“Greater Lebanon”: where to?

August 19, 2019

by Ghassan Kadi for The Saker Blog

Abou Omar, a close friend of mine, is one whom I have so much in common. Not only he was my boss many moons ago, but we were both brought up in political families that endorsed and advocated the unity and integrity of Syria.

When I caught up with him recently after many years, I was not surprised that our thoughts had many congruencies, and the discussion we had has given me the inspiration to write this article.

One does not have to be a member of the Social Syrian National Party (SSNP) to realize that Syria and Lebanon have been the same country up till nearly a century ago when French General Gouraud redrew the map of what was then called “Petit Liban” (ie Small Lebanon) and annexed to it other territories and gave the “Grand Liban” (Greater Lebanon) tag to the new entity.

One of my first articles on The Saker, if not the first, was titled “The Capitulation of Grand Liban” https://thesaker.is/the-capitulation-of-grand-liban/. It outlines briefly the history of Lebanon in the 100 years or so.

For the benefit of those who do not wish to read the whole article above, I reiterate that the term “Small Lebanon” was used to describe a predominantly Christian Maronite and Druze entity. This state was the love child of an uneasy concession of the ailing Ottoman Empire to European powers (Britain, France, Italy, Austria and Russia) to give Mount Lebanon a reprieve after decades of sectarian strife between the Maronites and the Druze. The Maronites, being Catholic, were France’s favourites, whilst the Druze were Britain’s.

In rebranding Lebanon, as it were, and for whichever reason, Gouraud decided to include a Muslim component to the Lebanese demography. To this effect, the predominantly Sunni coastal cities of Beirut, Tripoli, Saida plus other Sunni provinces in the North, together with some Shiite provinces in the South and the Beqaa Valley were included in the new Mosaic that gave, according to the 1932 census, a marginal Maronite majority and hence stipulated, perhaps as planned, that the President of Lebanon will have to be a Maronite Christian. http://countrystudies.us/lebanon/34.htm

The 1932 infamous census was used as the defining foundation of “fairness” upon which all positions in all tiers of government were established. So unlike other states that provide merit-based employment, not only the President of Lebanon had to be a Catholic Maronite, but the PM had to be a Sunni Muslim, the Speaker of the House a Shiite Muslim, his deputy a Christian Orthodox and so forth. Each electorate was represented on sectarian grounds by candidates of same religion and sect, and even unqualified positions had to be based on “sectarian equality”. A government office could not even hire a janitor even if it needed only one, it must hire two; a Christian and a Muslim.

It wasn’t till the 1989 Taif agreement that followed the sectarian Civil War that the 1932-based model was revisited. But after a decade and a half of blood bath, one would think that the failed sectarian model was dumped altogether, but it wasn’t. It was only amended to give Muslims equal number of Parliamentarians as against the former 11-9 split.

But that sectarian “compromise”, which in itself was a reason for conflict, was not the only problem Lebanon had and has. In the 1920’s, the “new” Sunni Lebanese did not want to belong to what they considered a Western puppet state, and they took to the streets chanting “We demand Syrian unity, Christians and Muslims”. A few decades later when Egyptian President Nasser rose to prominence, the children of the first generation of new Lebanese took to the streets with a slightly amended version of the slogan demanding Arab unity for Christians and Muslims.

The Right-wing Lebanese Christians therefore felt Lebanese Muslims are fifth columnists who are not loyal to Lebanon, and as the rift grew and the Lebanese Left supported the PLO in its struggle, the Christian Right formed well trained and equipped militia, and the 1975-1989 Civil War was an inevitable outcome.

When the Syrian Army entered Lebanon in 1976 upon the request of the Lebanese Government, Syria had a golden opportunity to mend the growing rift between Lebanon and Syria, a rift that was fanned by pre-Civil War economic and development successes of Westernized Lebanon as opposed to an impoverished socialist Syria. But by then, Syria was on the road towards recovery under a huge nation-building scheme that was put in place by President Hafez Assad, the father of the current President and the founder of the Assad legacy.

Ironically, even after four and a half decades of the Lebanese slump and Syrian rise (despite the war), some Lebanese still live in the past and feel and act superior to their Syrian cousins. I say cousins not only metaphorically, but also because there is hardly a family in Lebanon that doesn’t have family in Syria.

But during the 29 year long presence of Syrian troops in Lebanon, Syria did not manage to win the hearts and minds of the average apprehensive Lebanese. Among many other acts of corruption, Abou Omar’s (my friend) car was stolen by a corrupt Syrian Army officer. Acts of such nature did not sway those who understood the basics of the anti-Syrian politics. Abou Omar was a victim of corrupt Syrian Army thugs, but his loyalty to Syria remained unwavering.

Ironically, eventually a substantial section of Lebanese Sunnis became aggressively Lebanese in their outlook. It is possible that the current anti Hezbollah passion has united some Sunnis and Christians against a “common enemy”. But perhaps by the time they developed this sentiment, it was already too late for Great Lebanon to rise from the ashes.

And whilst the Lebanese economy is going down the gurgler, corruption is having a huge surge and the state is now virtually bankrupt with very heavy debt and no solution in sight. Corruption has reached epic proportions that recently, a Lebanese Member of Parliament has publically said in the House that the public knows that politicians are lying to the public about the debt, and the politicians know that the public knows that the politicians are lying. https://www.facebook.com/1234196636614228/posts/2624089564291588?s=549881917&v=e&sfns=mo (Facebook link).

During the Civil War, the specter of Lebanese partition was always on the cards and high on some agendas. Back then, the scenario for such a partition was that Israel would take South Lebanon and control the Litani River water, a Maronite “canton” akin to the former Small Lebanon would be created, and the North and the Beqaa would go back to Syria.

Such a partition scenario is no longer feasible, mainly because there is a new force on the ground; Hezbollah.

With Hezbollah on the ground, Israel will never be able to secure any territorial gains in Lebanon. Furthermore, the Maronite politicians ie members of the so-called “The Maronite Political Entity” are now split between a traditional Right and pro-Hezbollah faction. The incumbent President Aoun belongs to the latter group, but his tenure has thus far been plagued by bigtime corruption and squandering of resources.

Aoun’s ascendance to the presidency was not an easy birth. It was fraught with hard labour and many political settlements; the most important of which was the reconciliation of Maronite leaders. Another friend of mine, a former ambassador, a Sunni, told me back then that he felt that the Maronite-Maronite reconciliation puts Lebanon finally in good hands. This is because the Maronites are meant to be the custodians of Lebanon, the integrity of its statehood and independence, and that they would rebuild the state and its economy. But the Aoun presidency has failed abysmally and poured oil onto fire with its rampant corruption. Aoun, who is in his eighties, has given the actual reigns to his son-in-law Gibran Bassil, and Bassil is one hell of a corrupt crook with an insatiable fetish for dirty money.

General Gouraud announced the birth Greater Lebanon 99 years ago, and specifically on on the 1st of September 1920 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Lebanon. Will this state survive another century? It is simply cannot, because it is heading towards a cliff edge, and heading there fast.

So where does Greater Lebanon go from here?

With partition no longer on the agenda and Israel kept at arm’s length, Lebanon can only eventually merge back with Syria; but currently this is not possible given that the “War on Syria” has not yet ended.

Sooner or later, one way or the other, willingly or unwillingly, fully or partially, and I dare say for better or for worse, the Lebanese will see themselves back in the bosom of Syria. This however will be faced by resistance; not necessarily armed resistance, but one cannot zero out violence. Ironically this time, the biggest opponents may prove to be the anti-Syria Sunnis in the major coastal cities of Beirut, Tripoli and Saida. The Right wing Lebanese Christian groups will also oppose any such merger, but the much wiser Lebanese Christians understand that Syria has proven to be the actual defender and custodian of Levantine Christianity when the West stood by and watched young Christian Syrian girls sold as sex slaves.

The success or failure of the future “Take 2” version of the Syrian Army entering Lebanon will also depend on to what extent victorious Syria will be able to curb corruption within Syria first. A repeat of the 1976-2005 experience of Syrian Army presence in Lebanon will ultimately lead to another unsavoury outcome.

Syria has to win her moral war like she won her military war; and I have been emphasizing the need to do so in many previous articles, because unlike most other wars, this war has been a war of morality against immorality. Morality and corruption do not mix, and fighting corruption should now be high on President Assad’s agenda.

But above all, Syria is the key for the future of the region. She is the key for the regional geopolitical make-up, the key for Lebanon, the key for justice for Palestinians, the key for Palestine, the key for any matter pertaining to the Levant, because Syria is The Levant.

Advertisements

14 آب ليس يوماً مضى بل صيرورة مستمرة… والمطلوب؟

أغسطس 14, 2019

ناصر قنديل

– في الرابع عشر من آب 2006 تحقق عظيم الإنجاز بما يقارب الإعجاز في نصر تاريخي هزم أعتى قوة يعتمد عليها الغرب في فرض سياساته على الشرق، وبزغ فجر حركات المقاومة لتعيد كتابة التاريخ وترسم حدود الجغرافيا باسم الشعوب التي غيّبت طويلاً عن قضاياها المركزية، حيث ترجمت المقاومة التي احتفلت بانتصارها كل شعوب المنطقة إرادة هذه الشعوب في تعبير نوعي عن مفهوم الديمقراطية والإرادة الشعبية. بالتوازي سقطت أحلام وتهاوت أبراج من الأوهام، حيث كل ما سيهدد به الغرب لاحقاً هو ما سبق وما فعله سابقاً، وكانت حرب تموز البديل الذي راهن عليه لاستعادة ماء وجهه بعد حربين فاشلتين في أفغانستان والعراق، لتشكيل شرقه الأوسط الجديد كما بات ما لا يحتاج دليلاً ولا برهاناً، وأصيبت «إسرائيل» في روحها، حيث لن تنفعها بعد ذلك لا قبب حديدية وفولاذية ولا خطط ترميم لقوة الردع ولا استعادة العافية لجبهة داخلية أصيبت بمرض عضال لا شفاء منه، وخرج الشعب في مسيراته المهيبة فجر الرابع عشر من آب يكلل النصر بالمزيد من التضحيات حاضناً مقاومته وفارضاً تفسيره للقرار الأممي 1701، وخرج الجيش اللبناني المتوّج بالثلاثية الذهبية مع شعب ومقاومة لا ينازعانه الحضور العلني لعروض القوة، كأقوى جيوش المنطقة بهذين الرديفين، لا تعوزه المساعدات ولا الرعاية الأميركية الهادفة لتجريده من أقوى ما عنده، وهو الثلاثية المقدسة التي أكدها النصر.

– الصيرورة المستمرة لمعادلات 14 آب ظهرت مع تعميم نموذج المقاومة من لبنان وفلسطين إلى العراق واليمن، وظهرت في النموذج السوري لمقاومة الغزوة الدولية الكبرى، وفي صمود إيران، وفي نهوض روسيا لدورها كدولة عظمى، وفي استفاقة التنين الصيني للمنازلة في ساحات الاقتصاد تمهيداً لمنازلات مقبلة في سواها. وفي هذه الصيرورة تأكدت معادلات نصر آب، وترسخت وتعملقت، وخلال الأعوام التي مضت حاول الأميركي والإسرائيلي وما بينهما من حكام الخليج والغرب، وبعض الداخل اللبناني والعربي والإسلامي تعويض نواقص الحرب ومعالجة أسباب الهزيمة، فكانت كل حرب لإضعاف المقاومة تزيدها قوة.

– قرأ المعنيون بالهزيمة على تنوّع مشاربهم وهوياتهم أن نصر آب هو نتيجة الطبيعة الخارجية للحرب، وأن تفوق المقاومة على جيش الاحتلال تقنياً جاء بفعل أسلحة لا قيمة لها في مواجهات داخلية، فكانت تجربة الفتنة الداخلية، من محاولة كسر الاعتصام الذي دعت إليه المقاومة وحلفاؤها في مطلع العام 2007، وصولاً لقرار تفكيك شبكة اتصالات المقاومة، تمهيداً لتوريطها في فخ التصادم مع الجيش وتفتيت الشعب إلى قبائل متحاربة، فكانت عملية 7 أيار، التي يقدمها البعض دليلاً على استخدام المقاومة لسلاحها نحو الداخل اللبناني، تأكيداً لمعادلة العجز الشامل عن كسر مصادر قوة المقاومة. ومثلها جاءت الحرب على سورية وما رافقها من استقدام كل منتجات الفكر الوهابي أملاً بتعويض عجز جيش الاحتلال عن بذل الدماء باستحضار من لا يقيم لها حساباً، فجاءت نتائج الحرب تقول إن مصادر قوة المقاومة لم تمسها لا محاولات الفتن الداخلية، ولا المواجهة مع تشكيلات الإرهاب التكفيري.

– اليوم ومع تسيّد معادلات المقاومة على مساحة المنطقة من مضيق هرمز إلى مضيق باب المندب ومضيق جبل طارق، ومضيق البوسفور، وما بينها من بحار ويابسة، تبقى المعضلة في قدرة مشروع المقاومة على بلورة نموذج للحكم يُحاكي نجاحاتها في مواجهة العدوان والاحتلال والإرهاب، فيما السلاح الاقتصادي الهادف لتفجير معادلات الدول من داخلها يشكل أهم استثمارات المشروع الأميركي، ويبدو أن إعادة تنظيم الدولة الوطنية ومؤسساتها يسبق في الأهمية الحلول الاقتصادية والمالية التقنية في خطة المواجهة. وهنا لا بد من التأكيد أن بناء الدولة القوية كهدف يبقى هو العنوان، والمقاومة محور تحالفات عن يمينها وعن يسارها ما يكفي لموازين القوى اللازمة لمفهوم الدولة المرتجاة مع مراعاة ضرورات الواقعية والمرونة، وحيث يتحدث الجميع عن الدولة المدنية كإطار للحل، يتباين المفهوم حول طبيعتها، وتبدو المقاومة معنية ببدء الحوار الجاد حول هذا المفهوم خصوصاً مع حليفيها الاستراتيجيين في حركة أمل والتيار الوطني الحر ومعهما حلفاء أصيلون بالمناداة بالدولة المدنية ويحملون نموذجهم اللاطائفي إثباتاً على إمكان تخطي الطائفية، كما حمل مشروع المقاومة الإثبات على إمكانية هزيمة الاحتلال، وهؤلاء الذين يتقدمهم الحزب السوري القومي الإجتماعي متطلعون لهذا الحوار الجاد من موقعهم الشريك في مشروع المقاومة ومعاركها، والهدف هو البدء ببلورة مفهوم موحد، سيكون وحده الجواب على التحديات، خصوصاً ان الهواجس التي يثيرها طرح التيار الوطني الحر بالدعوة لتطبيق عنوان الدولة المدنية بما يتخطى إلغاء الطائفية كشرط للسير بها، ليست هواجس العلمانيين بل هي هواجس تمسّ ما يهتم به حزب الله من شؤون تتصل بدور الدين في الدولة وكيفية الفصل والوصل بينهما وضمن أي حدود. وما يثيره حلفاء حزب الله الذين يثير هواجسهم خطاب الحقوق المسيحية التي ينادي بها التيار الوطني الحر كتعبير عن تصعيد للعصبيات الطائفية، لا يخشونها من موقع طائفي وهم عابرون للطوائف، بل من موقع الحرص على عدم إثارة العصبيات، بينما في هذه اللغة ما يثير مباشرة هواجس قواعد وجمهور المقاومة وبيئتها الحاضنة.

– المهمة ليست سهلة، لكنها ليست أصعب من مقتضيات النصر في آب 2006، وأهميتها في كونها تكمل حلقات النصر، وتجعله مشروعاً وصيرورة، لا مجرد لحظة تاريخية مجيدة.

Related Videos

عنوان الحلقة معركة إدلب نقطة الفصل في معارك المنطقة الجديدة بما فيها معارك الخليج

 

Related News

Javed Rana: US Driven by “Might is Right” with Little Morality

Javed Rana: US Driven by “Might is Right” with Little Morality

TEHRAN (FNA)– Javed Rana, journalist and political analyst, says the US policy has been to conduct attacks on only the defenseless countries such as Libya, Iraq, Syria and even Afghanistan; but, it has avoided any military conflicts with nuclear armed states such as India or Pakistan.

Speaking in an exclusive interview with FNA, Javed Rana said Washington always overstates its military capabilities and achievements, saying,

“The US along with 40 other countries invaded Afghanistan in November 2001 to eliminate over 400 fighters of Alqaeda. 18 years down the line, the US is now literally begging Taliban who control 70 percent of the territory to let Pentagon withdraw from Afghanistan with some grace.”

Javed Rana has over two decades of journalistic experience, including a long stint with Al-Jazeera. He was the witness to countless monumental developments taking place in Pakistan, Afghanistan and the Middle East. He focuses on non-state armed actors, legal, political and geostrategic issues.

Below is the full text of the interview:

Q: Pakistan and India both are armed with nuclear weapons. Why has the US never confronted India and Pakistan?

A: The US needed Pakistan of 210 million people badly in 1980s to fight its cold war against the then communist Soviet Union which had occupied Afghanistan. Washington was pumping money and providing all kind of political support to Pakistan to help it to recruit jihadists to fight against the Soviets. Islamabad discreetly used this opportunity to complete its nuclear program in mid 1980s amid US suspicion. However, the US could not have pressurized Pakistan to a tipping point to cap its nuclear program. After the dismemberment of the USSR, the US did not take much time to place Pakistan under economic sanctions and withheld military hardware given its secret nature of nuclear program in early 1990s. In August 1998 Pakistan conducted seven nuclear tests in retaliation to similar tests by India. Again Islamabad came under heavy US economic sanctions. So did it happen with India. The geo-strategic situation changed after 9/11 attacks in the US and Washington lifted its all previous sanctions on Pakistan to help it overthrow Taliban government in Afghanistan. In 2008 the US opted Pakistan’s arch rival India to be its long term geo-strategic partner and decided to retain its bilateral relations with Pakistan on tactical basis to help it end 18 years long war in neighboring Afghanistan given Islamabad’s alleged support for the Taliban.

Pakistan remains de facto nuclear state but the US is short of conceding to grant the dejure status to India as a nuclear state after Washington signed commercial deal to provide New Delhi nuclear technology and later used its diplomatic leverage on nuclear watch dog – International Atomic Energy Agency – to have this agreement approved amid objections from Pakistan who wanted to be treated equally. The US opted to provide virtual dejure support to India to counterbalance rising China which has close military and economic cooperation with Pakistan.

Q: The US claims to be the world’s police in dealing with nuclear proliferation. How do you see its conflicting approaches in dealing with different countries?

A: The ancient principal “the might is right” is still in place; but, it has transformed into different shapes. The global geo-strategic politics is largely driven by hard facts and less by the moral principles which mostly end up of being consumed to propagate the stances of powerful western capitals. The US is bombing the countries which did not have or could have potentially nuclear weapons. Pentagon bombed Libya, Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan because they did not have nuclear weapons. Iran is next target simply because it doesn’t have nuclear warheads. The US opted not to bomb Pakistan only because it has the third large stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world with the ability to nuke all American strategic installations in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world. So is the case with North Korea. In case of Iran, the US is trying to choke it economically to pressurize Tehran to renegotiate 2015 nuclear deal, The US suspects that Iranian nuclear program could be used for military purposes after 2025 when the sunset clause of 2015 nuclear deal expires which may potentially allow Iran to increase enrichment of uranium to weapon grade.

Q: Do you believe such US policies will make this region safer?

A: The US along with 40 other countries invaded Afghanistan in November 2001 to eliminate over 400 fighters of Alqaeda. 18 years down the line, the US is now literally begging Taliban who control 70 percent of the territory to let Pentagon withdraw from Afghanistan with some grace. And now there is mushroom growth of militant groups across the region from Afghanistan to Middle East. Similarly if the US bombs Iran, there would be more terrorism and unrest in the region. While the US would create conditions that in case of war, Iran attacks Saudi Arabia who would give it a religious color to seek support from other Muslim countries. This could potentially trigger a sectarian conflict where Sunni-Shia could target each other elsewhere in the world.

لا استراتيجية مغايرة لترامب بل حملة متصاعدة ضدّ إيران لحماية «إسرائيل»

يناير 14, 2019

د. عصام نعمان

من القاهرة أطلق مايك بومبيو، نيابةً عن دونالد ترامب، حملةً بمحاور متعدّدة ضدّ خصوم الولايات المتحدة في غرب آسيا، ولا سيما في المشرق العربي. بومبيو تقصّد ان يقتصر خطابه على خطوط عريضة لعلمه أنّ رئيسه المتقلّب المزاج لن يستقرّ على رأي وأنّ ما سيقوله هو أو غيره اليوم قد يقول ترامب عكسه غداً.

اللافت في خطاب وزير الخارجية الأميركي حرصه على دحض الخطاب الذي كان ألقاه باراك أوباما في العاصمة نفسها قبل عشر سنوات. فقد وصف الرئيس الأميركي الأسبق بالضعف في تصدّيه لما أسماه «الخطر الإيراني الإقليمي» ما أدّى الى تقوية النظام الإسلامي في طهران وتشجيعه على «بسط نفوذه من اليمن الى العراق، والى سورية، وأبعد من ذلك الى لبنان».

بومبيو لم يركّز حملته على إيران فحسب، بل تناول فيها ايضاً حزب الله اللبناني، مؤكداً انّ واشنطن سوف تصعّد ضغوطها عليه بقوله: «في لبنان، ما زال لحزب الله وجود كبير، لكننا لن نقبل هذا الوضع الراهن لأنّ عقوباتنا الشديدة ضدّ إيران موجّهة ايضاً ضدّ هذا التنظيم الإرهابي وقادته، بمن فيهم نجل حسن نصرالله زعيم حزب الله». الى ذلك، ادّعى بومبيو انّ «ميل أميركا الى التمنيات جعلنا نتجاهل كيف قام حزب الله بتجميع ترسانة ضخمة مؤلفة من نحو 130 الف صاروخ وتخزين الأسلحة ونشرها في البلدات والقرى اللبنانية … هذه الترسانة موجّهة مباشرةً ضدّ حليفتنا «إسرائيل». فوق ذلك، تعهّد بومبيو بأن تواصل حكومته تعقّب الإرهابيين الذين يسعون الى التمدّد في ليبيا واليمن … ونحن ندعم بقوة جهود «إسرائيل» لمنع طهران من تحويل سورية الى لبنان آخر».

هذه هي، إذاً، محاور حملة بومبيو الترامبية بخطوطها العريضة، حتى إشعار آخر: تشديدُ الضغوط والعقوبات على إيران وحلفائها وحمايةُ «إسرائيل» ودعمها بسخاء ومواجهة التنظيمات الإرهابية ومَن تعتبرهم الولايات المتحدة بمثابة تنظيمات شبيهة او رديفة في سورية ولبنان واليمن.

لا تغيير لافتاً في حملة بومبيو الترامبية، لا من حيث الغايات ولا الوسائل. «إسرائيل» كانت دائماً، وما زالت، الحليفة الرئيسة للولايات المتحدة الجديرة بالرعاية والحماية في وجه العرب المعادين لها وإيران كانت دائماً، وما زالت، محور عداءٍ أميركي مركّزاً ومتواصلاً منذ الثورة التي أزاحت الشاه، حليف واشنطن المخلص، وأوصلت نقيضه الإمام الخميني وأنصاره إلى السلطة فيما سورية وتنظيمات المقاومة اللبنانية والفلسطينية واليمنية كانت دائماً، وما زالت، موضوع ملاحقة دائمة بعداءٍ شديد من جانب أميركا و«إسرائيل» شمل أيضاً الحكومات والقوى المناهضة لهما في المنطقة.

لعلّ الأمر الوحيد المغاير الذي لم يأتِ بومبيو على ذكره هو تعاون الولايات المتحدة الضمني والعلني مع تنظيمات إرهابية ناشطة في سورية ولبنان والعراق وسيناء المصرية واليمن ضدّ الحكومات والقوى المعادية لـِ «إسرائيل» ولحاميتها أميركا. ذلك أنّ واشنطن بادرت خلال اضطرابات ما يسمّى «الربيع العربي» الى توظيف عشرات التنظيمات الإرهابية الإسلاموية في خدمة أغراضها العدوانية ضدّ حكومات وقوى تحررية في أقطار عربية عدّة.

لا بومبيو، ولا من قبله رئيسه ترامب، هدّد باستعمال مزيدٍ من العنف المباشر ضدّ الدول والتنظيمات المعادية للولايات المتحدة و«إسرائيل» في المنطقة. هذا لا يعني بطبيعة الحال مهادنتها. بالعكس، أميركا ستثابر، شأنها اليوم، في اعتماد «الحرب الناعمة» المتصاعدة ضدّ أعدائها وأعداء الكيان الصهيوني. الحرب الناعمة تنطوي على فصول ساخنة تتعهّد واشنطن جانبها «المريح» المتمثل باستعمال سلاح الجو والحروب الأهلية التي يتولاها غيرها من وكلاء وتنظيمات إرهابية وحركات فئوية تتقن فن إثارة الفتن الطائفية، كما تقوم أميركا بفرض عقوبات اقتصادية وحروب تجارية ضدّ خصومها ومنافسيها.

في كلّ مراحل وجوانب الحرب الناعمة، لا دور لجنود أميركيين على الأرض. ذلك يجنّب الولايات المتحدة خسائر بشرية فادحة لطالما شكت منها وأرهقتها في حروب كوريا وفيتنام وأفغانستان والعراق ما حملها على «اختراع» الحرب الناعمة لتتفادى خسائر بشرية وتوفّر على نفسها سخط وتقريع شديدين من أهالي الجنود ونكسات سياسية في الداخل.

عامل آخر يدفع ترامب الى تفادي التدخل بقوات برية والتعرّض تالياً الى خسائر بشرية هو تصاعد المعارضة الداخلية ضدّه نتيجةَ سلوكه مسالك سياسية واقتصادية غريبة وخطيرة ما أقلق الرأي العام الأميركي وضاعف تحفظه وحذره من مغامراته السياسية والأمنية، ومعارضة إرسال قوات برية الى مناطق النزاع.

لكلّ هذه الأسباب والعوامل لن يتأتّى عن جولة بومبيو، وقبله مستشار الأمن القومي جون بولتون، ايّ فصول ساخنة تتعدّى تلك المعمول بها حالياً في ميادين الصراع في سورية والعراق وفلسطين واليمن وأفغانستان. فقد باشرت إدارة ترامب سحب قواتها ومعداتها العسكرية من سورية، في إطار تواطؤ تحت الطاولة مع تركيا يرمي الى إحلال قوات تركية محلّ قواتها المنسحبة. كلّ ذلك لتفادي حلول قوات سورية محلها ما يهدّد جهود أميركا، ومن ورائها «إسرائيل»، لتفكيك سورية وتقسيمها.

باختصار، ستثابر إدارة ترامب في اعتماد مختلف أشكال الحرب الناعمة بغية مشاغلة وإضعاف أعداء أميركا و«إسرائيل» في كلّ مكان، ولا سيما في سورية ولبنان والعراق واليمن. وعليه، يمكن اعتبار ما يحدث الآن، بالتواطؤ مع تركيا أو من دونه، في إدلب وغرب حلب وشرق الفرات، وما يحدث على طول حدود لبنان مع فلسطين المحتلة في سياق عملية «درع شمالي» وسواها، وما يحدث على حدود قطاع غزة وفي محيطه من مناوشات وعمليات عدوانية دورية، وما يحدث في العراق بعد سحب بعض القوات الأميركية من سورية وتركيزها في قاعدة عين الأسد في محافظة الأنبار العراقية، وما يحدث في اليمن من مجازر ومآسٍ يقوم بها حلفاء أميركا… أجل، يمكن اعتبار كلّ هذه الاعتداءات والاشتباكات والمناوشات تجليات ميدانية للحملة الصهيوأميركية المتجدّدة التي يعتمدها ساكن البيت الأبيض في غمرة حاله المزاجية الراهنة والمرشحة دائماً الى صعودٍ وهبوط.

وزير سابق

Related Videos

Related Articles

Saudi Media vs. Trump

Hussein Samawarchi

As unfortunate and, even, at times, heartbreaking as the political situation which is governing some of the Gulf States is, comedy always makes its way into their state media. In their desperate attempts to please Netanyahu and the Zionist lobby governing Capitol Hill, certain Arab regimes have made the Islamic Republic of Iran, and all that is related to it, their main concern.

The hundreds of millions of dollars they have budgeted towards defaming Iran could have fed not only the needy of their own countries but also those of all the Islamic nations. Then again, had they not wasted all these funds, they would have failed to appease the “Israeli” master whose satisfaction promises pulling the right strings in Washington to protect their thrones.

The Saudi regime has a horde of characters appearing on political talk shows as guests; they are introduced as analysts, university professors, clergymen, and reporters. Judging by the lack of linguistic, journalistic, and debate skills displayed by the overwhelming majority of these pushed guests, it would be fair to doubt their titles. Still, they don’t seem to stop appearing everywhere.

The funny thing is that they are so overzealous in being in line with the “Israelis” that they have rendered the “Israeli” propaganda machine inferior. The Zionist military’s Arabic language spokesperson known for his 1950’s eyeglasses and excruciatingly painful to the ears Arabic accent, Avichay Adraee, should soon become redundant because of them.

The Saudi based newspaper OKAZ published an article calling HAMAS a terrorist organization in which it described how the Palestinian resistance movement is actually a traitor to the cause and how it, deliberately, puts the residents of Gaza in mortal danger. The Wahhabi publication failed to mention how “Israel” is an illegal occupying entity which butchers Gazan women and children “deliberately.” The article impressed the “Israelis” so much that they publicized it throughout the internet. The Jerusalem Post even commented on it, saying “The ‘Israeli’ Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT) could just copy and paste the article on their Arabic-speaking website.”

The so-called media that is run by the Saudi intelligence services is so sadly idiotic that it tried to link Iran to ISIS. Even if we presume that the general public is unaware of the ISIS training camps in Saudi Arabia or that ISIS follows the Wahhabi teachings and that the base of Wahhabism is in Saudi Arabia, then any half-witted person would at least know that Iran represents the Shi’a sect and that ISIS was founded on hating and killing Shiites. This is how absurd their attempts to demonize Iran are.

Iran never sought to defend itself against those allegations. When the issue was discussed, it was always done lightly; Iranian diplomacy is too wise to dignify unfounded accusations or give importance to mediocre voices. Restraint paid off in the end; the Saudi media mercenaries ended up receiving a blow from their biggest ally: President Trump.

In a Tweet yesterday regarding the decision to pull out of Syria, he wrote:

“Russia, Iran, Syria & many others are not happy about the U.S. leaving, despite what the Fake News says, because now they will have to fight ISIS and others, who they hate, without us.”

Now is a good time to watch those Saudi guests on political talk shows again after Trump confessed to ISIS actually being the enemy of Iran, pointing out the lack of love of the Iranians towards the Wahhabi terror group. Do they dare contradict his statement?

Interesting days lie ahead as the axis that was forged with the sole purpose of weakening the resistance coalition begins entering a self-destruct mode. Political karma is at work and it is amusing.

Source: Al-Ahed News

Khashoggi Part 2: A ‘reformer’…who was also a hysterical anti-Iran/Shia warmonger?

November 19, 2018

by Ramin Mazaheri for The Saker BlogKhashoggi Part 2: A ‘reformer’…who was also a hysterical anti-Iran/Shia warmonger?

I wouldn’t want readers to think that I egotistically view Jamal Khashoggi’s anti-Iran stance as his most important flaw….

Part two in this 4-part series only focuses on Iran because they provide a distinct counterpart to “Khashoggi Thought”: By laying out the differences between these two we can see how Khashoggi relates to the Middle Eastern world; then in Part 3 we can see how Khashoggi relates to the larger Islamic World; and in Part 4 we can analyze Khashoggi’s intellectual relation to the West, China and the entire world. Hey – since 1979 hysterical anti-Iran warmongers have been a dime a dozen! We’re just expanding outward concentrically.

One of Khashoggi’s favourite journalistic topics was Iran, which everyone will agree is the Muslim country that has mostly successfully rebelled against the Western model and the West’s dictates. Those who know some of the details of the Iranian system will agree that Iran is also the Muslim country which has burst through the furthest into political modernity.

These are the very reasons why Khashoggi called Iran “our Great Satan”. He repeatedly wrote that the JCPOA agreement on Iran’s nuclear energy program is a “war project” and not a peace project, in clear contradiction with the vast majority of global public opinion.

He viewed Iran as the biggest threat to his own happiness and to Saudi Arabia’s happiness, and so he fanatically wrote article after article to cobble together a war coalition. This article examines the question: What compelled Jamal Khashoggi to be such a horrific warmonger?

Khashoggi can rest in peace – he got some wars started, at least

From a 2016 column (fanatically) titled, You are either with us, or against us:

“Our neighboring friends say they do not want a sectarian conflict. It is too late; we have all been pushed against our will into this conflict by Iran, which might not be speaking in a sectarian way but is acting as such.”

The claim that Iran is “sectarian” is absolutely false and easily disproven: Palestinians are Sunni and not Shia. Need more? Fine: As far away as the leftist Polisario Front in the Western Sahara Iran is supporting Sunnis, even though monarchical Morocco cut ties for that reason (at least officially). This is an argument does not withstand the barest scrutiny.

I dispel such nonsense to show Khashoggi’s own, real view:

“Therefore, today’s confrontation is not between Sunnis and Shiites, but between Shiite fundamentalism (he is referring to Iran) and Sunni fundamentalism represented by ISIS.”

The only people making such a preposterously false equivalence between Iran and ISIS are located in Riyadh, Israel, Washington, New York and in mosques where the preachers have trained by radical Saudi Arabians. Would ISIS have a constitution, women in parliament, and high voter turnout? LOL, of course not – the two are absolutely not comparable. However, if you want to get a job with The Washington Post you had better write a ton of copy claiming that they are.

Khashoggi’s dishonest claim that he himself was not a sectarian is contradicted by the fact that – in clear contrast with Iran’s foreign policy – Khashoggi openly opposed every Shia movement in any Middle Eastern country: he supported the war in Syria 100%, hated Hezbollah as much as any Israeli, and only stopped openly supporting the war on Yemen after he moved to The Washington Post.

Lede sentence from a pre-“WaPo” 2016 article titled, Saudi constance in its Yemen policy:

Operation Decisive Storm will emerge victorious because its demands are simple, moral, and supported locally, regionally and internationally.”

Our first question is: who is this “Constance” he refers to and how did she get such influence in Saudi foreign policy on Yemen? I have heard of “constancy”, but apparently ole Saudi Connie was deluded into thinking that forcing the greatest famine in modern history on Yemen was “moral”.

Errors from Al-Arabiya’s editors aside, the reality is that Khashoggi viewed any demand by Shia for democracy as “Shiite fundamentalists”.

How many “reformers” or “dissidents” are warmongers at the same time? Check Part 1 for an explanation of what type of thinker in the Muslim world does and does not deserve those monikers.

Modern Iran, like all socialism, is a social experiment which was long-repressed

The problem with Khashoggi’s obsessive anti-Iranian warmongering (apart from all the obvious problems, of course) is that revolutions are not made by powers or individuals, but solely by ideas.

Like the results or not, I think any objective analysis will agree that the idea behind the Iranian Islamic Revolution was, most simply, “modern Muslim democracy”.

But to the average Westerner “modern Muslim democracy” is an extremist idea; to the average Western leftist or intellectual it is an impossible contradiction; to Arab monarchs it is a terrifying threat to their elite status; to the Muslim People, this is exactly what has been repressed by all of the above for two centuries (and then the Muslim People are accused of being intrinsically anti-democratic!).

But, after toppling the Shah, and unencumbered by a legacy of colonialism like in Algeria, and also not seeking to deny a Muslim electoral victory as Algeria did in the 1990s, Iran did implement Muslim democracy more than any major Muslim nation in history. What resulted from this Muslim democracy is what I often refer to as “Iranian Islamic Socialism”.

But this revolutionary idea was not at all unique to Iran in the Muslim world, and that is something which Khashoggi himself recognized and feared. From a 2016 column titled Iran’s Regional Project:

“The leaders of Yemen’s Houthis, Lebanon’s Hezbollah, Iraq’s Dawa party and Bahrain’s Al-Wefaq party seek to implement their sectarian fundamentalist project in order to spread Iran’s influence beyond its borders. Those leaders consider Iran a cosmopolitan system rather than a state with defined boundaries. They have pledged unconditional allegiance, waging war and declaring peace on Tehran’s orders without taking into account the interests of their states. They do not consider Bahrain, Lebanon, Syria or Iraq as countries.”

Therein lies Khashoggi’s fundamental error: especially given that Iranian patriotism was the single-most important spark to their revolution (and not something openly internationalist, like socialism in 1917 Russia), Iran is not really a “cosmopolitan system”. However, “Muslim democracy” definitely is; “Islamic socialism” definitely is.

Houthis, Iraqis and Bahrainis are not seeking to create some sort of new “Shia Caliphate/superstate”, nor make Farsi their new official language, nor throw out their cultures for the modern Iranian one – they would certainly resist such efforts violently. Due to his 18th-century-based political beliefs – what I define as “Salafist Liberal Democracy” in the next part of this series – Khashoggi cannot grasp this.

Yet the truth couldn’t be more obvious: What those parties – all murderously repressed – truly seek is democratic representation within policy-making. Such policy-making would inevitably be, I predict, Islamic socialist, but they would certainly not be “policies-to-benefit-Iranians”.

That is why Baathist (Arab nationalist/supremacist, secular, socialist) turned tyrant Saddam Hussein banned and massacred the Dawa Party in 1979…which only pushed back their (inevitable) democratic victory until 2005. That is why Yemen is in the midst of the latest iteration of its civil war for democracy and against monarchy, and via a Houthi movement which is republican and which also includes Sunnis (contradicting the constant Western media description of them as “sectarian”). That is why Bahrain’s poor – dominated by Shia, who live under the discriminatory and Riyadh-allied monarchy – want at least one valuable commodity: the ability to vote their conscience so that modern, democratic policy-making can finally begin.

Furthermore, against the idea of Iranian cosmopolitanism is the fact that anti-Arab feeling in Iran can be disgustingly strong – they were the invaders, after all. Iranian patriots (but especially Iranian jingoists) would love to talk to you for 2,500 years about the 2,500 years of rather distinct (but not too distinct…) Persian culture. Iranians honor and adore Imam Zayn al-Abidin – the originator of the Islamic sect of Zaidism – but he took firmest root in Yemen. Is “cosmopolitan” Iran going to uproot Yemenites’ 11-century long love for Imam Zayn and force them to publicly prefer Imams Ali & Hussain, the ubiquitous religious figures of Iran? That idea is impossibly absurd and would only lead to war.

Modern Iranians are much like modern Chinese – not inclined to imperialism following much Western humiliation and repression; maybe in a century that changes (devolves, becomes reactionary, etc.) but it’s just not true in 2018. However, both are inclined to defend their neighbors, cultural kin and distant cousins when attacked, which is not at all “imperialism”.

Iran-obsessing is only to repress intellectual & democratic debate

Despite all these core-rooted differences Iran has with other “Shia nations”, Khashoggi concludes:

The crises in Yemen, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq should be linked and dealt with as one Iranian project that threatens all our cultural and political components, and our vision for the future. This project poses a serious threat to our region, and should be seriously confronted with a unified project before it is too late.

For Khashoggi “Muslim democracy” has been transformed into “one Iranian project” – very flattering to Iranians, but a false exaggeration.

Iran’s “project” was to liberate themselves from Western meddling and to democratically discuss and create a new society. What they decided was to: end monarchy, reject 18th century-based liberal democracy, not attempt a phony bourgeois Muslim liberal democracy, and to instead create what is accurately termed “Iranian Islamic socialism”.

However, all of that absolutely does threaten the monarchism, elitism and power-hoarding “vision for the future” which Khashoggi supports!

Khashoggi wanted the Saudi Arabian power structure to remain fundamentally unchanged – he merely preferred a different prince than current Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman. Just ask his sons: “Jamal was never a dissident.”

Let’s define another key Khashoggi’s fear, which is the unique historical choice Muslims face in 2018: between monarchy and republican theocracy. It is a unique choice because – excepting a few islands in the Caribbean – it is only Europeans who still promotes monarchy, and they certainly appear to democratically reject theocracy.

Iran was not the first nation to prove that a monarchy is totally incompatible with socialism, but they were indeed the first to prove that in the Muslim world. That’s no small potatoes in a region full of kings….

More crucially, though, is this: Iran was the first to prove was that theocracy is not totally incompatible with socialism – this is Iran’s most radical contribution to modern history.

This is why Iran is such an electrifying, polarising example in the resolutely-religious Muslim World. It is also why those opposed to the political & economic democratic dictates of socialism, and those pushing capitalism, imperialism and monarchy – like Khashoggi – are trying so hard to destroy Iran.

What is certain is that Liberal Democracy is not compatible with socialism: Socialist Democracy is fundamentally different in structure, motivation and application, and the West will continue to totally oppose Socialist Democracy wherever it is found.

Khashoggi’s ‘cry of a Saudi prince’ in 2018: “I am not king….waahh waaahh!”

The reality is that Khashoggi himself admired and envied the Iranian Revolution. What did Khashoggi want to emulate? From his columnThe Alienation of the Saudi Legacy:

“I consider it the second most important book to tackle the crisis of Saudi identity and alienation after Egyptian researcher and journalist Mohammed Jalal Kishk’s book “The Saudis and the Islamic Solution.”

This book was published more than 30 years ago, when the question of an Islamic solution emerged with the return of political Islam and the victory of its sectarian version in Iran. It is time to put this book back on school shelves, so the current generation learns and feels proud…” blah blah petty nationalism blah blah Saudis are the best blah blah.

Per Khashoggi, he wants an Islamic solution to be promoted and to be a “victory”- like in Iran – only he wants a Saudi version.

First, an aside: the problem is that a just society according to Kishk was staunchly, resolutely anti-leftist. Khashoggi, like seemingly all Westerners, completely misses the socialist aspects of the “victory of the sectarian version” in Iran. Iran’s solution was both Islamic and modern; the latter is proven by its rejection of antiquated monarchy and the implementation of democratic structures, and Islamic because many of its rules which were inspired by Islamic knowledge. (That Iran’s government is not based on “religion” but based on “religious knowledge” is literally the first piece of ignorance I sought to overturn in my recent 11-part series on modern Iran.)

Many Muslims will say today that Khashoggi’s proposed monarchist, anti-socialist, sectarian and jingoist solution is not at all Islamic, but let’s play along anyway:

One cannot be both “modern politically” and a “monarchist”. Whoever heard of a socialist king? Now that is an impossibility. The only place you would hear such fake leftism is from Europe, Canada or Australia. Khashoggi reveals this contradictory absurdity when he refers back to the second-most important book, written by Saudi Prince (shocker, eh?) Turki bin Abdullah bin Abdulrahman:

“The book comes as an outcry from a Saudi prince…” stop right there Jamal: the worker of 2018 cares not for the “outcry” of any prince!

Neo-imperialist Europe may disagree with that, but any empowered, educated worker knows that there can be no princes in 2018 – to maintain doing so (or to return to doing so, perish the thought!) is what is accurately called “reactionary” in 2018. For God’s sake, even a devilish, bourgeois banker in New York City or Paris has enough political modernity (republicanism: popular sovereignty, instead of the sovereignty of a monarch) to know that!

But I have not the power to stop Khashoggi, because he has all the powerful allies while Iranian Islamic Socialists and Muslim Democrats have only the lower classes. He continues:

“The book comes as an outcry from a Saudi prince calling for an awakening that revives what was inherited from our grandparents…” again I wrest control!

What I inherited from my two grandfathers appears limited to the shape of my hands and legs, the desire to respond to silly questions with silly answers, and the monetary fortune left over from a 95 year-old’s modest pension… after being divided with at least 10 other people. Contrarily, Khashoggi inherited more money than he could spend and the keys to the kingdom’s journalism! Thus, it is no wonder he espouses a reactionary, backwards-facing view…there is a reason most revolutions are started by the “barefooted”, as in Iran.

Instead of having a revolution to depose the anti-democratic, damned monarchy, Khashoggi – like all modern right-wingers from Europe to the US to Brazil and beyond – can only offer the dying light of the past as a beacon. It is mere nationalism – an ethos which was “modern” in 1848.

Contrarily, plumbing only the past for answers is the opposite of socialism, which demands that the People be empowered in their daily work to excitingly construct and maintain a new society where everyone can finally reach their full potential.

Khashoggi illustrates what Muslims have been fighting against ever since the Industrial Revolution proved to workers what their unified power could produce: Western-backed monarchists who fear the democratic judgment of their own people.

Nationalism produces racism but patriotism does not. No surprise Khashoggi pushed ‘Saudization’

Patriotism is what we are striving for, but Khashoggi reminds us that “patriotism” must necessarily be combined with something larger than just a “love for our land and our past”. Twenty-first century modernity simply must be combined with a multicultural ethos due to absolutely everyone’s recent history of immigration (which only excepts Japan, the Koreas, Tunisia (they were all trying to get into Ghadaffi’s Libya) and Yemen among major countries).

This why the West truly has no idea what patriotism truly is: they mistakenly think “patriotism” includes jingoism, racism, xenophobia and Islamophobia.

Iran is a “cosmopolitan” system only in the sense that it speaks this long-suppressed but still vibrant anti-sectarian, leftist language both within and beyond its borders. Khashoggi constantly distorted this reality and told his readers that all Shia are “tools of Iran”, and that they cannot be trusted as citizens across the Middle East. All Shia have apparently renounced their nationalities and have no heart at all for their surroundings nor those in them…but this is all untrue.

Untrue, but normal to Western ears: this is undoubtedly exactly what is said in the centre and left across the West – “Shia” must simply be replaced with “Mexicans” or “Muslims” or “Roma” as needed.

This is scapegoating and racism, and verboten in socialism; China, Iran and Cuba have NONE of these “identity” problems. “Our country is losing its identity” is only a pathetic problem for those nations not inspired by socialism; socialist nations are making a new identity, and it is patriotic (inclusive of all within its borders). This short section is, sadly, necessary for many Western readers who are not true patriots but who falsely they think they are.

It is unsurprising that Khashoggi supported the monarchy’s “Saudization” policies to the hilt – all their migrant workers were only oil money-bloodsuckers, not people who helped build modern Saudi Arabia. The recent expulsion of 700,000 Yemeni migrants, along with other deported nationalities, is something many in the West would love to achieve.

A “reformer”, despite being anti-Iran, anti-Shia, anti-migrant….

2018 choices for the Middle East: democracy & religion or monarchy

Of course the West loves Khashoggi – just like they do, he hated Iran and sough to create a Sunni-Shia divide which has no precedent in Islamic history.

A Khashoggi could never exist in Iran – that is the glory of their popular revolution. Promote anti-democratic monarchy in Iran? That’s only among the lunatic exiles. Promote aggressive and obviously-imperialist war in Iran? War is only for self-defense against invaders, which is ordered in the Koran – Muslims do not turn the other cheek.

That Khashoggi is celebrated in the West is to their great shame, and I’m sure many Westerners are ashamed of that. These honest people instinctively know that Khashoggi is no “refomer”, but hopefully this series reminds us exactly why.

The Saudi People also know Khashoggi is no reformer. I recently covered a pro-Khashoggi demonstration in front of the Saudi embassy in Paris – there were twice as many journalists there than Saudis. Saudis know this guy was no hero – he was part of the system of Saudi oppression.

But I am well-aware that Westerners do not really care about Khashoggi – it’s just an interesting tabloid story.

Those who care about Khashoggi are the leaders of the Mainstream Media, Western politicians, and Western CEOs – sadly, this is who controls things in Western liberal democracy’s “rule of law”. They care about Khashoggi because he represented the possibility of bourgeois revolution within the Muslim monarchical world, which would create the opportunity for international high finance to legally wrest control of the Saudi Arabia’s oil from the Saudis – what else would result from installing bourgeois liberal democracy in Saudi Arabia?

Khashoggi has passed, and the push to prevent democracy for Muslim people – by protecting monarchs and their intellectual toadies – will continue. However, socialism and democracy cannot be denied in the Muslim world forever.

Please note that this entire Part 2 only discussed political ideas which the West can relate to – liberal democracy, republicanism, socialism, true patriotism, etc. Part 3 discusses a political concept which most Westerners cannot discuss intelligently – Salafism. It also discusses the very-unintelligent ideology Khashoggi promoted: what I term “Liberal Democratic Salafism”.

In 2018 Salafism is a politically-reactionary concept, and it is absolutely opposed in Iran for that reason, but it is so prevalent in the Muslim world and in Muslim history that it must be properly understood. Westerners must understand it because they have it too.

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

This is the 1st article in a 4-part series which examines Jamal Khashoggi’s ideology and how it relates to the Islamic World, Westernization and Socialism. Here is the list of articles slated to be published, and I hope you will find them useful in your leftist struggle!

Khashoggi, Ben Barka & PressTV’s Serena Shim: A 4-part series

Khashoggi Part 2: A ‘reformer’…who was also a hysterical anti-Iran/Shia warmonger?

Khashoggi Part 3: ‘Liberal Democratic Salafism’ is a sham, ‘Islamic Socialism’ isn’t

Khashoggi Part 4: fake-leftism identical in Saudi Arabian or Western form

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. He can be reached on Facebook.

Excellence in the strategic time and the glowing spirit التفوق بالزمن الاستراتيجي وتوهُّج الروح

Excellence in the strategic time and the glowing spirit

أغسطس 19, 2018

Written by Nasser Kandil,

There is an opportunity for reading, evaluating, and taking lessons from the day of victory, with which one of the rounds of the open historic confrontation between the resistance and the occupation entity ended, especially after the results which became resolved during the largest wars of the century which took place in Syria and where the resistance was in its heart as a goal, role, and fate. It is one of the rounds of confrontation which has not ended on August 14th 2006, but it can be said that the war on Syria was its severest successive round. That war tried to absorb the lessons of the war of July after five years of its end with a historic defeat of the occupation entity. Firstly through the preparation for a war that will last for years where the occupation entity will not be in the heart of attrition. Secondly, through the confrontation in the field between the resistance and an army that is comparable to the occupation army but exceeds the ability of the resistance to bear blood, namely Al-Qaeda organization in all its branches. Thirdly, through the mobilization of the western countries in this war and linking it with international strategic equations in favor of the western hegemony project to restore it after its recent failed wars and to make Syria; the castle on which the resistance is based” its target. Fourthly, through the distribution of Syria’s shares on the regional participants as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, and the occupation entity which is the first winner whether the war will lead to a rule the is subject to the West and its groups in Syria or towards the division and the birth of a group of subordinate entities or at least disputing ones.

The outcome of the war on Syria as illustrated by the occupation entity, its leaders, and intellectuals says something that is similar to what they said after the war of July” the defeat and the failure” despite all the attempts of absorbing this failure and that defeat. This is similar to the bets accompanied the war of July 2006 about the Lebanese army and the resolution 1701 and the illusions of deploying UN observers on the Lebanese-Syrian borders. The occupation entity will not be able to avoid the fact that it received a strategic defeat in Syria after it tried to deny it in the war of July 2006. Therefore it tried to avoid the formation of commission of inquiry as Winograd, because the result will be disastrous if it confessed that it got a resounding defeat.

As an outcome, the bets of the occupation entity were unable to weaken the resistance ranks in its main fronts in the southern of Lebanon, or exhausting the resistance in Syria, or building a security belt on the Golan borders, or overthrowing Syria, dividing it distributing it, or turning it into a swamp of sectarian strife which anticipated by Israel. Now the resistance and Syria reaped the fruits of the major transformations which accompanied the victory, through an alliance with Russia which was not exist before the Syrian war and international and regional balances that their implications become clear gradually along with new Lebanese equations that will not be affected by the maneuvers of forming a new government after it was resolved by the elections of the President of the Republic and the parliamentary elections.

The two facts which were illustrated by the experience of the occupation entity with the resistance in terms of the readiness for a next war are shown in the fundamental difference between the resistance and the entity; First, the occupying entity is preparing itself for the next war inspired by the last war, but it was surprised that the resistance which it confronts was not that one which it faced in that war. While the resistance was preparing for the next war putting in mind that the occupation will be at its best condition but it discovered that it is below its expectations. This is the concept of the excellence in strategic time. Second, the occupation entity in every defeat loses some of its spirit while the resistance gains more trust and power. When the successive round takes place between two varying parties which become more differentiate during the confrontation and after it, it is proven that what is lost is not resorted and what is gained becomes more glowing in the following war, this is the concept of the excellence in the glowing spirit.

Any strategic mind which wants to get lessons and to draw a diagram for the confrontation that lasted over more than three decades between the resistance and the occupation entity and in which the resources, conditions, arenas, tools and the international, regional, and local atmospheres changed with the remaining of one constant “the ability of the resistance to achieve one victory after another” will say to the occupation leaders that “You try in vain, you are confronting people that are willing to wage a war of the next century with the mind and the tools of the next century, while you are thinking and preparing for the war of the past century, you have a soul that vanishes from one round to another, while on the opposite bank you are facing a soul that becomes more glowing from one round to another, so try to find exits, no matter how painful and costly they will, because they will be less painful and costly than the consequences of the next war.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

التفوق بالزمن الاستراتيجي وتوهُّج الروح

أغسطس 15, 2018

ناصر قنديل

– في يوم النصر الذي انتهت معه جولة من جولات المواجهة التاريخية المفتوحة بين المقاومة وكيان الاحتلال فرصة للقراءة والتقييم وتسجيل العبر، خصوصاً مع النتائج التي تبدو محسومة لحاصل أضخم حروب القرن التي دارت في سورية وعليها وحولها، وكانت المقاومة في قلبها، كهدف ودور ومصير، ولا بدّ أن تُعتبر واحدة من جولات هذه المواجهة التي لم تنته في 14 آب 2006. ويصحّ معها القول إن حرب سورية كانت جولتها اللاحقة الأشد ضراوة، والتي حاولت استيعاب دروس حرب تموز بعد خمس سنوات من توقفها بهزيمة تاريخية لكيان الاحتلال، وكان أول الاستيعاب هو الاستعداد لحرب تدوم لسنوات دون أن يكون كيان الاحتلال في قلب الاستنزاف. وثاني الاستيعاب هو أن يتقابل مع المقاومة في الميدان جيش رديف لجيش الاحتلال يضاهي المقاومة في القدرة على تحمّل بذل الدماء هو تنظيم القاعدة بكل متفرّعاته. وثالث الاستيعاب هو حشد دول الغرب كله في هذه الحرب وربطها بتكريس معادلات دولية استراتيجية لحساب مشروع الهيمنة الغربية وترميمه بعد حروبه الفاشلة التي سبقت، وجعل الهدف سورية أي القلعة التي تستند إليها المقاومة والظهر الذي يسندها، ورابع الاستيعاب هو توزيع حصص الكعكة السورية على المشاركين الإقليميين من السعودية إلى تركيا وقطر وكيان الاحتلال الرابح الأول سواء سارت الحرب نحو بناء حكم تابع للغرب وجماعاته في سورية أو نحو التقسيم وولادة مجموعة كيانات تابعة أو على الأقل متناحرة.

– الحصيلة التي تنتهي إليها الحرب على سورية تقول بلسان كيان الاحتلال وقادته ومفكرية شيئاً يشبه ما قالوه بعد حرب تموز، وعنوانه الإخفاق والفشل. رغم كل محاولات احتواء هذا الإخفاق وتجميل ذاك الفشل، بالتأقلم مع جوانب من نصر سورية ومحاولة تعديل جوانب أخرى فيها، ويبدو ذلك كله عبثاً من نوع الرهانات التي رافقت نهاية حرب تموز 2006 حول الجيش اللبناني والقرار 1701، وأوهام نشر المراقبين الأمميين على الحدود اللبنانية السورية، ولن يكون بيد كيان الاحتلال تفادي حقيقة أنه تلقى في سورية هزيمته الاستراتيجية التي حاول إنكار وقوعها في حرب تموز 2006، ولذلك يتفادى تشكيل لجنة تحقيق من نوع لجنة فينوغراد، لأن النتيجة ستكون كارثية إذا اعترف بأن الحرب حربه وأنه خسرها بصورة مدوية.

– في الحصيلة خابت رهانات كيان الاحتلال على ضعضعة صفوف المقاومة في جبهتها الرئيسية عبر جنوب لبنان، وخاب رهان استنزاف المقاومة في سورية، كما خاب رهان بناء حزام أمني على حدود الجولان، ورهان إسقاط سورية كقلعة للمقاومة أو تقسيمها وتقاسمها، أو تحويلها مستنقعاً للفتنة المذهبية التي حلمت بها «إسرائيل» ذات يوم، وها هي المقاومة المنتصرة مع سورية وفيها، تقطف ثمار التحولات الكبرى التي رافقت تبلور ملامح النصر، بحلف مع روسيا لم يكن موجوداً قبل الحرب السورية، وتوازنات إقليمية ودولية تتبلور تداعياتها بصورة تدريجية، ومعها معادلات لبنانية جديدة لن تسقطها مناورات تشكيل الحكومة الجديدة، بعدما حسمتها انتخابات رئيس الجمهورية والانتخابات النيابية.

– الحقيقتان اللتان تقولهما تجربة كيان الاحتلال مع المقاومة، لجهة مفهوم الاستعداد للحرب المقبلة، هما أن الفارق الجوهري بين المقاومة والكيان يقوم أولاً بكون الكيان المحتل يستعدّ للحرب المقبلة من وحي ما كانت عليه الحرب التي انقضت، وإذ به يفاجئ بأن المقاومة التي يواجهها ليست هي تلك التي كانت في تلك الحرب التي اتخذها مدرسة للاستعداد، بينما المقاومة تتسعد للحرب المقبلة بمقياس ما سيكون عليه الاحتلال بأفضل الفرضيات لصالحه لو أتم الاستعداد فتكتشف أنه دون مستوى ما أعدّت للحرب. وهذا هو مفهوم التفوق بالزمن الاستراتيجي، وثانياً بكون كيان الاحتلال في كل هزيمة يفقد بعضاً من روحه، بينما تكتسب المقاومة المزيد من الثقة والقوة لروحها، وتأتي الجولة اللاحقة بروحين متفاوتتين وتزدادان تفاوتاً في قلب المواجهة وبعدها، ويثبت أن ما تفقده الروح لا يستردّ وأن ما تكتسبه الروح المقابلة يتصاعد قيمة وتوهجاً في الحرب التي تلي، وهذا هو مفهوم التفوق بتوهّج الروح.

– إن أي عقل استراتيجي يريد تسجيل العبر ورسم الخط البياني لمحطات المواجهة الممتدة خلال أكثر من ثلاثة عقود بين المقاومة وكيان الاحتلال، تغيّر فيها كل شيء من الموارد والظروف وساحات المواجهة وأدوات الحرب والمناخات الدولية والإقليمية والمحلية، وبقي فيها ثابت وحيد، هو قدرة هذه المقاومة على الخروج من نصر إلى آخر، سيقول لقادة الاحتلال عبثاً تحاولون فأنتم تواجهون قوماً يستعدون لحرب قرن مقبل بعقل القرن المقبل وأدوات القرن المقبل، بينما أنتم تفكرون وتعدّون وتستعدون لحرب القرن الذي مضى، وأنتم تملكون روحاً تتلاشى من جولة إلى جولة ومن تقابلونهم يملكون روحاً تزداد توهجاً من جولة إلى أخرى، فتدبّروا لأنفسكم مخارج أمان غير الحرب مهما بدت مؤلمة ومكلفة فهي أقل إيلاماً وكلفة مما ستجلبه الحرب المقبلة.

Related Videos

مقالات مشابهة

%d bloggers like this: