Red Guards ain’t all red: Who fought whom in China’s Cultural Revolution? (5/8)

by Ramin Mazaheri for The Saker Blog

Red Guards ain’t all red: Who fought whom in China’s Cultural Revolution? (5/8)

In Part 3 of this 8-part series I answered the question raised by that part’s title: Why was a Cultural Revolution needed in already-Red China? To recap: China wanted something which the Eurozone has none of: participatory economic planning. China also wanted much more participatory democracy (political empowerment) at the local level and to move even further away from an all-controlling, imperious central state.

But why did this require a decade-long Cultural Revolution (CR)? The answer to that question is: all Red Guards, promoted to install the CR, weren’t all red!

This article will explain something never even hinted at in Western (faux) histories of China: the differences between the two Red Guard factions – the one on the left of the spectrum of socialist political thought, and the one on the right side of the spectrum.

This explains why the primary victims of the Red Guards were… the Red Guards! But that likely needs further explanation….

These party differences were so deep, so broad, so ingrained and so fiercely held that China’s Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution is perhaps best conceived of as “China’s Socialist Civil War”. The CR truly was China’s center and left against their right-wing… but we must remember that “right-wing” in a socialist context is still far, far to the left of the “right-wing” in a capitalist context. Of course, China also had some unrepentant “Western right-wing” citizens who refused to adopt socialism who were also involved.

But we live in a world today where many disbelieve in the concept of a hard and scientific “political spectrum”. Many refute any sort of standardization of political thought, as if a person’s political ideas could be so incredibly unique that they defy labeling of any sort, despite the obvious hindrance to understanding and solidarity this belief can’t help but create. Given this widespread error, we should not be surprised that the Western Mainstream Media has no interest at all in fully describing the Chinese spectrum of battling forces during the CR; for them the CR is divided into murderous savages (the Party, the government, students) and totally-innocent victims (usually professors, intellectuals, and those forced to shovel manure instead of constantly talking it).

I will soon explain how Red Guards were the greatest victims of the CR, but to do so I must first dispense with the Western idea that China’s CR was some sort of power-struggle and byproduct of a Mao-cult, as opposed to being a truly democratic event.

The CR’s democratic bonafides are are proven by the fact that there was massive popular involvement. Conversely, the Eurogroup – which decides the economic policies of the Eurozone – is not democratic because there is extremely limited involvement in decision-making.

This is verified in The Unknown Cultural Revolution: Life and Change in a Chinese Village by Dongping Han, who was raised and educated in rural Jimo County, China and is now a university professor in the US. Han interviewed hundreds of rebel leaders, farmers, officials and locals, and accessed official local data to provide an exhaustive analysis of seeming unparalled objectivity and focus regarding the Cultural Revolution in China. Han was kind enough to write the forward to my brand-new bookI’ll Ruin Everything you Are: Ending Western Propaganda in Red China. I hope you can buy a copy for yourself and your 300 closest friends.

“These mass associations (definition coming shortly) were formed largely in the spirit of free association, and enjoyed tremendous independence and freedom. They cut across clan and family lines. It was common for people from the same clan and same family to join different associations. People came together because of their political views. With few exceptions, all of the adult population belonged to one mass association or another.” (emphasis mine)

The Chinese Socialist Civil War showed the one indispensable hallmark of producing a true & successful revolution: universal political participation. In Russia in 1917 or in Iran in 1979, everybody – and I mean everybody – talked politics all the time.

It should not be surprising that the opposite is true: in hugely reactionary cultures like the US or the UK serious political discussion is verboten among friends and family. This is the reason why far-right thinking dominates in these countries – conservatism and traditionalism go unopposed. However, in China the far-right had been (quite properly) banned in 1949; therefore, the CR was a battle among “Chinese right-wing socialists”…which shows how very much more advanced and evolved Chinese political discussion and culture is compared with Anglophone countries, where right-wing elements still are allowed to confuse, distort and champion horrid ideas.

The “mass associations” which Han refers to needs his explanation:

I personally feel there is a need to distinguish between mass organizations and mass associations. The former term would be applied to the organizations like the militia, the Communist Youth League, women’s association, workers’ unions and the official Red Guards which were set up by the CCP and were official in nature. The latter term would refer to the independent Red Guard groups formed largely in the spirit of free association. … Both the rebels and the defenders of the Party leaders were called Red Guards. The rebels were called zaofan pai (rebel faction) while the defenders were known as the baohuang pai (loyalist or royalist faction)….”

This distinction is the essence of the CR: the conflict was between those who were pushed by Mao to criticize the Party in a never-before seen manner – the Rebel Faction (associations) – and those who opposed such criticism and changes – the Loyalist Faction (organizations); both were “Red Guards”, however.

Essentially, the Loyalist Faction Red Guards didn’t know what they were getting into when they started the new CR, as they soon found themselves under attack.

Why the Cultural Revolution was totally different to China, from the Chinese perspective

Han relates in detail and in real-time how the CR came to Jimo County: who were the “rebel leaders”, who were the criticized Party members, who fought back against the CR, and how it evolved from what could have been just another “anti-rightist campaign”, like in 1957, or yet another of near-yearly “anti-corruption campaigns”, into something wholly new – a CR.

Let’s start at the beginning:

“At the beginning of the Cultural Revolution, the CCP had total control of Chinese political and economic life. …(the CCP) held the reins of power at each level.”

But what Mao and his supporters wanted was to provoke was something which was previously banned as “anti-party thought” – independent criticism of Party authorities. (Such criticism is widespread in Iran – the critics have not succeeded in persuading Iranians to abandon their revolution, however.)

The democratic bonafides of the CR are further strengthened by the fact that those who openly criticized the government were not punished, but given power. That is a very rare phenomenon. But we are skipping ahead – the first rare phenomenon is that poor rural people were given platforms to explain where their Party-led society had failed, and where the empowerment created by socialist revolution had not yet reached.

“It (the CR) differs from all the previous political campaigns because for the first time in the CCP’s history it circumvented the local party bosses and stressed the principle of letting the masses empower themselves and educate themselves.” (Han’s emphasis)

This is the revolution within a socialist revolution provided by Maoism – only installing a vanguard party is not enough to achieve on-the-ground, democratic socialism.

The first two months of the CR (June-July 1966) saw attacks on the “Four Olds” –in essence, attacks on outdated, repressive and capitalist customs, cultures, habits, and ideas. This was led by the Loyalist Faction Red Guards, to be distinguished from the Rebel Faction Red Guards who came to power later.

“Of course, from the point of view of local party officials, campaigns to destroy the four olds and attack landlords, capitalists and political enemies were convenient ways to divert attention from themselves and protect themselves from attack.” So in this way the first couple months of the CR was a really just a “pseudo-CR”, because it was led by many of the corrupt cadres themselves.

But what stopped this “pseudo-CR” was the August 1966 Mao-faction drafted “16 Points”, which boldly and correctly proclaimed as its headline: “A New Stage in the Socialist Revolution”. The 16 points is briefly summarized here, but to recap: capitalism is essentially a negative societal habit, and if this habit is not broken wherever it is found within a socialist society then it will lead to the unwanted restoration of capitalism-imperialism. Thus, the CR requires vigorous refutation and discrediting of proven anti-socialist thought and influence.

Crucially, the 16 Points, “…made the distinction between the Communist party as an institution and party bosses as individuals in a definitive manner, and which stressed that the targets of the Cultural Revolution were the capitalist roaders inside the Party.” (Han’s emphasis)

Capitalist roader” is, I feel, a rather inelegant but common English translation of this supremely important Maoist phrase. What it refers to is: a person who wants to get off the road of socialism and return to the road of capitalism-imperialism. It is not an effective translation because it lacks the necessary implication of betraying socialism’s already-acquired advances. “Capitalist re-roader” would be better, but also inelegant. However, one of the beauties of socialist jargon is its refusal to be elegant at all!

What we can also do is to call the capitalist roaders something more accurate – “anti-empowerment roaders”. Or we could call them “king-roaders”, for Muslim countries still oppressed by monarchies, and “CEO-roaders” for the Western republics suffering from bourgeois/West European/Liberal Democracy’s promotion of neoliberal ideals.

Let’s put the 16 Points in China’s historical context:

In a very real way we can say that after 17 years the CCP had definitely established themselves as the dominant and accepted political force in the country – no more Kuomintang, no more foreign powers, far fewer rightists – and thus they could “relax” their grip… by risking a healthy, re-dedicating CR to start focusing on improving the Party’s control rather than just cementing the Party’s control.

It is simply unrealistic politics to imagine that all revolutions don’t have this “consolidation phase”. I would contend that the Iranian Revolution is nearing the end of their consolidation phase; if the US had honored the JCPOA treaty – and if European nations had the courage to honor their word – the Islamic Revolution would have become totally legitimized domestically, and Iran would have to come up with a “New Stage in the Iranian Islamic Revolution” and their own “16 points”. Instead, a totally desperate US has just gone nuclear, by banning anyone from buying Iran oil. Iran’s enemies are as close to war as they can possibly get with that move, simply because they don’t want Iranian Islamic Socialism to spread any more than they want Socialism With Chinese Characteristics to spread.

Indeed, Iran is in a situation we can compare to China in 1963. People act like China was always an equal with the West, as they have been in the 21st century – back then China was still banned from the World Trade Organisation, under US sanctions which would not be lifted until Nixon in 1971, and watching the US wage war on its neighbors & set up nearby military bases. Revolutionary fervour is often imposed rather than chosen – Mao rejected Soviet revisionism and laxity because China did not have the leeway, options and power that the USSR had. If the incredibly belligerent decision of banning Iranian oil actually takes hold, we should thus not be surprised if Iranian “hard-liners” promote a 2nd Iranian Cultural Revolution as a result – indeed, how can socialist-inspired nations relent when compromise is certain death and disgrace? How can we say that China’s CR failed when it obviously convinced the West to call off their Cold War? Regarding Iran, all I can say is: Iranian Cultural Revolution II is far, far, far more likely than the eruption of an unpatriotic civil war which aims to ally itself with the US. LOL….

At this point in China’s CR history, Han elaborates the very essence of the unheard & the unreported point of view of the Cultural Revolution:

“After the ‘16 points’ was publicized, it became very difficult for individual party leaders to use ‘party leadership’ as a shield against criticism. … The ‘chaos’ that attacks on the local party leaders would cause was the price Mao was willing to pay in order to create opportunities to empower the masses. … The ‘16 Points’ and Mao’s support liberated the suppressed rebels throughout China. It also took away the sacred veneer from local ‘dictators’ whom ordinary people called ‘tuhuangdi’ (local emperors) and subjected them to mass criticism. … Former rebel leaders in Jimo like Lan Chengwu and Wang Sibo say that Mao called his 1966 revolution ‘cultural’ because he wanted to cultivate a more democratic political culture in order to eradicate the tuhuangdi phenomenon.”

This is the crucial evolution of socialism: away from the Party dictators and jingoistic loyalists, and towards the “rebels”, who should also be considered synonymous with “true socialists” and “true revolutionaries of empowerment”.

In many ways this encapsulates why the West essentially ends modern Chinese history with 1966 – to them, China always remained a “totalitarian” system with absolutely zero local democratic empowerment. Han agrees that the previous system was – in an genuine but certainly not complete sense of the word – “totalitarian” (centralized and dictatorial), but he shows that the CR specifically fought to change this reality; it was even led by the “totalitarians” themselves.

The West has remained stuck in their false mindset by misinterpreting and not discussing the CR. They have refused to tell the truth and do not even try to understand the CR. Again empowering Chinese and Iranian-style socialism, and not empowering their domestic leftists, are their malign motivations.

Han demonstrates that the CR represents a fundamentally-positive and democratic evolution in the quality of their socialist democracy. This evolution facilitated an explosion in rural-dominated China’s rural economies, industries and schooling and lay the foundation, taught the skills and started the industries which fueled their post-1980 economic success. Modern China’s success cannot be understood without grasping this evolution created specifically by the CR because it fundamentally changed the entire country, even if revolutionary fervour inevitably waned some with the arrival of Deng Xiaoping.

The CR was so intense, so thorough and so very democratic (China being 80% rural at the time), that it cannot be ignored by anyone who wants to grasp modern China; failure to understand the CR also means that one’s politics are stuck in the ‘60s, and certainly that is a fair assessment of the West – they have totally regressed to the right politically, culturally and economically since then. This link is never discussed.

Which Red Guards fought which Red Guards and why?

Now that the background running up until 1967 is laid, we can properly understand the fighting that came after. Without this fighting, the CR would have been just another “anti-rightist campaign”. The fighting was the result of the creation and state protection of totally-grassroots groups, which Han called “mass associations”; these mass associations sat in opposition to “mass organizations”, which represented the CCP status quo.

“With the issuing of ’16 points’, the official Red Guards organized under the auspices of local party leaders dissolved very quickly. Independent rebel associations began to appear,” and these are Han’s “mass associations”. In Jimo County a dozen new, independent Rebel Red Guard associations emerged through the spontaneous democracy guarded by the Mao-faction and the army (the left and center).

Han notes how the Chinese Constitution had always protected free assembly, but that it was never really permitted; these associations were the first time rural peasants could create unified groups which served as a challenge to Party domination. Han relates the universal political participation, and how political debate between associations was constant and transparent. This not only allowed the mastery and tweaking of political ideas, but it empowered the peasant masses by allowing them to speak publicly for the first time ever. These are the kinds of things which prove the CR’s democratic bonafides, but which the West cannot accept nor popularize. Indeed, how can the CR be undemocratic when it fostered, protected and promoted new grassroots institutions? What is more democratic than spontaneous grassroots organizations? We see here the truly revolutionary nature of the CR.

Each village Han studied had roughly three to five new mass associations, and he related how widespread the democratic participation was down to the household level. “The major difference between them was whether or not to overthrow the old village party bosses.”

Therefore, the CR was essentially a massive referendum on the performance of individual civil servants.

If you were a good boss, who maybe was in charge of some small town’s only mill or granary or whatever, everyone in that small town surely knew you were good…. because that’s how small towns are – they know your personal business. And such good bosses kept their jobs (and kept in line). But if you were a tuhuangdi who siphoned off the profits to buy presents to seduce married women, everyone in that small town already knew it – because that’s how small towns are – and you’d be exposed and publicly shamed. Public shaming is an Asian thing, perhaps, but I certainly see it as just punishment. I note that Han does not record that any such person died as punishment in Jimo County.

Han relates how workers and farmers joined the Rebel Faction out of dissatisfaction with local Party leaders. These Rebel Faction Red Guards (associations) were supported by the left-wingers in the Chinese Socialist Democratic System (Mao and those who thought like him), whereas the Loyalist Faction Red Guards (organizations) were the status quo-preserving establishment. All were Red Guards, though.

The Rebel Faction Red Guards were joined by idealistic students, and now the two sides began to really fight it out against the Loyalist Faction Red Guards. Many might assume that the army tipped the balance, but that’s not the case:

“The army was called upon to support the revolutionary leftists by the center. But since there was no concrete criterion for a revolutionary leftist, it was really up to the soldiers in the fields to decide who they wanted to support.”

Even though Mao, the center, and the left called for the army to support the Rebel Faction Red Guards, Han reveals yet another democratic bonafide of the CR: the army was not manipulated for political reasons, but was allowed to freely choose their own side. Therefore, if the right wing in China’s socialist spectrum was overwhelmed in the CR decade, and if the army did not intervene to prop them up, the only reason is because many in the People’s Liberation Army were genuine leftists themselves, i.e. democracy prevailed.

When the dust cleared, the Red Guards (Rebel Faction) beat the Red Guards (Loyalist Faction)

As expected, in the early years of the CR the Rebel Faction Red Guards initially faced much local official persecution for denouncing people like Police Chiefs for poor performance, capitalist-roading and abuse of authority. People talk about the CR as if there was no give-and-take of abuse, imprisonment and mistreatment, but of course the Loyalist Faction had many levers to pull and obstacles to throw up despite the opposition of Mao way over in the capital.

So when we talk about the violent excesses of the CR, we must keep in mind that the CR’s victors had to overcome much initial official repression. Revolutionary payback is usually not a bouquet of flowers with a thank-you card.

But the primary reason there was so much anger was likely because prior to the CR there simply, “…were no regular channels for ordinary villagers to air their opinions and grievances against the Party authorities.” It’s not that Chinese Socialism had failed, but that equality was not universal due to a clear urban/rural divide. The CR was essentially a rural explosion which demanded that equality. It is not for nothing the very first big character poster – the Chinese version of a free press back then, and that is no exaggeration at all – attacked the educational inequalities at China’s top university and demanded that the doors be opened wider to rural students. The Yellow Vests are doing the same… but less coherently, which should be expected – Westerners are not as intellectually politically advanced & experienced as the Chinese in 1964.

The Yellow Vests are essentially demanding a Cultural Revolution

In the end, the CR was about demanding that second pillar of Marxism – redistribution of power – for rural areas; the CR was China dealing with it’s rural/urban divide, whereas the West is only starting to come to grips with their divide with Brexit, the Yellow Vests, the “basket of deplorables”, etc.

“Some villagers say that before the Cultural Revolution villagers felt shorter before party leaders, and always nodded to them first when they met on the street. After the Cultural Revolution ordinary villagers no longer felt diminished before the village leaders and such leaders often greeted ordinary villagers first when they met on the street.”

Such “who greets whom first” etiquette is a classic small-town concern, LOL.

But it is a real concern, and public servants simply must address public concerns – that is their primary job. Public servants who expect to be feted like social superiors are clearly not “of” or “for the People”.

We can see why the Western 1% is so fearful of a CR occurring locally – capitalism is all about venerating the “Great Man”, whom we should be thanking for giving us the opportunity to work for peanuts.

The CR is supposed to be so bloody, but Han does not list any deaths in Jimo County as a result of CR violence. Han says with only a few exceptions the corrupt party leaders were rehabilitated. Heck, the CCP allowed Pu Yi, “the Last Emperor” to be rehabilitated and live his life out in peace, so why not the local emperors? It is capitalist legal systems which prioritize useless and unequal punishment over rehabilitation, not socialist systems.

The idea that 500,000 to 2 million people died in the CR is a number which seems to be invented by Western imaginations, because how many of these claimants did the in-depth study Han did… and yet Han reports zero deaths?

Considering this was both a revolution and a civil war, should such a deal toll stand as proof of the CR’s inherent immorality? Does anybody do that for the US Civil War, which cost 600,000 lives? Of course not. The big difference between the two is: nobody in the West does the work Han did and proves that the CR led to huge increases in economic, political, medical, educational, social and democratic empowerment. Time will show that the CR freed the Chinese rural slaves, in a very genuine sense. Maybe they weren’t freed enough, but neither were US Blacks, who went from slaves to Jim Crow… but these are undoubtedly two civil wars with positive overall results.

By the time local party organizations began to function again in late 1969, after almost three years of dormancy, the political culture had already changed.

Han recounts their characteristics and practices, and how they replaced the old structures, and my margin notes read “democracy” over and over and over and over.

The number of party members doubled in Jimo County from 1965-1978 (the year Deng took office), but this was not the error of Krushchev, who let in a bunch of ideologically-suspect Soviets in order to dilute the power of the Stalinist wing – China opened its doors to their true revolutionaries who made their bones during the CR decade.

In a very important sense, even if Deng’s more right-wing socialist line came to the fore in the 1980s, and even if there would be a purge of Rebel Faction leaders during the Deng era, the cadres and citizens pushed to the left during the CR (as Dongping Han seems to have been) have helped ensure that China has not at all fully switched to the capitalist road.

The CR undoubtedly brought untold wealth, progress and empowerment for rural areas (as I briefly related in Part 1). Trumpeting these achievements is verboten in the West, but is the focus of the next part in this series.


This is the 5th article in an 8-part series which examines Dongping Han’s book The Unknown Cultural Revolution: Life and Change in a Chinese Village in order to drastically redefine a decade which has proven to be not just the basis of China’s current success, but also a beacon of hope for developing countries worldwide. Here is the list of articles slated to be published, and I hope you will find them useful in your leftist struggle!

Part 1 – A much-needed revolution in discussing China’s Cultural Revolution: an 8-part series

Part 2 – The story of a martyr FOR, and not BY, China’s Cultural Revolution

Part 3 – Why was a Cultural Revolution needed in already-Red China?

Part 4 – How the Little Red Book created a cult ‘of socialism’ and not ‘of Mao’

Part 5 – Red Guards ain’t all red: Who fought whom in China’s Cultural Revolution?

Part 6 – How the socioeconomic gains of China’s Cultural Revolution fuelled their 1980s boom

Part 7 – Ending a Cultural Revolution can only be counter-revolutionary

Part 8 – What the West can learn: Yellow Vests are demanding a Cultural Revolution

Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. He is the author of Ill Ruin Everything You Are: Ending Western Propaganda on Red China. His work has appeared in various journals, magazines and websites, as well as on radio and television. He can be reached on Facebook.


الحصار يشتدّ على أطراف محور المقاومة… ما الردّ؟

أبريل 23, 2019

د. عصام نعمان

لكلّ رئيس أميركي حربه الخاصة. جورج بوش الابن شنّ حرباً ضارية على أفغانستان وأخرى أشدّ هولاً على العراق. باراك أوباما شنّ حرباً ديبلوماسية طويلة أنجز خلالها الاتفاق النووي مع إيران، واتفاق باريس حول المناخ، والتطبيع مع كوبا. دونالد ترامب يشنّ، بلا هوادة، حرباً اقتصادية على العالم، تستهدف دولاً كبرى منافِسة كالصين وروسيا والاتحاد الأوروبي، وأخرى متوسطة وصغرى كإيران وسورية والمكسيك وفنزويلا وكوبا ونيكارغوا، وقبلها كوريا الشمالية التي كان أسلافه قد فرضوا عليها عقوبات اقتصادية لإكراهها على وقف تصنيع الأسلحة النووية.

الحصار والعقوبات الإقتصادية أبرزُ أسلحة ترامب في حربه المتصاعدة، وهي أسلحة مؤذية ومرهقة لأنّ استعمالها يتمّ عبر النظام المصرفي العالمي حيث للدولار الأميركي دور كبير ومهيمن، كما عبر شركات التأمين الكبرى، وامتثال معظم الدول المتحالفة مع الولايات المتحدة الى إملاءاتها.

إيران استطاعت تجاوز مفاعيل العقوبات المفروضة عليها منذ العام 1979. لولا نجاحها في ذلك لما اضطر أوباما الى التراجع عنها وتوقيع الاتفاق النووي معها. ترامب أدرك هذه الحصيلة، فقام بإخراج الولايات المتحدة من الاتفاق المذكور وعاود فرض عقوبات جائرة ومتصاعدة في قسوتها عليها.

سورية نالت هي الأخرى «نصيبها» من العقوبات الاقتصاديــة كُرمى لـِ «إسرائيل» من جهة وكُرهاً بإيران من جهة أخرى. هذه العقوبات فعلت فعلها، على ما يبدو، في الاقتصاد السوري، لا سيما في سوق الوقود، بدليل طوابير الأفراد والسيارات التي تحتشد لساعات قرب محطات البنزين والمازوت والغاز.

ما العمل؟

قيل إنّ دمشق طالبت موسكو أواخرَ العام الماضي بتسيير قوافل من ناقلات نفطها الى الموانئ السورية لمواجهة الضائقة. موسكو استمهلت لدرس الموضوع… وما زالت تدرس.

طهران سارعت الى محاولة سدّ النقص بتوجيه ناقلات نفطها، عبر قناة السويس، شطرَ الموانئ السورية. لكن السلطات المصرية رفضت الترخيص لها بالعبور.

ثمة من يعتقد في دمشق وطهران انّ تشديد الحصار الاقتصادي على سورية مؤشر الى تفاهم ضمني بين واشنطن وموسكو على ليّ ذراع دمشق لحملها على تليين مواقفها الصلّبة بشأن تطوير نظامها السياسي خلال محادثات أستانة المرتقبة أواخرَ الشهر الحالي.

بعض أصدقاء دمشق في بيروت كشفوا ما وصل إلى مسامعهم من معلومات وتسريبات. قالوا إنّ موسكو طلبت من دمشق الموافقة على إخلاء «الوجود الإيراني» من البلاد، وكذلك وجود حزب الله. دمشق رفضت، طبعاً، بدليل مسارعة الرئيس بشار الاسد إلى زيارة طهران وعقد محادثات ذات طابع استراتيجي مع قادتها السياسيين والعسكريين، وانّ زيارة وزير الخارجية الإيراني محمد جواد ظريف الأخيرة الى دمشق كانت لاستكمال تلك المحادثات.

ما من أمر لافت تكشّفت عنه محادثات طهران ودمشق الاستراتيجية سوى ما صدر عن قائد القوات البرية الإيرانية من تصريحات هجومية ضدّ الولايات المتحدة و»إسرائيل». غير انّ ظاهر الحال، كما المواقف الإيرانية والسورية المتشدّدة من سياسة أميركا المتواطئة مع الكيان الصهيوني، ماضياً وحاضراً، توحي كلها بأنّ أطراف محور المقاومة لن تكتفي بموقف الرفض للضغوط الأميركية والروسية؟ الاقتصادية والسياسية بل ستبادر الى إجراء ما هو أشدّ وأقسى. في هذا المنظور يستطيع المراقب المتابع ان يستشرف ويستنتج الآتي:

لا شك في انّ للقيادة العليا المشتركة لأطراف محور المقاومة أولويات للمدى القصير وأخرى للمدى الطويل في شتى ميادين المواجهة مع الولايات المتحدة و»إسرائيل». لعلّ أولى الأولويات تأمين استمرار إيران في إنتاج نفطها وتصديره. ذلك لأنّ واشنطن أعلنت اعتزامها فرض وجبة جديدة قاسية من العقوبات في مطلع شهر أيار/ مايو المقبل يكون من شأنها منع إيران من تصدير نفطها، وهو مصدر دخلها الرئيس، وذلك بقصد ضرب قدراتها وإحباط دعمها لحلفائها. طهران تحسّبت لهذا التحدي الخطير بمواقف خمسة:

التفاهم مع روسيا على نقل نفطها عبر بحر قزوين الى شتى أنحاء العالم.

التفاهم مع الصين، وهي أكبر مستوردي النفط الإيراني، على نقله بواسطة ناقلات صينية من موانئ التصدير الإيرانية على شاطئ الخليج الشرقي.

التفاهم مع مستوردي النفط الإيراني على تقاضي ثمنه بعملة غير الدولار الأميركي أو مقايضته بسلع وبضائع شتى.

تأمين حاجات سورية من الوقود بتسيير أسطول من صهاريج النفط والغاز من إيران إليها عبر العراق، والضغط على مصر لإعادة النظر بقرار منع مرور الناقلات الإيرانية المتجهة إلى سورية عبر قناة السويس كونه منافياً للقانون الدولي ولأحكام المعاهدة التي تنظّم الملاحة عبر القناة المذكورة.

الضغط على روسيا لاستجابة طلب سورية تسيير ناقلات نفط من موانئها على البحر الأسود الى الموانئ السورية على البحر المتوسط بغية تأمين حاجاتها النفطية والغازية.

ثانية الأولويات مواجهةُ التهديد الصهيوأميركي لأمن إيران وسورية القومي وللحصانة الأمنية لحزب الله كونه القوة الرادعة لـِ «اسرائيل» والمشارك في حماية كلٍّ من لبنان وسورية على حدودهما الجنوبية مع فلسطين المحتلة. ذلك كله يستوجب توسيع دائرة الاشتباك مع العدو الصهيوأميركي بمشاغلة القوات الأميركية في منطقة التنف على الحدود السورية – العراقية، وفي محافظتيّ الرقة والحسكة، وربما القوات «الإسرائيلية» في الجولان المحتلّ.

ثالثة الأولويات مواجهةُ ردود فعل أميركا و»إسرائيل» المحتملة على قيام أطراف محور المقاومة بتوسيع دائرة الإشتباك معهما وذلك باعتماد تحركات أمنية محسوبة، بعضها منظور وبعضها مستور، لإفهام العدو الصهيوأميركي بأنّ أيّ استهداف مباشر لإيران أو لسورية سيؤدّي إلى ردٍّ صاعق وشامل من أطراف محور المقاومة ضدّ قواعد أميركا العسكرية في غرب آسيا وللكيان الصهيوني بشكل مباشر وبالغ الشدّة.

رابعة الأولويات تعاونُ روسيا وإيران في مقاربة سياسية ضاغطة على تركيا لتجاوز حال الخصام الى حال الوئام مع سورية كونهما يواجهان تحدياً ومخططاً صهيوأميركياً يرمي الى إضعافهما وصولاً الى تفكيكهما عبر تمويل وتسليح جماعات اثنية متمرّدة على الحكم المركزي في دمشق وأنقرة، ناهيك عن وجود دول وشركات أميركية وأوروبية طامعة بمشاركة وحصة وازنتين في ثروات العراق النفطية، كما في فرص استثمار مكامن النفط والغاز البرية والبحرية في سورية.

خامسة الأولويات قيامُ الصين وروسيا وإيران و»مجموعة شنغهاي» بتنفيذ مشروع اعتماد عملة ثقيلة بديلة من الدولار الأميركي لأغراض التجارة الدولية، وإقامة مصرف عالمي للتمويل الإنمائي.

أخيراً وليس آخراً: لا داعي للخوف من ترامب وتهويلاته، لكن حذار الإستهانة به…

وزير سابق

Iran Remains Afloat: Sanctions will only Make Iran Stronger

Nour Rida-Iran

Since August 2018, US President Donald Trump has been vowing that the ‘harshest’ sanctions to be imposed on Iran will cripple its economy, reiterating that the target is not its people but rather bringing ‘change’ in the attitude of the Iranian government. More than 80 million ordinary citizens have been feeling the pinch as the rial tumbled and keeps fluctuating. Food prices, house rents, car prices soared all of a sudden and vital imported medicines and medical equipment began to run out.

Following the first round of sanctions imposed in August 2018, another round was imposed two months later in November. Recently too, the IRGC was also listed on the terror list and the American regime vowed to impose more sanctions. The US media hype makes the sanctions sound big, but what many people do not know is that many of the sanctions are not new and had already been in effect.

When Trump announced the US withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal in May 2018, he had the nerve to say he was doing it for the Iranian people. US secretary of state Mike Pompeo also defended the re-imposition of sanctions on Iran, saying the new tough controls on oil, shipping and banking are not intended to harm the people.

All the assertions that renewed sanctions will not hurt ordinary Iranians are questioned. The sanctions have a direct impact on their daily lives. Medical groups have warned that the penalties will lead to severe shortages of essential medicines, endangering thousands of lives.

A medic at Shariati hospital, one of Tehran University hospitals told alahed news that “sanctions cause trouble in hospitals and in the health sector, with lack of instruments and some medicines.”

Dr. Vahid said that these sanctions lead to the death of some patients who cannot access treatment due to lack of essential medicines.

University students of higher education are also sarcastically affected by Trump’s policies that do not aim at targeting the people.

The faculty of Literature and Human Sciences at the prestigious Tehran University was coordinating with Arizona University to have a live-stream of the Second North American Conference in Iranian Linguistics (NACIL2), which took place April 19-21, 2019. Registration doors were open for academics and students in Iran to be part of scientific research and discussion.

A few days later following registration, the registrants received an email saying that the live-streaming on campus was canceled due to sanctions.

Simin Karimi, professor in the department of Linguistics at Arizona University wrote on her social media outlet “The cancelation of the live-streaming hit me greatly. I locked myself in my office for hours, crying like a baby, feeling totally hopeless and helpless. Why? It was so important for me to connect to our fellow linguists in Iran, to make it possible for the young generation of the Iranian linguists to be able to present their work, get feedback, hear about the research of their fellow linguists around the world, and benefit from this highly academic interaction. I thought this was a victory of technology beating politics”

She went on to say “This poster was circulated through the emails of participants with the words “cancelled” and “sanctions” on them, informing the participants of the cancellation of the live-streaming and asking them to provide their bank account numbers so that they get a refund for their registration fees.”

So the “devastating” impact of sanctions amounts to “collective punishment” of Iranian citizens for choosing to be different. However, what Trump and his friends at the White House do not understand is that Iran is a country of vast resources. Even when sanctions brought a drastic decline in exports — as was the case in the years leading up to the nuclear deal — the country managed to remain afloat. There’s little indication that things will be different this time.

Also, depriving Iranians from attending online conferences will not prevent them from carrying on with their scientific research. A Master’s student at the Tehran University who had registered to attend the conference said it was sad news that such is the case and that the live-streaming was canceled. Preferring to speak anonymously, he said that “In 2010 alone, reports said that scientific output has grown 11 times faster in Iran than the world average, which means it was faster than any other country. These sanctions cannot stop us from doing things and cannot break our will. Trump will have to understand this: sanctions, difficulties, and hardships will only make us stronger.”

Of course, these are only two simple examples of how Trump and his administrarion have been trying to crush the Iranian people. Oh and of course there is no media coverage of these stories or other stories, it is just not in the favor of Washington to have them covered by the media. Inside Iran, Trump has succeeded in making people hate him more and more for his viciousness. On the international arena, Trump also caused himself enough trouble that he is not the elephant in the room anymore.

President Rouhani said that his country would “proudly break” the re-imposed sanctions and that Iran was engaged in “an economic war” with the United States.

Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammed Javad Zarif said the sanctions reinforced what he called the growing isolation of the United States.

Foreign backed terrorism in Iran: Part two – US/Israeli backed insurgency and separatism in western Iran

April 18, 2019

By Aram Mirzaei for the Saker blog

Foreign backed terrorism in Iran: Part two – US/Israeli backed insurgency and separatism in western Iran

In the previous article, we examined the prevalence of US/Israeli backed terrorism in eastern Iran where Baluchi Salafists have received arms and funding from the CIA and Mossad. In this second part of the article series we will examine the US/Israeli support for terrorists and separatists in western Iran among the Kurdish ethnic group.

The Kurdish situation in western Iran

The Kurdish question in Iran is a long running one that stretches back to the WWII era. While Kurdish revolts occurred already during the 1920s these were not motivated out of nationalist sentiment but rather out of tribal opposition to the monarchy’s attempts to centralize the state of Iran. The Qajar dynasty and later the Pahlavi dynasty attempted to consolidate power around Tehran in a time when the Iranian nation was fragmented into areas of tribal and ethnic influence. Simko Shikak was one of the powerful Kurdish chieftains that with Ottoman backing led the first revolt in 1918, against the Qajar dynasty, as the Ottoman’s were fierce rivals of the severely weakened Iranian state, attempted to gain influence over western Iran. Another reason for the Ottoman involvement was motivated by the slaughter of the large Iranian Armenian population in the West Azerbaijan province of Iran. But it was not only the Ottomans that backed these separatist tribal ambitions as Tehran repeatedly called out British influence and support for the tribal rebellions. The British role was mainly motivated by their desire to remove the Qajar dynasty from power and install a new Shah that they could more easily control, thus also triumphing over the Russian Empire in the struggle for influence over Iran.

British intervention in Persia was at its height during the coup d’etat of 1921. Although the coup itself was executed by Persians, it received vital assistance from, and was probably actually initiated by, certain British military officers and officials in Iran, most importantly Major-General Sir Edmund Ironside, Commander of Norperforce, Lieutenant-Colonel Henry Smyth, who was unofficially and “almost secretly” attached to the Cossacks at Qazvin, and Walter A Smart, the Oriental Secretary.

After the coup, Reza Shah Pahlavi, the new Shah of Iran ultimately crushed the Kurdish tribal rebellion and the subsequent ones imitated during 1929 and 1941. It wasn’t until 1946 when the real danger of separatism became prevalent in Iran with the Iranian crisis of 1946 and the aftermath of the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran during WWII. One of the first crises of the Cold War was initiated in 1946 when Stalin refused to relinquish occupied Iranian territory as the Soviets felt that the successor to Reza Shah Pahlavi, his son Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, a staunch anti-communist was a danger to Soviet interests, especially with regards to the Truman doctrine. By mid-December 1945, with the use of troops and secret police, they had set up two pro-Soviet “People’s Democratic Republics” in northwestern Iran, the Azerbaijan People’s Republic headed by Sayyid Jafar Pishevari and the Kurdish Republic of Mahabad under Pesheva Qazi Muhammad and Mustafa Barzani, father to current US puppet Mahmoud Barzani who was the previous president of the autonomous Kurdish region in Iraq before last year’s scandalous attempt at independence for the KRG (Kurdish regional government). Though Mustafa Barzani fled Iran and went back to Iraq, so called Marxist oriented parties such as Komala and the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan (KDP-I) continued their hostilities not just with the Pahlavi regime but also later on with Islamic Republic after 1979, although these parties moved on from advocating separatism to specific demands and requests. This is due to the relatively low interest in separatism among the Kurdish public in Iran, mainly because of the close cultural, linguistic and historical relations that the Kurdish people and the rest of the Iranian society share.

Kurdish Insurrection after the Islamic Revolution and Israeli activities in western Iran

Since 2004, an armed conflict has been ongoing in the western provinces of Iran between the Iranian government forces and the so called “Party for a free life in Kurdistan” (PJAK). The group is said to be a branch of the PKK terrorist group in Turkey. The group settled in the area controlled by the PKK on the slopes of Mount Qandil, less than 16 kilometres from the Iranian border. Once established at Qandil and operating under the PKK’s security umbrella, the group began conducting sporadic attacks on Iranian border guards and security forces until a ceasefire commenced in 2011.

With the outbreak of the Syrian and Iraqi wars against terrorism, and with Iran focusing heavily on supporting the Syrian and Iraqi governments, the conflict resurged and intensified in 2016, this time with several other Kurdish militant groups also joining in, as US and Israeli support for Kurdish groups across the Middle East escalated. In an obvious show of solidarity with the Zionist state’s growing worries about the JCPOA (Iran Nuclear Deal), the KDP-I stated that it was returning to militancy after two decades of cessation of hostilities: “Since Iran has signed the atomic [nuclear deal] agreement, Iran thinks whatever they do, the outside world does not care. That is why we were forced to choose this approach,” Hassan Sharafi, the deputy leader of the PDKI said. Conveniently for the Zionist state and Washington, PJAK and leftist group Komalah immediately expressed their support for renewed hostilities and began attacking Iranian security forces respectively in the midst of Iran’s struggle against Takfiri terrorists across the region.

The Zionist state has for long had close relations to Kurdish groups across the Middle East as part of their “Alliance of the periphery” doctrine which calls for Israel to develop close strategic alliances with non-Arab Muslim states in the Middle East to counteract the united opposition of Arab states. After the fall of the Iranian monarchy and with Turkey’s recent Islamic resurgence, the strategy is mainly applied towards the Kurdish people, with Israeli government officials providing extensive support to Kurdish political parties and their aspirations for greater self-government and even independence. The government of Iraqi Kurdistan has maintained open ties with Israel and is an influential lobby for the establishment of normal diplomatic relations between Israel and Iraq. Israel remains today the closest regional ally of the YPG forces in Syria as well as the KRG in Iraq.

Documents leaked in 2010 by Wikileaks prove that Israeli Mossad chief Meir Dagan wanted to use Kurds and ethnic minorities to topple the Iranian government. The Israeli spy service wanted to have a weak divided Iran, like in Iraq where the Kurds have their own government, the spy chief told an U.S. official. According to a memo from August 2007, Dagan described to Under-Secretary of State Nicholas Burns the five pillars of Israel’s Iran policy, among them the desire to spark a revolution. The memo noted, ‘instability in Iran is driven by inflation and tension among ethnic minorities. This, Dagan said, “presents unique opportunities, and Israelis and Americans might see a change in Iran in their lifetimes.”

Dagan noted that Iran could end up like Iraq. “As for Iraq, it may end up a weak, federal state comprised of three cantons or entities, one each belonging to the Kurds, Sunnis and Shias.” He added that Iran’s minorities are “raising their heads, and are tempted to resort to violence.”

“It’s Realpolitik. By aligning with the Kurds Israel gains eyes and ears in Iran,” observed a former Israeli intelligence officer. Interestingly, PJAK themselves claim they receive no support from Washington or Tel Aviv. In an interview with Slate magazine in June 2006, PJAK spokesman Ihsan Warya stated that he “nevertheless points out that PJAK really does wish it were an agent of the United States, and that [PJAK is] disappointed that Washington hasn’t made contact.” The Slate article continues stating that the PJAK wishes to be supported by and work with the United States in overthrowing the government of Iran in a similar way to the US eventually cooperated with Kurdish organisations in Iraq in overthrowing the government of Iraq. Surely by now it is no secret that Kurdish chieftains and officials love to be the staunch vassals of Washington and Tel Aviv.

The KRG has even been so generous to offer its territory as a base for Mossad terrorists to launch operations inside Iran. According to several sources, the Mossad operates in the KRG to launch covert operations inside Iran and acquire intelligence on Iran’s nuclear program. “Israeli drones are said to be operating against Iran from bases inside the KRG,” wrote Patrick Seale, a British expert on the Middle East.

The London-based Sunday Times reported that, according to “Western intelligence sources,” during early 2012 Israeli commandos and special forces members carried out missions in Iran that were launched from the KRG. The Zionist terrorists, dressed in Iranian military uniforms, entered Iran in modified Black Hawk helicopters and travelled to Parchin, the site of an Iranian military complex just 30 kilometres southeast of Tehran, and Fordow, an Iranian military base with an underground uranium enrichment facility. The report claims that these forces utilized advanced technology to monitor radioactivity levels and record explosive tests carried out at the military facilities. Whether this report is true or part of a psychological war, I guess we’ll never know.

In addition to all of this, Arab separatism is on the rise in the western Khuzestan province where a large Arab minority reside. The 2018 Ahvaz Military Parade terrorist attack where 29 people were killed was evidence of a recent surge in Arab separatist activities. The Islamic Republic suspects that both Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf states offer political and financial support to Arab separatist groups and personalities operating in the West, who in turn funnel the cash to militant networks inside Iran. Suspicions that regional rivals had a hand in the terror attack was intensified by pathetic comments made by Abdul Khaliq Abdullah, a former advisor to the Abu Dhabi Crown Prince, that the Ahvaz attack did not constitute an act of terrorism since it was aimed at a military target. The significance of this inflammatory remark lies in Saudi Crown prince Mohammad Bin Salman’s statement that Saudi Arabia would take the battle “inside” Iran. Since the Saudi monarchy themselves are Zionist agents, we should again look for Washington and Tel Aviv’s hand in this latest campaign targeting yet another minority group in Iran.

The Islamic Republic is under attack from all sides with Washington and Tel Aviv specifically targeting ethnic minorities living in the border areas in the eastern and western regions of Iran. As Washington and Tel Aviv have admitted in the past, a full scale invasion of Iran is highly unlikely due to the size of the country and the large popular support the Islamic Republic enjoys, instead the Zionist Empire has deemed insurgency and fomenting a civil war to be the best way to weaken their adversaries, just like they did in Syria and Iraq. I expect these campaigns to escalate as the Islamic Republic gains more influence across the region and the Zionist Empire growing more and more frustrated each day.

Zarif Slams EU over Not Fulfilling Nuclear Deal Commitments


April 14, 2019

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif

Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohamamd Javad Zsrif slammed EU on Sunday over delay in the implementation of the new mechanism for non-dollar trade with the Islamic Republic.

In comments on Sunday, the top Iranian diplomat deplored the European signatories to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal for failing to fulfill their commitments under the agreement, saying it is long overdue.

The Europeans are far behind on fulfilling their commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Zarif said, adding: “They (EU) should not assume that the Islamic Republic of Iran will be waiting for them.”

Describing INSTEX -a payment channel that the three EU signatories to the JCPOA have set up to maintain trade with Iran- as a preliminary measure, Zarif said the Europeans need to work hard for a long time to honor their commitments.

The Iranian minister further noted that Iran has maintained close ties with its neighbors and has launched mechanisms similar to the INSTEX with many other countries.

“While the European countries have proposed INSTEX to maintain business ties with Iran in defiance of the US sanctions, the payment channel has not been put into practice yet,” he added.

On the other hand, Zarif said Iran will ask the international community to take a position on the US designation of its Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization.

“Today … we will send messages to foreign ministers of all countries to tell them it is necessary for them to express their stances, and to warn them that this unprecedented and dangerous U.S. measure has had and will have consequences,” Zarif was quoted as saying by state news agency IRNA.

The Iranian diplomat said he had also sent letters to United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and the United Nations Security Council to protest against “this illegal U.S. measure”.

Source: Iranian media

Related News

Resistance report: All sights set on Iran – IRGC branded ”terrorist” and Israel launches new attack on Syria

April 14, 2019

By Aram Mirzaei for the Saker blogResistance report: All sights set on Iran – IRGC branded ”terrorist” and Israel launches new attack on Syria

On April 8, the Trump administration made yet another move against Iran in what has become an almost weekly thing these days. This time the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), a branch of the Iranian Armed Forces was labelled terrorist in what can only be seen as another gift to Israel from Trump and his colleagues. Overnight, about 11 million Iranians (one seventh of the country’s population) were labelled terrorists. Iran in response rightly designated US forces in West Asia (CENTCOM) as a terrorist organization.

Washington’s moves are correctly labelled as “gifts to Israel” because no one else, not even the US itself benefits from this move and the constant enmity with Iran. No one else would be happier to see a full-fledged war break out between the US and Iran. Remember that it was the signing of the JCPOA that gave the Zionist chieftain headaches and nightmares, not the fact that Tehran before the signings of the Nuclear deal allegedly had thousands of centrifuges and thousands of kilograms of enriched uranium.

After all, it wasn’t Iran’s alleged nuclear program that terrified Netanyahu, but rather the fact that Tehran was no longer chained by UN-backed sanctions. As the Obama administration went out, the Zionist chieftain Netanyahu began planning his moves to first destroy the JCPOA, but also to ensure that this “thaw” in relations between Washington and Tehran would never again happen. The pulling out of the nuclear deal, the reintroduction of the “unprecedented” sanctions against Iran, and now the designation of the IRGC as a terrorist group all add to a massive wall blocking the path to any future attempts at de-escalating the enmity between these two countries.

Future US presidents will have to acknowledge that the US is trapped in a permanent state of enmity with Iran even though continuous hostility with that country in no shape or form serves US national security. But since when has Washington actually worked to serve US national interests? The Zionist chieftain has achieved his greatest victory with this move, he even braggingly took to Twitter to take credit for this move, as it was upon his request that Washington granted his wish.

But despite all the darkness that Washington and Tel Aviv cast over this world, there is some light to see here as well. Washington’s facade is falling. It has become clear to anyone these days that Israel dominates the US and Washington altogether. The world has seen that Washington has no will of its own and serves only Israeli interests. The US has shown its true face as an unreliable, non-negotiable and lawless rogue state that doesn’t give a damn about international law or any kind of promise it offers. This was evident with the withdrawal from the JCPOA, the designation of Jerusalem as the capital of the Zionist state and the recognition of the occupied Golan heights as Israeli territory, despite massive criticism and condemnation even from its own allies in Europe and the Middle East.

The aggressive and hard-line Zionist Trump administration has managed to unite all the world’s opposition to Zionism and pushed them closer to each other than any US president has ever managed since the days of the Cold War. Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela now actively cooperate in their attempt to thwart Washington’s foul plans for regime change in Caracas. This is something we would never have seen a few years ago. And more is to come, Washington has managed to alienate both Ankara and Cairo these days, to the point where they are threatening with the ever so favoured sanctions card as Ankara and Cairo look eastwards for purchasing new military equipment instead of the F-35 warplanes.

New Israeli attack on Syria

Earlier last week, Israeli warplanes once more entered Syrian airspace and attacked Syria. This time the Israeli airstrikes targeted the Syrian military’s positions around the city of Masyaf in the western countryside of the Hama governorate. According to reports from Hama, the Israeli airstrikes hit a Syrian M-600 ballistic missile launcher although Syria managed to down a few missiles. The Israeli attack also destroyed a military storage facility that was located in the vicinity of the Masyaf National Hospital. The report also added that the S-300 system was not activated this time either as the units tasked with this system are still undergoing training. Three Syrian soldiers were injured according to Syrian state media, although as usual Israel claims that “a number of Iranians were killed”. How Israel can be so sure that every time they strike Syria they only kill “Iranians” is not known.

We should all be used to seeing news about Israeli attacks by now, but what baffled me this time was the new levels of audacity that the Zionist regime showed a couple of days ago. The Israeli ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon claimed that an Iranian missile was fired into the occupied Golan Heights and that this “violated International law”. According to Danon, the medium range surface to surface missile allegedly transferred from Iran to Syria was in “violation of the UN Security Council Resolution 2231”.

It enrages me and probably many others that no one in the UN seems to be questioning or confronting this Zionist representative and his audacious claims. The Zionist state is notorious when it comes to breaking international law and totally disregarding any kind of moral principles, even going as far as labelling the entire UN “anti-Semites” for criticizing Zionist crimes, yet it dares to invoke UN resolutions with regards to the occupied Golan.

It would be a day of sweet vengeance if Syria would finally manage to activate its S-300 systems and down the Israeli planes entering Syrian airspace, putting the insolent Zionists back in their place once and for all.

واشنطن تواصل دفع المنطقة نحو الانفجار

أبريل 9, 2019

ناصر قنديل

– يفضي أي تدقيق بالقرارات التي أصدرتها إدارة الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب خلال الشهور الأخيرة بأن ما يجمعها هو أنها لا تغير في الواقع الميداني أو القانوني أو السياسي، لكنها ترفع منسوب التوتر والاستفزاز، فالإعلان عن الاعتراف بالقدس عاصمة لكيان الاحتلال يتم فيما القدس تحت الاحتلال، وفيما الاعتراف الأميركي أعجز من التحول إلى قرار أممي وكيان الاحتلال أشد عجزاً عن ترجمة القرار تهجيراً للمقدسيين، وكذلك الحال بالنسبة للجولان المحتل. ويأتي تصنيف الحرس الثوري الإيراني على لوائح الإرهاب الأميركية تحصيل حاصل. فالعقوبات تطال كل شيء في إيران، وقادة الحرس والمؤسسات التابعة له وفيلق القدس الذي يشكل ذراعه العسكرية الفاعلة، كلهم على لوائح الإرهاب الأميركية، لكن هذه القرارات تشترك بكونها ترفع منسوب التصعيد وتشكل استفزازاً سيستدرج ردود أفعال، تشكل سبباً للانزلاق نحو مواجهات قد تخرج عن السيطرة بغياب السقوف السياسية التي كانت تتلقى المخاطر وتخفّف من وطأتها، ومشاريع التسويات التي تشكل آمالاً تحتوي مناخات التصعيد، ويتم إغلاق أبوابها بهذه القرارات.

– سيوصل التدقيق أيضاً إلى أن القرارات الأميركية محكومة بعنوان واحد بدأت طلائعه مع الانسحاب الأميركي من التفاهم النووي مع إيران، وهو إرضاء القيادة الإسرائيلية، وإنعاشها شعبياً، ومنحها مناخاً وهمياً بالقوة، يعوّض الإحباط السائد في كيان الاحتلال بفعل تآكل قدرة الردع والعجز عن خوض الحروب كما العجز عن الخوض في التسويات. وهذا الإفراط الأميركي بالدعم المعنوي لقيادة كيان الاحتلال تعويضاً عنا لعجز عن تقديم الدعم الذي يغيّر في موازين القوى، يصنع مناخاً من التوتر، ويستدرج موجات من العنف، فد لا تستطيع واشنطن احتواءها، فقد تنفع جرعات الدعم هذه بصناعة فرصة فوز لبنيامين نتنياهو انتخابياً وقد تساعده على الإفلات من الملاحقة القضائية، وتستجلب دعمه لدونالد ترامب في معركته الانتخابيّة المقبلة، كما تبدو الحسابات الساذجة التي تقود الرئيس الأميركي وفقاً للكثير من التحليلات التي تحفل بها الصحف الأميركية، لكن واشنطن وتل أبيب ستكونان أمام برميل بارود بلا وجود للمطافئ، وخطر الاشتعال والانفجار سيكون قائماً في كل وقت.

– الأوضاع في أفغانستان والعراق مرشحة للتصعيد، والوضع على جبهة الجولان كذلك، والوضع الداخلي في فلسطين سواء في الضفة الغربية أو القدس أو قطاع غزة، خصوصاً في الأراضي المحتلة العام 1948 في حال غليان، ووحدة مصير الأراضي المحتلة في عيون واشنطن وتل أبيب سيوحّد النضال ويزجّ قوى واسعة في معركة واحدة على جبهات مختلفة، ومثلها التصعيد الأميركي بوجه إيران، يشكل بمعزل عن نتائجه العملية مساساً بالكرامة الوطنية لن يكون سهلاً تمريرها من دون ردود أفعال، وحتى موعد الانتخابات الأميركية نهاية العام المقبل سنكون مع حرب ساخنة، على مساحة المنطقة الممتدة من أفغانستان إلى غرب أفريقيا، والحروب الصغيرة بغياب السقوف السياسية سرعان ما تهدد بالتحول إلى إحدى الحروب الكبرى في ظل فقدان القدرة على التقدير، والوقوع بسبب العنجهية والاستهتار، والاهتمام بالمعنويات الفارغة على حساب المصائر الحقيقية.

– يقول توماس فريدمان أحد أبرز كتاب النيويورك تايمز، في مقالته الأخيرة كلاماً يشاركه فيه السفير الأميركي الأسبق لدى كيان الاحتلال وأحد مهندسي السياسات الأميركية الداعمة لـ«إسرائيل»، ومضمون الكلام أن الحب الأميركي لـ«إسرائيل» الذي يتنافس عليه الجمهوريون والديمقراطيون حب قاتل، سرعان ما سيضع «إسرائيل» أمام خيارات صعبة، خيار دولة واحدة على الأراضي المحتلة العام 1948 والعام 1967 يشكل اليهود فيها أقلية، وبالتالي سقوط الدولة اليهودية واقعياً، أو انتفاضة فلسطينية عارمة تشارك فيها أعمال مقاومة تهدّد أمن «إسرائيل» جدياً كما أظهرت صواريخ تل ابيب، أو حرب تبدو مستحيلة مع جبهة الشمال، حيث تحتشد مصادر قوة إيران وسورية وحزب الله. ويكتفي الكاتبان بالحديث عن مجهول تذهب نحوه المنطقة، يمكن القول إنه بالغ الخطورة، بلا خارطة طريق وبلا خطة، ونضيف، سيكون هذا المجهول البالغ الخطورة عبثاً مجنوناً، خلافاً لما يعتقده المعجبون بالذكاء والقوة الأميركيين، الذين سيكتشفون أنهما ضعف وغباء فريدان.


%d bloggers like this: