Yemeni Army, Allies Target, Kill Saudi-led Forces in Marib

Yemeni Army, Allies Target, Kill Saudi-led Forces in Marib

By Staff, Agencies

Yemeni army forces and allied fighters from Popular Committees launched a missile strike against a position of Saudi-led militants in Yemen’s strategic central province of Marib, killing and wounding scores of them.

Yemeni military sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Lebanon-based and Arabic-language al-Mayadeen television news network that the missile struck with precision a gathering of Saudi-led military commanders and officers in the so-called Third Military Region of Marib on Thursday.

The sources added that a number of senior Saudi-led mercenaries were killed and wounded as a result.

Earlier in the day, an unnamed source said the Yemeni military forces and Popular Committees fighters had repelled an attack by Saudi-backed militants loyal to Yemen’s former president Abd Rabbuh Mansur against al-Zour area in the Sirwah district.

The source noted that a number of military vehicles belonging to Hadi loyalists and Saudi-led militants were destroyed, adding that several pro-Hadi militants and Saudi mercenaries were killed and injured as well.

The source said the Yemeni armed forces and their allies have purged the desert area of al-Jadafir, which lies between Marib and the northeastern Yemeni province of al-Jawf, of pro-Hadi and Saudi-led coalition forces following fierce clashes.

Saudi Arabia and a number of its regional allies launched the war on Yemen in March 2015, with the attempt to bring Hadi’s government back to power and crushing the Ansarullah revolutionary movement.

According to the United Nations, 80 percent of Yemen’s 30 million people need some form of aid or protection. About 13.5 million Yemenis currently face acute food insecurity, UN data shows.

Related Videos

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

Problems of the new US foreign policy (4) إشكاليات السياسة الخارجية الأميركية الجديدة (4)

 Researcher and political economist and 
former Secretary General of the
 Arab National Congress

 Ziad Hafez

Part four : Some files in the Arab world

We will enter here to some of the intertwined files related to the Arab world though each separate file has its own reasons. But the intertwining of history and geography makes it difficult to approach the files independently of one another. The new administration, like all previous administrations, looks at the various arenas from a geostrategic perspective and not as separate files, although in some cases it is necessary to divide the matter because of the difficulties facing US politics.

The files of Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya and Lebanon are what concern us in the first degree because they are the arenas of the ongoing struggle in the region. The question we are asking is what can the United States do? In this context, it must be recalled that the line of the American role is a regressive line. After the failure of direct military engagement in the region through the faltering American project in Iraq and the emergence of the Baker-Hamilton Committee, which imposed a reconsideration of the way in dealing with the countries of the region, the Barack Obama era had launched the theory of smart force or proxy war. The exploitation of the Arab peoples’ resentment against their rulers was through the so-called Arab Spring. The bet was that changing the regimes in the countries loyal to the United States and enabling moderate Islamic groups from Turkey to Morocco to establish a solid base for an American century in the Arab world. But the stubbornness in dealing with Syria, contributed to the stumbling of the project in Egypt, led to the global war, still going against Syria. However, the steadfastness of the Syrian Arab Army and the people gathered around its leadership thwarted the American project in Syria.

The Trump era was an extension of Obama’s policy, with his repeated calls for the withdrawal of American forces, which the deep state had opposed. The statements of the former US envoy in charge of the Syrian file, James Jeffrey, acknowledge that US President Donald Trump was defrauded to thwart the attempts to withdraw American forces from eastern and northeastern Syria. Today, Jeffrey, in an article in « Foreign Affairs », calls on President Biden to continue the policy of sanctions and starvation against Syria and to make Syria a swamp to drain Russia, as happened in Afghanistan in the eighties of the past century. The goal was and remains to overthrow the regime and topple President Assad. So the law of Caesar, to strangle Syria economically and prevent the re-reconstruction. But all of this did not lead to the desired results . So what next?  If the direct engagement has failed to achieve its goals despite the occupation of Iraq and the overthrow of the regime, and if the United States global war on Syria failed  by proxy, what remained in the American arsenal ? More of force, or review of that policy?  The steadfastness of the Syrian people, gathered around their leadership and army, was not taken into consideration. 
In our estimation, we do not believe that the new administration will be able to frustrate the will of the people to withstand and reject the military dictates. The day will also come for the conviction of the various ruling elites in the Arab world that what the US administration wants or does has no value. What is important is what Arab societies do, and the focus is on what they want without concern for the opinion of others.

Biden backs down in front of Syria as Obama?

The tendency of the nominated officials to put more pressure on Syria through supporting the fanatic armed groups, and the “SDF” is not new and the balance of power in the field negates the effectiveness of that policy. Moreover the severe internal division, the United States cannot justify direct involvement as compensation for the failure of the proxy war.

In this context, we refer to an interview conducted by Secretary of State Anthony Blinken with Michael Morrell, former Director-General of the Central (CIA) on the program “Intelligence Matters” (Intelligence Matters) broadcast by the American “CBSB” station (which confirms the organic relationship between intelligence and corporate media!. This interview, conducted in late 2020, reflect the biblical role of the United States in preserving the empire and manifested destiny that confirms its exceptionalism. In that interview, he said that there is a need not to directly implicate US forces in what he called “permanent wars,” but this does not prevent “limited operations” carried out by the Special Forces to support local agents in their implementation of the required agendas. Here, the “SDF” will receive military support from the United States. What supports Blinken’s position is the statement of Trey McGurk, who succeeded James Jeffrey. Terry McGurk resigned in 2019 from his duties in following up the Syrian file, when Trump expressed his desire to withdraw the American forces from Syria. McGurk wants more American military presence in Syria. In recent weeks, we have witnessed the return of ISIS cells in the Badia, the attempts to sabotage reconciliation in southern Syria, and the provocative operations of the “SDF” forces in the northeast of Syria. All of this happened after the presidential elections and before Biden assumed the reins of power, but these measures have the approval of Secretary of State Blinken and are indicative of their continuation. On the other hand, and in the context of trying to polish the image of the United States, there is talk in the American corridors about the possibility of an implicit understanding for Russia to hand over the Syrian file to ensure the security of the Zionist entity. If the Russian initiative succeeds in securing the entity’s security, that means not supporting the strategy and objectives of the Axis of Resistance, then this is a gain for the United States and the entity. And if those efforts falter, then for every incident there is a talk and the implicit understanding is disavowed. In our opinion, all these attempts only indicate the inability of the United States to initiate and change its backward trend in the region. There is no evidence that Russia will accept the “mission,” nor is there any indication that the Syrian state will respond to this initiative. The question becomes of able to bear more attrition? The American bet is that the endurance of the Syrian state is limited, and thus it will resort to making “concessions” to stop the economic and social deterioration, and these “concessions” will bring about the “desired change” by the Americans and Zionists. On the other hand, however, the new administration cannot change the balance of power on the ground if the Syrian state proceeds to complete the restoration of the occupied territories in the north and east. Syria has allies who were and still committed to defending Syria defend Syria .

There are those who believe that any settlement with Iran will inevitably lead to “breakthroughs” in the Syrian file, without specifying what the breakthroughs are. They may think that it is due to some amendments to the constitution and the change in the top of the pyramid, but all of this are just wishes that are not based on material facts. Syria is not an instrument of the Islamic Republic, but an ally of it, and it has its own independent decision. Syria, which rejected the dictates of Colin Powell at the height of the American arrogance in the occupation of Iraq, will not bow to America, which hit the weakness and is on the threshold of decline because of the division of internal and because of the lack of ability to Expansion and impose its hegemony .

Do you return Rumsfeld’s theory ?

The Syrian, Libyan, Yemeni and Iraqi tension was the work of the Obama administration, in which Biden was a key partner. Does the latter pursue a different policy? Evidence to date indicates that Donald Rumsfeld’s theory is what controls the minds of the American elites, including the new administration: If force fails to achieve the goals, the solution is more power. During their tenure in the Obama administration, the nominated officials in the new administration had criticised Barack Obama for not using more force. The named officials are Zionists and thus their priority is the entity. The new president declared his Zionism, even though he was not a Jew, but a Catholic.

However, the balance of power on the ground neutralised all the means used to achieve the goals of the American administration. So what is “more power”? Despite declaring its commitment to the Zionist entity, the administration is not able to impose on the US Congress new war options in Syria in favour of the entity because the general mood in the turbulent atmosphere at home does not allow foreign adventures without guaranteed results, especially since Syria is no longer alone, but rather is part of a strong axis. The experience of 2013 indicates that at that time the balance of power was not in USA favour in launching a direct aggression against Syria, so was the Russian mediation and the solution to dismantling the chemical system. Today, the balance of power is more favourable to Syria than it was in 2013, so what remains for the United States is either to retreat or reduce the ceiling of the confrontation and be content with linking a conflict. What concerns the Syrian state is the exit of the American forces from the east of the Euphrates, and this is possible because the number is small and the logistical support for them is difficult, especially if they are completely removed from Iraq.

Regarding Iraq, we must not forget that Biden, since the presidency of Bush Jr., has been considering the division of Iraq. Here, too, the balance of power governs the administration’s policies, as the capabilities have become limited. The Iraqi political forces supporting the American presence could no longer call for that after the assassination of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, along with Qassem Soleimani. The bombings in central Baghdad on the first day of Biden’s mandate will not lead to the maintenance of the US forces under the pretext of the return of ISIS, which the United States claimed that it “defeated”! In fact, the opposite may happen. Understanding with the Iraqi government may contribute to facilitating the easy exit of US forces from Iraq, because the alternative to that is to repeat the scene of the forces leaving Vietnam.

Theater ready to stop war Yemen

With regard to Yemen, the theatre is set in the US Congress to stop the war and give the UN a role after instructing Saudi to stop the aggression. It has become clear that the Biden administration will cancel the designation imposed by the Trump in its last days. However, there are forces within the ruling coalition in the United States that will seek to maintain tension in Yemen. The American armament company Raytheon supplies weapons to the Saudis and the Gulf states. New Defence Minister Lloyd Austin is a member of the company’s board of directors. It is not clear who can decide the US position, and what we want to point out is the contradiction of interests within the coalition of forces supporting Biden, as we explained in the first part of this series.

As for the relationship with Saudi Arabia, the mood in the new administration is, until now, negative towards the crown prince and the style of government. The repeated statements of the new US president about the need to hold officials in Saudi Arabia accountable for the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi are evidence of this. It is an indication of the nature of the expected relations between the new administration and the leadership in Saudi Arabia. On the other hand, the administration will stick to the “Abrahamic agreements” and may develop them after “changes” are implemented in Saudi Arabia. But the crown prince is not as weak as some imagine and that the administration’s options are limited here as well. But in any case, the relationship between the two capitals will not be a quiet relationship, at least in the first phase of Biden.

Most of the foreign policy team are Zionists

Regarding the Palestinian file, the president-elect declared his commitment to the two-state solution, but he did not disclose what was the fate of the settlements in Palestine or the fate of the capital. He will adhere to the decision to move the embassy (not forgetting that the decision was taken by the Congress in Clinton State) and will return to communication with the P-authority and facilitate financial transfers of the authority. On the other hand, the new administration’s commitment to the security of the entity is one of the constants of the ruling elites in America, but this commitment will not be dragged into adhering to Netanyahu, who we believe is on the way out of the political stage. All these measures are of a formal nature, because the new administration cannot provide anything radical, given that pressure is mounting within the Democratic Party to recognise the rights of the Palestinian people. But we must not forget that most of the foreign policy team of the new administration are Zionists, who will not allow any substantive “concession” towards the Palestinians. There is no justification for betting on new positions in the administration to give some impetus to the negotiation policy that has proven fruitless.

As for Libya, the disaster that struck it was the work of the Obama administration, especially Hillary Clinton. The administration’s new foreign affairs officials were in the Obama administration and were still defending their policies at the time. It is not clear what the administration can offer, as there is no statement or writing for any of them about the complex Libyan file internationally and regionally. But we must point out that the delegate named to represent the United States in the United Nations and the Security Council, Linda Tomas Greenfield, is a long-standing diplomat of African descent. She was removed from the State Department in Trump’s state.  Prior to that, she held several positions in Africa such as Nigeria and Liberia. She stated some time ago, according to “Sputnik”, that all parties to the conflict, locally and internationally, should reduce the ceilings of demands and work to find a solution. It is not clear if this statement was a personal opinion or a reflection of a change in the US administration.

What role does Robert Malley have?

The last file is the Lebanese file. Until the preparation of this approach, no official in the new administration issued any position regarding Lebanon. Thus, what can be presented is based on Jeffrey Feltman’s statement more than a year ago before the Congressional Foreign Relations Committee. The new administration could adopt the approach of Feltman, who knows Lebanon well. We also have to take into account that the United States looks at the Lebanese file from the standpoint of the security of the Zionist entity and from the angle of interconnections with the various files in the region. The conclusion of Jeffrey Feltman’s approach is that pushing Lebanon over the abyss will not result in a positive outcome for the interests of the United States and the Zionist entity. Consequently, the pressures exerted on Lebanon must be reconsidered and accommodation as was the case in the Obama era with the resistance, as there is no allied regional power that can disarm the resistance in accordance with Security Council Resolution 1702. Linking the dispute may raise the veto on the participation of the party in one form or another in the government. It could also contribute to supporting the French initiative to financially rearrange the internal situation. But there is no sign that the new administration officials share that view.

On the other hand, there is a proliferation of talk in the American corridors about the major role of Robert Malle in approaching the Iranian, Palestinian and Lebanese file. Robert Malle is very close to Anthony Blinken. If it is proven that the talk in the  corridors is serious, then this means that diplomacy will play a major role in approaching the hot files in the region, which may be reflected in a solution, albeit limited, towards the Lebanese scene, especially since the tools of the United States have proven their disastrous failure repeatedly, and that there is no point in escalating the situation that may topple what remains. From the influence of the American role.

However, during the first 100 days of Biden’s term, the true directions of the new administration will be clearly seen. We believe it will not be too far from the approach we presented above.

These are some of the expectations in the hot files awaiting the administration, and we do not expect any change from the previous policies, whether only in style or tone. It is incapable of change and unable to continue. This is its dilemma, and the world’s countries are not responsible for solving the American impasse. The shifts in the field will produce the facts that will govern American policy, which one day becomes useless. It has no ability to wage new wars, even if its desire to do so is certain, and it has no ability to make concessions to reach settlements. The break-up of the American empire may coincide with the dissolution of the republic. At best, what the new administration will do is connect a conflict without solutions and without wars. At worst, it is a question of its existence as a superpower. The only danger lies in the continuation of the state of denial and consequently the committing of follies that accelerate their demise and the consequent loss of life.

Previous Parts

(4) إشكاليات السياسة الخارجية الأميركية الجديدة

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Untitled-14.png
باحث وكاتب اقتصادي سياسي والأمين العام السابق للمؤتمر القومي العربي

زياد حافظ

الجزء الرابع: بعض الملفات في الوطن العربي

ندخل هنا إلى بعض الملفّات المتعلّقة بالوطن العربي والمتشابكة وإنْ كان لكلّ ملفّ على حدة حيثياته الخاصة. لكن التشابك الناتج عن التاريخ والجغرافيا يجعل من الصعب مقاربة الملفّات بشكل مستقلّ عن بعضها البعض. والإدارة الجديدة كسائر الإدارات السابقة تنظر إلى مختلف الساحات من منظور جيواستراتيجي وليس كملفّات مستقلّة عن بعضها وإنْ اقتضى الأمر في بعض الحالات تجزئة الموضوع بسبب الصعوبات التي تواجهها السياسة الأميركية.

ملفات فلسطين وسورية والعراق واليمن وليبيا ولبنان هي ما تعنينا في الدرجة الأولى لأنها ساحات الصراع القائم في المنطقة. السؤال الذي نطرحه هو ماذا تستطيع ان تفعل الولايات المتحدة؟ في هذا السياق لا بدّ من التذكير بأنّ الخط البياني للدور الأميركي هو خط تراجعي. فبعد فشل الانخراط المباشر العسكري في المنطقة عبر تعثّر المشروع الأميركي في العراق وبروز لجنة بيكر هاملتون التي فرضت إعادة النظر في الطريقة في التعامل مع دول الإقليم، كانت حقبة باراك أوباما قد أطلقت نظرية القوّة الذكية أو الحرب بالوكالة. فكان استغلال نقمة الشعوب العربية على حكّامها عبر ما سُمّي بالربيع العربي. الرهان كان أنّ تغيير الطقم الحاكم في الدول الموالية للولايات المتحدة وتمكين مجموعات إسلامية معتدلة متواصلة من تركيا إلى المغرب لتثبيت قاعدة متينة لقرن أميركي في الوطن العربي. لكن الاستعصاء كان في التعامل مع سورية ساهم في تعثر المشروع في مصر فكانت الحرب الكونية التي قادتها الولايات المتحدة على سورية وما زالت حتى الساعة. لكن صمود الجيش العربي السوري والشعب الملتفّ حول قيادته أفشل المشروع الأميركي في سورية.

حقبة ترامب كانت امتداداً لسياسة أوباما مع مطالبته المتكرّرة بسحب القوّات الأميركية التي عارضته الدولة العميقة. تصريحات المبعوث الأميركي السابق المولج بالملف السوري جيمس جيفري تقر بأنه تمّ التحايل على الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب لإفشال محاولات سحب القوّات الأميركية من شرق وشمال شرق سورية. واليوم يدعو جيفري في مقال له في مجلّة «فورين أفيرز» الرئيس بايدن إلى الاستمرار بسياسة العقوبات والتجويع ضدّ سورية وجعل سورية مستنقعاً لاستنزاف روسيا كما حصل في أفغانستان في الثمانينيات من القرن الماضي. فالهدف كان وما زال قلب النظام والإطاحة بالرئيس الأسد. أضف إلى ذلك فإنّ قانون قيصر الذي تمّ بموافقة الحزبين الديمقراطي والجمهوري هدفه خنق سورية اقتصادياً ومنع إعادة إعمارها وذلك لتعزيز النقمة الداخلية وفرص انتفاضة على نظام الحكم. لكن كلّ ذلك لم يؤدّ إلى النتائج المرجوة. فماذا بعد؟ فإذا كان الانخراط المباشر قد فشل في تحقيق أهدافه رغم احتلال العراق وقلب النظام وإذا فشلت الحرب الكونية على سورية بالوكالة عن الولايات المتحدة فماذا بقي في الترسانة الأميركية؟ المزيد من القوة والضغط أم مراجعة لتلك السياسة؟ فصمود الشعب السوري الملتفّ حول قيادته وجيشه لم يكن في الحسبان وأفشل كلّ المحاولات. وفي تقديرينا لا نعتقد أنّ الإدارة الجديدة تستطيع أن تحبط من عزيمة الشعب في الصمود ورفض الإملاءات العسكرية. كما سيأتي يوم تترسّخ القناعة عند مختلف النخب الحاكمة في الوطن العربي أنّ ما تريده الإدارة الأميركية أو تقوم به لا يعنيها ولا قيمة لها. المهمّ هو ما تقوم به المجتمعات العربية والتركيز هو على ما تريده دون الاكتراث إلى رأي الآخرين.

بايدن يتراجع أمام سورية كما أوباما؟

آراء المسؤولين المسمّين لتولي السياسة الخارجية توحي أنّ الميل سيكون إلى المزيد من الضغوط على سورية والدفع نحو التقسيم. ذلك سيكون عبر دعم المجموعات المسلّحة وإنْ كانت من جماعات التعصّب والغلوّ والتوحّش يضاف إليهم مجموعة «قسد». لكن موازين القوّة في الميدان تنفي فعالية تلك السياسة. وليس بمقدور الولايات المتحدة في ظلّ الانقسام الحادّ الداخلي إمكانية تبرير تورّط مباشر تعويضاً عن فشل الحرب بالوكالة. ونشير في هذا السياق إلى مقابلة أجراها وزير الخارجية أنطوني بلينكن مع مايكل موريل المدير العام السابق بالوكالة لوكالة الاستخبارات المركزية (سي أي آي) على برنامج «قضايا استخبارية» (انتليجنس ماترز) الذي تبثّه محطة «سي، بي، أس» الأميركية (ما يؤكّد العلاقة العضوية بين الاستخبارات والإعلام الشركاتي!). جاء في هذه المقابلة التي أجريت في أواخر 2020 والتي لم تخلُ من العبارات التي تؤكّد النظرة التوراتية لدور الولايات المتحدة في الحفاظ على الإمبراطورية لأنّ ذلك قدرها المتجلّي الذي يؤكّد استثنائيتها. وفي تلك المقابلة قال إنّ هناك ضرورة لعدم توريط مباشر للقوات الأميركية في ما سمّاه بـ «الحروب الدائمة» ولكن هذا لا يمنع من «عمليات محدودة» تقوم بها القوّات الخاصة لدعم عملاء محلّيين في تنفيذهم للأجندات المطلوبة. هنا تحضر «قسد» التي ستتلقّى دعماً عسكرياً من الولايات المتحدة. وما يدعم موقف بلينكن تصريح المسؤول الجديد القديم عن الملفّ السوري تري مكغورك الذي خلف جيمس جيفري. فتري مكغورك كان قد استقال سنة 2019 من مهامه في متابعة الملف السوري عندما عبّر ترامب عن رغبته بسحب القوّات الأميركية من سورية. ومكغورك يريد المزيد من التواجد العسكري الأميركي في سورية. وشاهدنا في الأسابيع الماضية عودة خلايا داعش في البادية ومحاولات تخريب المصالحة في جنوب سورية والعمليات الاستفزازية لقوّات «قسد» في الشمال الشرقي لسورية. كلّ ذلك حصل بعد الانتخابات الرئاسية وقبل تسلم بايدن مقاليد السلطة، غير أنّ هذه الإجراءات تحظى بموافقة وزير الخارجية بلينكن وتدلّ على استمرارها.

من جهة أخرى، وفي سياق محاولة تلميع صورة الولايات المتحدة هناك حديث في الأروقة الأميركية عن إمكانية تفاهم ضمني لتسليم روسيا الملف السوري لضمان أمن الكيان الصهيوني. فإذا نجحت المبادة الروسية في تأمين أمن الكيان، يعني عدم دعم استراتيجية وأهداف محور المقاومة، فهذا مكسب للولايات المتحدة والكيان. وإذا تعثرت تلك الجهود فلكلّ حادث حديث ويتمّ التنصّل من التفاهم الضمني. في رأينا، كلّ هذه المحاولات لا تدلّ إلاّ على عجز الولايات المتحدة في المبادرة وتغيير المنحى التراجعي لها في المنطقة. وليس هناك من دليل أنّ روسيا ستقبل بـ «المهمة» كما ليس هناك من مؤشر أنّ الدولة السورية ستتجاوب مع تلك المبادرة. المسألة تصبح من يستطيع أن يتحمّل أكثر الاستنزاف؟ الرهان الأميركي هو أنّ قدرة التحمّل للدولة السورية محدودة وبالتالي ستلجأ إلى تقديم «تنازلات» لإيقاف التدهور الاقتصادي والاجتماعي وهذه «التنازلات» ستأتي بـ «التغيير المنشود» أميركياً وصهيونياً. ولكن في المقابل لا تستطيع الإدارة الجديدة تغيير موازين القوّة على الأرض إذا ما أقدَمت الدولة السورية على استكمال استعادة الأراضي المحتلة في الشمال والشرق. فلسورية حلفاء كانوا وما زالوا ملتزمين في الدفاع عن سورية.

وهناك من يعتقد أنّ أيّ تسوية مع الجمهورية الإسلامية في إيران ستؤدّي حتماً على «انفراجات» في الملّف السوري دون تحديد ما هي الانفراجات. ربما يعتقدون أنها تعود إلى بعض التعديلات في الدستور والتغيير في رأس الهرم، ولكن كلّ ذلك مجرّد تمنّيات لا تستند إلى وقائع مادية يمكّنها من تحقيقها. فسورية ليست أداة للجمهورية الإسلامية بل حليفة لها ولها قرارها المستقلّ. وسورية التي رفضت إملاءات كولين باول في ذروة الغطرسة الأميركية في احتلال العراق لن ترضخ لأميركا التي أصابها الوهن وهي على عتبة الأفول فالانهيار بسبب الانقسام الداخلي وبسبب عدم قدرتها على التوسّع وفرض هيمنتها.

هل تعود نظرية رامسفيلد؟

التوتّر السوري والليبي واليمني والعراقي من صنع إدارة أوباما الذي كان بايدن شريكاً أساسياً فيها. فهل ينتهج الأخير سياسة مغايرة؟ الدلائل حتى الساعة تفيد أنّ نظرية دونالد رامسفيلد هي التي تتحكّم في عقل النخب الأميركية بما فيها الإدارة الجديدة: إذا فشلت القوّة في تحقيق الأهداف فالحلّ هو المزيد من القوّة. المسؤولون المسمّون في الإدارة الجديدة كانوا قد وجّهوا خلال عملهم في إدارة أوباما انتقاداتهم لباراك أوباما لعدم استعمال المزيد من القوّة. والمسؤولون المسمّون هم من الصهاينة وبالتالي أولويتهم الكيان. والرئيس الجديد أعلن عن صهيونيته وإن لم يكن يهودياً بل هو كاثوليكيّ.

لكن موازين القوّة على الأرض حيّدت كافة الوسائل المستعملة لتحقيق أهداف الإدارة الأميركية. فما هو «المزيد من القوّة»؟ ليس بمقدور الإدارة رغم إعلان التزامها بالكيان الصهيوني أن تفرض على الكونغرس الأميركي خيارات حرب جديدة في سورية لصالح الكيان لأنّ المزاج العام في الأجواء المضطربة في الداخل الأميركي لا يسمح لمغامرات خارجية غير مضمونة النتائج خاصة أنّ سورية لم تعد بمفردها بل هي جزء من محور قوي يستطيع إيقاع الخسائر الفادحة بالمصالح الأميركية والصهيونية في المنطقة. كما أنّ تحالفات سورية الدولية تمكنها من تحييد العمل الانفرادي الذي قد تقدم عليه الولايات المتحدة. فتجربة 2013 تشير إلى أنّ آنذاك لم تكن موازين القوّة لصالح الولايات المتحدة في شنّ عدوان مباشر على سورية فكانت الوساطة الروسية وحلّ تفكيك المنظومة الكيمياوية. اليوم، موازين القوّة أكثر ميلاً لصالح سورية مما كانت عليها سنة 2013 فما يبقى للولايات المتحدة إما التراجع وإما تخفيض سقف المواجهة والاكتفاء بربط نزاع. ما يهمّ الدولة السورية هو خروج القوّات الأميركية من شرق الفرات وهذا ممكن لأنّ العدد قليل واللوجستية الداعمة لها صعبة خاصة إذا ما تمّ إخراجها كلّياً من العراق.

في ما يتعلّق بالعراق، لا يجب أن ننسى أنّ بايدن منذ ولاية بوش الابن ينظّر لتقسيم العراق. هنا أيضاً موازين القوّة تحكم سياسات الإدارة حيث أصبحت الإمكانيات محدودة. والقوى السياسية العراقية المؤيّدة للوجود الأميركي لم يعد باستطاعتها الدعوة إلى ذلك بعد اغتيال أبي مهدي المهندس ومعه قاسم سليماني. والتفجيرات في وسط بغداد في أوّل يوم من ولاية بايدن لن يؤدّي إلى إبقاء القوّات الأميركية بحجة عودة داعش التي ادّعت الولايات المتحدة أنها «هزمتها»! بل العكس قد يحصل. فالتفاهم مع الحكومة العراقية قد يساهم في تسهيل الخروج الميسّر للقوات الأميركية من العراق لأنّ البديل عن ذلك هو تكرار مشهد خروج القوّات من فيتنام. ستحافظ الإدارة الأميركية على علاقات وثيقة مع إقليم كردستان غير أنّ كلّ ذلك لن يمنع تكريس الانكفاء من العراق وسورية. لكن هذا لا يعني أنّ الساحة العراقية ستنعم بالهدوء بل العكس كما تبيّن من الانفجارات الأخيرة. المسألة ستكون في ضبط الإيقاع بين التوتر والتفاوض والكرة في ملعب القيادات العراقية.

المسرح مهيّأ لوقف حرب اليمن

في ما يتعلّق باليمن فالمسرح مهيّأ في الكونغرس الأميركي لإيقاف الحرب وإعطاء الدور للأمم المتحدة بعد الإيعاز لبلاد الحرمين بوقف العدوان. وبات واضحاً أنّ إدارة بايدن ستنظر في موضوع تصنيف الحوثيين كمجموعة إرهابية وإلغاء التصنيف الذي فرضته إدارة ترامب في أيامها الأخيرة. لكن هناك قوى داخل التحالف الحاكم في الولايات المتحدة ستسعى للحفاظ على التوتر في اليمن. شركة التسليح الأميركية رايثيون تورّد أسلحة لبلاد الحرمين ودول الخليج ووزير الدفاع الجديد لويد اوستن عضو مجلس إدارة الشركة. ليس من الواضح من يستطيع حسم الموقف الأميركي، وما نريد أنّ نشير إليه هو تناقض المصالح داخل تحالف القوى الداعمة لبايدن كما أوضحناه في الجزء الأول من هذه السلسلة.

أما العلاقة مع بلاد الحرمين فالمزاج السائد في الإدارة الجديدة سلبي حتى الساعة تجاه ولي العهد وأسلوب الحكم. التصريحات المتكرّرة للرئيس الأميركي الجديد حول ضرورة مساءلة المسؤولين في بلاد الحرمين حول اغتيال جمال الخاشقجي دليل على ذلك. انها مؤشر عن طبيعة العلاقات المرتقبة بين الإدارة الجديدة وقيادة بلاد الحرمين. في المقابل ستتمسّك الإدارة بـ «الاتفاقات الابراهيمية» وربما قد تطوّرها بعد إنجاز «تغييرات» في حكومة بلاد الحرمين. لكن ولي العهد ليس بالضعف الذي يتصوّره البعض وأنّ خيارات الإدارة الأميركية محدودة هنا أيضاً. لكن في مطلق الأحوال، لن تكون العلاقة بين العاصمتين علاقة هادئة على الأقلّ في المرحلة الأولى من ولاية بايدن.

معظم فريق السياسة الخارجية من الصهاينة

بالنسبة للملف الفلسطيني أعلن الرئيس المنتخب التزامه بحلّ الدولتين لكنه لم يفصح عما هو مصير المستعمرات في فلسطين ولا مصير العاصمة. سيتمسّك بقرار نقل السفارة (لا ننسى أنّ القرار اتخذ من قبل الكونغرس في ولاية كلينتون) وسيعود التواصل مع السلطة وتسهيل الحوالات المالية للسلطة. في المقابل التزام الإدارة الجديدة بأمن الكيان من ثوابت النخب الحاكمة في أميركا ولكن لن ينجر هذا الالتزام إلى التمسّك بنتنياهو الذي نعتقد أنه على طريق الخروج من المسرح السياسي. فكلّ هذه الإجراءات طابعها شكلي لأنه لا تستطيع الإدارة الجديدة تقديم أيّ شيء جذري علماً أنّ الضغوط تتصاعد داخل الحزب الديمقراطي للإقرار بحقوق الشعب الفلسطيني. لكن لا يجب أن ننسى أنّ معظم فريق السياسة الخارجية للإدارة الجديدة من الصهاينة الذين لن يسمحوا بأيّ «تنازل» جوهري تجاه الفلسطينيين. فليس هناك ما يبرّر المراهنة على مواقف جديدة في الإدارة ليعطي دفعاً ما لسياسة المفاوضات التي أثبتت عقمها.

بالنسبة لليبيا فإنّ الكارثة التي حلّت بها من صنع إدارة أوباما وخاصة من صنع هيلاري كلنتون. المسؤولون الجدد في الإدارة للشؤون الخارجية كانوا في إدارة أوباما وما زالوا يدافعون عن سياساتهم آنذاك. ليس من الواضح ما يمكن أن تقدم عليه الإدارة فليس أيّ تصريح أو كتابة لأيّ منهم حول الملف الليبي المعقد دولياً وعربياً وإقليمياً. لكن لا بدّ لنا من الإشارة إلى أنّ المندوبة المسمّاة لتمثيل الولايات المتحدة في الأمم المتحدة ومجلس الأمن ليندا تواماس غرينفيلد ديبلوماسية عريقة منحدرة من أصول أفريقية. وكانت قد أقصيت من وزارة الخارجية في ولاية ترامب. قبل ذلك شغلت مناصب عدة في أفريقيا كنيجيريا وليبيريا. صرّحت منذ فترة وفقاً لموقع «سبوتنيك» أنّ على كافة الأطراف المتنازعة محلّياً ودولياً تخفيض سقوف المطالب والعمل على إيجاد حلّ. ليس من الواضح إذا ما كان ذلك التصريح رأياً شخصياً أم انعكاساً لتغيير ما في الإدارة الأميركية.

أيّ دور لروبرت مالي؟

الملف الأخير هو الملف اللبناني. حتى إعداد هذه المقاربة لم يصدر أيّ موقف عن أيّ مسؤول في الإدارة الجديدة حول لبنان. وبالتالي ما يمكن عرضه مبني على مواقف سابقة للإدارة الديمقراطية وإفادة جيفري فيلتمان منذ أكثر من عام أمام لجنة العلاقات الخارجية في الكونغرس. ويمكن أن تتبنّى الإدارة الجديدة مقاربة فيلتمان الذي يعرف لبنان جيّداً. كما علينا الأخذ بعين الاعتبار أنّ الولايات المتحدة تنظر إلى الملف اللبناني من زاوية أمن الكيان ومن زاوية الترابط بالملفات المتعدّدة في الإقليم. خلاصة مقاربة جيفري فيلتمان هي أنّ دفع لبنان إلى الهاوية لن يأتي بمردود إيجابي لمصالح الولايات المتحدة والكيان الصهيوني. وبالتالي يجب إعادة النظر في الضغوط التي تمارس على لبنان والتساكن كما كان في عهد أوباما مع المقاومة حيث لا توجد أيّ قوّة إقليمية حليفة تستطيع نزع سلاح المقاومة وفقاً لقرار مجلس الأمن 1702. التساكن قد يرفع الفيتو على مشاركة الحزب بشكل أو بآخر في الحكومة. كما يمكن أن يساهم في دعم المبادرة الفرنسية لإعادة ترتيب الوضع الداخلي من الناحية المالية. لكن ليس هناك من أيّ دلائل أنّ المسؤولين الجدد في الإدارة يشاطرون ذلك الرأي.

من جهة أخرى تكاثر الكلام في الأروقة الأميركية عن دور كبير لروبرت مالي في مقاربة الملف الإيراني والفلسطيني واللبناني. وروبرت مالي مقرّب جدّاً من انطوني بلينكن. إذا ثبت أنّ الكلام الجاري في الأروقة جدّي فهذا يعني أنّ الدبلوماسية ستلعب دوراً كبيراً في مقاربة الملفات الساخنة في المنطقة قد تنعكس بحلحلة ولو محدودة تجاه المشهد اللبناني خاصة أنّ أدوات الولايات المتحدة أثبتت فشلها الذريع تكراراً، وأن لا جدوى من تصعيد الموقف الذي قد يطيح بما تبقّى من نفوذ للدور الأميركي.

على كلّ حال، خلال المئة اليوم الأولى من ولاية بايدن سيتبّن بشكل أوضح التوجهات الحقيقية للإدارة الجديدة. ونعتقد أنها لن تكون بعيدة عن المقاربة التي عرضناها أعلاه.

هذه بعض التوقّعات في الملفات الساخنة التي تنتظر الإدارة والتي لا نتوقع أيّ تعديل عن السياسات السابقة سواء فقط في الأسلوب واللهجة. فهي غير قادرة على التغيير وغير قادرة على الاستمرار. هذا هو مأزقها وليس مسؤولة دول العالم حلّ المأزق الأميركي. التحوّلات في الميدان ستفرز الوقائع التي ستحكم السياسة الأميركية التي تصبح يوماً بعض يوم غير ذي جدوى. فلا قدرة لها على شنّ حروب جديدة وإنْ كانت رغبتها في ذلك مؤكّدة ولا قدرة لها على تقديم تنازلات لعقد تسويات. فانفراط الإمبراطورية الأميركية قد تتلازم مع انحلال الجمهورية. في أحسن الأحوال ما ستقوم به الإدارة الجديدة هو ربط نزاع دون حلول ودون حروب. في أسوأ الأحوال بالنسبة لها مسألة وجودها ككيان لدولة عظمى. الخطورة تكمن فقط في استمرار حالة الإنكار وارتكاب بالتالي حماقات تسرّع في زوالها وما سيرافق ذلك من خسائر في الأرواح.

Previous Parts

SAA Kills and Injures 16 Turkestan Islamist Party Terrorists North of Hama

ARABI SOURI 

Turkestan Islamist Party terrorist group - Syria - الحزب الاسلامي التركستاني

The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) killed and injured 16 terrorists of the Turkestan Islamist Party in the northwestern countryside of Hama, central Syria.

The army units spotted a group of anti-Islamic Turkestan Islamist Party terrorists in the Al-Ghab Valley heading to their makeshift posts to attack Syrian Army posts in the area and targeted them with a guided-missile.

Local sources confirmed the killing of 7 terrorists at least and the injury of 9 others at the time of writing this report.

Turkish Madman Erdogan imported tens of thousands of radical terrorists from regions where his Muslim Brotherhood global radicalization groups operate, mainly in Central Asian countries all the way to the Chinese Xingyang Province of Muslim majority. The Turkestan Islamist Party is one of the backbones of these terrorist groups the Turkish pariah Erdogan uses in his regional influence spreading which spans from west China to Germany and from the Caucasus to north and western African countries.

The Syrian Arab Army and the Russian Aerospace Forces have increased their levels of readiness recently and resumed targeting the posts of terrorist groups sponsored by Turkey and the USA in Idlib and Hama provinces especially after the latest deadly attacks by ISIS and its affiliates against buses in the region. In the past week, the Russian Aerospace Forces carried out successful strikes against command centers, tunnels, and weapons depots in northern Idlib countryside, while the SAA targeted terrorist gatherings in the southern countryside of the province.

Terrorist groups designated as such by the United Nations Security Council are not included in the Moscow, Astana, and Sochi ceasefire agreements in which the Turkish regime of Erdogan is a signatory and he has not only failed to meet his commitments as per these agreements for the past 2 years, he has instead beefed up the terrorist groups operating under his command in northern Syria regions and sent thousands of Turkish army soldiers to serve as human shields between his terrorists and the Syrian Army units on Syrian territories.

Worth noting that Mike Pompeo, Donald Trump’s secretary of state delisted the Turkistan Islamist Party from the US list of terrorist groups last November 2020, despite the UNSC maintaining them as one of the most dangerous terrorist organizations with terrorist activities in a number of countries.

To help us continue please visit the Donate page to donate or learn how you can help us with no cost on you.
Follow us on Telegram: http://t.me/syupdates link will open Telegram app.

Related News

Realities of politics and Palestinian aspirations حقائق السياسة وأماني الفلسطيني

**Please scroll down for the Arabic version **

Palestinian politician residing in Jenin, Occupied Palestine

Saada Mustafa  Arshid_

Many Arab and Palestinian policies are built on the fact that Joe Biden’s presidency will  be a natural extension of the policies of the Obama administration, in which Biden was vice president, and president Biden is the same person. I think that’s an inaccurate estimate. The man has a strong personality, he is experienced and experienced in both domestic and foreign politics, and his long experience in Congress has given him the experience and statesmanship he needs, and then there is a lot of water that has taken place  in the valleys of politics  both in Washington and  in the Middle East during the four years  of Trump’s administration, which  has been full of events, which makes the new president obliged to deal  with  those  variables, albeit with a different mentality and policies. If he ever talked about a two-state solution, he ever talked about a two-state solution, it goes back  to a long time ago, and that  does not  mean that he will remain steadfast when he speaks. The new U.S. State Department, which supports the two-state solution, a state (Israel) as a Jewish state and besides it a Palestinian state without sovereignty and dignity, without borders without crossings, without sovereignty over its airspace or the hollow of its territory, without its Jerusalem and some of the West Bank. Last Tuesday, exaggerated statements were made in Ramallah following a speech by the Acting United States Representative to the United Nations Ambassador Richard Wells, in which he said: We will restore relations with the Palestinian leadership and the Palestinian people, and that many mistakes were made by the administration of former President Trump in this context and must be corrected, but it does not specify what are those mistakes, and it seems certain that the subject of Jerusalem and the transfer of the embassy to it are not one of those mistakes, as well as the annexation of the West Bank from the Jordan, settlements and  goods that have become sold in the United States and written on them.  By Israel, these mistakes may not go beyond cutting off financial aid, closing the PLO office in Washington, and closing the U.S. consulate in East Jerusalem.

There is no doubt that the election of Biden was in some respects a coup in the Arab balances  that  have  repercussions on the Palestinian affairs, and he acknowledged in the certainty of many Arab leaders that Trump will remain in the White House for a second term, which led them to invest in supporting his re-election financially and politically, and indeed At the  expense of national security through the processes of normalisation and alliance in its political, security and then economic forms, and this has put them in trouble with the new administration, which has enough files and tools to their necks, making it their plans and dreams and illusions autumn papers, blowing the wind. Biden’s victory, at the same time, was a victory for other regional  powers, which entered into a bitter and strained conflict with the Trump administration, Iran  breathed a sigh of relief, even if there were adjustments to the  nuclear deal with the Obama administration, but with Biden’s arrival, she had passed the difficult stage and had come out  of the bottle, as well as Qatar, a permanent ally of democratic administrations in Washington, and a victory for Qatar’s Muslim Brotherhood allies and Qatar’s Palestinian guests, i.e. Hamas, while at the same time defeating Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the UAE and its Palestinian guest, while dealing with an adversary with the Trump administration can be optimistic (and perhaps He is overly optimistic, as we see the Palestinian Authority, which see President Mahmoud Abbas’ call for Trump’s house to be  ruined, has been met with caution, and those who have treated the Trump administration cautiously in its last year find an opportunity to build better relations with the new administration, as Jordan has. Some Arabs are optimistic under Biden, including the Palestinians, as they carry expectations and aspirations above what they can afford, and what comes out of the new U.S. administration is nothing more than delusions and signs that may be misleading — such as talking about a two-state solution — because there are no clear policies or strategies that can be read or built upon yet, This is while the Arab, Islamic and international violations are expanding, with new countries candidates for normalisation, and others in the process of transferring their embassies to Jerusalem, while (Israel) exchanges with Sudan, Morocco and the United Arab Emirates embassies, missions, economic and cultural  missions and iron domes, an Arab who was the back of Palestine Its issue and the rights of  its people  will  be at its best only a neutral  intermediary, in the Palestinian (Israeli) relationship, while the Palestinian is totally  absent  from any comment, condemnation or criticism of this nefarious behaviour.

حقائق السياسة وأماني الفلسطيني

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Untitled-726-780x470.png
سياسي فلسطيني مقيم في جنين – فلسطين المحتلة

سعادة مصطفى أرشيد

يتمّ بناء كثير من السياسات العربية والفلسطينية منها على أنّ رئاسة جو بايدن ستكون امتداداً طبيعياً لسياسات إدارة الرئيس الأسبق أوباما، التي كان فيها بايدن نائباً للرئيس، وانّ الرئيس بايدن هو الشخص ذاته. وفي ظني أنّ ذلك تقدير غير دقيق. فالرجل يملك شخصية قوية، وهو مجرّب ومتمرّس في السياسة الداخلية والخارجية على حدّ سواء، وقد منحته تجربته الطويلة في الكونغرس ما يحتاجه من خبرة وحنكة، ثم أنّ مياهاً غزيرة قد جرت في وديان السياسة سواء في واشنطن أو في الشرق الأوسط خلال السنوات الأربع من حكم ترامب والتي كانت مليئة بالأحداث، ذلك ما يجعل الرئيس الجديد ملزماً بالتعامل مع تلك المتغيّرات وإنْ بعقلية وسياسات مختلفة. وإذا كان قد تحدث ذات يوم عن حلّ الدولتين، فإنّ ذلك يعود الى زمن مضى، ولا يعني ذلك أنه سيبقى متمترّساً عند كلمته، فالسياسة أمر دائم التغيّر ولا ثوابت فيها، وكذلك مفهوم حلّ الدولتين الذي يحتمل أكثر من تفسير، مما يدعم هذه النظرة ما قاله منذ أيام، وزير الخارجية الأميركي الجديد بلينكن أمام الكونغرس، من أنه يدعم حلّ الدولتين، دولة (إسرائيل) كدولة يهودية وإلى جانبها دولة فلسطينية منزوعة السيادة والكرامة، بلا حدود بلا معابر، بلا سيادة على أجوائها أو جوف أرضها، بلا قدسها وبعض من الضفة الغربية. الثلاثاء الماضي، صدرت تصريحات مبالغة في تفاؤلها من رام الله اثر حديث أدلى بها القائم بأعمال مندوب الولايات المتحدة في هيئة الأمم السفير ريتشارد ويلز، قال فيه: سنعيد العلاقات مع القيادة الفلسطينية والشعب الفلسطيني، وإنّ أخطاء عديدة كانت قد اقترفتها إدارة الرئيس السابق ترامب في هذا السياق ويجب تصحيحها، ولكنه لم يحدّد ما هي تلك الأخطاء، ويبدو أنّ من الأكيد أنّ موضوع القدس ونقل السفارة إليها ليسا من تلك الأخطاء، وكذلك ضمّ أراضي الضفة الغربية من أغوار ومستوطنات وبضائعها التي أصبحت تباع في الولايات المتحدة ومكتوب عليها أنها من إنتاج (إسرائيل)، ولعلّ تلك الأخطاء لن تتجاوز قطع المساعدات المالية وإغلاق مكتب منظمة التحرير في واشنطن، وإغلاق القنصلية الأميركية في القدس الشرقية.

مما لا شك فيه أنّ انتخاب بايدن كان في بعض جوانبه انقلاباً في التوازنات العربية التي لها انعكاساتها على الشأن الفلسطيني، فقد وقر في يقين عديد من القادة العرب أن ترامب باق في البيت الأبيض لفترة رئاسية ثانية، الأمر الذي دعاهم لأن يستثمروا في دعم إعادة انتخابه مالياً وسياسياً، لا بل وعلى حساب الأمن القومي من خلال عمليات التطبيع والتحالف بأشكاله السياسية والأمنية ثم الاقتصادية، وهذا الذي أوقعهم في مأزق مع الإدارة الجديدة التي تملك من الملفات والأدوات ما يكفى لليّ رقابهم، فجعل ذلك من خططهم وأحلامهم وأوهامهم أوراق خريف، تذروها الرياح. فانتصار بايدن، كان في الوقت ذاته انتصاراً لقوى إقليمية أخرى، دخلت في صراع مرير ومجهد مع إدارة ترامب، إيران تنفست الصعداء، حتى لو جرت تعديلات على الاتفاق النووي الذي أبرمته مع إدارة أوباما، لكنها مع مجيء بايدن، قد تجاوزت المرحلة الصعبة وقد خرجت من عنق الزجاجة، وكذلك قطر، الحليف الدائم للإدارات الديمقراطية في واشنطن، وانتصار لحلفاء قطر من الإخوان المسلمين وضيوف قطر من الفلسطينيين وأقصد هنا حركة حماس، وفي الوقت ذاته هزيمة للسعودية ومصر والإمارات وضيفها الفلسطيني، فيما يستطيع من تعامل بخصومة مع إدارة ترامب بأن يتفاءل (وربما يبالغ في تفاؤله) كما نرى السلطة الفلسطينية التي ترى أنّ دعاء الرئيس أبو مازن على بيت ترامب بالخراب قد تمّت الاستجابة له، ومن تعامل بحذر مع إدارة ترامب في عامها الأخير، أن يجد فرصة لبناء علاقات أفضل مع الإدارة الجديدة، كما حال الأردن. يبدي بعض العرب تفاؤلاً برئاسة بايدن، ومنهم الفلسطينيون، إذ يحملون الأمور توقعات وأماني فوق ما تحتمل، فما يصدر عن الإدارة الأميركية الجديدة ليس أكثر من تهويمات وإشارات قد تكون مضللة – كالحديث عن حلّ الدولتين – إذ لا سياسات أو استراتيجيات واضحة يمكن قراءتها أو البناء عليها حتى الآن، هذا فيما يتسع الخرق العربي والإسلامي والعالمي، بدول جديدة مرشحة للتطبيع، وأخرى بصدد نقل سفاراتها للقدس، فيما تتبادل (إسرائيل) مع السودان والمغرب والإمارات السفارات والبعثات والملحقيات الاقتصادية والثقافية والقباب الحديدية، وهو العربي الذي كان ظهيراً لفلسطين ومسألتها وحقوق شعبها، لن يكون بأحسن أحواله إلا وسيطاً محايداً، في العلاقة الفلسطينية (الإسرائيلية) فيما يغيب الفلسطيني تماماً عن أيّ تعليق أو إدانة أو انتقاد لهذا السلوك الشائن.

The dark motives behind Saudi Arabia’s push for Gulf unity

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is 000_8Y82NG.jpg
David Hearst is the editor in chief of Middle East Eye. He left The Guardian as its chief foreign leader writer. In a career spanning 29 years, he covered the Brighton bomb, the miner’s strike, the loyalist backlash in the wake of the Anglo-Irish Agreement in Northern Ireland, the first conflicts in the breakup of the former Yugoslavia in Slovenia and Croatia, the end of the Soviet Union, Chechnya, and the bushfire wars that accompanied it. He charted Boris Yeltsin’s moral and physical decline and the conditions which created the rise of Putin. After Ireland, he was appointed Europe correspondent for Guardian Europe, then joined the Moscow bureau in 1992, before becoming bureau chief in 1994. He left Russia in 1997 to join the foreign desk, became European editor and then associate foreign editor. He joined The Guardian from The Scotsman, where he worked as education correspondent.

David Hearst

6 January 2021 17:22 UTC 

Mohammed bin Salman could use the detente with Qatar to achieve two objectives: to announce his own recognition of Israel, and to persuade his father to abdicate the throne

It took Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman three years and six months to come to the same conclusion that some of us reached days into the blockade of Qatar: that it was doomed to failure.

The project to silence the voice of an independent neighbour was doomed the moment that then-US defence secretary James Mattis and then-secretary of state Rex Tillerson, a former oilman with extensive links to Qatar, learned of plans to invade the peninsula and stopped them.

As the weeks passed, Qatar’s hand was only strengthened. Turkish troops arrived in Doha to form a physical buffer. Iran gave Qatar the use of its airspace. The blockade could never work with an air bridge established around Saudi Arabia.

If anything, this unpleasant shock has strengthened Qatar. The same goes for Turkish and Iranian foreign policy

It took only months for Qatar to assemble a major lobbying operation in Washington, undoing or rolling back the influence of the principal lobbyist for the Saudis, the Emirati ambassador Youssef al-Otaiba, and establishing solid support of its own. US President Donald Trump did not even acknowledge that Qatar hosted the Pentagon’s most important airbase in the region, Al Udeid, when he tweeted his approval of the blockade in 2017. 

In the end, the Saudi prince overestimated Trump’s influence and underestimated the residual power of the US military. Both Tillerson and Mattis are long gone, but the pressure to reverse this mad act of recklessness never receded; it only grew with time.

With the imminent arrival of a hostile US president in Joe Biden, bin Salman sensed the time had come to put an end to his folly. Today, none of the 13 demands originally placed on Qatar by the blockading states have been met. Neither its hosting of members of the Muslim Brotherhood nor its foreign policy have changed. Al Jazeera has not been closed down. Qatar’s alliance with Iran and Turkey has, if anything, strengthened.

Domestically, Qatar’s emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, is held in higher esteem for his defence of the state than he was before, as Qatari nationalism has mounted. Qatar is more self-sufficient and confident than it was before the blockade. 

‘Qatar has won’

If anything, this unpleasant shock has strengthened Qatar. The same goes for Turkish and Iranian foreign policy.

“You could say Qatar has won,” Abdulkhaleq Abdulla, a professor of politics in Dubai who was one of the foremost defenders of the blockade three years ago, told the Financial Times. “The cost of fighting was too high – there is a realisation now that this is the black sheep of the family and we just have to put up with it. These have been the worst three-and-a-half years in the history of the GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council].”This GCC show of unity can’t hide its weakness

But these conclusions are, for the moment, bin Salman’s alone. It is interesting to note who was absent from the display of brotherly love at the GCC summit on Tuesday. The no-show by Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed came alongside the absence of Bahrain’s King Hamad and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi.

Bahrain is in the midst of an increasingly bitter border dispute with Qatar, and Egypt remains sceptical about the whole enterprise. Mada Masr quoted Egyptian government sources as saying that Cairo does not see a sufficiently strong foundation to open a new page in relations with Doha. Qatar, they claimed, was still mounting a “methodological campaign aimed at the Egyptian regime”. 

The sources noted that none of the basic demands made of Qatar – closing down Al Jazeera, shuttering a Turkish military base, severing ties with the Muslim Brotherhood and reducing ties with Iran – had been met. It is too early to say whether this signals a fracturing of the counter-revolutionary forces that have held together since they paid for and installed Sisi as president of Egypt after a military coup in 2013.

Tensions over Yemen and Israel

Certainly, there are grounds for a bust-up between mentor bin Zayed and his protege, bin Salman. One is Yemen: who is really in charge of the Saudi-led intervention that bin Salman launched in March 2015 – the Saudis or the Emiratis? Militias funded by and loyal to the UAE have taken control of the south, leaving the Saudis with an unresolved war with the Houthis in the north.

A second source of tension is Israel. In spearheading normalisation with Israel, the Emiratis clearly pitched themselves as Tel Aviv’s principal Gulf partner. Otaiba’s boast that the UAE and Israel had the two most capable military forces in the region raised eyebrows in Riyadh and Cairo. 

The Israeli prime minster and the foreign ministers of the UAE and Bahrain participate in a signing ceremony for the Abraham Accords in Washington on 15 September (AFP)
The Israeli prime minster and the foreign ministers of the UAE and Bahrain participate in a signing ceremony for the Abraham Accords in Washington on 15 September 2020 (AFP)

Writing the first-ever op-ed by a Gulf diplomat for an Israeli newspaper, Otaiba boasted before normalisation took place last year: “With the region’s two most capable militaries, common concerns about terrorism and aggression, and a deep and long relationship with the United States, the UAE and Israel could form closer and more effective security cooperation. As the two most advanced and diversified economies in the region, expanded business and financial ties could accelerate growth and stability across the Middle East.”

The Emirati claim to be the principal partner of Israel could cause problems for the future king of Saudi Arabia. Another notable absentee from the GCC summit was the country’s current king, Salman.

Kingdom split

Al Jazeera’s coverage of the tumultuous events shaking the Arab world has waxed and waned. Even before the blockade, it did not, for instance, devote the same attention to the murderous bombardment of Yemen by Saudi warplanes as it did to the Egyptian revolution in 2011. 

While producers and reporters are freer to report than most of their contemporaries in the Saudi-, Emirati- and Egyptian-controlled media, the state of Qatar still has its hands on volume control. There are many examples, including the decision to downplay coverage of the trial of Loujain al-Hathloul, the prominent Saudi activist recently sentenced to five years and eight months in prison.

To deliver Saudi Arabia into the hands of Israel would represent a real prize to the alliance being built over and around the heads of Palestinians

Bin Salman could use this detente with Qatar to achieve two objectives: to announce his own recognition of Israel, and to persuade his father to abdicate and pass the crown to him.

There is no doubt that bin Salman thinks it is time to do both. From the very start of his campaign to become king, establishing close clandestine relations with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been key to bin Salman’s relationship with US presidential adviser Jared Kushner and his father-in-law, Trump. 

The kingdom is split from top to bottom on the issue of normalisation with Israel. Foreign-policy heavyweights in the family still publicly voice opposition, notably the former Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Turki al-Faisal. The king himself, to whom Prince Turki remains close, is also opposed, and the issue will have a strong impact on the Saudi people.

Future turmoil

One first step towards resolving this is to neutralise or turn down the volume of the Arab media that could run against bin Salman. This mainly comes from Qatar, which might explain why Kushner himself was present at the GCC summit.

For all the pain involved, the prize is great – and Biden, a committed Zionist, would welcome it. To deliver Saudi Arabia into the hands of Israel would represent a real prize to the alliance being built over and around the heads of Palestinians. Saudi Arabia remains, by dint of its size and wealth, a “real” Arab nation.

While the resolution of the crisis with Qatar is to be welcomed, the motives for doing so could lead to yet more turmoil in Arab world.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

This GCC show of unity can’t hide its weakness

This article is available in French on Middle East Eye French edition.

بفضل الشهيد سليماني… حَسَمَت «حماس» أمرها!

الأخبار

من ملف : القائد الأممي

حسام عبد الكريم 

الإثنين 4 كانون الثاني 2021

منذ تأسيسها في أواخر ثمانينيات القرن الماضي كحركة مقاومة فلسطينية ضدّ الكيان الصهيوني، عانت «حماس» من عدّة أنواع من التجاذبات الداخلية. أول تلك التجاذبات، أنّها في الوقت ذاته حركة شعبية جماهيرية (مع ما يتطلّبه ذلك من تعاون / تعامل واقعي مع منظمة التحرير الفسلطينية أولاً ثم السلطة الفلسطينية لاحقاً) وحركة كفاح مسلّح أيضاً (بما يقتضيه ذلك من سرية التنظيمات الثورية واعتباراتها الأمنية). التجاذب الثاني، كان بين كونها حركة وطنية (فلسطينية) وحركة إسلامية (انبثقت من رحم «الإخوان المسلمين»). وثالث التجاذبات، كان يتعلّق بالموقف من النظام الرسمي العربي (وبالتحديد أنظمة مصر والأردن والسعودية) في مقابل العلاقة مع إيران.

وفي ضوء تلك التجاذبات والعوامل، سارت «حماس» على مدى أكثر من 25 سنة. وبناءً عليها، يمكن فهم التناقضات والمواقف المتضاربة التي اتخذتها الحركة سواء في الداخل الفلسطيني أو على المستوى الإقليمي. بعد اغتيال الشيخ أحمد ياسين في عام 2004، وظهور خالد مشعل كقائد «رسمي» للحركة، ازداد الميل الحماسي للتعامل الإيجابي مع النظام الرسمي العربي، وخصوصاً مع استقراره في قطر. بذل مشعل جهوداً كبيرة للتقارب مع السعودية، وسعى لإقناعها بجاهزية «حماس» لقبول الرعاية السعودية كبديلٍ للسلطة الفلسطينية، أو على الأقل إلى جانبها. ولكنّ مجهودات مشعل لم تثمر واصطدمت بتعنّت شديد، خصوصاً من طرف الأمير سعود الفيصل وإصرارٍ من السعودية على ضرورة قطع العلاقة مع إيران، أي أنهم وضعوه في خانة إما نحن أو إيران! وكذلك مع مصر، حاول مشعل كثيراً مع نظام حسني مبارك لكي يظهر له حسن النية والجاهزية للتعاطي بإيجابية مع الملاحظات والمطالب المصرية، وذلك بهدف التعامل مع «حماس» كشريك وطرف سياسي مقبول، ولكن جهود مشعل قوبلت بالصد ووصلت إلى حائط مسدود مع إصرار مصر على التعامل مع «حماس» على أساس «أمني»، ووضع ملفّها كاملاً بأيدي المخابرات المصرية، وليس وزارة الخارجية. ومع الأردن أيضاً، فشلت جهود خالد مشعل نظراً إلى حساسية جهاز المخابرات تجاه علاقة «حماس» بـ«الإخوان المسلمين» الأردنيين، وثبات السياسة الأردنية على مبدأ الدعم والشراكة مع السلطة الفلسطينية في عملية السلام (استخدمت الأردن العلاقة مع «حماس» كورقة في علاقتها مع سلطة عباس في رام الله تستعملها إذا اقتضت الحاجة من حين لآخر). باختصار، وجدت «حماس» صدّاً وردّاً ورفضاً من النظام العربي، وشروطاً تعجيزية، رغم كلّ محاولاتها وجهودها لنيل الرضا الرسمي.

وهنا ظهر رجب طيب إردوغان. بحلول عام 2009، شعر إردوغان أنه صار يمتلك من القوة داخل تركيا بما يمكنه من تغيير سياساتها وتحالفاتها الخارجية. وعندما بدأ يطلق سهامه السياسية تجاه إسرائيل ويتكلّم عن القدس وفلسطين، وجدت «حماس» متنفّساً كبيراً لها، خصوصاً مع «سنّية» إردوغان وعلاقاته الإخوانية القديمة. اندفعت قيادة «حماس» نحو إردوغان إلى أقصى مدى، بشكل متهوّر يمكن القول، حتى ارتكبت خطأها الأكبر عندما قرّرت قلب ظهر المجنّ لسوريا والانقلاب على إيران. في الفترة ما بين عامَي 2011 و2013، دخلت «حماس» طرفاً في الأزمة السورية، داعمة للمعارضة الساعية لإسقاط النظام، مدفوعة بجذورها الإخوانية وبموقف إردوغان ومتشجّعة بصعود محمد مرسي في مصر. كان ذلك الموقف طعنة في ظهر سوريا وخيانة لإيران.

قرّر سليماني بتوجيهات من القيادة العليا للجمهورية الإسلامية الإيرانية أن يغضّ النظر عن خطأ قيادة «حماس»


الجناح العسكري في «حماس»، «كتائب القسام»، كانت له دائماً أولوياته واعتباراته التي لا تتطابق بالضرورة مع قيادة خالد مشعل وسياساته العربية ومبادراته ومناوراته. لم تكن الدول العربية في وارد تقديم أيّ دعم عسكري على الإطلاق (بل كانت واقعاً في الخندق الآخر، الإسرائيلي، عندما يتعلّق الأمر بالمقاومة المسلّحة و«كتائب القسام»). وحتى تركيا إردوغان كانت تعرف حدودها، فاكتفت بالكلام السياسي والإعلامي، ولم تقترب أبداً من النواحي العسكرية لدعم القضية الفلسطينية.
الشهيد قاسم سليماني، بتوجيهات من القيادة العليا للجمهورية الإسلامية الإيرانية، قرّر أن يغضّ النظر عن خطأ قيادة «حماس» (أو خطيئتها بالأحرى) ومكتبها السياسي، وأن يستمرّ في البرنامج الاستراتيجي الذي أطلقه من سنين طويلة والهادف إلى تحويل «حماس» في غزّة إلى قوّة عسكرية حقيقية قادرة على مواجهة إسرائيل وتحدّيها، بل والتغلّب عليها، على نموذج حزب الله في لبنان. مبكراً جداً، دخل الشهيد سليماني على خط المقاومة في غزّة، متبنّياً التنظيمات المسلّحة، وأهمّها وأكبرها «كتائب القسام»، وداعماً لها تقنياً وفنياً، بالسلاح والعتاد، ولوجستياً ومادياً. سخّر الحاج قاسم إمكانيات إيران في هذا الاتجاه، فصارت تؤتي أُكلها وبدأت قدرات جديدة ومتطوّرة بالظهور في أيدي المقاومين الفلسطينيين، أنظمة صواريخ يزداد مداها يوماً عن يوم، قنابل وألغام متطوّرة، قدرات بحرية وحتى جوية! والأهم هو التأهيل والتدريب ونقل الخبرات من أجل ضمان الاستمرارية والقدرة على التصنيع والإنتاج. لم يتعامل الحاج قاسم مع «حماس» بمنطق ردّ الفعل، فلم يوقف برنامج الدعم العسكري لـ«كتائب القسام» ولم يطلب من «حماس» شيئاً، ولا ضغط عليها ولا ساومها لأجل تغيير موقفها السياسي من الأزمة في سوريا.

تعامل الشهيد سليماني مع «حماس» بمنتهى الصبر والهدوء، فلم يعاقبها بسبب «خيانتها» في سوريا وتجاهل، بثقة العالم العارف، خالد مشعل ومكتبه السياسي، وكأنّ شيئاً لم يكن. كانت القضية أكبر من الأشخاص عند قاسم سليماني، وفلسطين مسألة مبدأ وأكبر من خالد مشعل بل من «حماس» كلّها. إنها عقيدة الجمهورية الإسلامية غرسها الإمام الخميني في نفوس قاسم سليماني ورفاقه: إسرائيل غدّة سرطانية ولا بدّ أن تزول، وسوف تزول!

سرعان ما أدركت «حماس» خطأها. فمع صمود سوريا وفشل خطط إسقاط النظام فيها، وجدت قيادة «حماس» نفسها في مهبّ الريح، وخصوصاً مع إقرار إردوغان واعترافه بهزيمة مشروعه في سوريا، عام 2016. فلا النظام الرسمي العربي معها، ولا انتصر «الإخوان المسلمون» في مصر أو سوريا، وقد أبعدت نفسها عن إيران وأغضبتها، وكلّ ما حصدته من مغامرتها السورية هو الفشل والخيبة والظهور بمظهر الغادر الناكر للجميل. فكان التغيير الحتمي. توارى خالد مشعل ورموز مكتبه السياسي خلف الأضواء، واضطرّوا لإفساح المجال لصعود القيادة الجديدة في «حماس»، قيادة العمل العسكري و«كتائب القسام»، لتتسلّم زمام الأمور في غزة، ممثّلة بشخص المناضل العتيد والعنيد يحيى السنوار الذي لن يسمح بعد الآن للسياسيين «بالعبث» في إنجازات «حماس» العسكرية التي تحقّقت بفضل إيران وبالذات الشهيد قاسم سليماني. لا يبالي يحيى السنوار بغضب من يغضب ولا يداري، بل قالها علناً وعلى رؤوس الأشهاد: كلّ ما حقّقناه من قدرات عسكرية كان بفضل إيران ودعمها.

سوف يوجد دائماً في صفوف «حماس» وقاعدتها الشعبية من يعادون إيران على أسس مذهبية، وسوف لن تتوقف الأصوات التي تتحدّث عن الشيعة والسنّة، ولكن لن تكون لهم الكلمة بعد اليوم. تعلّمت «حماس» درسها ولن تغادر محور المقاومة بعد الآن، والفضل كلّ الفضل للشهيد قاسم سليماني.

قالها إسماعيل هنية في طهران ثلاثاً: شهيد القدس، شهيد القدس، شهيد القدس!

* كاتب وباحث من الأردن

فيديوات متعلقة

مقالات متعلقة

أن تدرك متأخّراً خير من العيش بالوهم

سعاده مصطفى أرشيد

إطلالتان إعلاميّتان في بضعة أيام، تجمع بينهما خيوط دقيقة ومتينة، مقابلة قناة فضائية مع أمين عام حزب الله، شيّقة برغم طولها، ومهمة لما ورد فيها من معلومات وما أطلقت من رسائل، ثم مقالة لرئيس تحرير صحيفة محسوبة على المقاومة، تحدثت عن زيارة رئيس مكتب حماس السياسيّ لبيروت الأخيرة، وما قاله لجلسائه في أكثر من لقاء، مرسلاً الرسائل ومحدّداً مواقف حركة حماس. مقابلة السيد حسن، أعلن فيها وبشكل صريح عن قطع العلاقة مع السعودية، التي اتهمها بالسعي لاغتياله جسدياً، بالتعاون مع أميركا و»إسرائيل»، محمّلاً إياها مسؤولية أيّ عمل ينال منه شخصياً بالمستقبل، لكن هل سيقطع هذه العلاقة أيضاً مع جماعة السعودية في لبنان؟ أم أنه يفصل ما بين الوضع اللبناني والوضع الإقليمي؟ وهل ستضع السعودية قيوداً ومحدّدات على جماعتها في لبنان بخصوص التعامل مع حزب الله، الأمر الذي سيعيق تشكيل حكومة ترث حكومة حسان دياب. أكد السيد حسن أنّ حرب اليمن ستتواصل إلى أن تحقق أهدافها في هزيمة السعودية، وهو أمر حيوي وبالغ الأهمية. فهذه الحرب ستشغل السعودية وتستنزفها مالياً وسياسياً ودينياً وأخلاقياً، ثم أنّ محمد بن سلمان الذي لا يملك إلا الحقد والمال وطاعة سيده الأميركي، ستُفقده الحرب مشروعيّته وتستنزفها في أن يصبح ملكاً.

تحدّث عن المقاومة اللبنانية، وقدراتها المتعاظمة، في البر والبحر والمجال الصاروخي، وأكد امتلاكها أضعاف ما كان بحوزتها في العدد والمدى والدقة، وانتقل إلى المقاومة في المحور على امتداده من العراق إلى غزة وما بينهما، ثم تحدث بالتفصيل عن دور سورية والرئيس الأسد في دعم المقاومة عموماً والمقاومة في غزة خصوصاً. فالرئيس الأسد هنا يفرّق ما بين المقاومة في غزة وحركة حماس والإخوان المسلمين.

في الإطلالة الإعلامية الثانية، تناولت الأخبار ما تحدّث به الشيخ هنية في أكثر من مناسبة جمعته بأطياف لبنانية مقاومة، ومثلت بالسياسة تكاملاً مع المقابلة التلفزيونية مع السيد حسن، فقد أكد أنّ حركة حماس ليست جزءاً من التنظيم الدولي للإخوان المسلمين، وهي حركة فلسطينية في الهمّ والاهتمام على حدّ سواء، ثم أنّ أية مسألة سياسية إقليمية تحدّد حركة حماس موقفها منها بنظرة فلسطينيّة، وبمعزل عن حركة الإخوان المسلمين، هكذا تكلم الشيخ هنية، ولم يصدر عن الشيخ هنية أو حركة حماس ما ينفي ذلك. يمكن قراءة هذه التصريحات، بأنها إشارة لمحاور عدة ومنها المحوران المصري والسوري، فحماس تدرك أنّ مصر تبقى قوة إقليمية برغم ضعفها وهوانها في الفترة الحالية، وهي على علاقة بالغة السوء بالإخوان، وصلت بدائرة الإفتاء المصرية العريقة أن تسير على خطى العلماء السعوديين باعتبار الإخوان المسلمين حركة إرهابية، لا شأن لها بالإسلام، وإنما تتبع مبادئ مخالفة لهدي الدين الحنيف، ومع ذلك فحركة حماس تدرك أنّ مصر هي الرئة الوحيدة التي تستطيع غزة التقاط أنفاسها من خلال وجودها في مجالها الحيوي، وأنها لا تستطيع الصمود والبقاء من دون هذا المجال الجيو – بوليتيكي (الجغرا – سياسي) الضاغط. من هنا ستحافظ حماس على علاقتها بمصر، بكلّ حال من الأحوال، وهي أمام صراع البقاء لن تلقي بالاً، أو تصبح طرفاً في الصراع الدائر بين مصر السيسي والإخوان المسلمين. المحور السوري كان أكثر أهمية واستفاضة في ما هجس به الشيخ هنية، فقد أكد لجلسائه على ضرورة طي صفحة الخلاف مع دمشق وتجاوز الأخطاء التي ارتكبتها حماس بحق سورية.. فموقف سورية أصيل، حسب قوله، في الالتزام بدعم فلسطين والمقاومة الفلسطينية سابقاً وحاضراً، ويستذكر أنّ ما حصلت عليه حماس خصوصاً والمقاومة الفلسطينية عموماً من دعم وإسناد سوري، لم تحصل على مثله من أية دولة عربية أو إسلامية، في سائر المجالات من تدريب وتمويل وتطوير ودعم سياسي ومعنوي وتوفير أجواء آمنة من دون ضغط أو إملاء أو تقييد. فالنظام حسب قوله لم يعكس مشاكله مع الإخوان المسلمين على حماس، فيما باقي العرب والمسلمين – والقول لا زال لهنية – يضيّقون علينا، واختتم بأن سورية لو كانت لا تعاني من حربها الطاحنة، لما تجرأ المطبّعون على الذهاب إلى العلانية في تطبيعهم. ما يجري على أرض الواقع من تطبيع عربي، وتوجس من ضربات ترامب الراحل، وتقدير بين متفائل ومتسائل عما ستقوم به إدارة بايدن القادمة، يعشش القرار الرسمي في حالة كمون وانتظار، ولكن مع متغيّرين أخذا في الظهور والإعلان عن نفسيهما: المتغيّر الأول أنّ جهات إسلامية عديدة ومنها حركة حماس قد أخذت بإجراء مراجعات تقود باتجاه استقلالها عن حركة الإخوان المسلمين الأمّ، وذلك لأكثر من سبب، منها ضغوط وضرورات الجغرافية السياسية، ومنها مواقف بعض الأحزاب الشقيقة والمنضوية تحت العباءة الاخوانية، التي تشارك وتبارك تطبيع حكامها كما في الحالة المغربيّة، أو الحالة التونسيّة حيث يقف الشيخ راشد الغنوشي في حالة وسطية، أو في اليمن عندما يقف حزب الإصلاح داعماً العدوان السعوديّ على أهله وشعبه. المتغيّر الثاني الموقف المعلن لحماس وغيرها من الأحزاب والحركات التي ظنّت انّ «النظام السوريّ» سيسقط سريعاً، وأنّ الرئيس والقيادة السورية يحضران حقائبهما للرحيل، بات هؤلاء يدركون خطأهم وسوء تقديرهم، فالنظام باق برغم تلك الحرب الكونية والتي شاركت بها أكثر من ثمانين دولة، عدا عن الجماعات الإرهابية، وشركات المرتزقة، ومع ذلك فسورية لم تفقد البوصلة، وبقيت برغم انشغالها لاعباً إقليمياً، قادراً على مقارعة الخصم من خلال دعم حركة حماس وتزويدها بمقدرات استراتيجية، هذا ما أدركته حركة حماس مؤخراً كما يتضح مما قاله الشيخ هنية لندمائه في بيروت.. المهمّ أن تدرك ولو متأخرة، خير من أن لا تدرك أبداً.

*سياسي فلسطيني مقيم في جنين – فلسطين المحتلة

فيديوات ذات صلة

مقالات ذات صلة

Why Israel is now delighted about the Arab Spring

تسريبات هيلاري كلينتون تفضح تطبيع إخوان ليبيا بأوامر من محمد بديع مع  إسرائيل... #محمد المقريف - YouTube
Click the Pic

Source

The self-styled ‘only democracy in the Middle East’ was never comfortable with pro-democracy protests. But the autocratic counter-revolution that followed gave it new friends

A Palestinian boy walks past a section of Israel’s separation wall and a billboard that reads in Arabic “The Arab Spring Coffee Shop” in the West Bank village of Al-Ram in 2012 (AFP)By 

Lily Galili in Tel Aviv, IsraelPublished date: 1 January 2021 09:10 UTC | Last update: 

“Unintended consequences” is the best way to describe the impact the Arab Spring has had on Israel.

Ten years after the pro-democracy protests that swept the Arab world, Israeli analysts agree that December 2020 is the unexpected outcome of December 2010’s events.

They may differ in the interpretation of recent developments and assessment of their future impact – but all look back at the beginning of the decade as the starting point of a process that has led to a growing list of Arab and Muslim countries normalising relations with Israel. 

All agree that the Arab Spring (a term coined by the West) is not a fait accompli; that the undercurrents are still very much there and can still change the landscape of the future.

Israeli political and public reaction to these historic uprisings was confused right from the start.

Public opinion was divided between those who believed that Israel’s situation worsened in face of the developments and those who saw the Arab Spring as a positive change for the country. As Israel heads to elections, nothing is different but everything has changed

Even the term “Arab Spring” was up for debate, sometimes replaced by “Arab Winter” or a term officially coined by Israeli Military Intelligence, “Taltala”, a Hebrew word for “shake-up”. “Egyptian Plague” was one of many terms reflecting the profound confusion and derision.

If the Israeli discourse reflected public bewilderment, contradictory statements by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu were reflections of confused policy.

The premier, who had preached in his own books that the lack of democracy in Arab states was the main obstacle to peace, openly avoided any reference to the democratic aspect of the Arab Spring.

“The Middle East is no place for the naive,” he stated in a speech delivered at the Israeli parliament on 23 November 2011, referring sarcastically to those who saw something positive in the unfolding events.

Yet, on the international arena, he adopted a more lenient approach, making statements like: “Israel is a democracy that encourages the promotion of free and democratic values in the Middle East and the promotion of such values will benefit peace.”

In a paper published in January 2013 by Mitvim – The Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies, analyst Lior Lehrs quotes “government sources in Jerusalem” as explaining that “Netanyahu felt he had to narrow the gap between him and the international community”.

“The PM, as the leader of the only democracy in the Middle East, understood he cannot ignore international criticism of [Egyptian President Hosni] Mubarak and therefore this time addressed the issue of promoting democracy in the region,” Lehr wrote.

In the years following this statement, the leader of a country that wrongly describes itself and prides itself as “the only democracy in the Middle East” befriended a long series of authoritarian regimes in the region.

From spring to normalisation

The “linkage” between the Arab Spring and the normalisation of relations between Israel and the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, Morocco and likely more countries to come, was one of main themes of a conference dedicated to the decade by BESA, the right-wing-orientated Begin-Sadat Centre for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University.

“The Arab Spring is the death certificate of Arab nationalism as we knew it in the Levant, and the rise of more dictatorship-like regimes,” Ehud Yaari, Israeli political commentator and analyst, told Middle East Eye.

“The collapse of central capitals like Cairo and Damascus spurred Arab peripheral countries to re-arrange the arena. The capital moved to the UAE, a more modern one, despite its modest size. This is a given of historical dimension not bound to change in the visible future. A whole new nation ball game in the Middle East.”

At the Begin-Sadat Centre conference on 23 December, Yaari briefly told attendees what he believed would be the “nightmare scenario” for Israel – the collapse “inwards” of Egypt.

Yaari later told MEE that while Iran and Turkey compete with each other over dominance in Levantine Arab states, the peripheral countries reached a conclusion that the answer to their growing threat is to establish a new partnership, supported by the US.

Yaari said Netanyahu’s “bragging” about annexation gave Abu Dhabi’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed an opportunity for normalisation. The September deal was inked with the promise that Israeli annexation of the occupied West Bank had been shelved.Meet the man Netanyahu has picked to lead Israel’s Mossad

“They wouldn’t do it for a supply of F-35 aircrafts; they aim at a kind of military-security covenant. Others will follow. Even Qatar will not stay behind long after Saudi Arabia joins. Then Muslim states like Niger, Mali and more will follow,” he said.

“The Arab Spring was a cry of those my Arab friend calls the ‘helpless, hopeless and jobless’, and not a vehicle for regime change. Yet many of the countries involved remained on a map only.”

According to his scenario, Israel becomes an integral part of the region by joining regional alliances like “the Red Sea forum”, a new Saudi initiative being discussed.

Menachem Klein, political scientist and adviser to Israeli negotiation teams in 2000 and 2003, believes that all normalisation agreements come as a result of the Arab Spring and the “dissolution” of the Arab League.

Once, the Arab League united states against Israel. When governments began attacking their people in 2011, those countries began turning on one another.

In this new constellation, Israel has become another factor in the fine fabric of alliances and rivalries in the Arab world. Donald Trump in the Middle East: A story of big winners and bigger losers

“Israel integrated into the Arab fabric not just via those normalisation agreements but as an active player in the intricate labyrinth of contradictory interests of countries of the Middle East,” he told MEE.

“A long time ago, the late Shimon Peres dreamt of Israel as member of the Arab League; what he did not dream of is a broken region with a practically non-existent League.”

Klein is very much aware of the complexity of the new reality.

The upside, he believes, is Israel is accepted as a fact, even if the circumstances of its establishment are still illegitimate in the eyes of many. The downside, according to Klein, is that in the eyes of many in Arab societies, Israel is still perceived as the long arm of the United States, one that can be used for protection and arms, as well as a pipeline to Washington.

Israel, Palestine and domestic policy

Though Yaari and Klein both agree that the Arab Spring and normalisation deals have impacted the Palestinian cause, they do not reach the same conclusion as to how.

“I believe that the normalisation that stemmed from the Arab Spring will impose more restraint on any Israeli government, be it even ultra-right wing. No more annexation, no more Israeli construction plans in the controversial E1 area. Israel has too much to lose,” said Yaari.

“The Palestinians, on the other hand, finally realised they have no one to lean on, they are bound to change direction.”

Since Palestinian nationalism ceased to be an all-Arab issue, and now the Palestinians have been abandoned by Arab countries and in the reality subject to de-facto annexation, it has in fact become an Israeli internal domestic issue

According to this plan carefully crafted over a few years, Israel will take over control of the West Bank and divide it into segments like ‘greater Nablus’, ‘greater Jenin’, and so on

Klein does not agree with that conclusion nor with that scenario. The most dangerous repercussion of the decade that changed the Middle East is, according to him, the Palestinian issue.

“Since Palestinian nationalism ceased to be an all-Arab issue, and now the Palestinians have been abandoned by Arab countries and in the reality subject to de-facto annexation, it has in fact become an Israeli internal domestic issue,” Klein said.

“It is now more a question of domestic policy than of foreign policy. That twist just makes the situation more acute in the absence of external enforcement leading to a solution. Any explosion in the occupied territories can now easily lead to chaos.”

Klein knows of an Israeli military plan to deal with such an explosion. According to this plan carefully crafted over a few years, Israel will take over control of the West Bank and divide it into segments like “greater Nablus”, “greater Jenin”, and so on.

Each divided region will be under the control of a military governor. The Israeli military’s central command, Klein tells MEE, has already practiced the plan.

It is more than about controlling riots: this is the plan to dismantle one ruling authority – the Palestinian Authority – and thus smash the political entity of Palestinian nationality.

Unlike Yaari, Klein believes that the “shake-up” that skipped the occupied territories ten years ago is about to arrive.

Read more

Sayyed Nasrallah Vows Punishment for Every Crime: Hezbollah’s Guided Missiles More than Doubled

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image.png

By Zeinab Abdallah

Beirut – Hezbollah Secretary General His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah appeared on al-Mayadeen TV with Ghassan Bin Jeddo in a special episode named ‘Dialogue of the Year’. The four-hour long interview touched upon almost all regional issues that happened this year, although the pivotal segment was about martyr General Qassem Soleimani and Hajj Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis less than a week ahead of their first martyrdom anniversary.

Starting with the possible options that would take place during US President Donald Trump’s few days in office, Sayyed Nasrallah indicated that there is not accurate information that Trump or the ‘Israeli’ enemy will take an action. “There are just certain analyses,” His Eminence noted, adding that everybody is anticipating and expecting what Trump might do in the coming days.

“The Axis of Resistance is dealing cautiously, accurately and attentively so that no post of this axis would be lured towards any confrontation that suits the enemies’ timing, but when the enemy creates massive media noise, this means that it won’t do anything, and that it is rather waging a psychological warfare,” Sayyed Nasrallah stressed noting that “this doesn’t mean that we mustn’t remain cautious.”

Regarding the news about a possible ‘Israeli’ landing that has taken place along Lebanon’s Jiyeh coastline, the Hezbollah leader made clear that the party’s information doesn’t provide that any ‘Israeli’ landing has taken place as it was reported in media.”

Saudi attempts to assassinate Sayyed Nasrallah

Moving to the issue of assassination, the crime by which a US drone killed the Islamic Revolution Guard’s Quds Force Commander, and Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Units’ Second-in-command, Sayyed Nasrallah explained that many sides have warned him about plots to target him especially after the martyrdom of Hajj Qassem Soleimani. “This is something normal and well known,” His Eminence commented.

“I’ve been warned about assassinating me ahead of the US Presidential Elections, and that any targeting might be ‘Israeli’ or American,” the resistance leader explained, going further to uncover that targeting Hezbollah leaders is an American-‘Israeli’-Saudi goal: “I have information that Saudi Arabia has been stirring to assassinate me since the beginning of its war on Yemen, and private sources have informed me that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman requested my assassination in person during his first visit to Washington and his first meeting with Trump.”

Sayyed Nasrallah cited the same sources as saying that Saudi Arabia took it upon itself that in case a war erupts after his assassination, it was ready to pay all the financial costs for this war.

“The Americans have agreed on a Saudi request to assassinate me, and that ‘Israel’ would execute this assassination. Saudi Arabia doesn’t act rationally, it has been acting maliciously especially in the recent years,” His Eminence went on to say, then he accused the US, ‘Israel’, and Saudi Arabia of partnership in the crime of assassinating leaders Soleimani and al-Muhandis.

“The crime of assassinating Hajj Qassem was a clear one, uncovered, and similar to the assassination of Sayyed Abbas al-Moussawi.”

Soleimani, the Sayyed’s own self

When talking about martyr Soleimani, Sayyed Nasrallah couldn’t have enough listing his manners and characteristics. He described the martyr as a very special person on the level of ethics. He also referred to him as a charismatic person who had the ability to influence all those who had to know him.

“On the military level, martyr Soleimani was a strategic and tactical leader at the same time,” His Eminence noted.

Describing the time that preceded the martyrdom, Sayyed Nasrallah said that he was very worried about him and he has warned him repeatedly.

“I miss Hajj Qassem very much… We have worked together and faced challenges together. I used to feel that Hajj Qassem and I were one person.”

Hajj Abu Mahdi, the main partner in Iraq’s victories

When talking about martyr Hajj Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, Sayyed Nasrallah recommended that his identity should be more defined to the people, referring to him as a great person.

“Hajj Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis is very much like Hajj Qassem, and this is why they met in the battlefield, and Allah has concluded their lives with this martyrdom.”

His Eminence explained that Hajj Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis was suggested to assume [governmental] responsibilities in Iraq, but he preferred to work in the battlefield.

“Martyr Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis was a main partner in making the two victories against Daesh [the Arabic acronym for terrorist ‘ISIS/ISIL’ group] and the US occupation of Iraq,” Sayyed Nasrallah went on to say.

“He was one of the leaders of the Axis of Resistance that surpasses Iraq and reaches all regional causes.”

Hajj Qassem, the transnational resistance commander

When tackling the issue of the US presence in Iraq, Sayyed Nasrallah underscored that the Americans have left Iraq by force, humiliated and defeated thanks to the strikes of the resistance.

“The Americans fled Iraq under fire because they begged martyr Soleimani to stop the Iraqi resistance operations against them.”

As for Palestine, the Sayyed added that martyr Soleimani developed ties with all Palestinian resistance factions: “There were not any redlines for martyr Soleimani on the level of supporting Palestinian resistance factions,” uncovering that the ‘Kornet’ missiles reached the Palestinian resistance in Gaza thanks to martyr Soleimani.

“The efforts made by Hajj Qassem Soleimani and the Quds Force in supporting the Palestinian resistance factions were ongoing behind the scenes.”

Additionally, the resistance leader uncovered that the Russian-made ‘Kornet’ missiles Hezbollah used in the July 2006 war were purchased by Syria from Russia, and then Hezbollah took them.

Additionally, Sayyed Nasrallah made clear that Syrian President Bashar Assad agreed that the ‘Kornet’ missiles purchased by Damascus from Moscow reach ‘Hamas’ and the ‘Islamic Jihad’ resistance movements in Gaza.

Sayyed Nasrallah hailed martyr Soleimani and his team’s dedication to present all what could be offered to Palestine on all levels. His Eminence also praised Assad’s willingness to support the Palestinian resistance.

Normalization only took the masks off

On the level of Arab normalization with the ‘Israeli’ enemy, Sayyed Nasrallah noted that it is something that didn’t surprise him, adding that this is because most of the Arab regimes were only telling the Palestinians mere lies.

“We view the normalization deals from the perspective that masks have been taken off, and that those Arab regimes’ submissive realities appeared clearly.”

Iran is just a pretext the Arab regimes use to justify their normalization deals because they find the Palestinian cause as a burden for them, Sayyed Nasrallah added, stressing that there isn’t any reason that justifies the abandoning of Palestine.

Sayyed Nasrallah also lamented Morocco’s Justice and Development Party’s stance which he considered was more painful and more dangerous than that of the regimes’ normalization with ‘Israel’.

The ever-growing Axis of Resistance

In terms of power and numbers, the resistance leader emphasized that the might of the Axis of Resistance has multiplied many more times than its level several years ago, stressing that the most important thing is having a strong will.

“We are an axis in a state of legitimate self-defense, to defend our countries, sanctities, peoples, wealth. The Axis of Resistance has made major and great achievements,” His Eminence underscored.

“Without any exaggeration, the Axis of Resistance is stronger than any time before. The Axis was able to contain the strike of Hajj Qassem Soleimani’s martyrdom although it was very hard,” Sayyed Nasrallah pointed out.

Regarding the Ain al-Assad strike, Sayyed Nasrallah referred to it as an important response that shows how a leadership of a state in the world deals a blow to the United States: “The Ain al-Assad strike was a historical slap because the equation in confronting the Americans is not about killing, and Washington thought that by assassinating leaders it would put an end to the Axis of Resistance, while in fact this axis is not based upon a person by himself.”

His Eminence then vowed that punishing the killers of martyrs Soleimani and al-Muhandis is a goal for every honorable person, warning those who ordered and executed that they will be punished wherever they were.

“What the world should learn is that the blood of the leaders won’t be in vain, and the killers of Hajj Qassem and Abu Mahdi must be punished sooner or later,” Sayyed Nasrallah said.

His Eminence praised the joint drills held between the Palestinian resistance factions in Gaza as a very important step and a development that shows their strength and frightens the enemy at the same time.

Martyr Soleimani’s role in Iraq

Sayyed Nasrallah explained that martyr Soleimani’s appearance in media started with the battles against Daesh in Iraq, adding that it was not an intended issue.

“Hajj Qassem Soleimani didn’t seek being mentioned in a news, being in the spotlight or even hailed by anybody, and his relationship with the religious leadership in Iraq was good, especially on the level of main issues.”

Explaining that the vast majority of military operations against the US occupation in Iraq was carried out by the resistance factions, Sayyed Nasrallah said that groups of young Iraqis started the armed resistance against the US troops in Iraq without a political cover.

“Arab satellite channels refused to broadcast the videos that document the Iraqi resistance operations against the American occupation. Meanwhile, resistance in Iraq received real support from al-Quds Force and Hajj Qassem Soleimani.”

Sayyed Nasrallah contrasted al-Qaeda’s 4800 suicide attacks that were carried out against civilians on Iraqi soil, showing the difference when it came to the Iraqi resistance operations that were precisely meant to pressure the occupation and were very keen and accurate to avoid harming any civilian.

That’s why, Sayyed Nasrallah explained, the US Army threatened Hajj Qassem and al-Quds Force to strike their posts in Iran if they continued to support the Iraqi resistance: “The US Army then sent a message to Hajj Qassem to help them withdraw from Iraq without being hit by fire.”

Hadn’t been to the Iraqi resistance, Sayyed Nasrallah said that the US embassy would have been in control of Iraq.

However, Donald Trump keeps his troops in Iraq and Syria to steal their resources and oil, the Hezbollah leader added.

Forecasting the scheme against Syria

Sayyed Nasrallah narrated how martyr Soleimani was concerned about the American attempts to ride the tide of the peoples’ uprisings to target some regimes after America allowed toppling its man in Egypt, President Hosni Mubarak.

“Martyr Soleimani was the first to forecast the risks heading to Syria under the pretext of the ‘Arab Spring’, because the country supports the resistance.”

And while the parties that really backed, funded, and led opposition the groups in Syria rushed for an armed confrontation, Iran contacted opposition groups in accordance with President Assad to reach a political solution, but all of them insisted that we are not in a state of political solution and there won’t be negotiations with the regime, which they predicted will collapse within days, Sayyed Nasrallah went on to say.

“There was a very big international and regional decision in the war on Syria to prevent any political solution for the Syrian crisis.”

Foreign forces supported the Syrian opposition as they believed that the regime would be toppled within two months. They wanted to weaken the regime in Syria and in need of making a settlement with ‘Israel’ and recognize it, the Hezbollah leader recalled.

“We had only two options, either to surrender and let the region collapse, or to resist; and we chose resistance,” Sayyed Nasrallah said, hailing Syria’s independence of decision, braveness of leadership, and neither submitting to the enemies nor to the allies.

“Syria was not only targeted for supporting Palestine and the resistance, but also to be occupied and to allow stealing its oil and gas.”

President Assad’s decision to remain steadfast was the main motivator for his allies in supporting Damascus and engaging in the confrontation next to him.

“Assad didn’t leave Damascus at all over the course of the battles, and in the most difficult times of the war he was strong and solid,” Sayyed Nasrallah added.

Soleimani in Moscow

On the level of the Russian military intervention in Syria, Sayyed Nasrallah labelled it as very influential.

His Eminence recalled that Russian President Vladimir Putin was hesitant in the beginning of the war to enter Syria; then Hajj Qassem went to Moscow and explained, with maps, the field situation. At the time, Putin told Hajj Qassem that he was convinced with entering Syria.

“With his charismatic persona, strong logic, and strategic explanation, Hajj Qassem contributed to convincing Putin with entering Syria based on logic and facts.”

Soleimani in the July 2006 War

About memories from the July 2006 war, Sayyed Nasrallah recalled how martyr Soleimani didn’t leave the Southern Suburb of Beirut [Dahiyeh] but for 48 hours to submit his report on the situation and contact the brothers in Syria and Iran.

“All of the ‘Israeli’ aerial bombing during the July 2006 war couldn’t stop the logistic support from reaching the resistance in Lebanon,” His Eminence added.

After the end of the war, martyr Soleimani played a role and shouldered the responsibility of following the project of sheltering the displaced people. “The one who formed the Iranian Committee to Reconstruct Lebanon was Hajj Qassem and martyr Engineer Hossam Khoshnavis.”

Sayyed Nasrallah lamented that he could never forget that there are sides within the Lebanese political authorities who were planning to keep people homeless for the longest possible period of time after the July 2006 war to incite them against the resistance.

Commenting on martyr Soleimani’s successor, Hajj Esmail Ghaani, Sayyed Nasrallah said that he used to meet him repeatedly when he was Hajj Qassem’s deputy: “He was informed with all files. And Hajj Qassem used to say that Hajj Ghaani is to succeed him.”

The void ‘Israeli’ threats

In a strong and confident comment about the Lebanese resistance group, Sayyed Nasrallah underscored that Hezbollah is at it is: “Its strength, morale, and will are the same, or even much powerful.”

All the threats you hear from the enemy are because it knows that we will retaliate for its killing of our martyr in Syria. We are keeping our promise to respond to the ‘Israeli’ enemy’s killing of martyr Ali Mohsen, His Eminence made clear.

“The major alertness of the resistance was on all levels and in front of the ‘Israelis’’ sight. The ‘Israeli’ drones’ movement in the air is very confused as it anticipates the resistance’s response. The ‘Israeli’ knows that we have used the appropriate weapon towards its drones without making this public.”

The Hezbollah leader further announced that the precision-guided missiles owned by the resistance have doubled from the number it had a year ago.

“The resistance today is in a very good condition, and at the best of its capabilities. We believe in the future and trust that we are approaching victory.

The concerned party is the ‘Israeli’ and not the resistance especially as Trump is leaving and Washington might return to the nuclear deal with Iran.

A certain level of Hezbollah’s aerial defense has been exposed to the enemy, but whether there are higher levels or not is a matter that we don’t reveal, Sayyed Nasrallah said, noting that “we are keen to keep the ‘Israeli’ unaware of a lot about what the resistance has.”

“There are many issues that the ‘Israeli’ knows nothing about.”

Our Axis is on the top and it is ‘Israel’ which is in trouble, His Eminence underscored, adding that the resistance’s decision is to carry out an appropriate response that strengthens its deterrence; this won’t be achieved without targeting the enemy’s soldiers, he said.

“We don’t need a demonstrative action along the border that targets dummies. We want an actual response.”

Lebanon’s maritime borders, Gov’t issue

In a question about Lebanon’s indirect negotiations with the ‘Israeli’ regime regarding the demarcation of the maritime borders, Sayyed Nasrallah was confident to say that the negotiations under the current US administration will reach a dead end.

“Our right to prevent any ‘Israeli’ stealing of our waters is natural, and our ability to do this is non-negotiable,” His Eminence underscored.

Elsewhere in the interview, Sayyed Nasrallah said there is a positive atmosphere and cooperation between the Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri and Hezbollah.

However, he noted that there is a problem of trust that delays the formation of a Lebanese government, which is mainly between President Michel Aoun and the PM-designate.

The environment embracing resistance

On the level of discussing the resistance’s weapon within its own people, Sayyed Nasrallah said that the people of South Lebanon don’t see resistance as a burden, they rather view it as their shield.

“We support the threatened and targeted environment of resistance which is paying prices for this support, His Eminence said in reference to the sanctions targeting the entire country, “We try and we seek to present aid to the Lebanese people and to our environment with all possible means.”

Sayyed Nasrallah noted, however, that the problem in Lebanon is a problem of choices, and the evidence is that nobody dared to head eastward to find economic solutions.

“There is a misevaluation in linking solving some issues for some countries with the foreign factor.”

From this point, Sayyed Nasrallah went on to explain that Iran is a great regional power and a main axis in the region but it doesn’t negotiate instead of any of its allies in the region.

Iran, a non-interventionist superpower

“Iran doesn’t buy, sell, or negotiate with the Americans instead of the peoples of the region,” the resistance leader noted, adding that the Islamic Republic of Iran informed the Europeans that it is not concerned with negotiating on behalf of the Yemenis or others.

“Washington insisted to negotiate the Iraqi issue with Tehran; Iran, however, insisted that the Iraqis be present and that the negotiations be held in public.”

The Hezbollah-Hamas relations

Hezbollah leader said that he met with Palestinian resistance movement, Hamas, brother Ismail Haniyeh several times during his last visit to Lebanon and discussed with him different regional issues that included bilateral relations and the relations with Syria.

“Relations between Hamas and Syria must be rearranged; there is a positive atmosphere even if it takes time. Logically, I believe that Hamas is tending to rearrange its ties with Damascus,” Sayyed Nasrallah said, noting that he talked with Haniyeh that Hamas should help in redirecting tendencies in the region, which include the Islah [Reform] Party’s fighting in Yemen against the Ansarullah movement.

Sayyed Nasrallah also greeted the Palestinians of the 1948 lands whom he described as “our brother and our people, and they are the ones who mostly desire the liberation of Palestine from the river to the sea.”

Related Videos

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

Related Articles

Where is Palestine in the “Muslim Brotherhood” constants from Egypt to Tunisia, Turkey and Syria? أين فلسطين في ثوابت “الإخوان المسلمين” من مصر إلى تونس وتركيا وسوريا

**Please scroll down for the English Machine translation**

أين فلسطين في ثوابت “الإخوان المسلمين” من مصر إلى تونس وتركيا وسوريا؟

المصدر: الميادين


من حركة حماس إلى حركة مجتمع السلم في الجزائر، إلى الحركة الدستورية في الكويت، إجماعٌ على وصف موافقة العدالة والتنمية على تطبيع المغرب خيانةً وطعنةً في الظهر.

 محافظ الرباط يرحب بكوشنر ومستشار الأمن القومي الإسرائيلي بعد وصولهما إلى المغرب (أ ف ب).
محافظ الرباط يرحب بكوشنر ومستشار الأمن القومي الإسرائيلي بعد وصولهما إلى المغرب (أ ف ب).

وقعّت الرباط وتل أبيب وواشنطن اتفاقاً ثلاثياً تضمن عدة مذكرات تفاهم  لإقامة علاقات بين المغرب و”إسرائيل”، وصفه وزير الخارجية المغربي ناصر بوريطة بأنه “خريطة طريق سيعمل الأطراف الثلاثة عليها خلال المرحلة المقبلة”.

صادمة كانت صور رئيس الحكومة المغربية وهو يوقّع على اتفاق التطبيع مع الاحتلال الإسرائيلي.

صدمة كانت أشد وأقسى لدى الأحزاب الإسلامية التي تحمل فكر الإخوان المسلمين. ذلك أن حزب العدالة والتنمية الذي يرأَس الحكومة في المغرب هو أيضاً أحد أحزاب الإسلام السياسي التي وصلت الى الحكم بعد ما عُرف بـ “الربيع العربي”.

لا شك في أن الحركات الإسلامية تعاني انقساماً في الموقف حول التطبيع، لكنّ السؤال يتعلّق بمن وصل إلى الحكم من الإخوان المسلمين في مصر وتركيا وتونس عمّا فعله لفلسطين؟ كيف يمكن أن يبرّر حزب سياسي إسلامي، خيانة أقدس قضايا الأمة من أجل البقاء في السلطة؟

ففي المنطقة خياران في التعامل مع الكيان المحتل. الأول يبادر إلى إنقاذ الاحتلال من أزماته ومشاكله التي وصلت داخلياً إلى مراحل خطرة، من خلال مشاريع تطبيعٍ مجانية.

والثاني اختار المقاومة خياراً استراتيجياً لتحرير الأرض والإنسان، ويتحضّر للمواجهة ويستعدّ لكل نزال، هذه المرة عبر مناوراتٍ مشتركةٍ لفصائل المقاومة في فلسطين تقام للمرة الأولى.

وتعليقاً على التطبيع المغربي وموقف الحركات الإسلامية منه، قال الباحث في الشؤون الاجتماعية والسياسية طلال عتريسي إن الحركات الاسلامية تمر بمنعطف تاريخي يتصل بالتعامل مع فلسطين، مؤكّداً وجود صدمة كبيرة من موقف حكومة المغرب من التطبيع مع الاحتلال.

واعتبر عتريسي في حديث لـ الميادين أن النموذج التركي يعني حكماً إسلامياً على علاقة مع “إسرائيل” يكون عضوا في الناتو، وقال إنه كان “على حكومة العثماني بالحد الأدنى الاستقالة عند توقيع التطبيع مع الاحتلال”.

وأشار إلى أن المناورة المشتركة لفصائل المقاومة وجهت رسالة بأن الجهوزية عالية، والتطبيع لم يؤثر على المقاومة.

وقال الكاتب السياسي كمال بن يونس في هذا السياق إن “كل الاحزاب العقائدية عدّلت مواقفها من قضايا عدة منها النضال ضد الامبريالية”، معتبراً أن من أسباب خسارة الاحزاب الاسلامية الحكم في تونس ومصر دعمهم لفلسطين.

بن يونس أكّد في حديث لـ الميادين أن “توقيع رئيس الحكومة في المغرب على اتفاق التطبيع سيعود بالضرر على حزب العدالة والتنمية، وأن من أخطاء الاحزاب الاسلامية التمسك بعمقها الاسلامي مع التحالف مع الفاسدين والاستعمار”.

من جهته، قال الباحث في الشؤون الامنية محمد أبو هربيد “لم نصل بعد إلى تشابك حقيقي لتكون القضية الفلسطينية هي الأولوية، مؤكّداً أن المقاومة الفلسطينية هي العقبة الأساسية التي تواجه الاحتلال الإسرائيلي.

أبو هربيد اعتبر في حديث مع الميادين أن “الهروب من واقع المقاومة دفع بعض العرب والإسرائيليين للذهاب إلى التطبيع، وأن الدول العربية لم تذهب إلى التطبيع من موقع القوة.

وأكد أن المناورات المشتركة تحمل رسائل تطمين للشعب الفلسطيني، ورسالة لكل منظومة التطبيع ان المقاومة مستمرة.

يذكر أن الغرفة المشتركة لفصائل المقاومة الفلسطينية أعلنت اليوم الأربعاء جهوزيتها لتنفيذ مناورات عسكرية مشتركة للمرة الأولى تنشر تفاصيلها وتوقيتاتها وفق مقتضيات الميدان.

 Where is Palestine in the “Muslim Brotherhood” constants from Egypt to Tunisia, Turkey and Syria?

Source:Al-Mayadeen


From Hamas to the Society for Peace movement in Algeria, to the constitutional movement in Kuwait, there is a consensus that the Justice and Development agreed to normalise Morocco as a betrayal and a stab in the back.

 محافظ الرباط يرحب بكوشنر ومستشار الأمن القومي الإسرائيلي بعد وصولهما إلى المغرب (أ ف ب).
The Governor of Rabat welcomes Kushner and Israel’s national security adviser after their arrival in Morocco (AFP).

Rabat, Tel Aviv and Washington signed a tripartite agreement that included several memorandums of understanding to establish relations between Morocco and Israel, which Moroccan Foreign Minister Nasser Borita described as “a road map that the three parties will work on during the next phase.”

Shocking was the pictures of the Moroccan prime minister signing the normalization agreement with the Israeli occupation.

The shock was even more severe for the Islamist parties carrying the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Justice and Development Party (PJD), which heads the government in Morocco, is also one of the political Islamist parties that came to power after what was known as the “Arab Spring”.

There is no doubt that Islamist movements are divided in the position on normalisation, but the question is related to the Muslim Brotherhood who came to power in Egypt, Turkey and Tunisia, what did they do for Palestine? How can an Islamic political party justify betraying the nation’s holiest cause in order to stay in power?

The region has two options in dealing with the occupying entity. The first takes the initiative to save the occupation from its crises and problems, which have reached dangerous stages internally, through free normalisation projects.

The second option chose the resistance as a strategic choice for the liberation of the land and the people, and prepares for confrontation and prepares for each fight, this time through joint exercises of resistance factions in Palestine held for the first time.

Commenting on Moroccan normalisation and the position of Islamic movements on it, Talal Atrisi, a researcher in social and political affairs, said that Islamic movements are at a historic juncture related to dealing with Palestine, stressing that there is a great shock to the Moroccan government’s position on normalisation with the occupation.

Atrisi said in an interview with Al-Mayadeen  that the Turkish model means Islamic rule on the relationship with “Israel” to be a member of NATO, and said that “the Ottoman government should have at a minimum resigned when signing normalisation with the occupation.”

He noted that the joint manoeuvring of the resistance factions sent a message that readiness is high, and normalisation has not affected the resistance.

“All ideological parties have adjusted their positions on several issues, including the struggle against imperialism,” political writer Kamal Ben Younis said, adding that one of the reasons for the Islamic parties losing power in Tunisia and Egypt is their support for Palestine.

“Morocco’s prime minister’s signing of the normalisation agreement will hurt the PJD, and it is a mistake for Islamic parties to stick to their Islamic depth with the alliance with the corrupt and colonialism,” Ben Younis told Al-Mayadeen.

For his part, security researcher Mohammed Abu Harbid said, “We have not yet reached a real entanglement so that the Palestinian issue will be the priority, stressing that the Palestinian resistance is the main obstacle facing the Israeli occupation.

  “The escape from the reality of resistance prompted some Arabs and Israelis to go to normalisation, and the Arab countries did not go to normalisation from the position of force,” he said.

He stressed that the joint exercises carry messages of reassurance to the Palestinian people and a message to the entire normalisation system that the resistance continues.

It is worth mentioning that the Joint Chamber of Palestinian Resistance Factions (PDT) on Wednesday announced its readiness to carry out joint military exercises  for the first time, publishing its details and timings in accordance with the requirements of the field.

Is Washington going to Maintain its Ties with the Muslim Brotherhood?

Source

EGP34222

By Vladimir Odintsov
Source: New Eastern Outlook

According to media reports, Republican Senator Ted Cruz recently sent another bill to the US Congress, proposing to declare an Islamist organization, the Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia – ed.), a terrorist organization.

Earlier, in late 2014, the US administration, in the face of Congressman Ted Cruz, already made a similar suggestion. In it, he referred to the fact that Egypt, after the President of the Muslim Brotherhood Mohammed Morsi was overthrown in late 2013, declared the organization a terrorist organization, and in March 2014, Egyptian example was followed by Saudi Arabia. In November 2014 the UAE declared the actions of 83 organizations in their territory illegal. This list included the Muslim Brotherhood, while Jordan arrested numerous high up and ordinary organization members, whom they promptly accused of terrorism. In April 2016, however, Ann Petersen, then Assistant Secretary of State for Middle Eastern Affairs, speaking before a subcommittee of the US Congress, refused to consider the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, stating that “the organization is represented by legitimate political parties in several Middle Eastern countries, moving away from its violent position that it has held for decades”.

Nevertheless, in 2017, a group of Republicans represented by Senator Thea Cruz introduced a new bill in the US Congress recognizing the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group. Soon enough, another bill was introduced against the Islamist organization, proposing that it be declared a terrorist group in the United States.

In order to understand the reasons for the difficulties in having the US authorities officially recognize the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, which has long been recognized as one in Russia and a number of other countries, it seems appropriate to recall the history of its existence and its “friendship” with the US authorities.

The Muslim Brotherhood was established as an international religious and political association in March 1928 by teacher Hassan al-Banna in Ismailia, Egypt. The status of this organization is ambiguous – in some countries it is legal, and political parties associated with it have seats in the parliaments of their respective countries, in particular in Yemen, Sudan (until November 2019), Tunisia, Turkey, etc. At the same time, it is recognized as a terrorist organization in Bahrain, Egypt, Russia, UAE, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Tajikistan.

US cooperation with the Muslim Brotherhood began in 1953 under President Eisenhower, when several dozen Islamic theologians were invited to Princeton University to participate (according to the official version) “in a scientific conference”. In fact, the US authorities thereby intended to enlist the support of the spiritual leaders of Islamic countries to combat the growing “Communist threat” in the Middle East. Moreover,

File:President Dwight D. Eisenhower in the Oval Office with Muslim  delegates in 1953.jpg - Wikimedia Commons
Said Ramadan (second from the right) in the Oval Office with US President Dwight D. Eisenhower and other Muslim leaders in 1953

in the reports published in the media about this meeting, one of the main representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood at the time, Said Ramadan, who was present at the meeting, was referred to by the US intelligence agencies as a “fascist” and a “Falangist:”.

In his book, “Washington’s Secret History with the Muslim Brotherhood”, Ian Johnson, a reporter for The Wall Street Journal, noted that US  interest in the Muslim Brotherhood especially increased after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 to use Islamists in opposition to the USSR in that country at the time.

And then, in September 1981, the Egyptian president Anwar Sadat is assassinated by members of a terrorist group, a splinter group of the Muslim Brotherhood. During the same period, the Muslim Brotherhood actively supported Islamic extremist groups operating in Afghanistan. Since the mid-90s, the Muslim Brotherhood has repeatedly attempted to assassinate Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, carried out a series of major terrorist attacks on tourist routes against foreign nationals, and participated in military operations in Chechnya and Dagestan on the side of the bandit formations.

After the September 11 attacks, US contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood were frozen for some time. However, given the George W. Bush administration’s clear miscalculations in the two wars in Muslim countries, cooperation with representatives of this Islamist group has been strengthened by Washington in the hope that they will “help ease tensions” in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as in Europe. Therefore, in 2006 in Brussels, with the mediation of the US State Department, a conference was organized, involving the European branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, where representatives of the US and British intelligence agencies discussed the prospects for cooperation with the Islamists.

With the arrival of Barack Obama into the White House, this close cooperation continued, especially since people from George W. Bush’s team, who were developing a strategy for rapprochement with the Muslim Brotherhood, remained in the Obama administration. The leading role in maintaining these contacts was played by the US (CIA) and British (MI6) secret services, as Thierry Meyssan, the founding president of the Réseau Voltaire website, has written about in great detail and accuracy. It was not without the involvement of the Muslim Brotherhood that the United States succeeded in deposing and executing Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

Today, the Muslim Brotherhood has great influence not only in a number of countries in the Middle East, but also in Europe and the United States, and it is very well organized. The Muslim Brotherhood is a real international network with decades of experience. In Europe, the centers of this organization are London, Munich and many other major cities.

Given that Washington’s main goal in foreign policy has always been to maintain the role of the US as the absolute global leader, America could ensure its leadership in a global crisis only by, first, creating a climate of chaos in the world, in the midst of which the US would look like “an attractive island of stability”. In addition, it is much cheaper to manage chaos than it is to manage order. Second, America could retain global leadership if the economic and military-political power of China, the only competitor of the US in the battle for world domination, ready to take the crown of the winner from the United States, was severely restricted. Therefore, in recent years, the “friendship” of the United States with the Muslim Brotherhood has taken a blatantly anti-Chinese focus on using these Islamists to wreak havoc in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China and Central Asian countries.

By agreeing to a strategic alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood, the US government has opened a Pandora’s box. The Muslim Brotherhood, which has repeatedly proclaimed its desire to build an Arab caliphate based on Sharia principles “from Spain to Indonesia,” intends to conquer new spaces and countries, especially enemies of the United States, with the active support of Washington through terror and propaganda.

As for the United States, under the guise of legal difficulties in officially recognizing the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, it clearly fears the unintended consequences of such a step for its relations with Turkey and Qatar, which support the Muslim Brotherhood on both the religious and political levels. If the assistance of the peninsular emirate in the Persian Gulf is mainly limited to financial support for this Islamist organization, Ankara has made the Muslim Brotherhood one of its “combat wings” in Syria and Libya.

That is why it would be unwise to expect a positive outcome from the consideration by the US Congress of another bill to declare the Islamist organization Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia – ed.) a terrorist organization, even though relations between Washington and Ankara have noticeably deteriorated lately.

Vladimir Odintsov, a political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook“.

‘Thinking Machiavelli, Acting Mussolini’

By Alastair Crooke
Source: Strategic Culture

Earlier this month, the Lebanese al-Manar TV aired footage of Israeli bases in Upper Galilee, which were filmed by a Hizbullah drone. An Israeli base in Brannite and a command centre in Rowaysat al-Alam in northern Israel can be seen in the footage. According to Southfront, whose military expertise is highly regarded, Hizbullah now operates a variety of drones, some with combat capabilities. Reports suggest that Hizbullah has established a formidable stealth drone and smart cruise missile force (with support from Iran). The Russia-linked, military site, Southfront, concludes that today, the movement is better trained and equipped than many armies around the world.

Israel is convinced that, for the first time, that the ‘next war’ will not be limited to Lebanese territory; that its own borders will be violated; and that offensive combat forces will enter settlements and homes and clash with Israeli troops.

This is giant ‘chess’ – where a combination of armed drones, suicide drones and ‘smart’ missiles likely will predominate (rather than tanks, as in the 2006 war). In its evolving thesis of a new war with Hizbullah, Israel believes that all its airfields will be bombed with precision missiles. (And is therefore trying to get from the U.S., a few squadrons of the new generation F-35B jets that do not need long runways, so as to try to secure its air superiority in the face of a possible swarm drone or missile attack on its air defences).

This represents just one component to Iran’s transmutation of any Israeli or American ‘military’ option against Iran into a suicide ‘Red Pill’ for whomsoever might launch it. Quietly, while all the world was focussed on the ‘Big One’ (putative nuclear weapons), over the last four years, Iran has built a conventional ‘swarm’ and ‘smart’ (and virtually undetectable by radar) ‘ant’s hive’ of ‘micro’ weapons circling across the region – from Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq to Yemen.

Although it is still to sink-in to European and American thinking (obsessed with the possibly now passé framework of the ‘Big One’ – the JCPOA), Iran quietly has inverted the calculus. It possesses the leverage now. And it has other trade options (through looking East) opening to it. Israel and its Gulf State ‘allies’, by contrast are on the defensive.

So what is next? An Iranian law has come into force setting a 60-day deadline for the U.S. to lift sanctions. If the U.S. doesn’t do so, the law states that Iran must raise uranium enrichment levels to 20% and limit UN inspectors’ access to its nuclear sites. The bottom line for Israel is that this new paradigm demands swift, confidential talks with America.

Some in Israel clearly ‘get it’: In one of the split-screen realities, it is all about nukes (on which U.S. politics is focused), but featuring on another screen is Iran’s Red Pill deterrence against the U.S. putting the military option back on the table.

However, as Professor Michael Brenner has observed, “foreign policy has got short shrift over the last two years” in the U.S. (Iran and the JCPOA being the one exception): “Even on that [latter] issue, there is scant dissent from the twin propositions that Iran is a hostile state that threatens our vital interests and that the Islamic state’s disappearance would remove a serious anathema. So pervasive is this consensus that the foreign affairs community has developed something that approximates herd immunity to critical thinking. Political élites, think tankers, and consultancy gurus all sing in chorus from the same hymnal. Such differences as exist are barely noticeable variations on the fundamentally same threat assessments or on tactics for countering those alleged threats. Strategy is nowhere to be seen”.

Today, we are all too highly susceptible, to “techno-chauvinist” perspectives. Because we are incessantly told technology – whether military, or via algorithmic control – is the irresistible driver of change. Consequently, we now simply cannot imagine a future in which the solution to our problems is not more and more technology (or more and better weapons). Clearly, step-evolutions in weaponry can become a strategic game-changer (it just has); yet the best lesson history can offer is that the future is determined by cultural and social dynamics, as much as it is shaped by technology alone

And just as America experiences its cultural Blue versus Red ‘war’, so the Middle East has its’ own cultural wars, which are being exacerbated and made more intractable by that Washington ‘tin ear’ to critical thought, and which insists to define the world around it as a Manichean struggle between the forces of light and of darkness; of freedom versus despotism; of justice versus oppression and cruelty.

Washington truly stares at its own image in the mirror, and throws this wide shawl across the rest of the world. Its’ own Presidential election is no longer purely political, but it too now is configured more as a ‘crusade’ against cosmic evil – a devil, or demiurge (Trump). The salience of this for the Middle East is that, what America defines as ‘evil and malign’, may be no more other societies’ cultural wars (little different to America’s own), playing out.

Here is the point: technology – whether military or financial – is often not the determinant. The Iranian nation has been placed under huge stresses, yet it has found the inner resources to build a solution (its smart weapon deterrence). It has demonstrated societal and cultural energy. This matters.

Jacques Barzun, the philosopher of history, asks the question: “What makes a nation?” He answers his own question. “A large part of the answer to that question is: common historical memories. When the nation’s history is poorly taught in schools; ignored by the young, and proudly rejected by qualified elders, awareness of tradition consists only in wanting to destroy it”.

The December issue of The Atlantic magazine has an interview with Professor Peter Turchin, who is actually a zoologist. He spent his early career analyzing population dynamics. Why does a particular species of beetle inhabit a certain forest, or why does it disappear from that same forest? He developed some general principles for such things, and wondered if they apply to humans, too.

One recurring pattern, Turchin noticed is something he calls ‘élite overproduction’. This happens when a society’s ruling class grows faster than the number of rulers it needs. (For Turchin, “élite” seems to mean not just political leaders, but all those managing companies, universities, and other large social institutions, as well as those at the top of the economic food chain.) As The Atlantic describes it:

“One way for a ruling class to grow is biologically—think of Saudi Arabia, where princes and princesses are born faster than royal roles can be created for them. In the United States, élites overproduce themselves through economic and educational upward mobility: More and more people get rich, and more and more get educated. Neither of these sounds bad on its own. Don’t we want everyone to be rich and educated? The problems begin when money and Harvard degrees become like royal titles in Saudi Arabia. If lots of people have them, but only some have real power, the ones who don’t have power eventually turn on the ones who do …”.

The final trigger of impending collapse, Turchin says, tends to be state insolvency. At some point rising insecurity becomes expensive. The élites have to pacify unhappy citizens with handouts and freebies—and when these run out, they have to police dissent and oppress people. Eventually the state exhausts all short-term solutions, and what was heretofore a coherent civilization disintegrates.

Turchin’s article was intended – and did – resonate as a description of the U.S. in its current state. Yet it describes much of the Middle East to a ‘T’ – particularly in the context of weak oil prices. The region is an economic disaster. And no, Turchin’s observations apply not just to the region’s autocrats, but in certain important respects – i.e. in social poverty and inequality – they apply to Israel, as much as to anyone else.

Cultural ‘war’ is as much about whether a civilisational ‘life’ is ebbing, or is both vital and fertile.

In the wake of the Iranian Revolution; 9/11, and the ‘Arab Spring’, Robert Worth notes in a long essay in the NYT Magazine, key Gulf leaders such as Mohammad bin Zayed (MbZ), shifted from an initial openness to political Islam, to a recognition that the path of the Muslim Brotherhood, and that of his own path to feudal power, simply “were incompatible”.

MbZ incrementally turned implacably hostile to the MB, to Iran, and was wary, even, of the Wahhabi establishment in Saudi Arabia. By 2013, MbZ was deeply worried about the future. The Arab Spring uprisings had toppled several autocrats, and political Islamists were rising to fill the vacuum. Worth expands:

“It was a recipe for apocalyptic violence; and regional powers were doing little to stop it. Turkey was vehemently cheering its own favoured Islamists on and backing some of them with weapons. So was Qatar, the U.A.E.’s oil-rich neighbour in the Persian Gulf. The Saudis were ambivalent, hampered by an elderly and ailing monarch.”

“He would soon enlist as an ally Mohammed bin Salman, the young Saudi crown prince known as MbS, who in many ways is MbZ’s protégé. Together, they helped the Egyptian military depose that country’s elected Islamist president in 2013. In Libya in 2015, MbZ stepped into the civil war, defying a United Nations embargo and American diplomats. He fought the Shabab militia in Somalia, leveraging his country’s commercial ports to become a power broker in the Horn of Africa. He joined the Saudi war in Yemen to battle the Iran-backed Houthi militia. In 2017, he broke an old tradition by orchestrating an aggressive embargo against his Persian Gulf neighbour Qatar. All of this was aimed at thwarting what he saw as a looming Islamist menace.”

Of course, all this, and the Sandhurst-trained monarch’s model ‘Spartan’ army, made him a star in Washington (although he subsequently fell-out with Obama, over the latter’s support for Morsi – and later, over Obama’s JCPOA, which MbZ opposed).

What then was the Gulf and Sunni riposte to this impending cultural war catastrophe? MbZ actualised an ambitious dream: that of “building a state that would show up the entire Islamist movement by succeeding where it had failed. Instead of an illiberal democracy — like Turkey’s — he would build its opposite, a socially liberal autocracy, much as Lee Kuan Yew did in Singapore in the 1960s and 1970s.” The future was a binary choice: repression or catastrophe. He chose repression: “It is ‘culture war’” he said.

This was a coherent, if tiny, civilisation disintegrating. A Gulf cultural tradition was being eviscerated in order to shield it against the Islamist and Iranian ‘virus’’. Even Worth, who visited the region often, described the inhabitants as ‘rootless individuals’, wandering the caverns beneath the hyper-capitalist, glass towers. Energy fades, civilisation gently dies.

But for the Israeli commentator, Zvi Barel, MbZ’s normalisation with Israel is simply the inevitable continuation – a further weave into the fabric of MbZ’s worldview: “His hatred for the Muslim Brotherhood equals only to his fear of Iran, in which he sees a clear and immediate threat to the Emirates in particular – and to Sunni Islam in general”.

In the Middle East, the Shi’a – widely – are enjoying a renaissance, just at the moment when the Sunni ‘old’ establishment is convulsed with fear at being overwhelmed by the region’s Shi’a. Cultural virility can trump repression, as Iran is showing. And the correct response to a cultural resurgence is almost never a ‘military option’. Iran’s readiness to face-off over the JCPOA makes a western course-correction urgent. Will that happen? In Washington, almost certainly not: We shall just have to shuffle unsteadily and nervously along the cliff edge of Israeli and U.S. demands for ‘forever-containment’ – awaiting events.

Some Quick Observations on the Normalization of Relations Between Morocco and The Zionist Entity ملاحظات متفرقة على تطبيع المغرب

See the source image

**Please scroll down for the English translation**

ملاحظات متفرقة على تطبيع المغرب:

أولا: حصل تطبيع المغرب في ظل حكومة العدالة والتنمية الإسلامية، وجاء تصريح رئيس الوزراء من حزب العدالة والتنمية مخزيا، حيث أيد خطوة الملك في التطبيع لكن مع إضافة عبارات فضفاضة لا تقدم ولا تؤخر عن استمرار الدعم للقضية الفلسطينية، وهذا نفس الكلام التبريري الذي صدر عن الديوان الملكي في المغرب، صحيح أنه صدر عن العديد من أعضاء حزب العدالة والتنمية استنكار لخطوة التطبيع تلك، لكن المهم في السياسة هو تصرفات القوى التنفيذية، وما دون ذلك هي أمور لا يعتد بها كثيرا سيما عندما تكون قيادة حزبك هي التي تترأس الائتلاف الحكومي.

ثانيا: هناك عدة تقارير عن اتصالات مؤخرا بين تركية التي يحكمها حزب العدالة والتنمية الإسلامي أيضا وبين كيان الاحتلال بهدف إعادة السفراء وتحسين العلاقات التي لم تنقطع كليا أصلا، والتبرير القائل بأن العلاقات بين تركيا وبين الكيان الصهيوني سابقة على حكم حزب العدالة والتنمية لم تعد مقنعة، لا سيما بعد أن تم تعديل الدستور التركي ليصير الحكم رئاسيا، وبات اليوم لدى رئيس الجمهورية كامل الصلاحيات التنفيذية التي يستطيع بموجبها قطع العلاقات بل حتى سحب الاعتراف من كيان الاحتلال بجرة قلم إن شاء، ولا يمكن الحديث اليوم عن معوقات تركية داخلية من قِبَل أحزاب معارضة أو غيرها بعدما بات معروفا أن أغلب الصلاحيات التنفيذية قد سحبت من البرلمان والحكومة لتتركز في يد رئاسة الجمهورية، حيث يترأس الحكومة رئيس الجمهورية بحسب الدستور المعدل، ناهيك عن مرور المعارضة التركية في أضعف مراحلها في الداخل التركي.

ثالثا: تبنى البعض ممن يعارضون التطبيع لكنهم ممن يناصبون العداء لمحور المقاومة في نفس الوقت، تبنوا بعد تطبيع بعض دول الخليج نظرية مفادها أن تلك الدول ارتمت في حضن كيان الاحتلال خوفا من تصرفات إيران، وهم بهذا تبنوا السردية المشوهة التي قدمتها دول الخليج تلك، وبشكل غير مباشر برروا خطوة التطبيع، والسؤال لهؤلاء اليوم هو كيف يستطيعون التوفيق بين نظريتهم تلك وبين تطبيع السودان والمغرب اللتين تبعدان آلاف الأميال عن إيران، وليس بينهما وبين إيران أي احتكاك مباشر؟ وهل سيبررون التقارب التركي الصهيوني المتوقع بالخوف من إيران أيضا؟

رابعا: كان لافتا خلو معظم تعليقات المحسوبين على التيارات الإسلامية في الإعلام وعلى مواقع التواصل الاجتماعي من أي انتقاد مباشر لحكومة العدالة والتنمية المغربية، وجاءت أغلب التعليقات في إطار القول بأن خطوة التطبيع هذه لا تمثل الشعب المغربي الذي مازال يعدّ الكيان الصهيوني عدوا، ومع إيماننا بصحة هذه المقولات، لكن أين يتم صرف هكذا مقولات في السياسة؟ وهل بات الميول الحزبي أهم من مقتضيات الموقف المبدئي في معادات الكيان الصهيوني؟ أم أن موضة البراغماتية والغاية تبرر الوسيلة واستسهال الاستعانة بالقوى الأجنبية صارت منهجا مستساغا؟

خامسا: كان لافتا التعليق الجزائري الرسمي على تطبيع المغرب بالقول إن الصهاينة باتوا على حدود الجزائر. ولم يعد خافيا أن الإمارات والسعودية وأمريكا مارسوا ضغوط على الجزائر كي تقوم بالتطبيع أولا، عبر التهديد تارة وعبْر الترغيب تارة أخرى، حيث قدمت أمريكا وعود للجزائر باتخاذ موقف من قضية الصحراء أكثر انسجاما مع الموقف الجزائري من هذه القضية، لكن هذه الإغراءات والتهديدات لم تلقَ استجابة جزائرية انسجاما مع مواقف الجزائر القومية والوطنية الملتزمة بالقضايا العربية وعلى رأسها القضية الفلسطينية، وليس مستبعدا في المرحلة القادمة أن يبدأ المحور الصهيوعربي بمحاولات تنفيذ تهديداته للجزائر مستغلين الأراضي المغربية، وربما نشهد محاولات لإشعال تحركات شعبية جزائرية ملونة في المرحلة القادمة بتحريض ودعم خارجيين، وهنا سيكون إعلام البترودولار بشقيه قناة العربية وقناة الجزيرة جاهزا للتحريض وتغذية الفتنة، وكلٌ سيقدم لجمهوره ما يطنب سمعه، فالعربية يمكنها العزف على الوتر الاقتصادي وأما الجزيرة فيمكنها نبش أحداث التسعينيات، وكلاهما سيحاضران في الحريات والديموقراطية متناسيتان أنهما إعلام مشيخات لا تمت للنظم الديموقراطية بصلة.

سادسا وأخيرا: توضح التحركات السياسية في عموم الإقليم يوما بعد يوم مدى سخف النظريات القائلة بأن العداء بين أركان محور المقاومة وبين الكيان الصهيوني ما هو إلا عداء شكلي، ورغم هزالة هكذا طروحات مازال البعض يرددها بكل ثقة، وهنا يمكن القول إن لم ترغب في مساندة محور المقاومة في معركته التي يخوضها ضد الصهيونية والاستكبار العالمي، فأضعف الإيمان أن لا تناصبه العداء، لا سيما بعد ظهور مواقف لأحزاب وتيارات تتعارض والشعارات التي ترفعها تلك الأحزاب تقليديا.

عمرو علان

**Machine Translation**

Some Quick Observations on the Normalization of Relations Between Morocco and The Zionist Entity:

•         It has to be noted that the normalization of relations between Morocco and the Zionist Entity took place under a government coalition led by the Justice and Development party; a party that is associated with the Muslims Brotherhood at the least. The Prime Minister’s statement who is from the JUSTICE and Development Party was shameful, as it supported the Moroccan Monarchy’s move in normalization and only added general expressions    of continued support for the Palestinian cause which is in reality no more than lip-service. This is the same unacceptable justification issued by the Royal Court in Morocco. 

•         There are several reports of recent contacts between Turkey, which is also governed by another Justice and Development Party, and the Zionist Entity with the aim of exchanging ambassadors and improving relations that have not been totally severed in the first place. The justification put forward by some commentators for this that relations between Turkey and the Zionist Entity predates President Erdogan ascending to power and the rule of the Justice and Development Party is no longer convincing, especially after the Turkish constitution was amended and Turkey adopted the presidential system in its governance. In the amended constitution, the President of the Republic has control of Turkey’s foreign policies and full executive powers.

•         Some of those who oppose normalizing the relations with the Zionist Entity, but are hostile to the axis of resistance at the same time, adopted a theory which says that the Gulf countries that normalized relations with the Zionist Entity were forced to do so in fear of Iran’s actions in the region. In doing so, they have adopted the distorted narrative provided by those Gulf countries. Thus, they have inadvertently justified the step of normalization and the actions of those Gulf countries. The question posed for those people today is how can they reconcile   their flawed theory with the normalization of Sudan and Morocco which are located thousands of miles away from Iran? Will they justify the expected Turkish-Zionist rapprochement with fear of Iran as well?

•         It was striking that most of the criticisms of the normalization of relations between Morocco with the Zionist Entity which came from people who are affiliated with the Muslims Brotherhood parties were devoid of any direct criticism of the Government of Justice and Development of Morocco. Most of the comments came in the context of saying that this step of normalization does not represent the Moroccan people, who still consider the Zionist Entity an enemy. Notwithstanding our firm belief in the validity of these sayings, but how can these statements be applied in politics? Has the party affiliation become more important for those than what the principled position from the Zionist entity requires from them? Or have pragmatism and “the means justifies the end” become a palatable approach for those parties?

•         Worth paying attention to the official Algerian statement on the normalization of relations between Morocco and the Zionist Entity, which says that the Zionists have gained a footstep on the borders of Algeria. It has become known that lately the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and the US put pressure on Algeria to recognize the Zionist Entity through threats and through temptations at other times. For instance, the US has made promises to Algeria to take a more consistent position with the Algerian position on the Sahara issue. These temptations and threats were rejected by Algeria in lines with Algeria’s national stance of Arab solidarity and commitments to Arab causes. And it is quite likely that in the near future, the newly formed Zionist-Arab axis along with the US would attempt to carry out their regime change threats by pushing for another color-revolution using Morocco as a logistic base. And here the petrodollar media, such as Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya, will be ready to incite and feed sedition. Both of which will use their modus-operandi by lecturing Algerians in freedoms and democracy, while incongruously ignoring the fact that they are themselves funded and governed by totalitarian regimes.

Amro Allan

Sanaa, beyond Ma’rib: Here is the Great Sabian fortress صنعاء ما بعد مأرب: هنا الحصن السبئي الكبير

Sanaa, beyond Ma’rib: Here is the Great Sabian fortress

Yemen

Doaa Sweidan

Saturday, December 5, 2020

Many battles have been immortalized in history. Some entered it as a pivot that changed paths and altered destinies; The battle to “liberate” Sana’a is perhaps the biggest joke in military history. The track-tracker hardly finds the zero point of its launch from what has been launched over the years. From “Coming, Sana’a”, to ” Victory 1″, then “Victory 2”, to “Victory 3”, the “liberation of Sana’a”, for the Saudi-Emirati coalition, was “a matter of time”, as often echoed by the former spokesman of the Alliance, Ahmed Asiri. However, this question of time has remained unverifiable for four years. (between 2016 and 2019).

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is 202012522718979637427320389792291.jpg

It is true that the forces loyal to the “coalition” were able to control the stages of the eastern gate of the capital from the side of Marib province, represented by the Directorate of Nahm, which is not more than 60 kilometers from the center of Sana’a, but this “achievement” benefited the Saudis and emiratis only in the “victories” in their media, and to provide the jokes represented by the “war correspondents” for those means absolutely hero. “We’re here, where are you?” A phrase that one of the most prominent of them became famous during his coverage of the battles of Nahm, where he was moving, and the military leaders of the outgoing President Abd Rabbo Mansour Hadi, from Hill to Hill, promising the proximity of “crushing the putschists”, “restoring legitimacy”, and “restoring Yemen to the Arab bosom”. The voice of those who represented them was extinguished, while their camp was confined to limited areas of Marib province. In the past few months since the beginning of this year, the ” putschists ” has been able to restore the entire directorate of Nahm, and to control large areas of al-Jouf and Marib provinces, until now at the gates of Marib city, whose fall appears to be, by war or negotiation, just around the corner (the series of setbacks began). In practice, in late 2018, as the army and popular committees gained control of most of the Saroah district in Marib, revealing the back of the forces opposed to them in Nahm, which caused Sarwah to receive a large share of the air strikes amounted to more than 25,000 raids.

The Coalition has always claimed the fighting in Sana’a for to two main reasons: taking care of civilian lives, and taking care of military life. Two reasons are that there is a lot of misinformation that has become inherent to Saudi-UAE media platforms, particularly in relation to the war in Yemen. In terms of civilian casualties, Riyadh and Abu Dhabi have proved that they do not need a major ground battle to expect massacres in the ranks of the unarmed, and what the number of casualties caused by the air strikes, which amounted to 257,000, is the clearest evidence of this. As for seeking to avoid the involvement of a large number of ground forces, this is another “lie” intended to disguise the fact of the inability to engage in such a kind, which is manifested in a minimodel of it in the battles of the southern border, where Saudi soldiers cannot stand up to the attacks of Yemeni fighters, while in the air Saudi aircraft are almost completely blind without the information support of the Western allies, yet they strike a random ness most of the time.

From the beginning, it appeared that both Riyadh and Abu Dhabi played a solo chord.


But even fighters from allied local forces, whose lives are not indifferent to their lives, have not succeeded in putting large numbers of them on the ground, too, at the heart of the equation in Sana’a for saudi arabia and the UAE. Unlike Ansar Allah fighters, they seemed to be friendly enemies of the land on which they were fighting, ignorant of its topography, concealment and ways of its own, and did not help them to reproduce the movement’s experience in generating enthusiasm among its members. It was further complicated by the loss of common motivation to achieve the goal. From the outset, it appeared that both Riyadh and Abu Dhabi played a solo chord. The main concern, for the latter, was how to bite Saudi influence on the eastern front, whether by grooming tribes historically loyal to the kingdom, by the path of the al-Islah (Muslim Brotherhood), a traditional ally of Riyadh, or by attempting to create formations similar to those built in the south, such as the “security belt”, the “Shibwaniya elite” and the “Hadrami elite”, or even by carrying out assassinations and bombings against Hadi’s leaders and forces, such as targeting meetings involving his defense minister once. Although the UAE failed to gain control of the front just before announcing its withdrawal from its base in Sarwah district in Marib province in early July 2019, the differences between it and Saudi proxies have had a bitter impact on their camp, where fragmentation, hatred and lack of motivation have become the main, if not the only, title. These features are compounded by Abu Dhabi’s continued efforts to clamp down on its rivals, through its loyal chief of staff, Sabir bin Aziz, who left no way to weaken the Islah unless he turned to it.

Despite all of the above, the coalition has not given up access to Sana’a. The coalition bet in December 2017 that the explosion of disagreement between Ansar Allah and the late President Ali Abdullah Saleh would push the capital to fall, but that did not happen. In 2018, “Dreams” took the coalition to imagine the possibility of reaching Sana’a through Hodeidah, but the sands of the west coast were not fixed under his feet. In 2019, the coalition wanted to reach his goal this time by igniting mobile tribal sedition in the vicinity of Sana’a (as happened in The Kosher district, the main stronghold of the Hajior tribes, in Hajjah province), but the army and the “people’s committees” quickly moved to quell those seditions and secure the areas where they grewup.

Sana’a, the fort, as it translates its name in The Sabre language, was increasingly, year after year, of the invaders, until it is now absolutely safe.


from file:    Marib expels invaders: Sana’a is an impregnable fortress

صنعاء ما بعد مأرب: هنا الحصن السبئي الكبير

اليمن 

دعاء سويدان 

السبت 5 كانون الأول 2020

كثيرة هي المعارك التي خلّدها التاريخ. بعضها دخلته بوصفها محورية غيّرت مسارات وبدّلت مصائر؛ وأخرى ولجته من بوّابة كونها الأغبى كما هي «معركة كارانسيبيس» التي قاتل فيها الجيش النمسوي نفسه، بينما كان من المفترض أن يحارب العثمانيين. أمّا معركة «تحرير» صنعاء، فلربّما تكون المَضحكة الأكبر في التاريخ العسكري. يكاد المتتبّع لمسارها لا يعثر، أصلاً، على النقطة الصفر لانطلاقها من كثرة ما أُطلقت على مرّ سنوات. من «قادمون يا صنعاء»، إلى «نصر 1»، ثم «نصر 2»، وصولاً إلى «نصر 3»، كان «تحرير صنعاء»، بالنسبة إلى التحالف السعودي ــــ الإماراتي، «مسألة وقت»، مثلما ردّد كثيراً الناطق السابق باسم «التحالف»، أحمد عسيري. على أن مسألة الوقت هذه ظلّت عصيّة على التحقّق طوال أربعة أعوام (ما بين 2016 و2019).

صحيح أن القوات الموالية لـ»التحالف» استطاعت السيطرة ــــ على مراحل ــــ على البوّابة الشرقية للعاصمة من جهة محافظة مأرب، والمُتمثّلة في مديرية نهم التي لا تبعد عن وسط صنعاء أكثر من 60 كيلومتراً، إلا أن هذا «الإنجاز» لم يُفِد السعوديين والإماراتيين سوى في اجترار «الانتصارات» في وسائل إعلامهم، وتقديم المهازل التي مَثّل «المراسلون الحربيون» لتلك الوسائل بطلها المطلق. «نحن هنا، أين أنتم؟»؛ عبارة اشتُهر بها أحد أبرز هؤلاء خلال تغطيته معارك نهم، حيث كان يتنقّل، والقيادات العسكرية التابعة للرئيس المنتهية ولايته عبد ربه منصور هادي، من تُبّة إلى تُبّة، مبشِّراً بقرب «سحق الانقلابيين»، و»إعادة الشرعية»، و»استعادة اليمن إلى الحضن العربي». انطفأ صوت أولئك بما يُمثّلون، فيما بات معسكرهم محصوراً داخل مساحات محدودة من محافظة مأرب. أمّا «الانقلابيون» فاستطاعوا، خلال أشهر معدودة منذ مطلع العام الجاري، استعادة كامل مديرية نهم، والسيطرة على مساحات واسعة من محافظَتي الجوف ومأرب، حتى باتوا اليوم على أبواب مدينة مأرب، التي يبدو سقوطها، بالحرب أو بالتفاوض، قاب قوسين (بدأ مسلسل الانتكاسات، عملياً، أواخر 2018، مع تمكّن الجيش واللجان الشعبية من السيطرة على معظم مديرية صرواح في مأرب، كاشفَين بذلك ظهر القوات المناوئة لهما في نهم، وهو ما جعل صرواح تنال نصيباً كبيراً من القصف الجوي بلغ أكثر من 25 ألف غارة).

دائماً ما عزا «التحالف» المراوحة في معركة صنعاء إلى سببين رئيسيين: الحرص على أرواح المدنيين، والضنّ بأرواح العسكريين. سببان يستبطنان الكثير من التضليل الذي بات ملازِماً للمنصّات الإعلامية السعودية ــــ الإماراتية، وخصوصاً في ما يتعلّق بالحرب على اليمن. على مستوى الخسائر المدنية، أثبتت الرياض وأبو ظبي أنهما لا تحتاجان إلى معركة برّية كبرى حتى تُوقعا مجازر في صفوف العزّل، وما أرقام الضحايا الذين حصدتهم الغارات الجوية التي بلغت حتى عام 2019، 257 ألف غارة، إلا أوضح دليل على ذلك. أمّا السعي إلى تفادي الزجّ بعدد كبير من القوات البرّية، فتلك «كذبة» أخرى يراد من ورائها تمويه حقيقة العجز عن خوض هكذا غمار، والذي تجلّى نموذج مصغّر منه في معارك الحدّ الجنوبي، حيث لا يستطيع الجنود السعوديون الثبات أمام هجمات المقاتلين اليمنيين، فيما في الجوّ تكاد تكون الطائرات السعودية عمياء تماماً لولا السند المعلوماتي من الحلفاء الغربيين، ومع ذلك فهي تضرب خبط عشواء في معظم الأحيان.

منذ البداية، ظهر أن كلّاً من الرياض وأبو ظبي تعزف على وتر منفرد


لكن، حتى المقاتلون من القوى المحلية الحليفة، والذين لا يبدي «التحالف» أدنى اكتراث لحيواتهم، لم يفلح الزجّ بأعداد كبيرة منهم في الميدان، هو الآخر، في قلب المعادلة في صنعاء لمصلحة السعودية والإمارات. بدا هؤلاء، خلافاً لمقاتلي «أنصار الله»، أعداء لدودين للأرض التي يقاتلون عليها، جاهلين تضاريسها وخفاياها وسبل مؤالفتها، ولم تشفع لهم في ذلك محاولتهم استنساخ تجربة الحركة في توليد الحماسة في صفوف عناصرها. زاد الأمرَ تعقيداً فقدانُ الدافعية المشتركة لتحقيق الهدف. منذ البداية، ظهر أن كلّاً من الرياض وأبو ظبي تعزف على وتر منفرد. كان الهمّ الرئيسي، بالنسبة إلى الأخيرة، كيفية قضم النفوذ السعودي في الجبهة الشرقية، سواء عبر استمالة القبائل الموالية تاريخياً للمملكة، أو من طريق مناكفة حزب «الإصلاح» (إخوان مسلمون) الحليف التقليدي للرياض، أو من خلال محاولة إنشاء تشكيلات شبيهة بتلك التي بُنيت في الجنوب كـ»الحزام الأمني» و»النخبة الشبوانية» و»النخبة الحضرمية»، أو حتى عبر تنفيذ عمليات اغتيال وقصف ضدّ القيادات والقوات التابعة لهادي مثلما حدث في استهداف اجتماعات تضمّ وزير دفاعه غير مرّة. وعلى رغم أن الإمارات فشلت في انتزاع السيطرة على الجبهة المذكورة قبيل إعلان انسحابها من قاعدتها في مديرية صرواح في محافظة مأرب مطلع تموز/ يوليو 2019، إلا أن الخلافات بينها وبين وكلاء السعودية خلّفت آثاراً مريرة على معسكرهما، حيث بات التشرذم والحقد وغياب الحافز العنوان الأبرز، إن لم يكن الوحيد. وهي سمات يضاعف تأثيراتِها استمرار أبو ظبي في مساعيها إلى تضييق الخناق على منافسيها، عبر رئيس الأركان الموالي لها، صغير بن عزيز، الذي لم يترك وسيلة لإضعاف «الإصلاح» إلا لجأ إليها.

على رغم كلّ ما تَقدّم، لم ييأس «التحالف» من إمكانية النفاذ إلى صنعاء. راهَن في كانون الأول/ ديسمبر 2017 على أن يدفع انفجار الخلاف بين «أنصار الله» والرئيس الراحل علي عبد الله صالح نحو إسقاط العاصمة، لكن ذلك لم يحدث. وفي عام 2018، أخذته «الأحلام» إلى تصوّر إمكانية بلوغ صنعاء من خلال الحديدة، إلا أن رمال الساحل الغربي لم تثبت تحت قدميه. وفي عام 2019، أراد الوصول إلى هدفه هذه المرّة عبر إشعال فتن قبلية متنقّلة في محيط صنعاء (كما حدث في مديرية كشر، المعقل الرئيسي لقبائل حجور، في محافظة حجة)، غير أن الجيش و»اللجان الشعبية» سرعان ما تحرّكا لإخماد تلك الفتن وتأمين المناطق التي شبّت فيها.

هكذا، كانت صنعاء ــــ الحصن، وفق ما تُترجم به تسميتها في اللغة السبئية، تزداد بعداً، عاماً بعد عام، عن الغزاة، إلى أن باتت اليوم في أمان مطلق.

 اشترك في «الأخبار» على يوتيوب هنا
من ملف : مأرب تطرد الغزاة: صنعاء حصنٌ منيع

فيدوات ذات صلة

مقالات ذات صلة

Erdogan Terrorists Looted and Burned Several Houses in Northern Syria

  ARABI SOURI

Hamza Division - Erdogan Hamzat Muslim Brotherhood terrorists

Terrorists loyal to the Turkish madman Erdogan burned several houses of local Syrians in the village of Bab Al Faraj, in the northern Hasakah countryside.

The anti-Islamic Muslim Brotherhood terrorists in their continuous crimes to Israelize the northern regions of Syria under their control looted the houses of the locals in Bab Al Faraj village in Abu Rassin area, southwest of Qamishli in the northern Hasakah countryside.

https://goo.gl/maps/4TXftsZYniwsp1e28

After looting the valuables, furniture, and electronic devices from the houses the terrorists burned it down to hide their crime and prevent the locals from returning to their properties. Erdogan promised the terrorists he’s bringing from other areas in Syria and from other countries to give them the houses of the locals in areas the Turkish army and its proxy Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda armed groups take control of.

Two days ago, Turkey-sponsored terrorists desecrated and looted the Church of Mar Touma in the city of Ras Al Ain in the northern Hasakah countryside in order to expel the Christian communities still living in their city.

Trump Erdogan Putin Land for Terrorists - Israel 3
Trump Erdogan Putin Proposed Land for Terrorists – Israel 3

The Turkish regime of Erdogan is carrying out a demographic change within northern Syrian province where members of the radical Muslim Brotherhood organization are housed with their families and in turn, they operate as a buffer zone between secular Syria and Turkey being radicalized by Erdogan’s ruling Muslim Brotherhood AK Party. Secularism is contagious and the Turkish madman is afraid this would loosen his grip on the Turkish state in the future as if he’s living forever or his neo-Ottoman has a future in the region.

To help us continue please visit the Donate page to donate or learn how you can help us with no cost on you.
Follow us on Telegram: http://t.me/syupdates link will open Telegram app.

Related Videos

Related Newsٌ

Ayman Al Zawahiri, Al Qaeda’s Chief, and Erdogan’s Muslim Brotherhood Colleague Died

  ARABI SOURI

Ayman Zawahiri and Osama Bin Laden of Al Qaeda

Ayman Al Zawahiri is dead; Al Zawahiri was leading Al Qaeda after Obama said he killed Osama, he was one of the world’s main terrorists, and a colleague of NATO’s second top leader the Turkish madman Erdogan in the anti-Islamic Muslim Brotherhood radical organization.

The news of the death of the chief of the Saudi-CIA created and funded terrorist organization is yet to be confirmed by the terrorists themselves, it was reported by the Pakistani news outlet ‘Arab News‘ and conveyed by the Lebanese Al Mayadeen news.

Al Zawahiri, most likely and if confirmed, would have died of natural causes, especially that Trump said he killed the Pentagon’s Baghdadi and the killing of Al Zawahiri by a military stunt operation wouldn’t add much in the US elections where voters are more concerned about Trump’s virus than some foreign achievements. Furthermore, the regime of Donald Trump and the Taliban, Zawahiri’s allies, are on good terms, just like in the old days of Reagan and the ‘Mujahideen’.

Two of the presumed successors of Zawahiri were killed earlier, one of them Abu Muhsin Masri, aka Abdul Hadi Mustapha, was eliminated by the Afghani security forces last month. The other presumed successor to Al Zawahiri was someone by the name of Abdul Raouf, there’s not much reliable information on the method or date he was killed by or where or when.

We are not sure how much the Turkish madman Erdogan would be touched by the killing of his long time colleague Al Zawahiri in the radical Muslim Brotherhood organization, Erdogan is known for liquidating and jailing his closest friends and colleagues, especially those who helped him throughout his controversial career, therefore, the chances of Erdogan grieving or celebrating the death of Al Zawahiri would be 50/50, Al Zawahiri might have been Erdogan’s supporter in commanding terrorists worldwide, or he might have been Erdogan’s competitor in that regard.

Al Qaeda operations have been much lessened due to the extensive rebranding campaigns of its affiliates and offshoots after its name was over-consumed by NATO and especially by the Pentagon to justify their illegal interventions and their war on Islam worldwide.https://www.syrianews.cc/the-pentagon-threatening-to-revive-isis/embed/#?secret=wssjhnNJ2I

To help us continue please visit the Donate page to donate or learn how you can help us with no cost on you.
Follow us on Telegram: http://t.me/syupdates link will open Telegram app.

Revolutionary Changes Awaiting the Middle East?

17.11.2020 

Author: Vladimir Odintsov

PLS342341

Although some of Donald Trump’s advisers still believe in his possible victory and support his attempts to fight, their number is gradually decreasing. Trump himself also is gradually realising the fact that the election results will not be canceled, and he has lost these elections…

The increasing reality of the failure of Trump’s four-year political activity is forcing politicians in many countries who have orientated towards him to look for a way to resolve their current situation, making adjustments to their rhetoric and actions. A certain group, imitating Trump himself, who has repeatedly abandoned former allies in the name of “his own political game”, are rapidly seeking to reorient themselves to the expected new master of the White House, sending flattering congratulations on “victory” instead of the previous criticism for the recent opponent of Trump in the elections.

As the Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung emphasised, “Europe collectively breathed a sigh of relief. The warm reaction of Brussels and representatives of the EU member states has once again confirmed: more than the election of Joe Biden, Europe is happy about the impending departure of President Donald Trump.”

And this is not only a typical reaction for Europe!

Almost all commentary states the obvious fact: the time after Trump will not be the same as the time before Trump. And therefore, the shifting of the “weather vane of political change” is very clearly traced not only in the list of those who have already congratulated Joe Biden “on victory” – even before the official announcement of the highly scandalous and controversial recent presidential elections in the United States – but also in the choice of the words themselves to express servility and plebeian devotion.

Thus, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu congratulated Joe Biden, calling him “a great friend of Israel.” However most recently, Channel 7 of Israeli television published the results of a national poll, according to which 68% of Israelis expressed their devotion to Trump. Moreover, on November 2, according to Reuters, Israel even held a prayer service for the re-election of Donald Trump. And this is not surprising, since Trump suits Tel Aviv much more. Indeed, it was Trump who on December 6, 2017 recognised Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and moved the US embassy there. In May 2018, Trump pulled Washington out of the “nuclear pact” with Tehran. On March 25, 2019, Trump officially recognized Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights. On October 15, 2020, Trump held a ceremony to normalize relations between Israel, Bahrain and the UAE in front of the White House in Washington. It was Trump who signed the Justice for Unpaid Survivors Act, which provides for the return of property lost during the Holocaust and other events of the 20th century. He signed a decree on the fight against anti-Semitism on American campuses.

But, in addition to Netanyahu, the leaders of Hamas and the extremist group “Muslim Brotherhood Politics” (banned in Russia – ed.) Sent their congratulations to Biden, calling on the new White House administration to abandon the old Trump policies in the Middle East and “Look towards Palestine.”

According to comments published in recent days by various media outlets, with the arrival of Biden in the White House, one can really expect a significant adjustment to the previous US Middle Eastern policy. In particular, it is believed that Joe Biden will return to the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) Agreement on Iran’s nuclear program, while changing some of the terms of the treaty.

In addition to countering Iran, the next US president will certainly face the need to resolve a number of other crises in the Middle East. As The Jerusalem Post believes, this is first of all, the growing extremism of Turkey, the settlement of the Palestinian problem, the issues in Libya and the Eastern Mediterranean, as well as the great catastrophe in the Sahel and the potential destabilization of Iraq.

According to former US Ambassador to Israel Daniel B. Shapiro, Biden’s undisputed foreign policy initiative related to the Middle East will be the question of creating a Palestinian state. Also, the new head of the White House may cancel the “deal of the century” – the Trump administrations deal to settle the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, which was indignantly rejected by the Palestinian authorities and a number of Muslim countries.

A possible adjustment of Trump’s Middle East policy by Biden is already, belligerently expected in Tel Aviv. On November 5, 2020, Israeli Settlement Minister Tsakhi has already voiced threats that the Israeli elite is ready to start a war with the Islamic Republic in response to Washington’s return to the “nuclear pact.”

In Riyadh, Biden’s arrival at the White House is expected with heightened vigilance.

As we are reminded from the November 8, edition of “Al-Arabia”, Biden promised to reconsider relations with Saudi Arabia in connection with the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Hence, even a number of Saudi experts do not exclude that Biden “poses a threat to the crown prince, since he will order the CIA to reveal all the details of the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, and also force the prince to lift the blockade from Qatar, stop arming Riyadh with weapons and ammunition for the war in Yemen and compel him to release the detained activists and members of the royal family.” There is even a belief regarding the possible removal of bin Salman from his posts, in connection with which there are unequivocal hints that in this situation the crown prince has only one “weapon to withstand these dangers – rapprochement with Israel.”

Developing on this idea,   the head of the ‘Mossad’, Yossi Cohen, bluntly stated that “normalization of relations with Israel will be a gift from Riyadh to the new US president – regardless of whether Donald Trump or Joe Biden wins,” and that this decision could soften ‘Biden the Democrat’s’ stance on the KSA (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia).

Be that as it may (and obviously not without taking into account these points) on the evening of November 8, King Salman of Saudi Arabia and his heir Prince Muhammad finally congratulated Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris on their election victory.

It will also be difficult time for Turkey starting when the real possibility of a new president of USA comes to power, as they reacted very sharply to the statements of Joe Biden, who, in an interview with The New York Times, spoke negatively about Recep Erdogan, calling him an “autocrat”, criticised his policy towards the Kurds and supported the Turkish opposition.  Although Joe Biden did this interview back in December 2019, the video of him appeared only on August 15. Now Ankara is preparing for the imposition of a number of sanctions against it on several issues at once, in particular, for Operation Peace Spring against the Syrian Kurds, since Biden may recognise them as their main ally in Syria. Ankara also takes into account Biden’s recent calls to increase pressure on the Turkish authorities in order to push them to reduce tensions in relations with Athens: “it is necessary to put pressure on Turkey so that it abandons provocative actions in the region against Greece, as well as threats to use force.”

They also recall how recently Joe Biden demanded that Donald Trump put pressure on Turkey to abandon the decision on the Hagia Sophia issue, saying that Ankara “should open this temple to all confessions.”

Hence how the recent resignation of both the head of the Central Bank   Murat Uysal, and the Minister of Finance and Treasury of Turkey Berat Albayrak (who was Erdogan’s son-in-law) gave rise to active discussions of the processes that have begun in the highest echelons of power against the background of the expected change of the US presidential administration.  After all, the previous head of the Central Bank worked at Halkbank, the investigation around which may enter an active phase under the new administration, and Albayrak may be connected with the “Halkbank case”. Recall that in January 2018, a court in New York found Halkbank Deputy Chairman Hakan Atilla guilty of the fact that he and the bank itself provided intermediary services in the transfer of funds received by the Iranian leadership from the sale of oil and gas.

The Middle East has always been an issue for US presidents, many administrations come to power wanting to “do something” about the region, but the problems and conflicts are not diminishing. Therefore, today many are asking the question: will Biden become the president who is really ready to make this region better and not just another inhabitant of the Oval Office?

Vladimir Odintsov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook“.

خطوط دفاع مأرب تنهار: معسكر الماس في أيدي قوّات صنعاء

الأخبار

 رشيد الحداد السبت 14 تشرين الثاني 2020

خطوط دفاع مأرب تنهار: معسكر الماس في أيدي قوّات صنعاء
جرى التحام مباشر بين قوّات هادي وصنعاء قبيل سقوط المعسكر (أ ف ب )

أحكمت قوّات صنعاء، بعد أسبوعَين من المعارك، سيطرتها على معسكر الماس الاستراتيجي الذي يُعدُّ آخر وأهمّ خطوط الدفاع عن مدينة مأرب. تَطوّرٌ فَتح الطريق أمام الجيش و«اللجان» للتقدُّم في اتجّاه المدينة، سواء من صحراء الجدعان، أم من الخطّ الرئيس الرابط بين صنعاء ومأربصنعاء | سقط معسكر الماس الاستراتيجي الواقع غربي مدينة مأرب بأيدي قوّات صنعاء، فجر يوم أمس، ما أدّى إلى انهيار مَن تبقّى مِن قوّات موالية للرئيس المنتهية ولايته، عبد ربه منصور هادي، في محيط المعسكر. هذا التقدُّم الاستراتيجي الذي خاضت قوات الجيش و”اللجان الشعبية” من أجله معركةً مصيريّة مع قوّات هادي، في الأسبوعين الماضيين، يتيح المجال للتقدُّم نحو مدينة مأرب من صحراء الجدعان، أو من الخطّ الرئيس الرابط بين العاصمة ومأرب.

سقوط المعسكر الذي يُعدُّ آخر وأهمّ خطوط الدفاع عن مدينة مأرب، مَنح قوات الجيش و”اللجان الشعبية” هامشاً واسعاً للسيطرة على ما تبقّى من المناطق الصحراوية المحيطة بالمدينة، والتقدّم في اتّجاه منطقة الدشوش المطلّة على معسكرَي صحن الجن وتداوين ووزارة دفاع هادي الواقعة عند البوابة الغربية لمأرب، وكذا السيطرة على مساحة جغرافية كبيرة في صحراء الجدعان المحيطة بالمدينة، وتأمين القوّات المتقدّمة نحو مأرب من أيّ هجمات غادرة من الخلف، أو أيّ التفاف عسكري للقوّات المعادية.

وأكّد مصدر قبلي في مأرب، في حديث إلى “الأخبار”، سقوط معسكر الماس الاستراتيجي ووادي الماس وجميع المناطق والأودية والمواقع المحيطة به، مشيراً أيضاً إلى سقوط الخطّ الإسفلتي الرئيس الرابط بين صنعاء ومأرب بعد سيطرة الجيش و”اللجان الشعبية” على منطقة حلحلان بالكامل، ونقل المعركة إلى ما بعد نقطة الكسارة في اتّجاه مأرب. وكانت قوات صنعاء أحكمت سيطرتها، بعد معارك عنيفة، مساء الثلاثاء، على مفرق معسكر الماس ونقطة الشرطة العسكرية، وصولاً إلى صحراء اللسان التي كانت تُستخدم من قِبَل المرتزقة كخطّ إمداد أخير للدفاع عن المعسكر. وعلى رغم محاولة الطرف الآخر بناء التحصينات والاستبسال في الدفاع عن المعسكر، إلّا أن طائرات العدوان استهدفت الموالين له، في اليومين الماضيين، بعد غارات هستيريّة شنّتها لإعاقة تَقدُّم قوّات الجيش و”اللجان الشعبية” نحو المعسكر. من جهته، وصف قيادي في قوّات هادي، يدعى سلطان الروسا، المواجهات “الفاصلة” التي جرت مساء الخميس قبيل سقوط المعسكر بـ”الحرب التي لا تشبه أي حرب”، مشيراً، في تغريدة عبر “تويتر”، إلى أن “عناصر الطرفين التحما وجهاً لوجه للمرة الأولى”.

فرّت قوّات هادي في أعقاب سقوط معسكر الماس، نحو صحراء الجدعان


هذا التطوّر المهمّ تزامن مع سقوط معظم مناطق وقرى مديرية رغوان الواقعة بالقرب من معسكر الماس بأيدي قوّات الجيش و”اللجان الشعبية” في الأيام الماضية، ونجاح وساطات قبليّة بتفعيل اتفاقات كانت قوات صنعاء أبرمتها مع قبائل رغوان في تموز/ يوليو الماضي، والتزمت بموجبها يتجنيب القرى والمدن التابعة للمديرية ويلات الدمار وعدم اعتراض أبناء قبيلة الجدعان المنسحبين من صفوف قوّات هادي، في مقابل السماح لها بالدخول سلميّاً إلى مناطقهم. اتّفاقات توسّعت ودفعت كبار مشائخ قبيلة الجدعان التي تمتدّ أراضيها من شرق صنعاء وصولاً إلى غرب مأرب وشرق الجوف، إلى زيارة صنعاء الأربعاء الماضي، وإعلان الولاء لقيادة “أنصار الله”. هذه الخطوة أثارت جدلاً واسعاً في أوساط قوّات هادي التي اعتبرت تأييد قبيلة الجدعان لصنعاء، صدمة معنوية كبيرة ستفقد الجبهات الموالية لـ”التحالف” التوازن والصمود في المعركة، لكون أبنائها قاتلوا في صفوفه على مدى ثلاث سنوات، وقتل 700 منهم في جبهات القتال.

وفرّت قوّات هادي في أعقاب سقوط معسكر الماس، نحو صحراء الجدعان التي تمتدّ من المدخل الغربي لمدينة مأرب إلى شرق الجوف. وتفيد المصادر بأن قيادة القوات المشتركة وصلت مساء الخميس إلى معسكر تداوين، أحد أهمّ مقرات قوّات التحالف السعودي – الإماراتي شمال غرب مدينة مأرب، حيث عَقدت اجتماعاً طارئاً بحضور ضبّاط سعوديين لتدارس الموقف، في ظلّ اشتداد المعارك غربي المدينة. إلّا أن صاروخاً بالستياً، لم تُعلِن صنعاء مسؤوليتها عنه، كان لهذا الاجتماع بالمرصاد، ليتسبّب في وقوع عدد كبير من القتلى والجرحى، منهم قيادات عسكرية كبيرة موالية لهادي، وثلاثة ضباط سعوديين تفيد المعلومات بمقتلهم. وجاء الهجوم الصاروخي على الاجتماع بعد يومين من مقتل قائد اللواء أول مشاة جبلي الموالي لهادي، العميد محمد مسعد جعبان، في جبهة مدغل في ظروف غامضة، وذلك عقب خلافات تصاعدت بينه وبين رئيس أركان قوّات هادي، اللواء صغير بن عزيز. ولا يستبعد مراقبون أن تصاعد الغارات “الخاطئة” التي تستهدف بعض مجاميع قوّات هادي في جبهات مأرب، تندرج في إطار التصفيات بين الأجنحة المتصارعة في جبهات مأرب والجوف.

وكانت قوات هادي قد صعّدت عسكرياً، خلال الساعات الـ72 الماضية، في جبهات خب والشعف في محافظة الجوف، محاولةً بذلك تخفيف الضغط على جبهات غرب مأرب، ورفع معنويات عناصرها المنهارة، فردّت قوات صنعاء، الخميس، بشنّ هجوم واسع في اتّجاه منطقة اليتمة الواقعة على الحدود مع السعودية، لتسيطر على مناطق الدحيضه والتبة الحمراء وقرن السعراء شرق الجوف.

زورقان وطائرات مسيّرة تستهدف السعودية

بعدما هدّدت “أنصار الله”، قبل أيّام، عشية “قمّة العشرين” المزمع عقدها في الرياض يومَي 21 و22 الجاري، باستهداف مواقع عسكرية واقتصادية حيويّة في الداخل السعودي، بدأت الحركة تنفيذ تهديداتها اعتباراً من مساء الأربعاء، حين هاجمت بزورقين مفخّخين مسيّرين منصّة تفريغ عائمة تابعة لمحطّة توزيع المنتجات البترولية في جيزان جنوب المملكة، ما أدّى الى اندلاع حريق في المنشأة، بحسب اعتراف السلطات السعودية. اعترافُ جاء على لسان “مصدر مسؤول في وزارة الطاقة” أكّد في حديث إلى وكالة الأنباء السعودية، “واس”، أنه “تمّ التعامل مع حريق اندلع يوم الأربعاء بالقرب من منصّة تفريغ”، مشيراً إلى أن”الحريق اندلع بعدما اعترض التحالف (…) زورقين مفخّخين في جنوب البحر الأحمر”، ما أدّى إلى “اندلاع حريق في الخراطيم العائمة في المنصة، وقد تم التعامل مع الحريق، ولم تحدث أي إصاباتٍ أو خسائر في الأرواح”. كذلك، أعلن التحالف السعودي – الإماراتي، يوم أمس، “اعتراض 5 طائرات مسيّرة تابعة للحوثيين، اثنتان منها في الأجواء اليمنية”، كانت قد أطلقتها قوات صنعاء في اتجاه أهداف داخل الأراضي السعودية.
(الأخبار)

فيديوات مرتبطة

مقالات مرتبطة

ابن سلمان مذعور من بايدن لأربعة أسباب

د. وفيق إبراهيم

ولي العهد السعودي محمد بن سلمان مصاب بقلق عميق من التداعيات المرتقبة للسياسات الجديدة التي يريد الرئيس الأميركي الجديد جو بايدن تطبيقها في الشرق الاوسط.

هذه التدابير لا تشمل «اسرائيل» لأن هناك تطابقاً كاملاً في دعمها أميركياً وسعودياً.

أليست السعودية مَن أقنع الإمارات والبحرين والسودان بالتطبيع معها؟ وتتحضر لبناء علاقات مباشرة معها بعد استدراج دول عربية وإسلامية جديدة للتطبيع لتلتحق بها آنفاً في عملية تمويه تبدو وكأنها قبول سعودي مكره لأمر واقع بدأته دول اخرى.

فـ»إسرائيل» كيان محتل، لكنها من الثوابت الأساسية للاستراتيجية الأميركية في العالم وليس مسموحاً لأحد التعرّض لها.

ما هي إذاً أسباب هذا الذعر السعودي؟

تشكلت في السنوات الأربع الأخيرة تيارات في الحزب الديمقراطي الأميركي لاستهداف العلاقة الحميمة بين الرئيس الأميركي ترامب ومحمد بن سلمان. فجرى الاستثمار في اغتيال الخاشقجي وملاحقة الأمني الجبري في أميركا وكندا والاعتقالات التي سجن فيها ابن سلمان أولاد عمومته ومعارضيه بدعم من الرئيس ترامب.

هذا بالإضافة إلى فرض نفسه ولياً لعهد أبيه الملك سلمان، بما يناقض التوريث السياسي في المملكة القائم على انتقال الملك من شقيق الى أخيه وهكذا دواليك، إلى أن تصل الى اولاد الأشقاء وبالمداورة.

للإشارة فإن الدعم الذي تلقاه بن سلمان من ترامب هو الذي أوصله الى ولاية العهد مقابل تأييد سعوديّ كامل لسياسات ترامب وتوجّهاته الاقتصادية سعودياً.

هذا هو السبب الأول الذي يرعب بن سلمان باعتبار أن حلفه مع ترامب ناصب الرئيس المنتخب بايدن ومجمل الحزب الديمقراطي العداء، وقد يبلغ هذا العداء إذا غابت التسويات تماماً إلى حدود عرقلة الانتقال الهادئ لولي العهد الى العرش السعودي. وهذا ما يستطيع الأميركيون أن يفعلوه بسهولة مع مملكة يسيطرون على كل تضاريسها السياسيّة والاقتصاديّة.

أما السبب الثاني فمرتبط برفض الحزب الديمقراطي الموالي لبايدن للحرب السعودية – الإماراتية على اليمن المتواصلة منذ خمس سنوات ومطالبته الدائمة بوقف بيع السلاح الأميركيّ للسعودية والإمارات في هذه الحرب.

لذلك يخشى بن سلمان من ضغط أميركي يوقف هذه الحرب فترتدّ سلباً عليه لجهة إعادة تشكيل اليمن موحّداً بين الشمال والجنوب مع إمكانية تبلور دولة يمنية قوية تتموضع على رأس جزيرة العرب وتتحكم بحركة الانتقال والتنقل من بحر عدن الى قناة السويس مروراً بباب المندب وجزيرة سقطرى نحو الخليج الهندي.

هذا يسبب ذعراً لآل سعود من التراجع الإضافي المرتقب لدولتهم ما يجعلها أكثر هامشية مما عليه الآن.

لجهة السبب الثالث، الذي يرعبهم ايضاً فيتعلق باحتمال تقارب أميركي تركي يقوم على إزالة الكثير من التعارضات التي تشكلت بين البلدين منذ 2012 تقريباً.

إن من شأن أي تقارب بايدن مع الأتراك العودة الى استخدام الاخوان المسلمين الورقة القوية للأتراك وحزبهم الاخواني الحاكم العدالة والتنمية في الكثير من البلدان. وهؤلاء الاخوان موجودون في معظم العالم العربي والإسلامي ويشكلون تهديداً أيديولوجياً للوهابية والأنظمة الملكية. فالاخوان يختارون ولي الأمر بمفهوم الشورى الداخلية فيما بينهم ويرفضون مبدأ التوارث في السلطة السياسيّة. بما يعني رفضهم لنماذج الدول الخليجيّة في السعودية وعمان والبحرين والإمارات والكويت وغيرها، القائمة على مبدأ الوراثة العائلية للسلطة.

هذا من الأساليب التي تجعل السعودية لا تقبل باستعمال الاخوان آلية سياسية للتحرك الأميركي – السعودي في المنطقة بالإضافة الى أن أي نجاح للاخوان في الإقليم هو صعود لدور تركيا المنافس الفعلي للسعودية على زعامة العالم الإسلامي.

لذلك يخشى بن سلمان من تغيير في مرحلة بايدن للسياسات الأميركية في الشرق الأوسط تستند الى تقارب أميركي مع الأتراك.

فهذا يدفع الى مزيد فوري من تراجعات للأدوار السعودية الخارجية وحتى في شبه جزيرة العرب.

على مستوى السبب الرابع فهو إيران، وهنا لا بد من الإشارة الى أن بن سلمان يعرف بدقة أن إيران لا تشكل خطراً مباشراً على السعودية لأن الجيوبوليتيك الأميركي يعتبرها ومنذ 1945 جزءاً بنيويّاً منه تلي «إسرائيل» مباشرة في الأهمية.

لكن هذا لا يمنع من شعور محمد بن سلمان بالخطر الكبير من أي هدنة أميركية إيرانية جديدة تستند على عودة الأميركيين الى الاتفاق النووي وبالتالي الى رفع الحصار عن إيران.

هنا يرى السعوديون في هذه الخطوة استعادة إيران لقدراتها في الحركة الإقليمية واسترجاعاً لقوتها الاقتصادية ما يؤدي الى توسع نفوذها في آسيا الوسطى ومسلمي الهند وباكستان مروراً بتحالفاتها في اليمن والعراق وسورية ولبنان. هذا بالإضافة الى المقدرة الإيرانية على نسج علاقات مع الاخوان المسلمين في مختلف المواضع والأمكنة.

لذلك يبدو محمد بن سلمان محاصراً في طموحاته الشخصية، ومرعوباً من تغيير فعلي في الإقليم، وخائفاً من نمو رغبة أميركية بتغييره بأمير آخر من أولاد عمومته.

كما انه يعرف أن الدورين التركي والإيراني اكثر فاعلية من قدرة «إسرائيل» على حمايته. بما قد يدفعه لدفع أتاوة جديدة للأميركيين مع ولاءات سياسية واستراتيجية غير مسبوقة، فهل يمتنع بن سلمان عن دفع الف مليار دولار للأميركيين مقابل دعمه في الإمساك بالعرش السعودي؟ لقد دفع لترامب نحو 500 مليار من أجل ولاية العهد، أفلا يستحقّ العرش أكثر من ذلك؟

هذا هو المنطق السعودي والأميركي في آن معاً والضحية بالطبع هم أهل جزيرة العرب الذين يتشارك في قمعهم الأميركيون والسعوديون ويجهضون أي محاولة فعليّة لتحرّرهم من قيود القرون الوسطى.

International Reaction to Turkey’s Aggressive Foreign Policy Approach

05.11.2020 Author: Valery Kulikov

TE341188
e

According to numerous observers, the “aggressive approach” the Turkish leader R. Erdogan implies in Turkey’s foreign policy every day evokes more and more hostility and opposition across the world.

It is through the fault of Ankara that many of the faded conflicts have flared up with renewed vigor lately. Thus, in the Eastern Mediterranean, Turkey is striving for shelf hydrocarbons, causing a wave of indignation not only from Greece, but also from the European Union. And although the clash of interests here has not yet reached outright bloodshed, nevertheless, Turkey is no longer shy about ramming opponents with their ships and vessels. This, in turn, causes an increase in the degree of tensions both within the EU and between NATO member states, the outcome of which so far few can predict. The drift towards divisions is on in spite of Washington’s calls to all NATO member states urging them to “keep Turkey in the West.”

After the terrorist attack on October 16 in the Paris suburbs of Conflans-Saint-Honorine, when an 18-year-old Islamist, motivated by religious enmity, killed a school history and geography teacher, a new diplomatic scandal erupted between Turkey and France, which significantly increased tensions between these countries in Libya, where they support opposing sides of the conflict.

Numerous media voices are increasingly citing factual evidence of Ankara’s intervention in the Libyan conflict, and not only in the form of supplying weapons there in violation of the imposed international embargo, but also sending numerous mercenaries from the war zone in Syria.

Recently, the growing criticism of Turkey on sending mercenaries not only to Syria and Libya, but also to the Karabakh conflict zone, has been confirmed by the intelligence services of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairing countries. As a result, today no one, including Turkey itself, can claim that in the context of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, it acts as an impartial or neutral party, since it views this conflict as an opportunity to expand its influence in another neighboring region, the Southern Caucasus.

The summit of the EU states, which ended in late October, condemned the aggressive rhetoric and actions of Turkey aimed at the EU states, and the head of the European Council Charles Michel indicated that the EU leaders would discuss further actions with regard to Turkey at the planned summit in December. “We have expressed our determination to make Ankara respect us. Turkey has not yet chosen a positive path in relations with the EU. We condemn the recent unilateral actions of Turkey in the Eastern Mediterranean, provocations and aggressive rhetoric against the EU countries, which is absolutely unacceptable,” Charles Michel said on October 29 following the EU summit held in the video conference format.

NATO also declares its “bewilderment” by Turkey’s actions, openly hinting to Erdogan about “unpleasant moments” and readiness to take a tougher position with regard to Ankara.

Today Turkey has strained its relations with many countries. In addition to the deepening conflict with the United States (after the acquisition and testing of the Russian S-400 anti-aircraft missile system), France, Greece and the EU as a whole, the list of Turkey’s “opponents” includes Israel (due to the conflict over the Palestinian problem), Syria (where Erdogan introduced Turkish troops), Iran (with which Ankara has intensified contradictions because of Erdogan’s actions in Syria), Saudi Arabia (relations with which have especially worsened because of the “Khashoggi case”). Even with the United Arab Emirates Erdogan’s conflict has become so widespread that this struggle unfolds from Morocco to Syria, most fiercely manifesting itself in the field of “soft power”, with mutual accusations of seeking to destabilize the Arab world. The Arab monarchies are particularly concerned about Ankara’s policy in the Persian Gulf, where Turkish troops are now stationed in Qatar, another Turkish base is located in Somalia, and Erdogan himself actively supports and finances the Muslim Brotherhood religious and political movement (banned in Russia – ed.) , to which the monarchies of the Gulf are more than wary.

As a result, as noted not only by the Western, but other regional media, Erdogan risks isolating his country from both the West and Arabs with Persians. “Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has made it clear that he has no desire to be a bridge between Europe and the Arab world. Instead, he decided to reshape Turkey in line with its imperial past and make it a competitor to the two regions,” UAE Foreign Minister Anwar Gargash is being cited.

In response to the aggressiveness of Erdogan’s policy, France has already called off its ambassador from Turkey “for consultations”. The Canadian government, after the Bombardier Recreational Products company “unexpectedly” learned that its engines were being installed on the Turkish Bayraktar TB2 (“Flag Bearer”) operational tactical attack drones (these has been actively used in the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh), took the decision to stop supplying them, as well as other weapons to Turkey. Canada stressed that “the use of attack drones by Turkey often goes beyond the framework of agreements within the NATO format.”

For its part, Turkey has no choice but to launch its own production of engines for Turkish drones, or to intensify military-technical cooperation with Ukraine in this regard, which was indirectly confirmed in the speeches of representatives of the industrial and business circles of Turkey, in particular, Turkish Aerospace Industries.

Against the backdrop of these events, the fall of the Turkish lira became uncontrollable, and Ankara no longer has the resources to keep the situation under control. Since the beginning of the year, the lira has fallen by 39% against the US dollar, which has become the worst indicator dynamics among all currencies in Eurasia, despite the fact that the dollar this year is clearly not up to par. The savings of the Turkish state itself continue to fall: according to the investment bank Goldman Sachs, Turkey has spent about $130 billion from its reserves over the past year and a half. At the same time, the reserves do not cease to decline, and if in the summer their volume reached $90 billion, now they have dropped below $80 billion. The situation is complicated by the need to fight the current economic crisis. In addition, unemployment in the country approached 14%, and among young people it reached 25%.

According to the forecasts of the former IMF Managing Director Desmond Lachman, in the event of a liquidity crisis in the world, Turkey will become one of the first countries to declare a default. Under these conditions, in order to mitigate the consequences of the recession, the state again has to borrow a lot from foreign creditors, but because of Erdogan’s aggressive policy, reliable friends (except, perhaps, Ukraine, whose situation is even worse), to whom you can turn for loans, today are getting more and more scarce…

Valery Kulikov, a political analyst, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

%d bloggers like this: