Why Assad Believes That Syria Would Not Survive a Transition to a Federal System

Why Assad Believes That Syria Would Not Survive a Transition to a Federal System

DMITRY MININ | 11.12.2017 | WORLD / MIDDLE EAST

Why Assad Believes That Syria Would Not Survive a Transition to a Federal System

The idea that the protracted civil war in Syria might be resolved by restructuring the country into a federation has been on a lot of minds lately. At first glance, it does seem tempting to try to reconcile the warring sectors of the population and all the various factions by granting broad rights of autonomy based on ethnicity and religion.

The draft of the new constitution that was originally pitched to the Syrians by the international community was in fact premised on the idea of granting such status to the “nationalities living in the country.” That manifested itself, for example, in the proposal to establish a bicameral parliament in Syria. Only relatively recently did the Syrian Congress on National Dialogue (soon to convene) begin going by that name. Previous attempts were seen to call it the Congress of Syrian Peoples. But President Assad was firmly against that version from the very beginning. He feels that because of the nature of the local environment in the Middle East, the states there that fly the flag of federalism are inevitably forced to watch their territorial integrity and sovereignty slipping away. It seems to the president of Syria that, by touting federalization, the West is resorting to political and subversive means to achieve the goals it has been unable to attain militarily. For example, without waiting for a final resolution of the matter, the Americans have already urged the Kurds, whose cause they so champion, to unilaterally proclaim the establishment of the Federation of Northern Syria in the territories they occupy. And that’s only the beginning.

History has shown that no federation has been viable in that area and that eventual collapse is inevitable. The Syrians themselves must see a lesson in the story of their own short-lived federation with Egypt, known as the United Arab Republic.

Nor did Libya’s repeated attempts to create a federation with some of its neighbors meet with any success. The efforts to merge Ethiopia and Sudan into a federation – initially backed by the West – ultimately ended once Eritrea and South Sudan won their independence and pulled out. Baghdad’s willingness to grant Iraqi Kurdistan an even higher status than that of merely a constituent region of a federation resulted in Kurdish attempts to secede from Iraq. It took a massive military intervention to put a stop to that. And should Syria take that path, there is even less hope that it might escape such a fate.

The projects to federalize states in that region are tied to the initiatives to completely redraw the borders of those territories. The campaign to alter national boundaries in the “Greater Middle East” really picked up steam with the arrival of the Arab Spring in 2011. The new map of the Middle East that was proposed in the journal Foreign Affairs in 1992 by Bernard Lewis, a professor of Near Eastern Studies and advisor to George W. Bush, has regained its popularity. In 2006, this map was updated by the retired military-intelligence officer Ralph Peters in Armed Forces Journal.

The Lewis-Peters map

The intention of these exercises in “applied cartography” is to strengthen American positions in the region by weakening those national states. To this end, a “Balkanization” of the Middle East was planned along the fault lines of religious, ethnic, and clan divisions. And stirring up the animosities between the Shiites and Sunnis was to play a key role.

Syria at that time was not seriously viewed as a target for those efforts, as it seemed like a rock of stability amidst its restive neighbors. It took almost two years for the “ripple effect” from the Arab Spring to reach Syria. Once the Syrian conflict began, a map surfaced in the media (which let’s call “the Israeli version”) showing the potential breakup of that country once it became a federation.

It featured a powerful Druze sector that was to be carved out on the Syrian-Israeli border. Once Syria’s boundaries were redrawn this way, its Druze population – due to fears of Sunni fundamentalism – would be favorably positioned for an alliance with Tel Aviv, which would offer a permanent solution to the problem of the Golan Heights and give Israel a buffer zone that would greatly shore up its security in the north. In addition, the residents of that entire territory might want to “reunite with their compatriots” inside of Israel.

However, the war didn’t go that way. The Druze proved completely loyal to Damascus and distinguished themselves with their heroic exploits to defend Syria’s territorial integrity. Nevertheless, the flavor of Israel’s military operations near that border shows that it has not entirely abandoned those notions. Tel Aviv might try again under favorable circumstances. And one circumstance that might fit that bill would be the federalization of Syria under international control.

A “Kurdish version” of Syria’s future national and state configuration was also widely circulated.

It is not difficult to see that at that time the Kurds had not yet even started to dream of the many territories they have now seized with the Americans’ help. The biggest challenge for them was unifying all the Kurdish cantons in the north into a single zone. As a result, despite gaining control over a quarter of Syrian territory – as far west as the Euphrates – the Kurds have by no means resolved the question of their nationhood. The Kurdish-occupied Arab settlements haven’t demonstrated any particular loyalty to Rojava. And the more economically-developed Afrin canton remains cut off from the greater part of the Kurdish stronghold. Outside of Rojava there are still about 250,000 Kurds living in the city of Aleppo (primarily in the Sheikh Maqsood district), a group that includes the most prominent cultural figures and businessmen of Kurdish ethnicity in Syria. Thus the Syrian Kurds’ appetites for new territory have not yet been sated.

If you look at the map of Syria’s ethno-sectarian makeup, it becomes clear that any attempts to demarcate certain federal or administrative zones along ethnic lines can only lead to fierce new clashes in this “war of all against all.”

The main problem is that the various ethnic and sectarian factions are all sprinkled throughout Syria. It is extremely difficult to clearly demarcate their boundaries. The claims of some will collide with the ambitions of others, forming permanent flash points where they converge. Who should own the uninhabited and oil-rich Syrian desert, which makes up half the country’s territory, is a completely open question. This is in fact a much uglier and more complicated version of the civil war in the former Yugoslavia. However, this is not the only problem.

Any hypothetical plan to impose a federal system on the country elicits the question: what are the criteria for identifying “the nationalities of Syria” and their right to independence? Given the plethora of sects and movements that exist in Syria, this would be an overwhelming task. For example, the West and the countries of the Persian Gulf have long dreamed of driving the Alawites, the Assad family’s tribe, into the “ghetto” of the province of Latakia. But are they not Arabs and Muslims, like their Sunni brothers? Using that approach, the country could be splintered into dozens of micro-states. Among the Sunnis in particular, one might point to the strong collective identity of the Bedouins as a reason to hand all of the desert over to them, and so on. And that might please some, but not Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

He has renounced ethno-sectarian discord and proposed a completely modern version of a civil Syrian nation that would respect the distinctive traits that distinguish the cultures and civilizations of all the groups living in the country. Assad believes that the problems of Syria’s national and state configuration can be resolved with the help of the ideology of pan-Arabism.

Speaking recently at a forum in Damascus attended by representatives from Arab countries, the Syrian president proclaimed that pan-Arabism is a conceptual notion of a civilization that includes “all ethnic groups, religions, and communities” and allows them to develop. And the cultural heritages of all of them have made an invaluable contribution to the historical development of pan-Arabism. According to Assad, an attempt was made during the war to impose a false choice on Syria: to either abandon its own identity and kowtow to foreign powers or to become a society of “communities in conflict.”

Paradoxically, the bulk of the opposition groups that take their cues from Riyadh fully agree with the Syrian president’s approach per se. They are also opposed to a federal system being foisted upon the country and make their arguments from a position of pan-Arabism. But Assad views this principle in a more secular light. It should be noted that under pressure from the opposition, the international mediators led by Staffan de Mistura have already altered their version of the future Syrian constitution, no longer referring to the country as the Syrian Republic, but as the Syrian Arab Republic, which still remains the state’s official name. The tensions between the opposition and Damascus have just about been reduced to one thorny issue – the continued hold of Bashar al-Assad and his entourage on the reins of power in that country. But if the pressure to federalize Syria keeps growing, then – who knows? – perhaps it might even motivate the opposition and the government to find a mutually acceptable solution to this issue as well.

Advertisements

America’s Enemies, Who’s On the List?

Prospects and Perspectives

Global Research, November 24, 2017

For almost 2 decades, the US pursued a list of ‘enemy countries’ to confront, attack, weaken and overthrow. 

This imperial quest to overthrow ‘enemy countries’ operated at various levels of intensity, depending on two considerations:  the level of priority and the degree of vulnerability for a ‘regime change’ operation.

The criteria for determining an ‘enemy country’ and its place on the list of priority targets in the US quest for greater global dominance, as well as its vulnerability to a ‘successfully’ regime change will be the focus of this essay.

We will conclude by discussing the realistic perspectives of future imperial options.

Prioritizing US Adversaries

Imperial strategists consider military, economic and political criteria in identifying high priority adversaries.

The following are high on the US ‘enemy list’:

1) Russia, because of its military power, is a nuclear counterweight to US global domination.  It has a huge, well-equipped armed force with a European, Asian and Middle East presence.  Its global oil and gas resources shield it from US economic blackmail and its growing geo-political alliances limit US expansion.

2) China, because of its global economic power and the growing scope of its trade, investment and technological networks.  China’s growing defensive military capability, particularly with regard to protecting its interests in the South China Sea serve to counter US domination in Asia.

3) North Korea, because of its nuclear and ballistic missile capability, its fierce independent foreign policies and its strategic geo-political location, is seen as a threat to the US military bases in Asia and Washington’s regional allies and proxies.

4) Venezuela, because of its oil resources and socio-political policies, challenge the US centered neo-liberal model in Latin America.

5) Iran, because of its oil resources, political independence and geo-political alliances in the Middle East, challenge US, Israeli and Saudi Arabia domination of the region and present an independent alternative.

6) Syria, because of its strategic position in the Middle East, its secular nationalist ruling party and its alliances with Iran, Palestine, Iraq and Russia, is a counterweight to US-Israeli plans to balkanize the Middle East into warring ethno-tribal states.

US  Middle-level Adversaries :

1)  Cuba, because of its independent foreign policies and its alternative socio-economic system stands in contrast to the US-centered neo-liberal regimes in the Caribbean, Central and South America.

2) Lebanon, because of its strategic location on the Mediterranean and the coalition government’s power sharing arrangement with the political party, Hezbollah, which is increasingly influential in Lebanese civil society in part because of its militia’s proven capacity to protect Lebanese national sovereignty by expelling the invading Israeli army and helping to defeat the ISIS/al Queda mercenaries in neighboring Syria.

3) Yemen, because of its independent, nationalist Houthi-led movement opposed to the Saudi-imposed puppet government as well as its relations with Iran.

Low Level Adversaries

1) Bolivia, because of its independent foreign policy, support for the Chavista government in Venezuela and advocacy of a mixed economy;  mining wealth and  defense of indigenous people’s territorial claims.

2) Nicaragua, because of its independent foreign policy and criticism of US aggression toward Cuba and Venezuela.

US hostility to high priority adversaries is expressed through economic sanctions military encirclement, provocations and intense propaganda wars toward North Korea, Russia, Venezuela, Iran and Syria.

Because of China’s powerful global market linkages, the US has applied few sanctions.  Instead, the US relies on military encirclement, separatist provocations and intense hostile propaganda when dealing with China.

Priority Adversaries, Low Vulnerability and Unreal Expectations

With the exception of Venezuela, Washington’s ‘high priority targets’ have limited strategic vulnerabilities. Venezuela is the most vulnerable because of its high dependence on oil revenues with its major refineries located in the US, and its high levels of indebtedness, verging on default.   In addition, there are the domestic opposition groups, all acting as US clients and Caracas’ growing isolation within Latin America due to orchestrated hostility by important US clients, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia and Mexico.

Iran is far less vulnerable: It is a strong strategic regional military power linked to neighboring countries and similar religious-nationalist movements.  Despite its dependence on oil exports, Iran has developed alternative markets, like China, free from US blackmail and is relatively safe from US or EU initiated creditor attacks.

North Korea, despite the crippling economic sanctions imposed on its regime and civilian population, has ‘the bomb’ as a deterrent to a US military attack and has shown no reluctance to defend itself.  Unlike Venezuela, neither Iran nor North Korea face significant internal attacks from US-funded or armed domestic opposition.

Russia has full military capacity – nuclear weapons, ICBM and a huge, well-trained armed force – to deter any direct US military threat.  Moscow is politically vulnerable to US-backed propaganda, opposition political parties and Western-funded NGO’s.  Russian oligarch-billionaires, linked to London and Wall Street, exercise some pressure against independent economic initiatives.

To a limited degree, US sanctions exploited Russia’s earlier dependence on Western markets, butsince the imposition of draconian sanctions by the Obama regime, Moscow has effectively counteredWashington’s offensive by diversifying its markets to Asia and strengthening domestic self-reliance in its agriculture, industry and high technology.

China has a world-class economy and is on course to become the world’s economic leader.  Feeble threats to ‘sanction’ China have merely exposed Washington’s weakness rather intimidating Beijing.  China has countered US military provocations and threats by expanding its economic market power, increasing its strategic military capacity and shedding dependence on the dollar.

Washington’s high priority targets are not vulnerable to frontal attack: They retain or are increasing their domestic cohesion and economic networks, while upgrading their military capacity to impose completely unacceptable costs on the US for any direct assault.

As a result, the US leaders are forced to rely on incremental, peripheral and proxy attacks with limited results against its high priority adversaries.

Washington will tighten sanctions on North Korea and Venezuela, with dubious prospects of success in the former and a possible pyrrhic victory in the case of Caracas. Iran and Russia can easily overcome proxy interventions.  US allies, like Saudi Arabia and Israel, can badger, propagandize and rail the Persians, but their fears that an out-and-out war against Iran, could quickly destroy Riyadh and Tel Aviv forces them to work in tandem to induce the corrupt US political establishment to push for war over the objections of a war-weary US military and population. Saudi and Israelis can bomb and starve the populations of Yemen and Gaza, which lack any capacity to reply in kind, but Teheran is another matter.

The politicians and propagandists in Washington can blather about Russia’s interference in the US’s corrupt electoral theater and scuttle moves to improve diplomatic ties, but they cannot counter Russia’s growing influence in the Middle East and its expanding trade with Asia, especially China.

In summary, at the global level, the US ‘priority’ targets are unattainable and invulnerable.  In the midst of the on-going inter-elite dogfight within the US, it may be too much to hope for the emergence of any rational policymakers in Washington who could rethink strategic priorities and calibrate policies of mutual accommodation to fit in with global realities.

Medium and Low Priorities, Vulnerabilities and Expectations

Washington can intervene and perhaps inflict severe damage on middle and low priority countries.  However, there are several drawbacks to a full-scale attack.

Yemen, Cuba, Lebanon, Bolivia and Syria are not nations capable of shaping global political and economic alignments.  The most the US can secure in these vulnerable countries are destructive regime changes with massive loss of life, infrastructure and millions of desperate refugees . . . but at great political cost, with prolonged instability and with severe economic losses.

Yemen

The US can push for a total Saudi Royal victory over the starving, cholera-stricken people of Yemen.  But who benefits?  Saudi Arabia is in the midst of a palace upheaval and has no ability to exercise hegemony, despite hundreds of billions of  dollars of US/NATO arms, trainers and bases.  Colonial occupations are costly and yield few, if any, economic benefits, especially from a poor, geographically isolated devastated nation like Yemen.

Cuba

Cuba has a powerful highly professional military backed by a million-member militia.  They are capable of prolonged resistance and can count on international support.  A US invasion of Cuba would require a prolonged occupation and heavy losses.  Decades of economic sanctions haven’t worked and their re-imposition by Trump have not affected the key tourist growth sectors.

President Trump’s ‘symbolic hostility’ does not cut any ice with the major US agro-business groups, which saw Cuba as a market. Over half of the so-called ‘overseas Cubans’ now oppose direct US intervention.

US-funded NGOs can provide some marginal propaganda points but they cannot reverse popular support for Cuba’s mixed ‘socialized’ economy, its excellent public education and health care and its independent foreign policy.

Lebanon

A joint US-Saudi economic blockade and Israeli bombs can destabilize Lebanon.  However, a full-scale prolonged Israeli invasion will cost Jewish lives and foment domestic unrest.  Hezbollah has missiles to counter Israeli bombs.  The Saudi economic blockade will radicalize Lebanese nationalists, especially among the Shia and the Christian populations.  The Washington’s ‘invasion’ of Libya, which did not lose a single US soldier, demonstrates that destructive invasions result in long-term, continent-wide chaos.

A US-Israeli-Saudi war would totally destroy Lebanon but it will destabilize the region and exacerbate conflicts in neighboring countries – Syria, Iran and possibly Iraq.  And Europe will be flooded with millions more desperate refugees.

Syria

The US-Saudi proxy war in Syria suffered serious defeats and the loss of political assets.  Russia gained influence, bases and allies.  Syria retained its sovereignty and forged a battle-hardened national armed force.  Washington can sanction Syria, grab some bases in a few phony ‘Kurdish enclaves’ but it will not advance beyond a stalemate and will be widely viewed as an occupying invader.

Syria is vulnerable and continues to be a middle-range target on the US enemy list but it offers few prospects of advancing US imperial power, beyond some limited ties with an unstable Kurd enclave, susceptible to internecine warfare, and risking major Turkish retaliation.

Bolivia and Nicaragua

Bolivia and Nicaragua are minor irritants on the US enemy list. US regional policymakers recognize that neither country exercises global or even regional power.  Moreover, both regimes rejected radical politics in practice and co-exist with powerful and influential local oligarchs and international MNC’s linked to the US.

Their foreign policy critiques, which are mostly for domestic consumption, are neutralized by the near total US influence in the OAS and the major neo-liberal regimes in Latin America.  It appears that the US will accommodate these marginalized rhetorical adversaries rather than risk provoking any revival of radical nationalist or socialist mass movements erupting in La Paz or Managua.

Conclusion

A brief examination of Washington’s ‘list of enemies’ reveals that the limited chances of success even among vulnerable targets.  Clearly, in this evolving world power configuration, US money and markets will not alter the power equation.

US allies, like Saudi Arabia, spend enormous amounts of money attacking a devastated nation, but they destroy markets while losing wars.  Powerful adversaries, like China, Russia and Iran, are not vulnerable and offer the Pentagon few prospects of military conquest in the foreseeable future.

Sanctions, or economic wars have failed to subdue adversaries in North Korea, Russia, Cuba and Iran.  The ‘enemy list’ has cost the US prestige, money and markets – a very peculiar imperialist balance sheet.  Russia now exceeds the US in wheat production and exports.  Gone are the days when US agro-exports dominated world trade including trade with Moscow.

Enemy lists are easy to compose, but effective policies are difficult to implement against rivals with dynamic economies and powerful military preparedness.

The US would regain some of its credibility if it operated within the contexts of global realities and pursued a win-win agenda instead of remaining a consistent loser in a zero-sum game.

Rational leaders could negotiate reciprocal trade agreements with China, which would develop high tech, finance and agro-commercial ties with manufacturers and services.  Rational leaders could develop joint Middle East economic and peace agreements, recognizing the reality of a Russian-Iranian-Lebanese Hezbollah and Syrian alliance.

As it stands, Washington’s ‘enemy list’ continues to be composed and imposed by its own irrational leaders, pro-Israel maniacs and Russophobes in the Democratic Party – with no acknowledgement of current realities.

For Americans, the list of domestic enemies is long and well known, what we lack is a civilian political leadership to replace these serial mis-leaders.

بن سلمان والمهمة المستحيلة .. النوم في بيت العنكبوت

 سيستيقظ الحالم قيس ويظن أنه في بيت ليلى العامرية ليكتشف أنه نام في بيت العنكبوت .. وليست هناك ليلى بل أنثى عنكبوت صهيونية ستأكله حتى قبل رقصة الحب والزواج ..

بقلم نارام سرجون

من المعيب أننا في خصومتنا مع الآخرين وصراعنا معهم حتى الموت نمسك كل ماتقع عليه ايدينا لنرجمهم به من أجل الفوز بأي ثمن .. نرجمهم بلحم البشر ونرشقهم بدماء الناس ونرميهم بالكتب المقدسة ونضربهم بالمآذن والأجراس والصلبان والقرآن ..

القتال مع الخصوم أيضا قتال مع جشع الذات وحيوانيتها .. فليس المهم أن ننتصر كما تفكر الثقافة الغربية الرأسمالية بل المهم أيضا كيف ننتصر .. فالثقافة السياسية الغربية تحنث بالعهود والوعود وتطعن في الظهر وتكذب وتقسم أن الله قد أعطى أرضك لشعبه المختار وترشقك بجثث اخوانك وتفبرك الحكايات والشهود لتقول أنك قتلت الناس بالسلاح الكيماوي وهي التي لاتزال يدها مخضبة باليورانيوم المنضب ولاتزال تقطر من أصابعها دماء هيروشيما الساخنة الملوثة بالاشعاع .. وتشكوك وتتهمك بأنك تقتلع أظافر الأطفال في السجون وتجتث الحناجر وتقطّع أجساد الصبايا .. وهي التي قتلت أطفالا أكثر مما قتل في حروب البشر مجتمعين ..

وأجمل مافي نصرنا أنه نصر نظيف جدا .. لم نغلفه بالأكاذيب والادعاءات .. وسنحافظ على أجمل شيء في الحرب والنصر وهو طهارتهما من نجس الدعاية والكذب والترويج .. ولذلك اياكم أن يغريكم النصر فتستسهلوا ظلم الحكايات والروايات وتستسهلوا القاء الذرائع والادعاءات ..

في حربنا مع الأسرة المالكة السعودية تبدو المعركة أسهل جدا من غيرها لأن مالدى المملكة من آثام ورزايا وعار يكفينا الحاجة لان نبحث عن ذرائع ووسائل لهدمها .. فأنى يممت وجهك شممت في الهواء رائحة السعودية قادمة مع دخان الحرائق وملفات الفساد والجريمة والخيانة .. وتنبعث رائحتها من جراح أطفال فلسطين واليمن الذين تقتلهم رصاصات بارودها من رمال جزيرة العرب ..ولذلك فنحن في غنى عن الاختلاق والتلفيق .. ولدينا فائض من الحقيقة عندما نكتب .. ولذلك فاننا عندما نتناول شأنا سعوديا فاننا لانجعله جذابا ومقروءا بتزيينه بالأكاذيب بل نزخرفه بالحقائق ونعلق عليه أجراسا صنعناها من أعماق الضمير ..

من الأسئلة التي يتداولها الناس هذه الأيام هذا الاندفاع المستميت لاعلان الزواج بين اسرائيل والسعودية .. حيث يتشاطر السعوديون في عملية التسريع في التحالف العلني مع الاسرائيليين .. فيما يبدو الاسرائيليون مستعجلين أكثر في هذا السباق .. وتقوم السعودية باطلاق بالونات اختبار وعملية حقن بلقاح التطبيع التدريجي عبر تصريحات ومصافحات ولقاءات بين شخصيات سعودية واسرائيلية وتسريبات مدروسة التوقيت بعناية بحيث تتوالى الاخبار وفق تكرار مدروس وروتين يحافظ على الاستمرار كيلا تغيب أخبار التطبيع أكثر من اسبوع لتحقن في الاعلام أخبار جديدة لتتابع عملية هدم المناعة النفسية للناس المضادة للتطبيع بلقاحات الأخبار عن لقاءات سعودية واسرائيلية علنية وترحيب من قبل اعلاميين وصحفيين من الطرفين بهذا التغيير .. فهناك من يصافح صباحا وهناك من يعانق مساء .. واليوم هناك من يدعو للسياحة في تل ابيب كي يرد عليه الاسرائيليون بسياحة أحسن منها في الحرم المكي والتقاط الصور قرب قبر النبي .. ومصادر المملكة الرسمية لاتنفي اطلاقا عبر القصر ووزارة الخارجية أي اتهامات وتتجاهل عمدا كل الانتقادات الحادة الموجهة لها بهذا الشأن .. وتريد بهذا الوجه المتحجر الذي لاتبدو عليه امارات التعجب او الاستهجان او حتى القبول ان تصبح عملية التطبيع مع الاسرايليين سهلة جدا وناضجة ويكون العقل العربي والاسلامي قد تهيأ لها لأنه يتلقى الأخبار الصادمة دون نفي او استهجان فيتكرر التلقي الى أن يصبح اعتياديا كما يحدث عند حقن اللقاحات التي فيها فيروسات مضعفة لاتسبب المرض لكن الجهاز المناعي يتعرف على خصائصها كيلا يتفاجأ بها عندما تهاجمه وهي قوية ..

ولاندري من شدة الشوق بين الطرفين من الذي يسعى أكثر الى اللقاء .. ولكن الاسرائيليين مستعجلون جدا للتطبيع مع السعودية لأنها بالنسبة لهم الفرصة التي لن تتكرر حيث تحس السعودية أن التذرع بالخطر الايراني الداهم وتخويف المسلمين والعرب من الغول الايراني ذو الفك الشيعي هو فرصة لن تتكرر بعد أن ابتلعت الجماهير الطعم المذهبي وهي تستعمله من أجل تبرير التحالف مع الاسرائيليين بشكل علني بعد أن كان سرّيا (على شكل تفاهم مديد منذ تأسيس الكياني السعودي الوهابي والصهيوني اليهودي) ..

وستكون السعودية في حرج كبير اذا ماتغير نظام الحكم فجأة في ايران وحل محله نظام موال للغرب وصديق للسعودية لأن مبرر التحالف مع اسرائيل او التطبيع معها سيتلاشى .. فقد واجهت السعودية خصوما أخطر من ايران تمثلوا بالرئيس جمال عبد الناصر والرئيس صدام حسين .. وكلاهما قالا في السعودية أكثر بكثير مما قالته ايران ودعيا الى اسقاط نظامها العميل ووصلا بجنودهما الى حدودها في اليمن والكويت بل وتجاوز صدام حسين الحدود السعودية في الخفجي ودخل اليها بقوات عراقية وهو مالم تفعله قوة معادية لاايرانية ولا من حزب الله .. ولكن السعودية لم تجد حاجة ماسة أو جرأة كافية للتحالف العلني مع اسرائيل ضد ناصر او صدام حسين بالرغم مما فعلا واكتفت بالتنسيق المطلق في الظلام مع اسرائيل حتى دحرت تجربة ناصر وهزمت مشروع صدام حسين ..

ولكن مع ايران الوضع مختلف جدا لأن ايران ليست عربية مثل مصر والعراق عندما لم يكن ممكنا تبرير التحالف حتى مع الشيطان – كما تدعي – من أجل الدفاع عن المملكة لأن هذا لن يبدو سهل الهضم في المساجد والمقاهي من المحيط الى الخليج .. رغم أن صدام حسين فعل بالخليج أكثر مما فعلته ايران اذ دفع بدباباته الى الخليج وتحدث عن عصر تنتهي فيه الاسر المالكة الخليجية “المقبورة” .. ومع ذلك لم تجرؤ السعودية على الصراخ والاستغاثة بتل أبيب رغم ان عدو العدو هو صديق وكانت تستطيع الى حد ما تبرير التحالف مع اسرائيل ضد صدام حسين الذي قالت انه غزا الكويت حيث ألقى “جنوده المتوحشون” الأطفال من الحاضنات في المشافي كما روت سعاد الصباح في شهادتها الشهيرة الكاذبة التي تفوق كذبة اسلحة الدمار الشامل .. وحاول صدام حسين بالحاح ان يظهر هذا التحالف بين اسرائيل والسعودية باطلاق صواريخه على اسرائيل وعلى السعودية معا ودفع بقواته الى مدينة الخفجي السعودية كي ترد عليه السعودية واسرائيل ويظهر الجيش العراقي يواجه السعوديين والاسرائيليين معا كحلفاء .. ولكن الحذر السعودي والاسرائيلي كان أكبر بكثير من محاولته .. لان اظهار التحالف السعودي الصهيوني كانت له خطورته في تلك الايام بسبب تأجج المشاعر التي التهبت بخطوة صدام حسين الذي تجرأ على الممالك النفطية وقال لها مايقال في كل بيت عربي من المحيط الى الخليج .. والتي أظهرت ان الجماهير العربية تكره بشدة حكومات دول الخليج النفطية (المحتلة) وتكن لها الاحتقار الشديد وتنظر اليها على أنها مستعمرات يجب تحريرها وهي تشبه اسرائيل في تكوينها اللاشرعي واحتلالها للشعوب .. وأظهر تأييد الشعوب العربية لضدام حسين أن لهذه الشعوب ثأرا مع حكام النفط ..

أما اليوم فان ايران يمكن ببساطة أن تصنف بتصنيفات لانهاية لها .. فارسية .. صفوية .. مجوسية .. شيعية .. الخ .. ولكنها ليست عربية .. ولذلك تسقط حرمة كل من يتعاون معها حتى لو كان عربيا مثل حزب الله وحماس وسورية .. وتستطيع السعودية ان تعزف على هذه الاوتار العديدة كل الالحان النشاز وتنتقل الى تحالف علني بذريعة أنها اليوم تتزعم قومية عربية تواجه قومية فارسية .. أو مذهبا سنيا يواجه مذهبا شيعيا .. وهذا كله يتيحه التحالف مع قومية أخرى وديانة أخرى متوفرة في اسرائيل ..

مايلفت النظر هو هذه العجلة السعودية والاسرائيلية لانهاء هذا التردد والانتظار الذي طال بضعة عقود .. ويبدو الطرفان في سباق مع الزمن حتى أننا صرنا عاجزين عن اللحاق بتصريحات الغزل والحب والصداقة والتعاون والمصير المشترك بين اسرائيل والسعودية .. حتى أن من يستمع الى الغزل بينهما يحس بالحرج والخجل لأنه صار أكثر مايشبه الغزل بين قيس بن الملوح وبنت عمه ليلى العامرية ..

ولكن لم هذه العجلة في اعلان الحب بين قيس وليلى اليهودية؟؟

هذه العجلة تفسر على أنها خوف مشترك بينهما من نتيجة الحرب في سورية التي هزمت فيها طموحات السعودية واسرائيل معا .. وصار من الواضح أن الحرب قد تسببت بخسائر كبيرة معنوية للسعودية التي كشفت الحرب انها حليف أصيل لاسرائيل منذ النكبة وقد انقشعت كل الحجب بعد أن بدا جليا ان السعودية ساعدت اسرائل على تدمير العراق وعزل مصر ومشروع اسقاط سورية .. وهذه الدول الثلاث هي الدول التي يمكن لها وحدها اسقاط المشروع الصهيوني .. وكشفت الحرب أيضا ان السعودية هي النبع التكفيري الذي أنتج داعش والنصرة والحركات الاسلامية العنيفة وكشفت الحرب السورية فشل أهم جيش سري للناتو وهو القاعدة ومشتقاتها وصار من الضروري اخفاء البصمات وأدوات الجريمة .. كما أن الحرب قد تسببت بتغيرات عسكرية دراماتيكية لم تكن تخطر على بال أحد فالجيش السوري وحلفاؤه من حزب الله وايران قد صار بحوزتهم جيش متناسق موحد منسجم ومتناغم وهو يمتلك أثمن ماتمتلكه الجيوش المحاربة وهو الخبرة القتالية في أصعب ظروف قتالية .. فما حدث لم يكن مجرد حرب عادية بل هي مناورات هائلة المساحة والانتشار ومزج بين قوام الجيش وقوام وحدات الكوماندوز .. فولد مخلوق جديد في العلوم العسكرية لم تعهده الجيوش وهو (الجيش المكمدز) اي مزيج الجيش النظامي الذي يدرب تدريب الكوماندوز .. وجرت عملية تحديث شاملة تبنتها روسيا للأسلحة والوسائط النارية وتجهزات الحرب الالكترونية المعقدة .. أي أن نتائج الحرب كانت كارثية على السعودية واسرائيل على عكس التوقعات ..

السعودية تريد ان تقبض على اللحظة الاخيرة التي شرب فيها الجمهور العربي والاسلامي كله من بول البعير .. وتحول الى جمهور لايكترث بفلسطين بل بالمذاهب في فلسطين وحولها ولم يعد يعنيه مشروع صدام حسين لتحرير الخليج من الاسر الحاكمة بل صار مسكونا بهواجس الهلال الشيعي والخلافة والخرافة .. ولكن نهاية الحرب السورية ستعيده الى لحظة فلسطين وتخرجه من رحلة البحث عن المذاهب حول فلسطين ..

ان كل ماأنجزته اسرائيل من عملية التطبيع المستمرة دون كلل عبر كامب ديفيد واوسلو ووادي عربة قد ينهار تماما بنهاية الحرب السورية عندما يجد العرب والمسلمون أنهم أمام قوة عسكرية هائلة للحلفاء من سورية الى ايران تلجم اسرائيل وتحدد حركتها .. وسيعود الجمهور الى لحظة تاريخية قاسية جدا على اسرائيل عندما بهر السيد حسن نصرالله وحزب الله العرب والمسلمين بتحديهم اسرئيل عام 2006 رغم كل مابذلته ورغم كل المؤامرة العربية والتحالف السعودي (السري) مع اسرائيل .. ولذلك فان من الضروري لاسرائيل والسعودية المتابعة بنفس زخم التذخير المذهبي والقومي والطائفي والعنصري والتخويفي من ايران لخلق حالة التحام عاطفي ونفسي ومصيري مع اسرائيل قبل ان يتم الالتحام من جديد مع مشروع مناوئ لاسرائيل ..

ولكن بكل تأكيد فان السيف قد سبق العذل بالنسبة للسعودية واسرائيل .. لأن عملية التطبيع كانت تسير بنجاح منقطع النظير مع انتصارات مشروع داعش والنصرة وجيش الاسلام .. غير أن مشروع التطبيع وتغيير العدو يحتاج الى انتصار كي يكمل مسيرته .. لأن التطبيع يفرضه المنتصر وليس المهزوم .. فالسادات احتاج الى نصر (ولو تلفزيوني) وليس الى هزيمة ليبرر لنفسه ركوب التطبيع .. ولو انه لم يحقق نصرا نسبه لنفسه لكانت عملية السلام مع تل ابيب صعبة جدا عليه وتسبب رد فعل كبيرا .. ومن هنا كانت مراجعات سينار الحرب في اوكتوبر وثغرة الدفرسوار التي مهدت لقبول مشروع السادات بعد اداعئه أنه صانع الانتصار ولديه مشروع مكمل للانتصار .. ولذا فانه كان قادرا أن يتكئ على معركة العبور التي نسبها لنفسه ليبرر قراره التالي بالسلام .. أما الأسرة السعودية فان مأزقها كبير جدا وعملية التطبيع مع اسرائيل خرقاء جدا في توقيتها لأنها تواجه محورا منتصرا في الشمال على اسرائيل التي تريد ان تتحالف معها وهذا المحور يمسك أوراقا قوية وخطيرة للغاية أمام اسرائيل المقيدة والخائفة من الحرب .. فما هو مبرر هذا التحالف مع طرف لم ينتصر ؟؟ .. وسيزداد الأمر تعقيدا اذا لحقت باسرائيل هزيمة أخرى من اي نوع ولو في معركة صغيرة فكيف اذا نفذ حزب الله مشروعه باجتياح الجليل أو محاصرته في اية مواجهة مقبلة ؟؟ .. وهنا سيكون الناس أمام مشروعين: مشروع تطبيع بلا انتصارات تبرره وتمثله السعودية .. ومشروع تحرير ممانع للتطبيع ومتسلح بانتصار كبير تمثله ايران وسورية وحزب الله .. والناس تميل الى الانتصار لأنه جذاب وتصدق نظريات المنتصر وتسكن اليها .. فالنصر مهما كان هو المغناطيس الذي يجذب الناس وخاصة في الشرق الذي أدمن الهزائم والذل والانكسار .. وسيلحق الناس بالمنتصرين كما لو كانوا منومين مغناطيسيا ..

ولذلك لاأمل من مشروع بن سلمان في التطبيع بذريعة ايران العدوة والخطرة على الأمن العربي والسني لأنه ببساطة يحتاج نصرا واضحا ساطعا وكاسحا في جبهة ما كي يؤمن الناس بنظريات المنتصر ..

ولكن

 ماأصعب النصر اليوم .. انه أصعب شيء يمكن ان يناله ملك مأزوم يحارب عدة حروب ويخشى عائلته .. يحاول يوما أن يكون نابوليون بونابرت في الصباح .. وفي المساء يحب ان يلعب دور المجدد ومؤسس الجمهورية السعودية مثل مصطفى كمال أتاتورك .. وفي الليل قيس بن الملوح .. وفي الفجر يستيقظ مذعورا على صوت صاروخ يمني يسقط في حديقة قصره .. انه كابوس أنه لم يستطع حتى ان يهزم الجياع في اليمن .. فكيف سينتصر في الشمال؟؟ .. وكيف يمكن لقيس الحالم أن يطبّع وأن يراقص ليلى ويتزوجها على سنة الله ورسوله .. من غير نصر على حلفاء نصر الله .. ؟؟ سيستيقظ الحالم قيس ويظن أنه في بيت ليلى العامرية ليكتشف أنه نام في بيت العنكبوت .. وليست هناك ليلى بل أنثى عنكبوت صهيونية ستأكله حتى قبل رقصة الحب والزواج ..

 

   ( الخميس 2017/11/30 SyriaNow)
 Related Video

 

Is North Korea Really a ‘State Sponsor of Terrorism’?

 

Is North Korea Really a ‘State Sponsor of Terrorism’?


By Ron Paul

November 27, 2017 “Information Clearing House” –  President Trump announced last week that he was returning North Korea to the US list of “state sponsors of terrorism” after having been off the list for the past nine years. Americans may wonder what dramatic event led the US president to re-designate North Korea as a terrorism-sponsoring nation. Has Pyongyang been found guilty of some spectacular terrorist attack overseas or perhaps of plotting to overthrow another country by force? No, that is not the case. North Korea is back on the US list of state sponsors of terrorism because President Trump thinks the move will convince the government to give up its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile program. He believes that continuing down the path toward confrontation with North Korea will lead the country to capitulate to Washington’s demands. That will not happen.

President Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson argued that North Korea deserved to be back on the list because the North Korean government is reported to have assassinated a North Korean citizen – Kim Jong-Un’s own half-brother — in February at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport. But what does that say about Washington’s own program to assassinate US citizens like Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16 year old son under Obama, and later Awlaki’s six year old daughter under Trump? Like Kim’s half brother, Awlaki and his two children were never tried or convicted of a crime before being killed by their own government.

The neocons, who are pushing for a war with North Korea, are extremely pleased by Trump’s move. John Bolton called it “exactly the right thing to do.”

Designating North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism will allow President Trump to impose the “highest level of sanctions” on North Korea. Does anyone believe more sanctions – which hurt the suffering citizens of North Korea the most – will actually lead North Korea’s leadership to surrender to Washington’s demands? Sanctions never work. They hurt the weakest and most vulnerable members of society the hardest and affect the elites the least.

So North Korea is officially a terrorism-sponsoring nation according to the Trump Administration because Kim Jong-Un killed a family member. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia is in the process of killing the entire country of Yemen and no one says a word. In fact, the US government has just announced it will sell Saudi Arabia $7 billion more weapons to help it finish the job.

Also, is it not “state-sponsorship” of terrorism to back al-Qaeda and ISIS, as Saudi Arabia has done in Syria?

The truth is a “state sponsor of terrorism” designation has little to do with actual support for global terrorism. As bad as the North Korean government is, it is does not go abroad looking for countries to invade. The designation is a political one, allowing Washington to ramp up more aggression against North Korea.

Next month the US and South Korean militaries will conduct a massive military exercise practicing an attack on North Korea. American and South Korean air force fighters and bombers will practice “enemy infiltration” and “precision strike drills.” Are these not also to be seen as threatening?

What is terrorism? Maybe we should ask a Yemeni child constantly wondering when the next Saudi bomb overhead might kill his family. Or perhaps we might even ask a Pakistani, Somali, Iraqi, Syrian, or other child who is terrified that the next US bomb will do the same to his family. Perhaps we need to look at whether US foreign policy actually reflects the American values we claim to be exporting before we point out the flaws in others.

This article was originally published by RonPaul Institute –

Copyright © 2017 by RonPaul Institute.

 

Brotherhood, Wahabism: Two Faces of the Same Coin

 

Apr 13, 2012

Sayyed Houthi: Saudi Escalates Aggression on Yemen to Revenge for Defeat in Syria, Iraq

Saudi Arabia Has Become An «Irrational Actor in ME»

24-11-2017 | 16:10

Saudi Arabia has become much more aggressive in the Middle East as the United States has pulled back from its traditional role in the region, according to Philippe Dauba-Pantanacce, global geopolitical strategist at Standard Chartered bank.

Saudi Crown Prince MBS

“We’re seeing a series of miscalculations … We tend to think that Saudi Arabia has become an irrational actor in the Middle East,” Dauba-Pantanacce told CNBC Thursday.

His comments come as the Sunni Islamic kingdom’s foreign policy actions are increasingly forcing instability upon smaller nations, where analysts believe Saudi Arabia is seeking to amplify sectarian divisions. These moves have unfolded against the backdrop of escalating competition between Saudi Arabia and its Shia arch-rival Iran.

“I say this because every single foreign venture they (Saudi Arabia) try has reached the opposite result that they wanted. In Yemen, in Qatar, and now in Lebanon,” he said.

In the latest twist to come out of Middle East geopolitics, Lebanon’s Prime Minister Saad Hariri on Wednesday suspended his previous resignation, apparently in order to open “a new gateway for responsible dialogue,” he said in a statement. Whether this came with Saudi approval is not yet known.

The prime minister returned to Beirut Tuesday night following an unexpected two-week stay in Saudi Arabia, where he delivered a shock resignation from the capital Riyadh on November 4. This prompted widespread speculation that the prime minister was “held hostage,” as well as consensus among analysts that Saudi Arabia forced Hariri to resign.

“What Saudi Arabia is miscalculating is that in (holding) the PM of Lebanon probably against his will in the country, it has managed the feat of unifying all of Lebanon against Saudi, including the constituency of Lebanon that is traditionally sympathetic to Saudi,” the strategist explained.

An ‘outbreak of unity’

A diverse country of 18 different religious groups, Lebanon’s fragile political system is based on power-sharing between Sunnis, Shiites and Christians. This often results in a fractured and gridlocked government and society, most vividly manifested in a bloody 15-year civil war that only ended in 1990.

Hariri, a Sunni who holds Saudi citizenship and is a traditional Saudi ally, has since 2016 led a consensus government including Shia political party and group Hezbollah — something the Saudis apparently would not tolerate. The group, which Saudi Arabia classifies as a “terrorist” organization, is Lebanon’s most powerful political body.

Saudi Arabia’s efforts are part of its campaign to isolate Hezbollah and freeze its involvement in regional conflicts in which the Sunni kingdom has interests, like Yemen and Syria. But as Dauba-Pantanacce explained, its military campaign in Yemen has actually prompted greater Iranian involvement there, and its actions concerning Lebanon have brought the fractured country together.

Supporters of Lebanon’s resigned Prime Minister Saad Hariri hold up placards demanding his return from Saudi Arabia on the starting line of Beirut’s annual marathon on November 12, 2017. Hariri announced on November 4 in a televised statement from Riyadh that he would be stepping down from the post, sending shock waves through Lebanese politics.

Supporters of Lebanon’s resigned Prime Minister Saad Hariri hold up placards demanding his return from Saudi Arabia on the starting line of Beirut’s annual marathon on November 22, 2017. Hariri announced on November 4 in a televised statement from Riyadh that he would be stepping down from the post, sending shock waves through Lebanese politics.

“We see an outbreak of unity in Lebanon for their PM because they saw the attitude of Saudi Arabia as humiliating for Lebanon. It’s interesting that we’ve seen this unity against Saudi — Saudi probably outplayed its hand in this conflict,” he told CNBC.

Dauba-Pantanacce attributed the kingdom’s intensifying foreign aggression to Saudi Arabia’s new leadership, headed up by the young Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The prince has moved to consolidate power through both foreign interventions like its offensive in Yemen and a domestic “anti-corruption” purge of government officials. Dauba-Pantanacce also noted the US’s “retrenchment” from its traditional role in the region as partly to blame for growing Saudi influence.

Source: CNBC, Edited by website team

%d bloggers like this: