Russia Defeats ISIS/US

Advertisements

The Lucy Stein Gang Rides Into Moscow

September 18, 2017

by Israel Shamir for the Unz Review

The Lucy Stein Gang Rides Into Moscow

Can the Putin Fans League win municipal elections in New York City? Not bloody likely, you’ll murmur, and probably justifiably so. However, in the municipal elections last week, pro-American forces captured one third of the seats in Moscow. A great shock, slightly mitigated by the media silence that accompanied both the election and its results.

As a rule, I do not dwell much on internal Russian politics (as opposed to foreign relations). They are parochial, obscure and not democratic. That is true for internal politics in every country I am aware of, but in Russia, they aren’t even competitive. Kremlin wiseguys try and fix the results with all the subtleness of Democratic primaries under Ms Debbie Wasserman Schultz. This time they had a seemingly brilliant idea: wouldn’t it be nice if few people would turn up at the election booths? Only those requested to vote? So they had zero publicity, zero announcements, zero TV coverage. People were vaguely aware of the municipal elections but the affair was so low profile that very few cared to attend: slightly over ten per cent of the electorate. The cynical subterfuge flopped badly.

In Moscow (which is the only place in Russia that counts) the three main opposition parties, the Communists and the Nationalists, as well as Kremlin-friendly Socialists, were been decimated. Their votes had been snatched by pro-Western liberals, self-described as “those of good genes”, “the fair-faced ones”, “handshake-worthy”; all these epithets vaguely connected in Russian mind with prosperous Jewishness, of sorts, or with Jewified Soviet nomenclature. The best-known names include Ms Lucy Stein, a young Jewish journalist of some notoriety – she installed plaster copies of her breasts and filmed a staged act of a little boy being roughly treated by Putin’s police. Another one is Mr Maxim Katz, a young Jewish activist – he organized the delivery of flowers to the place of the opposition leader Mr Nemtsov’s assassination, allegedly with some profit for himself.

These youngsters (in their early twenties) have been led by Mr Dmitry Gudkov, a Russian Parliament Member and a son of a Russian Parliament Member. This sounds like the House of Lords, but Gudkov the Senior is an ex-KGB colonel, an oligarch and the owner of a bailiff business, rather than a hereditary peer. Gudkov’s people made a loose coalition with Yabloko (Apple, in Russian), a liberal party of some prominence in the Yeltsin years. They are against Putin’s policies, for the restoration of the Crimea to the Ukraine and for an alliance with the liberal West.

While other parties didn’t give a hoot, the liberals cared to come to the neglected elections, and they delivered their voters to the booths. For that purpose, they imported American technology, and one of Sanders’ operatives, a Russian-born Mr Vitali Shklyarov, who had come to set up what they called “a political Uber”, a web app for fielding candidates and getting voters. In addition, they vastly overspent their competitors.

Democracy in action? Forsooth! This was a clear-cut example of real (as opposed to imaginary) interference in foreign elections. While endless FBI probes have never produced any tangible proof of Russian interference in the US elections, and the Facebook investigation “revealed that it had sold as much as $150,000 in political ads to pro-Kremlin entities between 2015 and 2017”, the US interference in recent Moscow elections had been vast, powerful and effective. The pro-American forces spent over sixty million dollar in Moscow alone by very conservative estimates, and probably much more. And the funds came from abroad.

The very idea of Russian interference in the US elections had been flattering but silly. The Russians are not in the same league, in speaking of political technologies. The Americans are much more masterful, being trained in a competitive environment. The Russians’ only chance to have fair elections is adopting another American technology, namely the active fight against foreign interference. The Kremlin could and should investigate the path of every US buck to the Stein-Katz Gang, and deal with it as harshly as Americans are dealing with imaginary Russian interference. But would they? I doubt it. The wiseguys who mismanaged elections for Kremlin will do all they can to kill the story. No important Russian media carried it, by direct orders from Kremlin.

We have proof to back up our claims of the US interference in the Russian elections: a confession made by the coordinator for Open Russia, a political body created by Mr Michael Khodorkovsky. This oligarch, once the richest man in Russia, did nine years in a Russian jail for massive tax evasion, white-collar crimes, organized crime and conspiracy for murder, as brutal and ruthless a shark as ever swam murky waters of Russian business and politics.

Mr Khodorkovsky had been an American agent of influence for many years. Since being pardoned by President Putin, he moved abroad and became the focal point for the US-led clandestine campaign for regime change in Russia. Together with other exiled (and wanted) oligarchs, Tel Aviv-based Mr Nevzlinand London-based Mr Chichvarkin, Mr Khodorkovsky funnels money to Russia’s pro-Western opposition.

His coordinator Ms Maria Baronova had been quite close to Mr Khodorkovsky but parted with him some time ago. In her Facebook blog she admits that “Gudkov and Katz are a secret project of M. B. Khodorkovsky” while other elements of the opposition are a public project of Mr Khodorkovsky. In other words, the whole campaign has been organized from Washington, or perhaps from Langley.

As we learned from Wikileaks-published State Department cables, this is the current trend of CIA for orchestrating regime change: instead of sending money directly to the opposition with a courier, they employ oligarchs as go-between. This mode has been used in Syria since 2006, as well as in Lebanon, and now is being applied in Moscow.

The winners of the recent municipal elections in Moscow weren’t just the “fair-faced” children of nomenclature, but appointees of the US deep state. They did it using American know-how and American money. This is the real and very successful interference, and the organisers got away with it.

The Russian post-Soviet political system as organized by Putin’s wiseguys should share the blame. The Communists, Nationalists of Mr Zhirinovsky and Socialists of Mr Mironov have been tamed and house-broken so efficiently that they lost their balls, their will power, their desire for victory – and their voters, as well. People stopped to care about them. The ruling party United Russia isn’t better; it is a toothless clone of the toothless CPSU, the late Soviet Union Communist Party that was dismantled by Gorbachev and Yeltsin without a single objection from millions of card-carrying members. It is a party of people who want to have power and its privileges.

The Ukraine had been ruled by a similar Party of the Regions. Led by Mr Victor Yanukovych, the party fell to pieces after the coup, its members deserting the sinking ship as fast as they could. United Russia will also run away in a case of trouble; they will helplessly watch Mr Khodorkovsky enter the gates of the Kremlin and probably applaud him. The United Russia’s 70% of vote is no guarantee of support for Mr Putin’s independent course. It would be better for Putin to rely upon smaller but more reliable and devoted cadres. Lenin used to say, ‘a small anchovy is better than a big cockroach’.

(This is true for other countries, too, as Mr Trump and Mr Corbyn discovered: their big parties just aren’t reliable. A small and reliable party of their dedicated supporters would be a better bet.)

The Kremlin spokesmen comfort themselves and others by stressing very limited powers of the elected deputies. By law, they may deal with municipal questions only. However, it is not unusual for such bodies to reach for more power in a revolutionary situation. In France, in 1789, the elected parliament was intended to be an advisory to the monarch, but very soon it assumed all the powers and chopped off the king’s head. In the USSR, in 1991, the Russian Federation parliament had very few rights being subservient to the Soviet parliament, but it assumed rights and broke up the USSR.

Forget about Mr Navalny. Perhaps we should get used to the idea that the next president of Russia will be called Maxim Katz, and Lucy Stern his Foreign Minister. That is, unless Mr Putin will do a better job at the forthcoming Presidential elections.

Israel Shamir can be reached at adam@israelshamir.net

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

Related Videos

Syria’s Survival Is Blow to Anglozionist’s Empire

Syria’s Survival Is Blow to Jihadists

EDITOR’S CHOICE | 09.09.2017

Syria’s Survival Is Blow to Jihadists

Alastair CROOKE

Syria’s victory in remaining still standing – still on its feet, as it were – amid the ruins of all that has been visited upon her, marks effectively the demise of the Bush Doctrine in the Middle East (of “the New Middle East”). It signals the beginning of the end – not just of the political “regime change” project, but also of the Sunni jihadi project which has been used as the coercive tool for bringing into being a “New Middle East.”

Syrian refugees await the arrival of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon during his visit to the Zaatari Refugee Camp, located near Mafraq, Jordan. The settlement has grown to house nearly 80,000 Syrian refugees since it opened in 2012. March 27, 2016. (Photo from the United Nations)

 

Just as the region has reached a geopolitical inflection point, however, so too, has Sunni Islam. Wahhabi-inspired Islam has taken a major hit. It is now widely discredited amongst Sunnis, and reviled by just about everyone else.

Just to be clear how linked were the two projects:

In the wake of the first Gulf War (1990-91), General Wesley Clark, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander for Europe, recalled: “In 1991, [Paul Wolfowitz] was the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy … And I had gone to see him (…)

“And I said, ‘Mr. Secretary, you must be pretty happy with the performance of the troops in Desert Storm.’

“And he said: ‘Yeah, but not really, because the truth is we should have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein, and we didn’t … But one thing we did learn is that we can use our military in the region?—?in the Middle East?—?and the Soviets won’t stop us. And we’ve got about 5 or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet client regimes?—?Syria, Iran, Iraq?—?before the next great superpower comes on, to challenge us.’”

Wolfowitz’s thinking was then taken up more explicitly by David Wurmser in his 1996 document, Coping with Crumbling States (following on from his contribution to the infamous Clean Break policy strategy paper written by Richard Pearle for Bibi Netanyahu earlier in the same year).  The aim here for both these seminal documents was to directly counter the allegedly “isolationist” thinking of Pat Buchanan (now arisen again in parts of the U.S. New Right and Alt-Right).

Libertarian writer Daniel Sanchez has noted:  “Wurmser characterized regime change in Iraq and Syria (both ruled by Baathist regimes) as ‘expediting the chaotic collapse’ of secular-Arab nationalism in general, and Baathism in particular. He [asserted that] ‘the phenomenon of Baathism,’ was, from the very beginning, ‘an agent of foreign, namely Soviet policy’ … [and therefore advised] the West to put this anachronistic adversary ‘out of its misery’ – and to press America’s Cold War victory on toward its final culmination.  Baathism should be supplanted by what he called the ‘Hashemite option.’ After their chaotic collapse, Iraq and Syria would be Hashemite possessions once again. Both would be dominated by the royal house of Jordan, which in turn, happens to be dominated by the US and Israel.”

Influencing Washington

Wurmser’s tract, Coping with Crumbling States, which together with Clean Break was to have a major impact on Washington’s thinking during the George W. Bush administration (in which David Wurmser also served).  What aroused the deep-seated neocon ire in respect to the secular-Arab nationalist states was not just that they were, in the neo-con view, crumbling relics of the “evil” USSR, but that from 1953 onwards, Russia sided with these secular-nationalist states in all their conflicts regarding Israel. This was something the neo-cons could neither tolerate, nor forgive.

Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, addresses the United Nations General Assembly, Sept. 22, 2016 (UN Photo)

 

Both Clean Break and the 1997 Project for a New American Century (PNAC) were exclusively premised on the wider U.S. policy aim of securing Israel. The point here is that while Wurmser stressed that demolishing Baathism must be the foremost priority in the region, he added: “Secular-Arab nationalism should be given no quarter” – not even, he added, “for the sake of stemming the tide of Islamic fundamentalism”. (Emphasis added).

In fact, America had no interest in stemming the tide of Islamic fundamentalism. The U.S. was using it liberally: It had already sent in armed, fired-up Islamist insurgents into Afghanistan in 1979 precisely in order to “induce” a Soviet invasion (one which subsequently duly occurred).

Asked, much later, in view of the terrorism that subsequently occurred, whether he regretted stoking Islamic extremism in this way, President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor Zbig Brzezinski replied:

“Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, essentially: ‘We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war.’”

Fired-up Sunni radicals have now been used by Western states to counter Nasserism, Ba’athism, the USSR, Iranian influence, and latterly to try to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. One former CIA official in 1999, described the thinking at the time thus:

“In the West, the words Islamic fundamentalism conjure up images of bearded men with turbans and women covered in black shrouds. And some Islamist movements do indeed contain reactionary and violent elements. But we should not let stereotypes blind us to the fact that there are also powerful modernizing forces at work within these movements. Political Islam is about change. In this sense, modern Islamist movements may be the main vehicle for bringing about change in the Muslim world and the break-up of the old ‘dinosaur’ regimes.” (Emphasis added).

Protecting the Emirs

Precisely: This was what the Arab Spring was about. The role allocated to Islamist movements was to break up the nationalist-secular Arab world (Wurmser’s “Secular-Arab nationalism should be given no quarter”), but additionally to protect the kings and Emirs of the Gulf, to whom America was obliged to tie itself – as Wurmser explicitly acknowledges – as the direct counter-party in the project of dissolving the nationalist secular Arab world. The kings and emirs of course, feared the socialism that was associated with Arab nationalism (— as did the Neocons).

Prominent neocon intellectual Robert Kagan. (Photo credit: Mariusz Kubik, http://www.mariuszkubik.pl)

 

Dan Sanchez perceptively writes (well before Russia’s intervention into the Middle East), that Robert Kagan and fellow neocon, Bill Kristol, in their 1996 Foreign Affairs article, Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy, sought to inoculate both the conservative movement and U.S. foreign policy against the isolationism of Pat Buchanan:

“The Soviet menace had recently disappeared, and the Cold War along with it. The neocons were terrified that the American public would therefore jump at the chance to lay their imperial burdens down. Kristol and Kagan urged their readers to resist that temptation, and to instead capitalize on America’s new peerless pre-eminence … [that] must become dominance wherever and whenever possible. That way, any future near-peer competitors would be nipped in the bud, and the new ‘unipolar moment’ would last forever … What made this neocon dream seem within reach, was the indifference of post-Soviet Russia.”

And, the year after the Berlin Wall fell, war against Iraq marked the début of the re-making the Middle East: for America to assert uni-polar power globally (through military bases); to destroy Iraq and Iran; to “roll-back Syria” (as Clean Break had advocated) – and to secure Israel.

Russia Is Back

Well, Russia is back in the Middle East – and Russia is no longer “indifferent” to America’s actions – and now “civil war” has erupted in America between those who want to punish Putin for spoiling America’s unipolar moment in the region so thoroughly, and so finally – with Syria – and the other policy orientation, led by Steve Bannon, which advocates precisely the Buchanan-esque U.S. foreign policy which the neocons had so hoped to despoil (… plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose).

Russian President Vladimir Putin addressing the audience at a concert for Palmyra, Syria, after its liberation from ISIS, via a satellite link on May 5, 2016. (Image from RT’s live-streaming of the event)

 

It is very plain however, that one thing has changed: Sunni jihadists’ long “run” as the tool of choice for re-making the Middle East is over. The signs are everywhere:

The leaders of the five emerging market BRICS powers have for the first time named militant groups based in Pakistan as a regional security concern and called for their patrons to be held to account:

“We, in this regard, express concern on the security situation in the region and violence caused by the Taliban, (Islamic State) …, Al-Qaeda and its affiliates including Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, the Haqqani network, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad, TTP and Hizb ut-Tahrir,” the leaders said in the declaration. (Pakistan and Saudi Arabia will need to take note).

Similarly, an article published in an Egyptian newspaper written by Britain’s Middle East minister, Alistair Burt, suggests that London now whole-heartedly supports the Sisi regime in Egypt in its war on the Muslim Brotherhood. Burt attacked the M.B. for links to extremism, while emphasizing that Britain has imposed an outright ban on any contact with the organization since 2013 – adding that “now is the time for everyone who defends the Brotherhood in London or Cairo to put an end to this confusion and ambiguity.” Not surprisingly, Burt’s remarks have been greeted with profound pleasure in Cairo.

While it is quite true that there were well-intentioned and principled men and women amongst Sunni Islamists who originally had wanted to recover Islam from the doldrums it had found itself by the 1920s (with the abolition of the Caliphate), the fact is (unfortunately), that this same period coincided with the first Saudi king, Abdul Azziz’s notion (enthusiastically supported by Britain) to use fired-up Wahabbism as the means for him to rule all of Arabia. What subsequently happened (ending with the recent violent attacks in European cities) is not so surprising: most of these Islamist movements were tapped in to the Saudi petro-dollar spigot, and to the Wahhabist notion of its own violent exceptionalism (Wahhabism is alone in claiming to be “the one true Islam”).

Politically Instrumental

And as Islam became increasingly instrumentalized politically, so the more violent strain in it, inevitably, became predominant. Inevitably, the spectrum of Sunni Islamist movements – including those viewed as “moderates” – became incrementally closer to Wahhabi intolerant, dogmatic, literalism – and to embracing extremist violence. In practice, even some nominally non-violent movements – including the Muslim Brotherhood – have allied themselves, and fought with, Al-Qaeda forces in Syria, Yemen and elsewhere.

President Donald Trump poses for photos with ceremonial swordsmen on his arrival to Murabba Palace, as the guest of Saudi King Salman, May 20, 2017, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)

 

So, what now: the failure of Wahabbist movements to make political achievements is complete. It seems so short a time since young Muslim men – including ones who had lived their lives in the West – were truly inspired by the very radicalism and the promise of Islamic apocalypse. The Dabiq prophesy (of arriving redemption) then seemed close to fulfillment for these young adherents.  Now that is dust. Wahabbism is thoroughly discredited by its careless brutality. And Saudi Arabia’s claims to political savoir faire, and Islamic authority, has suffered a major blow.

What is less obvious to the outside world is that this blow has been delivered in part by the mostly Sunni Syrian Arab Army. For all the stereotyping and propaganda in the Western world of the Syria conflict as Shi’a versus Sunni, it was Syrian Sunnis who fought – and died – for their Levantine Islamic tradition, against the blown-in, exceptionalist, intolerant, orientation recently brought (post-World War Two) into the Levant from the Saudi Nejd desert (Wahabbism originally arose in the Nejd desert of Saudi Arabia).

In the aftermath of the Syria war and the aftermath of ISIS murderous brutality in Mosul, many Sunnis have had more than enough of this Wahabbi orientation of Islam. There is likely to be a revival of the notion of secular, non-sectarian nationalism in consequence. But also, the traditional Levantine model of a tolerant, more inwardly orientated, quasi-secular, Islam will enjoy a revival.

Whereas fired-up Sunnism used as a political tool may be “down,” radical reformist Sunni Islam, as a sub-culture, is certainly not “out.” Indeed, as the pendulum now swings against Sunni movements globally, the hostility already being generated is very likely to feed the sense of Islam being besieged and attacked; of usurpation of its lands and authority; and of dispossession (of the state, which Sunnis have tradition thought as being “of them”). The puritan, intolerant strain in Islam has been present since the earliest times (Hanbali, Ibn Taymiyya and, in the Eighteenth Century, Abd-el Wahhab), and this orientation always seems to arise at times of crisis within the Islamic world. ISIS may be defeated, but this orientation is never fully defeated, nor disappears completely.

The “victor” in this sub-sphere is Al Qaeda. The latter predicted the failure of ISIS (a physically-situated Caliphate being premature, it argued). Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri has been proved to have been correct in his judgment. Al Qaeda will sweep up the remnants from both ISIS, on one hand, and the angry and disillusioned members of the Muslim Brotherhood, on the other. In a sense, we may see a greater convergence amongst Islamist movements (especially when the Gulf paymasters step back).

We are likely to witness a reversion to Zawahiri’s virtual, global jihad intended to provoke the West, rather than to defeat it militarily – as opposed to any new attempt to seize and control a territorial Emirate.

consortiumnews.com

Qatar needs Jews on its side

On September 5, O’Dwyer, PR magazine reported that Qatar has retained the services of an American Jew public relations firm Stonington Strategy, to lobby for Qatari interests as result of the siege of the oil-rich Sheikhdom by Saudi Arabi and its regional clients.

Qatar government has agreed to pay US$50,000 per month to Canadian-born Jew millionaire Nicholas David Muzin, a Republican political strategist, founded the Stonington Strategy. The firm provided PR services to a number of pro-Israel Republican and Democrat politician and Jewish lobby groups.

Muzin was the driving force behind a coalition of more than 50 pro-Israel groups, including Tea Party, Evangelical and Jewish organizations, to oppose the Iran nuclear deal.

Engagement with Qatar can only be in the best interests of the United States and the Jewish community, as we cannot allow Qatar to be ostracized by its neighbors and pushed into Iran’s sphere of influence,” claimed Muzin.

After Turkish and Kuwait mediation failed to resolve Saudi-Qatar conflict – the Qatari ‘royals’ have come to the conclusion that since Zionist entity is behind the Saudi siege only organized Jewry could get them out of Arab isolation.

Muzin is a close friend and fundraiser for Sen. Ted Cruz. Both view Islamic Iran being greatest threat to Israel due to its support for Assad, Hizbullah and Hamas. Muzin is a former senior adviser to Sen. John McCain.

One of Muzin’s famous client had been Chicago-based Indian-US Hindutva billionaire Shalabh Kumar – the founder-chairman of Republican Hindu Coalition and an ardent Donald Trump, Narendra Modi supporter based on their common hatred toward Muslims. He donated US$1.1 million to Trump presidential campaign.

Muzin will advise Qatar ‘royals’ on ways to build a closer relationship with the United States and improve ties with the Jewish community world-wide. He will explore opportunities for political, cultural and economic cooperation with the US and Israel, especially in the areas of trade, real estate, job creation and technology.

World’s dictators, royals, mass-murderers, and terrorist organizations have long realized that in order to win Israeli and US lawmakers’ favors – they have to sleep in bed with the organized Jewry. Saudi ‘royals’ gave US$16 billion to Israel in order to keep their war on Iran. Paul Kagame, president of Rwanda became Netanyahu’s best African ally in order to whitewash his mass killing of African people. Even Iranian terrorist group MEK has courted American and French Jewish lobby groups.

Western colonists created Arab puppet regimes have always courted American Jewish groups and mass-media not to criticize their hundred-billion-dollars arms purchase from the US, UK and France to defend their illegal dynasties and wage US-Israel’s proxy wars in the Muslim world.

◾Who Rules America? The Power Elite in the Time of Trump

Source

James Petras

Introduction

In the last few months, several competing political, economic and military sectors – linked to distinct ideological and ethnic groups – have clearly emerged at the centers of power.

We can identify some of the key competing and interlocking directorates of the power elite:

1. Free marketers, with the ubiquitous presence of the ‘Israel First’ crowd.

2. National capitalists, linked to rightwing ideologues.

3. Generals, linked to the national security and the Pentagon apparatus, as well as defense industry.

4. Business elites, linked to global capital. This essay attempts to define the power wielders and evaluate their range of power and its impact.

The Economic Power Elite: Israel-Firsters and Wall Street CEO’s

‘Israel Firsters’ dominate the top economic and political positions within the Trump regime and, interestingly, are among the Administration’s most vociferous opponents. These include: the Federal Reserve Chairwoman, Janet Yellen, as well as her Vice-Chair, Stanley Fischer, an Israeli citizen and former (sic) Governor of the Bank of Israel.

Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law and an Orthodox Jew, acts as his top adviser on Middle East Affairs. Kushner, a New Jersey real estate mogul, set himself up as the archenemy of the economic nationalists in the Trump inner circle. He supports every Israeli power and land grab in the Middle East and works closely with David Friedman, US Ambassador to Israel (and fanatical supporter of the illegal Jewish settlements) and Jason Greenblatt, Special Representative for International negotiations. With three Israel-Firsters determining Middle East policy, there is not even a fig leaf of balance.

The Treasury Secretary is Steven Mnuchin, a former Goldman Sachs executive, who leads the neo-liberal free market wing of the Wall Street sector within the Trump regime. Gary Cohn, a longtime Wall Street influential, heads the National Economic Council. They form the core business advisers and lead the neo-liberal anti-nationalist Trump coalition committed to undermining economic nationalist policies.

An influential voice in the Attorney General’s office is Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Robert Mueller the chief investigator, which led to the removal of nationalists from the Trump Administration.

The fairy godfather of the anti-nationalist Mnuchin-Cohn team is Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman Sach’s Chairman. The ‘Three Israel First bankerteers’ are spearheading the fight to deregulate the banking sector, which had ravaged the economy, leading to the 2008 collapse and foreclosure of millions of American homeowners and businesses.

The ‘Israel-First’ free market elite is spread across the entire ruling political spectrum, including ranking Democrats in Congress, led by Senate Minority leader Charles Schumer and the Democratic Head of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff. The Democratic Party Israel Firsters have allied with their free market brethren in pushing for investigations and mass media campaigns against Trump’s economic nationalist supporters and their eventual purge from the administration.

The Military Power Elite: The Generals

The military power elite has successfully taken over from the elected president in major decision-making. Where once the war powers rested with the President and the Congress, today a collection of fanatical militarists make and execute military policy, decide war zones and push for greater militarization of domestic policing. Trump has turned crucial decisions over to those he fondly calls ‘my Generals’ as he continues to dodge accusations of corruption and racism.

Trump appointed Four-Star General James ‘Mad Dog’ Mattis (retired USMC) – a general who led the war in Afghanistan and Iraq – as Secretary of Defense. Mattis (whose military ‘glories’ included bombing a large wedding party in Iraq) is leading the campaign to escalate US military intervention in Afghanistan – a war and occupation that Trump had openly condemned during his campaign. As Defense Secretary, General ‘Mad Dog’ pushed the under-enthusiastic Trump to announce an increase in US ground troops and air attacks throughout Afghanistan. True to his much-publicized nom-de-guerre, the general is a rabid advocate for a nuclear attack against North Korea.

Lieutenant General H. R. McMaster (an active duty Three Star General and long time proponent of expanding the wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan) became National Security Adviser after the purge of Trump’s ally Lt. General Michael Flynn, who opposed the campaign of confrontation and sanctions against Russia and China. McMaster has been instrumental in removing ‘nationalists’ from Trumps administration and joins General ‘Mad Dog’ Mattis in pushing for a greater build-up of US troops in Afghanistan.

Lt. General John Kelly (Retired USMC), another Iraq war veteran and Middle East regime change enthusiast, was appointed White House Chief of Staff after the ouster of Reince Priebus.

The Administration’s Troika of three generals share with the neoliberal Israel First Senior Advisors to Trump, Stephen Miller and Jared Kushner, a deep hostility toward Iran and fully endorse Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s demand that the 2015 Nuclear Accord with Tehran be scrapped.

Trump’s military directorate guarantees that spending for overseas wars will not be affected by budget cuts, recessions or even national disasters.

The ‘Generals’, the Israel First free marketers and the Democratic Party elite lead the fight against the economic nationalists and have succeeded in ensuring that Obama Era military and economic empire building would remain in place and even expand.

The Economic Nationalist Elite

The leading strategist and ideologue of Trump’s economic nationalist allies in the White House was Steve Bannon. He had been chief political architect and Trump adviser during the electoral campaign. Bannon devised an election campaign favoring domestic manufacturers and American workers against the Wall Street and multinational corporate free marketers. He developed Trump’s attack on the global trade agreements, which had led to the export of capital and the devastation of US manufacturing labor.

Equally significant, Bannon crafted Trumps early public opposition to the generals’ 15-year trillion-dollar intervention in Afghanistan and the even more costly series of wars in the Middle East favored by the Israel-Firsters, including the ongoing proxy-mercenary war to overthrow the secular nationalist government of Syria.

Within 8 month of Trump’s administration, the combined forces of the free market economic and military elite, the Democratic Party leaders, overt militarists in the Republican Party and their allies in the mass media succeeded in purging Bannon – and marginalized the mass support base for his ‘America First’ economic nationalist and anti-‘regime change’ agenda.

The anti-Trump ‘alliance’ will now target the remaining few economic nationalists in the administration. These include: the CIA Director Mike Pompeo, who favors protectionism by weakening the Asian and NAFTA trade agreements and Peter Navarro, Chairman of the White House Trade Council. Pompeo and Navarro face strong opposition from the ascendant neoliberal Zionist troika now dominating the Trump regime.

In addition, there is Secretary of Commerce, Wilbur Ross, a billionaire and former director of Rothschild Inc., who allied with Bannon in threatening import quotas to address the massive US trade deficit with China and the European Union.

Another Bannon ally is US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer a former military and intelligence analyst with ties to the newsletter Breitbart. He is a strong opponent of the neoliberal, globalizers in and out of the Trump regime.

‘Senior Adviser’ and Trump speechwriter, Stephen Miller actively promotes the travel ban on Muslims and stricter restrictions on immigration. Miller represents the Bannon wing of Trump’s zealously pro-Israel cohort.

Sebastian Gorka, Trump’s Deputy Assistant in military and intelligence affairs, was more an ideologue than analyst, who wrote for Breitbart and rode to office on Bannon’s coat tails. Right after removing Bannon, the ‘Generals’ purged Gorka in early August on accusations of ‘anti-Semitism’.

Whoever remains among Trump’s economic nationalists are significantly handicapped by the loss of Steve Bannon who had provided leadership and direction. However, most have social and economic backgrounds, which also link them to the military power elite on some issues and with the pro-Israel free marketers on others. However, their core beliefs had been shaped and defined by Bannon.

The Business Power Elite

Exon Mobile CEO Rex Tillerson, Trump’s Secretary of State and former Texas Governor Rick Perry, Energy Secretary lead the business elite. Meanwhile, the business elite associated with US manufacturing and industry have little direct influence on domestic or foreign policy. While they follow the Wall Street free marketers on domestic policy, they are subordinated to the military elite on foreign policy and are not allied with Steve Bannon’s ideological core.

Trump’s business elite, which has no link to the economic nationalists in the Trump regime, provides a friendlier face to overseas economic allies and adversaries.

Analysis and Conclusion

The power elite cuts across party affiliations, branches of government and economic strategies. It is not restricted to either political party, Republican or Democratic. It includes free marketers, some economic nationalists, Wall Street power brokers and militarists. All compete and fight for power, wealth and dominance within this administration. The correlation of forces is volatile, changing rapidly in short periods of time – reflecting the lack of cohesion and coherence in the Trump regime.

Never has the US power elite been subject to such monumental changes in composition and direction during the first year of a new regime.

During the Obama Presidency, Wall Street and the Pentagon comfortably shared power with Silicon Valley billionaires and the mass media elite. They were united in pursuing an imperial ‘globalist’ strategy, emphasizing multiple theaters of war and multi-lateral free trade treaties, which was in the process of reducing millions of American workers to permanent helotry.

With the inauguration of President Trump, this power elite faced challenges and the emergence of a new strategic configuration, which sought drastic changes in US political economic and military policy.

The architect of the Trump’s campaign and strategy, Steve Bannon, sought to displace the global economic and military elite with his alliance of economic nationalists, manufacturing workers and protectionist business elites. Bannon pushed for a major break from Obama’s policy of multiple permanent wars to expanding the domestic market. He proposed troop withdrawal and the end of US military operations in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq, while increasing a combination of economic, political and military pressure on China. He sought to end sanctions and confrontation against Moscow and fashion economic ties between the giant energy producers in the US and Russia.

While Bannon was initially the chief strategist in the White House, he quickly found himself faced with powerful rivals inside the regime, and ardent opponents among Democratic and Republican globalists and especially from the Zionist – neoliberals who systematically maneuvered to win strategic economic and policy positions within the regime. Instead of being a coherent platform from which to formulate a new radical economic strategy, the Trump Administration was turned into a chaotic and vicious ‘terrain for struggle’. The Bannon’s economic strategy barely got off the ground.

The mass media and operatives within the state apparatus, linked to Obama’s permanent war strategy, first attacked Trump’s proposed economic reconciliation with Russia. To undermine any ‘de-escalation’, they fabricated the Russian spy and election manipulation conspiracy. Their first successful shots were fired at Lt. General Michael Flynn, Bannon’s ally and key proponent for reversing the Obama/Clinton policy of military confrontation with Russia. Flynn was quickly destroyed and openly threatened with prosecution as a ‘Russian agent’ in whipped-up hysteria that resembled the heydays of Senator Joseph McCarthy.

Key economic posts in the Trump regime were split between the Israel-Firster neoliberals and the economic nationalists. The ‘Deal Maker’ President Trump attempted to harness Wall Street-affiliated neoliberal Zionists to the economic nationalists, linked to Trump’s working class electoral base, in formulating new trade relations with the EU and China, which would favor US manufacturers. Given the irreconcilable differences between these forces, Trump’s naïve ‘deal’ weakened Bannon, undermined his leadership and wrecked his nationalist economic strategy.

While Bannon had secured several important economic appointees, the Zionist neoliberals undercut their authority. The Fischer-Mnuchin-Cohn cohort successfully set a competing agenda.

The entire Congressional elite from both parties united to paralyze the Trump-Bannon agenda. The giant corporate mass media served as a hysterical and rumor-laden megaphone for zealous Congressional and FBI investigators magnifying every nuance of Trump’s US Russia relations in search of conspiracy. The combined state-Congressional and Media apparatus overwhelmed the unorganized and unprepared mass base of Bannon electoral coalition which had elected Trump.

Thoroughly defeated, the toothless President Trump retreated in desperate search for a new power configuration, turning his day-to-day operations over to ‘his generals’. The elected civilian President of the United States embraced his generals’ pursuit of a new military-globalist alliance and escalation of military threats foremost against North Korea, but including Russia and China. Afghanistan was immediately targeted for an expanded intervention.

Trump effectively replaced Bannon’s economic nationalist strategy with a revival Obama’s multi-war military approach.

The Trump regime re-launched the US attacks on Afghanistan and Syria –exceeding Obama’s use of drone attacks on suspected Muslim militants. He intensified sanctions against Russia and Iran, embraced Saudi Arabia’s war against the people of Yemen and turned the entire Middle East policy over to his ultra-Zionist Political Advisor (Real Estate mogul and son-in-law) Jared Kushner and US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman.

Trump’s retreat turned into a grotesque rout. The Generals embraced the neoliberal Zionists in Treasury and the Congressional global militarists. Communication Directory Anthony Scaramucci was fired. Trump’s Chief of Staff General Joe Kelly purged Steve Bannon. Sebastian Gorka was kicked out.

The eight months of internal struggle between the economic nationalists and the neoliberals has ended: The Zionist-globalist alliance with Trump’s Generals now dominate the Power Elite.

Trump is desperate to adapt to the new configuration, allied to his own Congressional adversaries and the rabidly anti-Trump mass media.

Having all but decimated Trump’s economic nationalists and their program, the Power Elite then mounted a series of media-magnified events centering around a local punch-out in Charlottesville, Virginia between ‘white supremacists’ and ‘anti-fascists’. After the confrontation led to death and injury, the media used Trump’s inept attempt to blame both ‘baseball bat’-wielding sides, as proof of the President’s links to neo-Nazis and the KKK. Neoliberal and Zionists, within the Trump administration and his business councils, all joined in the attack on the President, denouncing his failure to immediately and unilaterally blame rightwing extremists for the mayhem.

Trump is turning to sectors of the business and Congressional elite in a desperate attempt to hold onto waning support via promises to enact massive tax cuts and deregulate the entire private sector.

The decisive issue was no longer over one policy or another or even strategy. Trump had already lost on all accounts. The ‘final solution’ to the problem of the election of Donald Trump is moving foreword step-by-step – his impeachment and possible arrest by any and all means.

What the rise and destruction of economic nationalism in the ‘person’ of Donald Trump tells us is that the American political system cannot tolerate any capitalist reforms that might threaten the imperial globalist power elite.

Writers and activists used to think that only democratically elected socialist regimes would be the target of systematic coup d’état. Today the political boundaries are far more restrictive. To call for ‘economic nationalism’, completely within the capitalist system, and seek reciprocal trade agreements is to invite savage political attacks, trumped up conspiracies and internal military take-overs ending in ‘regime change’.

The global-militarist elite purge of economic nationalists and anti-militarists was supported by the entire US left with a few notable exceptions. For the first time in history the left became an organizational weapon of the pro-war, pro-Wall Street, pro-Zionist Right in the campaign to oust President Trump. Local movements and leaders, notwithstanding, trade union functionaries, civil rights and immigration politicians, liberals and social democrats have joined in the fight for restoring the worst of all worlds: the Clinton-Bush-Obama/Clinton policy of permanent multiple wars, escalating confrontations with Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela and Trump’s deregulation of the US economy and massive tax-cuts for big business.

We have gone a long-way backwards: from elections to purges and from peace agreements to police state investigations. Today’s economic nationalists are labeled ‘fascists’; and displaced workers are ‘the deplorables’!

Americans have a lot to learn and unlearn. Our strategic advantage may reside in the fact that political life in the United States cannot get worse – we really have touched bottom and (barring a nuclear war) we can only look up.

-###-

James Petras is the author of four volume study of US – Israeli relations. The most recent is: The Politics of Empire: The US, Israel and the Middle East

Israel is isolated, while Iran is expanding After Turkey….Iranian – Saudi relationships «إسرائيل» منعزلة وإيران تتوسّع بعد تركيا… علاقات إيرانية سعودية

سبتمبر 6, 2017

Written by Nasser Kandil,

The Arab analysts, writers, and experts have always dealt with a constant that they are confident of its validity; when Israel asks for something form Washington or from Moscow it will surely get it. This equation is an outcome of the Israeli power period, and some are still seeing it valid despite the outgoing variables in the region, many of those link the US policy with the assumption that the priority will remain the superiority of Israel and its status as the power that has the upper hand, and that the Israeli security is the compass of the US policies, ignoring the limited options in front of Washington, and ignoring the difference between the wishes and the capacities, despite the meaningful sign of the US signature on the understanding about the Iranian nuclear file and  despite the Israeli noise which reached the extent of saying in front of the Congress that you try to avoid security threat while we are facing existential threat. The Israeli endeavors did not succeed in changing the US position, not because it abandoned Israel, however because the options are limited and doomed between either to sign on the understanding or to go to the comprehensive war.

Regarding Russia, those themselves have interpreted and explained the talk about Russian-Israeli coordination in the Syrian airspaces by giving it dimensions that sometimes related to the illusion of the Russian consensus on the Israeli raids that targeted as the Israelis said Hezbollah or the Syrian army. They miss the question; does this mean that the response of Hezbollah to the raids was Shebaa Farms process under Russian satisfaction or Russian objection, the same as the Syrian responses to Israel by launching qualitative missiles to target its attacking plane, or by firing shells that target the Israeli sites in the occupied Golan, were they under Russian satisfaction or Russian objection. If the movements of Hezbollah and Syria have been implemented by Russian satisfaction then this would have led to the fall of  the illusion of the status which those suppose that it is the status of Israel at Russia, but if it met Russian objection where neither Hezbollah nor Syria have made any consideration for it, and if this did not affect Moscow’s decision of the qualitative cooperation with Syria and Hezbollah in the battles in which the Russian participation was decisive as the battle of the liberation of Aleppo then this means that the objection was formal or it was out of the awareness of the limited ability to influence on one hand, and the priority of the cooperation with Syria and Hezbollah as a higher Russian interest to the Israeli demands. In both cases Israel will not get what it wants from Russia to have the security which it wants in Syria either from the Syrian side or regarding the future of Hezbollah’s role. Either because Russia is satisfied with what is needed by the Syrians and Hezbollah, or because it is not satisfied and cannot do anything, or because what must be done exposes its alliance with Syria, Hezbollah, and Iran to risks that affect its higher interests which are superior to the status of the Israeli considerations.

The Israeli press and the published comments in it about the Israeli red lines and the visits to Washington and Moscow are full of positions which expect the Israeli failure, the time has passed in which the Israeli force was a well-considered part, and the seeking was to appease it, so it has either to save itself and to get involved in unbearable war or to listen to the advice of the Russian President to the Head of the occupation government to be ready for a new scene in the region in which Hezbollah forms a natural part of the regional scene and to adapt with the idea of the coexistence with this fact, as the Arabs who were complaining from the risk of Israel during fifty years listened to those who say to them that they have to be ready to accept the idea that Israel is a new regional player in the region and have to adapt with the idea of the coexistence with this reality.

Versus this Israeli isolation Iran expands, it witnesses the rising of its allies in Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon, its relation with Turkey becomes rooted, it based on common concepts of the national security after the fall of the Turkish bet on overthrowing Syria and the emergence of the dangers of the infection of the Kurdish secession. Saudi Arabia which was putting Iran as enemy and a target for escalation and mobilization is exchanging with Iran diplomatic missions to check the embassies and the consulates and their needs in order to reopen them after Al Adha Eid as the Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Jayad Zarif said. This matter is not simple or easy or routine.

The five seas region which formed the thesis of the Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad for a regional system without Israel and which includes the countries which overlook the Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea, the Red Sea, the Arabian Sea and the Caspian Sea, not the Middle East is the system under formation and it is winning. Israel is under siege, so will some of those who are convinced of the Israeli arrogance believe that this might happen?

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

إسرائيل» منعزلة وإيران تتوسّع بعد تركيا… علاقات إيرانية سعودية

ناصر قنديل

أغسطس 24, 2017

– دأب المحللون والكتاب والخبراء العرب على التعامل مع ثابتة يثقون بصوابها، وهي أنّ «إسرائيل» عندما تطلب شيئاً من واشنطن أو من موسكو فهي ستحصل عليه حكماً، والمعادلة ناتجة عن زمن القوة «الإسرائيلية» ولا يزال البعض يراها صالحة، رغم المتغيّرات الجارية في المنطقة، وكثير من هؤلاء يربط السياسة الأميركية بافتراض أنّ الأولوية ستبقي تفوّق «إسرائيل» ومكانتها كصاحبة يد عليا، وأنّ الأمن «الإسرائيلي» بوصلة للسياسات الأميركية متجاهلين الخيارات المحدودة أمام واشنطن، ومتجاهلين الفرق بين الرغبات والقدرات، رغم ما مرّ أمام أعينهم من إشارة بالغة المغزى مع التوقيع الأميركي على التفاهم حول الملف النووي الإيراني، رغم الصخب والضجيج «الإسرائيلي» الذي بلغ حدّ القول أمام الكونغرس، أنتم تسعون لتفادي تهديد أمني، لكننا نواجه تهديداً وجودياً، ولم تفلح المساعي «الإسرائيلية» بتغيير الموقف الأميركي، ليس تخلياً عن «إسرائيل» بل لأنّ الخيارات محدودة، ومحكومة بين حدّي التوقيع على التفاهم أو الذهاب للحرب الشاملة.

– بالنسبة لروسيا ذهب هؤلاء أنفسهم لتأويلات وتفسيرات رافقت الحديث عن تنسيق روسي «إسرائيلي» في الأجواء السورية بمنحه أبعاداً تتصل أحياناً بالتوهّم بموافقة روسية على الغارات «الإسرائيلية» التي استهدفت، كما قال «الإسرائيليون» حزب الله، أو تلك التي استهدفت الجيش السوري، وفاتهم التساؤل هل هذا يعني أنّ ردّ حزب الله على الغارات بعملية مزارع شبعا كان برضى روسي أم لاقى اعتراضاً روسياً، ومثله الردود السورية على «إسرائيل» سواء بإطلاق صواريخ نوعية وراء طائراتها المغيرة، أو بإطلاق قذائف تستهدف المواقع «الإسرائيلية» في الجولان المحتلّ، هل كانت برضى روسي أم لاقت اعتراضاً روسياً. فإنّ كانت حركة حزب الله وسورية قد تمّت برضا روسي، فهذا يسقط وهم المكانة التي يفترض هؤلاء بأنها لـ«إسرائيل» لدى روسيا، وإنْ لاقت اعتراضاً روسياً ولم تقم له سورية وحزب الله حساباً، ولم يؤثر ذلك على قرار موسكو بالتعاون النوعي من جانب روسيا مع سورية وحزب الله في معارك كانت المشاركة الروسية فيها حاسمة للفوز بها كمعركة تحرير حلب، فهذا يعني أنّ الاعتراض كان شكلياً، أو أنه نابع من إدراك محدودية القدرة على التأثير من جهة، ومن جهة مقابلة على أولوية التعاون مع سورية وحزب الله كمصلحة روسية عليا، على مراعاة الطلبات «الإسرائيلية». وفي الحالين لن تنال «إسرائيل» ما تبغيه من روسيا للحصول على الأمان الذي تريده في سورية، سواء من جانب الدولة السورية أو لجهة مستقبل دور حزب الله، إما لأنّ روسيا راضية عما يريده السوريون وحزب الله، أو لأنها غير راضية ولا تستطيع فعل شيء، أو لأنّ الشيء الذي يجب أن تفعله يعرّض حلفها مع سورية وحزب الله وإيران لمخاطر تطال مصالحها العليا المتفوّقة على مكانة الحسابات «الإسرائيلية» بالنسبة لروسيا.

– الصحافة «الإسرائيلية» والتعليقات المنشورة فيها عن خطوط «إسرائيل» الحمراء، والزيارات لواشنطن وموسكو، تحفل بالمواقف التي تتوقع الفشل «الإسرائيلي» في سماع ما يرغب مسؤولوها سماعه، فقد ولّى زمن القوة «الإسرائيلية» الذي كان يجعلها جهة يُحسب حسابها، ويتمّ السعي لاسترضائها، وبين أن تسعى لقلع أشواكها بأيديها وتتورّط في حروب لا طاقة عليها، أو أن تستمع لما قيل إنّها نصيحة الرئيس الروسي لرئيس حكومة الاحتلال، بالاستعداد لمشهد جديد في المنطقة يشكل حزب الله فيه جزءاً طبيعياً من المشهد الإقليمي، والتأقلم مع فكرة التعايش مع هذه الحقيقة، بمثل ما كان على العرب الشاكين من خطر «إسرائيل» خلال خمسين عاماً، أن يستمعوا لمن يقول لهم، إنّ عليهم الاستعداد لتقبّل فكرة أنّ «إسرائيل» لاعب إقليمي جديد في المنطقة، وعليهم التأقلم مع فكرة التعايش مع هذه الحقيقة.

مقابل هذه العزلة «الإسرائيلية»، تتوسّع إيران، فهي بلا شك تشهد صعود حلفائها في سورية والعراق ولبنان، وتتجذّر علاقتها بتركيا، وتتأسّس على مفاهيم مشتركة للأمن القومي بعد سقوط الرهان التركي على إسقاط سورية وظهور مخاطر عدوى الانفصال الكردي. والسعودية التي كانت تضع إيران عدواً وهدفاً للتصعيد والتحشيد، تتبادل مع إيران بعد عيد الأضحى، كما قال وزير الخارجية الإيراني محمد جواد ظريف، بعثات دبلوماسية لتفقد السفارات والقنصليات واحتياجاتها تمهيداً لإعادة فتحها، وهو أمر ليس بالبسيط ولا بالعابر ولا بالروتيني.

– منطقة البحار الخمسة، التي شكّلت أطروحة الرئيس السوري بشار الأسد لمنظومة إقليمية بلا «إسرائيل»، تضمّ الدول المطلة على البحر المتوسط والبحر الأسود والبحر الأحمر وبحر العرب وبحر قزوين، وليس الشرق الأوسط، هي منظومة قيد التشكّل وتنتصر، وفي المقابل تقع «إسرائيل» في الحصار، فهل سيصدّق بعض المأخوذين بخرافة الجبروت «الإسرائيلي» بإمكانية حدوث ذلك؟

 

Related Videos

More

Related Articles

Ikhras Shoe-Of-The-Month Award Winner – August 2017

Source

UAEAmb_edited-1

The Ikhras awards committee is pleased to announce the Muntadhar Zaidi Ikhras Shoe-Of-The-Month for August, 2017 is awarded to the UAE’s ambassador to the United States, Yousef al-Otaiba. Otaiba, who is proudly marketing himself as the new Arab face of the emerging GCC-Israel alliance, is proving to be a hawkish actor at the behest of Israel’s most aggressive lobbying groups. The UAE ambassador, son of the country’s first oil minister, avoids all mention of Palestine and centers his policy remarks around how the UAE can best serve the interests of U.S. imperialism and the usurping Zionist entity. What Otaiba’s actions and recently leaked emails further prove is not only is there a budding plot against Iran, Syria and the region, but that GCC actors will work tirelessly with the Zionist lobby behind closed doors in order to sacrifice the Palestinians and liquidate the Palestine cause.

Far from bring the powerful diplomat wielding influence in Washington, as U.S. beneficiaries (journalists, “think-tankers” and lobbyists) of his largess often describe him, Otaiba is little more than a filthy pimp-turned-mouthpiece for a tyrannical, repressive regime presiding over a mini-state with no real geopolitical influence.

In the grand scheme of International relations, the ambassador of any state does not determine foreign policy in the host country. He or she functions as the representative of his government and oversees official diplomatic relations. The interests of the U.S. ruling class, internal foreign policy determinants of the U.S. regime and the global balance of power remain the determining factors upon which U.S. foreign policy and bilateral relations can be analyzed and understood. When it comes to a tiny, subordinate Arab Sheikhdom like the UAE, which is entirely subservient and beholden to its imperialist masters, the alleged charisma and interpersonal skills of the ambassador become even less relevant.

Nevertheless, this has not prevented “Brotaiba”, as he’s known at the U.S. State Department, from spending lavishly on Washington DC “thinks tanks”, journalists, lobbyists, and extravagant dinner parties.

But if the power and influence of a country is measured by the number of parties hosted by its ambassador or the media attention he garners, the People’s Republic of China is an irrelevant city-state ruled by a single Arab family with no significant role or influence on the global stage.

The fawning media coverage of Otaiba in the U.S. resembles the coverage former Saudi Arabian Ambassador Bandar Bin-Sultan used to receive. But in contrast with Bandar, who came across as a rehearsed Arab buffoon mimicking the White Man, Otaiba has a natural American demeanor, speaks English with ease, and is far more comfortable among the political and media elites. Back in the UAE, his ability to oversee a well-funded promotional campaign for the Al-Nahyan family regime and host lavish dinner parties makes him a shrewd political operative. And for the ignorant royals that employ him, Otaiba’s mastery of American clichés, mannerisms and idiosyncrasies qualify him as an intellectual of the highest caliber.

Numerous Ikhras readers have nominated Otaiba for the Shoe-Of-The-Month. He has partly earned this award for coordination with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), a thoroughly pro-Israel think-tank funded by Sheldon Adelson. In leaked emails authored by FDD CEO Mark Dubowitz, sent to Otaiba and FFD Senior Counselor John Hannah, who served as national security advisor to Dick Cheney, there is a discussion of how the UAE could target Iran by pressuring companies investing in the country. “This is a target list for putting these companies to a choice, as we have discussed,” the email read in part.

In numerous email exchanges to Otaiba there is talk of a larger campaign against Iran which would use “U.S./UAE policies to positively impact Iranian internal situation” in order to “contain and defeat Iranian aggression“. Hannah even complains to Otaiba, who is considered to be somewhat of a lavish celebrity in national security circles, about HAMAS after learning that members of the organization will be hosted in an Emirati hotel. Otaiba responds by throwing blame on the U.S. military base in Qatar, writing “How’s this, you move the base then we’ll move the hotel 🙂.”

The leaked exchanges between Otaiba and officials from the FDD show clear intentions as to destabilizing Iran in order to bolster both the U.S. and Israel’s hegemony in the region, with Gulf monarchs working as offense and, as usual, providing the funding.

Otaiba has also advocated for a direct, all-out U.S. war on Syria to topple the government and punish the fiercely independent and stubbornly anti-imperialist Arab state for refusing to accept the same subservient role the GCC regimes embrace and was on grotesque display during Donald Trump’s recent visit to Saudi Arabia.

Otaiba has also been emphasizing that new leaders in the GCC will work to liquidate the Palestine cause under the guise of a comprehensive Arab-Israeli “peace” settlement: “I think the region needs this,” Yousef al-Otaiba, the United Arab Emirates ambassador to Washington, said in an interview. “If we can make a breakthrough on this right now, it would be a game changer for the region.

Otaiba and the royals that employ him do not speak for the Palestinians and the Arab world. And despite their delusions of power and influence, they will remain irrelevant vassals unable to deliver on the promises they’ve made to their American masters and Israeli allies. Otaiba has wholeheartedly accepted his role as a leading proponent of Arab collaboration with Israel and works tirelessly to foster close ties to the pro-Israel lobby on behalf of the GCC regimes, a role for which his previous experience as a pimp prepared him well and earned him the August 2017 Ikhras Shoe-Of-The-Month.

***

mont

Ikhras awards the Muntadhar Zaidi Shoe Of The Month to the House Arab or Muslim individual or organization whose behavior that month best exemplifies the behavior of what Malcolm X described, in the language of his own time, as the “house negro” (see video). The award is named in honor of the brave Iraqi journalist Muntadhar Zaidi who threw his shoes at war criminal George W. Bush at a time House Arabs and Muslims were dining with him at the White House and inviting him to their mosques. Arab dictators, political and religious leaders, assorted traitors and puppets of the empire are also qualified to enter the shoe of the month competition based on their own subservience to U.S.-led global imperialism and normalization with Zionism. Contest guidelines include the “James Zogby Rule” which prohibits any one individual or organization from winning the award more than three times a year. Ikhras encourages readers to submit their own nominations.

%d bloggers like this: