لماذا تريد أميركا الحرب؟

أبريل 20, 2018

كتب الدكتور جاك باولز لـ Global Reasearch

ملاحظة: كُتب هذا المقال في 30 نيسان عام 2003 في أعقاب انطلاق الحرب على العراق من قبل المؤرّخ والعالم السياسي جاك باولز. ترتبط هذه المقالة الى حدّ كبير برئاسة جورج دبليو بوش. والسؤال الذي يطرح نفسه في الوقت المناسب: لماذا تسعى إدارة ترامب الى الحرب بما في ذلك الحرب على كوريا الجنوبية، إيران، روسيا والصين؟

كوريا، فييتنام، كمبوديا، العراق، ليبيا، سورية، اليمن… لمَ لا تزال الولايات المتحدة تفتعل الحروب منذ أكثر من نصف قرن…؟ ولمَ يصرّ الأميركيون على دعم أجندة الولايات المتحدة العسكرية؟

إنّ الحرب هي خسارة كبيرة على مستوى الأرواح والموارد، ولهذا السبب يعارض معظم الناس من حيث المبدأ قيام الحروب. ويبدو أنّ الرئيس الأميركي من الناحية الأخرى يعشق الحروب. لكن لماذا؟ سعى العديد من المعلقين لإحالة هذه المسألة الى العوامل النفسية. ورأى البعض أنّ جورج دبليو بوش يعتبر أنّ من واجبه إنهاء المهمة، بسبب بعض الغموض وقلة الوضوح، الذي مورس من قبل والده إبان حرب الخليج ويعتقد آخرون أنّ بوش الإبن توقع حرباً قصيرة من شأنها ان تضمن له ولاية ثانية في البيت الأبيض.

أعتقد أنه علينا البحث في مكان آخر عن تفسير لموقف الرئيس الأميركي. ففي الحقيقة، انّ حرص بوش على الحرب لا علاقة له مطلقاً بوضعه النفسي، بل الكثير من العلاقة مع النظام الاقتصادي الأميركي. وهذا النظام، الذي هو العلامة التجارية الأميركية للرأسمالية يعمل أولاً وقبل كلّ شيء على جعل الأميركيين الأغنياء، أيّ «سلالة المال» لبوش الأكثر ثراءً. ومع ذلك، فبدون حروب ساخنة أو باردة، لم يعُد هذا النظام قادراً على تحقيق النتيجة المتوقعة في شكل أرباح أعلى تعتبرها الولايات المتحدة من حقوقها المشروعة.

تكمن القوة الكبيرة للرأسمالية في ضعفها الكبير، وتحديداً في إنتاجيتها العالية الفعالية. وفي التطوّر التاريخي للنظام الاقتصادي الدولي الذي نسمّيه الرأسمالية، أدّى عدد من العوامل الى زيادات هائلة في الإنتاجية، على سبيل المثال، تصنيع العمليات الإنتاجية التي بدأت في وقت مبكر من القرن الثامن عشر في إنكلترا. وفي بدايات القرن العشرين، قدّم الصناعيون الأميركيون مساهمة حاسمة في تحويل العمل من يدوي الى آليّ باستخدام كافة الوسائل والتقنيات الجديدة مثل خط التجميع. وكان هذا الأخير بمثابة ابتكار قدّمه هنري فورد، وبالتالي أصبحت هذه التقنيات تُعرف مجتمعة باسم «الفوردية». وقد ارتفعت إنتاجية الشركات الأميركية الكبرى بشكل مذهل.

وعلى سبيل المثال، وإبان العشرينات من القرن الماضي، كانت سيارات لا تعدّ ولا تحصى تخرج يومياً من مصانع السيارات في ميشيغان. لكن من هي الجهة التي يُفترض أن تشتري جميع هذه السيارات؟ فغالبية السكان الأميركيين لم يكونوا يمتلكون ما يكفي من المال لمثل هذه المقتنيات الباهظة الثمن. كما غمرت الأسواق الأميركية أنواعاً أخرى من المنتجات، وكانت النتيجة ظهور تنافر عميق ما بين العرض الاقتصادي المتزايد والطلب المتعثر. وهكذا نشأت الأزمة الاقتصادية المعروفة عموماً باسم الكساد العظيم، والتي كانت في الأساس أزمة فائض في الإنتاج. كانت المستودعات تتدفق بسلع غير مباعة، وصرفت المصانع موظفيها وانفجرت البطالة، وتقلصت مع ذلك القدرة الشرائية للشعب الأميركي أكثر فأكثر، مما فاقم من حدّة الأزمة.

لا يمكن أن نتجاهل أنّ الكساد الكبير في أميركا لم ينتهِ إلا مع الحرب العالمية الثانية وبسببها. حتى أولئك المعجبون بأداء الرئيس روزفلت يعترفون بأنّ سياساته الخاصة بالصفقة الجديدة التي حظيت بتغطية إعلامية كبيرة لم تسفر عن أيّ إزعاج يُذكر . ارتفع منسوب الطلب الاقتصادي بشكل مذهل عندما بدأت الحرب في أوروبا، وحتى حين لم تكن الولايات المتحدة نفسها مشاركةً في الحرب أيّ قبل العام 1942، ما سمح للتصنيع الأميركي بالازدهار وإنتاج كميات غير محدودة من معدّات الحرب. وبين عامي 1940 و 1945، أنفقت الولايات المتحدة ما لا يقلّ عن 185 مليار دولار على مثل هذه المعدّات، وبالتالي، فإنّ نصيب الإنفاق العسكري من الناتج القومي الإجمالي ارتفع بين عامي 1939 و 1945 من نسبة ضئيلة 1.5 إلى ما نسبته حوالى 40 . أضف الى ذلك، أنّ الصناعة الأميركية تمكّنت من تزويد البريطانيين وحتى السوفيات بكميات هائلة من المعدّات. وفي الوقت عينه، كانت ألمانيا تنتج للشركات الأميركية مثل فورد وجنرال موتورز و ITT، كميات كبيرة من الدبابات والطائرات وغيرها من المواد القتالية النازية، وحتى بعد بيرل هاربور، لكن لهذه المسألة قصة مختلفة . لكن الكلمة المفتاحية لحلّ مشكلة الكساد الاقتصادي عدم التوازن بين العرض والطلب تكمن في الاستعداد لضخّ الطلب الاقتصادي عن طريق تنفيذ أوامر ضخمة ذات طبيعة عسكرية.

بالنسبة الى الأميركيين العاديين، فإنّ إنفاق واشنطن العسكري لم يؤدِّ الى عمل فعليّ كامل فحسب، بل ايضاً إلى ارتفاع في نسبة الأجور أكثر من أيّ وقت مضى فخلال الحرب العالمية الثانية انتهى انتشار البؤس الذي ساد خلال فترة الكساد الكبير، وحققت غالبية الشعب الأميركي درجة غير مسبوقة من الازدهار. ومع ذلك، فإنّ أكبر المستفيدين الى حدّ بعيد من الازدهار الاقتصادي في زمن الحرب هم رجال الأعمال والشركات في البلد ممن حققوا أرباحاً استثنائية. وبين عامي 1942 و 1945، كتب المؤرّخ ستيوارت دي براندز، أنّ الأرباح الصافية لأكبر ألفي شركة في أميركا وصلت نسبتها الأعلى الى 40 وذلك مقارنةً بالأعوام بين 1936 و 1939. ومثل هذه «الطفرة في الربح» كانت ممكنة، لأنّ الدولة أمرت بصرف مليارات الدولارات على المعدّات العسكرية، وفشلت في فرض ضوابط على الأسعار، وضرائب على الأرباح. استفاد من هذا السخاء عالم الأعمال الأميركي بشكل عام، وعلى وجه الخصوص، تلك النخبة المحدودة نسبياً من «الشركات الكبرى» أو «الشركات الأميركية». وخلال الحرب، فإنّ أقلّ من 60 شركة حصلت على ما مجموعه 75 من مجموع الشركات المربحة. وكشفت حينها الشركات الكبرى مثل فورد، IBM، وغيرها، – أنها «خنازير الحرب»، ويكتب براندز حول هذا القدر الهائل من الإنفاق العسكري للدولة. فشركة IBM على سبيل المثال، تمكنت من رفع نسبة مبيعاتها السنوية بين عامي 1940 و 1945 من 46 الى 140 مليون دولار، والفضل في ذلك يعود إلى الحرب و»خيراتها». استغلّت الشركات الأميركية الكبرى خبراتها «الفوردية» حتى الثمالة بهدف تعزيز الإنتاج، غير أنّ ذلك لم يكن كافياً أيضاً لتلبية احتياجات الدولة الأميركية في زمن الحرب. هناك حاجة ماسة إلى الكثير من المعدّات، ومن أجل إنتاجها، احتاجت أميركا الى مصانع جديدة وإلى تكنولوجيا أكثر كفاءة. وقد خُتمت هذه الأصول الجديدة على أرض الواقع، ولهذا السبب ارتفعت القيمة الإجمالية لجميع مرافق الإنتاج في البلاد بين عامي 1939 و 1945 من 40 الى 66 مليار دولار.

ومع ذلك، لم يكن القطاع الخاص هو الذي قام بجميع هذه الاستثمارات الجديدة فعلى حساب تجاربه غير المرغوبة مع الإفراط في الإنتاج خلال الثلاثينات، وجد رجال الأعمال في أميركا هذه المهمة محفوفة بالمخاطر. لذا، قامت الدولة بهذه المهمة من خلال استثمار 17 مليار دولار في أكثر من 2000 مشروع متعلق بالدفاع، في مقابل رسوم رمزية، سمحت للشركات المملوكة للقطاع الخاص باستئجار هذه المصانع الجديدة من أجل الإنتاج… وكسب المال عن طريق بيع الإنتاج الى الدولة. علاوةً على ذلك، عندما انتهت الحرب وقرّرت واشنطن التخلي عن الاستثمارات، اشترتها الشركات الكبرى في البلاد بنصف القيمة، وأحياناً كثيرة بثلث سعرها الحقيقي.

كيف موّلت أميركا الحرب، وكيف دفعت واشنطن الفواتير الباهظة التي قدّمتها GM، ITTوغيرها من الشركات الأخرى للمعدّات الحربية؟ والجواب: جزئياً عن طريق فرض ضرائب حوالى 45 – لكن بقروض أكبر بكثير حوالى 55 . وبالاستناد إلى هذه المعطيات، فقد ازداد الدين العام بشكل كبير، أيّ من 3 مليار دولار عام 1939 إلى ما لا يقلّ عن 45 مليار دولار عام 1945.

ومن الناحية النظرية، كان يُفترض تخفيض هذا الدين، أو محو ذلك كله، بفرض ضرائب على الضرائب الضخمة، وذلك خلال الحرب الضخمة التي كانت تشنّها الجيوش الأميركية، غير أنّ الحقيقة تختلف كثيراً. وكما سبق وأشرنا، فشلت الدولة الأميركية في فرض ضريبة أرباح للشركات الأميركية المفاجئة، وسمحت للدين العام بالتضخم، ودفعت جميع فواتيرها، والفوائد على القروض بإيراداتها العامة، أيّ عن طريق الدخل الناتج عن الضرائب المباشرة وغير المباشرة. وعلى وجه الخصوص، بسبب قانون الإيرادات المتراجع الذي صدر في تشرين الأول عام 1942، ليُصار إلى دفع هذه الضرائب بشكل متزايد من قبل العمال وغيرهم من الأميركيين ذوي الدخل المنخفض، وليس من قبل الأثرياء والشركات التي كان أصحابها هم المساهمين الرئيسيين و/ أو كبار المديرين. ويلاحظ المؤرخ الأميركي شون دينيس كاشمان: «عبء تمويل الحرب»، كان يتآلف بقوة ويرتفع على أكتاف الأفراد الأكثر فقراً في المجتمع».

ومع ذلك، فإنّ الرأي العام الأميركي، المنشغل بدقّ طبول الحرب، والذي أعمت عيونه بعض التوظيفات ذات الأجور المرتفعة، فشل في قراءة كلّ هذا. ومن الناحية الأخرى، فإنّ الأميركيين المؤثرين في الرأي العام، هم على دراية تامة بالطريقة الرائعة التي ولّدت بها الحرب لهم ولشركاتهم طائل الأموال. وبالمناسبة، فقد موّل الحرب أيضاً عدد من رجال الأعمال، أصحاب البنوك، وشركات التأمين والمستثمرين الكبار الآخرين الذين اقترضت منهم واشنطن الأموال اللازمة لتمويل الحرب. وهكذا استفادت الشركات الأميركية من الحرب بحصولها على حصة الأسد من المصالح المتولّدة من شراء سندات الحرب الشهيرة. ومن الناحية النظرية على الأقلّ فإنّ الأغنياء والأقوياء في أميركا هم الأبطال الكبار لما يُطلق عليه اسم المشروعات الحرّة، وهم يعارضون أيّ شكل من أشكال تدخل الدولة في الاقتصاد. غير أنهم لم يبدوا خلال الحرب أيّ اعتراضات على الطريقة التي تدير بها الدولة الأميركية تمويل الاقتصاد، لأنه، وبدون هذا الانتهاك الضخم على نطاق واسع لقواعد الشركات الحرّة، لم يكن من الممكن لثروتهم الجماعية أن تنتشر كما حصل خلال السنوات الماضية.

خلال الحرب العالمية الثانية، تعلّم أصحاب الثروات وكبار مديري الشركات الكبرى درساً مهماً للغاية: خلال الحرب، هناك أموال يمكن جنيها، الكثير من الأموال. وبعبارة أخرى، يمكن إبطال المهمة الشاقة المتمثلة في تعظيم الأرباح وهو النشاط الرئيسي في الاقتصاد الأميركي الرأسمالي بطريقة أكثر كفاءة من تلك المتبعة خلال الحرب، بدلاً من تحقيق السلام ومع ذلك، فإنّ التعاون الخيريّ من الدولة مطلوب. ومنذ الحرب العالمية الثانية، فإنّ الأغنياء والأقوياء في أميركا استمرّوا واعين جداً لهذه المسألة. كذلك الأمر، بالنسبة لرجلهم السابق في البيت الأبيض، جورج دبليو بوش، وهو سليل «إمبراطورية المال» الذي هبط على البيت الأبيض بواسطة المظلّة، بهدف خدمة وتعزيز مصالح عائلته الثرية وأصدقائه وزملائه في الشركات الأميركية، أصحاب مصالح المال والامتيازات والسلطة.

في ربيع العام 1945، كان من الواضح أنّ الحرب حققت أرباحاً مبهرة وأنها ستنتهي قريباً. فماذا سيحدث حينها؟ ومن بين الاقتصاديين، يوجد العديد من «الكاساندريين» الذين قدّموا سيناريوات بدت مزعجة للغاية للقادة السياسيين والصناعيين الأميركيين. وخلال الحرب، اقتصرت المشتريات على المعدّات العسكرية، وليس شيء آخر، قد أعادت ارتفاع الطلب الاقتصادي، وبالتالي لم يكن ممكناً قط تحقيق التوظيف الكامل لكنها أيضاً أرباحاً غير مسبوقة. ومع عودة السلام، فإنّ شبح التنافر بين العرض والطلب يهدّد بالعودة الى أميركا مرة أخرى، حيث أنّ الأزمة الناجمة قد تكون أكثر حدّة من الأزمة الاقتصادية العظمى إبان «الثلاثينات القذرة»، لأنه وخلال سنوات الحرب زادت قدرة الأمة بشكل كبير كما رأينا. سيتعيّن تسريح العمال على وجه التحديد في الوقت الذي يعود فيه ملايين المحاربين القدامى إلى ديارهم بحثاً عن عمل مدني، وستؤدّي البطالة وتراجع القوة الشرائية الى تفاقم العجز في الطلب. أما من منظور الأغنياء والأقوياء في أميركا، فإنّ شبح البطالة القادم لا يشكل أيّ مشكلة على الإطلاق وما يهمّ هو أنّ العصر الذهبي للأرباح الهائلة سيصل إلى نهايته. من الضروري منع حدوث مثل هذه الكارثة، لكن كيف؟

كانت نفقات الدولة العسكرية تشكل مصدر الأرباح العالية، ومن أجل الإبقاء على تدفق الأرباح، وبسخاء، إلا أنّ هناك حاجة ملحة لأعداء جدد وتهديدات حرب جديدة بعد هزيمة ألمانيا واليابان. وكم كان من حسن حظ الاتحاد السوفياتي، أن يتواجد في تلك المرحلة، في بلد كان شريكاً مهماً في الحرب، لسحب زناد النار بوجه الحلفاء في ستالينغراد وغيرها من المدن، إنما ايضاً شريكاً سمحت له أفكاره الشيوعية وممارساته لتتحوّل بسهولة الى بعبع جديد يقف في وجه الولايات المتحدة الأميركية. ويعترف معظم الموثقين الأميركيين أنّ الاتحاد السوفياتي عام 1945، وهو البلد الذي عانى الكثير خلال الحرب العالمية الثانية، لم يشكل على الإطلاق أيّ تهديد اقتصاي أو عسكري للولايات المتحدة الأميركية ذات النفوذ في هذا المجال. ويعترف هؤلاء ايضاً أنّ موسكو أظهرت حرصاً شديداً على التعاون بشكل وثيق مع واشنطن في فترة ما بعد الحرب العالمية الثانية.

ترجمة ليلى زيدان عبد الخالق

Advertisements

Trump and Tehran: This Is Not 2003 and Iran Is Not Iraq

Iran’s strategic alliances are extensive and deep, and US regional allies today look increasingly fragile and erratic

Global Research, March 27, 2018
Middle East Eye 26 March 2018

Narrative-building is an art and former US President Barack Obamawas a master charmer. Hence, maintaining the image of the United States as the exceptional and indispensable nation that promotes freedom and equality, particularly after eight long years of George W Bush (since rehabilitated by the liberal media), was not the most challenging of labours.

The Western corporate media – and state-owned outlets – had the somewhat undemanding task of “Making America Feel Good Again”. No more Bushisms, Dick Cheneys, Abu Ghraibs, John Boltons, CIA black sites, Princes of Darkness, extraordinary renditions, fake dossiers, and Guantanamo Bays, among other things.

This was the post-racial America, where black lives mattered and where the president received a Nobel peace prize – like Yitzhak Rabin, FW de Klerk, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, Aung San Suu Kyi, Shimon Peres, and other “luminaries” – even though he had barely entered the Oval Office.

The Obama era

True, Guantanamo Bay remained open for business, drone strikes were all the rage, Libya was shattered, Obama funded “moderates” in Syria (which Biden said were non-existent)“managed” the Islamic State (IS) advance on Damascus, helped Saudi Arabia starve out Yemen, facilitated the siege on Gaza, imposed “crippling” sanctions on ordinary Iranians, and justified the Saudi occupation of Bahrain, among other reprehensible deeds.

Yet somehow, Obama was TV gold. He was great with teleprompters, seduced talk show audiences nationwide, did an awesome mic drop, and even agreed to a nuclear deal with Iran. He was like Teflon Tony before Tony lost his Teflon.

For many it was the same old America, but under Obama, US soft power reached new heights. Coalition building was no longer the coalition of the willing. The European Union conformed to his will, while a rising China and re-emerging Russia worked to avoid any serious confrontation.

Capitalising on unfounded allegations of electoral fraud in 2009, Obama stealthily enhanced Iranophobia, securitised Iran, and manufactured a sense of crisis and urgency – despite Iran’s adherence to International Atomic Energy Agency regulations. Life was not easy for Iranian strategists and foreign policymakers, as sanctions continued to stack up on an unprepared Iranian public.

Seismic shifts

Then came Trump, who aligned himself with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman and Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – a veritable Three Stooges in the world of Mideast geopolitics. One was an unsavoury prime minister who enforces apartheid, is disliked by allies and faces corruption charges at home.

The other was heralded as a true reformer – albeit one who kidnaps Lebanese prime ministers, supports coups, imposes sieges on old allies, starves children, funds Wahhabi extremists, arrests and tortures family members, and spends billions on yachts, portraits, foreign castles and chateaus.

Trump attacked minorities, Africans, Latinos, China, Muslims, the European Union, neighbouring countries and exited the Paris Climate Accord – all while his political opponents did their best to wreck American-Russian relations.

At times, even Trump-skeptical Iranian diplomats must have secretly felt overwhelmed by the abundance of gifts the US president was presenting to them.

While from the get-go Obama, the Treasury Department and the US Congress repeatedly violated the terms of the JCPOA, the former president’s constant public and verbal commitment to the JCPOA lulled much of the international community and drowned out Iranian protests that their commitments had not been reciprocated.

Almost immediately after his inauguration, Trump ramped up the violations – and began threatening to exit the nuclear agreement altogether.

Suddenly the tables were turned, as even close US allies felt belittled and insulted that, by ignoring US international commitments, Trump was also exposing Germany, Britain, and France as geopolitical lightweights who have little impact on major international agreements.

Russia and China increasingly viewed the United States as an unreliable partner, thus accelerating their strategic interest in their relationship with the Islamic Republic. Unreliability and unpredictability, combined with a host of new tariffs, sanctions, dubious alliances and military threats, are creating seismic shifts that push Washington toward deeper isolation.

Extreme and irrational

In the absence of Saruman’s or King Salman’s orb, it is unwise to make predictions of the future. However, it seems clear that by firing Secretary of State Tillerson and installing John Bolton as national security advisor, Trump has reinforced the widespread belief that the United States is growing more extreme and irrational and becoming increasingly antagonistic toward the rest of the world.

The spectacle of domestic US political strife combined with the emergence of Trump’s fanatical foreign policy team has demolished US soft power capabilities and made the United States under George W Bush look utopian.

Nevertheless, the US government must realise that Iran is not Iraq and this is not 2003. Iran’s strategic alliances are extensive and deep, and US regional allies today look increasingly fragile and erratic.

Moreover, Iran’s interests increasingly converge with global powers such as Russia and China, while the appointment of Bolton alarms even America’s staunchest allies. The extensive violations of the JCPOA has left most of the sanctions regime intact, thus limiting Iran’s losses subsequent to a potential US withdrawal from the agreement.

At home and abroad, Iran’s leaders will be vindicated for their skepticism of US intentions, and the Iranian public will expect an immediate normalisation of its peaceful nuclear programme.

Despite his well-founded skepticism, Ayatollah Khamenei once stated that if the US changes its behaviour regarding the nuclear dossier, the two sides may be able to negotiate over other matters as well.

When the US cannot be trusted over existing agreements, further negotiations are simply a fool’s quest.

Samuel Johnson once said:

“A man who exposes himself when he is intoxicated, has not the art of getting drunk.”

The emperor has no clothes and has revealed himself to be clueless about the Art of the Deal.

*

Seyed Mohammad Marandi is a Professor of English Literature and Orientalism at the University of Tehran.


150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

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

Michel Chossudovsky

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.

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

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

This Will Change Every Negative Thoughts You Have About Trump and Putin

Why at Least Two Nuclear Super-Powers Are Essential Why at Least Two Nuclear Super-Powers Are Essential

Why at Least Two Nuclear Super-Powers Are Essential

ERIC ZUESSE | 16.03.2018 |

Why at Least Two Nuclear Super-Powers Are Essential

My distinguished colleague at Strategic Culture Foundation, Federico Pieraccini, has recently argued that “nuclear-armed powers decrease the likelihood of a nuclear apocalypse”, and this is a response to that:

Obviously, if there were no nuclear-armed powers, then the possibility of a “nuclear apocalypse” would be zero; so, that statement is disputable at the very least. However, in a carefully modified form, I agree with something not too far different from it; and here is that form:

In the nuclear-weapons era, at least two nuclear super-powers are essential in order for there to be any realistic possibility of warding off a nuclear apocalypse, global annihilation.

Here, the concept of “nuclear super-power” is absolutely core (merely “nuclear-armed power” is not): a nuclear super-power is a nation that possesses second-strike capability, the ability to retaliate so effectively against a nuclear attack from any other nuclear power so as to annihilate that attacking country, even though this responding power might be annihilated by the attacking one.

As I have documented in prior articles (such as here), the United States, ever since at least 2006, has been virtually officially pursuing the goal of achieving “Nuclear Primacy” so as to be able to ‘win’ a nuclear war and conquer Russia — the prior military geostrategic system, called Mutually Assured Destruction or “M.A.D.,” being ended on the American side. (Russia’s Vladimir Putin says that it had actually ended when US President George W. Bush made the — as was brilliantly explained here —

“decision in 2001 to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and the bipartisan failure by both the Bush and Obama administrations to engage meaningfully with the Russians over their concerns about American missile defenses.”

However, I have argued that, in essence, the US regime had already made the decision for nuclear primacy and secretly imposed that decision upon its allied or vassal-regimes as being henceforth the US side’s aim, back on 24 February 1990, and that decision was made by George Herbert Walker Bush but has continued ever since. Putin is politic; so, he needs to filter what he says through a political screen, in which he refers to the United States as being a ‘partner,’ which I — myself an American and no politician at all and not representing any country at all — do not need to do.

Whereas the US regime has been committed for a long time to achieving nuclear primacy (regardless whether it’s since 2006, or since 2001, or since 1990 — the initial decision was actually made on 24 February 1990, and has merely been in its execution-phase on the American side from that time till now), Russia has been responding to that decision as best it has been able to. A crucial effort on the part of Russian President Boris Yeltsin in the 1990s to deal with it produced the so-called “NATO Founding Act,” but the US regime trashed that in 2016. President Putin recognized as soon as George W. Bush trashed the ABM Treaty, that unless Russia would somehow block the US from achieving nuclear primacy (if any side even is capable of achieving nuclear primacy now or in the future), then a surprise intended planned nuclear first-strike against and annihilating Russia would be the outcome (given the US regime’s by-then clear record on the matter); so, he has carefully worked, ever since that time (2002), so as to not only block it, but, finally, on 1 March 2018, announced to the entire world, that Russia is now able, reasonably and with evidence, to say that Russia is securely in a position so that if the United States attempts a surprise nuclear attack against Russia, then the United States will also be annihilated.

What is crucial here, during the nuclear-military age, is that there be at least two nuclear super-powers, not just one.

As I have argued elsewhere under the heading “The Three Global Superpowers”: “There are currently three global superpowers, three nations that lead the world: China, Russia, and US.” However, this is true regardless of whether or not China is a nuclear super-power (I don’t think it is), because China is clearly a leading economic power, and may come to lead above the United States in other fields as well. In economic matters, the trend-lines are watched with at least as much and close attention as are the absolute or current numbers, and China, in any case, is clearly one of the three global super-powers already, regardless of whether it’s a military super-power.

What, then, will be the result if China comes to be a third nuclear super-power? The problem, if any, is not whether there will come to be a third nuclear super-power: the problem is whether there will, ever again, be a nuclear super-power that is attempting military conquest of the entire world. This was the point that Putin was making in his March 1st speech.

RELATED ARTICLES

Christopher Bollyn on Book Tour, Making Jews Unhappy

Posted on 

Christopher Bollyn, the author of a series of articles and books on “Solving 9/11,” is presently on tour promoting his latest book, The War on Terror: The Plot to Rule the Middle East. And wouldn’t you know it? With every stop he makes he seems to be infuriating local Jews in the towns and cities he visits.

Bollyn has never been shy about discussing the substantial evidence pointing to Israeli involvement in 9/11, and in the video below you’ll hear him discuss how his presentation in Santa Cruz, California had to be moved out to a local public beach after pressure was put on the venue owner, and he also talks about efforts to disrupt his presentation at a public library in Ashland, Oregon.

The following video contains footage from a talk Bollyn gave in Laguna Beach, California.

I first came across the Laguna Beach video a couple of days ago at the Green Crow as the Crow Flies blog. Here are some very pertinent comments about it made by the administrator of that blog:

Bollyn (and the cameraman off camera at the back of the room) try to reason with the Jewish questioner.  They keep running into total absence of logic.  The Questioner seems to have been brainwashed with all the buzz words and talking points of the M$M.  He starts off by lecturing Bollyn with the shopworn “definition” of a conspiracy theorist…”One who starts off with a conclusion and then dismisses anything that contravenes that conclusion to end up with a (conspiracy) theory.”  Bollyn counters by asking the Jewish questioner “what facts have I omitted?  Name just one“.  The questioner quickly moves away from that argument and does not present one fact.

Rather, he moves on to the ludicrous statement that “Bush started the war on Iraq because Saddam threatened his father”.  This is a 5 year old’s comic book (Superman and Batman) view of geopolitics.  Bollyn and the off screen cameraman keep drilling down to force the questioner to provide proof or theory to back up his ridiculous statements…like the Jews in the WTC didn’t get a warning so, out of 400 Jews working in the WTC, only four (according to Netanyahu) were killed in the atrocity.  The cameraman provides video proof that several prominent New York Jews, including former Senator, Al Franken who had offices in the WTC admitted they were warned.

The topic switches to the Middle East and the question of why the United States has been forced to go to war for Israeli interests.  This is where it gets interesting….the offscreen cameraman keeps drilling down on the Jewish questioner’s responses….Why is Israel so disliked in the middle east that it has to “defend itself” from all its neighbours?  Finally the truth is presented (by the cameraman):  “Because of what has happened to the Palestinians (and by extrapolation is threatened to all Arabs living on land that Jews covet).”

The questioner, to his credit, finally answers the question of why Israel wants to destroy Syria…He asks:  “Have you ever walked the Golan Heights?  Have you ever stood on top and seen the land spread out before you?  The Golan Heights is prime land for anyone to shoot down at Israel.”  So, in other words…any land in the middle east that is within shooting distance of Israel is fair game for Jewish takeover.  Is that logical?????

Bollyn points out that the Golan Heights are fertile and priceless oil fields as well as being geostrategically important.  He also points out that Israel’s occupation of those lands has never been accepted by the world community…BUT… that if Syria were destroyed…the lands would, of course, automatically and by default fall into Israeli hands.  So, it is all about the land after all….the debate finally drilled down to the ultimate nugget of truth.

At this point, the debate ended as the questioner and his wife got up and left the room.  The video cuts out but then takes up again as the cameraman briefly re-engaged with the couple in the hallway.  The wife, who had up until then been silent, told the cameraman that she was not going to engage with him anymore because “our people have been killed for this”.  Yes, the victim card…the last card to be played in any debate with Jewish ziofascists.  Not the Palestianians who have died and/or been existing for 60 years on the biggest outdoor concentration camp the world has ever seen, not the Iraqis, Syrians, Afghanis, Libyans, Yemenis etc., etc.,…but “our people”.

Far worse than gluten–it would appear that some people suffer a major allergic reaction to the truth. I’ll close here with some very wise words spoken by Bollyn himself–in a post on his website put up on August 30 at the outset of his book tour:

To believe the official myth about 9/11 is to be trapped in a joyless state of mind because joy cannot co-exist with fear and hate. This is why embracing 9/11 truth is essential for our well-being and sanity, as individuals and as a nation. There is immense spiritual value in freeing ourselves from deception and living in truth.

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

July 31, 2017

by Amir Nour (1)

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

Samuel Phillips Huntington

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Neocons, the Arab World and Israel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* *
*

Notes:

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

It’s the Russia, Stupid

It’s the Russia, Stupid

JAMES GEORGE JATRAS | 16.06.2017

It’s another week in Washington and another horror show. This time it was Attorney General Jeff Sessions being grilled by Senators on whether, when, and how he might have met with certain Russians, or any Russian, or someone who might actually know a Russian. In addition to fishing for any inconsistency that could be used to support an accusation of obstruction of justice or perjury – the usual sleazy methodology of politically motivated investigations here – the transparent aim was to further poison the well on any possible initiative to improve ties with Moscow.

The strategy appears to be working. The Russian Embassy in Washington confirms that for the first time since the Russian Federation’s founding the State Department did not send pro forma national day greetings. Perhaps the bureaucrats were afraid they would be tainted and themselves become targets of multiple investigations into «collusion» with the Kremlin. (Luckily, this intrepid Washington analyst has no qualms about such associations.)

Or more likely, they themselves are part of the Russophobic mob undermining the White House. It has been reported that soon after the inauguration Trump sought to open dialogue with the Kremlin and set an early summit with President Vladimir Putin. This produced a hysterical counteraction from the Deep State. As reported by conservative columnist and former presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan:

«The State Department was tasked with working out the details.

«Instead, says Daniel Fried, the coordinator for sanctions policy, he received ‘panicky’ calls of ‘Please, my God, can you stop this?’.

«Operatives at State, disloyal to the president and hostile to the Russia policy on which he had been elected, collaborated with elements in Congress to sabotage any detente. They succeeded.

«‘It would have been a win-win for Moscow,’ said Tom Malinowski of State, who boasted last week of his role in blocking a rapprochement with Russia. State employees sabotaged one of the principal policies for which Americans had voted, and they substituted their own».

So much for constitutional government and the rule of law…

But now it gets even worse. This week Congress moved legislation designed to codify in statute sanctions imposed on Russia by Barack Obama over Ukraine and evidence-free charges of Russian election interference. Provisions for a presidential waiver, which are standard in any sanctions legislation, are unusually narrow. Congressional proponents are clear that their aim is to take the matter out of the president’s hands. Democrats, seemingly devoid of any other policy agenda or ideas, vow to keep banging the Russia drum through the 2018 Congressional elections.

When all is said and done, there are lots of reasons the political class hates Trump. His heresies on immigration and trade are near the top of the list. But make no mistake: for the Deep State and its mainstream media arm, demonizing Russia and Vladimir Putin personally is a dangerous obsession. (There is reason to suspect «Russian collusion» figured in the thinking of a fanatical Leftist’s shooting attack on Republican Congressmen: «The shooter also signed a petition calling for an investigation into Trump-Russia ties, confirming he was radicalized by the mainstream media’s obsession with conspiracy theories about Russia interfering with the election».)

It remains to be seen whether Oliver Stone’s extended interview with Putin on the Showtime network will have any impact. So far the commentary seems to be divided between descriptions of the substance of the discussion and attacks on Stone for talking with such a bad, bad man: «Speaking after the interview, Stone refuted allegations that he became an unwitting messenger of pro-Putin propaganda or of dishonest information given by the president».

With regard to substance, relatively little attention has been accorded in American media to Putin’s flat accusation that U.S. «special services» have supported terrorists, including in Chechnya. Of course anyone paying attention would know that arming jihadists is a standard part of U.S. policy, going back at least to Afghanistan in the 1980s and repeated in Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya, and today in Syria. Indeed, as early as the 1950s the U.S. had established a very close relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood and its terrorist elements as a weapon against Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser and Baathists in Syria and Iraq, who Washington thought were a little too cozy with the Soviet Union and far too socialist and secular for the taste of our pals in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf.

There is a real symbiosis between the anti-Russian imperative in American foreign policy and support for radical Islamic elements. It did not end when the Soviet Union and communism collapsed but rather was intensified. This is why Moscow’s constant calls for a common front against terrorism are always rebuffed. Such cooperation doesn’t make any sense for anomenklatura whose number one goal is hostility to Moscow and for whom jihadists are at worst «frienemies» – people who may be troublesome but useful.

We can only imagine how completely different the world would be if the U.S. were to recognize that Russia is a country that in many respects is not that different from the United States or Europe and that we had common interests. But for the U.S. Deep State, that would amount to switching sides in a global conflict, where we see jihadists essentially as «freedom fighters» against a geopolitical adversary. These same clueless «elites» are then puzzled when their carefully nurtured, cuddly, «moderate» jihad terrorists attack us back here at home.

This irrational pattern is at the root of the hostility of American policymakers toward Russia and any prospect of normalizing bilateral ties. In large part, it’s what underlies the «soft coup» being directed against Trump, of which the Sessions pillorying was an episode. (A late report based on unreliable, unverified sources suggests that Special Counsel on the Russia probe, Robert Mueller, is expanding his investigation to include potential obstruction of justice by President Donald Trump. Mueller, a close personal friend of ousted FBI Director James Comey, has already packed his team with partisan Democrats.)

Those behind this attempted coup think we can continue to treat Russia as though it were a minor power of the magnitude of Serbia, Iraq, Libya, or Syria, or even Iran. They think if we just keep pushing, pushing, pushing, either the Russians will collapse or back down. They will do everything possible to box Trump in and prevent him from pursuing any path other than the disastrous course laid out by Bill Clinton, George Bush, and Barack Obama. They can see no other outcome than removing Putin and returning Russia to the condition of a Yeltsin-era vassal state – a term Putin used in the Stone interview – or, better yet, its territorial breakup along the lines suggested by the late Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Will the Oliver Stone interview change any minds? It’s too soon to tell. But if the soft coup against Trump succeeds, it might not matter, since then America could not be considered a self-governing constitutional republic even in a residual sense. We may have already passed our own Rubicon and just don’t know it yet.

%d bloggers like this: