely mum on the reality of Israel’s still-unacknowledged possession of many nuclear weapons.

As Mandelker sees it, “Iran is “posing an incredibly destabilizing presence in the region.” She added, “They’re threatening our great ally in the region, Israel!”

Given even the partial information that has already emerged concerning Mandelker’s relationship to the USA and Israel, certain questions have been emerging. In her work as a US economic intelligence officer has Sigal Mandelker been working as a spy for the Israeli government, a polity well known over the years for conducting very concerted espionage operations in the United States?

Has Mandelker’s work figured at all into the spying allegations directed by one branch of the FBI at AIPAC and at the neocon’s very hawkish organization, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies? Was Mandelker’s recent resignation on October 2 an indication that the substance of her work in the US Treasury Branch could not withstand skeptical scrutiny concerning the substance of what she was really doing on behalf of her patrons and clients in Israel and the United States?

In her last weeks as the primary enforcer of the USA’s campaign of economic warfare targeting Iran, Sigal Mandelker went on a kind of sanctions blitzkrieg. As part of her economic warfare activities, Mandelker targeted the New Horizon conference as well as its top organizers. In particular, Mandelker pinned the new label of “Global Terrorist” on Iranian broadcaster, Nader Talebzadeh, and on his Lebanese wife, Zeinab Mehanna.

This effort to further isolate Iran and to throw up obstacles to any peace-making dialogue between US and Iranian citizens went further. FBI officers visited the 11 public intellectuals in the United States who had planned to attend the New Horizon conference in Beirut between September 20 and 26. All these individuals were threatened with heavy fines and jail time if they took part in an event whose aims include identifying means of avoiding disastrous bloody wars. What US interests would be served by a US-led invasion on 80 million Persian people whose government happens to be in a strong position to respond with a formidable national self-defense?

Among those pressured into staying home was Dr. Kevin Barrett, an outspoken Muslim critic of the dubious assumptions and outright lies animating the conduct of the Global War on Terror. Dr. Barrett summed up as follows his understanding of the reason for attempting to sanction and thus cripple an event dedicated to advancing the arts of sciences of dialogue and peace over the devastations of war. He wrote,

I think the Tehran-based New Horizon NGO has been targeted because its conferences are viewed as an ideological threat to powerful special interests here in the US. Mainstream Iranian intellectuals like New Horizon organizer and filmmaker Nader Talebzadeh, the most popular TV host in Iran, hold views of the US empire, Israel, and related issues that are very different from the views allowed expression in mainstream American media and politics. Yet a great many well-informed people, globally and here in the US, largely agree with some or most aspects of the mainstream Iranian view, and disagree with the mainstream American one. The New Horizon conferences have been a platform where many of the world’s most formidable dissident intellectuals can meet in person, get to know each other, and find ways to promote their interpretations of world events.

Michael Maloof was another member of the group of Americans who had planned to attend the New Horizon conference but who warned by federal police to stay away if they wanted to avoid harsh consequences. A 30-year veteran of the US Defense Department, Maloof retired as a senior security policy analyst with the Office of the Secretary of Defence. Of his reason for being drawn into the orbit of the New Horizon movement, Maloof said of himself and of his American colleagues, “We’re all still US patriots, but we believe there’s another way to go about things other than looking at everything in Iran through the prism of Israel.”

Because the US delegates did not attend, I found myself to be the only North American delegate included in the program. The contrast between my treatment by my own Canadian government and the treatment of my US colleagues by their government is significant. As I see it, there are good reasons for Canada and Iran to return to normal diplomatic and economic relations. I am of course pleased to be left free to advocate this position of normalization of relations in the developments of policies in both Ottawa and Tehran.

My presentation on the podium of the New Horizon conference on Sept. 23 dealt with my reflections on some of my recent research for a paper entitled “The Israel Lobby and University Governance.” I initiated this research following an episode that put me at the center of a crude and illegal assault mounted by the Israel Lobby in partnership with the administration of the University of Lethbridge in Alberta Canada. This administration failed grossly to live up to its fiduciary responsibilities to adhere to the contractual protections for academic freedom in Canada.

Nader and Tony 4905b

My unilateral suspension from my professional duties in October of 2016 was pushed forward in a way that denied me pay, due process or the proferring of any coherent evidence to which I could respond. A court in Alberta court eventually condemned unequivocally this combination of administrative actions. The win for my faculty association and I, however, took place after the Israel Lobby in Canada had already mounted a specious media smear campaign with the aim of delegitimizing me professionally. The effort to try to outlaw as “anti-Semitic” any criticism of Israel and its treatment of Palestinian people is moving in the same direction in North America as the travesty of smear directed at Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the Labour Party in Great Britain.

Meanwhile, it is unlikely that most of the issues I raised in Beirut and in this essay will make their way into the gate-kept confines shaping the current parochial character of electioneering in Canada. The Israel Lobby as embodied in organizations like B’nai Brith Canada and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) is seeing to it that any debate on Israel/Palestinians affairs is held to a minimum. Moreover, I am not optimistic that any of the contenders for the job of Canadian prime minister have the capacity, courage, insight or independence to mount a thoughtful political debate on the need for Canada to reorient the dominant motifs of our interactions with Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel and the United States.

Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?

Like many Israel First mouthpieces in North America, Sigal Mandelker repeats often many of the slogans of the anti-Iran war party. Like John Bolton, she has tried to fan the flames of extreme Islamophobia and Iranophobia. She seeks to push the US government to lead a monumental war project that would target the Persian heartland. She labels Iran with the unsupported slogan that the Muslim-majority country is the “biggest exporter of terrorism in the world.” Seldom do those who constantly repeat this mantra ever attempt to explain the assertion.

One obvious way of calling into question the claims equating Iran with the international support of terrorism is to point out the relative peace and stability currently enjoyed by all the citizens of Lebanon. These citizens include Shia, Sunni and Christian groups. This stability is to some extent founded on Iran’s backing of forces that helped defend Lebanon’s territorial integrity against armed intervention by the Israeli Defence Force in 2006. Iran’s positive relation with the government of Lebanon helps to explain how it is that the most recent New Horizon conference took place in Beirut.

Iran’s relationship with the Yemeni resistance, which by and large emerges from deep within the Aboriginal cultures of the Indigenous peoples, also helps cast doubt on the Israel Lobby’s propagandistic condemnation of Iran. Any reasonable account of the Saudi invasion of the life support system of Yemeni citizens since 2015 reveals the obvious fact that the Saudis are the aggressors and that their victims are the targets of round after round of ruthless state terrorism.

If anyone is a leading exporter of terrorism, it is the Saudi Arabian monarchy. The Houthis and other Yemeni citizens are prominent among the victims of the Saudi government with its weird missionary preoccupations aimed at spreading its own Takfiri form of Wahabi fundamentalism.

Saudi Arabia, the USA and Israel have much to do with the creation and backing of the al-Qaeda and ISIL/Daesh, proxy armies that consistently fought the armed forces of the elected governments of Syria, Iran, and Russia. The forces of the so-called “Islamic state” fought with the backing of Israel, the USA and many NATO countries. Iran itself has had to defend its own citizens from the incursion of ISIL/Daesh.

Iran has had to absorb a cyberwar directed at it by the National Security apparatus of the USA and Israel. This attack included the goal of crippling Iran’s local system for generating electrical energy. Iran has had to absorb many ruthless assassinations of its nuclear scientists. Iran has to face the West’s growing political support of a former Marxist organization that is much despised by many indigenous Persians. The violent group, MeK, is being cast in much the same role as was Ahmed Chalabi prior to the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. MeK is being groomed to take up the levers of power in Iran following the regime change war being persistently promoted even by the likes of the CBS television network.

How is it a promotion of terrorism for Iran to intervene in Lebanon in the process that has brought some peace and stability to benefit all the citizens of a very diverse and pluralistic country? How is it a promotion of terrorism to render some assistance to an indigenous fighting force whose aim is to protect Yemeni citizens from the genocidal incursions of the predatory Saudi royal dynasty? How is it an export of terrorism for Iran to support the elected government of Syria against those invaders seeking to balkanize and subjugate the country in order to advance a malevolent agenda involving, it seems, an endless series of US wars for Israel?

تركيا وتكرار الأخطاء العدوانية في سورية!

أكتوبر 8, 2019

العميد د. امين محمد حطيط

قادت تركيا في الايام الأولى للحرب الكونية العدوان على سورية ميدانياً تحت توجيه واشراف مباشر من اميركا وظنت أنها ستسقط سورية في غضون شهرين او ثلاثة على الأكثر. لكن الميدان السوري سفه الأحلام التركية وحقق من الإنجازات العسكرية الميدانية ما فرض على أردوغان أن يُخفض من سقف أحلامه في سورية الى الحد الذي حصرها مؤخراً بإقامة منطقة نفوذ تركي يسميها منطقة آمنة يسكن فيها 4 ملايين سوري من المؤيدين له وفقاً لظنّه ما يمكنه من امتلاك قدرة التأثير والمشاركة في النظام السياسي في دمشق بعد مراجعة الدستور الذي ستراجعه اللجنة الدستورية التي شكلت مؤخراً. لكن طموح أردوغان الأخير يصطدم بأربع عقبات تتفاوت في تأثيرها وتعرقل تحقيق أهدافه حيث انه يواجه:

أولاً: وقبل أي شيء الرفض السوري لأي فعل او تدبير يمس بوحدة الأراضي السورية وبالسيادة السورية، ويعلم أردوغان ان هذا الرفض سيترجم فعلاً ميدانياً عندما تقضي الحاجة ويحل أوان المواجهة وفقاً لجدول الأولويات السورية في إطار الحرب الدفاعية التي تنفذها سورية بنجاح مع حلفائها في محور المقاومة وروسيا.

ثانياً: رفض منظومة استانة التي تجمع تركيا الى روسيا وإيران والتي تعمل تحت عنوان وحدة سورية وسيادتها وقرارها المستقل وهي ترفض أي دور للإرهاب والإرهابيين في صياغة مستقبل سورية، كما ورفض أي وجود أجنبي على الأراضي السورية دون قبول وموافقة من الحكومة السورية ولا يخفف من هذا الرفض ادعاء أردوغان أن عمله سيكون خدمة لوحدة الأراضي السورية.

ثالثاً: الصعوبات الميدانية الناجمة عن رفض الاكراد الحالمين بكيان انفصالي في الشمال السوري واستعدادهم للقتال لمنع تركيا من السيطرة على معظم المنطقة التي يحلمون بأن تكون دويلة لهم. ورغم ان هذا الامر الرفض الكردي ليس أمراً حاسماً يمنع تحقيق الاتراك من هدفهم الا انه يجعل من العملية التركية عملية صعبة محفوفة بالمخاطر وغير مضمونة النتائج خاصة إذا كان من شأن العرقلة الكردية ان تطيل التنفيذ وتوقع الخسائر في صفوف الأتراك وتفرض تدخل أيادي خارجية فيها.

رابعاً: المراوغة الأميركية والتحفظ الأوروبي. فأميركا التي تنشر بضعة آلاف من جنودها في المنطقة وتقيم قواعد عسكرية فيها برية وجوية تأمل بأن تبقي الأكراد في قبضتها للسيطرة على الثروة النفطية السورية ولمنع العودة الى سورية الموحدة وتمنع الحل السياسي لا بل وتعمل لإطالة امد الصراع وفقاً لاستراتيجيتها المعلنة، ولذلك قد لا توافق اميركا في العمق على المطلب التركي بإقامة منطقة آمنة بعمق 40 كلم وبجبهة 260 كلم، لكنها لا تبدي الرفض القاطع للعملية بحيث يغضب تركيا، اما الاتحاد الأوروبي فقد كان صريحاً بتحفظه لا بل تحذيره من هذه العملية.

وبمقتضى هذه الرمادية أو الزئبقية دخلت اميركا مع تركيا في اتفاق إنشاء المنطقة الآمنة. واعتمدت في نص الاتفاق عبارات ملتبسة مكنتها من تهدئة تركيا في غرفة التفاوض والصياغة ثم تراجعت أثناء التنفيذ الى الحد الذي أفرغ الاتفاق من محتواه وكانت الدوريات المشتركة التركية الأميركية في سورية مثيرة للسخرية من الناحية العملانية والميدانية الى الحد الذي أفهم أردوغان بان الاتفاق لن ينتج منطقة أمنية كما يحلم.

هذه الخلاصة وضعت أردوغان في مأزق، تفاقم نتيجة أمرين آخرين: الأول داخلي ويتصل بالوضع في حزبه حزب العدالة والتنمية وما يعانيه من تشرذم وانشطار وتراجع في الشعبية الى حد تلقي الصفعات القاسية في الانتخابات البلدية الأخيرة والتي كانت بلدية إسطنبول أوجعها له، والثاني خارجي يتصل بمنظومة استانة والتزامات أردوغان حيالها في ادلب وموجباته بمقتضى مقررات سوتشي واستانة ذات الصلة بقواعد خفض التصعيد وتفكيك الجماعات الإرهابية وعلى رأسها جبهة النصرة.

لكل ذلك رأى أردوغان ان اللجوء الى العمل العسكري من جانب واحد في شمال شرقي سورية سيعزز موقعه في الداخل ويظهر قوته ومصداقيته وحرصه على معالجة الاخطار الاستراتيجية عند الحدود الجنوبية، كما ويعزز موقعه في اطار منظومة استانة التي سيبرر امامها عدم تنفيذ التزاماته في إدلب بانشغاله في شرقي الفرات لمعالجة الحالة الانفصالية الكردية وفي هذا خدمة لأهداف المنظومة المتمثلة بالمحافظة على وحدة الأراضي السورية، وهو ما يكسبه أوراقاً تلزمه في المسألة السورية ويقربه من الحد او الصورة الأخيرة من أهدافه فيها كما تقدم، لكل ذلك اعلن أردوغان أنه قرر انشاء المنطقة الأمنية منفرداً، وأنه لن ينتظر اميركا وانه لن يتوقف عند الصعوبات الميدانية التي قد ينتجها الأكراد ولم يشر الى الموقف السوري الإيراني الرافض لأي عمل عسكري على الأراضي السورية دون موافقة الحكومة السورية.

و في المقابل حذرت قسد من انها ستخوض حرباً شاملة على الحدود مع تركيا اذا نفذت الأخيرة تهديدها. ويبدو ان قسد كانت مطمئنة للموقف الأميركي حيالها، لكنها صدمت بقرار أقدمت عليه اميركا وبدون إبلاغها دون إبلاغ قسد تمثل بسحب نقاط المراقبة الأميركية الحدودية بين سورية وتركيا في تل أبيض وراس العين، في تدبير أوحى لتركيا بأنها لن تصطدم بمواجهة أميركية في حال تحركت ميدانياً، وأوحى لقسد ان اميركا تخلي الميدان لتسهيل حركة القوات التركية وان القوات الأميركية لم تف بالتزاماتها حيال «قسد» وسحبت وحداتها من المناطق الحدودية مع تركيا « ما اشعر «قسد» بالخيبة والشعور بأن تخلي اميركا عنها يقترب، خاصة بعد أن أبلغت اميركا قسد بأنها لن تقوم بالدفاع عنها وانها لن تقاتل الجيش التركي لا بل انها ستنسحب من كامل الحدود مع تركيا الى الداخل ما وضع قسد في موضع صعب وأشعرها بأن اميركا طعنتها في الظهر على حد قول قيادتها، فهل هذا صحيح؟

في البدء، لا بد من التذكير بان اميركا معتادة على التخلي عن أدواتها، وكان خطأ جسيماً ارتكبه الاكراد عندما ظنوا بان اميركا قد تفضلهم على تركيا عند تنازع المصالح، وان أردوغان ما كان ليقدم على عملية عسكرية في منطقة ينتشر فيها الاميركيون دون ان يضمن الموافقة الأميركية. وها هو يزعم بعد اتصال مع ترامب بأن «اميركا لا تمانع عملاً عسكرياً تركياً ضد المقاتلين الاكراد»، لكن رغم كل ذلك فاني لا أعتقد أن اميركا انقلبت على استراتيجيتها في سورية رأساً على عقب وتخلت دفعة واحدة عن الورقة الكردية وأنها بصدد تسليم منطقة شرقي الفرات كلياً الى تركيا، فالأكراد لا زالوا يوفرون لأميركا غطاء ومصلحة تفرض بقاءها معهم بقدر محدد ولفترة تلزمها لترتيب وضعها المؤقت في سورية من دون ان تتضرر علاقتها بتركيا خلال تلك لفترة.

اما الأساس في مواجهة الخطة التركية فهو موقف سورية التي هي ومحور المقاومة وروسيا ليسوا في موقع القبول بعمل عسكري تركي منفرد دون تنسيق مع دمشق. عمل من شأنه ان يقيم سيطرة عسكرية تركية على ارض سورية بمساحة تعادل تقريباً مساحة لبنان، لا بل إن سورية وإيران وروسيا جميعا ينتظرون من تركيا تنفيذ التزاماتها في إدلب وفق مخرجات سوتشي واستانة وهي التزامات لا يتقدم عليها شيء وأن إشغال تركيا نفسها بما لم تكلّف به ليس من شانه ان يحجب تلك الالتزامات، بل ستجد تركيا ان الجيش العربي السوري سيتابع عمله العسكري ويسحب من يدها ورقة إدلب كما فعل في خان شيخون وتكون تركيا قد خسرت ورقة إدلب ولم تربح ورقة شرقي الفرات بشكل مستقر.

لكل ذلك نرى أن العملية العسكرية التي تتحضر لها تركيا شمالي الفرات ستكون من طبيعة العمليات المبتورة العقيمة التي لن تحقق أهدافها، وبالتالي لن تنتج الاثر السياسي الذي تعول تركيا عليه ولن تعالج مأزق أردوغان لا بل انها ستفاقمه لما ستتسبب به من خسائر عسكرية وفي صفوف المدنيين كما حذرت الأمم المتحدة، فضلا عن التداعيات السياسية الخارجية خاصة مع إيران وسورية. وعلى أردوغان ان يعلم ان الطريق الصحيح لتحقيق مصالح تركيا وجيرانها لا يكون بعدوان إضافي على سورية، بل يتمثل بالعمل المشترك مع مظلة استانة الثلاثية وتنفيذ القرارات المتعلقة بإدلب أولاً ثم التوجه لمعالجة الحالة الانفصالية شرقي الفرات. وكل سلوك تركي خارج هذا السياق سيكون خطاً وهدراً للوقت وللجهد ومنتجاً لفشل جديد يلحق بلائحة العمليات التركية الفاشلة منذ9 سنوات.

أستاذ جامعي وباحث استراتيجي.

Related Videos

Related News

Old News? New News? With Israel, It’s all the Same

by J. Michael Springmann

Source

spy Stingrays d3746

Zionist Noses.  According to the September 12, 2019  edition of the American political journal POLITICO, Israel “likely” placed cell phone surveillance devices around the White House and other “sensitive locations” in Washington, D.C.  The publication based its statement on three, unnamed, former senior U.S. officials with knowledge of the matter.  (The story, however, first broke in June 2018 in a variety of news outlets which noted that the devices, called “stingrays”, had been detected the previous year.)

Stingrays are not fish but are, as Politico described them, devices “which mimic regular cell towers to fool cell phones into giving them their locations and identity information. Formally called international mobile subscriber identity-catchers or IMSI-catchers, they also can capture the contents of calls and data use.”  American police departments use them and such use has occasioned a series of lawsuits alleging violations of the 1st and 4th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights, regarding freedom of speech and warrantless searches.

Israeli officials, as is normally the case, denied any involvement.  Donald Trump also denigrated the “alleged” Israeli activities, saying “My relationship with Israel has been great…Anything is possible but I don’t believe it.”

Why?  Donald Triumph has long been known to be less than security-conscious.  “POLITICO reported in May 2018 that the president often used an insufficiently secured cell phone to communicate with friends and confidants. The New York Times subsequently reported in October 2018 that “Chinese spies are often listening” to Trump’s cell phone calls, prompting the president to slam the story as “so incorrect I do not have time here to correct it.”  According to its sources, Trump’s phone, POLITICO said, has been hardened against intrusion.

But Isn’t This Old News?  Israel has been spying on the United States government, American businesses, and public officials for decades.  In the 1950s, former ambassador Andrew Kilgore once noted, Israel had planted microphones in the American embassy in Tel Aviv.

“As Paul Pillar, the CIA’s former national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia, told Newsweek [in  May 2014], old habits are hard to break: Zionists were dispatching spies to America before there even was an Israel, to gather money and materials for the cause and later the fledgling state. Key components for Israel’s nuclear bombs were clandestinely obtained here. “They’ve found creative and inventive ways,” Pillar said, to get what they want.”

Then there was Jonathan Pollard, a U.S. Navy civilian employee.  He had been arrested in 1985 and sentenced to life in prison for passing suitcases full of highly-classified documents to Israeli intelligence.  After much Zionist pressure, his life term was commuted to 30 years and he was released.

In the first half of 2001, “Israeli art students” attempting to sell their wares turned up at government offices in 40 U.S. cities.  They were attempting to penetrate the Drug Enforcement Administration and other U.S. government agencies, including those with addresses not known to the public.  Salon, a news and opinion website, wrote in May 2002:  “According to one account, some 140 Israeli nationals were detained or arrested between March 2001 and Sept. 11, 2001.  Many of them were deported. According to the INS [Immigration and Naturalization Service], the deportations resulted from violations of student visas that forbade the Israelis from working in the United States… After the Sept. 11 attacks, many more young Israelis — 60, according to one AP dispatch and other reports — were detained and deported.”

The journalist Wayne Madsen has written extensively about the “art students” and this writer can attest that they are still operating.  A few years ago, he once visited the Pentagon City Mall (near the iconic military headquarters). A salesgirl, from a cart hawking perfume, approached him, asking if he had ever been to her country, Israel.

Yet, for obvious reasons, there has been little investigation of this by the Zionist-controlled U.S. media.

It Gets More Technical.  As Christopher Ketcham wrote in a September 2008 issue of CounterPunch, “Since the late 1990s, federal agents have reported systemic communications security breaches at the Department of Justice, FBI, DEA, the State Department, and the White House.  Several of the alleged breaches, these agents say, can be traced to two hi-tech [Israeli] communications companies, Verint Inc. (formerly Comverse Infosys), and Amdocs Ltd., that respectively provide major wiretap and phone billing/record-keeping software contracts for the U.S. government.  Together, Verint and Amdocs form part of the backbone of the government’s domestic intelligence surveillance technology.”

The article went on to quote Philip Giraldi, former CIA counterterrorism and counterintelligence officer.  He said “This is par for the course in the history of Israeli penetrations in the U.S.”   Quoting annual FBI reports called “Foreign Economic Collection and Industrial Espionage”, Giraldi noted Israel is second only to China in stealing U.S. business secrets.  One FBI account added “Israel has an active program to gather proprietary information within the United States. These collection activities are primarily directed at obtaining information on military systems and advanced computing applications that can be used in Israel’s sizable armaments industry.”  A key Israeli method, warns the FBI report, is computer intrusion.

And In The End?  Do we force Israel to divest itself of its spies and its companies deeply involved in espionage in the United States?  Do we block visas for Israelis to enter this country?  Do we end American financial support of Israel:  $10 million a day/365 days a year?  Plus tax-free purchase of Israeli bonds?  Plus sales of Israeli-controlled consumer goods like Tribe and Sabra Hummus or Ahava beauty products?

Would government officials with knowledge of Israeli espionage activities admit their failures and resign?  Would the American press cover this?  In a country that passes laws to condemn criticism of Israel?  Or of Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS).  Not hardly.

The United States of America is completely under the control of Israel and its Zionists.  Things will not change until Israel does.

%d bloggers like this: