سنة على ترامب: المهزلة تناسب الإخفاق

ناصر قنديل

تشكّل السنة الأولى فرصة للتعرّف على ماهية الجديد لكلّ رئيس في أيّ بلد في العالم، خصوصاً في البلدان الصانعة للسياسة والحروب، وبصورة أخصّ في بلد كأميركا تتبدّل فيه مع الرئاسات بعض السياسات، للتعرّف على حدود التغيير والجديد الذي سيقدّمه الرئيس الجديد، قياساً بالمقارنة بين وعود الانتخابات وتطبيق السياسات. ولا تكون السنة الأولى موضوع كشف حساب مؤسّس على جدول مقارن بين ما كان قبل وما صار بعد، ولا بين الوعود والصدقية، بقدر ما تتشكل مع نهايتها انطباعات لدى الرأي العام في الداخل والخارج، لدى النخب والقادة تصنع صورة إجمالية عن رئيس خارق أو عادي أو أقلّ من عادي، وبحالات نادرة عن رئيس سيّئ وفاشل وغير جدير بالاحترام.

قلة هم الرؤساء الأميركيون الذين تركوا الانطباع بأنهم رؤساء خارقون بعد سنتهم الأولى، بل إنّ أغلبهم اكتسب هذه الصفة بعد خروجه من البيت الأبيض، خصوصاً بالمقارنة مع خلفه وما يقدّم. ولعلّ هذه هي حال الرئيس السابق باراك أوباما بعد السنة الأولى من عهد الرئيس الحالي دونالد ترامب، حيث ظهر الرئيس المثقف والمهذّب واللائق والديمقراطي والعقلاني والحضاري والإنساني والمتمدّن، لأنّ المقارنة تمّت وتتمّ مع رئيس وقح وقليل التهذيب وطويل اللسان وبذيء التعابير وعنصري التفكير ومعادٍ لغير البيض والمرأة، وتافه ثقافياً، عديم القراءة والمتابعة والاطلاع، وحادّ الطباع وعدواني لا يعترف بحق الإعلام ولا بحق الاختلاف، وعلى المستوى البشري قليل الذوق في اللباس والطعام.

في السياسة مرّت السنة الأولى وانتهت بإحباطات لكلّ الذين توقعوا منها المتناقضات. فهي محبطة للذين توقعوا حروباً تحسم الصراعات لصالح مفهوم العظمة الاستعمارية الأميركية المعادية للشعوب وقوى المقاومة والحرية، بقدر ما هي محبطة للذين تأمّلوا انفتاحاً على لغة التسويات والحلول السياسية تأخذ بالاعتبار التوازنات التي فرضتها المواجهات وتجنّب العالم المزيد من التوترات بلا جدوى، فجاء جباناً بنظر طالبي الحرب، وجباناً بنظر طالبي التسويات، كاذباً بنظر هؤلاء وكاذباً بنظر أولئك. كثير الأقوال قليل الأفعال بحساب مَن وعدهم بالحروب، وكذلك لمن وعدهم بالحلول. وفي الشق الداخلي تبخّرت أميركا أولاً، فلا خرج من حروب وعد بالخروج منها، ولا خفض الإنفاق العسكري بل زاده، ولا أعاد بناء وترتيب المنشآت العمرانية، ولا أصلح النظام التعليمي ولا صحّح النظام الصحي.

لا يبدو دونالد ترامب كغلطة أميركية بقدر ما يبدو التعبير الأقرب عن حال أميركا، فهي تحتاجه لاعب كلام يعوّض ضعفها وعجزها، وتحتاج عنترياته على تويتر تُرضي به شيخوختها، بادّعاء الفتوة الكاذبة، لكن المهزلة التي تضجّ بالحديث عنها صالونات السياسة والصحافة والمقالات والتعليقات، تبدو متناسبة مع حجم الإخفاق الذي تحتاج أميركا أن ترى من خلاله نفسها في المرآة، ويكفي مثالاً قرار اعتماد القدس عاصمة لـ«إسرائيل وزيارة نائب الرئيس الأميركي إلى المنطقة لتسويقها كمثال على الهزال الأميركي الذي كان دوماً يقف مع إسرائيل ، لكنه لم يكن يوماً يقف وحده كما هو اليوم، وفقاً لوقائع اجتماعات مجلس الأمن الدولي وتصويت الجمعية العامة للأمم المتحدة، وصولاً لوقائع زيارة مايك بينس إلى المنطقة، والتي لا تعادل قيمتها ما تعبّر عنه قيمة اسم صاحبها.

Syria, Russia & Iran shift to Diplomacy, While US and Allies Push for War

By Finian Cunningham

November 21, 2017 “Information Clearing House” – In a big week for Syrian peace talks, President Assad was hosted by Russian President Vladimir Putin in Sochi, where the leaders of Iran and Turkey are also to convene. Fittingly, perhaps, the US had no input into the renewed effort for peace in Syria.

Putin said that with the defeat of ISIS (Daesh, Islamic State) and other terror groups in Syria now virtually achieved, the parties to the conflict must underpin the political means to win the peace. Significantly, the talks in the Russian Black Sea resort of Sochi reinforce the earlier Geneva accord which assents to President Bashar Assad and his government in Damascus as the sovereign authority of Syria.

The demand by Washington and its European allies for Assad to “stand down” has long ago expired. That void is a tacit acknowledgment the nearly seven-year covert war in Syria for regime change has been defeated or at least the covert war in its guise of Western-backed proxy militant groups.

The absence of US and European officials at the peace talks in Sochi this week speaks volumes about their pernicious role in the Syrian war.

While Syria, Russia, Iran, and Turkey endeavor to revamp the peace negotiations, it is significant that Pentagon chief James Mattis was last week saying that US military forces would be digging in further on Syrian territory.

The reluctance of US forces to pack up in Syria despite the demise of the terror groups is perhaps best viewed as part of a regional resurgence of an American military presence. Under President Trump – despite his election campaign promises – the level of US forces has increased substantially in Afghanistan and Iraq. Deployment in Syria fits into this pattern of a regional buildup.

The increasing level of US military strength in the region also underlines the ominous signs of Saudi Arabia and Israel ramping up hostility toward Iran and Lebanon.

Last week, US Defense Secretary James Mattis said American forces would be staying in Syria despite the contradiction of terror groups being routed. Mattis’ claims that US forces have a legal United Nations’ mandate for their presence in Syria were dismissed by Russia and Syria as a flawed understanding of international law.

But even on Mattis’ own faulty reasoning, his claims are dubious. If US forces have a mandate to be in Syria to defeat terrorists, as claimed, then why are they there given the terrorists have been largely defeated?

Mattis said the new purpose of US forces were to “prevent ISIS 2.0” arising. Despite the fact that the Americans hardly ever engaged in fighting against ISIS, and indeed, as the BBC evenreported, gave the militants safe passage, including helicopter airlifting commanders out of harm’s way.

It was the Syrian Arab Army, Russia, Iran and Hezbollah who did all the heavy lifting to roll back the terror groups, which had been covertly armed and financed by the US and its NATO and regional client regimes. ISIS, Nusra, and all the other alphabet-soup terror groups were only ever a pretext for the US to deploy its warplanes and Special Forces in Syria – a presence which actually constitutes foreign aggression, as the Syrian government and Russia have repeatedly pointed out.

And yet here we have Mattis claiming that it was the US which defeated ISIS in Syria, and warning that the specter of this American asset reemerging as ISIS 2.0 is grounds for continuing to occupy Syrian territory. The Americans’ handy phantom-enemy is serving twice over. That is to “legitimize” the US intervening in Syria; and now to justify US forces staying there – just when the real victors against the terrorists, Syria, Russia, and Iran are trying to demilitarize the country.

RT@RT_com

‘There never was ‘revolution’ in #Syria, it was a premeditated war by foreign powers’ (Op-Ed by @EvaKBartletthttps://on.rt.com/8rai 

8:15 AM – Nov 3, 2017

Absurdities of Syrian war propaganda — RT Op-Edge

Сorporate media continues to recycle accusations of starvation, chemical weapons, and more, in the propaganda war on Syria.

rt.com

Far from the public view, US forces are scaling up their presence in Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Politico has called it an “official charade.” The Trump administration and the Pentagon are going behind the American people’s backs to deploy thousands more troops across the Middle East.

Much to the displeasure of Washington, Turkey disclosed last week that the US has 13 military bases in Syria. Russia, apparently, has only five bases, even though that country had a much greater military impact on defeating ISIS and other terrorist networks over the past two years.

One of the biggest US bases is near Kobani, about 140 kilometers from the northern city of Raqqa. This is the location no doubt where Mattis was referring to when he said last week that US forces would be digging in.

The US airbase at Kobani has been dramatically upgraded over the past year from what was a rough airfield accommodating only a select few types of aircraft to one now where “every type of air frame” in the Pentagon’s fleet can be landed, including the largest troop-carrying and cargo planes.

The US base at Kobani is also part of a chain of new airfields that connect from Qayarrah West in northern Iraq, to the Taqba Dam, also north of Raqqa.

Officially, there are supposed to be only 500 troops in Syria under the Pentagon’s Force Management Level policy. But as with Afghanistan and Iraq, the real numbers are believed to be much higher than what is officially acknowledged.

A large part of the false accounting arises because the Pentagon doesn’t count units which spend less than 120 days in the country. These units include engineers and troops who are charged with building bridges, roads, and landing strips.

There is a direct analogy here with how US and NATO forces underestimate force levels in the Baltic and Black Sea regions by arbitrarily not counting troops, warplanes and ships described as “rotating presence.” But if you rotate frequently enough, the force levels in effect become permanent and are much larger in practice than is officially admitted.

In addition to ensuring its proxies don’t come back as “ISIS 2.0” (how’s that for chutzpah!), Mattis also said that the expanded US forces were there to ensure the future peace talks in Geneva, resuming on November 28, would gain “traction.”

“We’re not just going to walk away right now before the Geneva process has traction,” said Mattis last week while in London meeting his British counterparts.

What this suggests is that Washington is using its illegitimate military occupation of Syrian territory as a way to leverage the political process. By forcibly holding on to Syrian territory, Washington is perhaps calculating that the Assad government might cede to its demands on standing down or allowing a defeated opposition more say in drawing up a new constitution.

If the US were genuinely committed to a political process in Syria, then why aren’t its diplomats giving momentum to the Russian-brokered talks in Sochi this week in preparation for the subsequent Geneva summit?

But even more sinister is the region-wide context of US force buildup – largely in secret unknown to the American public. With Washington’s client regimes, Saudi Arabia and Israel,pushing for a confrontation with Iran, directly or via Lebanon and Yemen, the expanding military presence in Syria indicates war in that country is far from over. Instead, it could be but a prelude to a more devastating regional conflagration.

Finian Cunningham has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. He is a Master’s graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. He is also a musician and songwriter. For nearly 20 years, he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organisations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent.

This article was originally published by RT –

Will the Saudi deterrence succeed after Boukamal and before Hodeidah? هل ينجح الردع السعودي بعد البوكمال وقبل الحديدة؟

Will the Saudi deterrence succeed after Boukamal and before Hodeidah?

Written by Nasser Kandil,

نوفمبر 17, 2017

هل ينجح الردع السعودي بعد البوكمال وقبل الحديدة؟

It seems that the bilateral imposed by facts, realities, and balances of forces based on the exclusion of any American – Saudi – Israeli foolishness that may lead to major war on one hand, And on the other hand, it based also on the need of this alliance which loses its sites successively for a war which it must choose its location, circumstances, and its calculations well in a way that ensures not to go to forbidden major war on one hand, and which ensures on the other hand  a valuable adjustment in the balances of forces which are strongly  in favor of the axis of the resistance, through its governments, its forces, its Russian ally, and the results of all the previous battles.

All the hypotheses for this complicated equation have been presented, as the experience of Kurdistan and supporting the secession in it with all its temptations, Boukamal, and the hypothesis of a limited war in the southern of Syria or in the southern of Lebanon. All of these are shortcuts for the comprehensive war. The intension on an American red line that prevents the convergence of the Syrian and the Iraqi armies and the forces of the resistance in Boukamal means getting involved in a war with Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, and the popular crowd of Iraq supported by Russia, while to stand firmly to protect the secession project in the Iraqi Kurdistan seemed a way that its end would be an open war with Iran, Iraq, and Turkey at least, while the war in the southern of Syria or in the southern of Lebanon will put Israel under the pressure of thousands of missiles from Lebanon ,Syria, and Iran.

The wars are not determined by the imprudent sons or those who took adventures and lost gambling as the loss in the war of Yemen, especially in an accurate moment that does not bear fatal mistakes, all the mistakes can be deadly, just for that each of the US President Donald Trump,, the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman and the Head of the occupation government Benjamin Netanyahu practices his game in his own  way but within controls and boundaries that are drawn by the US decision-makers from the military and intelligence who master studying maps, drawing plans, defining tactics and controls, and expanding and narrowing margins.

The Americans as well as the serious players on the geographical area that witnesses related wars from Russia in the north to the Gulf in the south and from Iran in the east to the Mediterranean in the west, and which includes major players as Iran, Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel deal with this area as a modification of the concept of the traditional region which is known by the Middle East. Everyone knows without public recognition that the area of the five seas which the Syrian President talked about as a vital range of policies and strategies ten years ago is the new regional framework of the new world, and an alternative to what was known with the heart of the old world, it includes the Arab East and the northern of Africa as a description of the meaning of the Middle East which locates in the center of the major regional countries as Turkey, Iran, and the Gulf. The Americans tried to modify it by naming it the Great Middle East adding these countries to it, but they were surprised by the Russian involvement in the conflict and its turning into a regional player in it.

On the analysts and planners’ maps, the vital ranges of the five seas seem like that, In the Caspian Sea, the conflict has been resolved in favor of the major players in it; Russia and Iran, while the countries which locate along the sea are under Russian –Iranian cover such as Kazakhstan which  is hosting in its capital Astana the solution dialogues for Syria led by Russia, and Azerbaijan whose its president participated few days ago in a trilateral summit with the Russian and the Iranian Presidents in Tehran to announce a strategic cooperation network with Russia and Iran. In the Black Sea where the traditional conflict is between the two poles of the sea; Russia and Turkey and on its usage, the Syrian war has formed an arena for the maturity of Turkey and its reading of its interests, alliances, and its national security in a way that made it a part of the Russian-Iranian system at the regional level, despite its presence internationally in the NATO. In the Mediterranean Sea there is no place for small wars since it is the international lake in which the major players are present face-to-face. In the Gulf, where the American presence is face-to face with the Iranian one the adventure is not allowed. So the Red Sea is the only available battlefield under the controls of avoiding the Great War, and the seeking to modify the balances simultaneously.

China is on the Red Sea in Djibouti, while Iran is on the Red Sea in Eritrea as the Americans, the Saudis, and the Israelis said. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Israel is on the Red Sea directly, but Yemen and Egypt alone have control on the sides of the Red Sea, so resolving the US domination on the two sides of the Red Sea the northern and the southern is achieved by imposing the Saudi presence in the north on the coast of Yemen, because it prevents turning the Egyptian presence in the south into a neutral settling role, while the staying of the Yemeni coast under the control of the Yemenis especially the port of Hodeidah keeps the Egyptian role Egyptian and prevents its involvement in the international and the regional equations and the considerations of its balances, especially because the battle of Bab Al-Mandab is not resolved but by having control on Hodeidah.

Therefore, the war is the war of Hodeidah. In Lebanon the equation is to link the acceptance of the Saudi cover of a settlement that recognizes the victories of Hezbollah in Syria in exchange of the acceptance of Iran of a settlement in Yemen that recognizes the victories of Saudi Arabia after resolving Hodeidah, where the resignation of the Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Al-Hariri becomes under a Saudi decision a deterrent preemptive to protect the project of the virtual settlement after the war of Hodeidah. While in the field there is a Saudi preemptive escalation against Iran as a virtual deterrence for any Iranian involvement in the war of Hodeidah. The beginning is the announcement of the closure of the Yemeni territorial water and linking the missiles that target Saudi Arabia from Yemen with an Iranian role and making the port of Hodeidah a title for this linkage.

The war of Yemen is the well-considered limited war to prevent a major war which the American and the Israeli know that they do not have the ability to get involved in, because if Saudi Arabia controls on it,  then it will be a gain for the whole alliance, and if it does not control on it, Saudi Arabia will bear the consequences of the of the defeat alone since it received a lot of money in advance as a compensation for the cover of its campaign against its neighbors and seizing their wealth.

The Yemenis say that they do not need Iranian intervention to protect their capabilities in Hodeidah, since their missiles to the Saudi depth in case of the outbreak of war will deter the Saudis from continuing their tampering with fire.

Everyone says that by the end of this year the wars will end, and settlements will start, so Syria goes to war of recapturing Raqqa and Idlib, supported by Iran and Russia, even if it collided with the Americans and the Turks, while America and Israel sent Saudi Arabia to occupy Hodeidah provided that not to collide with Iran.

After drawing and resolving the balances of the Red Sea, the equation of the Gulf becomes clear, and the Mediterranean Sea will host the summits of the major settlements in the area of the five seas.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

هل ينجح الردع السعودي بعد البوكمال وقبل الحديدة؟

نوفمبر 9, 2017

ناصر قنديل

هل ينجح الردع السعودي بعد البوكمال وقبل الحديدة؟

– تبدو الثنائية التي تفرضها الحقائق والوقائع وموازين القوى، قائمة على استبعاد أيّ حماقة أميركية سعودية «إسرائيلية» بحرب كبرى، من جهة ومن جهة مقابلة، على حاجة هذا الحلف الذي يخسر مواقعه تباعاً، إلى حرب عليه أن يحسن اختيار مكانها وظروفها، وحساباتها، بحيث تضمن عدم الانزلاق إلى الحرب الكبرى الممنوعة من جهة، وتضمن تعديلاً ذا قيمة في موازين القوى الراجحة بقوة لحساب محور المقاومة بحكوماته وقواه وحليفه الروسي، بنتائج المعارك السابقة كلها.

– وضعت على الطاولة للبحث عن جواب لهذه المعادلة المعقدة، الفرضيات كلّها، من اختبار كردستان ودعم الانفصال فيها، بإغراءاتها كلها، والبوكمال بكلّ ما تعنيه، وفرضية حرب محدودة في جنوب سورية او جنوب لبنان، وكلها بدا أنها طريق مختصر للمواجهة الشاملة، فالإصرار على خط أحمر أميركي يمنع تلاقي الجيشين السوري والعراقي وقوى المقاومة في البوكمال يعني دخول حرب مع سورية وإيران وحزب الله والحشد الشعبي في العراق، ومن ورائهم روسيا، والوقوف بحزم لحماية مشروع الانفصال في كردستان العراق بدا طريقاً نهايته القريبة حرب مفتوحة مع إيران والعراق وتركيا على الأقلّ، والحرب في جنوب سورية أو جنوب لبنان ستضع «إسرائيل» تحت ضغط آلاف الصواريخ من لبنان وسورية وإيران.

– الحروب لا يقرّرها الصغار ولا يرسم دوائرها الهواة، خصوصاً الذين خاضوا مغامرت ومقامرات خاسرة كحرب اليمن، خصوصاً في لحظة دقيقة لا تحتمل الأخطاء القاتلة. وكلّ الأخطاء يمكن أن تكون قاتلة، ولذلك يؤدّي الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب وولي العهد السعودي محمد بن سلمان ورئيس حكومة الاحتلال بنيامين نتنياهو لعبة كلّ منهم بأسلوبه، لكن ضمن ضوابط وهوامش يرسم حدودها صنّاع القرار الأميركي من رجال الجيش والمخابرات، الذين يجيدون دراسة الخرائط ورسم الخطط، وتحديد التكتيكات والضوابط، وفتح وإغلاق الهوامش.

– يتعامل الأميركيون، ومثلهم اللاعبون الجديون كلّهم على رقعة جغرافية تشهد حروباً متصلة، تمتدّ من روسيا شمالاً إلى الخليج جنوباً، ومن إيران شرقاً إلى البحر المتوسط غرباً، وتضمّ لاعبين كباراً مثل إيران وروسيا وتركيا والسعودية و«إسرائيل»، باعتبارها تعديلاً لمفهوم الإقليم التقليدي المتعارف على تسميته بالشرق الأوسط، وينطلق الجميع من دون إقرار علني بذلك، من كون منطقة البحار الخمسة التي تحدث عنها الرئيس السوري كمدى حيوي للسياسات والاستراتيجيات قبل عشر سنوات، هي الإطار الإقليمي الجديد، لقلب العالم الجديد، كبديل لما عُرف بقلب العالم القديم، ويضمّ المشرق العربي وشمال أفريقيا، كتوصيف لمعنى الشرق الأوسط، الواقع في قلب كتل إقليمية كبرى هي تركيا وإيران والخليج. حاول الأميركيون تعديله بتسمية الشرق الأوسط الكبير بإضافة هذه الكتل إليه، ففاجأهم الدخول الروسي لقلب الصراع والتحوّل إلى لاعب إقليمي فيه.

– على خرائط المحللين والمخططين، تبدو المجالات الحيوية للبحار الخمسة كما يلي، في بحر قزوين، حيث اللاعبان الكبيران روسيا وإيران، حسم الصراع لصالحهما، مع انضواء الدول المشاطئة للبحر تحت مظلة روسية إيرانية، كازاخستان التي تستضيف في عاصمتها أستانة حوارات الحلّ في سورية بقيادة روسيا، ومثلها أذربيجان التي شارك رئيسها في قمة ثلاثية قبل أيام مع الرئيسين الروسي والإيراني في طهران للإعلان عن شبكة تعاون استراتيجية مع روسيا وإيران، في البحر الأسود حيث الصراع التقليدي بين قطبي البحر واستخداماته، روسيا وتركيا، شكلت الحرب السورية ساحة إنضاج لموقع تركيا وقراءاتها لمفهوم مصالحها وتحالفاتها وأمنها القومي، بصورة جعلتها جزءاً من منظومة روسية إيرانية على المستوى الإقليمي رغم وجودها دولياً في حلف الأطلسي، في البحر المتوسط لا مكان لحروب صغيرة فهو البحيرة الدولية التي يتواجد فيها اللاعبون الكبار وجهاً لوجه، وفي الخليج حيث الوجود الأميركي الإيراني وجهاً لوجه أيضاً لا تجوز المخاطرة، ليصير البحر الأحمر ساحة الحرب الوحيدة المتاحة، ضمن ضوابط تفادي الحرب الكبرى، والسعي لتعديل التوازنات في آن واحد.

– الصين على البحر الأحمر في جيبوتي، وإيران على البحر الأحمر في اريتريا، كما يقول الأميركيون والسعوديون و«الإسرائيليون»، والسعودية ومصر و«إسرائيل» على البحر الأحمر، مباشرة، لكن اليمن ومصر وحدهما يمسكان كلّ من جهة بعنق البحر الأحمر، فحسم السيطرة الأميركية على عنقَيْ البحر الأحمر الشمالي والجنوبي، يحققه فرض الوجود السعودي شمالاً على سواحل اليمن، لأنه يتيح منع تحوّل الوجود المصري جنوباً إلى دور حيادي تسووي، أما بقاء الساحل اليمني يميناً خصوصاً في ميناء الحديدة، فيبقي الدور المصري مصرياً، ويمنع ترصيده في المعادلات الدولية الإقليمية وحسابات توازناتها، خصوصاً أنّ معركة باب المندب لا تحسم إلا بالسيطرة على الحديدة.

– الحرب إذن هي حرب الحديدة، والمعادلة هي، في لبنان ربط قبول تغطية سعودية لتسوية تعترف بانتصارات حزب الله في سورية، بقبول إيران بتسوية في اليمن تعترف بانتصارات السعودية بعد حسم الحديدة، وتصير استقالة رئيس الحكومة اللبنانية سعد الحريري بقرار سعودي استباقاً رادعاً، لحماية مشروع تسوية افتراضية ما بعد حرب الحديدة. وفي الميدان، تصعيد استباقي سعودي بوجه إيران، لردع افتراضي لأيّ دخول إيراني على خط حرب الحديدة، والبداية إعلان إغلاق المياه الإقليمية اليمنية، وربط الصواريخ التي تستهدف السعودية من اليمن بدور إيراني، وجعل ميناء الحديدة عنواناً للربط.

– حرب الحديدة هي الحرب المحدودة والمحسوبة، منعاً لحرب كبرى يعرف الأميركي و«الإسرائيلي»، أن لا قدرة على التورّط فيها، فإنْ فاز بها السعودي صارت كسباً للحلف كله، وإنْ لم يفز يحمل نتائج الهزيمة وحده، وقد نال تعويضه مالاً كثيراً سلفاً بتغطية حملته على أبناء عمومته و«تشليحهم ثرواتهم في ليلة لا ضوء قمر فيها».

– يقول اليمنيون إنهم لا يحتاجون تدخّلاً إيرانياً لحماية قدراتهم في الحديدة، وإنّ وابل صواريخهم على العمق السعودي إذا اندلعت حرب الحديدة سيتكفل بردع السعوديين عن مواصلة اللعب بالنار.

– يقول الجميع إنّ نهاية العام، موعد نهاية الحروب، وانطلاق عام التسويات، فلذلك تذهب سورية لحرب استرداد الرقة وإدلب ومعها إيران وروسيا، ولو تصادمت مع الأميركيين والأتراك، وترسل أميركا و«إسرائيل» السعودية لاحتلال الحديدة شرط عدم التصادم مع إيران.

– بعد رسم وحسم توازنات البحر الأحمر تتحدّد معادلة الخليج، ويستضيف البحر المتوسط قمم التسويات الكبرى، في منطقة البحار الخمسة.

Related Videos

Related Articles

TIME MONK RADIO NETWORK’S THE PLAIN TRUTH INTERVIEWS THE SAKER

AMERICA’S JEWS ARE DRIVING AMERICA’S WARS

South Front

 29.10.2017

Shouldn’t they recuse themselves when dealing with the Middle East?

America's Jews Are Driving America's Wars

Written by Philip Giraldi; Originally appeared at The Unz Review

I spoke recently at a conference on America’s war party where afterwards an elderly gentleman came up to me and asked, “Why doesn’t anyone ever speak honestly about the six-hundred-pound gorilla in the room? Nobody has mentioned Israel in this conference and we all know it’s American Jews with all their money and power who are supporting every war in the Middle East for Netanyahu? Shouldn’t we start calling them out and not letting them get away with it?”

It was a question combined with a comment that I have heard many times before and my answer is always the same: any organization that aspires to be heard on foreign policy knows that to touch the live wire of Israel and American Jews guarantees a quick trip to obscurity. Jewish groups and deep pocket individual donors not only control the politicians, they own and run the media and entertainment industries, meaning that no one will hear about or from the offending party ever again.

They are particularly sensitive on the issue of so-called “dual loyalty,” particularly as the expression itself is a bit of a sham since it is pretty clear that some of them only have real loyalty to Israel.

Most recently, some pundits, including myself, have been warning of an impending war with Iran. To be sure, the urging to strike Iran comes from many quarters, to include generals in the Administration who always think first in terms of settling problems through force, from a Saudi government obsessed with fear over Iranian hegemony, and, of course, from Israel itself. But what makes the war engine run is provided by American Jews who have taken upon themselves the onerous task of starting a war with a country that does not conceivably threaten the United States. They have been very successful at faking the Iranian threat, so much so that nearly all Republican and most Democratic congressmen as well as much of the media seem to be convinced that Iran needs to be dealt with firmly, most definitely by using the U.S. military, and the sooner the better.

And while they are doing it, the issue that nearly all the Iran haters are Jewish has somehow fallen out of sight, as if it does not matter. But it should matter. A recent article in the New Yorker on stopping the impending war with Iran strangely suggests that the current generation “Iran hawks” might be a force of moderation regarding policy options given the lessons learned from Iraq. The article cites as hardliners on Iran David Frum, Max Boot, Bill Kristol and Bret Stephens.

Daniel Larison over at The American Conservative has a good review of the New Yorker piece entitled “Yes, Iran Hawks Want Conflict with Iran,” which identifies the four above cited hawks by name before describing them as “…a Who’s Who of consistently lousy foreign policy thinking. If they have been right about any major foreign policy issue in the last twenty years, it would be news to the entire world. Every single one of them hates the nuclear deal with Iran with a passion, and they have argued in favor of military action against Iran at one point or another. There is zero evidence that any of them would oppose attacking Iran.”

And I would add a few more names, Mark Dubowitz, Michael Ledeen and Reuel Marc Gerecht of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies; Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum; John Podhoretz of Commentary magazine; Elliot Abrams of the Council on Foreign Relations; Meyrav Wurmser of the Middle East Media Research Institute; Kimberly Kagan of the Institute for the Study of War; and Frederick Kagan, Danielle Pletka and David Wurmser of the American Enterprise Institute. And you can also throw into the hopper entire organizations like The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) and the Hudson Institute. And yep, they’re all Jewish, plus most of them would self-describe as neo-conservatives. And I might add that only one of the named individuals has ever served in any branch of the American military – David Wurmser was once in the Navy reserve. These individuals largely constitute a cabal of sanctimonious chairborne warriors who prefer to do the heavy thinking while they let others do the fighting and dying.

So it is safe to say that much of the agitation to do something about Iran comes from Israel and from American Jews. Indeed, I would opine that most of the fury from Congress re Iran comes from the same source, with AIPAC showering our Solons on the Potomac with “fact sheets” explaining how Iran is worthy of annihilation because it has pledged to “destroy Israel,” which is both a lie and an impossibility as Tehran does not have the resources to carry out such a task. The AIPAC lies are then picked up and replayed by an obliging media, where nearly every “expert” who speaks about the Middle East on television and radio or who is interviewed for newspaper stories is Jewish.

One might also add that neocons as a group were founded by Jews and are largely Jewish, hence their universal attachment to the state of Israel. They first rose into prominence when they obtained a number of national security positions during the Reagan Administration and their ascendancy was completed when they staffed senior positions in the Pentagon and White House under George W. Bush. Recall for a moment Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, and Scooter Libby. Yes, all Jewish and all conduits for the false information that led to a war that has spread and effectively destroyed much of the Middle East. Except for Israel, of course. Philip Zelikow, also Jewish, in a moment of candor, admitted that the Iraq War, in his opinion, was fought for Israel.

Add to the folly a Jewish U.S. Ambassador to Israel who identifies with the most right-wing Israeli settler elements, a White House appointed chief negotiator who is Jewish and a Jewish son-in-law who is also involved in formulating Middle East policy. Is anyone providing an alternative viewpoint to eternal and uncritical support for Benjamin Netanyahu and his kleptocratic regime of racist thugs? I think not.

There are a couple of simple fixes for the dominant involvement of American Jews in foreign policy issues where they have a personal interest due to their ethnicity or family ties. First of all, don’t put them into national security positions involving the Middle East, where they will potentially be conflicted. Let them worry instead about North Korea, which does not have a Jewish minority and which was not involved in the holocaust. This type of solution was, in fact, somewhat of a policy regarding the U.S. Ambassador position in Israel. No Jew was appointed to avoid any conflict of interest prior to 1995, an understanding that was violated by Bill Clinton (wouldn’t you know it!) who named Martin Indyk to the post. Indyk was not even an American citizen at the time and had to be naturalized quickly prior to being approved by congress.

Those American Jews who are strongly attached to Israel and somehow find themselves in senior policy making positions involving the Middle East and who actually possess any integrity on the issue should recuse themselves, just as any judge would do if he were presiding over a case in which he had a personal interest. Any American should be free to exercise first amendment rights to debate possible options regarding policy, up to and including embracing positions that damage the United States and benefit a foreign nation. But if he or she is in a position to actually create those policies, he or she should butt out and leave the policy generation to those who have no personal baggage.

For those American Jews who lack any shred of integrity, the media should be required to label them at the bottom of the television screen whenever they pop up, e.g. Bill Kristol is “Jewish and an outspoken supporter of the state of Israel.”

That would be kind-of-like a warning label on a bottle of rat poison – translating roughly as “ingest even the tiniest little dosage of the nonsense spewed by Bill Kristol at your own peril.”

As none of the above is likely to happen, the only alternative is for American citizens who are tired of having their country’s national security interests hijacked by a group that is in thrall to a foreign government to become more assertive about what is happening. Shine a little light into the darkness and recognize who is being diddled and by whom. Call it like it is. And if someone’s feelings are hurt, too bad. We don’t need a war with Iran because Israel wants one and some rich and powerful American Jews are happy to deliver. Seriously, we don’t need it.

UPDATE: On the morning of September 21st Phil Giraldi was fired over the phone by The American Conservative, where he had been a regular contributor for fourteen years. He was told that “America’s Jews Are Driving America’s Wars” was unacceptable. The TACmanagement and board appear to have forgotten that the magazine was launched with an article by founder Pat Buchanan entitled“Whose War?” which largely made the same claims that Giraldi made about the Jewish push for another war, in that case with Iraq. Buchanan was vilified and denounced as an anti-Semite by many of the same people who are now similarly attacking Giraldi.

Does Trump dare to withdraw from the nuclear understanding? هل يجرؤ ترامب على الانسحاب من التفاهم النووي؟

Does Trump dare to withdraw from the nuclear understanding?

أكتوبر 17, 2017

Written by Nasser Kandil,

هل يجرؤ ترامب على الانسحاب من التفاهم النووي؟

Many people avoid answering this question lest the developments do not reflect their expectations, or make them lose some of the credibility and confidence which they accumulated among the readers and observers, especially in the light of the escalating positions which  are launched by the US President Donald Trump towards Iran and the understanding on its nuclear file, foreshadowing of the end of the era of this understanding which he perseveres in  describing it with the worst understanding, while many do not consider it far that Trump may do such a step putting the international and the regional relations in front of what he called as the forthcoming storm, many people considered it far  that Iran has the intention and the ability for escalating strong reactions, whether Trump abolishes the agreement or imposes sanctions on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, putting the Iranian threats within the context of the psychological warfare.

It is certain that Trump will not dare to announce the abolishment of the agreement because first his powers do not include such of that announcement, what he has is to ask the Congress to revoke the law of ratification of the agreement if he wants to withdraw from it, but the results will be subjected to balances where neither Trump not his dividing team can control. Despite this power which does include the abolishment, it puts Trump in withdrawing position from the agreement beholding the Congress the responsibility. Trump will not use it but he will search for a maneuver that will show him upset from the agreement without getting involved in the call to withdraw from it, this will be through restricting to what is stated by the law of ratifying the agreement by the Congress, such as asking for an annual report from the administration that shows the degree of Iran’s compliance with the agreement. He said that Iran is restricting with the literal obligations which were stated by the agreement, but it does not apply its essence. Trump does not withdraw from the agreement, but he withdraws his confidence in the ability of the agreement to prevent Iran from possessing nuclear weapons, calling the Congress to discuss the ways in order to improve the agreement and to achieve more guarantees. This means getting involved in discussions that last for sixty days, where the Congress will give recommendations to Trump’s administration that will include calls as the seeking with the partners in the agreement as Russia, China, France, Britain, Germany, the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the European Union to formulate more effective understandings to oblige Iran to commit to new obligations, along with going in for separated sanctions system that does not violate the nuclear understanding system, but it pursuits what is called by Washington as the Iranian missile program and what is being discussed by Trump and his team under the title of the interventions of Iran in the region and accusing it with destabilizing the allied regimes of Washington, where Hezbollah will get the main share of sanctions.

Will Trump dare to impose sanctions on the Revolutionary Guard as an organization, after he was allocated them to the Corps of Jerusalem within the Revolutionary Guard?

Trump will not dare to do so; he will choose instead the missile system in the Guard as what he did with the Corps of Jerusalem. He will avoid the challenge of Iran by putting its threats which were issued by the highest governmental and military levels towards the Supreme Leader of the Republic, as in the case of the nuclear understanding and the escape from losing of Europe and the International Atomic Energy Agency through  finding the solution which does not lead to major confrontation, and which preserves the tension and the pressure paper for Trump under the ceiling of small confrontations within a big negotiation, because the decisions concerning the relationship with Iran are decisions issued by the US country not by the sidelines of the President’s movement. The US country which evaded from the major confrontation entitled the prevention of Hezbollah from being present in Syria especially on the Southern and eastern borders, and after seeing that its red lines were violated it knows that the opportunities of a confrontation entitled Hezbollah is greater than the opportunities of a confrontation entitled the Iranian nuclear program, the halting from  the least due to the weakness ensures the inability to proceed towards the most by the illusion of ability

To those who are possessed by the power of America we say: let’s wait and see. Tomorrow is another day

The position of Trump is similar to the positions of the two heads of Kurdistan and Catalonia regions by the calling to hold referendum on the secession then to replace the announcement of the independence with the call for dialogue. These wrong considerations involve their owners, with the difference that Trump lives his presidency as a TV commentator rather than a decision-maker.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

 

هل يجرؤ ترامب على الانسحاب من التفاهم النووي؟

 

أكتوبر 11, 2017

ناصر قنديل
هل يجرؤ ترامب على الانسحاب من التفاهم النووي؟– يتفادى الكثيرون الخوض في الإجابة عن هذا السؤال كي لا تأتي التطورات عكس توقعاتهم، ويخسرون بعضاً من المصداقية والثقة التي راكموها لدى قراء ومتابعين، خصوصاً في ظلّ المواقف التصعيدية التي يطلقها الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب تجاه إيران والتفاهم حول ملفها النووي، مبشّراً بنهاية عهد هذا التفاهم الذي دأب على وصفه بالأسوأ. وفيما لا يستبعد كثيرون أن يقدم ترامب على هذه الخطوة واضعاً العلاقات الدولية والإقليمية أمام ما أسماه بالعاصفة المقبلة، يستبعد كثيرون أن يكون لدى إيران النية والقدرة على ردود قوية تصعيدية، سواء إذا أقدم ترامب على إلغاء الاتفاق أو على وضع عقوبات على الحرس الثوري الإيراني، واضعين التهديدات الإيرانية في دائرة عضّ الأصابع والحرب النفسية.

– الأكيد أنّ ترامب لن يجرؤ على الإعلان عن إلغاء الاتفاق أولاً، لأنّ صلاحيته لا تطال هذا الإعلان، وما يملكه هو الطلب للكونغرس إبطال قانون التصديق على الاتفاقية إذا أراد الانسحاب منها. وهذا يخضع بالنتيجة لتوازنات لا يتحكم بها ترامب وفريقه المنقسم حول الموقف أصلاً، ورغم هذه الصلاحية التي تقع دون مستوى الإلغاء، لكنها تضع ترامب في موضع المنسحب من الاتفاق ملقياً المسؤولية على الكونغرس، فترامب لن يستعملها، بل سيبحث عن مناورة تظهره كغاضب من الاتفاق من دون التورّط بالدعوة للانسحاب منه، وذلك عبر التقيّد بحدود ما ينصّ عليه قانون تصديق الكونغرس على الاتفاق، من طلب تقرير سنوي من الإدارة يشير إلى درجة تقيّد إيران بموجباتها بالاتفاق، فيقول إنّ إيران تتقيّد بالموجبات الحرفية التي نصّ عليها الاتفاق لكنها لا تطبّق روحيته، وهو لا ينسحب من الاتفاق بل يسحب ثقته بقدرة الاتفاق على منع إيران من امتلاك سلاح نووي، داعياً الكونغرس لمناقشة سبل تحسين الاتفاقية وتحقيق المزيد من الضمانات. وهذا يعني الدخول في مناقشات تمتدّ لمدة ستين يوماً يخرج بحصيلتها الكونغرس بتوصيات لإدارة ترامب، ستتضمّن دعوات من نوع السعي مع الشركاء في الاتفاق وهم الدول الخمس، روسيا والصين وفرنسا وبريطانيا وألمانيا، والأمم المتحدة والوكالة الدولية للطاقة الذرية والاتحاد الأوروبي، لصياغة تفاهمات أشدّ قوّة وقدرة على إلزام إيران بموجبات جديدة، وبالتوازي السير بنظام عقوبات منفصل لا يخرق منظومة التفاهم النووي، لكنه يلاحق ما تسمّيه واشنطن البرنامج الصاروخي الإيراني، وما يتحدّث عنه ترامب وفريقه تحت عنوان تدخلات إيران في المنطقة، واتهامها بالتسبّب بزعزعة استقرار أنظمة حليفة لواشنطن، وسيحظى حزب الله هنا بالحصة الرئيسة من العقوبات.

– هل سيجرؤ ترامب على الذهاب لعقوبات على الحرس الثوري كمؤسسة بعينها، بعدما كان قد خصّصها لفيلق القدس ضمن الحرس الثوري؟

– لن يجرؤ ترامب على ذلك، بل سيختار منظومة الصواريخ في الحرس، أسوة بما فعله مع فيلق القدس، ويتفادى تحدّي إيران بوضع تهديداتها التي صدرت عن أعلى المستويات الحكومية والعسكرية وصولاً للمرشد الأعلى للجمهورية، كما في حال التفاهم النووي والتهرّب من خسارة أوروبا والوكالة الدولية للطاقة النووية، بإيجاد الالتفاف المناسب الذي لا يؤدّي لإشعال المواجهة الكبرى، ويحفظ لترامب أوراق التوتر والضغط واللعب بها، تحت سقف مواجهات صغيرة ضمن التفاوض الكبير، لأنّ القرارات على مسرح العلاقة مع إيران هي قرارات بحجم الدولة الأميركية وليست من هوامش حركة الرئيس. والدولة الأميركية التي تهرّبت من مواجهة كبرى عنوانها منع حزب الله من الوجود في سورية، خصوصاً على الحدود الجنوبية والشرقية، وهي ترى خطوطها الحمراء تداس، تعلم أنّ فرص مواجهة عنوانها حزب الله أكبر من فرص مواجهة عنوانها الملف النووي الإيراني، والإحجام عن الأقلّ بسبب الضعف يؤكد عدم الإقدام على الأكثر بوهم القدرة، فمن لا يستطيع الأقلّ لا يستطيع الأكثر.

– للموهومين بالقوة الأميركية نقول فلننتظر ونرَ، ومَنْ يعِش يرَ، وإن غداً لناظره قريب!

– كم يشبه موقف ترامب موقف رئيسَيْ إقليمي كردستان وكتالونيا، بالدعوة للاستفتاء على الانفصال ثم استبدال إعلان الاستقلال بالدعوة للحوار، هي الحسابات الخاطئة تورّط أصحابها، مع فارق أنّ ترامب يعيش رئاسته كمعلّق تلفزيوني لا كصانع قرار.

Related Videos

 

’Israel’ and the ’Days of Great Anxiety’ إسرائيل و«أيام القلق العظيم»

“For the first time in its history, “Israel” today needs US military bases on the occupied land of Palestine”

“Today, “Israel” is no longer able to make a decision on its own. And disillusioned are those who believe that the enemy’s government or its military and security institutions are capable of making a war decision in the region without a direct US approval, coverage and input.”

Ibrahim Al Amin

17-10-2017 | 08:31

On the eve of the establishment of the “Israeli” entity, and in the decades that followed, we, the Arabs, have placed ourselves in the position of moral responsibility to deny, confirm or declare a decisive position on the massacres committed by the West against the Jews before and during the Second World War. It is a position no one assigned to us, and it is neither our specialty nor our direct responsibility.

Israel

This submission is due to the fact that the “Israeli” entity is going through the most dangerous stage in its history today. Putting aside numerical calculations or data based on theoretical elements, “Israel” has practically entered the stage of transitioning from the time of the “eternal state” to the time of the fallen state. Since an operation of this magnitude requires huge efforts and larger wars, the enemy, before the West, will resort to the narrative of Jewish grievances once again.

Therefore, for the first and last time, we will have the duty to answer a question about any possible solution to the Jewish issue in our country, in connection with the decision to remove the “Israeli” entity. In order not to hold ourselves responsible for what some may see as injustice against the Jews living in “Israel” when their present state is gone, it is worthwhile to return to an easy, simple and clear position: The colonial West, whether with a Crusader, religious, or an oppressive totalitarian background is first and foremost responsible for what happened to the Jews in Europe as it is also responsible for finding a solution to the crisis of the Jews who will leave Palestine. Meanwhile, our responsibility is to create an orderly framework for a state in which the people of the land living are Palestinians and who can remain among their current inhabitants, after choosing a new regime for the rule of the State of Palestine, which is not missing any inch of its land or a letter of its name.

Is this delirium as the sons of the defeated current say?

Let’s let them be. There will remain with us, or in the world, those who would provide them with the fuel of life despite their defeat. Some of them no longer want an end to “Israel” anymore. Therefore, there is no use for them and their hallucinations. There is no point in discussing with the necessity of the great sacrifices that will be made to restore Palestine, as long as they see in it just suicide!

Today, “Israel” is living “the days of great anxiety” because of the erosion of its offensive and defensive capabilities, not only militarily, but also politically. For the first time in its history, “Israel” today needs US military bases on the occupied land of Palestine and American protection bases tens or hundreds of kilometers from its northern and southern borders. It also needs, without any concern, a direct US military presence to protect it from the enemies. Above all, the entity is in need, not for peace agreements that can no longer be justified, but for cooperation that provides it with the political umbrella to gain access to the Arab mind. After the role of Turkey, Egypt, Jordan and Morocco in protecting “Israel’s” right to exist collapsed, it is now seeking a direct partnership with the kingdom of oppression and backwardness in the Arabian Peninsula – the last empire of its kind similar to it in the Arab world – to give it an “Islamic pardon” to help it not survive but to use the Arabs to confront its adversaries led by Iran.

“Israel’s” difficult situation is not only the result of the growing strength of its adversaries, but also stems from the fact that it no longer has moral superiority, even to its own citizens, after its long wars turned its army into a group of murderers who were forced to carry out more brutal killings so that the survival of the state would insured. But each time they come out from their maneuvers with serious flaws, making the probability of defeat in any future war equal to the probability of victory. The social structure was also weakened because the people of this state know, as the mainstay of its army, that things are no longer like before, and that all maneuvers of the last ten years focused on defense and not offense. Even major military drills were aimed at “keeping danger away” and not finishing it off. All this is enough to accumulate in the “Israeli” consciousness one defeat after another.

Today, “Israel” is no longer able to make a decision on its own. And disillusioned are those who believe that the enemy’s government or its military and security institutions are capable of making a war decision in the region without a direct US approval, coverage and input. Therefore, the leaders of the enemy are constantly working to convince the US administration that striking the enemies of “Israel”, today and not tomorrow, is equally in the interest of the US. “Israel” may find the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia the only party in the world that shares this concern, after those madmen put themselves in “Israeli” shoes.

All these concerns are what dominated the events of the past months and weeks, including continuous military preparations that allows the enemy to wage a major war in the north and the south as well as to convince the Americans to launch a political and economic war against “Israel’s” opponents in the region, urging countries such as Saudi Arabia to take greater steps towards this confrontation. In the mind of the enemy, an American intervention would severely hinder its opponents’ front; and a Saudi participation would make the next war against a group of pro-Persian Arabs from an “opposing” political or religious doctrine a “consensus” that the West and “Israel” believe Saudi Arabia can speak for.

So that people do not get confused, what was aforementioned does not mean that there are military buildups on the border with Syria and Lebanon. But there is a special political decision leading to offensive readiness. This is accompanied by an increase in intelligence activity in Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, and even Iran, in order to ensure a clear and realistic picture of the enemies; which is something the United States follows up on with decisions made by its administrations and the actions of US forces on the ground in Syria and Iraq. It is also an atmosphere, which falls in line with US efforts – in cooperation with Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates – to complete a spiral step that ends with the declaration of a Palestinian state, but one without meaning, with no final borders, no independent authority, no free outlets, and no right of return for those who wish to live under it.

Today, we and the enemy, walk on a knife’s edge. Among us are those who fear confrontation, believing that the enemy alone is better, let alone if it is supported by America and Saudi Arabia. And among them are those who want to take us to a futile debate about the preference of this or that option to restore rights. But there are those among us, too, those who live in this land and do not waste a minute but work with all their strength, experience and knowledge to prepare for a moment when cries arise; screams of illegitimate children of an illegitimate entity, which was once, called “Israel.”

Source: Al-Akhbar Newspaper, Translated by website team

إسرائيل و«أيام القلق العظيم»

ابراهيم الأمين

عشية قيام الكيان الاسرائيلي، وفي العقود التي تلت، وضَعْنا، نحن العرب، أنفسنا في موقع المسؤولية الأخلاقية حيال نفي أو تأكيد أو إعلان موقف حاسم من المجازر التي ارتكبها الغرب في حق اليهود قبل الحرب العالمية الثانية وأثناءها. وهو موقع لم يكلّفنا به أحد، وليس من اختصاصنا، فضلاً عن أنه ليس من مسؤوليتنا المباشرة.

هذا التقديم سببه أن كيان العدو يعيش، اليوم، المرحلة الأكثر خطورةً في تاريخه. وفي معزل عن حسابات رقمية، أو معطيات تستند الى عناصر نظرية، فإن إسرائيل دخلت، فعلياً، مرحلة الانتقال من زمن «الدولة الأبدية» الى زمن الدولة الساقطة حكماً. ولأن عملية بهذا الحجم تتطلّب جهوداً ضخمة، وحروباً أضخم، فإن العدو، قبل الغرب، سيلجأ الى سردية المظلومية اليهودية مرة جديدة. وبالتالي سنكون، لمرة أولى وأخيرة، أمام واجب الإجابة عن سؤال حول أيّ حل ممكن للمسألة اليهودية في بلادنا، ربطاً بقرار إزالة الكيان الاسرائيلي؟ وحتى لا نحمّل أنفسنا، من الآن، مسؤولية ما قد يراه البعض ظلماً بحق اليهود القاطنين في إسرائيل، عندما تزول دولتهم القائمة اليوم، من المجدي العودة الى موقف سهل وبسيط وواضح: إن الغرب الاستعماري، سواء بخلفية صليبية أو دينية أو بخلفية قمعية شمولية، مسؤول أولاً وأخيراً عمّا حلّ باليهود في أوروبا، وهو مسؤول أيضاً عن إيجاد حلّ لأزمة اليهود الذين سيغادرون فلسطين. أما مسؤوليتنا، نحن، فهي خلق الإطار المنظّم لدولة يعيش فيها أهل الارض من الفلسطينيين، ومن يمكن أن يبقى من سكانها الحاليين، بعد اختيار نظام جديد لحكم دولة فلسطين غير الناقصة لأي شبر من أرضها أو حرف من اسمها.

هل هذا هذيان كما يقول أبناء تيار الهزيمة؟

لندَع هؤلاء وشأنهم. سيظل بيننا، أو في العالم، من يمدّهم بوقود الحياة مهزومين. وبعضهم لم يعد يريد نهاية لإسرائيل أصلاً. وبالتالي، لا طائل منهم ومن هلوساتهم، ولا فائدة من مناقشتهم في ضرورة التضحيات الكبيرة التي ستبذل لاسترداد فلسطين، ما داموا يرون في ذلك مجرّد انتحار!

إسرائيل تعيش اليوم «أيام القلق العظيم»، بسبب تآكل قدراتها الهجومية والدفاعية، ليس عسكرياً فقط، بل سياسياً أيضاً. للمرة الأولى، في تاريخها، باتت إسرائيل اليوم في حاجة إلى قواعد عسكرية أميركية على الارض المغتصبة في فلسطين، والى قواعد حماية أميركية على بعد عشرات أو مئات الكيلومترات من حدودها الشمالية والجنوبية، كما باتت تحتاج، من دون أي تشاوف، الى الوجود العسكري الاميركي المباشر لحمايتها من الاعداء. وفوق كل ذلك، بات الكيان في حاجة، ليس الى اتفاقات سلام معه لم يعد بالإمكان تبريرها، بل إلى تعاون يمنحه المظلة السياسية للنفاذ الى العقل العربي. وبعد تراجع أدوار تركيا ومصر والاردن والمغرب في حماية «حق إسرائيل في الوجود»، تسعى اليوم الى شراكة مباشرة مع مملكة القهر والتخلف في الجزيرة العربية، آخر الامبراطوريات الشبيهة بها في بلادنا، علّها تمنحها «صفحاً إسلامياً» يساعدها ليس على البقاء، بل على استخدام العرب مباشرة لمواجهة خصومها الذين تقودهم إيران.
وضع إسرائيل الصعب ليس ناتجاً من تعاظم قوة خصومها فحسب، بل لكونها لم تعد تملك تفوّقاً أخلاقياً، حتى بالنسبة إلى مواطنيها أنفسهم، بعدما حوّلت حروبها الطويلة جيشها الى مجموعة من القتلة، وصار هؤلاء ملزمين بالقيام بأعمال قتل أكثر وحشية حتى يستقيم بقاء الدولة. ورغم كل ذلك، يخرجون كل مرة من مناوراتهم بثُغَر خطيرة، تجعل احتمال الهزيمة في أي حرب مقبلة يوازي احتمال الفوز. كذلك أصاب الوهن البنية الاجتماعية للكيان، لأن أبناء هذه الدولة يعرفون، كونهم عماد جيشها، أن الأمور لم تعد كما في السابق، وأن كل مناورات السنوات العشر الاخيرة استهدفت الدفاع وليس الهجوم، وأنه حتى المناورات على عمليات عسكرية كبرى كان هدفها «إبعاد الخطر» وليس الإجهاز عليه. وكل ذلك يكفي ليتراكم في الوعي الاسرائيلي هزيمة تجرّ هزيمة.

اليوم، لم تعد إسرائيل قادرة على اتخاذ قرار بمفردها. وواهم من يعتقد أن حكومة العدو، أو مؤسساتها العسكرية والأمنية، قادرة على اتخاذ قرار بحرب في الإقليم ما لم تكن هناك موافقة وتغطية ومساهمة أميركية مباشرة. لذلك، يعمل قادة العدو، من دون توقف، على إقناع الادارة الاميركية بأن ضرب أعداء إسرائيل، اليوم وليس غداً، فيه مصلحة أميركية مساوية تماماً لمصلحتهم. وربما تجد إسرائيل في مملكة آل سعود الطرف الوحيد في العالم الذي يشاركها هذا الهاجس، بعدما وضع هؤلاء المجانين أنفسهم في الموقع الاسرائيلي.

كل هذا القلق هو ما يتحكم في مجريات الأحداث في الأشهر والاسابيع الماضية، من الاستعدادات المتواصلة لجاهزية عسكرية تتيح للعدو خوض حرب واسعة في الشمال والجنوب، ولإقناع الاميركيين بمباشرة حرب سياسية واقتصادية ضد خصوم إسرائيل في المنطقة، ولحضّ دول مثل السعودية على السير في خطوات أكبر نحو هذه المواجهة. وفي ذهن العدو أن تدخلاً أميركياً سيعيق جبهة خصومها بقوة، وأن مشاركة سعودية ستجعل الحرب المقبلة قائمة مع فئة من العرب الموالين للفرس، من مذهب سياسي أو ديني «مخالف» لـ«إجماع» يعتقد الغرب وإسرائيل أن بمقدور السعودية التحدث باسمه.

حتى لا يقع الناس في بلبلة، لا يعني ما تقدم أن هناك حشوداً عسكرية جرارة على الحدود مع سوريا ولبنان، لكنّ هناك قراراً سياسياً خاصاً يقود الى الى جاهزية هجومية. ويترافق ذلك مع تعزيز النشاط الاستخباراتي في سوريا ولبنان وفلسطين والعراق، وحتى إيران، بغية ضمان صورة واضحة عن واقع الأعداء، وهو أمر تواكبه الولايات المتحدة بما يصدر عن إدارتها من قرارات، وبما تقوم به القوات الاميركية على الارض في سوريا والعراق، كما أنه مناخ يتزاحم مع المساعي الاميركية، بالتعاون مع السعودية ومصر والامارات، لإنجاز خطوة بهلوانية تنتهي بالاعلان عن دولة فلسطينية، لكن من دون معنى، حيث لا حدود نهائية لها، ولا سلطة مستقلة ولا منافذ حرة، ولا حق لعودة من يرغب من الفلسطينيين العيش في ظلها.

اليوم، نسير، نحن والعدو، على حدّ السكين. بيننا من يخاف المواجهة معتقداً أن العدو أقدر وحده، فكيف إذا كانت أميركا والسعودية معه. وبيننا من يريد أخذنا الى النقاش العقيم حول أفضلية هذا الخيار أو ذاك لاستعادة الحقوق. لكن بيننا، أيضاً، من يعيش في هذه الارض، ولا يهدر دقيقة من وقته، بل يعمل بكل ما أوتي من قوة وخبرة وعلم للاستعداد للحظة إذا ارتفع فيها الصراخ، أن يكون حكماً صراخ الهاربين من أبناء غير شرعيين، لكيان غير شرعي كان يدعى… إسرائيل

Anglo-American War Plan for North Korea

By Finian Cunningham

October 12, 2017 “Information Clearing House” – The United States and Britain – the two countries responsible for so many recent wars and conflicts – are at it again. This time, the diabolical double-act has North Korea in its sights, despite the risk that such an attack could ignite a global nuclear war.

Over the past week, US President Donald Trump has sharpened his bellicose rhetoric towards North Korea, now declaring that “only one thing works” in regard to the security crisis over the Korean Peninsula. That “one thing”, according to Trump, is evidently the “military option”.

For the past several months, the Trump administration has indeed repeatedly threatened the North Korean state led by Kim Jong-un with military force over the latter’s nuclear weapons program. But the American threats have always been conveyed in the context that other options, including diplomacy, were also being considered, or even preferred.

Now Trump is openly admitting that the apparent option of diplomacy is no longer on the table. It’s a belated admission by Trump that the diplomatic option was only ever a cynical charade, not under genuine consideration.

Washington is instead moving towards war with North Korea.

Adding to the gravity of the moment are reports in the British media that Britain’s military chiefs have drawn up plans for deploying forces along with the US against North Korea.

British military chiefs are quoted as saying that they are ready to dispatch a new aircraft carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth, as well as several destroyers and frigates, to the Korean Peninsula in support of its US ally.

Just last week Britain’s defense secretary Michael Fallon also delivered a belligerent speech to the Conservative Party conference in which he declared readiness to order “warships, aircraft and troops” in support of the US and other allies.

Fallon repeated earlier warnings that his government was fully prepared to order a first-strike nuclear attack against North Korea or any other “enemy state”.

The British minister accused North Korea of threatening Britain’s national security, saying that “Manchester and London are closer to Pyongyang than Los Angeles”.

Fallon’s shrill rhetoric echoed the scaremongering claims once made by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair back in 2003 when he justified the imminent Anglo-American war on Iraq because then Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was allegedly capable of mounting a missile attack on Britain “within 45 minutes”. Blair’s war pretext turned out to be a vile fraud.

Britain’s long-standing readiness to join in American military operations around the world is a convenient political-legal cover that gives the impression of “an international coalition” acting in supposed defense of “the international community”.

But the historical record shows that such Anglo-American militarism is nothing other than illegal aggression carried out by Washington and London, which has led to the ruination of whole nations and the unleashing of sectarian conflicts and terrorism. The British-aided American wars against Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001 and 2003 continue to wreak havoc across the Middle East today.

Yet, in spite of these disasters, not to say criminal wars, Britain’s defense secretary “Sir” Michael Fallon arrogantly asserts that “we should not be squeamish” about committing to further military deployments elsewhere, and in particular with regard to North Korea.

This coupling of American and British military power focused on North Korea is an ominous sign that the Anglo-American war machine is cranking up again.

Earlier this month, President Trump issued an extraordinary rebuke to his secretary of state Rex Tillerson over the latter’s public comments about pursuing diplomatic contacts with North Korea. Trump rebuffed Tillerson for “wasting his time” in negotiations with Pyongyang.

Since then Trump has gone on to sharpen the rhetoric to the point now where he is saying the US is considering “only one option” – a military strike on North Korea.

Last week, while hosting US military leaders and their spouses at a dinner in the White House, Trump made the menacing remark that the gathering was the “calm before the storm”. He subsequently refused to clarify what he meant by that cryptic remark.

A couple of days later on October 7, Trump then declared through his usual Twitter feed that diplomacy with North Korea was over. He said the past 25 years of diplomacy under previous administrations had failed, adding, “only one thing will work!”

This is while the US is sending the USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier and a full battle group of warships towards the Korean Peninsula to commence joint operations with allied South Korean forces over the coming days.

It also follows this week long-distance practice bombing raids by US strategic B1-B Lancer warplanes over the Korean Peninsula. It was reportedly the first time that these US warplanes were accompanied by both South Korean and Japanese fighter jets in the same maneuver.

When Trump and his officials, including defense secretary James Mattis, have previously warned of using military force against North Korea they have let it be known that the action would be “overwhelming” and “catastrophic”. This can be understood to mean the US using nuclear weapons in any action against Pyongyang.

Trump is now positioning the US on an all-out war footing against North Korea by contriving a situation whereby diplomacy has been forfeited.

This is a heinous travesty. American diplomacy towards North Korea to settle the decades-old conflict on the Peninsula has never been genuinely pursued, not under Trump nor previous administrations.

Trump is accelerating US war plans on North Korea. US Pentagon chief James Mattis this week warned American forces to be ready for action and said military plans were being furnished for Trump. Mattis’ willingness to defer to Trump shows that this is a government policy, not merely the depraved recklessness of a lunatic president.

The fact too that Britain, America’s loyal war accomplice, is concurrently drawing up military contingencies over North Korea is a disturbing indicator of how far the Anglo-American war machine is gearing up.

Both Russia and China have repeatedly urged restraint by all parties. This week, Moscow said the US naval build-up around the Korean Peninsula was a dangerous escalation. Russia also said that the newly deployed US anti-missile THAAD system in South Korea was targeting its territory, as well as that of North Korea and China.

If the US and Britain go ahead with their war plans on North Korea, as seems likely, they will ignite a war that threatens the whole planet.

How quintessentially Anglo-American is the arrogance and criminality.

Finian Cunningham has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. He is a Master’s graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. He is also a musician and songwriter. For nearly 20 years, he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organisations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent.

This article was originally published by Strategic Culture Foundation –

Hassan Nasrallah: in North Korea, Trump heads for a nuclear world war

The Saker

September 03, 2017

Speech by Hezbollah Secretary-General Sayed Hassan Nasrallah on 31 August 2017, on the occasion of the commemoration of Lebanon’s “Second Liberation” against terrorist groups

Transcript:

[…] We need to know, o my (dear) brothers and sisters, that the opposing (US-Israeli) project in the region is crumbling and falling apart, and that US and Israeli dreams that were built on Daesh and its sisters and fellow takfiri and terrorist groups, these dreams and hopes collapse, and that the Axis of Resistance is the one who inflicted a defeat on this project, with the help of Russia, to be quite frank and honest.

And as with any victory, there is a price (to pay). If you lose, the price (to pay) is clear. But even when you win, there is a price to pay (but way less than when you lose). It is natural that the victorious Lebanon will be subjected to pressures. And the same for the Resistance, which certainly is subject and will be subject to (even more) pressures.

Today, a huge (propaganda) machine works (day and night) to present Hezbollah as a threat, a destructive group, a problem (you), the Lebanese, the Lebanese people must try to resolve. Tomorrow, they will create you a (new artificial) problem now that we are done with Daesh and Al Nosra. Someone cynical might say: so that your turn does not come, you should let Daesh and Al-Nosra (stay in Lebanon); why are you in a hurry (to finish them off and become thus again the main target of USA)? If one wants to think cynically. But if we think about the national interest, people’s safety, our loved ones’, their happiness and their tranquility, we think differently.

So the Americans will return once again and say for the benefit of Israel: “O government, State, parties and people of Lebanon, you have a (major) problem called Hezbollah. How are you going to solve it? Hezbollah’s power increases (by the day), the accumulation (of weapons)… ” It is you who are talking about the increase of our power. “His power grows, he can do well and prepare, etc. This is a (big) problem. We must solve it.” But they want to resolve it in the interest of whom? In the interest of Israel. Certainly not in the interest of Lebanon.

Hezbollah does not represent a danger, neither for Lebanon nor the Lebanese people, nor the Lebanese State. Certainly, Hezbollah is a danger to the Israeli occupation, Israel’s appetites, and American hegemony and the takfiri project. So we will be under pressure. And we will be presented as the danger, when in truth it is indeed the United States that constitute the danger today. It is this administration, the Trump administration that is the danger.

Who is it who is currently bringing the world to the brink of a global nuclear war with North Korea? Today (the fate) of the world is suspended between two people, regardless of what one thinks of the one and the other: Trump and Kim-Jong-Un. The fate of the world lies in the hands of these people. God knows what they will do. How will they act, where will they lead the world, God only knows. This is the real danger.

Today, the Trump administration led the relations with Russia at the worst level, and relations with China at the worst level, they are on the brink of war with China, as a result of tensions in the South China Sea. The continuous threats of war against Venezuela, the relaunch of the war in Afghanistan, threats to cancel the nuclear agreement with Iran, rekindling the inter-Arab disagreements… Are there people (gullible enough) to believe that the crisis between the Gulf States, Saudi Arabia, the UAE (and Bahrain also) on one hand, and Qatar on the other hand, the United States are not able to resolve it? By God, they can resolve it in an hour, half an hour, a wink from Trump or his entourage, and the crisis would be resolved. No ! The United States wants these struggles, these wars, etc.

They are the ones who represent the danger. This administration, this mentality that wants to reinstate the hegemony and monopolize the oil, money and gas, and to protect Israel, (who is now) worried and scared. It is they who are a danger, not Hezbollah.

Today, the continuation of the war against Yemen, and the intensification of the assault, especially in recent weeks, the horrible massacres committed by the Saudi air force against unarmed Yemeni civilians, and we can only condemn it. This war is an American war par excellence. If the United States wanted this war to stop, it would stop in half an hour. This is not an issue for them.

Those who represent a threat to the region today are the United States. Even Pakistan, a US historic ally, this administration has lobbied hard on them, insulted their army, insulted their people and insulted their State, and that’s why they demonstrated by the millions in the last few days to protest against US policy, American bullying and insults against Pakistan and the Pakistan Army.

Who is giving free rein to Israel in the region, if not the US? And more dangerous, we may be faced with the formulation of a new American policy to impose a new model after the end of Daesh, a new model of terrorism, under new titles, new names and new slogans.

We must face these pressures, whatever they are and wherever they come from. How to cope as Lebanese? It is through steadfastness, convergence and unity that we will overcome this stage. […]

 

Related Articles

 

 

Ensuring The Existence of «Israel» in Hezbollah’s Crosshairs

Ali Haidar

The problem facing “Israel” is that the more its military and technological capabilities develop, the more Hezbollah’s deterrent and defense capabilities advance. The higher the motivation for aggression, the more it clashes with countermeasures that prevent Hezbollah’s capabilities from being liquidated.

"Israel's" Dimona nuclear plant

As a result, the gap between what it wants and what it can achieve is wide. This problematic reality usually provokes some experts and commentators who see a huge difference between what they perceive as enormous capabilities on the part of “Israel” on the one hand, and its decline in the favor of Hezbollah on the other.

The former chairman of the Council of Settlements in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, Israel Harel, pondered over the announcement by Hezbollah’s Secretary-General His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah on the anniversary of the 2006 victory, during which he labeled Dimona as a target for the rockets of the Resistance. He pointed out that this came after the “Israeli” court ruling, ordering the removal of ammonia containers from Haifa, following the declaration by Sayyed Nasrallah to target it in case of any full-scale aggression on Lebanon.

Harel, a regular columnist for the Haaretz daily, dubbed his article as “The Goal Is Dimona” – describing Dimona as a symbol of “Israel’s” strength and a guarantor of its existence. Thus, he wanted to suggest that this guarantor was in the crosshairs of Hezbollah’s rockets, while the “Israelis” are doing little else aside from threatening. He criticized the “‘Israeli’ acceptance” of the equation that Hezbollah succeeded in imposing because of its missile capabilities. He ridiculed the “response” to the threat posed by the concentration of Iran and Hezbollah in Syria, which involved the dispatching of a high security delegation to express concern to the heads of the security establishment in Washington. He criticized the hanging of hopes on this “maniac administration”.

It is clear that Harel sees the political and security contacts with Washington, as an attempt to avoid the aggressive options – employed by “Israel” since 1948 – following the “Israeli” army’s setbacks in Lebanon. He also sees a strategic retreat embodied by “Israeli” recognition – at the level of political and security decision-makers – of the counter-deterrence equation imposed by the Resistance in Lebanon.

The newly retired commander of the “Israeli” Air Force Major General Amir Eshel recently boasted about how “Israel” carried out about 100 attacks in Syria during the last five years. Harel who served as chairman of the Council of Settlements for 15 years described these comments as “the joy of the poor” simply because these attacks failed to prevent the transfer of some 150,000 rockets to Hezbollah. From here, Harel wanted to shed light on the dark side of the “battle between the wars” doctrine declared by “Israel” and aimed at preventing the growth of Hezbollah’s capabilities, since the standard for its success lies in results and implications on the level of capabilities. One of the most significant manifestations of these results is the terror and fear rising inside “Israel” due to the qualitative and quantitative growth of Hezbollah’s capabilities.

The assurances of Eshel and his successor Major General Amikam Norkin that “‘Israel’ has decisive means of retaliation” should Sayyed Nasrallah carry out his threats to attack Dimona, angered Harel. He pointed out that “the first attack is decisive, and could end up with thousands of casualties and serious damage to the security and economic infrastructure.” Therefore, the dilemma that “Israel” faces is: how will it use its ability and will to respond to this level [of threat], keeping in mind repeated “Israeli” threats of the total destruction of Lebanon?

Harel called on “Israel” to refrain from repeating the submission to the equations imposed by Hezbollah, and this time in the Syrian arena. He stressed that “‘Israel’ is prohibited from continuing to recognize long-term strategic changes.” He also warned of repeatedly acknowledging the deployment of the Revolutionary Guards on the borders of “Israel”, Syria and Lebanon, and soon in Gaza, and perhaps even in Jordan, “fearing it would be too late”, especially that “there is no limit to the flexibility of the ‘Israeli’ containment doctrine.”

He also believes that it is reasonable to assume that at this stage there will be no launching of any Iranian missile on “Israel” because it will not take place before the completion of Iran’s “regional hegemony” project in the region. He ridiculed, by implication, the argument that “Israel’s” deterrence power – after the “failed” Second Lebanon War – prevented Hezbollah from firing its rockets into “Israel”. He stressed that what is preventing the party is not this so-called “alleged deterrence”. Despair gripped the right-wing writer as he added that “even when Hezbollah launches thousands of rockets that have been stored, it is doubtful that the government will decide to target civilians or destroy the infrastructure, even when retaliating. For this right is reserved only for its enemies.”

In response to the “Israeli” leadership’s attempt to paint a picture of “national” immunity among the “Israeli” public, Harel pointed out that the problematic reactions of civilians in the north in light of the rocket attacks during the Second Lebanon War and the mass flight on the part of the Negev residents during Hamas’ bombardment [Operation Protective Edge], proved that the internal “Israeli” front possessed a low, troubling ability to respond. Thus, Harel was able to expose the “Israeli” political leadership, which is trying to mitigate its reluctance to act due to the counter-deterrence constraints, particularly after he saw that the performance of the decision-makers involved adopting a policy of containment, following the abandoning of the counterattack and initiation policy since the 1967 war.

According to Harel, “Israel’s” reluctance to neutralize the capabilities of the resistance factions in Gaza by “digging up negative land barriers, with enormous cost and questionable effectiveness” falls within the principle of abandoning the preventive and pre-emptive options policy. “This is the mentality,” he added.

As in every critical approach, “Israeli” writers and experts are keen to create some balance in the picture to avoid repercussions within “Israel”. Thus, Harel concludes, in the event of rockets fired from the north, east and south against “Israel”, the “Israelis” will win this battle, but after the death of tens of thousands within its own ranks!

Source: Al-Akhbar Newspaper, Translated by website team

26-08-2017 | 09:47

Related Videos

Related Articles

US Ends CIA Program in Syria but Continues Preparations for Big War

US Ends CIA Program in Syria but Continues Preparations for Big War

ALEX GORKA | 23.07.2017 | WORLD

US Ends CIA Program in Syria but Continues Preparations for Big War

The news hits headlines. The Washington Post (WP) reports that President Trump has decided to discontinue the CIA’s covert program to arm and train «moderate» Syrian rebels battling the government of Bashar al-Assad, according to US officials. The program was authorized by  Trump’s predecessor in 2013. The move is described by media as a major concession to Russia. «This is a momentous decision,» the WP cites an unnamed official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the secret program, «Putin won in Syria». Ned Price, a former CIA officer who served as senior director of the National Security Council under President Barack Obama, thinks «The White House appears content to kowtow to Moscow on any number of fronts — including in Syria». Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham tweeted that «if true – and I hope it’s not – it would be a complete capitulation to Assad, Russia, and Iran». But is it really a concession or a big policy change?

At first glance, the plans to oust the Assad government in Syria are shelved and there is nothing left but airstrikes against Islamic State (IS) militants and the Defense Department run train-and-equip program to support the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) dominated by Kurds. With the de-escalation zones coming into effect, the US is gradually reducing its involvement in the Syrian cauldron. But a deeper look into the matter leads to quite different conclusions.

The suspension of the CIA program is much ado about nothing, it was inefficient anyway. In fact, it does not change anything because the Pentagon program is in place. The US is not curtailing its involvement. To the contrary, it is increasing its military presence in Syria, and also in Iraq, by leaps and bounds.

The Turkish Anadolu Agency published a report on July 17 detailing the military facilities’ whereabouts and, in some instances, the number of special operations forces working there. It said two airfields and eight military outposts in Kobani, Manbij and Rumeilan, among others, are being used to support the Kurdish Democratic Party (PYD) and its armed wing, the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG). One post in Ayn Issah town in northern Raqqa governorate housed around 200 US soldiers and 75 French special forces troops.

US-made armored vehicles, including MRAP, M-ATVs, and up-armored bulldozers have recently reinforced the forces in the area of Qamishli – a city in northeastern Syria on the border with Turkey. Guardian armored trucks and US up-armored Humvees are included in the coalition aid to the SDF, and according to the Defense Department’s fiscal year 2018 request for funds for train-and-equip program for Syrian partner forces, armored bulldozers are also included in aid to «vetted» Syrian groups, Military Times reports.

The source notes that M-ATVs and MRAPs are not part of the package that is divested to the Syrian Democratic Forces. Neither is the Common Remotely Operated Weapon Station, or CROWs system, which appears mounted on the M-ATVs featured in the photographs spread around by media. The images of heavily armored American combat vehicles entering Syria seem to illustrate that the US is increasing the military presence in the region in general and in Syria in particular.

Last month, US High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems – HIMARS – were moved to al-Tanf base in the southeastern part of the country – one of three official border crossings between Syria and Iraq. HIMARS had already been deployed in northern Syria.

US, British, and Jordanian troops, equipped with tanks and helicopters, have been reportedly positioned in a long strip region across the border zones of Syria’s southern provinces of Dara’a and Suwayda, from Tel Shahab rural area, just a few hundred meters from the Jordanian border, to al-Nasib Border Crossing and Khirbet Awad village. Their presence has also been reported near Ramtha, a Jordanian city, located in the far northwest of the Arab country close to the Syrian border. There are no IS militants in that area, so the forces’ mission is to keep away the Syrian government and pro-Iranian forces.

According to an AP report made public in March, the United States had spent to date more than $11.5 billion on its intervention in Syria. Several hundreds of US special operation forces have been sent to Syria under the pretext of training Kurdish militia fighters.

Actually, American military personnel are not supposed to be present on Syrian soil at all. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 enables the president to act unilaterally in the event of «a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces». Syria has not attacked the United States. The US 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) gives no authority to enter Syria, which had no relation to the 9/11 terrorist act. The Syrian government may be painted as a batch of bad guys doing wrong things in their own country, but the UN charter prohibits the use of military force for retaliation or for reprisal or, punishment.

The administration is pushing Congress for the authority to build new «temporary» facilities in Iraq and Syria. That’s what its recent policy statement says. The president wants Congress to extend existing authorities that only cover the «repair and renovation» of facilities to also encompass «temporary intermediate staging facilities, ammunition supply points, and assembly areas that have adequate force protection».

Lt. Gen. Stephen Townsend, the commander of who currently commands Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve and the XVIII Airborne Corps, said the campaign is now expected to expand into the Euphrates River Valley after Iraqi forces retook Mosul. The general acknowledged that a continued US military force presence in the region could include the use of temporary facilities set up on an ad hoc basis, such as those proposed by the administration, but would mostly draw upon existing bases. Little by little, the bird is making a nest in Syria.

Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi is in talks with the Trump administration to keep American troops in Iraq after the fight against the IS in the country is concluded. The parties appear to agree that a longer-term presence of American troops is needed. The US military has about 7,000 troops in Iraq.

As one can see, there are multiple signs that the United States is increasing war preparations in the region. One of the missions is to prepare for a possible conflict with Iran. Another is strengthening the bargaining position at the talks on de-escalation zones in Syria and the talks on crisis management in Geneva. Any scenario can ignite a spark to light a fire.

Russia and the US could put aside all the differences and launch bilateral confidential talks on Syria. An open, honest conversation protected from any leaks to media could help to prevent the worst form happening. Moscow could act as a mediator between the Astana group and the US-led coalition. The mutually agreed proposals could then be submitted to other pertinent actors for discussion and approval. But the refusal to return Russian diplomatic compounds shows the US is not ready for a dialogue. Looks like Washington prefers to balance on the brink of war in the region in an effort to boost its influence and make the situation unfold the way it wants.

America and Israel versus the axis of resistance The red line between the psychological climax and the psychological warfare أميركا و«إسرائيل» مقابل محور المقاومة: الخط الأحمر بين العقدة النفسية والحرب النفسية

America and Israel versus the axis of resistance

The red line between the psychological climax and the psychological warfare

Written by Nasser Kandil,

يوليو 17, 2017

In two successive US decades there was “the red line” term during the mandate of the former US President Barack Obama; it was revived in the era of the current President Donald Trump. The intention is not “the red line” which is often a US Hollywood made, because the goal is the concept of the red line itself. The superpower is the one which proves in every arena in which it attends as a player that it confines the other players by drawing rules of engagement, and expresses the prestige of the position by announcing a red line. Whenever the superpower is strong, its red line will be related to public issues of collisions where there is no way to build them on accusations. As the red line which the current president has inherited from his predecessor and which is related to the accusation of using the chemical weapons which will remain an accusation if it is not proved by an independent fair investigation, as long as it was proven that Washington is escaping from the serious Russian demands to cooperate in carrying it out. Thus the question becomes why did not Washington draw a red line at Aleppo’s gates and say that the entry of the Syrian army to Aleppo is a red line, as Israel which draws a similar red line entitled transferring shipments of imbalance weapons to Hezbollah. The reports of its intelligence disclosed it by asking why we never heard of a raid targeting shipments of weapons after crossing the Syrian borders to Lebanon, and the red line remained in Syria, so is Israel is subject to a red line drawn by Hezbollah that prevents it from hitting targets in Lebanon for fear of war?

In every struggle America and Israel got accustomed to put the rules of war to nominate them by drawing red lines. It seemed that in the Syrian war these lines have faded and in need of what is like the myths to preserve their dialectical equations. While in fact, it is clear that the forces which Washington and Tel Aviv want to protect are defeated and faded. The involvement of Hezbollah in the war on Syria can be considered in itself an Israeli red line once Israel realized that at least there is no feasibility to bet on exhausting Hezbollah in this war. Since the war of Quseir in 2013 it was proven that it is an added value that will change the course of war which was planned to be prolonged if the overthrowing of Syria was unavailable where Washington and Israel play a pivotal role. But neither Israel which saw that its dream is fading dared to say that the presence of Hezbollah in Syria is red line, nor Washington dared. The same thing is applied on the arrival of the Russian and the Iranian forces and other allies. So the dream faded and was the search for the term” the red line”. Perhaps one day we will wake up and hear Trump saying that the departure of the Syrian President not his staying is red line, only to say to his Defense Minister on the next day as he did with the threats of the accusation of using chemical weapons that it seems that the Syrian President has taken our warnings into account, or Netanyahu will say that the withdrawal of Hezbollah from Syria and not its staying in it is a red line and say that our threats were effective because we protected the red line.

When the usage of the chemical weapons was announced as a red line the US intelligence was working to use them in Benghazi in Libya where the Sarin gas was given to Al Nusra front and the Turkish consultants to be used in Ghouta, under the plea that transcending the red line is a justification for a strike that changes the balances and makes the armed groups take the lead, as said by the US reports about the fabricated  plan to  strike in the era of Obama, but the Russian and the Iranian response were to say that this strike will turn into a comprehensive war, so it was overlooked. This is known by Trump who complained from his predecessor Obama who was accused of negligence to preserve the red line, so Trump showed his ability to protect it by making what is similar to what has happened during the era of Obama by heading a strike that does not like the one intended by Obama, in order to say that we have protected the red line, but he and his administration for the first time have identified the realistic red line that is related to the courses of war when they announced that the convergence of the Syrian army and the Popular Crowd on the Syrian-Iraqi borders is a red line, but this red line has been violated.

The new chemical game announced by America seems as a cure to the mistake of the fall of the red line and the disclosure of the elements of the US weakness by returning to the imaginary red line, and the threating on its basis, after the red line has been turned from the psychological warfare into a psychological climax, the same has happened to the Israeli whose his leaders talked about a preemptive war according to the theory of the Israeli intelligence which says that the wars with Hezbollah were all bad, and the comparison was between a bad and a worse war. Israel has no ability whatever it does to avoid the missiles of Hezbollah in a state of war after the missiles have covered all the geography which is subject to occupation, its facilities and defenses, because they can achieve accurate casualties, massive destruction, and unbearable losses. Therefore the leaders of the entity of the occupation discovered that they drew the new red line for the growing strength of Hezbollah by wavering of a preemptive war that is occurrence needs information and facts as  the ones that have the impacts of the psychological warfare on the Israeli public and which deterred it from the idea of war, so the leaders of the occupation drew a new red line by saying at the spokesman of the official of the internal front that it is not allowed to think of war because we do cannot bear it.

The red line has become a psychological climax after it was a real war and then it turned gradually into a psychological warfare. But at the same time there is who is drawing the red line in the field. The leaders of the Popular Crowd say that we have opened Baghdad-Damascus road , and it will not be closed. The Syrian deputy- Foreign Minister Faial Mekdad says that this time the response will be different if there is an American aggression, we hope that the Americans take our warnings into considerations. Al Sayyed Hassan Nasrollah adds to the Israeli considerations about targeting the depth and the reverse ground incursion, the coming of hundreds of thousands to fight Israel.

About the psychological warfare Maariv newspaper published a report about the Faculty of Public Speaking Education, it is an academic college in Tel Aviv for the graduation of political leaders, journalists, and economists, it says that the speeches of Al-Sayyed Nasrollah have a special semester that includes an explanation of the gradual strategic media superiority of Al Sayyed’s words and his psychological warfare, and how Al Sayyed built his words on honesty even in cases where the facts are painful, contrary to the Israeli leaders who often publish incorrect information within their psychological warfare or they hide important and real information. After Al Sayyed has been acquired the feature of honesty he got the confidence feature, if he promised he fulfilled and if he threatened he carried out, and what he announced as steps he will surely do. So he built the confidence which has become credibility. This report cites examples as destroying the battleship Saer on air, his dealing with the file of the captives. On the other hand the leaders of the occupation announce their intentions and goals that cannot be fulfilled, promises that cannot be come true, and threats that cannot be implemented. This semester includes an analysis of how the honesty turns into credibility, how to link the ratified elements with the hypotheses which cannot be tested in order to build a psychological deterrence system which is the basis of the psychological warfare. The Israeli words approve the facts of what Hezbollah possess as missile capacity and destruction ability, so it is enough that Al Sayyed indicates to the hypothesis of bombarding Dimona or the ammonia stocks to cause panic to the Israelis.

The US-Israeli war is a red line drawn up by the forces and the governments in the axis of the resistance and their allies at their forefront Russia. What is going on as drawing assumptive red lines is just an escape from the recognition of committing to the original red line not an American- Israeli war. Therefore the difference is big between the red line in the psychological warfare and the red line which it turns into a psychological climax.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

 

(Visited 12 times, 2 visits today)

أميركا و«إسرائيل» مقابل محور المقاومة: الخط الأحمر بين العقدة النفسية والحرب النفسية

يوليو 4, 2017

ناصر قنديل

– في عهدين أميركيين متعاقبين عاش مصطلح الخط الأحمر مع ولاية الرئيس السابق باراك أوباما وعادت محاولات إحيائه في عهد الرئيس الحالي دونالد ترامب. والقصد ليس موضوع الخط الأحمر الذي غالباً ما يكون تصنيعاً أميركياً هوليودياً، لأنّ الهدف هو مفهوم الخط الأحمر نفسه. فالدولة العظمى هي التي تثبت أنها في كلّ ساحة تحضر فيها كلاعب تتقدم اللاعبين الآخرين برسم قواعد الاشتباك، والتي يُشار إلى مهابة القوة فيها بالإعلان عن وجود خط أحمر، وكلما كانت الدولة العظمى قوية كان خطها الأحمر متصلاً بقضايا علنية للتصادمات لا مجال لبنائها على اتهامات كما هو حال الخط الأحمر الذي ورثه الرئيس الحالي عن سلفه والمتصل بالاتهام باستخدام السلاح الكيميائي الذي يبقى اتهاماً لم يتمّ إثباته بتحقيق مستقلّ ونزيه، طالما ثبت أنّ واشنطن تتهرّب من طلبات روسية جدية للتعاون في إجرائه، فيصير السؤال لماذا لم ترسم واشنطن خطاً أحمر عند أبواب حلب مثلاً، وتقول إنّ دخول الجيش السوري حلب خط أحمر، ومثلها «إسرائيل» التي ترسم خطاً أحمر مشابهاً تسمّيه نقل شحنات أسلحة كاسرة للتوازن لحزب الله، فضحتها تقارير مخابراتها بالتساؤل لماذا لم نسمع يوماً عن غارة تستهدف شحنة سلاح بعد عبورها الحدود السورية إلى لبنان، وبقي الخط الأحمر في سورية أم أنّ «إسرائيل» خاضعة لخط أحمر رسمه حزب الله يمنعها من ضرب أهداف في لبنان خشية نشوب حرب؟

– اعتادت أميركا واعتادت «إسرائيل» أنهما في كلّ صراع تضعان قواعد الحرب وتسمّيانها حرصاً على تعجرف القوة برسم الخطوط الحمر. وبدا في الحرب السورية أنّ هذه الخطوط تبهت وتحتاج إلى ما يشبه الخرافات للحفاظ على معادلاتها الكلامية، بينما في الواقع واضح أنّ القوى التي تريد واشنطن وتل أبيب حمايتها تُهزم وتتلاشى، فدخول حزب الله الحرب في سورية بحدّ ذاته يصلح ليكون خطاً أحمر إسرائيلياً، بمجرد أن أدركت «إسرائيل» على الأقلّ لا جدوى الرهان على استنزاف حزب الله في هذه الحرب، فمنذ حرب القصيْر عام 2013 ثبت أنه قيمة مضافة ستفعل فعلها في تغيير وجهة الحرب التي تريد لها الاستمرار إذا تعذّر إسقاط سورية لحساب الحلف الذي تقوده واشنطن وتلعب «إسرائيل» فيه دوراً محورياً، لكن «إسرائيل» التي ترى بأمّ عينها حلمها يتلاشى لم تجرؤ يوماً على القول إنّ وجود حزب الله في سورية خط أحمر دونه حرب شاملة، ولا واشنطن تجرّأت، وكذلك بالنسبة لقدوم القوات الروسية والإيرانية وسواها من الحلفاء، حتى ضاع حلم الحليفين معاً، وبقي البحث عن وهم يعلّق عليه مصطلح الخط الأحمر، وربما نستفيق يوماً نسمع ترامب يقول إنّ رحيل الرئيس السوري خط أحمر وليس بقاءه، فقط ليقول وزير دفاعه في اليوم التالي كما فعل مع التهديد بتهمة استعمال سورية للكيميائي، يبدو أنّ الرئيس السوري قد أخذ تحذيراتنا بالحساب أو يخرج نتنياهو ويقول إنّ انسحاب حزب الله من سورية وليس بقاءه فيها خط أحمر ليخرج ويقول لقد فعلت تهديداتنا فعلها وحمينا الخط الأحمر.

– عندما أُعلن الكيميائي خطاً أحمر كانت المخابرات الأميركية تشتغل لاستعماله من بنغازي في ليبيا، حيث سلّم غاز السارين لجبهة النصرة ومستشارين أتراك، ليُستعمل في الغوطة، ويصير القول عن تخطي الخط الأحمر مبرّراً لضربة تغيّر الموازين وتردّ للجماعات المسلحة قدرة إمساك زمام المبادرة، كما تقول التقارير الأميركية عن خطة الضربة التي صمّمت في عهد أوباما. جاء الردّ الروسي والإيراني يقول إنها ستتحوّل حرباً شاملة، فصار صرف النظر عنها. وهذا يعلمه ترامب الذي يتنمّر على سلفه أوباما باتهامه بالتخاذل مع تخطي الخط الأحمر ويظهر عنتريات القدرة على حمايته بتصنيع ما يشبه ما جرى أيام أوباما لتوجيه ضربة لا تشبه تلك التي كان ينوي أوباما توجيهها، ليخرج ويقول لقد حمينا الخط الأحمر، لكن ترامب وإدارته وقعا في ما لم يقع فيه أوباما، فللمرة الأولى حدّدوا خطاً أحمر واقعياً يتصل بمسارات الحرب عندما أعلنوا اعتبار بلوغ الجيش السوري والحشد الشعبي الحدود السورية العراقية خطاً أحمر، وتمّ الدوس على الخط الأحمر.

– لعبة الكيميائي الجديدة المعلنة أميركياً تبدو معالجة لخطيئة سقوط الخط الأحمر وانفضاح عناصر الضعف الأميركي، بالعودة للخط الأحمر الوهمي، والاحتماء به مجدّداً عبر التهديد. وقد تحوّل الخط الأحمر من حرب نفسية إلى عقدة نفسية، ومثله وقع «الإسرائيلي» بشيء مشابه عندما تحدّث قادته عن حرب استباقية، وفق نظرية المخابرات «الإسرائيلية» التي تقول إنّ الحروب مع حزب الله كلها سيئة، وإنّ المفاضلة بين حرب سيئة وحرب أسوأ، وأن لا قدرة لـ»إسرائيل» مهما فعلت على تجنّب صواريخ حزب الله في حال وقوع حرب، وقد صارت الصواريخ تغطي الجغرافيا الخاضعة للاحتلال كلّها ومنشآتها ودفاعاتها، وقادرة على تحقيق إصابات دقيقة ودمار هائل وخسائر لا تُحتمل، ليكتشف قادة الكيان أنهم رسموا الخط الأحمر الجديد لتنامي قوة حزب الله بالتلويح بحرب استباقية يستدعي تسويقها إيراد معلومات ووقائع فعلت فعل الحرب النفسية على الجمهور «الإسرائيلي»، وردعته عن فكرة الحرب، ليتولى رسم خط أحمر لقياداته، بالقول بلسان مسؤول الجبهة الداخلية ممنوع التفكير في الحرب، فليس لنا طاقة على تحمّلها.

– يصير الخط الأحمر عقدة نفسية بعد أن كان حرباً فعلية وتحوّل تدريجاً لحرب نفسية، لكن في المقابل هناك مَن يرسم الخط الأحمر في الميدان، فيقول قادة الحشد الشعبي، طريق بغداد – دمشق فتحناها ولن تُغلَق، ويقول نائب وزير الخارجية السوري الدكتور فيصل المقداد، هذه المرّة سيكون الردّ مختلفاً إذا وقع عدوان أميركي ونأمل أن يأخذ الأميركيون تحذيراتنا في حساباتهم، ويضيف السيد حسن نصرالله لدفتر الحسابات «الإسرائيلية» عن ضرب العمق والتوغّل البري المعاكس، مجيء مئات الآلاف لقتال «إسرائيل».

– حول الحرب النفسية تنشر «معاريف» تقريراً عن كلية تعليم التحدّث أمام الجمهور. وهي كلية أكاديمية في تل أبيب لتخريج القادة السياسيين والإعلاميين والاقتصاديين، وتقول إنّ خطابات السيد نصرالله لها فصل تدريسي خاص، يتضمّن شرحاً لتدرج التفوّق الاستراتيجي الإعلامي لخطاب السيد وحربه النفسية. ومن هذا الفصل كيف بنى السيد خطابه على الصدق وراكم عليه الصدق دائماً حتى عندما تكون الحقيقة مؤلمة، بخلاف القادة «الإسرائيليين» الذين كثيراً ما ينشرون معلومات غير صحيحة ضمن حربهم النفسية أو يحجبون معلومات هامة وحقيقية. وبعد اكتساب صفة الصادق راكم السيد على هذه الصفة الثقة بأنه إذا وعد وفى وإذا هدّد نفّذ وإنّ ما يعلنه من خطوات سيفعله حكماً، فبنى الثقة التي صارت مصداقية. ويورد هنا أمثلة كتدمير البارجة ساعر على الهواء، وتعامله مع ملف الأسرى، وفي المقابل يقوم قادة الكيان بالإعلان عن نيات وأهداف لا يستطيعون تحقيقها ووعود لا تقبل الوفاء بها وتهديدات غير قابلة للتنفيذ. ويتضمّن الفصل تحليلاً لمعنى تحوّل الصدق مصداقية، ليصير ربط العناصر الممكن تصديقها بالفرضيات التي لا يمكن اختبارها، لبناء منظومة ردع نفسي هي أصل الحرب النفسية، فالكلام «الإسرائيلي» يوثّق حقائق ما يمتلكه حزب الله من طاقة صاروخية وقدرة تدمير، فيكفي أن يؤشر السيد لفرضية قصف ديمونا أو مستوعبات الأمونيا حتى يُصاب «الإسرائيليون» بالهلع.

– الحرب الأميركية «الإسرائيلية» خط أحمر رسمته القوى والحكومات في محور المقاومة وحلفائهم وعلى رأسهم روسيا، وما يجري من رسم خطوط حمراء افتراضية ليس إلا تهرّباً من الاعتراف بالالتزام بالخط الأحمر الأصلي، لا حرب أميركية «إسرائيلية». والفرق كبير بين الخط الأحمر في الحرب النفسية، والخط الأحمر عندما يتحوّل عقدة نفسية.

(Visited 1٬467 times, 1٬467 visits today)
 Related Videos 

Washington: Is the protection of Israel from Hezbollah by the remaining of ISIS? واشنطن: حماية «إسرائيل» من حزب الله ببقاء داعش؟

Washington: Is the protection of Israel from Hezbollah by the remaining of ISIS?

Written by Nasser Kandil,

يوليو 2, 2017واشنطن: حماية «إسرائيل» من حزب الله ببقاء داعش؟

Perhaps it is one of the strangest and the rudest conclusions which revealed by the US elites that surround the decision-making circuits in the administration of the President Donald Trump, they were spread on the sites of the studies-centers as summaries of research workshops, then in the newspapers as conclusions of probable risks, then they were leaked to the British newspapers and around which the analyses were published. The common between them is the sequence in dealing with the regional scene, which says that the moment of the bet on overthrowing Syria has gone forever and that the Russian and the Iranian presence put versus this goal a comprehensive war which America is unable to wage, and that the imposing of new equation in Syria controlled by America through the Kurdish forces in the north and the forces which locate in Jordan in the south, and sharing the Syrian-Iraqi borders has fallen too. The next battle with ISIS has become in Deir Al Zour not in Mosul or Raqqa, Moreover, the important presence will be for the Syrian- Russian-Iranian along with Hezbollah and the Popular Crowd. So the issue became to answer the question; who will inherit the legacy of ISIS?

The same logic which is not generalized yet says that only Syria and its war can say the final word in the paths of the US engagement with Russia about the international policies, and that the paths of the situation in the Middle East in which Turkey has become outside the US sponsorship, and where Israel and Saudi Arabia have become in a critical situation in front of any Iranian coming victory in Syria, moreover any growing of the force of Hezbollah and a liberation from the burdens of the fight against ISIS and the other formations says to Washington that it has to take its decision now not tomorrow. The Gulf crisis is becoming worse where Iran and Turkey get its outcomes. The wars in Syria and Iraq are approaching from their ends in favor of Russia, Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah. Furthermore the time in which Saudi Arabia and Israel supported by America will pay the big cost is approaching. The big decision is not in the end of ISIS, however in keeping the war open without winner or defeated. As ISIS is approaching from the defeat there must be strikes against Syria and its allies under the slogan of accusing of Chemical attack, or an expansion in the prohibited operations areas or threat to allied forces in order to weaken the progress fronts which are achieved by the Syrian army and its allies. The owners of these equations promote a statement “ if the threat does not prevent the Syrian army and the Popular crowd from continuing the progress towards the Syrian-Iraqi borders in Boukamal which considers a strategic detail in the US considerations, and if the Kurds are unable to prevent them in an appropriate time, through reaching the south of Deir Al Zour and Boukamal before the Syrian army, so why do we leave ISIS loses Boukamal in favor of our opponents? So let the equation be what is not lost by ISIS for our account and for the account of our allies, must not be fallen, so its remaining under the control of ISIS is better than its transferring to the opponents.

The same logic is spread and echoed by the US mass media and analyzed by the British mass media. Robert Fisk wrote in the “Independent” surprising, he wondered saying can we believe that after Washington and ISIS have become on one front practically are unable to win and do not want to be defeated, so one of them justifies the war of the other, it is a common war against Syria and its allies to prevent the unity of its territories and the seeking to turn it into a failed country, but the key word in this logic is the question posed by the enthusiastic friends of Israel in the US decision-making centers. What will Washington do when the war end in Syria after Hezbollah became on the southern borders of Lebanon and Syria equipped with the modern weapons and the military infrastructure, because any war with it will open the door for thousands of the fighters of the Poplar Crowd and Ansar Allah, therefore the diligence and the erosion will be an inevitable fate to Israel under strikes run by Hezbollah insider the occupied territories, where Israel will not have the opportunity to wage a war. The situation of Hamas will be different and the war of Yemen will in favor of the steadfastness of Ansar Allah. Saudi Arabia will be preoccupied with a deadly endless race with Qatar which is protected by Turkish-Iranian ceiling, and Europe will hasten to open up to a new Syria and to coordinate with it in security out of the obsession of the return of ” the lost sons” it aspires under Russian temptation to have a share in reconstruction and to accelerate the return of the displaced.

The US answer is not confusing but rather clear, the prevention of the progress of the Syrian army and its allies is the US priority within the basis of preventing any settlement in Geneva or Astana, and the prevention of a decisive victory of the Syrian army and its allies on ISIS and the rest of the armed groups in the south and north, putting all these please, from the threat of using the chemical weapons to the threat of not entering banned zones towards the threat of not colliding with the allied forces of the Americans and those work under their protection.

The decision of Russia, Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah is to raise the level of confrontation to overthrow this new episode from the scandal of the war with ISIS and the winning on terrorism, whatever the cost is, and putting Washington in front of the difficult option; either to accept the rules of engagement in organizing the war on terrorism, or the comprehensive confrontation.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

 

(Visited 5 times, 5 visits today)

واشنطن: حماية «إسرائيل» من حزب الله ببقاء داعش؟

يونيو 29, 2017

ناصر قنديل

واشنطن: حماية «إسرائيل» من حزب الله ببقاء داعش؟

– لعلها من أغرب الاستنتاجات وأوقحها التي تكشف عنها النخب الأميركية المحيطة بدوائر صنع القرار في إدارة الرئيس دونالد ترامب، وتنتشر على مواقع مراكز الدراسات كخلاصات لورش عمل بحثية، ومن ثم في الصحف كاستنتاجات لمخاطر محتملة، وتتسرّب للصحف البريطانية وتنتشر عنها التحليلات، والمشترك بينها تسلسل في تناول المشهد الإقليمي يقول إن لحظة الرهان على إسقاط سورية ولّت إلى غير رجعة وأن الحضور الروسي والإيراني يضعان مقابل هذا الهدف حرباً شاملة لا قدرة لأميركا على الخوض في غمارها، وأن فرض معادلة جديدة في سورية تتحكم فيها أميركا عبر القوات الكردية شمالاً والقوات المقيمة في الأردن جنوباً، وتقاسم الحدود العراقية السورية بينهما قد سقط هو الآخر. فالمعركة المقبلة مع داعش صارت في دير الزور وليس في الموصل والرقة، والوزن الأكبر فيها سيكون للتحالف السوري الروسي الإيراني ومعهم حزب الله والحشد الشعبي. والقضية صارت هي الإجابة عن سؤال مَن سيرث تركة داعش؟

– يقول المنطق ذاته والذي لا يصبح معمماً إلا لأن هناك مَن يريد له التعميم، إن مسارات التجاذب الأميركي مع روسيا حول السياسات الدولية تقول الكلمة الفصل فيه سورية وحربها، وإن مسارات الوضع في الشرق الأوسط الذي تبدو فيه تركيا قد صارت خارج الفلك الأميركي وصارت «إسرائيل» والسعودية في وضع حرج أمام أي نصر إيراني مقبل في سورية، وأي تصاعد في قوة حزب الله وتحرر له من أعباء القتال بوجه داعش وباقي أخواته، تقول لواشنطن إن عليها اتخاذ قرارها الآن وليس غداً، فالأزمة الخليجية تتفاقم وتحصد إيران وتركيا ثمارها. والحرب في سورية والعراق تشارف على النهايات، ومَن سيقطف ثمارها كما هو واضح روسيا وسورية وإيران وحزب الله، وأن زمن دفع الثمن الكبير من جانب السعودية و«إسرائيل» ومن ورائهما أميركا يقترب، والقرار الكبير ليس في سلوك طريق نهاية داعش بل في بقاء الحرب مفتوحة بلا منتصر ولا مهزوم، كلما بدا أن داعش يقترب من الهزيمة يجب التوجّه لضربات ضد سورية وحلفائها تحت شعارات من نوع الاتهام باعتداء كيميائي أو تمدّد على مناطق عمليات محرمة أو تهديد لقوات حليفة، لفرض إضعاف جبهات التقدم التي يحققها الجيش السوري وحلفاؤه، ويسوّق أصحاب هذه المعادلات لمقولة قوامها، إذا كان التهديد لم يفلح بمنع الجيش السوري والحشد الشعبي من مواصلة التقدم نحو الحدود السورية العراقية في البوكمال، وهي مفصل استراتيجي في الحسابات الأميركية. وإذا كان الأكراد عاجزين عن منعهما في وقت مناسب من الوصول، ببلوغ جنوب دير الزور والبوكمال قبل الجيش السوري، فلماذا نترك داعش يخسر البوكمال لحساب خصومنا؟ ولتكن المعادلة ما لا يخسره داعش لحسابنا وحساب حلفائنا نمنع سقوطه، وبقاؤه بيد داعش خير من انتقاله للخصوم.

– ينتشر المنطق ذاته وتردده وسائل إعلام أميركية وتحلله وسائل الإعلام البريطانية. وقد كتب روبرت فيسك في الإندبندت مندهشاً، وهو يتساءل، هل نصدق أن واشنطن وداعش صارا في جبهة واحدة عملياً، عاجزَين عن النصر ولا يرغبان بالهزيمة، يبرر أحدهما حرب الآخر؟ وهي حرب مشتركة ضد سورية وحلفائها ومنع توحّد ترابها والسعي لتحويلها دولة فاشلة، لكن الكلمة المفتاح في هذا المنطق هي سؤال يطرحه اصدقاء «إسرائيل» المتحمّسون في دوائر القرار الأميركي، ماذا ستفعل واشنطن عندما تنتهي الحرب في سورية ويكون حزب الله قد صار على الحدود الجنوبية للبنان وسورية مزوّداً بأحدث الأسلحة والبنى التحتية العسكرية، وأي حرب معه تفتح باب استقدام مئات الآلاف من مقاتلي الحشد الشعبي وأنصار الله، وسيكون الضمور والتآكل قدر «إسرائيل» الحتمي تحت ضربات يديرها حزب الله داخل الأراضي المحتلة ولا تملك «إسرائيل» فرصة شنّ حرب، وسيكون وضع حماس قد تغيّر وحرب اليمن قد انتهت لصالح صمود وقوة أنصار الله، والسعودية منشغلة بتسابق قاتل بلا نهاية مع قطر التي يحميها سقف تركي إيراني، وأوروبا تسارع للانفتاح على سورية جديدة تنسق معها أمنياً بدافع هاجس عودة «الأبناء الضالين» وتتطلّع بإغراء روسي لنصيب من كعكة إعادة الإعمار وتسريع التخلص من جيش النازحين؟

– الجواب الأميركي ليس مشوشاً بل شديد الوضوح، وهو الذهاب بإعاقة تقدّم الجيش السوري وحلفائه هو الأولوية الأميركية، ضمن قاعدة منع تسوية في جنيف أو أستانة، ومنع انتصار حاسم للجيش السوري وحلفائه على داعش وسائر الجماعات المسلحة جنوباً وشمالاً، ووضع الذرائع كلها على الطاولة، من التهديد باستعمال السلاح الكيميائي إلى التهديد بعدم دخول مناطق محرمة وصولاً للتهديد بعدم التصادم مع قوات حليفة للأميركيين وتعمل تحت لوائهم.

– قرار روسيا وإيران وسورية وحزب الله هو رفع وتيرة التصدّي لإسقاط هذه الحلقة الجديدة من الإعاقة الفضائحية للحرب على داعش والانتصار على الإرهاب، مهما كان الثمن، ووضع واشنطن أمام الخيار الصعب، القبول بقواعد الاشتباك في تنظيم الحرب على الإرهاب، أو المواجهة الشاملة.

(Visited 2٬613 times, 2٬613 visits today)

Related Videos

Related Articles

A rare opportunity: World Peace Trio in the UK

June 23, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

Tue 4th July,   World Peace Trio at the Vortex Jazz Club, London

Wed 5th July, World Peace Trio   Ropetackle Centre, Shoreham-by-Sea

With the drums of war beating and peace feeling more and more like an exotic dream, the World Peace Trio bridges the divide. Indonesian piano maestro Dwiki Dharmawan, Oud star Kamal Musallam (Palestine-Jordan)  and woodwind virtuoso Gilad Atzmon have united to give beauty a new transforming meaning. Three world class musicians have united to make peace and harmony into a new poetic reality and totally new sound. Gamelan, Andalusian, the Orient blend into inspirational waves of fresh improvisational spirit.

Don’t miss…

Middle East Rapidly Heading To Another Military Conflict. Threat Of Global War Growing

24.06.2017

Middle East Rapidly Heading To Another Military Conflict. Threat Of Global War Growing

Saudi Arabia and its allies have presented Qatar with a 13-point list of demands, incuding shutting the Al-Jazeera TV network, cutting back diplomatic ties with Iran, severing relations with the Muslim Brotherhood and ending the urkish military presence in Qatar.

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain issued the ultimatum on June 23 and gave Qatar 10 days to respond. This ultimatum amounts to calling for a total capitulation. If Qatar rejects it, the Saudi-led block may consider “other options” in solving the ongoing Qatar crisis. It may attempt to use a military force against the Arab nation or to implement a “cold war” approach against Doha.

On Saturday, Qatar confirmed that it is reviewing the presented demands.

“We are reviewing these demands out of respect for … regional security and there will be an official response from our ministry of foreign affairs,” Sheikh Saif al-Thani, the director of Qatar’s government communications office, said.

BBC reported:

On Wednesday, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had asked the four countries to make their demands “reasonable and actionable”.

However, Qatari Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani, quoted by Al-Jazeera, said: “The US secretary of state recently called upon the blockading nations to produce a list of grievances that was ‘reasonable and actionable’.

“The British foreign secretary asked that the demands be ‘measured and realistic.’ This list does not satisfy that [sic] criteria.

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain have little options to step back following the release of their ultimatum to Qatar. If the Saudi-led block fails, this will lead to a dramatic fall of their public image and political influence in the Arab world.

It’s unlikely that Saudi Arabia and its allies didn’t consider various scenarious of conflict and hold consultations with the US before issuing of the ultimatum.

Earlier this week, Saudi Arabia’s King Salman appointed his son Mohammad Bin Salman as his successor instead of Mohammad Bin Nayef. This fact was very likely linked with the confrontation against Qatar.

The question is what kind of measures are the Saudis and their allies ready to implement? The Middle East is rapidly heading to another military conflict and a threat of another global war is growing with it.

 

Qatar Crisis
 According to the Qatari state-run media outlet Al-Jazeera, the list of demands includes:

1) Scale down diplomatic ties with Iran and close the Iranian diplomatic missions in Qatar, expel members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and cut off military and intelligence cooperation with Iran. Trade and commerce with Iran must comply with US and international sanctions in a manner that does not jeopardise the security of the Gulf Cooperation Council.

2) Immediately shut down the Turkish military base, which is currently under construction, and halt military cooperation with Turkey inside of Qatar.

3) Sever ties to all “terrorist, sectarian and ideological organisations,” specifically the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIL, al-Qaeda, Fateh al-Sham (formerly known as the Nusra Front) and Lebanon’s Hezbollah. Formally declare these entities as terror groups as per the list announced by Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE and Egypt, and concur with all future updates of this list.

4) Stop all means of funding for individuals, groups or organisations that have been designated as terrorists by Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Bahrain, US and other countries.

5) Hand over “terrorist figures”, fugitives and wanted individuals from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and Bahrain to their countries of origin. Freeze their assets, and provide any desired information about their residency, movements and finances.

6) Shut down Al Jazeera and its affiliate stations.

7) End interference in sovereign countries’ internal affairs. Stop granting citizenship to wanted nationals from Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt and Bahrain. Revoke Qatari citizenship for nationals where such citizenship violates those countries’ laws.

8) Pay reparations and compensation for loss of life and other financial losses caused by Qatar’s policies in recent years. The sum will be determined in coordination with Qatar.

9) Align Qatar’s military, political, social and economic policies with the other Gulf and Arab countries, as well as on economic matters, as per the 2014 agreement reached with Saudi Arabia.

10) Cease contact with the political opposition in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and Bahrain. Hand over files detailing Qatar’s prior contact with and support for opposition groups, and submit details of their personal information and the support Qatar has provided them.

11) Shut down all news outlets funded directly and indirectly by Qatar, including Arabi21, Rassd, Al Araby Al Jadeed, Mekameleen and Middle East Eye, etc.

12) Agree to all the demands within 10 days of list being submitted to Qatar, or the list will become invalid.

13) Consent to monthly compliance audits in the first year after agreeing to the demands, followed by quarterly audits in the second year, and annual audits in the following 10 years.

Related Articles

Nostalgia and British Politics

June 09, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

Theresa Je Suis Juif vs. Jeremy Turn the other Cheek 

Theresa Je Suis Juif vs. Jeremy Turn the other Cheek

By Gilad Atzmon

Three days before the British election, The Independent’s headline title read: “Majority of British voters agree with Corbyn’s claim UK foreign policy increases the risk of terrorism”

So, seventy-five per cent of Brits realise that it is those immoral interventionist wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Libya that have contributed to the terror that now haunts their country.

But ‘interventionist wars’ is just a politically correct term for Israeli-driven global conflicts promoted by the worldwide Zionist lobby: AIPAC in the USA, CRIF in France and the LFI/CFI in Britain. So the next question is unavoidable. How many of these Brits, who obviously know the truth about Britain’s ‘interventionist wars’, also grasp who it is who triggers these genocidal conflicts?

Today’s British election results provides us with a clear answer.

Theresa May has been made a fool by the British voter while Jeremy Corbyn, who was subject to constant smearing by the same lobby that pushed us into Iraq, Libya, Syria and even Iran, came out as the big winner.

The conclusion is inevitable: the more the Jewish and Zionist  institutions (BOD, JC, Jewish Labour Movement, LFI etc.)  rubbished Corbyn, the more the Brits loved him. The more the Daily Telegraph pointed at Corbyn’s ties with so-called ‘Holocaust deniers’ the more the Brits saw him as a genuine human being and an entirely suitable Prime Ministerial candidate.

This should not surprise us. Exactly the same dynamic led to the election of Donald Trump in the USA last November. The more the Jewish institutions and media castigated Trump as an ‘anti-Semite,’ the more Americans saw him as a their liberator.

The truth of the matter is that Trump is far from being an antisemite. On the contrary, he is, as some Jewish journalists pointed out, probably the ‘first Jewish president.’ The same applies to Corbyn. He is certainly no ‘racist’ nor an ‘antisemite.’ No, his crime is all-too-obvious: He thinks  Jews are ordinary, people like all other people. He refuses to buy into the ‘chosen people’ mantra.

I have been anticipating Corbyn’s imminent success for more than two weeks now, but how did I know? Simple, the Jewish Chronicle and the Guardian of Judea changed their tone. They began to accept the possibility that Corbyn may well take up residence in 10 Downing Street for a while.  Pretty much, out of the blue, somehow, they decided to make friends.

Corbyn performed very well in this election. But he could have won it just by pointing at the lobby and the people behind the institutional smear campaign against him. He could have done what Trump did and performed what the Jewish press refer to as ‘dog whistling.’ He could have chastisedthe Israeli Sayanim within his party – after all, the evidence was fully documented.  He could  have taken a stand and stood for his party comrades who were victims of the Jewish Labour purge. But he didn’t. Corbyn isn’t Trump.  Being an overwhelmingly nice person, he turned the other cheek – something I myself find frustrating, probably due to my own Jerusalemite origin.

In my new book Being in Time – a Post Political Manifesto I point out that for working people, utopia is but nostalgia. It was Trump’s promise to ‘make America great again’ that secured his election.  Similarly, the surge in popularity of Jeremy Corbyn, an old-style Lefty who speaks about a unity that goes beyond sectarianism and identity politics is due to the nostalgic impact of his message, that yes, once upon a time, we were united by the Left.

Is it really a coincidence that, in Britain, it is Labour that is gaining power by marketing nostalgia while Theresa ‘conservative’ May is punished for her attempt to frog-march Britain ‘forward’ into the brutal and merciless hands of murky City mammonites and New World Order merchants?

Iran’s response to ISIL attack: Haha, that was nothing

June 07, 2017

by Ramin Mazaheri

Iran’s response to ISIL attack: Haha, that was nothing

So ISIL claims to have made their first attack in Iran. The response in Iran appears to be: So what?

Despite an attack occurring near Tehran’s international airport there was no disruption in air travel. Citizens were asked to stay off the metro, but nothing went on lockdown. There was no martial law. Not even a state of emergency has been declared. No civil liberties have been restricted. No Patriot Act being prepared. There has been no executive branch power grab.

Despite an attack occurring near Parliament, lawmakers continued to go about their business, even as gun battles took place in surrounding office buildings. The live radio broadcast of the Parliamentary session did not even stop.

Pretty brave politicians, eh? I assume that their voters are thinking they made a good choice.

(People think it’s so brave to go to war armed with a gun: it’s much harder to be that guy who carried just a banner – all they have is belief and self-sacrifice.)

Foreign commentators are talking about how Iran has finally been successfully targeted by ISIL, as if we are supposed to be scared now.

Not likely.

The reason is simple: Most Iranians today either fought, survived or grew up during the deadliest conventional war ever fought between regular armies of developing countries – the Iran-Iraq War from 1980-1988.

Maybe I’ll be proven wrong, as I’m writing this just a couple hours after the attack was neutralized, but I doubt it. I know Iran and have faith that the terrorists won’t win by scaring us into submissive lives.

Give them time and I predict that Western commentators will eventually admit their befuddlement that the Iranian government isn’t using this terrorist act as a way to increase their own power and control the populace – after all, they’ve been so amazingly effective!

This attack helps the West: to show how disproportionate their responses are

But such a response of “business as usual” is unthinkable in the West. Sure, the UK talks about “Keep calm and carry on,” but we all know that’s just an empty slogan aimed at consumers.

Heck, the BBC even falsely reported: “However, officials announced a nationwide state of emergency in response to the attacks.” I guess they just arrogantly assume we still follow their lead? Not that this bad journalism could ever tarnish their reputation of course….

What happens in the United States? Well, let’s remember the Boston Marathon bombing: They went into to total lockdown. The entire city transportation system was shut down. 19,000 National Guard troops occupied the city.

“Armored vehicles motored up and down neighborhoods. Innocent people were confronted in their homes at gunpoint or had guns pointed at them for merely peering through the curtains of their own windows,” remembered the Atlantic. (Of course, they totally exonerated the authorities, writing: “May no one condemn them.”)

And yet this incident inspired the phrase “Boston strong”.

LOL, I guess it means being strong from behind your locked doors? Strong like “internet tough guys”, who spout self-aggrandizing, bullying nonsense?

Hey, I’m not definitely not insulting Bostonians as cowards. I know exactly why they stayed inside – they feared arrest. They know that if they didn’t comply they would get thrown in jail and have the key tossed away because: that’s America.

Bostonians didn’t fear the terrorists – they feared the police. They feared the justice system. The feared a domestic army ready to attack without notice and the legal system ready to exonerate them.

Of course, the mainstream media never say this. The average American doesn’t even want to accept it, as it would cause great shame. It’s still totally true.

The Bostonians would probably have all courageously rallied in Harvard Square against terrorism…if there was genuine leadership. But there isn’t. The leaders go underground at such moments: “I’m too important” – the essence of Western individualism.

What about France? LOL, a six-month state of emergency was declared at 4 am after the Nice truck attack, and that wasn’t even terrorism, but a lone nutjob with no connections to terror organizations.

You wake up and: “Ah, bon? More police state dictatorship just one step below martial law? Oh well, we have croissants for breakfast…”

And is anyone going to say that this was a “false flag” operation, as is usually bandied about in the West? You won’t hear anyone but bitter Iranian exiles possibly making those claims. Can you imagine a Cuban saying a similar thing about their righteous, peoples’ government? Hardly.

As I have proven, Iran is effectively a Socialist nation, so maybe it’s the idea of “permanent social war” that stiffens Iran backbone against giving up our democratic liberties? We certainly need those against the capitalists and imperialists who occupy nearly all our neighbors, as well as many other countries.

Iran doesn’t need to use such tragedies to terrorize its own population because it isn’t trying to terrorize anyone anywhere. It truly fights against terrorism – in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Palestine.

There is no doubt that manipulating terror attacks to quell democracy is what happens in Western countries, and the question is why? I would say it’s that the West is truly scared of having its social model called into question due to the repeatedly illegitimate actions of its leadership.

And why not, in this endless age of austerity, yawning inequality, rampant xenophobia and blocked futures?

But the Iranian government has no such fears – the people view them as legitimate.

But the West doesn’t understand Iran at all

The New York Times’ main man in Iran is Thomas Erdbrink – don’t look to him for an understanding of Iran, even though he has been based there since 2002.

He won’t realize that this terror attack is nothing to those of us from the “Burned Generation”.

What is that? Well, as he wrote in 2012, my generation, “…calls itself the ‘burned generation,’ because they feel they lost out on the natural evolution of life. While their parents managed to find jobs, marry and buy houses, this generation’s ambitions have been boxed in by the political decisions of Iran’s leaders and the foreign pressures that followed.”

No: We call ourselves that because we were burnt by chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq War. This generation grew up during wartime and saw atrocities.

Sad: How wrong people can be.

Nearly criminally negligent: To be considered a “top” journalist and to get something so very important so very wrong. You can see why I haven’t forgotten, after five years, his disgusting spin.

Because I think that, after 15 years and marrying an Iranian woman, he knows the real definition – I think he spun it that way to push his capitalist and imperialist agenda, and to please his pro-Zionist bosses.

I’m surprised he’s still tolerated inside Iran. It’s one thing to do critical journalism, but to get your facts wrong means you are no longer a journalist but a propagandist.

It’s not as if Erdbrink is alone, and certainly not as alone as when Iran was fighting Iraq. Back then even the USSR was arming Iraq, too.

Fawaz Gerges, a professor of international relations at the London School of Economics, told CNN that, “The message is loud and clear: These people are attacking the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic,” Gerges said.

How does a Salafist terror attack even bring up the idea of the legitimacy of the Iranian government? Just like in Syria, the Western media sees ISIL as being freedom fighters…when they oppose a modern government in a Muslim country.

But absolutely nobody believes you inside Iran, Gerges. Outside of Iran, your ideas were retweeted by places like France 24 (run by the French state), because all Western mainstream media hate the democratic choice of the Iranian people and will use any pretext to attack its legitimacy.

Frankly, the smart money is that this wasn’t even ISIL.

Does it matter if it was ISIL? Who is behind ISIL is all that matters, right?

Was it really ISIL? I doubt it – I bet it was the MKO, the Mujaheedin Khalq Organization (here’s a story I wrote on them years ago which has been effectively wiped from Google), because that’s who it usually has been, like with the high-profile assassinations of nuclear scientists, after getting training from Mossad.

This insane cult has zero credibility in Iran because they fought WITH Saddam Hussein and against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war…let that sink in and their lack of domestic credibility is pretty easy to understand, eh?

But they do have Iranian passports, speak the language, know their way around, can fit in, etc. One of the terrorists may have even taken cyanide to commit suicide, as is common with the MKO, when they aren’t setting themselves on fire in capitals across Europe.

Khomeini’s shrine was attacked previously – a suicide bomber in 2009. That was likely MKO, too. It was too bad because I had just been there – it was in the middle of a major expansion and beautification.

The bomber did not stop that – just slowed it down. It will be the same thing in 2017.

Anyway, let’s say ISIL did finally get in to Iran. Who is supporting them to get threre?

According to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei:

“ISIS ideologically, financially and logistically is fully supported and sponsored by Saudi Arabia — they are one and the same.”

We all know this. Outside of the West, at least.

Iran gets what fascism is, the West does not

The day before the Iran attacks there was a cop attacked with a hammer at Notre Dame Cathedral. 900 people were kettled inside Notre Dame and forced to keep their hands in the air. Now that’s a tourist story outside the norm….

I was urged by French journalists to drop what I was doing – covering Emmanuel Macron’s new right-wing rollback to the labor code – to cover that story. Fat chance….

Of course, to attack an armed cop with a hammer and two kitchen knives is the definition of insanity, but the man cried, “This is for Syria”.

And yet, a local English-language journalist wrote: “The motive of the man armed with the hammer is unknown….”

Well, if journalists didn’t get that it’s not Islam but France’s foreign policy after the same thing was cited by the Kouachi brothers, Amedy Coulibaly and nearly all the other home-grown French terrorist since 2012…why should I expect they would they get it now?

And it’s the same as the link between Saudi Arabia, the West and ISIL –willful blindness. But also apathy: people prefer low gas prices to forcing their politicians to stop supporting fascist ISIL.

Iran’s Burned Generation and the elder generation know what war and fascism is. People wonder why we have pictures of dead soldiers up everywhere – it’s not to glorify our martyrs, it’s to show the young people that war is real. Once they forget or misunderstand….

The West does not understand fascism – they are even coming close to democratically voting them into office across Europe. In the US a fascist already won.

They don’t understand war: France has had dozens of wars since World War II – all started by France and held on foreign soil. The US hasn’t had a war at home since 1865, and thus their idea of war is distorted by blissful ignorance.

Iran gets war, and they are not about to put themselves on a pathetic faux-war footing like those two nations have done over relatively trivial terror attacks.

The correct response: This attack was ‘trivial’

The West widely quoted Iranian Parliamentary Speaker Ali Larijani for dismissing the attacks as a “trivial matter” being handled by security forces.

I guess this is to portray him as cruel or ruthless or, the worst thing in the West today, insensitive to the feelings of others.

But Iranians know exactly what he means – an isolated terror attack is not the same as war. Sorry to burst the bubbles of the armchair media hawks and the foaming Western generals dying to play with their fancy new toys, but it’s actually just a pale, fleeting facsimile.

And, despite what the West wants this attack to lead Iranians to believe: We will not be fooled into thinking that our entire social model can be called into question by Salafist terrorists. Who are they to question our society, LOL? Anyway, there are definitely far more pressing issues: education, health care, worker compensation, worker protection, etc., which touch every single person for their entire lives. All my condolences to the victims and their loved ones, of course.

If France wants to throw their legal rights out the window over what equals a bad day in Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria – that’s their choice. But please don’t expect Iran to do the same.

It’s a terrible thing, 12 people dying and dozens of casualties (so far). But I think many in Iran are looking at Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Palestine, Mali, the C.A.R….and the US, France and the UK… and thinking: it could be a lot, lot worse.

I’d make this column longer, but I want to make sure to get a good seat tonight at the Champs de Mars for when the Eiffel Tower changes colors. It won’t resemble the Iranian flag, of course. I just figure that since the Eiffel Tower famously went dark when Al-Qaeda was finally kicked out of Aleppo, Paris will want to mourn Iran’s failure to be defeated by terrorism by radiating ISIL’s color – black.

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

Vigil to Be Held Outside Christian Zionist Convention in Phoenix June 13-14

 photo cpryrjeru_zpswjrfrq2v.gif

I received this email a couple of days ago from We Hold These Truths concerning an upcoming meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention to take place in Phoenix, Arizona.  As the email relates, WHTT will be holding a vigil outside the convention.

Attention Palestinian Peace Pals:

On June 13 (Tues.) and June 14, 2017 about 5000 Southern Baptists will descend upon Phoenix at the Phoenix Convention Center for their annual meeting. Last year in St. Louis, the SBC (Southern Baptist Convention) passed a resolution supporting Israel (see: “Southern Baptists Reject Peace Plea By Palestinian Pastor,” “Palestinian Pastor Confronts His Fellow Southern Baptist Church Leaders” and, before the 2003 war on Iraq, Richard Land of the SBC and other prominent, evangelical Christian leaders sent a letter to President George Bush stating that a war against Iraq would be a “Just War” according to their interpretation of the Bible. It was not a “Just War” as was reviewed in our 23 minute podcast:  “Will Southern Baptists Become Peacemakers?”

We would love to have you join us at the Phoenix Convention Center and challenge the attendees with signs like: “Choose Life Not War,” “Who Would Jesus Bomb?” “Blessed Are The Peacemakers,” “Where Are The Peacemakers?” “No More Wars For Israel” and “Gaza: Innocent Blood On Our Hands” and help pass out fliers.

Here is our vigil schedule for the convention (the Southern Baptist Convention program, SBC-2017Program.pdf is attached:

What: Vigil For Peace & Justice For Palestine at the Southern Baptist Convention’s 2017 Annual Meeting

Where: Phoenix Convention Center (North): 100 N 3rd Street,Phoenix, AZ 85004 (Map)

When:
Tues., Jun 13, 2017
1. 7:30 am to 9:00 am
2. 11:45 am to 1:30 pm
3. 6:00 pm to 7:30 pm

Wed., Jun 14, 2017
1. 7:30 am to 9:00 am
2. 11:45 am to 1:30 pm
3. 6:00 pm to 7:30 pm

If you can’t join us, take a look at our four minute video, “Challenging A War Willing Church,” and help us promote it. You’ve got your choice where to send to your friends to view it:

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pg/weholdthesetruthsPSG/videos/?ref=page_internal

WHTT website: http://whtt.org/challenging-war-willing-church/

YouTube: https://www.facebook.com/pg/weholdthesetruthsPSG/videos/?ref=page_internal

***

[ Ed. note – Christian Zionism has had an enormously corrupting influence on the Christian faith. It is a heresy, basically, that has turned followers of the teachings of Jesus into supporters of war crimes and apartheid. But where did it come from, how did it get started, and who promoted it? These questions are explored in the following article by Maidhc Ó Cathail. ]

The Scofield Bible: The Book that Made Zionists of America’s Evangelical Christians

 photo scofield_zpsqwtq09yz.gifBy Maidhc Ó Cathail

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

“For a nation to commit the sin of anti-Semitism brings inevitable judgement.”

—The New Scofield Study Bible

Since it was first published in 1909, the Scofield Reference Bible has made uncompromising Zionists out of tens of millions of Americans. When John Hagee, the founder of Christians United for Israel (CUFI), said that “50 million evangelical bible-believing Christians unite with five million American Jews standing together on behalf of Israel,” it was the Scofield Bible that he was talking about.

Although the Scofield Reference Bible contains the text of the King James Authorized Version, it is not the traditional Protestant bible but Cyrus I. Scofield’s annotated commentary that is problematic. More than any other factor, it is Scofield’s notes that have induced generations of American evangelicals to believe that God demands their uncritical support for the modern State of Israel.

Blessing Israel, Cursing Its Critics

Central to Christian Zionist belief is Scofield’s commentary (italicized below) on Genesis 12:3:

“‘I will bless them that bless thee.’ In fulfillment closely related to the next clause, ‘And curse him that curseth thee.’ Wonderfully fulfilled in the history of the dispersion. It has invariably fared ill with the people who have persecuted the Jew—well with those who have protected him. The future will still more remarkably prove this principle.”

Drawing on Scofield’s rather tendentious interpretation, Hagee claims,

“The man or nation that lifts a voice or hand against Israel invites the wrath of God.”

But as Stephen Sizer points out in his definitive critique, Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon? (available from AET’s Middle East Books and More): “The promise, when referring to Abraham’s descendants, speaks of God blessing them, not of entire nations ‘blessing’ the Hebrew nation, still less the contemporary and secular State of Israel.”

Notwithstanding this more orthodox reading, The New Scofield Study Bible, published by Oxford University Press in 1984, intensified Scofield’s interpretation by adding,

“For a nation to commit the sin of anti-Semitism brings inevitable judgement.”

“Sustained by a dubious exegesis of selective biblical texts,” Sizer concludes, “Christian Zionism’s particular reading of history and contemporary events…sets Israel and the Jewish people apart from other peoples in the Middle East…it justifies the endemic racism intrinsic to Zionism, exacerbates tensions between Jews and Palestinians and undermines attempts to find a peaceful resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, all because ‘the Bible tells them so.’”

The Incredible Scofield

In his 2008 book, The Rise of Israel: A History of a Revolutionary State, Jonathan R. Adelman describes the crucial support Israel receives from Christian fundamentalists as “totally fortuitous.” That assertion is belied, however, by the incredible career of the man who wrote “the Bible of Fundamentalism.”

Two years after Scofield’s reported conversion to Christianity in 1879, the Atchison Patriot was less than impressed. Describing the former Atchison resident as the “late lawyer, politician and shyster generally,” the article went on to recount a few of Scofield’s “many malicious acts.” These included a series of forgeries in St. Louis, for which he was sentenced to six months in jail.

Being a “born again” preacher did not preclude Scofield from becoming a member of an exclusive New York men’s club in 1901, either. In his devastating biography, The Incredible Scofield and His Book, Joseph M. Canfield suggests, “The admission of Scofield to the Lotus Club, which could not have been sought by Scofield, strengthens the suspicion that has cropped up before, that someone was directing the career of C.I. Scofield.”

That someone, Canfield suspects, was associated with one of the club’s committee members, the Wall Street lawyer Samuel Untermeyer. As Canfield intimates, Scofield’s theology was “most helpful in getting Fundamentalist Christians to back the international interest in one of Untermeyer’s pet projects—the Zionist Movement.”

Others have been even more explicit about the nature of Scofield’s service to the Zionist agenda. In “Unjust War Theory: Christian Zionism and the Road to Jerusalem,” Prof. David W. Lutz writes, “Untermeyer used Scofield, a Kansas City lawyer with no formal training in theology, to inject Zionist ideas into American Protestantism. Untermeyer and other wealthy and influential Zionists whom he introduced to Scofield promoted and funded the latter’s career, including travel in Europe.”

On one of these European trips, Oxford University Press publisher Henry Frowde “expressed immediate interest” in Scofield’s project. According to a biography of Frowde, although the OUP publisher was “[n]ot demonstrative in his religious views, all his Christian life he was associated with brethren known as ‘Exclusive.’” The “Exclusive Brethren” refers to the group of Christian evangelicals that, in an 1848 split in the Plymouth Brethren, followed John Nelson Darby, the Anglo-Irish missionary generally considered to have been the most influential figure in the development of Christian Zionism, and a major influence on Scofield.

Continued here

The Globalization of War, America’s “Long War” against Humanity by Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, May 23, 2017

The Globalization of War is undoubtedly one of the most important books on the contemporary global situation produced in recent years. 

In his latest masterpiece, Professor Michel Chossudovsky shows how the various conflicts we are witnessing today in Ukraine, Syria, Iraq and Palestine are in fact inter-linked and inter-locked through a single-minded agenda in pursuit of global hegemony helmed by the United States and buttressed by its allies in the West and in other regions of the world.   Dr Chandra Muzaffar, President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST)

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

$15.00, Save 35% on list price

The following text is the Preface of  Michel Chossudovsky’s New Book entitled: The Globalization of War, America’s Long War against Humanity

The Book can be ordered directly from Global Research Publishers.  

Scroll down for more details

PREFACE

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

Under a global military agenda, the actions undertaken by the Western military alliance (U.S.-NATO-Israel) in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine, Ukraine, Syria and Iraq are coordinated at the highest levels of the military hierarchy. We are not dealing with piecemeal military and intelligence operations. The July-August 2014 attack on Gaza by Israeli forces was undertaken in close consultation with the United States and NATO. The actions in Ukraine and their timing coincided with the onslaught of the attack on Gaza.

In turn, military undertakings are closely coordinated with a process of economic warfare which consists not only in imposing sanctions on sovereign countries but also in deliberate acts of destabilization of financial and currencies markets, with a view to undermining the enemies’ national economies.

The United States and its allies have launched a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity. As we go to press, U.S. and NATO forces have been deployed in Eastern Europe including Ukraine. U.S. military intervention under a humanitarian mandate is proceeding in sub-Saharan Africa. The U.S. and its allies are threatening China under President Obama’s “Pivot to Asia”.

In turn, military maneuvers are being conducted at Russia’s doorstep which could potentially lead to escalation.

The U.S. airstrikes initiated in September 2014 directed against Iraq and Syria under the pretext of going after the Islamic State are part of a scenario of military escalation extending from North Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean to Central and South Asia.

The Western military alliance is in an advanced state of readiness. And so is Russia.

Russia is heralded as the “Aggressor”. U.S.-NATO military confrontation with Russia is contemplated.

Enabling legislation in the U.S. Senate under “The Russian Aggression Prevention Act” (RAPA) has “set the U.S. on a path towards direct military conflict with Russia in Ukraine.”

Any U.S.-Russian war is likely to quickly escalate into a nuclear war, since neither the U.S. nor Russia would be willing to admit defeat, both have many thousands of nuclear weapons ready for instant use, and both rely upon Counterforce military doctrine that tasks their military, in the event of war, to pre-emptively destroy the nuclear forces of the enemy.1

The Russian Aggression Prevention Act (RAPA) is the culmination of more than twenty years of U.S.-NATO war preparations, which consist in the military encirclement of both Russia and China:

From the moment the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the United States has relentlessly pursued a strategy of encircling Russia, just as it has with other perceived enemies like China and Iran. It has brought 12 countries in central Europe, all of them formerly allied with Moscow, into the NATO alliance. U.S. military power is now directly on Russia’s borders.2

The Globalization of War by Global Research

click image to order

Worldwide Militarization

 From the outset of the post World War II period to the present, America’s s global military design has been one of world conquest. War and globalization are intricately related. Militarization supports powerful economic interests. America’s “Long War” is geared towards worldwide corporate expansion and the conquest of new economic frontiers.

The concept of the “Long War” is an integral part of U.S. military doctrine. Its ideological underpinnings are intended to camouflage the hegemonic project of World conquest. Its implementation relies on a global alliance of 28 NATO member states. In turn, the U.S. as well as NATO have established beyond the “Atlantic Region” a network of bilateral military alliances with “partner” countries directed against Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. What we are dealing with is a formidable military force, deployed in all major regions of the World.

The “Long War” is based on the concept of “Self-Defense”. The United States and the Western World are threatened. “The Long War” constitutes “an epic struggle against adversaries bent on forming a unified Islamic world to supplant western dominance”. Underlying the “Long War”, according to a study by the Rand Corporation, the Western World must address “three potential threats”:

  • those related to the ideologies espoused by key adversaries in the conflict,
  • those related to the use of terrorism • those related to governance (i.e., its absence or presence, its quality, and the predisposition of specific governing bodies to the United States and its interests). … in order to ensure that this long war follows a favorable course, the United States will need to make a concerted effort across all three domains.3

Our objective in this book is to focus on various dimensions of America’s hegemonic wars, by providing both a historical overview as well as an understanding of America’s contemporary wars all of which, from a strategic viewpoint, are integrated.

Our analysis will focus on the dangers of nuclear war and the evolution of military doctrine in the post-9/11 era.

The central role of media propaganda as well as the failures of the anti-war movement will also be addressed. While the first chapter provides an overview, the subsequent chapters provide an insight into different dimensions of America’s long war.

Chapter I, Imperial Conquest: America’s “Long War” against Humanity provides a post World War II historical overview of America’s wars from Korea and Vietnam to Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. There is a continuum in U.S. Foreign Policy from the Truman Doctrine of the late 1940s to the neocons and neoliberals of the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations.

Part II focuses on the dangers of nuclear war and global nuclear radiation.

Chapter II, The Dangers of Nuclear War Conversations with Fidel Castro consists of Conversations with Fidel Castro and the author pertaining to the future of humanity and the post-Cold War process of militarization. This exchange took place in Havana in October 2010.

Chapter III focuses on the doctrine of Pre-emptive Nuclear and the Role of Israel in triggering a first strike use of nuclear weapons against Iran.

Chapter IV, The Threat of Nuclear War, North Korea or the United States? focuses on the persistent U.S. threat (since 1953) of using nuclear weapons against North Korea while labeling North Korea a threat to global security.

Chapter V, Fukushima: A Nuclear War without a War. The Unspoken Crisis of Worldwide Nuclear Radiation examines the dangers of nuclear energy and its unspoken relationship to nuclear weapons. Nuclear energy is not a civilian economic activity. It is an appendage of the nuclear weapons industry which is controlled by the so-called defense contractors. The powerful corporate interests behind nuclear energy and nuclear weapons overlap.

Part III illustrates at a country level, the modus operandi of U.S. military and intelligence interventions, including regime change and the covert support of terrorist organizations. The country case studies (Yugoslavia, Haiti, Libya, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Ukraine) illustrate how individual nation states are destabilized as a result of U.S.-NATO covert operations and “humanitarian wars.” While the nature and circumstances of these countries are by no means similar, there is a common thread. The purpose is to provide a comparative understanding of country-level impacts of America’s long war against humanity. In all the countries analyzed, the intent has been to destroy, destabilize and impoverish sovereign countries.

Chapter VI, NATO’s War on Yugoslavia: Kosovo “Freedom Fighters” Financed by Organized Crime examines the role of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) as an instrument of political destabilization. In Yugoslavia, the endgame of NATO’s intervention was to carve up a prosperous and successful “socialist market economy” into seven proxy states. The political and economic breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s served as a “role model” for subsequent “humanitarian military endeavors.”

Chapter VII, The U.S. led Coup d’Etat in Haiti against the government of Jean Bertrand Aristide was carried out in February 2004 with the support of Canada and France. In a bitter irony, the U.S. ambassador to Haiti James Foley, had previously played a central role as U.S. special envoy to Yugoslavia, channeling covert support to the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). In Haiti, his responsibilities included U.S. aid to the Front pour la Libération et la reconstruction nationale (FLRN) (National Liberation and Reconstruction Front) largely integrated by former Tonton Macoute death squads. Closely coordinated with the process of regime change and military intervention, the IMF-World Bank macroeconomic reforms played a crucial role in destroying the national and impoverishing the Haitian population.

Chapter VIII, “Operation Libya” and the Battle for Oil: Redrawing the Map of Africa reveals the hidden agenda behind NATO’s 2011 humanitarian war on Libya, which consisted in acquiring control and ownership of Libya’s extensive oil reserves, that is, almost twice those of the United States of America. U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) played a key role in the war on Libya in coordination with NATO.

Libya is the gateway to the Sahel and Central Africa. More generally, what is at stake is the redrawing of the map of Africa at the expense of France’s historical spheres of influence in West and Central Africa, namely a process of neocolonial re-division.

Chapter IX, The War on Iraq and Syria. Terrorism with a “Human Face”: The History of America’s Death Squads examines U.S.-NATO’s covert war on Syria, which consists in creating Al Qaeda affiliated terrorist entities. The U.S.-led covert war consists in recruiting, training and financing Islamist death squads which are used as the foot-soldiers of the Western military alliance. The ultimate military objective is the destruction of both Iraq and Syria.

Chapter X, War and Natural Gas. The Israel Invasion and Gaza’s Offshore Gas Fields focuses on Israel’s attack directed against Gaza with a view to confiscating Gaza’s offshore gas reserves.

In Chapter XI, The U.S. has Installed a Neo-Nazi Government in Ukraine, the structure of the U.S.-EU sponsored proxy regime in Kiev is examined. Key positions in government and the Armed Forces are in the hands of the two neo-Nazi parties. The Ukraine National Guard financed and trained by the West is largely integrated by Neo-Nazis Brown Shirts.

Part IV is entitled Breaking the American Inquisition. Reversing the Tide of War focuses on some of the contradictions of the antiwar movement.

Chapter XII, The “American Inquisition” and the “Global War on Terrorism” analyzes the central role of America’s “war on terrorism” doctrine in harnessing public support for a global war of conquest. The “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT) is a fabrication based on the illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden, outwitted the multi-billion dollar U.S. intelligence community.

Today’s “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT) is a modern form of inquisition. It has all the essential ingredients of the French and Spanish Inquisitions. Going after “Islamic terrorists”, carrying out a worldwide pre-emptive war to “protect the Homeland” are used to justify a military agenda.

In turn, “The Global War on Terrorism” is presented as a “Clash of Civilizations”, a war between competing values and religions, when in reality it is an outright war of conquest, guided by strategic and economic objectives.

Chapter XII, “Manufactured Dissent”, Colored Revolutions and the Antiwar Movement in Crisis examines the role of corporate foundations in funding dissent and the inability of “progressive” civil society organizations and antiwar collectives to effectively confront the tide of media disinformation and war propaganda.

Michel Chossudovsky, Montreal, December 2014

COMMENDATIONS

The Globalization of War is an extraordinarily important book. It tags the origin of a long series of wars and conflicts, from the end of World War II to the present, as being direct products of U.S. Foreign Policy. Nothing happens by accident. U.S. provocateurs, usually agents of the CIA, incite one conflict after another in what Michael Chossudovsky labels America’s “Long War” against Humanity.

It comprises a war on two fronts. Those countries that can either be “bought,” or destabilized by a corrupt international financial system, are easy targets for effective conquest. In other cases insurrection, riots and wars are used to solicit American military intervention to fill the pockets of the military-industrial complex that General Eisenhower warned us about. The “End Game” is a New World Order embracing a dual economic and military dictatorship prepared to use atomic weapons and risk the future of the entire human species to achieve its ends.

Michel Chossudovsky is one of the few individuals I know who has analyzed the anatomy of the New World Order and recognized the threat to the entire human species that it is. The Globalization of War is a must read for anyone who prefers peace and hope to perpetual war, death, dislocation and despair. Hon. Paul Hellyer, former Canadian Minister of National Defence

Professor Michel Chossudovsky is the most realistic of all foreign policy commentators. He does not lie for money and position, and he does not sell his soul for influence. His book provides an honest appraisal of the extreme danger that hegemonic and demonic American neoconservatism poses to life on earth. Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary, U.S. Treasury, former Wall Street Journal editor,  former Wm. E. Simon Chair in Political Economy, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University. 

At these moments when  the threat  of humanity’s  extinction  by the forces  unleashed by the  empire  and its vassals,  it is imperative that we  grasp  the nature of the beast  that threatens us with  its endless wars perpetrated in the name of the  highest levels of freedom.

This  vital work by an outstanding teacher  will remain an enduring testimony  of the author’s  all-embracing  humanism and scholarship that has always been inseparable  from his political activism  that spans  several decades.    It should be mandatory reading  for those seeking to understand , and thus  to contain and repel,   the  compulsive  onslaughts   of the hegemon’s  endless wars with its boundless bestialities and crimes against humanity..Dr Frederic F. Clairmonte, award winning author and political economist, distinguished (former) economic analyst at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).

The Globalization of War is undoubtedly one of the most important books on the contemporary global situation produced in recent years. It comes from the pen of one of the most insightful and incisive writers on global politics and the global economy alive today.

In his latest masterpiece, Professor Michel Chossudovsky shows how the various conflicts we are witnessing today in Ukraine, Syria, Iraq and Palestine are in fact inter-linked and inter-locked through a single-minded agenda in pursuit of global hegemony helmed by the United States and buttressed by its allies in the West and in other regions of the world. This Machiavellian, indeed, diabolical agenda not only centres around wars of conquest and subjugation but also seeks to dismember and destroy sovereign states. Russia, China and Iran are the primary targets of this drive for dominance and control. The underlying economic motives behind this drive are camouflaged in the guise of a civilized West fighting “barbaric Islamic terrorism” which as Chossudovsky exposes is sometimes sponsored and sustained by intelligent networks in the West.

Chossudovsky has aptly described this US helmed agenda for hegemony as a “long war against humanity.” It is an assertion that is backed by solid facts and detailed analysis in a brilliant work that should be read by all those who are concerned about the prevailing human condition. And that should include each and every citizen of planet earth. Dr. Chandra Muzaffar, President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST) and former Professor of Global Studies at the Science University of Malaysia.

The media, political leaders, academics and the public at large often forget to put into historical perspective the spiral of daily news: we tend to concentrate on the latest events and crisis.

This may explain why the latest report of the US Senate on CIA’s rendition flights, detention places in black wholes and use of torture following 9/11 attacks and the invasion of Iraq has been received as a surprise and shocking news. Such practices have been well known by the international community and depicted, among others, in a number of United Nations documents as well as in Dick Marty’s reports to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

This CIA’s behavior has a long history including assassination plots of political leaders, coups d’Etat, terrorist attacks and other subversive actions that merge into a recurrent pattern.

The Pax Americana like the Pax Romana has been built through wars and domination. General Smedley D. Butler, a hero and the most decorated soldier of the United States had already denounced the US policy in his book “War is a racket”, written over 70 years ago.

Michel Chossudovsky’s book “The Globalization of Warfare” has the great merit of putting into historical perspective the hegemonic project that has been carried out by the United States through various centuries for the control and exploitation of natural resources. Jose L. Gomez del PradoUN Independent Human Rights Expert, Former Member UN Group on the use of mercenaries

Michel Chossudovsky leads the world in communicating critical information that few or none know. He is a perfect guide for the East European to Russia war now in the making. John McMurty, professor emeritus, Guelph University, Fellow of the Royal Society of  Canada

Michel Chossudovsky ranks as the world’s leading expert on globalization – a hegemonic weapon that empowers financial elites and enslaves 99 percent of the world’s population. The Globalization of War exposes covert operations waging economic warfare designed to destabilize national economies deemed to be inimical to the USA and her NATO allies. The military dimension of western hegemonic strategies threatens to trigger a permanent global war. Chossudovsky’s book is diplomatic dynamite – and the fuse is burning rapidly. Michael Carmichael, President of the Planetary Movement 

150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0
Year: 2015
Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00


Special: Dirty War on Syria + Globalization of War (Buy 2 books for 1 price!) 

original

Special: Globalization of War + Globalization of Poverty (Buy 2 books for 1 price!) 

 

Special: Globalization of War + Towards a World War III Scenario (Buy 2 books for 1 price!) 

Bulk Order: Click here to order multiple copies at a discounted price (North America only)

Click here to order in PDF format


 

Making America great… again?

May 16, 2017

by Ghassan KadiMaking America great… again?

The more pre-election, post-election and even post-inauguration promises that President Trump breaks, the harder he makes it for himself to “Make America Great again”. But this narrative herein is not based on the political rhetoric and broken promises, rather, it is about a hypothetical scenario that questions if America is realistically able to bring Trump’s slogan to fruition.

“Make America Great Again” is a catch phrase that implies a restoration process of a bygone station of greatness. So before one explores the chances of success of such an ambition, one ought to go back to the basics of how and when America was great in the first place.

Admittedly, America has historically been a country of dreams for many. The pop culture of the 1960’s has even had songs about wanting to live in America and surfing USA. The dream has been realistic and fathomable, especially for Europeans who wanted to seek a better life, and thus the flow of migration began as soon as settlement began, and that flow was later on mirrored by the rest of the world, and it did not stop as yet.

But historically also, America was never a dream for its native people; quite the contrary. The influx of white migrants into America has resulted in one of the greatest, bloodiest and definitely the longest lasting genocides that spanned for over four whole centuries.

As for the young African men and women, even boys and girls, who were raided and stolen from their tribes and villages, taken away from their parents, loved ones and friends, to be sold and traded as slaves, put to hard labour, raped and killed, there was nothing for them to dream for at all in regard to America.

A dream for some and a nightmare for others, it would be hard to say that defining America as a dream has ever been a description that has been ubiquitously endorsed during its early-mid stages of nation-building. Did the global consensus change later on?

As the new nation that became known as the United States of America became independent in the late eighteenth century, another century later, it suffered from a brutal civil war and the new nation was not really able to stand on its feet and have its place on the global scene until the union was saved and Lincoln managed to pass his 13th amendment.

As a result, America prospered, and later on, late in the nineteenth century, America became the biggest global economy, and in hindsight, the few decades that followed up until WWI, America came the closest ever to being great at different levels. President Woodrow Wilson made it clear that the USA did not join the war for any gain of territory or to build an empire. He was instrumental in setting up the “League of Nations”, the predecessor of the UN.

All the while ignoring that the 13th amendment did not stop racial segregation and we shouldn’t, ignoring that racial inequality persisted and we also shouldn’t, was this short period, the few decades spanned in between the presidencies of Lincoln and Truman enough to classify America as a great nation?

To answer this properly, we must define greatness from a humane perspective. After all, if we allow ourselves to base greatness on wealth, we will have to accept that the Rothschilds, the Soroses and the Rockefellers are the greatest people on earth, but are they? Who is a greater person George Soros or Jonas Salk who invented the anti-polio Salk vaccine and donated it to the world and refused to take any royalties?

The real greatness of people and nations ought to be gauged by their contribution to humanity, easing its pain, spreading knowledge, spearheading liberation and enlightenment, and not by their wealth.

Or is greatness a subject of might?

The post-WWII era in which America was elevated to the level of the world’s first nuclear power and most powerful nation, has left behind a legacy of wars that began in Korea and went on unstopped to Syria and counting, and has left a trail of destruction, tens of millions of civilians killed, mostly from impoverished developing countries. Economies were destroyed, infrastructures decimated, which again begs the question, how and when exactly was America ever great?

Whilst America did offer great opportunity for a great number of select people for a great number of years, based on the proper and relevant criteria of greatness, it can be fair to say that America was never really great.

Surely, many people were attracted to America to go and live there and partake in the big “American Dream”, be able to buy a Chevy, buy a house in the suburbs and send their kids to the best schools and universities in the world, all the while have the best doctors and hospitals at their beck and call. But in reality, what is the percentage of Americans who were able to afford those luxuries even during the years of economic boom?

Whilst it might be true to say that in the 1950’s – 1970’s or so, America might have had a living standard that was higher than most other nations, the standard is shrinking at an alarming rate. With nearly 50 million Americans currently on food stamps, it becomes imperative to realize that today’s USA is a country that is wrought with poverty.

But poverty is not America’s only current problem, and when Trump claims that he wants to” Make America Great Again”, assuming he means it, one wonders if he is simply talking about rebuilding America’s financial prowess.

So if Trump’s take on greatness stops with money, how far can the best ever financial reform process go? Not that there is any sign of it coming from the Trump administration, not that we can see that he is keeping his word by putting America first and stopping all wars, but we must remember that we are looking at a hypothetical situation here, one that has nothing to do with Trump.

In other words, is America able to become great again if Trump was indeed serious about his promise?

The formal and declared American debt stands at nearly $20 trillion dollars, and if calculated on a per capita basis, the figure amounts to $60,000 per every man, woman, and child. But this debt is the tip of the iceberg. With collapsing infrastructure like roads, dams, river levees, schools, airports etc, the restoration of those public facilities constitutes overhead costs that are not budgeted for. They are simply ignored and allowed to decay and rot. These are referred to as “unfunded liabilities”.

It is hard to put an accurate figure on the value of those unfunded liabilities and the estimates vary greatly from a low of $150 trillion to a high of $350 trillion. At the higher estimate figure, the individual debt balloons to nearly $9 million, again, for every man, woman and child. But even at the lower end, the per capita figure is shyly short of $4 million.

When we make balance sheets we have to look not only at liabilities, but also at assets. The estimate of America’s total assets is another elastic figure that also varies from $300 to $550 trillion. That said, if the liabilities figure is indeed in the vicinity of the high $350 trillion figure and that of assets is in the vicinity of the low $300 trillion, then America could well and truly be literally insolvent.

We must remember here that even if the high $550 trillion figure is the correct figure of assets, it does not truly mean much because much of the sub-estimates are based on untapped natural and human resources and are based on today’s value of commodities that can easily crash.

Apart from material assets, there was a time when people around the world talked about “the latest thing from America”. America was the world centre of research and development and innovation in all fields of science and technology, but today’s America does not produce enough engineers, doctors and scientists who can bear the load of a techno-financial revolution that can take America out of the trouble it is facing. When we look today at developments such as China’s massive ultra-fast railway, we can foresee that we are not far from talking about “the latest thing from China”.

On the other hand, the slick, “low budget”, and highly advanced Russian military technology has given America a run for its money. The Russians have been playing their game very smartly, exposing the Americans to a taste of what’s up their sleeve, and –God forbid- in the event of a major escalation between the two super powers, America may find itself with bases and fleets exposed as sitting ducks facing an invisible enemy. It is highly likely that the Russians are not trying to “show off”; as it were, but they are sending strong and clear messages of deterrence to their “American partners”.

Back to economy, it seems likely, as a matter of fact we can safely say that it is highly probable that the demise of the American economy has gone too far and beyond repair. It is also possible that Trump has come to this realization after his inauguration, and that after reaching this realization, he made his U-turn on his promises on the basis that all he has left up his sleeve is a stash of nukes and a mighty war machine.

To reconsider the definition of greatness, does President Trump believe that might alone brings greatness and that by escalating the global bullying role of the United States of America he is going to “Make America Great Again”?

America is certainly a nation that has the highest military budget, largest navy and more off-shore military basis than the rest of the world combined, it has had the world’s biggest economy for many decades and continues to enjoy this status, but has never been a great nation that has spread knowledge and wisdom to the rest of the world. It has used its military might in the past to pillage poor countries and its current financial woes are literally impossible to resolve.

But when it comes to military matters, what is pertinent is that most, if not all, American military ventures have failed to achieve their objectives. After reaching a stale-mate in Korea, a total defeat in Vietnam, after two decades into the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, America is still incapable of gaining the upper hand on the ground.

So if the military is the only trump card left up Trump’s sleeve in order to “Make America Great Again”, on what grounds is he basing his assumption that he can confront and subdue Russia and China combined given that the 125,000 strong American army that invaded Iraq in 2003 was not even able to control the streets of Baghdad?

Ironically, Obama and Trump have both won their campaigns using slogans that are based on desperation; from “Yes We Can” to “Make America Great Again”, the slogans were effectively used to lure in voters who cognize that America is in deep trouble and needs a saviour. Obama has failed and left America with twice the official debt that he inherited on his inauguration day, and Trump will not be able to do much, because like a rusty old car, America is too far gone, and I feel sorry for the good people of America, and there are many of them, including some very good and dear personal friends.

%d bloggers like this: