July War Diary: Hezbollah Fighters Turn Lebanese Towns into Graveyard for Israeli Invaders

 July 21, 2021

Visual search query image
Hezbollah fighters standing beside a rocket launcher (photo from archive).

In the tenth day of July War in 2006, the Israeli enemy went crazy with its air strikes and bombardment of Lebanon.

Meanwhile, the Resistance fighters’ heroic confrontations with the occupation soldiers in the southern border towns made it clear to the invaders that “this land is forbidden to you”.

The Israeli warplanes in that day (Friday, July 21, 2006) launched more than seventeen air strikes on Baalbeck city, killing or injuring dozens of Lebanese civilians. The strikes also destroyed Mudeirej Bridge which links Beirut to Bekaa.

More than 100 strikes were also launched on the southern city of Tyre, with Israeli warplanes dropping leaflets there, calling on residents to evacuate the area.

The Israeli air strikes, meanwhile, targeted several schools that hosted displaced Lebanese in Bint Jbeil (south Lebanon) and in Baalbeck (Bekaa).

Strikes on the southern city of Nabatieh and Beirut’s southern suburb (Dahiyeh) also did not stop, with more residential areas were targeted.

Israeli artillery also fired internationally-banned cluster bombs at several Lebanese towns in the south, including Maroun Al-Ras, Khiyam, Aitaroun, Qulaiaat, Ebl Sukei and Houla.

For its part, Hezbollah kept the rocket fire at occupied territories, with missiles pounding Israeli cities of Safad, Haifa, Nahariya and Taberias, as well as settlements of Upper Galilee, Lower Galilee and Kiryat Shmona.

A Raad-2 rocket hit the Israeli city of Haifa, killing or injuring 30 Israelis.

Also on Thursday (July 21, 2006), the Israeli soldiers repeated attempts to make a ground incursion in the southern border towns. Israeli media reported that at least 300 and 500 Israeli soldiers backed by 30 tanks were already believed to be over the border. However, Resistance fighters were closely monitoring the invaders. Hezbollah fighters who were positioned in the border town of Maroun Al-Ras repelled the Israeli infiltration. Several Israeli soldiers were killed and at least three Merkava tanks were destroyed, with the occupation military acknowledging that 7 soldiers were killed. The Israeli army usually minimizes its military losses.

On the political level, it was clear that the United States was opposing a cessation of hostilities, in a bid to make more pressure on Hezbollah. Then US Secretary of State Condaleezza Rice made her well-known stance, describing the war on Lebanon as a part of the “birth pangs of a new Middle East”.

Then US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, also defended the Israeli war, wondering about the futility of “holding talks on ceasefire with a terrorist organization”.

For his part, then Lebanese President Emile Lahoud said that the Israeli war on Lebanon was planned before the Resistance operation in which it captured Israeli soldiers, noting that the Zionist regime took Hezbollah’s border operation a pretext to launch its military campaign against Lebanon.

Source: Al-Manar English Website

Blinken Talks the Talk, but Will He Walk the Walk?

During his 24 years as a senior foreign correspondent for The Washington Times and United Press International, Martin Sieff reported from more than 70 nations and covered 12 wars. He has specialized in US and global economic issues.

Martin Sieff

March 8, 2021

Biden has so far made no move whatsoever to rein in the continued bold and potentially very dangerous US military exercises with allies right up to the very borders of Russia.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s March 3 speech at the US State Department should be warmly welcomed around the world, especially in Caracas and Tehran: It does indeed mark a highly significant shift in US foreign policy and deserves to be taken at face value: But it does not address fundamental policy conflicts with Russia and China that Biden inherited from his predecessors – and not just Donald Trump. And it is these far bigger, unaddressed issues that may very well yet propel the world into a nightmarish thermonuclear war.

Blinken in his speech made an acknowledgement that his predecessors Mike Pompeo, Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton would never have been capable of – and that John Kerry was never allowed to admit.

Blinken openly admitted that there had been US efforts to topple governments by force that Washington was critical of. He further openly acknowledged that some of those efforts had failed and that they had badly discredited the cause of democracy and the United States itself around the world.

“We will incentivize democratic behavior, but we will not promote democracy through costly military interventions or by attempting to overthrow authoritarian regimes by force. We tried these tactics in the past. …they haven’t worked. They have given democracy promotion a bad name and they have lost the confidence of the American people. We will do things differently,” Blinken said.

There is every reason to believe that Blinken was sincere in his commitment to forswear efforts at regime change in both Iran and Venezuela.

First, the very day before his important speech, Blinken held a telephone conversation with Venezuelan opposition politician Juan Guaido, whom Trump, Pompeo and then National Security Adviser John Bolton farcically tried to promote as the legitimate president of Venezuela. US allies around the world, especially in Europe and Latin America have been humiliatingly led by the nose to publicly support this absurd contention, akin to incredibility to claiming that Venezuela’s great Angel Falls flow up not down, or that the World is Flat.

No details of what Blinken discussed with Guaido have yet emerged at this time of writing but it is very clear what the secretary of state’s message was: Like so many previous corrupt and vanity-filled dupes eager to grab the coattails of America’s imagined New Rome global imperium, Guaido was told he was going to be thrown under the bus.

This move is clearly demanded by US pragmatic interests. If there is one lesson that Wall Street and its US government servants have followed for the past 150 years since the rise of John D. Rockefeller and J. P Morgan: It is to back Winners and throw Hopeless Losers to the wolves.

Guaido certainly counts as a Hopeless Loser: He has gained no discernible political, popular or military support within Venezuela, despite the continuing suffering caused by the ongoing US economic war launched against Caracas by President Joe Biden’s old boss and close friend Barack Obama in 2014 and then enthusiastically intensified by Trump and Pompeo.

Does that mean the economic war against Venezuela will end? Certainly not. Blinken himself, like his master, President Biden supported it 100 percent during the Obama administration. And the new administration, already the source of Republican wrath for its domestic economic and social policies, will not casually open up a new front where it can be attacked as wimps.

Like brutalized children, liberal Democrats have been terrified of such accusations ever since Senator Joe McCarthy accused them of “losing China ” (China was never theirs to lose) and being soft on communism back in 1950.

Also, ending the economic war on Venezuela would require decisive and original action and Blinken, like Biden and National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, has owed his long, slow, steady rise precisely to following the golden rule of liberal Democrats since the days of party presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson in the 1950s: Never take a strong, sustained position on anything , good or bad. Even when you see a policy is leading you off the edge of a cliff, just slow it down a bit and still tumble over the cliff to your political doom. Never dare to actually stop, or reverse any disastrous course of action.

These simple principles determined the endless foreign policy fiascos of Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama and even to some degree Bill Clinton.

Clinton was led by the nose, though reluctantly, to bomb Serbia and risk needless confrontation with Russia by his secretary of state Madeleine Albright and her lifelong mentor, Russia-phobic former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Blinken’s foreswearing of any effort at direct regime change therefore appears to be part of a policy that while initially appearing moderate will never lead to anything truly constructive.

Blinken, like Biden and Sullivan, wants to restore US participation in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran for no better reason than that they all supported it and helped negotiate it in the first place for Obama.

However, the new administration has already made clear it does not dare risk driving Saudi Arabia into China or Russia’s arms. Blinken’s speech may indeed lead to the return of US participation in the JCPOA, something America ‘s European allies and the Iranians would both welcome. But it looks unlikely so far to lead to anything else.

Also, so far, Biden has so far made no move whatsoever to rein in the continued bold and potentially very dangerous US military exercises with allies right up to the very borders of Russia. Yet if these moves had been carried out by the Russian Air Force and Navy off the shores or close to the territories of the United States, they would provoke complete outrage.

Similarly, the US armed forces are plunging ahead, secure in both administration and bipartisan congressional support, to step up military deployments in the Western Pacific openly proclaimed as containing China within the two Island Chains of the great ocean.

Blinken’s speech should indeed be welcomed as a positive first step towards reducing global tensions: But it is far too early to celebrate whether he will continue to walk the walk even while he talks the talk.

Biden / Harris 2020: The Values That Unite the US and Israel

Source

August 13, 2020

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. (Photo: File)

By Benay Blend

Joe Biden declares that what links the United States and Israel goes beyond the exchange of weapons. It is instead the much more ephemeral notion of a “shared soul that unites our countries, generation upon generation.” He proved that notion on August 11, 2020, when he chose Kamala Harris, the former Attorney General of California and current U.S. Senator, as his running mate.

In an article aptly titled “Jim Crow Joe and Kamala the Cop: Another Blue Lives Matter Ticket,” Tatiana Cozzarelli and Ezra Brain explain that Biden’s choice rested on a desire to “co-opt a movement against anti-Black police” by picking a Black woman who “talks about racial justice.” In reality, Harris proved that she is “pro-cop and pro-prison” by “locking up and terrorizing communities of color.”

Following the murder of George Floyd, there has been an unprecedented uprising against police brutality, during which some have called for the abolition of police and prisons. It was no coincidence that support came from beleaguered Palestine, as the same militarized techniques are used in both countries. Indeed, there was speculation that police who used the knee-on-the-neck choke-hold that cost Floyd his life learned that technique as a consequence of Deadly Exchange, the training of American police forces in Israel.

It is no coincidence that Harris was Biden’s choice for running mate for they not only are united in their belief systems; they also share those ideas with the Zionist regime. Biden talks about our shared soul with Israel. Harris reports that she is “honored to join Joe Biden in the fight for the soul of our country.” Yet in a prophetic tweet on May 1, Steven Salaita pleads:

“Please stop this shit about the presidential election being a battle for the ‘soul of America.’ Settler colonies have no souls, only ruling classes that want us to feel pious about their depravity.”

Apparently, neither do the leaders who want to run the country. Joe Biden devoted his career “fighting for the American people,” Harris continues. “And as president, he will build an America that lives up to our ideals.”

Fine words, but what do they really mean? Like Israel, America prides itself on being exceptional. In particular, both Israel and America claim to be exceptional democracies. In fact, they were born in the genocide of Indigenous people in both countries.

Significantly Biden and Harris are both unqualified supporters of Israel. In her statement Harris mentions her parents, both immigrants, mother from India and father from Jamaica, and each, she says, were participants in the civil rights movement of the 60s.

“Some of my earliest memories,” she continues, “are from that time” when her parents were “attacked by police with hoses, fleeing for safety,” with baby Kamala “strapped tightly” in her stroller.

Harris claims that she inherited her “spirit of activism” from her mother, who told her not to “just sit around and complain about things. Do something.” She did just that when she served as California’s Attorney General as well as Senator.

It wasn’t to “fix a broken system from within,” as she claims, that she served in those positions, at least not in the spirit of Civil Rights. As Cozzarelli and Brain make clear, Attorney General Harris was not so “progressive” as she claimed to be. Instead, as a lawyer who was “tough on crime,” she supported the prison industrial complex by “terrorizing communities of color.”

While previously serving as San Francisco DA, she directed a “war on truancy” which resulted in the arrest and prosecution of parents of children who had missed 10 percent of school days, often leading to a year in prison or a $2000 fine, neither of which were helpful for poor communities.

If all of this and more sounds even more appalling considering that Harris is Black, and so should have more empathy for her community, remember that Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State (2005-2009) and US National Security Advisor (2001-2005), who was 8 years old at the time of the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in her hometown of Birmingham, Alabama, said that afterward there was “no safe place” nor “sanctuary” for Black children in her community.

That experience, she said, led her to empathize with victims in other countries who had lost their families to war. Yet there were numerous war crimes committed under the Bush Administration, which, as Nancy Mancias explains, she condoned and covered for during her time as Secretary of State.

In a Facebook response last night, when emotions were running high, Ernesto Ayala, organizer for the Partido Nacional de la Raza Unidaasked that others organize instead of playing into what appeared to be a political game that tokenizes people of color:

“What a circus Ameriklan politics are. I’ve been on this planet 38 years and I’ve seen this ridiculous game over and over and over and it always follows the same pattern only now the empire is desperate and throwing in non white people into their game to AGAIN fool you into having hope in this decaying empire that has given us what? What on Earth has it given us only pain and misery everything we’ve been able to achieve has been in spite of and come at a cost of struggle that has cost blood NOT by this game show that produces Trump in the first place… Organize!”

Like Rice, Harris might understand the terrorizing of a community from her childhood experiences, but she has not been able to transfer that empathy to foreign policy. Moreover, as a Palestine Chronicle blog post attests, Harris   sports “a record of fighting for civil rights, freedom, and equality in America.”

Yet, as Kyle Kulinksi, a left-wing commentator and founder of the progressive political action committee Justice Democrats, observes, by ignoring Israel’s Occupation of Palestine, Harris is showing that “her moral and ethical concerns are non-existent.”

In a July 8, 2019 article in Electronic Intifada which is resurfacing again after Biden’s pick, Ali Abunimah claims that “[Harris’] support for freedom, civil rights and equality does not extend to one group of people systematically and violently denied them: Palestinians.” On this issue, she appears very much in line with Biden, whose support for Israel has been covered by the media for several years.

Given her record in California, I would argue that Harris’ domestic and foreign policy are all of one piece, seamlessly endorsing some of the same practices as those found in Israel. As AG in California, her stance on incarcerated prisoners was that they were expendable, much like Israel views Palestinians, and really the way that any settler colonial regime views the colonized. For example, when told to reduce the population of California’s crowned prisons, AG Harris’ office responded that if non-violent offenders were released that would lower the prison system’s source of cheap labor.

Writing for In These Times, Marie Gottschalk maintains that

“A new generation of prosecutors is willing to take on the Fraternal Order of Police and the statewide associations of district attorneys and sheriffs—some of the biggest obstacles to real criminal justice reform. And powerful local coalitions are emerging to make sure that those like Harris, who aspire to be ‘progressive prosecutors,’ do not pull back once they are elected to office.”

Will these young prosecutors, though, see the close links between foreign and domestic policies, particularly with respect to America’s ties to Israel? While liberals are quick to overlook the Biden / Harris position on the Occupation, they do so at their peril. As Michael Brown observes: “Substance on Palestine and settler-colonialism also matters and speaks volumes about a person.”

In the words of Palestinian-American writer/activist Steven Salaita: “Silence about ethnic cleansing is a sacrifice much greater than any principle an American might compromise in order to arrive at a voting decision.”

As commentators said after the shooting of George Floyd, our support of such tactics in other countries has implications for the state of our government at home. In addition to the exchange of military tactics and surveillance techniques, Israel’s disregard for what it deems a disposable population was mirrored in Harris’ legal career in California.

Indeed, if Israel meets her human rights standards, as she said, what does that say for what her bar will be at home? Unless we have the courage to look at the entire picture, not just what we want to see, we are doomed to repeat the protests that are going to follow after the shooting of many George Floyds in the future.

– Benay Blend earned her doctorate in American Studies from the University of New Mexico. Her scholarly works include Douglas Vakoch and Sam Mickey, Eds. (2017), “’Neither Homeland Nor Exile are Words’: ‘Situated Knowledge’ in the Works of Palestinian and Native American Writers”. She contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.

Sayyed Nasrallah’s Advisor Reveals Behind-the-Scenes Details of 2006 July War

July 31, 2020

Hussen Khalil, political advisor of Sayyed Nasrallah
Video here

The political advisor of Hezbollah Secretary General Hajj Hussein Khalil revealed on Thursday behind-the-scenes details of July War’s political process in 2006.

In an exclusive interview with Al-Manar’s Panorama of Victory, Khalil stressed that the political process was aimed at preserving the achievements made by Resistance fighters on battlefield, noting that it was a harsh process that saw complicity of several Lebanese political figures with pressures exerted on Hezbollah during the war.

“Every honorable man in Lebanon is indebted to sacrifices of martyred civilians and fighters.” Khalil told Panorama of Victory’s Manar Sabbagh.

Talking about the behind-the-scenes details, Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah’s advisor revealed that then-Prime Minister Fuad Siniora had asked for a meeting with him at the beginning of the Israeli aggression in July 2006.

“At the meeting Siniora told me that Israeli occupation forces will enter Lebanon and invade the capital, Beirut. I told him: “Wait, we are not in 1982. Lebanon now has the most powerful Resistance in the Middle East. The Israeli forces can’t invade Lebanon as simple as that.”

Khalil, meanwhile, said that Siniora had offered that Hezbollah must hand over the two Israeli soldiers captured by the Resistance Fighters during the Truthful Promise operation in July 12, 2006.

“I told Siniora that Sayyed Nasrallah has said that the two captured soldiers will be handed over only through indirect talks with the Zionist entity. At time, he even tried to convince me that we hand over at least one of the two soldiers, but I told him that Hezbollah completely rejects this offer, and that this issue is not for discussion.”

“When Siniora heard my answer he told me that the Lebanese government will tell all the concerned parties that it has nothing to do with the capture of the two Israeli soldiers, warning the Resistance that the government is not responsible for the repercussions of such scenario.”

Sayyed Nasrallah’s advisor also revealed another “dishonorable” stance by then-Prime Minister Fuad Siniora, when the latter suggested that refugee camps should be established for Lebanese who were displaced from southern towns due to the Israeli aggression.

“This issue was a card played by the US through the Lebanese government in a bid to press the Resistance,” Khalil said.

Rice Visit

Talking more about the behind-the-scenes events of July War, Khalil described the meeting between Siniora and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as “shaming”.

“Rice was coming just to serve the interests of the Israeli enemy. She refused to be received by the Lebanese foreign minister, insisting that then-PM should receive her. She even refused to get out of the car unless Siniora personally opened the door for her.”

Khalil then talked about details of the meeting between Rice and Speaker Nabih Berri.

“Rice, at time, didn’t mention the two Israeli soldiers. She stressed that Hezbollah should be pushed north of Litani River and that multinational forces (not UNIFIL) should be deployed south of the river.”

“Speaker Berri stressed in that meeting that direct cessation of hostilities should take effect first, and that the two Israeli soldiers can return as part of indirect swap deal with the Zionist entity. However, Rice told Speaker Berri that these issues were ‘out of question’.”

Sayyed Nasrallah’s Message to Speaker Berri

Khalil stressed, meanwhile, that Sayyed Nasrallah was relying on Speaker Berri to lead the political process during the 33-day-war.

“Sayyed Nasrallah won the bet when he relied on Speaker Berri. On the fifth day of the war, I conveyed a message from Sayyed Nasrallah, in which the Resistance Leader asked Speaker Berri to handle the political process.”

In the message, Sayyed Nasrallah told Speaker Berri that the situation in the battlefield was excellent and that morale of the Resistance fighters was high, Khalil said, noting that the Hezbollah S.G., in his letter, asked Speaker Berri not to bet on the stance of the government but rather to inform then-President Emile Lahhoud on the developments of the political process the speaker was leading.

Also in his letter, Sayyed Nasrallah hoped that the Resistance and Lebanon would emerge dignified after the war, stressing that Rice’s conditions were humiliating and that the Resistance would not accept.

Meeting with Sayyed Nasrallah and Saudi Envoy

On the other hand, Khalil disclosed that the contact between him and Sayyed Nasrallah were by telephone (the internal telephone network).

“I managed to meet Sayyed Nasrallah personally at the end of the war. It was an emotional meeting. Sayyed Nasrallah was calm and assured during the war. His appearances were source of our hearts ease,” Khalil told Sabbagh.

The political advisor of Sayyed Nasrallah also talked about his meeting with former Saudi ambassador Abdulaziz Khoja.

“The envoy asked to meet me. We met at the house of mutual friend, MP Abbas Hashem, who was not present at the gathering. Up till now, I don’t know the aim behind that meeting, but it was clear the difference between the stance announced by the ambassador during the meeting and the stance announced by Riyadh towards the Resistance. The envoy voiced sympathy with what he called ‘battle of courage’, while the official Saudi stance was talking about the Resistance’s ‘adventures’.”

Source: Al-Manar

Towards a “New Cold War” in the Middle East: Geopolitics of the Persian Gulf and the Battle for Oil and Gas

By Germán Gorraiz López

Global Research, July 21, 2020

The foundations of the great Near East were established in the Pact of Quincey (1945) following the doctrine of the Franco-British Sykes-Picot agreements of 1916 that favored the regional division of power in areas of influence and sustained on the tripod US-Egypt- Saudi Arabia. This doctrine consisted in the endemic survival in Egypt of pro-western autocratic military governments, which ensured the survival of the State of Israel (1948) and provided the US Navy with privileged access to the Suez Canal, a crucial shortcut for access direct to the United Arab Emirates, Iraq and Afghanistan, remaining as a firm bastion of US geopolitical interests in the area, especially after the fall of the Shah of Persia in 1980.

The other pillar of the agreement consisted of the privileged access of the United States to Saudi Arabian oil in exchange for preserving its autocratic regime and favoring the spread of Wahhabism (doctrine founded by Mohamed Abdel Wahab in the mid-eighteenth century with the aim of becoming a vision attractive to Islam and exportable to the rest of the Arab countries), with which the Saudi theocracy became a regional power that provided the US with the key to energy dominance while serving as a retaining wall for socialist and pan-Arab currents. Finally, after the Six Day War (1967), the geostrategic puzzle of the Middle East and the Near East was completed with the establishment of autocratic and pro-Western regimes in the countries surrounding Israel (Libya, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran), leaving the Palestinians confined in the ghettos of the West Bank and Gaza.

Iraq and the Biden Plan

The Biden-Gelb Plan, approved by the US Senate in 2007 and rejected by Condolezza Rice, Secretary of State with George W. Bush, provided for the establishment in Iraq of a federal system in order to prevent the collapse in the country after the withdrawal of US troops and proposed separating Iraq into Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni entities, under a federal government in Baghdad charged with the care of the borders and the administration of oil revenues.

Thus, we will attend the appearance of Free Kurdistan presided over by Masoud Barzani with capital in Kirkust and that would include annexed areas taking advantage of the power vacuum left by the Iraqi Army such as Sinkar or Rabia in the province of Ninive, Kirkuk and Diyala as well as all the cities of Syrian Kurdish ethnicity (except Hasaka and Qamishli) occupied by the Kurdish insurgency of the BDP.

The new Kurdistan will have the blessings of the United States and will have financial autonomy by owning 20% of the farms of all Iraqi crude oil with the “sine qua non condition” to supply Turkey, Israel and Eastern Europe with Kurdish oil through the Kirkust pipeline that empties into the Turkish port of Ceyhan. On the other hand, the Sunistan with capital in Mosul and that would cover the Sunni cities of Ramadi, Falluja, Mosul, Tal Afar and Baquba (Sunni triangle), with strong connections with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates and that would later lead to a radical pan-Islamist movement that it will use the oil weapon to strangle the western economies in the horizon of the next five-year period.

Finally, as the third leg of the tripod, we would have Iraqi Chi with capital in Baghdad that will counterbalance Saudi Wahhabism and that will gravitate in the orbit of influence of Iran, which will make Iran a great regional power in clear conflict with Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Iran, guardian of the Gulf and energy power

Iran acquired a regional power dimension thanks to the erratic policy of the United States in Iraq, (fruit of the political administration myopia obsessed with the Axis of Evil) by eliminating its ideological rivals, the Sunni Taliban radicals and Saddam Hussein with the subsequent power vacuum in the area. He also proposed a global negotiation with the contact group to deal with all the aspects that have confronted Western countries for thirty years, both the suffocating embargo that has plagued the Islamic Republic and the Iranian assets blocked in the United States, the role Iran regional cooperation and security cooperation in Iraq and Afghanistan.The Middle East: A Review of Geopolitical Structures, Vectors of Power Dynamic

President Mahmoud Ajmadinejad stretched the rope to the limit in the security that the United States would not attack and would limit any individual action by Israel (a discarded project of bombarding the Natanz plant with commercial jets), as a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz through which it passes A third of the world’s energy traffic could exacerbate the global economic recession and profoundly weaken the entire international political system. Thus, in an interview with Brzezinski conducted by Gerald Posner in The Daily Beast (September 18, 2009), he stated that “an American-Iranian collision would have disastrous effects for the United States and China, while Russia would emerge as the great winner, as the foreseeable closure of the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf where oil transportation destined for Northeast Asia (China, Japan and South Korea), Europe and the United States passes, would raise the price of black gold to stratospheric levels and would have severe repercussions on the economy global, becoming the totally crude EU dependent on Russia.

According to experts, Iran would possess the world’s third largest proven reserves of oil and gas, but it would not have enough technology to extract the gas from the deepest fields and would require an urgent multimillion-dollar investment to avoid irreversible deterioration of its facilities, which in practice it translates into a huge pie for Russian, Chinese and Western multinationals and an increase in the supply of Iranian crude oil to 1.5 million barrels / day within a year, with the consequent drop in prices. of the Brent and Texas reference crudes.

Furthermore, the revitalization of the 2010 energy cooperation agreement between Iraq, Iran and Syria for the construction of the South Pars-Homms gas pipeline that would connect the Persian Gulf with the Mediterranean Sea would relativize the strategic importance of the Trans-Adriatic Gas Pipeline Project (TAP) , (a substitute for the failed Nabucco gas pipeline designed by the US to transport Azerbaijani gas to Europe through Turkey), as well as the relevant role of the United Arab Emirates as suppliers of crude oil to the West, which would explain the eagerness of Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey for torpedoing him.

America’s “Project of the New Middle East”

Ralph Peters Map: The Project for the New Middle East. Used for teaching purposes at the military academies. (“Unofficial”)  

Are Iraq and Iran the bait for the US to involve Russia and China in a new war?

Former President Carter’s National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski in a speech to the Iranian-American National Council (NIAC) stated that “I believe that the US has the right to decide its own national security policy and not follow like a stupid mule what the Israelis do. ” In addition, Brzezinski, would be faced with the neocon republican and Jewish lobbies of the USA and with his habitual biting he would have discredited the geostrategic myopia of both pressure groups when affirming that “they are so obsessed with Israel, the Persian Gulf, Iraq and Iran that they have lost from the global picture: the true power in the world is Russia and China, the only countries with a true capacity to resist the United States and England and on which they would have to focus their attention ”.

We would thus be at a crucial moment to define the mediate future of the Middle East and Middle East (PROME East), since after the arrival of Donald Trump from the White House the pressure of the pro-Israeli lobby of the USA (AIPAC) would be increasing to proceed the destabilization of Iran by expeditious methods, a moment that will be used by the United States, Great Britain and Israel to proceed to redesign the cartography of the unrelated puzzle formed by these countries and thus achieve strategically advantageous borders for Israel, following the plan orchestrated 60 years ago. jointly by the governments of Great Britain, the United States and Israel and which would have the backing of the main western allies. Thus, after the approval by the Congress and the US Senate of a declaration prepared by the Republican Senator Lindsey Graham and the Democrat Robert Menéndez, who clearly states that “if Israel is forced to defend itself and take action (against Iran), the US will be at your side to support it militarily and diplomatically”, with the Trump Administration we will assist the increase in pressure from the pro-Israeli lobby of the USA (AIPAC) to proceed with the destabilization of Iran by expeditious methods.

In a first phase of said plan, the US Senate unanimously renewed the Sanctions Against Iran Act (ISA) until 2026 and after the launch of a new ballistic missile by Iran, Trump expanded the sanctions against several Iranian companies related to ballistic missiles without violating the Nuclear Agreement signed between the G + 5 and Iran in 2015, known as the Comprehensive Joint Action Plan (JCPOA) and which would only be fireworks to distract attention from the Machiavellian Plan outlined by the Anglo-Jewish Alliance in 1960 that would include the Balkanization of Iran and whose turning point would be the recent assassination of the charismatic General Qasem Soleimani.

This war could lead to a new local episode that would be involve a return to a “recurrent endemism” of the US-Russia Cold War involving both superpowers having as necessary collaborations the major regional powers namely Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

This Cold War scenario would cover the geographic space that extends from the Mediterranean arc (Libya, Syria and Lebanon) to Yemen and Somalia and having Iraq as its epicenter (recalling the Vietnam War with Lindon B. Johnson (1963-1.969).

Thus, Syria, Iraq and Iran would be the bait to attract both Russia and China and after triggering a concatenation of local conflicts (Syria, Iraq and Lebanon), this potentially could evolve towards a major regional conflict that could mark the future of the area in the coming years.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Silent Crow NewsThe original source of this article is Global ResearchCopyright © Germán Gorraiz López, Global Research, 2020

رايس وخلق المزيد من الفوضى في المشهد الفلسطينيّ

رامز مصطفى

وزيرة الخارجيّة الأميركيّة السابقة كونداليزا رايس، تستحقّ عن جدارة لقب صاحبة نظرية «الفوضى الخلاقة». فها هي منطقة الشرق الأوسط ومنذ عشر سنوات قد دخلت في تلك الفوضى التي لا سابق لها، حتى في ظلّ دول الاستعمار القديم (فرنسا وبريطانيا).

جديد رايس ما جاءت به صفحات كتابها «لا يوجد فخر أكثر من هذا… ذكريات سِنين حُضوري في واشنطن». هو ما ذكرته رايس في أحد فصول كتابها المتعلق بالموضوع الفلسطيني، وعلى وجه التحديد السلطة الفلسطينية برموزها السابقة والراهنة.

خطورة الكتاب في توقيته، حيث ينوي كيان الاحتلال الصهيوني تنفيذ عمليات الضمّ الشهر المقبل. وبالتالي ما تضمّنه لجهة نشر معلومات خطيرة، وإنْ كان الجمهور الفلسطيني بنخبه وفصائله يعرفون الكثير منها، ولكن من دون تأكيد. ليأتي كتاب رايس إقراراً بتلك الأحداث والتطورات التي أثرت في مسار العمل الفلسطيني. فالرئيس بوش الإبن وحسب رايس، قرّر التخلص من الراحل أبو عمار، على خلفية تحميله مسؤولية اندلاع الانتفاضة الثانية وتسليحها، وقبلها رفضه السير بمبادرة الرئيس الأميركي الأسبق بيل كلينتون والتوقيع على اتفاق كامب ديفيد في أواخر العام 2000. أولاً، من خلال استحداث موقع رئيس للحكومة من خارج نصوص اتفاقات «أوسلو»، ومن ثم نقل كافة الصلاحيات من رئيس السلطة إلى رئيس الحكومة.

ما ذكرته رايس في كتابها قد تحقق، عندما أقرّت أنها هي من اختارت السيد محمود عباس رئيساً للحكومة، لأنه يعتبر المقاومة إرهاباً، وقبِل بإعادة هيكلة الأجهزة الأمنية التابعة للسلطة، وفق الشروط لكلّ من الولايات المتحدة وحكومة كيان الاحتلال، بإشراف الجنرال دايتون، صاحب نظرية «خلق الفلسطيني الجديد». وأيضاً تعيين سلام فياض وزيراً للمالية، ليكون بوابة لجلب أموال الدول المانحة. مما أتاح لكلّ من الإدارة الأميركية والكيان تحويل الراحل أبو عمار إلى واجهة من دون أية صلاحيات، بحسب مؤلفة الكتاب.

رايس قد كشفت في كتابها أيضاً، أنّ حكومة الإرهابي شارون قد عرضت على الإدارة الأميركية خطة لقتل أبو عمار، غير أنّ إدارتها رفضت الخطة. وهنا تفرض مجموعة من الأسئلة نفسها على ضوء ما كشفته رايس، أولاً، هل حقيقة أنّ إدارة الرئيس بوش رفضت الخطة فعلاً؟ وثانياً، ألم يكن في مقدور تلك الإدارة، طالما أنها رفضت الخطة، أن تمنع شارون من تنفيذ جريمة اغتيال أبو عمار؟ وثالثاً، من عرض تلك الخطة، مؤكد أنها تضمّنت أسماء المتورّطين، وعليه فهي وإدارتها يعرفون هؤلاء المتورّطين، وهم من داخل الدائرة الضيقة والمحيطة بالراحل أبو عمار؟

من الواضح أنّ ما تضمّنه كتاب رايس من معلومات في هذه المرحلة الخطيرة والحساسة التي تمرّ بها القضية الفلسطينية، يأتي في سياق خلق المزيد من الفوضى في المشهد الفلسطيني، بسبب الخيارات السياسية التي تنتهجها السلطة والمنظمة، وما تشهده الساحة أيضاً من انقسام حادّ ببعديه السياسي والجغرافي. وبالتالي تذكير لرئيس السلطة السيد محمود عباس، أنها وإدارتها من جاءت به رئيساً لحكومة السلطة، ومن ثم رئيساً لها بعد اغتيال الراحل أبو عمار. ولا بدّ أن يحفظ السيد أبو مازن هذا الجميل، والمُطالب وأركان سلطته وحركته فتح، ألا يُصعّدوا بالمواقف مع الكيان والولايات المتحدة بما يتعلق بـ «صفقة القرن»، من خلال التهديد بأنّ سيناريو التخلص من الراحل أبو عمار قد يتكرّر، وإنْ بأدوات غير التي تورّطت وسهّلت في الوصول للراحل أبو عمار واغتياله.

ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

*كاتب فلسطينيّ.

Axis of Resistance Frustrated Three Phases of the Project for a ‘New Middle East’

Trump Kushner

Al-Manar Website Editor

August 13, 2019

The first phase of the so-called New Middle East was just after ‘the Summit of Peacemakers’ in 1996, when former Israeli premier Shimon Peres applied his New Middle East vision by declaring the “Operation Grapes of Wrath” on Lebanon for 16 days in April 1996.

During the 2006 Lebanon war, former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced the beginning of the New Middle East. After almost one decade of political attempts to resolve the Arab- Israeli conflict, the US decided to use a brute force to eliminate what it saw an impediment to the ‘peaceful’ resolution of the conflict by pushing ‘Israel’ to attack Lebanon, destroying its infrastructures.

The first phase of the above mentioned project has fallen after the US-Israeli failure to impose their conditions for the 2006 ceasefire agreement on Lebanon. It was Lebanon which emerged victorious after a 33-day war, as declared by Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. It was the resistance of Hezbollah that turned the table on the New Middle East project, said the Winograd Commission report, after the investigation of the causes of failure in the 2006 war.

In 2011, the second phase of the scheme has started, Syria was the battlefield. However, the US-backed terrorists failed to overthrow the Syrian government, and the second phase was over. Then, the old Shimon Peres vision was revitalized and there was the third phase of the so-called New Middle East project.

The US administration proposed an economic approach, allegedly to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, in a bid to gain in politics what it couldn’t achieve in the war.

US President Donald Trump sent Jared Kushner, his son-in-law, who is presented as the godfather of the ‘Deal of Century’, to the region. Kushner decided to replace the well-known slogan of “land for peace” principle with his own one: “peace to prosperity”.  He believes that such a slogan could reduce the conflict to an economic problem that can be resolved by improving the living standards of the Palestinians.

The absence of a draft solution for major political issues, particularly Palestinian statehood, the status of Al-Quds (Jerusalem), and the Palestinians’ right to return to their land, turns Kushner proposal to be a mere attempt to bribe the Palestinians into giving up self-determination.

The funding issue is also a significant factor of disruption for that deal, especially that EU, the traditional donor, did not participated in the workshop in Bahrain, neither Russia, nor China.

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia, which has shown an extreme enthusiasm for the deal, has been already facing an economic problem and the war in Yemen, which has cost it billions of dollars. The US, where the proposal was launched, certainly would not spend that much money, particularly under Trump administration, who prides himself on extracting monetary concessions from other countries, including Saudi Arabia by extortion, or by the arm sales.

The development and prosperity that Kushner is heralding can only happen if the Israeli occupation is ended.

In contrast, the Trump administration has already made major steps in strengthening the pillars of the occupation, including recognizing Israeli annexation of Al-Quds and the Golan Heights.

With all these major flaws, it was hardly surprising that the Bahrain Workshop failed to jump-start the deal process.

The Axis of Resistance is accomplishing important steps in the warfare in Syria, Yemen and Iraq, preventing Trump and his allies to step forward for the announcement of the “Deal of Century” that could eradicate the Palestinian cause in favor of the Israeli occupation. Hence, the third phase of the New Middle east has also failed.

A flashback to Madrid conference in 1990: the peace process had been built on the principle of “land for peace”, where ‘Israel’ withdrew from occupied Arab land in 1967 in exchange for peace and normalization of ties with the Palestinians and Arabs.

The 1993 Oslo Accord provided a political vision for Shimon Peres’s plan – a two-state solution – which was followed by the 1994 Paris Protocol that established rules regulating economic relations between the Palestinians and Israelis.

This vision was also the core of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative proposed by Saudi Arabia in Beirut Arab League summit.

Needless to say, all past proposals have failed for one simple reason: They were all in favor of the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

Source: Al-Manar English Website

Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a “New Middle East”

Global Research, June 30, 2019
Global Research 18 November 2006

This article by award winning author Mahdi Nazemroaya first published by GR in November 2006 is of particular relevance  to an understanding of the ongoing process of destabilization and political fragmentation of Iraq, Syria and Yemen.

Washington’s strategy consists in breaking up Syria and Iraq.

*      *      *

“Hegemony is as old as Mankind…” -Zbigniew Brzezinski, former U.S. National Security Advisor

The term “New Middle East” was introduced to the world in June 2006 in Tel Aviv by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (who was credited by the Western media for coining the term) in replacement of the older and more imposing term, the “Greater Middle East.”

This shift in foreign policy phraseology coincided with the inauguration of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) Oil Terminal in the Eastern Mediterranean. The term and conceptualization of the “New Middle East,” was subsequently heralded by the U.S. Secretary of State and the Israeli Prime Minister at the height of  the Anglo-American sponsored Israeli siege of Lebanon. Prime Minister Olmert and Secretary Rice had informed the international media that a project for a “New Middle East” was being launched from Lebanon.

This announcement was a confirmation of an Anglo-American-Israeli “military roadmap” in the Middle East. This project, which has been in the  planning stages for several years, consists in creating an arc of instability, chaos, and violence extending from Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria to Iraq, the Persian Gulf, Iran, and the borders of NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan.

The “New Middle East” project was introduced publicly by Washington and Tel Aviv with the expectation that Lebanon would be the pressure point for realigning the whole Middle East and thereby unleashing the forces of “constructive chaos.” This “constructive chaos” –which generates conditions of violence and warfare throughout the region– would in turn be used so that the United States, Britain, and Israel could redraw the map of the Middle East in accordance with their geo-strategic needs and objectives.

New Middle East Map

Secretary Condoleezza Rice stated during a press conference that “[w]hat we’re seeing here [in regards to the destruction of Lebanon and the Israeli attacks on Lebanon], in a sense, is the growing—the ‘birth pangs’—of a ‘New Middle East’ and whatever we do we [meaning the United States] have to be certain that we’re pushing forward to the New Middle East [and] not going back to the old one.”1Secretary Rice was immediately criticized for her statements both within Lebanon and internationally for expressing indifference to the suffering of an entire nation, which was being bombed  indiscriminately by the Israeli Air Force.

The Anglo-American Military Roadmap in the Middle East and Central Asia 

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s speech on the “New Middle East” had set the stage. The Israeli attacks on Lebanon –which had been fully endorsed by Washington and London– have further compromised and validated the existence of the geo-strategic objectives of the United States, Britain, and Israel. According to Professor Mark Levine the “neo-liberal globalizers and neo-conservatives, and ultimately the Bush Administration, would latch on to creative destruction as a way of describing the process by which they hoped to create their new world orders,” and that “creative destruction [in] the United States was, in the words of neo-conservative philosopher and Bush adviser Michael Ledeen, ‘an awesome revolutionary force’ for (…) creative destruction…”2

Anglo-American occupied Iraq, particularly Iraqi Kurdistan, seems to be the preparatory ground for the balkanization (division) and finlandization (pacification) of the Middle East. Already the legislative framework, under the Iraqi Parliament and the name of Iraqi federalization, for the partition of Iraq into three portions is being drawn out. (See map below)

Moreover, the Anglo-American military roadmap appears to be vying an entry into Central Asia via the Middle East. The Middle East, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are stepping stones for extending U.S. influence into the former Soviet Union and the ex-Soviet Republics of Central Asia. The Middle East is to some extent the southern tier of Central Asia. Central Asia in turn is also termed as “Russia’s Southern Tier” or the Russian “Near Abroad.”

Many Russian and Central Asian scholars, military planners, strategists, security advisors, economists, and politicians consider Central Asia (“Russia’s Southern Tier”) to be the vulnerable and “soft under-belly” of the Russian Federation.3

It should be noted that in his book, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geo-strategic Imperatives, Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former U.S. National Security Advisor, alluded to the modern Middle East as a control lever of an area he, Brzezinski, calls the Eurasian Balkans. The Eurasian Balkans consists of the Caucasus (Georgia, the Republic of Azerbaijan, and Armenia) and Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and Tajikistan) and to some extent both Iran and Turkey. Iran and Turkey both form the northernmost tiers of the Middle East (excluding the Caucasus4) that edge into Europe and the former Soviet Union.

The Map of the “New Middle East”

A relatively unknown map of the Middle East, NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan, and Pakistan has been circulating around strategic, governmental, NATO, policy and military circles since mid-2006. It has been causally allowed to surface in public, maybe in an attempt to build consensus and to slowly prepare the general public for possible, maybe even cataclysmic, changes in the Middle East. This is a map of a redrawn and restructured Middle East identified as the “New Middle East.”

MAP OF THE NEW MIDDLE EAST



Note:
 The following map was prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters. It was published in the Armed Forces Journal in June 2006, Peters is a retired colonel of the U.S. National War Academy. (Map Copyright Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters 2006).

Although the map does not officially reflect Pentagon doctrine, it has been used in a training program at NATO’s Defense College for senior military officers. This map, as well as other similar maps, has most probably been used at the National War Academy as well as in military planning circles.

This map of the “New Middle East” seems to be based on several other maps, including older maps of potential boundaries in the Middle East extending back to the era of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson and World War I. This map is showcased and presented as the brainchild of retired Lieutenant-Colonel (U.S. Army) Ralph Peters, who believes the redesigned borders contained in the map will fundamentally solve the problems of the contemporary Middle East.

The map of the “New Middle East” was a key element in the retired Lieutenant-Colonel’s book, Never Quit the Fightwhich was released to the public on July 10, 2006. This map of a redrawn Middle East was also published, under the title of Blood Borders: How a better Middle East would look, in the U.S. military’s Armed Forces Journal with commentary from Ralph Peters.5

It should be noted that Lieutenant-Colonel Peters was last posted to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, within the U.S. Defence Department, and has been one of the Pentagon’s foremost authors with numerous essays on strategy for military journals and U.S. foreign policy.

It has been written that Ralph Peters’ “four previous books on strategy have been highly influential in government and military circles,” but one can be pardoned for asking if in fact quite the opposite could be taking place. Could it be Lieutenant-Colonel Peters is revealing and putting forward what Washington D.C. and its strategic planners have anticipated for the Middle East?

The concept of a redrawn Middle East has been presented as a “humanitarian” and “righteous” arrangement that would benefit the people(s) of the Middle East and its peripheral regions. According to Ralph Peter’s:

International borders are never completely just. But the degree of injustice they inflict upon those whom frontiers force together or separate makes an enormous difference — often the difference between freedom and oppression, tolerance and atrocity, the rule of law and terrorism, or even peace and war.

The most arbitrary and distorted borders in the world are in Africa and the Middle East. Drawn by self-interested Europeans (who have had sufficient trouble defining their own frontiers), Africa’s borders continue to provoke the deaths of millions of local inhabitants. But the unjust borders in the Middle East — to borrow from Churchill — generate more trouble than can be consumed locally.

While the Middle East has far more problems than dysfunctional borders alone — from cultural stagnation through scandalous inequality to deadly religious extremism — the greatest taboo in striving to understand the region’s comprehensive failure isn’t Islam, but the awful-but-sacrosanct international boundaries worshipped by our own diplomats.

Of course, no adjustment of borders, however draconian, could make every minority in the Middle East happy. In some instances, ethnic and religious groups live intermingled and have intermarried. Elsewhere, reunions based on blood or belief might not prove quite as joyous as their current proponents expect. The boundaries projected in the maps accompanying this article redress the wrongs suffered by the most significant “cheated” population groups, such as the Kurds, Baluch and Arab Shia [Muslims], but still fail to account adequately for Middle Eastern Christians, Bahais, Ismailis, Naqshbandis and many another numerically lesser minorities. And one haunting wrong can never be redressed with a reward of territory: the genocide perpetrated against the Armenians by the dying Ottoman Empire.

Yet, for all the injustices the borders re-imagined here leave unaddressed, without such major boundary revisions, we shall never see a more peaceful Middle East.

Even those who abhor the topic of altering borders would be well-served to engage in an exercise that attempts to conceive a fairer, if still imperfect, amendment of national boundaries between the Bosphorus and the Indus. Accepting that international statecraft has never developed effective tools — short of war — for readjusting faulty borders, a mental effort to grasp the Middle East’s “organic” frontiers nonetheless helps us understand the extent of the difficulties we face and will continue to face. We are dealing with colossal, man-made deformities that will not stop generating hatred and violence until they are corrected. 6

(emphasis added)

“Necessary Pain”

Besides believing that there is “cultural stagnation” in the Middle East, it must be noted that Ralph Peters admits that his propositions are “draconian” in nature, but he insists that they are necessary pains for the people of the Middle East. This view of necessary pain and suffering is in startling parallel to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s belief that the devastation of Lebanon by the Israeli military was a necessary pain or “birth pang” in order to create the “New Middle East” that Washington, London, and Tel Aviv envision.

Moreover, it is worth noting that the subject of the Armenian Genocide is being politicized and stimulated in Europe to offend Turkey.7

The overhaul, dismantlement, and reassembly of the nation-states of the Middle East have been packaged as a solution to the hostilities in the Middle East, but this is categorically misleading, false, and fictitious. The advocates of a “New Middle East” and redrawn boundaries in the region avoid and fail to candidly depict the roots of the problems and conflicts in the contemporary Middle East. What the media does not acknowledge is the fact that almost all major conflicts afflicting the Middle East are the consequence of overlapping Anglo-American-Israeli agendas.

Many of the problems affecting the contemporary Middle East are the result of the deliberate aggravation of pre-existing regional tensions. Sectarian division, ethnic tension and internal violence have been traditionally exploited by the United States and Britain in various parts of the globe including Africa, Latin America, the Balkans, and the Middle East. Iraq is just one of many examples of the Anglo-American strategy of “divide and conquer.” Other examples are Rwanda, Yugoslavia, the Caucasus, and Afghanistan.

Amongst the problems in the contemporary Middle East is the lack of genuine democracy which U.S. and British foreign policy has actually been deliberately obstructing.  Western-style “Democracy” has been a requirement only for those Middle Eastern states which do not conform to Washington’s political demands. Invariably, it constitutes a pretext for confrontation. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan are examples of undemocratic states that the United States has no problems with because they are firmly alligned within the Anglo-American orbit or sphere.

Additionally, the United States has deliberately blocked or displaced genuine democratic movements in the Middle East from Iran in 1953 (where a U.S./U.K. sponsored coup was staged against the democratic government of Prime Minister Mossadegh) to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, the Arab Sheikdoms, and Jordan where the Anglo-American alliance supports military control, absolutists, and dictators in one form or another. The latest example of this is Palestine.

The Turkish Protest at NATO’s Military College in Rome

Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters’ map of the “New Middle East” has sparked angry reactions in Turkey. According to Turkish press releases on September 15, 2006 the map of the “New Middle East” was displayed in NATO’s Military College in Rome, Italy. It was additionally reported that Turkish officers were immediately outraged by the presentation of a portioned and segmented Turkey.8 The map received some form of approval from the U.S. National War Academy before it was unveiled in front of NATO officers in Rome.

The Turkish Chief of Staff, General Buyukanit, contacted the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, and protested the event and the exhibition of the redrawn map of the Middle East, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.9 Furthermore the Pentagon has gone out of its way to assure Turkey that the map does not reflect official U.S. policy and objectives in the region, but this seems to be conflicting with Anglo-American actions in the Middle East and NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan.

Is there a Connection between Zbigniew Brzezinski’s “Eurasian Balkans” and the “New Middle East” Project?

The following are important excerpts and passages from former U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski’s book, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geo-strategic Imperatives. Brzezinski also states that both Turkey and Iran, the two most powerful states of the “Eurasian Balkans,” located on its southern tier, are “potentially vulnerable to internal ethnic conflicts [balkanization],” and that, “If either or both of them were to be destabilized, the internal problems of the region would become unmanageable.”10

It seems that a divided and balkanized Iraq would be the best means of accomplishing this. Taking what we know from the White House’s own admissions; there is a belief that “creative destruction and chaos” in the Middle East are beneficial assets to reshaping the Middle East, creating the “New Middle East,” and furthering the Anglo-American roadmap in the Middle East and Central Asia:

In Europe, the Word “Balkans” conjures up images of ethnic conflicts and great-power regional rivalries. Eurasia, too, has its “Balkans,” but the Eurasian Balkans are much larger, more populated, even more religiously and ethnically heterogenous. They are located within that large geographic oblong that demarcates the central zone of global instability (…) that embraces portions of southeastern Europe, Central Asia and parts of South Asia [Pakistan, Kashmir, Western India], the Persian Gulf area, and the Middle East.

The Eurasian Balkans form the inner core of that large oblong (…) they differ from its outer zone in one particularly significant way: they are a power vacuum.Although most of the states located in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East are also unstable, American power is that region’s [meaning the Middle East’s] ultimate arbiter. The unstable region in the outer zone is thus an area of single power hegemony and is tempered by that hegemony. In contrast, the Eurasian Balkans are truly reminiscent of the older, more familiar Balkans of southeastern Europe: not only are its political entities unstable but they tempt and invite the intrusion of more powerful neighbors, each of whom is determined to oppose the region’s domination by another. It is this familiar combination of a power vacuum and power suction that justifies the appellation “Eurasian Balkans.”

The traditional Balkans represented a potential geopolitical prize in the struggle for European supremacy. The Eurasian Balkans, astride the inevitably emerging transportation network meant to link more directly Eurasia’s richest and most industrious western and eastern extremities, are also geopolitically significant.Moreover, they are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely, Russia, Turkey, and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold.

 The world’s energy consumption is bound to vastly increase over the next two or three decades. Estimates by the U.S. Department of Energy anticipate that world demand will rise by more than 50 percent between 1993 and 2015, with the most significant increase in consumption occurring in the Far East. The momentum of Asia’s economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy, and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea.

Access to that resource and sharing in its potential wealth represent objectives that stir national ambitions, motivate corporate interests, rekindle historical claims, revive imperial aspirations, and fuel international rivalries. The situation is made all the more volatile by the fact that the region is not only a power vacuum but is also internally unstable.

(…)

The Eurasian Balkans include nine countries that one way or another fit the foregoing description, with two others as potential candidates. The nine are Kazakstan [alternative and official spelling of Kazakhstan] , Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia—all of them formerly part of the defunct Soviet Union—as well as Afghanistan.

The potential additions to the list are Turkey and Iran, both of them much more politically and economically viable, both active contestants for regional influence within the Eurasian Balkans, and thus both significant geo-strategic players in the region. At the same time, both are potentially vulnerable to internal ethnic conflicts. If either or both of them were to be destabilized, the internal problems of the region would become unmanageable, while efforts to restrain regional domination by Russia could even become futile. 11

(emphasis added)

Redrawing the Middle East

The Middle East, in some regards, is a striking parallel to the Balkans and Central-Eastern Europe during the years leading up the First World War. In the wake of the the First World War the borders of the Balkans and Central-Eastern Europe were redrawn. This region experienced a period of upheaval, violence and conflict, before and after World War I, which was the direct result of foreign economic interests and interference.

The reasons behind the First World War are more sinister than the standard school-book explanation, the assassination of the heir to the throne of the Austro-Hungarian (Habsburg) Empire, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, in Sarajevo. Economic factors were the real motivation for the large-scale war in 1914.

Norman Dodd, a former Wall Street banker and investigator for the U.S. Congress, who examined  U.S. tax-exempt foundations, confirmed in a 1982 interview that those powerful individuals who from behind the scenes controlled the finances, policies, and government of the United States had in fact also planned U.S. involvement in a war, which would contribute to entrenching their grip on power.

The following testimonial is from the transcript of Norman Dodd’s interview with G. Edward Griffin;

We are now at the year 1908, which was the year that the Carnegie Foundation began operations.  And, in that year, the trustees meeting, for the first time, raised a specific question, which they discussed throughout the balance of the year, in a very learned fashion.  And the question is this:  Is there any means known more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people?  And they conclude that, no more effective means to that end is known to humanity, than war.  So then, in 1909, they raise the second question, and discuss it, namely, how do we involve the United States in a war?

Well, I doubt, at that time, if there was any subject more removed from the thinking of most of the people of this country [the United States], than its involvement in a war.  There were intermittent shows [wars] in the Balkans, but I doubt very much if many people even knew where the Balkans were.  And finally, they answer that question as follows:  we must control the State Department.

And then, that very naturally raises the question of how do we do that?  They answer it by saying, we must take over and control the diplomatic machinery of this country and, finally, they resolve to aim at that as an objective.  Then, time passes, and we are eventually in a war, which would be World War I.  At that time, they record on their minutes a shocking report in which they dispatch to President Wilson a telegram cautioning him to see that the war does not end too quickly.  And finally, of course, the war is over.

At that time, their interest shifts over to preventing what they call a reversion of life in the United States to what it was prior to 1914, when World War I broke out. (emphasis added)

The redrawing and partition of the Middle East from the Eastern Mediterranean shores of Lebanon and Syria to Anatolia (Asia Minor), Arabia, the Persian Gulf, and the Iranian Plateau responds to broad economic, strategic and military objectives, which are part of a longstanding Anglo-American and Israeli agenda in the region.

The Middle East has been conditioned by outside forces into a powder keg that is ready to explode with the right trigger, possibly the launching of Anglo-American and/or Israeli air raids against Iran and Syria. A wider war in the Middle East could result in redrawn borders that are strategically advantageous to Anglo-American interests and Israel.

NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan has been successfully divided, all but in name. Animosity has been inseminated in the Levant, where a Palestinian civil war is being nurtured and divisions in Lebanon agitated. The Eastern Mediterranean has been successfully militarized by NATO. Syria and Iran continue to be demonized by the Western media, with a view to justifying a military agenda. In turn, the Western media has fed, on a daily basis, incorrect and biased notions that the populations of Iraq cannot co-exist and that the conflict is not a war of occupation but a “civil war” characterised by domestic strife between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.

Attempts at intentionally creating animosity between the different ethno-cultural and religious groups of the Middle East have been systematic. In fact, they are part of a carefully designed covert intelligence agenda.

Even more ominous, many Middle Eastern governments, such as that of Saudi Arabia, are assisting Washington in fomenting divisions between Middle Eastern populations. The ultimate objective is to weaken the resistance movement against foreign occupation through a “divide and conquer strategy” which serves Anglo-American and Israeli interests in the broader region.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya specializes in Middle Eastern and Central Asian affairs. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Notes

1 Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Special Briefing on the Travel to the Middle East and Europe of Secretary Condoleezza Rice (Press Conference, U.S. State Department, Washington, D.C., July 21, 2006).

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2006/69331.htm

2 Mark LeVine, “The New Creative Destruction,” Asia Times, August 22, 2006.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HH22Ak01.html

3 Andrej Kreutz, “The Geopolitics of post-Soviet Russia and the Middle East,” Arab Studies Quarterly (ASQ) (Washington, D.C.: Association of Arab-American University Graduates, January 2002).

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2501/is_1_24/ai_93458168/pg_1

4 The Caucasus or Caucasia can be considered as part of the Middle East or as a separate region

5 Ralph Peters, “Blood borders: How a better Middle East would look,” Armed Forces Journal (AFJ), June 2006.

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/06/1833899

Ibid.

7 Crispian Balmer, “French MPs back Armenia genocide bill, Turkey angry, Reuters, October 12, 2006; James McConalogue, “French against Turks: Talking about Armenian Genocide,” The Brussels Journal, October 10, 2006.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1585

8 Suleyman Kurt, “Carved-up Map of Turkey at NATO Prompts U.S. Apology,” Zaman (Turkey), September 29, 2006.

http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&hn=36919

Ibid.

10 Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geo-strategic Imperatives (New York City: Basic Books, 1997).

11 Ibid.

Related Global Research articles on the March to War in the Middle East

US naval war games off the Iranian coastline: A provocation which could lead to War? 2006-10-24

“Cold War Shivers:” War Preparations in the Middle East and Central Asia 2006-10-06

The March to War: Naval build-up in the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean 2006-10-01

The March to War: Iran Preparing for US Air Attacks 2006-09-21

The Next Phase of the Middle East War 2006-09-04

Baluchistan and the Coming Iran War 2006-09-01

British Troops Mobilizing on the Iranian Border 2006-08-30

Russia and Central Asian Allies Conduct War Games in Response to US Threats 2006-08-24

Beating the Drums of War: US Troop Build-up: Army & Marines authorize “Involuntary Conscription” 2006-08-23

Iranian War Games: Exercises, Tests, and Drills or Preparation and Mobilization for War? 2006-08-21

Triple Alliance:” The US, Turkey, Israel and the War on Lebanon 2006-08-06 

The War on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil 2006-07-26 

Is the Bush Administration Planning a Nuclear Holocaust? 2006-02-22 

The Dangers of a Middle East Nuclear War 2006-02-17 

Nuclear War against Iran 2006-01-03 

Israeli Bombings could lead to Escalation of Middle East War 2006-07-15 

Iran: Next Target of US Military Aggression 2005-05-01 

Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran 2005-05-01

إيران: الدفاع الذاتي في القانون الدولي

إيران: الدفاع الذاتي في القانون الدولي

مايو 9, 2019

ناصر قنديل

– بفارق سبع سنوات حمل كل من محمد جواد ظريف وغونداليسا رايس شهادة الدكتوراه في العلاقات الدولية من جامعة واحدة في أميركا هي جامعة دنفر، التي نالت رايس الدكتوراه فيها عام 1981 ونالها ظريف في عام 1988. والسنوات السبع هي فارق العمر تقريباً بينهما، وبتسلسل مشابه صعد كل منهما في سلم السياسة الدولية لدولتين، تتوزّعان طرفي التصادم على مساحة المنطقة الأهم في العالم، منذ سقوط جدار برلين وانهيار الاتحاد السوفياتي على الأقل. وهو الحدث الذي رفع مقام رايس من العلم إلى السياسة، حيث تركزت عليه كنموذج أطروحة الدكتوراه التي جعلتها مستشارة في البيت الأبيض لشؤون الاتحاد السوفياتي عام 1989، في عهد الرئيس جورج بوش الأب، لتصل إلى منصب مستشارة الأمن القومي ولاحقاً وزيرة الخارجية في عهد رئاسة إبنه جورج بوش وتخرج معه مهزومة بنظرياتها التي شكلت أساس السياسات الأميركية الفاشلة في المنطقة الأشدّ خطورة وحساسية في العالم، قبل أن تعود سياسات رايس للظهور على يدي من خلفوها في عهدي الرئيسين باراك اوباما ودونالد ترامب، بسبب الفراغ الفكري والأيديولوجي وفقدان وجود مفكر جديد مبهر يوازيها في صناعة النظريات القابلة للتحول إلى سياسات من موقع مصالح الدولة ونخبها الحاكمة.

– بدأ ظريف صعوده في الدبلوماسية الإيرانية معاوناً في سفارة بلاده في واشنطن، ليصير السفير لاحقاً ويتقدم وصولاً لتبوء منصب وزير الخارجية، ويثبت فيه، مقدماً مثالاً للسياسات المستوحاة من أطروحته التي نال عليها الدكتوراه، حتى يمكن القول إن الصراع الأميركي الإيراني هو بطريقة ما امتداد للصراع العلمي بين النظريتين اللتين تختصران أطروحتي الدكتوراه لكل من رايس وظريف، بعدما كانت مرحلة مادلين أولبرايت في عهد بيل كلينتون مرحلة كمون لنظريات رايس واختبار لنظريات أولبرايت، التي تنتمي لجيل المفكرين الاستراتيجيين النادر في حال السياسة الأميركية اليوم مع صعود رجال الأعمال المفتقرين للثقافة في عهد الرئيس ترامب، وأولبرايت هي إبنة جورج كوريل الذي كان عراب رايس العلمي ومرشدها، وقد حملت جامعة دنفر للعلاقات الدولية التي تخرجت منها رايس وتخرج منها ظريف مؤخراً اسم جورج كوريل تيمناً بدوره الكبير في الصعود العلمي للجامعة.

– تمحورت نظريات أولبرايت على الاحتواء الإيجابي في السياسة الدولية، فهي صاحبة نظرية احتواء طالبان في أفغانستان، ونظرية احتواء سورية في مفاوضات الشرق الأوسط لتحقيق السلام، وصاحبة نظريات تشكل منها عملياً ما عُرف باسم تقرير بايكر هاملتون الذي وثق فشل حربي العراق وأفغانستان، ودعا إلى الواقعية في فهم التوازنات الجديدة في السياسات الدولية ناصحاً بالتخلي عن الدعم المطلق لـ»إسرائيل» والانفتاح على صعود روسيا وإيران، وهي التي حذرت عام 2010 في تقريرها لحلف الأطلسي من نظريات التلاعب بالنسيج الاجتماعي لدول الشرق الأوسط التي تبناها المفكر برنارد لويس الذي كان شريكاً في لجنة الحكماء التي ترأستها أولبرايت بقرار من مؤتمر قمة حلف الأطلسي لرسم السياسة. ونظرية برنارد لويس المؤسسة على فهمه للتاريخ القائم برأيه على الديمغرافيا السكانية وهجراتها وليس على الجغرافيا، وهذا منطلق تبريره التاريخي لقيام كيان استيطاني على حساب السكان الأصليين وتصويره عملاً تاريخياً في كل من أميركا وفلسطين، ونظريات برنارد لويس تتلاقي في عمقها مع نظريات رايس التي توجتها بنظرية الفوضى الخلاقة.

– قامت نظرية رايس الدراسية في أطروحة الدكتوراه على بناء العلاقات الدولية وفقاً لمعادلتي التصادم القيمي، وميزان القوى المالي، وراهنت على تفكيك الاتحاد السوفياتي بقوة الثبات على التسابق على الإنفاق العسكري، والإخلاص بالتبشير بنظام ديمقراطي يحترم الحريات والحقوق الأساسية للتعبير، والانتصار المبهر الذي رفعها إلى مراتب عليا في السياسة، قابلته هزيمة مدوية عندما جرى اختباره في المنطقة الأخطر في العالم بوجه إيران، وكانت حرب العراق وبعدها حرب تموز 2006 على لبنان، ومحاولة إخضاع سورية فيهما، عنوان خطة رايس كمستشارة للأمن القومي ووزيرة للخارجية بعدها، ويُعتبر فوز حركة حماس بالانتخابات الفلسطينية في كانون الثاني 2006 الذي لم تستطع رايس تحمّل تبعاته وتقبل التعامل معه وفقاً لنظريتها، الفشل الأكبر قيمياً لما بشرت به من إخلاص لقيمتي الحرية والديمقراطية، بينما تعتبر العقوبات على إيران وفشلها في وقف تقدم البرنامج النووي الإيراني التعبير عن الفشل الآخر للجناح الموازي لنظريتها القائمة على القوة المالية الأميركية، خصوصاً عامي 2007 و2008 رغم بلوغ إيران أدنى مراتب إنتاجها من النفط الذي وصل إلى 700 ألف برميل يومياً بدلاً من مليونين ونصف مليون برميل.

– ما تفعله إدارة ترامب اليوم ليس إلا اجترار هزلي لنظريات رايس التي تعامل معها ظريف من قبل، وقد كان يشغل منصب سفير بلاده في الأمم المتحدة، حتى عام 2007، وشغل منصب مستشار في مجموعة التفاوض على الملف النووي التي كانت برئاسة رئيس مجلس الأمن القومي آنذاك، الرئيس حسن روحاني بين عامي 2003 و2007، قبل أن يعود وزيراً للخارجية عام 2013. وأطروحة ظريف التي نال الدكتوراة على أساسها وتشكل مصدر أفكاره وإدارته للدبلوماسية الإيرانية، تقوم على إمكانية إنتاج سياسة دولية لقوة ثورية من ضمن القانون الدولي، وفي ظل موازين القوى الطاغية لصالح مشروع الهيمنة الذي تمثله السياسات الأميركية.

– يعرف المتابعون للسياسات الإيرانية أن نظرية الدفاع الذاتي في القانون الدولي والسياسة، التي تمثل عنوان مشروع ظريف، تتسع للفصل بين الموقف العقائدي للدولة وبين سياساتها الخارجية، فلا مانع من الانفتاح على ترك واشنطن تغزو أفغانستان والعراق، رغم عدم الموافقة على هذا الغزو، لأن الدفاع الذاتي للدولة يجب أن يشتغل بطريقتين مختلفتين، عندما تصبح مصالحها العليا في دائرة الخطر، وعندما يتم التعارض مع مبادئها، رغم أنه في الحالتين يمكن للدفاع الذاتي أن لا يبدو خيار مواجهة في الظاهر، عندما يكون الاستدراج إلى ملعب مناسب للمواجهة، أو لتعظيم المخاطر، أو للاحتواء، وهذا ما حصل في حربي العراق وأفغانستان، لكنه ما يحصل مع الاتفاق النووي الذي ظن كثيرون أنه ترجمة لسياسة اعتدال إيرانية تريد مسايرة الأميركيين والغرب، وصنفوا ظريف معتدلاً على هذا الأساس، بينما يظهر اليوم أنه منصة استدراج لمواجهة من داخل القانون الدولي، ربحت إيران جولته الأولى ببقاء أوروبا تحت مظلته وخروج أميركا وحيدة من أحكامه واستحالة العودة لمعاقبة إيران على برنامجها النووي بقرارات أممية، وتتجه إيران الآن لربح جولته الثانية على أوروبا. وهذه نظرية الدفاع الذاتي في القانون الدولي التي يبدو أن إدارة ترامب تفتقر لمن يقرأ ليفهم حركتها، ويدرك الفشل الكبير الذي ينتظره في المواجهة معها، كما كان فشل الفوضى البناءة بالاعتماد على الدفاع الذاتي الذي قادت عبره سورية بالتعاون مع إيران وقوى المقاومة الحرب التي شنتها واشنطن بدعم دولي وإقليمي استثنائيين، لتسقط فيها قيمياً وعملياً بفعالية الدفاع الذاتي في القانون الدولي.

– الإجراءات الإيرانية الأخيرة وما سيليها فصول جديدة في علوم السياسة الدولية، بمقدار ما هي خطوات سياسيّة مثيرة.

Related Videos

RELATED NEWS

%d bloggers like this: