تحديات محور المقاومة… وتقدّم على مختلف المحاور

رأي سمير الحسن 

الخميس 27 شباط 2020

متواصلة بعناد، وبلا هوادة، عدوانية الغرب على الشرق. طاقة عدوانية غريبة باستمراريتها، وثباتها، وجبروتها، لا تلبث أن تتعدّى وتدمّر وتقتل وتخرّب، وإن خسرت فببعض ردّ فعل مقاوم من شعوب الشرق، الذي لم يغب عن لسانه طعم هذه العدوانية الشرسة على مراحل تاريخية مختلفة.

والاستعمار ليس أماً حنوناً، كما صوّره كاتبو التاريخ الحديث، ولا الإمبريالية أباً للشعوب. الأم وابنتها دمرتا الكرة الأضية، وحياة الشعوب عليها. جاء الاستعمار الفرنسي، ودخل دمشق، وأوّل ما قام به قائد القوات الفرنسية، الجنرال غورو، خلال الحرب العالمية الأولى، أنه قصد قبر صلاح الدين الأيوبي، أحد أبرز رموز هزيمة الصليبيين من الشرق، ورفسه بقدمه قائلاً: «يا صلاح الدين أنت قلت لنا إبان الحروب الصليبية: إنكم خرجتم من الشرق ولن تعودوا إليه. وها نحن عدنا فانهض لترانا في سوريا».

كرّس غورو النزعة الاستعمارية لبلاده، وللغرب برمّته؛ فالصليبية كانت أوروبية الطابع، ولم تنتمِ إلى دولة محدّدة، وقومية معيّنة. لم تكن جرمانية، تحديداً، ولا إفرنجية تحديداً، ولا أنكلو ساكسونية تحديداً. كانت كل ذلك، مع غيرها من مختلف القوميات الأوروبية. زرعت لمام شعوب من مختلف دول العالم مكان شعبٍ آخر في فلسطين، فكان الكيان الصهيوني. ثمّ تنبعث اتحاداً أوروبياً، بعد قرون طويلة على حدود الألفيتين الثانية والثالثة.

وتتجدّد العدوانية بصلافة وإصرار مع الوريث الأشرس، الإمبريالية الأميركية، فتستبيح العالم وتقتل وتدمر، ولا تكلّ عدوانيتها، كما لا يضعف إصرارها على العدوان. تغزو أفغانستان، ثم العراق، تستبيح أميركا اللاتينية بمؤامراتها، ولا تكلّ أمام هزيمة من هنا، أو ضربة من هناك، فتستعيد قوّتها، وتعيد هجومها العدواني، مستفيدة ممّا يشبه وحدانية سيطرتها وبطشها في العالم. تكرّس حضورها المباشر، وغير المباشر في سوريا والعراق ولبنان، مستهدفة تكريس سيطرتها، وكذلك محاولة مجابهة أي نهوض آسيوي، فتضع إيران في أول استهدافاتها، وتخطّط للصين منعاً لنهوض يقضّ مضاجعها.

جملة تحوّلات وانتصارات تكتيكية تُعزّز من حضور محور المقاومة في كل الساحات وتضع المنطقة في مرحلة التحرير المباشرة


لكنّ حركة التاريخ لا تعود إلى الوراء، بل تتقدم مهما كان ببطء، وفي ظل نهوض آسيوي غير منضبط، تعجز الإمبريالية الأميركية عن مجابهته، يتقدّم المحور الشرقي بتؤدة، خطوة خطوة، لا يريد للمجابهة أن تصل إلى ذروة عنفوانها، لأنه لا يريد أن ينجرّ وراء نزعة الإمبريالية الأميركية إلى تدمير الحياة البشرية على الأرض بمجابهة شاملة. وبقدر ما هي غريبة النزعة العدوانية بصلفها واستمراريتها، مستوى الرد الشرقي منضبط في الحدود المرسومة له: تقدم من دون تراجع، ولا تسرّع. يتضمن الرد في طياته قراراً نهائياً بالمجابهة حتى نهايتها، التي قد تطول تحت مؤثرات الضبط المرسومة لعملياتها على المستويات الاستراتيجية والاقتصادية والسياسية. لذلك، تطول المجابهات العسكرية المباشرة الشرسة في سوريا، واليمن، وتتخذ في العراق ولبنان منحى الحراك الشعبي.

في هذه الأجواء، نلاحظ تطورات ميدانية في سياق التحولات الاستراتيجية الواقعة في سياق مواجهة المشروع الأميركي في المنطقة. ولا بدّ من التوقف عند التطوّر العسكري على جبهتي اليمن وسوريا؛ هجومان يعبّران ضمناً عن الهجوم الشامل الذي تقوده جبهة المقاومة لدفع أميركا وحلفائها إلى مزيد من التراجع؛ فالجيش السوري دخل مرحلة متقدمة لحسم معركة إدلب. وفي اليمن، سجّل الجيش اليمني و«أنصار الله» تقدماً استراتيجياً على جبهة مأرب، والجوف، بعد النجاحات الكبيرة على جبهات نهم، وكتاف، ما يعني دخول الجيش السعودي مرحلة حرجة في اليمن.
في لبنان، قال فلتمان إذا لم تضعوا حداً لحزب الله، فسيعود لبنان إلى العصر الحجري. هي لغة الأم المزعومة بالحنون. «إما لبنان لنا، أو… لا لبنان». هكذا يريد الغرب لبنان الذي رسمه على قياس مصالحه، ومن أجل مخططاته، وواهم من لا يزال يعتمده وطناً قائماً بحدّ ذاته، موئلاً دائماً لأبنائه المقيمين فيه. وعندما حاول الحكم اللبناني التوجّه نحو الشرق، انطلقت الحركة التي يعتمدها فلتمان في استراتيجيته، إما لإعادة لبنان إلى أحضانه بالتمام والكمال، خالياً من المقاومة، أو لإعادته إلى العصر الحجري كما هدّد فلتمان، ابتداءً منذ السابع عشر من تشرين الأول / أوكتوبر المنصرم. وفي العراق، تتخذ الحركة منحًى أكثر تجذّراً، حيث تجمعت كل القوى الوطنية في المجابهة، يعزّزها الحضور الإيراني المقاوم الذي حسم قراره بإخراج الأميركي من المنطقة.

جملة تحوّلات، وانتصارات تكتيكية، تعزّز من حضور محور المقاومة في كل الساحات، عسكرياً وسياسياً، وتضع المنطقة في مرحلة التحرير المباشرة، كما تقرّبنا من الهزيمة النهائية لغورو الاستعماري، وفلتمان الإمبريالي، بانتظار تحقيق النصر الاستراتيجي، إن على المستوى العسكري أو الاقتصادي ــ وهو من أهم عناصر المجابهة ــ أو السياسي، مهما امتدت المجابهة، وطال أمدها.

*كاتب وباحث في الشؤون الاستراتيجية

Related Articles

The Worst Deal of the Century for Palestine

Tim KirbyFebruary 22, 2020

Trump is full of surprises and no one in the punditry was expecting anything like his “Deal of the Century”. It promises to solve the Israel/Palestine situation in a way that is fair to both sides and end a political crisis that has gone on for generations with a few pen swipes. Bold moves and showmanship are to be respected in politics, but is this really some new grand answer or a means for Israel-loyal Trump to trick the Palestinians? Well, on the surface it certainly looks like a great step forward if you are on the Israeli side of things.

It is important to note that if one geopolitical “wedge issue” exists, then it is most certainly Israel. The narrative surrounding Israel’s 20th century restoration divides people into two bitter raging camps. For many (Socialists, the Left) the European looking Israelis cutting out space for themselves in a foreign land while pushing the brown people back looks like some sort of microcosm of Western Imperialism. On the other hand, for those in the West who actually like their civilization (Republicans, the Right) they see Israel as a shining Democratic/Western light on a hill surrounded by barbarians. In many ways today’s Israel is like a living satire of the Old West in America – for some it is Manifesting Destiny and taming wild lands but for others it looks more like apartheid/genocide. Although it is unprofessional to mention oneself in a piece of analysis it is important to say that I personally subscribe to neither of these narratives. I can see them, understand them, but I do not believe in them. Meaning, as you will see I think the Deal of the Century is bad for the Palestinians not because they are victims of Jewish pioneers in the Wild Wild Middle-East but simply because accepting the deal means their side loses. This is not a deal but a request for capitulation.

Video

At first glance the “two-state solution” style deal sounds very attractive for the Palestinian side. Being a recognized state, even if very poor and cut up into awkward chunks is still much better than being an “in name only” pseudo state within the official borders of another. If Palestine was more like a state it could control is territory and engage in trade much more easily with nations that are sympathetic to their cause giving them breathing room. The problem is that the Deal of the Century only offers two-state flavour and not the two-state substance that could woo the Palestinians into signing it.

One of the key clauses of the proposition is to disarm the Palestinian Authorities, Hamas and whomever else may be on their side in Israel… and this is where the deal falls apart before it even begins. Disarmament as part of any deal is coded language for capitulation. If your tribe lays down its arms and my tribe does not, guess who is going to be the Helots and who is going to be the Spartans. Strategically speaking if the Palestinians give up their ability to fight they have obviously lost.

Another aspect of this Deal of the Century that works only in Israel’s favour is the clause that the Palestinians must acknowledge Israel as a “Jewish State”. If the deal was to create a true two-state solution with real borders between them this would not be such a problem, but since ultimately the Palestinians would still technically be within Israel’s borders acknowledging that this region is the property of a different religious group would be a huge mistake. If the United States officially acknowledged the “Russianess” of Alaska you could see how that would really not be in America’s interests. It would essentially mean that Russia would by logic have the “right” to this territory and that is why America would and should never ever acknowledge any claim by a foreign power over U.S. territory. As they say in Russian “it was yours, now it’s ours”. If you do not follow this type of policy then you are asking for succession and strife.

This is why Palestine, if it wants to survive cannot sign off on Israel being Jewish. The second they do this it will mean that bureaucratically they have no place in this country and lose any claims to it.

The Palestinians are unlikely to say that all of Israel is “Jewish”.

Other aspects of the deal also force the Palestinians into a submissive state like demanding that they have to end “all programs, including school curricula and textbooks, that serve to incite or promote hatred or antagonism towards its neighbors” when the Israelis do not. Furthermore the Palestinians must have an open and free press, which in reality, means that as a desperately poor region they must open their press up to being bought up or overwhelmed by Western Mainstream Media.

Again as an Orthodox Slav I have no horse in this race, the core narratives in support of the Israelis and Palestinians do not speak to me, but objectively taking a look at the terms, if the Palestinians take this “deal” then they have ultimately capitulated. A completely helpless and yet completely “open” Palestine that may have to give up even more territory officially will erode even faster. No break-away movement in any nation on Earth could agree to similar terms and yet still desire independence.

If I were in Trump’s shoes and very deeply tied to support for Israel I would not have offered some sort of deal between the two sides, but instead offered the Israeli Jews the chance to become the 51st state, which in some ways it already is. Although the bureaucratic realization of this idea would be tough to say the least, it would be good PR within the Beltway and beyond even if the idea was completely rejected. This peace attempt which will get shot down for the reasons stated above and will be yet another blow to Trump’s competency like not knowing where Kansas City actually is. More than anything I hate farces and if the U.S. is so tied to Israel why not just take it? If Israel really is the shining light on the hill in the Middle-East or at least the “beachhead” America needs in the region then just absorb it. Strategically this is really the best option for a pro-Israel America. If they really want to defend it then they should just extend the border around it, which would justify the U.S. to take any actions it deems necessary to secure the territory including ones that would be quite “rough” towards the Palestinians.

In summation…

  • For the Palestinians this deal is a form of capitulation, they must say “no”.
  • For the Israelis this is yet another step to ending the Palestinian problem, they must say “yes”, and blast the other side for rejecting the offer.
  • The United States has such heavy interesting in Israel that they may as well just absorb it, which would ultimately solve all problems for the Israeli Jews that the Beltway claims to want to protect/support.

Opening Iran’s Black Box

By David Macilwain

Source

Ukraine Flight 752 a0457

As Western governments continue to poke at the Iranian bear, thinking it is busy licking its wounds, they should keep an eye on its claws, and not turn their backs, or their minds to other matters. But neither should we, because the regime changers have not abandoned their plans, nor written off their investment in creating this disorder, as the sudden resumption of NATO-backed “protests” in Iraq and Lebanon demonstrate. A new leader of Islamic State has even been launched into the fray in a timely fashion – on the third anniversary of Trump’s infamous inauguration.

It’s now twenty days since the ‘B’ team murdered their chances of a peaceful settlement in Iraq, but barely enough time for the Iranian bear to muster its strength after such a shock, though that strength is now many times greater and extends across its borders. Had that shock been isolated, with only the close involvement of Iraq, then the subsequent ballistic missile attack by Iran on US bases could have passed for a response, and even led to a peaceful pull-out of Western forces, as demanded by the Iraqi government.

But at that point, the two sides diverged, irreconcilably – the shooting down of Ukrainian flight PS 752 changed everything.

The argument over whether this pre-emptive extrajudicial assassination was a crime was partly down to opinion – on whether Qasem Soleimani was “a terrorist” who needed to be “taken out”,  or the Hero of Shia Islam who saved his Iraqi and Syrian brothers from brutal Salafists and Zionist occupiers. As a soldier in the war against the US coalition and its mercenaries, he was in some sense a legitimate target, but the US crime was in denying him the chance to die and kill in a fair fight. Being picked off by some gum-chewing coward a thousand miles away is the yardstick for US morality and criminality not lost on Iranians or Iraqis, or the IRGC which promptly declared the US army to be a terrorist organization.

For the 167 innocent passengers and crew on PS 752 however, there can be no such argument; their killing, accidental or not, was a crime because of its means, and someone may be held responsible, even if indirectly, as indeed they already are by those rushing to judgment in the West. Despite the initial qualification of the crash by most leaders and media as a “tragic accident”, it is now referred to simply as “the plane shot down by the Iranian military”, implicitly suggesting a civilian airliner was intentionally targeted. But just as with MH17, if Iran was responsible for shooting down a civilian plane carrying Iranians on its own territory it was quite clearly an accident, and should be treated as one – particularly as Iran’s leaders have accepted responsibility and apologized profusely.

But the similarity to MH17 goes further, as the consequences of the Iranian missile defense action for Western public opinion have been devastating for Iran but remarkably beneficial for her enemies, as noted before. On the back of this sudden turn around, the IRGC now appears as it has always been portrayed by Iran’s greatest foes – Israel and the US, while the Iranian government’s entirely reasonable abandonment of the farcical JCPOA provides just the excuse needed for NATO to step up the nuclear pressure and even re-introduce sanctions.

To an impartial observer – and in this case to all those aligned with Iran, Russia and China – this looks grossly unfair, and offensive to any sense of International law and justice.

America and its local allies and co-conspirators have committed a totally illegal political assassination as a provocation, which has led to an environment where hundreds of innocent people have died – including those in the stampede at Soleimani’s funeral. Rather than offering help and sympathy, and understanding of the circumstances behind this tragedy, Western regimes have exploited the disaster to their own ends, almost as if it were their intent.

But perhaps it was.

Forgetting the substantial evidence of covert planning for actions following the killing of the IRGC commander such as staged anti-government protest rallies, and even questions about the identity of the person who shot the video of the missile strike, a little giveaway in a second NYT report could be the clue Iran needs to close its case – that tricking the IRGC into shooting down PS 752 was an integral part of the operation that saw the IRGC leader first assassinated.

A few days after the New York Times publicized the missile video, unleashing a volley of abuse at Iran’s leaders for “lying” about it being a technical malfunction, but then needing to answer difficult questions on how the videographer just happened to be there with camera at the ready, the NYT put out a second report showing that two missiles had been fired:

“The New York Times has verified security camera footage on Tuesday that shows, for the first time, that two missiles hit Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 on Jan. 8. The missiles were launched from an Iranian military site around eight miles from the plane.

The new video fills a gap about why the plane’s transponder stopped working, seconds before it was hit by a second missile.

An earlier Times analysis confirmed what Iran later admitted: that an Iranian missile did strike the plane. The Times also established that the transponder stopped working before that missile hit the plane. The new video appears to confirm that an initial strike disabled the transponder, before the second strike, also seen in the video, around 23 seconds later.”

As explained elsewhere, the absence of a transponder signal from a flying object immediately identifies it as hostile to a missile defense system, and it was generally accepted that the apparent failure of PS 752’s transponder just two minutes after take-off was what led to its tragic shooting down. The question was why did the transponder suddenly fail, or get disabled?

This was a key question being asked by those who suspected foul play, such as may have occurred two days earlier during “maintenance”, or through some cyber means. It was a question that also needed answering by the Bellingcat club, and the second NYT report and video was their answer.

But it doesn’t work! It really doesn’t work!

On hearing first of this second missile that “took out the transponder”, my thought was simply that this was ridiculous and impossible, but it took two days to realize just why:

Why did the missile defense unit fire the first missile at PS 752 when its transponder was working?

Flights leaving IKA before PS 752 Jan 8th 3737c

Nine other flights took off from Imam Khomeini Airport that morning, including a Qatar airways flight just 30 minutes earlier, and passed by the IRGC missile defense systems without notice – with their transponders operating normally. Their pilots would have been particularly conscious of the need to turn transponders on at take-off given the extreme tensions following Iran’s missile volley early that morning – about four hours before the Ukrainian jet took off bound for Kyiv.

Flight PS 752, which flies five times a week on that popular route for Iranian Canadians, followed the identical flight path to those earlier jets, according to Flight Radar 24. But this site is hardly the only one tracking aircraft and other movements in Iran. In a report on the Iranian missile strikes on Ain al Asad base, the NYT candidly admits that the NSA was following the movements of Iranian missile defense systems as well as monitoring IRGC communications networks “with spy satellites”, and anticipating a response to Soleimani’s murder following his funeral. But much evidence points to the use of these cyber-warfare systems to confuse and control Iran’s defenses, in the same way that the Western public is confused and controlled by disinformation and emotive propaganda coming from their own governments.

But Iran has the Black Box, and holds the Ace. Because if the “conspiracy” theory is correct – that enemy intelligence actions caused the “accidental” downing of the chosen aircraft, the electronic record from the flight recorders will prove it. It only needs to show that the first missile hit PS 752 one second after the transponder stopped working to turn this Iranian tragedy into a US coalition atrocity, and the most infernal and criminal conspiracy since the demolition of the Twin Towers.

Perhaps then it will finally be the citizens of the countries who suffer under the Great Satan’s boot who benefit from its Imperial Overreach.

Iran’s Cultural Attaché in Lebanon: Soleimani Was Transnational, Multi-dimensional Personality that Scared Trump

Iran’s Cultural Attaché in Lebanon: Soleimani Was Transnational, Multi-dimensional Personality that Scared Trump

By Nour Rida

The martyrdom of Lieutenant General Qassem Soleimani has created a ripple effect in Iran and the region, still being the talk of the town.

It is the political dimension of his assassination that is mostly discussed in the media. However, it is important to note that the martyr, was not merely a military personnel despite the fact that most of his pictures come in army clothing or on the battle fields. Gen. Soleimani was multi-dimensional personality that scared Trump, he was unique, humane, and fought against imperialism and the colonialism of minds.

In an interview with al-Ahed news, the Cultural attaché of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Lebanon, Dr. Abbas Khameyar said that media has not shed enough light on the reality behind martyr Soleimani’s personality, which he described as “transnational”. He assured that when he was alive, he foiled all attempts of dissecting the region and stood in face of all hegemonic schemes.

Military serves to protect civilization

“We should pay attention to the different dimensions of General Soleimani’s personality. He wore his military clothing most of the time, he was in the battlefields among the soldiers fighting Takfiri groups in the region. However he was like a shelter or umbrella protecting Iran’s civilization and culture,” Dr. Khameyar said.

He noted “When we talk about Iran and the major accomplishments of the Islamic Republic, the first thing that comes to the mind of people is: military accomplishments. Of course we confirm that Iran’s accomplishments and capabilities on the military level are amazing, but it is not the end. This strong military that Iran has built over a period of time and with perseverance is in fact a force of deterrence and serves as protection to all other accomplishments. In other words, the military was never a goal that Iran sought to reach, it is a means by which it protects its culture, civilizations, existence, sovereignty and other. It is a power of deterrence that protects Iranian accomplishments in the different scientific fields.”

The diplomat underscored that the military character of Hajj Qassem holds a lot of dimensions within its folds. He had a mission to protect Iran’s humanitarian, cultural and civilizational existence as well as its Islamic civilization. In fact, Leader of the Islamic Revolution His Eminence Imam Sayyed Ali Khamenei stresses this aspect. “The battle between us and our foes is a battle of civilization par excellence. We have to realize that holding on to our civilization, customs and traditions is an integral part of our identity and existence and that the military serves to protect it.”

Targeting Civilization

Touching on US President Donald Trump’s threat to target 52 historical sites, Dr. Khameyar highlighted that “the uncivilized opponent knows that targeting our civilization hurts, and so he does it on purpose.”

Since the Islamic Republic of Iran decided to free itself from the manacles of American supremacy in 1979, the US has become so occupied with attempts to destroy Iran’s civilization and culture. This is not an unplanned thing, it is calculated and intentional. Iran’s heritage is the oldest among many across the world. It also enjoys a strategic geographical position which makes the US more obsessed about controlling it.

Targeting cultural heritage: a mindset

According to Dr. Khameyar, “Trump’s words and his threat to target Iran’s sites was not a slip of a tongue, but rather part of the hegemonic mindset. To understand this, we can look at historians like Bernard Lewis and the strong impact he had on the US decision-making. He wrote a paper in 1979 under the title “Iran in history” and presented it in Tel Aviv.”

Dr. Khameyar pointed out that “this policy of dissecting the region and ruining its heritage and culture was seen across the region in what some call the ‘Arab Spring’ and others call the ‘Arab awakening’; names do not really matter and it is the legacy of Lewis and people who have adopted his thought. We have seen the destruction of museums and libraries in Iraq after the collapse of the Saddam regime, and the same scenario in Egypt. The head of the National Museum of Iraq told me in person that in less than 36 hours after chaos spread when the Saddam regime collapsed, more than 15 thousand antiquities were either destroyed or stolen. Also in Syria, the Takfiri groups adopted the same policy of destroying cultural and historical heritage in Aleppo, Palmyra and other cities. If it were not for the popular and youth groups that quickly took action, all this heritage would have been destroyed.”

The diplomat noted “Lewis says Iran is one of the civilized countries that was immune in face of any attempts to ruin its heritage and culture for at least two centuries. His advice to confront such countries like Iran is through division, so Iran should be divided into a great Baluchistan, a great Khorasan, a great Azerbaijan and so on. ”

Bernard Lewis, a British-American historian of the Middle East, has been formidably influential in America – his policy ideas have towered over presidents, policy-makers and think-tanks, and they still do. For those who might not have known this: The “Bernard Lewis plan”, as it came to be known, was a design to fracture all the countries in the region – from the Middle East to India – along ethnic, sectarian and linguistic lines. A radical Balkanization of the region. He seems to be Mike Pompeo’s intellectual hero. For example, Pompeo says: “I met him only once, but read much of what he wrote. I owe a great deal of my understanding of the Middle East to his work … He was also a man who believed, as I do, that Americans must be more confident in the greatness of our country, not less.”

Soleimani preserves heritage, humanity

Assassinating General Soleimani comes within the same context.

Dr. Khameyar added “The military façade of general Soleimani is indeed a shield that protects and preserves the humanitarian, cultural and historical heritage of Iran and the region. His personality was also multi-dimensional. He was on the battlefields to help fight terrorist groups, but he was also among the poor inside Iran, trying his best to help them out. During the floods that struck Khuzestan last year, he was among the first to be there and provide help. Tens of stories have emerged after his assassination, showing a person of modesty, chastity and humanity and this is what made him so popular among the Iranians and this is why millions poured down the streets to participate in his memorial.”

The Iranian diplomat explained that the people called him the general of hearts and love. “This has its roots in Iranian poetry and literature. When we talk about “Eshq”, meaning love, the great poets of Persia cross our minds like Hafez and Rumi. They are internationally well-known for their ingenious and unique works. And when we mention the Shahnameh, which is the book of epics we talk about heroic characters. Today, General Soleimani is an epic, a real one though. He also exemplifies Karbala, which is an integral part of Iranian and Islamic culture and history.”

Demonstrations renew Iran legitimacy

Dr. Khameyar underlined that the millions of people who attended his funeral or headed to the streets in all the Iranian cities in fact were like a sea of human beings, with its tides extending outside the borders of Iran as well.

“The huge ceremonies in which most Iranians participated represents another referendum to the legitimacy of the Iranian government. It is also like a consensus and approval to the resistance front or what is known as the axis of resistance in the region. Despite the desperate American attempts to destroy Iran and despite the sanctions, pressure and different means adopted to harm Iran, the martyrdom of Hajj Qassem fixated the resistance front and united the Iranian people. Today, we can say that the resistance has become globalized, since martyr Soleimani is a transnational personality that transcends borders and geography.”

A smart-power personality

Describing the personality of martyr General Soleimani, Dr. Khameyar said that we can perhaps call it a smart-power personality; it combines both soft and hard power together.

“This smart-power is demonstrated in a few things: the spread of the culture of resistance among Iranians and other peoples of the region, the strengthening of the popular will, the persistence and perseverance of the Iranians in face of all difficulties and the rising voices “We are all Soleimani” across Iran and the region. It is also exemplified in what happened in the Iraqi parliament, where MPs urged US forces to leave the Iraqi territory, and in the marches of millions of people also outside Iran. Now hard power comes in the form of the missiles that precisely targeted the Ain al-Assad US military base located in Iraq, and maybe new strikes in the future to deter the occupiers, who knows. This military strike was not intended to kill, it was a clear message that US hegemony can be defeated, and that the US army is not invincible.”

Dr. Khameyar also noted “Today, the resistance axis is globalized, and the resistance forces are stronger on all levels. Again, when we say resistance we do not mean a military resistance only, we rather mean an axis of resistance that is developed on all levels.”

Describing General Soleimani with Iranian poetry, Dr. Khameyar said the poem of “The Breath of the Christ” fits him really well.

Hafez said “I am a hole in a flute that the Christ’s breath moves through-listen to this music.” The Music of the Divine, of the breath of Christ – Music that melts and opens the heart and frees the soul of any willing to listen.

For the Arabic version click here

Western ‘Political Correctness’ Does Not Make All People Equal

By Andre Vltchek

Source

Gender changing 3f58b

In the West, there is a new wave of political correctness at work: it is all about one’s sexual orientation; who has sex with whom, and how. Suddenly, the mass media in London, Paris and New York is greatly concerned about who has the right to change his or her sex, and who does not want to belong to any ‘traditional’ gender bracket.

Thinking about ‘it’, writing about it, doing it, is considered “progressive”; cutting edge. Entire novels are being commissioned and then subsidized, as far away as in the Asia Pacific.  Western organizations and NGOs (so-called “non-government organizations”, but financed by Western régimes), are thriving on the matter.

These days it is not just LGBT that are in the spotlight, glorified and propagandized; there are all sorts of new types of combinations that many people never even heard about, or imagined could exist.

Even some Western airlines do not call their passengers “ladies, gentlemen and children”, anymore, in order “not to offend” those who do not want to be any of the above.

Accept any sexual habit, repeat loudly, many times, that you have done it; then preferably write about it, and you will be lauded as progressive, tolerant, and even “left-wing’.

This is a discussion which is clearly encouraged, even invented by the Western regime: a safe discussion which is aimed at diverting dialogue from topics such as the fact that even in the West, a great number of people are living in fear and misery, and that the majority of neo-colonies of North America and Europe are once again being totally, shamelessly exploited.

Talking about poverty and exploitation, about military coups triggered by Washington are rarely spoken about. Such discussions are even being portrayed as old-fashioned, if not regressive.

Hype is, these days, all about the interaction of penises, of vaginas, or about the lack of such interactions. It is about one’s “identity” and about the right to change one’s gender. What you do with your private parts is much more important than billions of people who are forced to live in filthy slums. Surgery that is aimed at changing one’s gender is more newsworthy than the “regime changes” and consequent destruction of millions of human lives.

Such focus is totally fragmenting Western societies. It leads to extreme individualism and dark nihilism. What should stay behind closed doors is being brought out to the center of attention.

Don’t think that it is all a coincidence. It is clearly designed this way. Like the enormous flood of free pornography did not come from out of the blue. The hidden message is clear: watch as much free porn as you can in your free time, watch football, enjoy booze, and put your sexual identity at the very center of your existence.

Then, define all those who disagree with these sorts of lifestyles as ‘intolerant’, ‘backward’, and even ‘oppressive’.

Why is all this happening? Why are Western countries so obsessed with “sexual identities”?

The answer is simple: because those who are obsessed with their own bodies, desires, identities and endless “rights”, have hardly any time left to think about the rest of the world.

And vice versa: those who are passionately fighting for a better world, building people-oriented societies, sacrificing their own comfort and personal benefits; those individuals often have no time, or very little time, to think about the nuances of their sexuality. For them, sexuality is simply part of their life; often powerful and important, but it is definitely not their center of gravity, not their very essence.

And precisely this kind of optimistic, unselfish mindset is extremely dangerous for the survival of Western regimes, and the Empire itself.

I am all for people to have their right to choose how they want to express themselves sexually. As long as it is done discreetly, and without forcing anyone into anything.

But I am strongly against the so-called sexual identity monopolizing political narrative of entire nations.

There are much more important issues that Western societies should be concerned with, and obviously are not.

And the Empire knows it, and precisely for that reason it does everything possible to elevate sex and sexuality into something tremendously important, glorified, as well as untouchable. Terms and definitions then get confused: centering people’s identity around their genitals, gets defined as “their identity”. Their struggle for sexual rights is now being defined as “progressive”, even, bizarrely as left-wing.

It is, of course, an absolute nonsense. The fight for sexual rights is the fight for sexual rights: it is not right, or left.

There is absolutely no guarantee that a man who undergoes gender-changing surgery, would gain a deep interest in the US-triggered coup in Bolivia, or in the tremendous torment, inflicted by the West, on the people of Syria or Afghanistan.

I have discussed this issue, in depth, with my friends and relatives who happen to be professional psychiatrists and psychologists: Jung, who attacked Western imperialism as a clinical disease (pathology), has been criticized and discredited by almost all Western schools. While the self-centered Freud, has been glorified to this very day. He became untouchable in Europe and North America. We are all encourage to see ourselves through his eyes.

We are supposed to think and analyze the world in a Freudian way. To say “penis” or “vagina”, or to show them, and especially change them, is supposed to send a shiver up our backs, to make us feel heroic, progressive.

While the Empire murders millions of people worldwide. While British and North American children are suffering from hunger, while NATO is bringing our planet closer and closer to the next huge war which our humanity may not survive, people inhabiting the Empire are encouraged to think, to write and to fight for totally different issues than those that could save our humanity.

I have to report that, after working in some 160 countries of the world, on all continents, the issues that I am addressing above, are prevalent only in the West. Well, also in countries and territories that have been deeply indoctrinated by the West, like Argentina and Hong Kong, to give just two examples. Which makes one wonder what is really going on?

I am not talking about people being born gay or lesbian and then getting discriminated against (such discrimination should be, of course, confronted), or forced by brutal family practices (like I witnessed in Samoa) to unwillingly change their sexual identity. I am fully, and determinedly supporting people to have their rights, to practice what they feel like, and to be fully protected by the law.

I am addressing here this totally wild obsession with the topic. I am talking about forcing people in the UK, US, Canada, Australia and some European countries, to accept as essential a dialogue, which is absolutely irrelevant to more than 99% of the population on our planet. It is not about LGBT anymore. This is now about something absolutely else; about color shades, about nuances, about details: while the entire world is burning; in flames.

Can we please talk, finally about Hong Kong, Iraq, Bolivia, North Korea?

And as a writer, as a novelist, I reserve my right to create, to write as I want to! If I want to say,” ladies, gentlemen and children”, you can all stop reading me, but I will write it precisely as I want. You can go and read the latest generation of politically correct scribes. Although you know as well as I do, that you will never find any great literature created by them.

The Empire makes sure that many essential topics, including those like whether the world should continue to live under the boot of savage capitalism or whether it should be selecting socialism, hardly ever get discussed on the television screens, and on the front pages of the internet.

Gender changing surgery is now obviously a much more important topic in the U.K. and the U.S., than whether Western imperialism should be stopped, once and forever.

But remember: We will all burn if we burn. Heterosexuals, homosexuals, trans-gender individuals, even those whose sexual orientation I still do not understand. If there is a Third World War, we will all be fried.

Therefore, I suggest that we first try to disarm the Empire, stop savage capitalism, give freedom and the right to choose their destiny to all nations of the world, and then… Only then, shall we make sure that we support all the people of countless sexual orientation, that our humanity has.

But first things first, please!

Unfortunately, the majority of people do not have the capacity to fight on various fronts, for numerous causes. And they often choose to struggle for the issues that are extremely close to their waist.

What’s Behind The West’s Hatred of Iran?

By Stuart Littlewood

Source

Mohammad Mosaddegh 82014

Nobody saw that coming. Trump ordering Soleimani’s execution, I mean.

Nobody thought even he was quite so stupid.

It follows his last year’s caper when the “cocked and loaded” drama-queen ordered military strikes against Iran’s radar and missile batteries in retaliation for their shootdown of a US spy drone. He changed his mind with only minutes to spare on account of a reminder that such lunacy might actually cost human lives.

Plus the fact that the drone was eight miles from the coast, well inside the 12 nautical miles considered to be Iran’s territorial waters under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, and it clearly represented a military threat and provocation. So he had no lawful claim of self-defense that would justify a military attack.  The United Nations Charter only allows the use of military force in self-defense after an armed attack or with Security Council approval. So his proposed action would have been illegal as well as unwise, but none of that seemed to enter into his calculations then, or now.

Before that we had Trump’s executive order in August 2018 reimposing a wide range of sanctions against Iran after pulling the US out of the seven-party nuclear deal for no good reason, a spiteful move that annoyed the EU and caused  all sorts of problems for other nations. And he was going to impose extra sanctions aimed mainly at Iran’s oil industry and foreign financial institutions.

“If the ayatollahs want to get out from under the squeeze,” warned US national security adviser John Bolton, “they should come and sit down. The pressure will not relent while the negotiations go on.” To which Iran’s president Hassan Rouhani responded: “If you stab someone with a knife and then you say you want talks, then the first thing you have to do is remove the knife.”

United Nations Special Rapporteur Idriss Jazairy described the sanctions as “unjust and harmful…. The reimposition of sanctions against Iran after the unilateral withdrawal of the United States from the Iran nuclear deal, which had been unanimously adopted by the Security Council with the support of the US itself, lays bare the illegitimacy of this action.”

The other countries party to the nuclear deal – Russia, China, Germany, France, the UK and the EU – vowed to stick with it and continue trading with Iran, some EU foreign ministers saying Iran was abiding by the agreement and delivering on its goal when Trump withdrew and they deeply regretted the new sanctions. Trump in turn called Iran “a murderous dictatorship that has continued to spread bloodshed, violence and chaos.”  The irony of such a remark was, of course, completely lost on him.

I read today that the EU “will spare no efforts” to keep the nuclear deal with Iran alive though I doubt if Boris Johnson, passionate Zionist that he is, will be among them.

When it comes to aggression and dishonesty the US has form, and lots of it. Who can forget during the Iran-Iraq war the cruiser USS Vincennes, well inside Iran’s territorial waters, blowing Iran Air Flight 655 to smithereens and killing all 290 passengers and crew on board? The excuse, which didn’t bear examination afterwards, was that they mistook the Airbus A300 for an Iranian F-14 Tomcat manoeuvring to attack.

George H. W. Bush commented on a separate occasion: “I will never apologize for the United States – I don’t care what the facts are… I’m not an apologize-for-America kind of guy.” Trump seems to have caught the same disease. And, from the outside, the White House itself seems home to the the sort of “murderous dictatorship” he describes.

The need to continually demonize Iran

When I say the West’s hatred of Iran, I mean primarily the US-UK-Israel Axis.  Ben Wallace, UK Defence Secretary filling in for Boris Johnson who had absented himself, has told Parliament: “In recent times, Iran has felt its intentions are best served through… the use of subversion as a foreign policy tool. It has also shown a total disregard for human rights.” This is amusing coming from the British government and especially a Conservative one which adores Israel, the world’s foremost disregarder of human rights and international law.

Britain and America would like everyone to believe that hostilities with Iran began with the 1979 Islamic Revolution. But you have to go back to the early 1950s for the root cause in America’s case, while Iranians have had to endure a whole century of British exploitation and bad behaviour. And the Axis want to keep this important slice of history from becoming part of public discourse. Here’s why.

In 1901 William Knox D’Arcy obtained from the Mozaffar al-Din Shah Qajar a 60-year oil concession to three-quarters of the country. The Persian government would receive 16% of the oil company’s annual profits, a rotten deal as the Persians would soon realise.

D’Arcy, with financial support from Glasgow-based Burmah Oil, formed a company and sent an exploration team. Drilling failed to find oil in commercial quantities and by 1908 D’Arcy was almost bankrupt and on the point of giving up when they finally struck it big.  The Anglo-Persian Oil Company was up and running and in 1911 completed a pipeline from the oilfield to its new refinery at Abadan.

Just before the outbreak of World War 1 Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty, wished to convert the British fleet from coal. To secure a reliable oil source the British Government took a major shareholding in Anglo-Persian.

In the 1920s and 1930s the company profited hugely from paying the Persians a miserly 16% and refusing to renegotiate terms. An angry Persia eventually cancelled the D’Arcy agreement and the matter ended up at the Court of International Justice in The Hague. A new agreement in 1933 provided Anglo-Persian with a fresh 60-year concession but on a smaller area. The terms were an improvement but still didn’t amount to a square deal for the Persians.

In 1935 Persia became known internationally by its other name, Iran, and Anglo-Persian changed to Anglo-Iranian Oil. By 1950 Abadan was the biggest oil refinery in the world and the British government, with its 51% holding, had affectively colonised part of southern Iran.

Iran’s tiny share of the profits had long soured relations and so did the company’s treatment of its oil workers. 6,000 went on strike in 1946 and the dispute was violently put down with 200 dead or injured. In 1951 while Aramco was sharing profits with the Saudis on a 50/50 basis Anglo-Iranian declared £40 million profit after tax and handed Iran only £7 million.

Iran by now wanted economic and political independence and an end to poverty. Calls for nationalisation could not be ignored. In March 1951 the Majlis and Senate voted to nationalise Anglo-Iranian, which had controlled Iran’s oil industry since 1913 under terms frankly unfavourable to the host country. Social reformer Dr Mohammad Mossadeq was named prime minister by a 79 to 12 majority and promptly carried out his government’s wishes, cancelling Anglo-Iranian’s oil concession and expropriating its assets.

His explanation was perfectly reasonable…

“Our long years of negotiations with foreign countries… have yielded no results this far. With the oil revenues we could meet our entire budget and combat poverty, disease, and backwardness among our people. Another important consideration is that by the elimination of the power of the British company, we would also eliminate corruption and intrigue, by means of which the internal affairs of our country have been influenced. Once this tutelage has ceased, Iran will have achieved its economic and political independence.” (M. Fateh, Panjah Sal-e Naft-e Iran, p. 525)

For this he would be removed in a coup by MI5 and the CIA, imprisoned for 3 years then put under house arrest until his death.

Britain was determined to bring about regime change so orchestrated a world-wide boycott of Iranian oil, froze Iran’s sterling assets and threatened legal action against anyone purchasing oil produced in the formerly British-controlled refineries. The Iranian economy was soon in ruins…. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

America was reluctant at first to join Britain’s destructive game but Churchill (prime minister at this time) let it be known that Mossadeq was turning communist and pushing Iran into Russia’s arms at a time when Cold War anxiety was high. That was enough to bring America’s new president, Eisenhower, on board and plotting with Britain to bring Mossadeq down.

Chief of the CIA’s Near East and Africa division, Kermit Roosevelt Jr, played the lead in a nasty game of provocation, mayhem and deception. Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi signed two decrees, one dismissing Mossadeq and the other nominating the CIA’s choice, General Fazlollah Zahedi, as prime minister. These decrees were written as dictated by the CIA.

In August 1953, when it was judged safe for him to do so, the Shah returned to take over. Mossadeq was arrested, tried, and convicted of treason by the Shah’s military court. He remarked: “My greatest sin is that I nationalised Iran’s oil industry and discarded the system of political and economic exploitation by the world’s greatest empire… I am well aware that my fate must serve as an example in the future throughout the Middle East in breaking the chains of slavery and servitude to colonial interests.”

His supporters were rounded up, imprisoned, tortured or executed. Zahedi’s new government reached an agreement with foreign oil companies to form a consortium to restore the flow of Iranian oil, awarding the US and Great Britain the lion’s share – 40% going to Anglo-Iranian. The consortium agreed to split profits on a 50-50 basis with Iran but refused to open its books to Iranian auditors or allow Iranians to sit on the board.

The US massively funded the Shah’s government, including his army and his hated secret police force, SAVAK. Anglo-Iranian changed its name to British Petroleum in 1954. Mossadeq died on 5 March 1967.

The CIA-engineered coup that toppled Mossadeq, reinstated the Shah and let the American oil companies in, was the final straw for the Iranians. The British-American conspiracy backfired spectacularly 25 years later with the Islamic Revolution of 1978-9, the humiliating 444-day hostage crisis in the American embassy and a tragically botched rescue mission.

Smoldering resentment for at least 70 years

And all this happened before the Iran-Iraq war when the West, especially the US, helped Iraq develop its armed forces and chemical weapons arsenal which were used against Iran.  The US, and eventually Britain, leaned strongly towards Saddam in that conflict and the alliance enabled Saddam to more easily acquire or develop forbidden chemical and biological weapons. At least 100,000 Iranians fell victim to them.

This is how John King writing in 2003 summed it up…

“The United States used methods both legal and illegal to help build Saddam’s army into the most powerful army in the Mideast outside of Israel. The US supplied chemical and biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians. The US supplied the materials and technology for these weapons of mass destruction to Iraq at a time when it was know that Saddam was using this technology to kill his Kurdish citizens. The United States supplied intelligence and battle planning information to Iraq when those battle plans included the use of cyanide, mustard gas and nerve agents. The United States blocked UN censure of Iraq’s use of chemical weapons. The United States did not act alone in this effort. The Soviet Union was the largest weapons supplier, but England, France and Germany were also involved in the shipment of arms and technology.”

And while Iranian casualties were at their highest as a result of US chemical and biological war crimes what was Mr Trump doing? He was busy acquiring the Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Trump Castle, his Taj-Mahal casino, the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan…. oh, and he was refitting his super-yacht Trump Princess. What does he know, understand or care about Iran and the Iranian people today?

On the British side our prime minister, Boris Johnson, was at Oxford carousing with fellow Etonians at the Bullingdon Club. What does he know or care?

The present Iranian regime, like many others, may not be entirely to the West’s liking but neither was Dr Mossadeq’s fledgeling democracy nearly 70 years ago. If Britain and America had played fair and allowed the Iranians to determine their own future instead of using economic terrorism to bring the country to its knees Iran might have been “the only democracy in the Middle East” today.

So hush! Don’t even mention the M-word: MOSSADEQ.

Come Home, America: Stop Policing the Globe and Put an End to Wars-Without-End

By John W. Whitehead

Source

 

US Army Soldiers 6dfce

I agree wholeheartedly with George S. McGovern, a former Senator and presidential candidate who opposed the Vietnam War, about one thing: I’m sick of old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in.

It’s time to bring our troops home.

Bring them home from Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. Bring them home from Germany, South Korea and Japan. Bring them home from Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Oman. Bring them home from Niger, Chad and Mali. Bring them home from Turkey, the Philippines, and northern Australia.

That’s not what’s going to happen, of course.

The U.S. military reportedly has more than 1.3 million men and women on active duty, with more than 200,000 of them stationed overseas in nearly every country in the world. Those numbers are likely significantly higher in keeping with the Pentagon’s policy of not fully disclosing where and how many troops are deployed for the sake of “operational security and denying the enemy any advantage.” As investigative journalist David Vine explains, “Although few Americans realize it, the United States likely has more bases in foreign lands than any other people, nation, or empire in history.”

Don’t fall for the propaganda, though: America’s military forces aren’t being deployed abroad to protect our freedoms here at home. Rather, they’re being used to guard oil fields, build foreign infrastructure and protect the financial interests of the corporate elite. In fact, the United States military spends about $81 billion a year just to protect oil supplies around the world.

The reach of America’s military empire includes close to 800 bases in as many as 160 countries, operated at a cost of more than $156 billion annually. As Vine reports, “Even US military resorts and recreation areas in places like the Bavarian Alps and Seoul, South Korea, are bases of a kind. Worldwide, the military runs more than 170 golf courses.”

This is how a military empire occupies the globe.

Already, American military servicepeople are being deployed to far-flung places in the Middle East and elsewhere in anticipation of the war drums being sounded over Iran.

This Iran crisis, salivated over by the neocons since prior to the Iraq War and manufactured by war hawks who want to jumpstart the next world war, has been a long time coming.

Donald Trump, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton: they all have done their part to ensure that the military industrial complex can continue to get rich at taxpayer expense.

Take President Trump, for instance.

Despite numerous campaign promises to stop America’s “endless wars,” once elected, Trump has done a complete about-face, deploying greater numbers of troops to the Middle East, ramping up the war rhetoric, and padding the pockets of defense contractors. Indeed, Trump is even refusing to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq in the face of a request from the Iraqi government for us to leave.

Obama was no different: he also pledged—if elected—to bring the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan and reduce America’s oversized, and overly costly, military footprint in the world. Of course, that didn’t happen.

Yet while the rationale may keep changing for why American military forces are policing the globe, these wars abroad (in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen and now Iran) aren’t making America—or the rest of the world—any safer, are certainly not making America great again, and are undeniably digging the U.S. deeper into debt.

War spending is bankrupting America.

Although the U.S. constitutes only 5% of the world’s population, America boasts almost 50% of the world’s total military expenditure, spending more on the military than the next 19 biggest spending nations combined.

In fact, the Pentagon spends more on war than all 50 states combined spend on health, education, welfare, and safety.

The American military-industrial complex has erected an empire unsurpassed in history in its breadth and scope, one dedicated to conducting perpetual warfare throughout the earth.

Since 2001, the U.S. government has spent more than $4.7 trillion waging its endless wars.

Having been co-opted by greedy defense contractors, corrupt politicians and incompetent government officials, America’s expanding military empire is bleeding the country dry at a rate of more than $32 million per hour.

In fact, the U.S. government has spent more money every five seconds in Iraq than the average American earns in a year.

Future wars and military exercises waged around the globe are expected to push the total bill upwards of $12 trillion by 2053.

Talk about fiscally irresponsible: the U.S. government is spending money it doesn’t have on a military empire it can’t afford.

As investigative journalist Uri Friedman puts it, for more than 15 years now, the United States has been fighting terrorism with a credit card, “essentially bankrolling the wars with debt, in the form of purchases of U.S. Treasury bonds by U.S.-based entities like pension funds and state and local governments, and by countries like China and Japan.”

War is not cheap, but it becomes outrageously costly when you factor in government incompetence, fraud, and greedy contractors. Indeed, a leading accounting firm concluded that one of the Pentagon’s largest agencies “can’t account for hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of spending.”

Unfortunately, the outlook isn’t much better for the spending that can be tracked.

A government audit found that defense contractor Boeing has been massively overcharging taxpayers for mundane parts, resulting in tens of millions of dollars in overspending. As the report noted, the American taxpayer paid:

$71 for a metal pin that should cost just 4 cents; $644.75 for a small gear smaller than a dime that sells for $12.51: more than a 5,100 percent increase in price. $1,678.61 for another tiny part, also smaller than a dime, that could have been bought within DoD for $7.71: a 21,000 percent increase. $71.01 for a straight, thin metal pin that DoD had on hand, unused by the tens of thousands, for 4 cents: an increase of over 177,000 percent.

That price gouging has become an accepted form of corruption within the American military empire is a sad statement on how little control “we the people” have over our runaway government.

Mind you, this isn’t just corrupt behavior. It’s deadly, downright immoral behavior.

Americans have thus far allowed themselves to be spoon-fed a steady diet of pro-war propaganda that keeps them content to wave flags with patriotic fervor and less inclined to look too closely at the mounting body counts, the ruined lives, the ravaged countries, the blowback arising from ill-advised targeted-drone killings and bombing campaigns in foreign lands, or the transformation of our own homeland into a warzone.

That needs to change.

The U.S. government is not making the world any safer. It’s making the world more dangerous. It is estimated that the U.S. military drops a bomb somewhere in the world every 12 minutes. Since 9/11, the United States government has directly contributed to the deaths of around 500,000 human beings. Every one of those deaths was paid for with taxpayer funds.

The U.S. government is not making America any safer. It’s exposing American citizens to alarming levels of blowback, a CIA term referring to the unintended consequences of the U.S. government’s international activities. Chalmers Johnson, a former CIA consultant, repeatedly warned that America’s use of its military to gain power over the global economy would result in devastating blowback.

The 9/11 attacks were blowback. The Boston Marathon Bombing was blowback. The attempted Times Square bomber was blowback. The Fort Hood shooter, a major in the U.S. Army, was blowback.

The assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani by a U.S. military drone strike will, I fear, spur yet more blowback against the American people.

The war hawks’ militarization of America—bringing home the spoils of war (the military tanks, grenade launchers, Kevlar helmets, assault rifles, gas masks, ammunition, battering rams, night vision binoculars, etc.) and handing them over to local police, thereby turning America into a battlefield—is also blowback.

James Madison was right: “No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” As Madison explained, “Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes… known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.”

We are seeing this play out before our eyes.

The government is destabilizing the economy, destroying the national infrastructure through neglect and a lack of resources, and turning taxpayer dollars into blood money with its endless wars, drone strikes and mounting death tolls.

Clearly, our national priorities are in desperate need of an overhauling.

At the height of its power, even the mighty Roman Empire could not stare down a collapsing economy and a burgeoning military. Prolonged periods of war and false economic prosperity largely led to its demise. As historian Chalmers Johnson predicts:

The fate of previous democratic empires suggests that such a conflict is unsustainable and will be resolved in one of two ways. Rome attempted to keep its empire and lost its democracy. Britain chose to remain democratic and in the process let go its empire. Intentionally or not, the people of the United States already are well embarked upon the course of non-democratic empire.

This is the “unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex” that President Dwight Eisenhower warned us more than 50 years ago not to let endanger our liberties or democratic processes.

Eisenhower, who served as Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe during World War II, was alarmed by the rise of the profit-driven war machine that emerged following the war—one that, in order to perpetuate itself, would have to keep waging war.

We failed to heed his warning.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, there’s not much time left before we reach the zero hour.

It’s time to stop policing the globe, end these wars-without-end, and bring the troops home before it’s too late.

%d bloggers like this: