New Footage Shows Sayyed Nasrallah and Martyr Imad Mughniyeh Coordinating Resistance Operations: Al-Manar TV

Video here

Mohammad Salami

Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah and military commander, martyr Hajj Imad Mughnieyh, appeared in a new footage released by Al-Manar TV Channel on the martyrdom anniversary of the Resistance leaders.

The video shows martyr Nughniyeh whispering in the ear of Sayyed Nasrallah about the details of the operations which proved later to be very efficient.

https://english.almanar.com.lb/ajax/video_check.php?id=105811

On February 12, 2008, Hezbollah’s top military commander Hajj Imad Moghniyeh was martyred in a car bomb attack carried out by Israeli Mossad agents.

The occasion also marks the anniversary of late Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Abbas al-Mousawi who was martyred, along with his wife and son, when an Israeli airstrike attacked his convoy as he was attending the commemoration anniversary of Sheikh Ragheb Harb on February 16, 1992.

The martyr Sheikh Harb was assassinated by an Israeli agent on February 16, 1984.

Source: Al-Manar Eglish Website

“Israeli” Mossad Smuggled 1-ton Gun in Pieces to Assassinate Martyr Fakhrizadeh

“Israeli” Mossad Smuggled 1-ton Gun in Pieces to Assassinate Martyr Fakhrizadeh

By Staff- Agencies

A report revealed on Wednesday that “‘Israel’s’ Mossad smuggled a one-ton weapon in pieces into Iran to kill top Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh on November 27, 2020.”

Agents deployed to Iran last March, the Jewish Chronicle reported, when the world was preoccupied with the coronavirus pandemic. The assassination team, said to be composed of 20 “Israelis” and Iranian nationals, kept close surveillance on the scientist for eight months before finishing the murder.

“It was the most elegant way to make sure that the target will be hit, and only him,” the source told the paper.

The gun detonated after the attack, which accounted for much of the automated weapon’s weight, reportedly. Additionally, the explosion added to the confusion during the attack, and possibly aided in getting all the team members out safely.

“Israel” acted alone, according to the source, yet did notify the US. He said it was “not to the level of asking for the green light, more like checking the water temperature. Just like they had notified us before killing [Iranian Brigadier-General Qasem] Soleimani.”

Who was behind the assassination of Luqman and what were the objectives of the campaign to fabricate indictment against Hezbollah? من يقف وراء جريمة اغتيال لقمان وما أهداف حملة تلفيق الاتهام لحزب الله؟

**English Machine translation Please scroll down for the Arabic original version **

Who was behind the assassination of Luqman and what were the objectives of the campaign to fabricate indictment against Hezbollah?

Hassan Hardan

The assassination of activist Luqman Salim, which provoked many reactions, was noted that immediately after the crime, forces and groups of so-called civil society and elite figures launched a systematic campaign accusing Hizbullah of being behind the assassination, so that this accusation did not wait for any investigation from the security and judicial authorities, and issued a prejudgment, in the name of political prejudgment, which accused Hezbollah, Syria, forces and national figures, of being behind the assassination of President Rafik, minutes after the assassination

What does that demonstrate, and why immediately accuse Hezbollah, and choose this particular time?

What is required in the face of this suspicious accusation of its objectives?

First, the haste, as soon as the news of the assassination is announced, to indict Hezbollah, which makes any neutral observer draw major question marks and wonders about whether the crime was carried out by suspicious parties, because these parties realise and know in advance that the finger of blame will be directed at Hezbollah. Based on the fact that Luqman was assassinated in an area where Hezbollah enjoys great popular influence, and that Luqman is known for his fierce opposition to Hezbollah and its resistance against the occupation, which achieves these parties the goal that they seek, to undermine its role of the resisting patriot, and claim that it has transformed, according to her claim, from a party resisting the Zionist enemy, to an authority of “suppression, domination, exclusion and terror” of all those who criticise him, oppose his opinion and stand against his policy …

Secondly, the timing of the assassination seems to have been chosen in an attempt to extricate the “Injiz” forces and groups from their predicament, which have become in it, against the backdrop of the failure of their movements on the one hand, and enable them to make a breakthrough in the resistance environment by providing an atmosphere of sympathy with them that enables them to gain the support of the youth. Under the headings of rejecting the policy of “suppressing and terrorising the opponents”, after these forces and groups reached a dead end and failed to implement the American plan to bring about a political coup against power and exclude Hezbollah and its allies from it ..This failure has been evident recently through the inability of these forces and groups in their recent moves to revive popular protests by exploiting the worsening social and living suffering caused by the explosion of the economic and financial crisis, exacerbated and accelerated by the U.S. financial and economic blockade…

Thirdly, the position of suspects behind the crime is linked to the American-Zionist plot, but it is due to the efforts of these parties to achieve two things that clearly appeared behind the campaign against Hezbollah, and as long as the aim of this plan is:

The first is sedition and incitement against the resistance, which is part of the U.S. coup plan, and the poisonous campaign that followed the crime and aimed at resistance, in an open attempt to invest blood, points to the re-movement of the NGOs groups, funded by the United States and the West, as former U.S. official David Hill acknowledged in his testimony to Congress earlier last year.

The second is to try to penetrate the popular environment of the resistance, and to win supporters alongside the groups mentioned under the heading of accusing Hizbullah of exercising hegemony and suppressing freedom of opinion and expression. The popularity of these groups has been strengthened in preparation for the upcoming parliamentary elections with the aim of transforming the balance of parliamentary power in favor of the pro-American political team…

From the above, it can be emphasised that:

1. Anyone who hastened to accuse Hizbullah of being behind the assassination, directly or indirectly, is deliberately or unintentionally contributing to the American plan, which is behind the sanctions against pro-resistance figures,  the imposition of a financial and economic blockade on Lebanon and the increased suffering of the Lebanese with the aim of pitting them against Hezbollah and its resistance.

It is not a secret that Washington is seeking, through the groups loyal to it, and some American-funded media, to hold Hezbollah responsible for this suffering, to exclude it and its allies from sharing power, and to impose the formation of a pro-American government, to implement the goals of the United States in terms of isolating and disarming the resistance, protecting Lebanon and its wealth from Zionist aggression, and returning Lebanon to a time of “Lebanon strength is in its weakness”, subject to American control and hegemony … and realising the ambitions of the enemy’s entity in Lebanon’s wealth by imposing a demarcation of the sea and land borders with occupied Palestine that meets Zionist ambitions …

2. The history of Hizbullah and its national and Islamic resistance confirms that it cannot in any way be behind the assassination, or facilitate its occurrence, because it is contrary to its policy of giving priority to the eradication of sedition and cutting off the road to American Zionist projects and plans to ignite it, and in this context, Hezbollah has followed the policy of tolerance of agents after liberation. In this context, Hezbollah pursued a policy of tolerance with IOF agents after the liberation in 2000, despite the atrocities and crimes they committed during the period of the Zionist occupation of the south, Hezbollah prevented retaliation against agents, in order to protect national unity in the liberated areas, and cut off the path to sedition that the enemy sought to disturb And aborting the strategic and historical victory achieved by the resistance by defeating the Zionist occupation army .. And Hezbollah persisted, unrivaled, in the face of the fierce attacks and the fabricated accusations it was subjected to, and the attacks targeting its supporters, following the assassination of Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, in order to prevent sectarian strife. …

In 2000, despite the atrocities and crimes committed during occupation by the IOF and the so called “free southern army of the south, and the prevention of retaliation against them, in order to protect national unity in the liberated areas, and And cut off the path to the strife that the enemy sought in order to abort the strategic and historical victory achieved by the resistance by defeating the Zionist occupation army. .. Likewise, Hizbullah persisted, with unparalleled patience, in the face of the fierce attacks and fabricated accusations it was subjected to, and the attacks targeting its supporters, following a crime The assassination of Prime Minister Rafic Hariri, in order to prevent sectarian strife …

So would those who pursue such a policy to prevent sedition, and are keen on national unity and civil peace, could stand behind a crime that is well known to serve the enemies of the resistance, waiting to exploit any incident, small or large, to undermine the image and reputation of the noble resistance, which defeated the Zionist and terrorist enemies, raised the head of Lebanon aloft, protected security and stability, and enabled the state and its apparatus to regain its authority over the liberated areas …

3. The patriotic duty requires everyone who is keen to confront sedition and not fall into the trap of American incitement against the resisting Hezbollah .. to confront this plot, by linking the condemnation of the assassination of Lokman Salim, and the request of the security and judicial authorities to conduct the required investigations to uncover the circumstances of the crime and to know the perpetrators and the parties who Stand behind them … At the same time, to condemn and expose the objectives of the fabricated campaign organised by anti-Hezbollah political forces and “NGOs”, to restore some glare to its suspicious role, after its failure to realise Washington’s dreams of achieving a political coup d’état to surround, isolate and disarm Hezbollah, despite spending billions on supporting these groups and other political forces affiliated with .   

من يقف وراء جريمة اغتيال لقمان وما أهداف حملة تلفيق الاتهام لحزب الله؟

حسن حردان

شكل اغتيال الناشط لقمان سليم، مثاراً لردود فعل عديدة، حيث لوحظ أنه وفور حدوث الجريمة أقدمت قوى وبعض مجموعات ما يسمّى المجتمع المدني «الأنجيؤز» وشخصيات من النخبة، على شنّ حملة ممنهجة تتهم حزب الله بالوقوف وراء ارتكاب عملية الاغتيال، حتى أنّ هذا الاتهام لم ينتظر ايّ تحقيق من الجهات الأمنية والقضائية، فصدر الحكم المسبق، بما يذكر بالحكم السياسي المسبق الذي اتهم حزب الله وسورية وقوى وشخصيات وطنية، بالوقوف وراء تنفيذ جريمة اغتيال الرئيس رفيق الحريري، بعد دقائق معدودة على حدوثها…

على ماذا يدلل ذلك، ولماذا المسارعة فوراً إلى اتهام حزب الله، واختيار هذا التوقيت بالذات؟

وما هو المطلوب في مواجهة هذا الاتهام المشبوه بأهدافه وغاياته؟

أولاً، إنّ المسارعة فور إعلان نبأ الاغتيال، الى توجيه الاتهام إلى حزب الله، يجعل ايّ مراقب محايد يرسم علامات استفهام كبرى، ويتساءل بشأن ما إذا كانت الجريمة نفذت بتدبير من جهات مشبوهة، لإدراك هذه الجهات ومعرفتها المسبقة أنّ أصابع الاتهام ستوجه إلى حزب الله، انطلاقاً من انّ لقمان اغتيل في منطقة يحظى فيها حزب الله بنفوذ شعبي كبير، وانّ لقمان معروف في معارضته الشرسة لحزب الله ومقاومته ضدّ الاحتلال، الأمر الذي يحقق لهذه الجهات هدفها الذي تسعى إليه، وهو الصادق التهمة بحزب الله، والتحريض عليه، ومحاولة النيل من دوره الوطني المقاوم، والقول بأنه تحوّل، حسب زعمها، من حزب مقاوم للعدو الصهيوني، إلى سلطة «قمع وهيمنة وإقصاء وإرهاب» لكلّ من ينتقده ويعارض رأيه ويقف ضدّ سياسته…

ثانياً، انّ اختيار توقيت عملية الاغتيال يبدو انه تمّ في محاولة لإخراج قوى ومجموعات «الأنجيؤز» من مأزقها، التي باتت فيه، على خلفية فشل تحركاتها من ناحية، وتمكينها من إحداث اختراق في بيئة المقاومة عبر توفير أجواء من التعاطف معها تمكّنها من كسب تأييد الشباب تحت عناوين رفض سياسة «قمع وإرهاب المعارضين»، بعد أن وصلت هذه القوى والمجموعات إلى طريق مسدود، وأخفقت في تنفيذ الخطة الأميركية لإحداث الانقلاب السياسي على السلطة وإقصاء حزب الله وحلفائه عنها.. وظهر هذا الفشل بشكل واضح مؤخراً من خلال عجز هذه القوى والمجموعات في تحركاتها الأخيرة في إعادة إحياء الاحتجاجات الشعبية باستغلال تفاقم المعاناة الاجتماعية والمعيشية الناتجة عن انفجار الأزمة الاقتصادية والمالية، التي فاقمها وسرّع من انفجارها، الحصار المالي والاقتصادي الأميركي الغربي…

ثالثاً، انّ وقوف جهات مشبوهة وراء الجريمة مرتبطة بالمخطط الأميركي الصهيوني، إنما يعود إلى سعي هذه الجهات إلى تحقيق أمرين ظهرا بوضوح من وراء الحملة ضدّ حزب الله، وطالما هدف إليهما هذا المخطط، وهما:

الأمر الأول، إثارة الفتنة والتحريض ضدّ المقاومة، وهو أمر يندرج ضمن خطة الانقلاب الأميركية، وتؤشر إليه الحملة المسمومة التي أعقبت الجريمة وتستهدف المقاومة، في محاولة مكشوفة لاستثمار الدم، لإعادة الزخم لتحركات مجموعات «الأنجيؤز»، المموّلة أميركياً وغربياً، باعتراف المسؤول الأميركي السابق ديفيد هيل في شهادته أمام الكونغرس في وقت سابق من العام الماضي.

الأمر الثاني، العمل على محاولة إحداث اختراق في البيئة الشعبية للمقاومة، وكسب مناصرين إلى جانب المجموعات المذكورة تحت عنوان اتهام حزب الله بممارسة الهيمنة والقمع لحرية الرأي والتعبير. واستطراداً تعزيز شعبية هذه المجموعات تحضيراً للانتخابات النيابية المقبلة بهدف إحداث تحوّل في موازين القوى النيابية في البرلمان لمصلحة الفريق الموالي للسياسة الأميركية…

انطلاقاً مما تقدم يمكن التأكيد على ما يلي:

1

ـ إنّ أيّ جهة سارعت إلى توجيه الاتهام إلى حزب الله، بالوقوف وراء جريمة الاغتيال، بشكل مباشر، أو غير مباشر، إنما تسهم عن قصد، أو غير قصد، في خدمة المخطط الأميركي، الذي يقف وراء العقوبات على شخصات مؤيدة للمقاومة، وفرض الحصار المالي والاقتصادي على لبنان وزيادة معاناة اللبنانيين بهدف تأليبهم وتحريضهم ضدّ حزب الله ومقاومته..

فليس خافياً، انّ واشنطن تسعى، عبر القوى والجماعات الموالية لها وبعض وسائل الإعلام المموّلة أميركياً، تسعى إلى تحميل حزب الله المسؤولية عن هذه المعاناة، لإقصائه وحلفائه عن المشاركة السلطة، وفرض تشكيل حكومة أميركية الهوى، تنفيذ أهداف الولايات المتحدة لناحية عزل المقاومة ونزع سلاحها، الذي يحمي لبنان وثرواته من الاعتداءات والأطماع الصهيونية… ويقلق كيان العدو، واستطراداً إعادة لبنان إلى زمن «قوته في ضعفه»، وخاضعاً للسيطرة والهيمنة الأميركية… وتحقيق أطماع كيان العدو في ثروات لبنان من خلال فرض ترسيم للحدود البحرية والبرية مع فلسطين المحتلة يلبّي هذه الأطماع…

2

ـ انّ تاريخ حزب الله ومقاومته الوطنية والإسلامية، يؤكد أنه لا يمكن بأيّ حال من الأحوال أن يكون وراء ارتكاب عملية الاغتيال، أو تسهيل حصولها، لأنّ ذلك يتعارض مع سياسته التي تعطي الأولوية لوأد الفتنة وقطع الطريق على المشاريع والمخططات الأميركية الصهيونية لإشعالها، وفي هذا السياق فإنّ حزب الله اتبع سياسة التسامح مع العملاء بعد التحرير عام 2000، رغم الفظاعات والجرائم التي ارتكبوها خلال مرحلة الاحتلال الصهيوني للجنوب، ومنع الانتقام منهم، وذلك حرصاً على حماية الوحدة الوطنية في المناطق المحررة، وقطع الطريق على الفتنة التي سعى إليها العدو لتعكير وإجهاض الانتصار الاستراتيجي والتاريخي الذي حققته المقاومة بإلحاق الهزيمة بجيش الاحتلال الصهيوني.. كما أنّ حزب الله اعتصم بالصبر، المنقطع النظير، في مواجهة الهجمات الشرسة والاتهامات الملفقة التي تعرّض لها، والاعتداءات استهدفت انصاره، اثر حصول جريمة اغتيال الرئيس رفيق الحريري، وذلك لمنع الفتنة المذهبية…

فهل من ينتهج مثل هذه السياسة لمنع الفتنة، ويحرص الوحدة الوطنية والسلم الأهلي، يمكن أن يقف وراء جريمة يعرف جيداً انها تخدم أعداء المقاومة، الذين يتربّصون شراً بها، وينتظرون استغلال أيّ حادث، صغيراً كان أم كبيراً، للنيل من صورة وسمعة المقاومة النبيلة، التي هزمت العدوين الصهيوني والإرهابي ورفعت رأس لبنان عالياً، وحمت الأمن والاستقرار ومكّنت الدولة وأجهزتها من استعادة سلطتها على المناطق المحررة…

3

ـ انّ الواجب الوطني يقتضي من كلّ حريص على التصدي للفتنة وعدم الوقوع في فخ التحريض الأميركي على حزب الله المقاوم.. أن يتصدى لهذا المخطط، بأن يربط بين إدانة اغتيال لقمان سليم، ومطالبة الجهات الأمنية والقضائية بإجراء التحقيقات المطلوبة لكشف ملابسات الجريمة ومعرفة منفذيها واعتقالهم والجهات التي تقف وراءهم… وفي نفس الوقت يعمل على إدانة وفضح أهداف الحملة الملفقة التي تنظمها قوى سياسية ومجموعات «الانجيؤز» ضدّ حزب الله المقاوم، والتي سارعت إلى استغلال الجريمة وتوجيه الاتهام له، وتحريض اللبنانيين ضدّه.. في محاولة مكشوفة لاستعادة بعض الوهج لدورها المشبوه، بعد فشلها في تحقيق أحلام واشنطن بإنجاز انقلاب سياسي على السلطة لمحاصرة وعزل حزب الله والعمل على نزع سلاح مقاومته، رغم إنفاق المليارات على دعم هذه المجموعات وغيرها من القوى السياسية التابعة.. وهو ما عرّضها لانتقادات قاسية وجّهها لها المسؤول الأميركي السابق ديفيد شينكر خلال اجتماع مع ممثليها في بيروت…

فيديوات ذات صلة

مقالات ذات صلة

Pompeo’s Last Stand

Ph.D., Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest.

Source

Philip Giraldi

January 21, 2021

The neocons and the media demand tough talk and even tougher action from their candidate and Pompeo is already running hard to oblige them.

Pompeo's Last Stand - TheAltWorld
© Photo: REUTERS/POOL New

It is finally over. Joe Biden has been inaugurated President of the United States while his predecessor Donald Trump has retired to Florida. Trump intends to remain the driving force in the Republican Party but there are many in the GOP who would like to see him gone completely and the national media is obliging by depriving him of a “voice,” cutting him off from his preferred social media. The Democratic Party’s top “megadonor” Israeli film producer Haim Saban goes one step farther, recommending that all the media stop reporting on Trump and his activities, thereby taking away his platform and making him disappear politically speaking.

Prior to the inauguration, which proceeded protected by an unprecedented display of military and police, there had been so much going on in and around Washington that other serious developments worldwide were not getting the attention that they merited. President Donald Trump was impeached for “high crimes and misdemeanors” relating to his alleged encouragement of the January 6th rioting at the U.S. Capitol building, but to my mind the recent travels and meetings involving Secretary of State Mike Pompeo could turn out to be far more damaging to America’s long-term interests. One wonders why Pompeo was engaging in frenetic activity with the Administration that he represented being about to vanish in a few days, but the answer is perhaps obvious. Trump and Pompeo want to lay a foreign policy mine field for the Joe Biden White House, locking the new administration into policies that will prove difficult to untangle.

Pompeo has been most active in four areas: Iran, China, Cuba and Yemen. Iran, as has often been the case with the Trump Israeli-driven policy in the Middle East, has been the principal focus. The Trump Administration has consistently responded to Israeli and also Saudi perceptions of the threat from Iran to the entire region, even though those claims were generally based on self-interests and deliberately falsified intelligence. Washington has withdrawn from the nuclear agreement with Iran signed in 2015 and has been waging incrementally expanded economic warfare against the Iranians for the past three years. It has collaborated with the Israelis on assassinations and air attacks on primarily civilian targets in Syria and Lebanon.

During Trump’s last two weeks in power there was much talk about the possibility of a U.S. attack on Iran. The Israeli military was on alert and there was a surge in attacks on Syria, frequently using Lebanese airspace. One incident in particular on January 6th used U.S. intelligence to enable multiple bombing attacks on targets inside Syria, killing 57. Pompeo reportedly dined publicly in a well-known Washington restaurant Café Milano on the day after the carnage to discuss the “success” with Israel’s head of Mossad Yossi Cohen.

The public meeting with Cohen was a sign from the Trump Administration that the U.S. supports Israel’s bombing campaign against claimed Iranian targets in Syria. If Biden wishes to change that, he will have to do so publicly, earning the ire of Israel’s friends in the Democratic Party and media. And more was to come. Last Tuesday, Pompeo gave a speech in which he accused al-Qaeda and the Iranian government of being “partners in terror” , constituting an “axis” of terrorism. He further claimed that al-Qaeda has a “new home base” and a “new operational headquarters” built for it in Tehran, an assertion that ran counter to the intelligence collected by U.S. counterterrorism officials, who said there was no evidence to support such a claim. In fact, the Intelligence Community has long asserted that al-Qaeda is fundamentally hostile to Shi’ite Iran and that the Iranians return the favor. In other words, Pompeo is either lying or making something up that will be an impediment if Biden tries to improve relations with Tehran. Pompeo also went so far as to declare that Iran is the “new Afghanistan” for al-Qaeda, which is meant to imply that Iran is now its home base and safe haven. There is also no evidence to support that claim.

The Trump Administration has also included Cuba on the list of state sponsors of terrorism, based on nothing whatsoever, apparently as something of a throw away item to shore up support from the rabid Cuban exile community in Florida. So too the decision to designate the Houthis of Yemen as terrorists to give a parting gift to the Saudis and the UAE. Yemen is suffering from famine and the terror designation will have a drastic impact on imports of food and medicine, condemning many Yemenis to death. Daniel Larison opines that the “Houthi designation is by far the worst thing that Pompeo has done as Secretary of State, because if it is not quickly reversed it will lead directly to the deaths of tens and possibly even hundreds of thousands of people. It takes severe cruelty to look at a war-torn, famine-stricken country that depends heavily on outside aid and imports and then choose to suffocate the survivors with additional economic warfare. That is what Pompeo has done, we shouldn’t forget that.”

And, incidentally, the United States gains absolutely nothing from killing thousands of people in Yemen, but that is not all. Pompeo has also opened the door to new problems with China. His easing of the longstanding restrictions on contacts between American diplomats and Taiwanese has been described by the State Department as a strong gesture of support for the democratic government and “ally” in Taipei. It overturns more than forty years of “strategic ambiguity” which has prevailed since Richard Nixon traveled to Beijing and recognized the communist People’s Republic of China as China’s only legitimate government, to include over Taiwan by implication. The so-called “One China” principle states that Taiwan and China are part of the same China with the U.S. recognizing, though not necessarily endorsing, that the PRC has a historic claim to sovereignty over Taiwan.

Apart from locking in policies that Biden will find hard to shift, Pompeo also has a secondary motive. It is widely believed that he would like to run for president in 2024. He will need the support of the Israelis and their powerful domestic lobby as well as the Cubans in Florida and it does not hurt to show him playing hardball in the Middle East and against an increasingly vilified China. The so-called neocons, who have again become influential in the Republican Party and the media, demand tough talk and even tougher action from their candidate and Pompeo is already running hard to oblige them.

Israeli Media Joins Lebanese-Arab Campaign against Al-Qard Al-Hasan Association, Mossad Detecting Depositors’ Accounts

 January 15, 2021

Capture

The Zionist media outlets joined the Lebanese-Arab campaign against Al-Qard Al-Hassan Association, highlighting the importance of the anti-Hezbollah propaganda with respect to the Zionist enemy.

The Israeli media considered that Hezbollah had built a parallel economy, adding that Al-Qard Al-Hasan Association attempts to be an alternative for the banking system in Lebanon.

A Mossad officer was quoted by the Zionist media as reporting plans to detect the depositors’ accounts at the association and betting on the Lebanese campaign on its role in the context of pressing Hezbollah.

The Lebanese media’s role in portraying Hezbollah as the main culprit involved the Lebanese economic collapse as well as accusing the party of causing Beirut port blast would instigate more Lebanese citizens against it, according to the Mossad officer.

Source: Al-Manar English Website

Israel & United States Unite Efforts In Large-Scale Strikes On Iranian Infrastructure In Syria

South Front

The first two weeks of 2021 have, so far, been marked by an incredible increase in Israeli activity in the skies over Syria.

The most intense strike took place on January 13 morning hitting multiple Syrian and Iranian-affiliated targets in the province of Deir Ezzor, including the underground base of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Corps near al-Bukamal.

The pro-opposition Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported that Israeli strikes have killed 57 and wounded another 37. Pro-government sources confirmed only 5 casualties.

The airstrikes were so numerous that even Abu Yatem al-Katrani – the commander of the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) 4th Brigade was killed in an airstrike.

The Israeli operations were carried out with the assistance of the United States – it provided intelligence and Israeli struck on them. Former CIA Director, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was reportedly discussing the airstrikes with Yossi Cohen, chief of Israel’s spy agency Mossad.

The US support of Tel Aviv’s aerial raids is a clear message to Iran, and is a very open support to Israel’s undeclared war against Iran, which it has been waging in Syria since hostilities began.

All of the airstrikes in the first two weeks of 2021 are the most significant by Israel, and over all, since the beginning of the war in Syria. They were so significant, that Damascus even accused Tel Aviv of carrying out the strikes in very open support of ISIS militants which the Syrian Arab Army is hunting.

Meanwhile, there appears to be a sense of urgency, or a sense of danger in the air, as the United States reinforced its troop positions in the Omar oil fields with artillery pieces and other equipment.

The US troops, together with their local proxies also hold frequent drills in the area, to keep ready, for some future unknown escalation.

Prior to New Year’s Eve, Iran’s top nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh was assassinated, in what Tehran claimed to be an elaborate Israeli operation.

Additionally, since around the same time, a farewell strike on Iran has been expected from US President Donald Trump, and the general chaos in the US ahead of Joe Biden stepping into office has been used by Israel as a chance to inflict as much damage as possible on Tehran and its allies.

Russia, at the same time, appears to also be preparing for an escalation of some sort, by building up its forces and is lying in wait.

Israel appears dead set on continuing its crusade against Iran and its allies in Syria. An urgency is felt, since Biden is unlikely to support Tel Aviv as much as Trump did, and every possible chance should be used. This is all in spite of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu removed the photo of Donald Trump from his Twitter, but all is fair in love and war.

Finally, both the American and Russian forces appear to be biding their time, waiting for an escalation that, with tensions at the breaking point appears closer than ever.

The year began with terrorist attacks in Syria, increased Israeli strikes, Iran threatening against any aggression against it, and the two most significant players in the face of Moscow and Washington are expecting an escalation, and no amount of preparation would be enough for the incoming storm.

US nuclear submarine comes in close contact with Iranian anti-submarine chopper: video

Iran ends massive war games in Strait of Hormuz, issues stern warning to enemies: photos

BY NEWS DESK 2021-01-14

BEIRUT, LEBANON (6:00 P.M.) – A U.S. nuclear submarine was spotted making close contact with an Iranian military chopper this week, in a new escalation in the Persian Gulf region.

In a video released by the Iranian media and shared on social media, the U.S. nuclear submarine can be seen making close contact with the Iranian anti-submarine helicopter, the SH-3D, in the Persian Gulf waters.

The video, which is shared below, was allegedly take on Thursday, January 14th, in the Persian Gulf; however, the U.S. and Iranian forces have yet to comment on this close approach.

RELATED VIDEOS

RELATED NEWS

Soleimani geopolitics, one year on

Soleimani geopolitics, one year on

by Pepe Escobar, posted with permission and first posted at Asia Times

One year ago, the Raging Twenties started with a murder.

The assassination of Maj Gen Qassem Soleimani, commander of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), alongside Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy commander of Iraq’s Hashd al-Sha’abi militia, by laser-guided Hellfire missiles launched from two MQ-9 Reaper drones, was an act of war.

Not only the drone strike at Baghdad airport, directly ordered by President Trump, was unilateral, unprovoked and illegal: it was engineered as a stark provocation, to detonate an Iranian reaction that would then be countered by American “self-defense”, packaged as “deterrence”. Call it a perverse form of double down, reversed false flag.

The imperial Mighty Wurlitzer spun it as a “targeted killing”, a pre-emptive op squashing Soleimani’s alleged planning of “imminent attacks” against US diplomats and troops.

False. No evidence whatsoever. And then, Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi, in front of his Parliament, offered the ultimate context: Soleimani was on a diplomatic mission, on a regular flight between Damascus and Baghdad, involved in complex negotiations between Tehran and Riyadh, with the Iraqi Prime Minister as mediator, at the request of President Trump.

So the imperial machine – in complete mockery of international law – assassinated a de facto diplomatic envoy.

The three top factions who pushed for Soleimani’s assassination were US neo-cons – supremely ignorant of Southwest Asia’s history, culture and politics – and the Israeli and Saudi lobbies, who ardently believe their interests are advanced every time Iran is attacked. Trump could not possibly see The Big Picture and its dire ramifications: only what his major Israeli-firster donor Sheldon Adelson dictates, and what Jared of Arabia Kushner whispered in his ear, remote-controlled by his close pal Muhammad bin Salman (MbS).

The armor of American “prestige”

The measured Iranian response to Soleimani’s assassination was carefully calibrated to not detonate vengeful imperial “deterrence”:

precision missile strikes on the American-controlled Ain al-Assad air base in Iraq. The Pentagon received advance warning.

Predictably, the run-up towards the first anniversary of Soleimani’s assassination had to degenerate into intimations of US-Iran once again on the brink of war.

So it’s enlightening to examine what the Commander of the IRGC Aerospace Division, Brigadier General Amir-Ali Hajizadeh, https://www.tasnimnews.com/fa/news/1399/10/13/2423366/ told Lebanon’s Al Manar network: “The US and the Zionist regime [Israel] have not brought security to any place and if something happens here (in the region) and a war breaks out, we will make no distinction between the US bases and the countries hosting them.”

Hajizadeh, expanding on the precision missile strikes a year ago, added, “We were prepared for the Americans’ response and all our missile power was fully on alert. If they had given a response, we would have hit all of their bases from Jordan to Iraq and the Persian Gulf and even their warships in the Indian Ocean.”

The precision missile strikes on Ain al-Assad, a year ago, represented a middle-rank power, enfeebled by sanctions, and facing a huge economic/financial crisis, responding to an attack by targeting imperial assets that are part of the Empire of Bases. That was a global first – unheard of since the end of WWII. It was clearly interpreted across vast swathes of the Global South as fatally piercing the decades-old hegemonic armor of American” prestige”.

So Tehran was not exactly impressed by two nuclear-capable B-52s recently flying over the Persian Gulf; or the US Navy announcing the arrival of the nuclear-powered, missile loaded USS Georgia in the Persian Gulf last week.

These deployments were spun as a response to an evidence-free claim that Tehran was behind a 21-rocket attack against the sprawling American embassy in Baghdad’s Green Zone.

The (unexploded) 107mm caliber rockets – by the way marked in English, not Farsi – can be easily bought in some underground Baghdad souk by virtually anybody, as I have seen for myself in Iraq since the mid-2000s.

That certainly does not qualify as a casus belli – or “self-defense” merging with “deterrence”. The Centcom justification actually sounds like a Monty Python sketch: an attack “…almost certainly conducted by an Iranian-backed rogue militia group.” Note that “almost certainly” is code for “we have no idea who did it”.

How to fight the – real – war on terror

Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif did take the trouble (see attached tweet) to warn Trump he was being set up for a fake casus belli – and blowback would be inevitable. That’s a case of Iranian diplomacy being perfectly aligned with the IRGC: after all, the whole post-Soleimani strategy comes straight from Ayatollah Khamenei.

And that leads to the IRGC’s Hajizadeh once again establishing the Iranian red line in terms of the Islamic Republic’s defense: “We will not negotiate about the missile power with anyone” – pre-empting any move to incorporate missile reduction into a possible Washington return to the JCPOA. Hajizadeh has also emphasized that Tehran has restricted the range of its missiles to 2,000 km.

My friend Elijah Magnier, arguably the top war correspondent across Southwest Asia in the past four decades, has neatly detailed the importance of Soleimani.

Everyone not only along the Axis of Resistance – Tehran, Baghdad, Damascus, Hezbollah – but across vast swathes of the Global South is firmly aware of how Soleimani led the fight against ISIS/Daesh in Iraq from 2014 to 2015, and how he was instrumental in retaking Tikrit in 2015.

Zeinab Soleimani, the impressive General’s daughter, has profiled the man, and the sentiments he inspired. And Hezbollah’s secretary-general Sayed Nasrallah, in an extraordinary interview, stressed Soleimani’s “great humility”, even “with the common people, the simple people.”

Nasrallah tells a story that is essential to place Soleimani’s modus operandi in the real – not fictional – war on terror, and deserves to be quoted in full:

“At that time, Hajj Qassem traveled from Baghdad airport to Damascus airport, from where he came (directly) to Beirut, in the southern suburbs. He arrived to me at midnight. I remember very well what he said to me: “At dawn you must have provided me with 120 (Hezbollah) operation commanders.” I replied “But Hajj, it’s midnight, how can I provide you with 120 commanders?” He told me that there was no other solution if we wanted to fight (effectively) against ISIS, to defend the Iraqi people, our holy places [5 of the 12 Imams of Twelver Shi’ism have their mausoleums in Iraq], our Hawzas [Islamic seminars], and everything that existed in Iraq. There was no choice. “I don’t need fighters. I need operational commanders [to supervise the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Units, PMU].” This is why in my speech [about Soleimani’s assassination], I said that during the 22 years or so of our relationship with Hajj Qassem Soleimani, he never asked us for anything. He never asked us for anything, not even for Iran. Yes, he only asked us once, and that was for Iraq, when he asked us for these (120) operations commanders. So he stayed with me, and we started contacting our (Hezbollah) brothers one by one. We were able to bring in nearly 60 operational commanders, including some brothers who were on the front lines in Syria, and whom we sent to Damascus airport [to wait for Soleimani], and others who were in Lebanon, and that we woke up from their sleep and brought in [immediately] from their house as the Hajj said he wanted to take them with him on the plane that would bring him back to Damascus after the dawn prayer. And indeed, after praying the dawn prayer together, they flew to Damascus with him, and Hajj Qassem traveled from Damascus to Baghdad with 50 to 60 Lebanese Hezbollah commanders, with whom he went to the front lines in Iraq. He said he didn’t need fighters, because thank God there were plenty of volunteers in Iraq. But he needed [battle-hardened] commanders to lead these fighters, train them, pass on experience and expertise to them, etc. And he didn’t leave until he took my pledge that within two or three days I would have sent him the remaining 60 commanders.”

Orientalism, all over again

A former commander under Soleimani that I met in Iran in 2018 had promised me and my colleague Sebastiano Caputo that he would try to arrange an interview with the Maj Gen – who never spoke to foreign media. We had no reason to doubt our interlocutor – so until the last Baghdad minute we were in this selective waiting list.

As for Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, killed side by side with Soleimani in the Baghdad drone strike, I was part of a small group who spent an afternoon with him in a safe house inside – not outside – Baghdad’s Green Zone in November 2017. My full report is here.

Prof. Mohammad Marandi of the University of Tehran, reflecting on the assassination, told me, “the most important thing is that the Western view on the situation is very Orientalist. They assume that Iran has no real structures and that everything is dependent on individuals. In the West an assassination doesn’t destroy an administration, company, or organization. Ayatollah Khomeini passed away and they said the revolution was finished. But the constitutional process produced a new leader within hours. The rest is history.”

This may go a long way to explain Soleimani geopolitics. He may have been a revolutionary superstar – many across the Global South see him as the Che Guevara of Southwest Asia – but he was most of all a quite articulated cog of a very articulated machine.

The adjunct President of the Iranian Parliament, Hossein Amirabdollahian, told Iranian network Shabake Khabar that Soleimani, two years before the assassination, had already envisaged an inevitable “normalization” between Israel and Persian Gulf monarchies.

At the same time he was also very much aware of the Arab League 2002 position – shared, among others, by Iraq, Syria and Lebanon: a “normalization” cannot even begin to be discussed without an independent – and viable – Palestinian state under 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as capital.

Now everyone knows this dream is dead, if not completely buried. What remains is the usual, dreary slog: the American assassination of Soleimani, the Israeli assassination of top Iranian scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, the relentless, relatively low-intensity Israeli warfare against Iran fully supported by the Beltway, Washington’s illegal occupation of parts of northeast Syria to grab some oil, the perpetual drive for regime change in Damascus, the non-stop demonization of Hezbollah.

Beyond the Hellfire

Tehran has made it very clear that a return to at least a measure of mutual respect between US-Iran involves Washington rejoining the JCPOA with no preconditions, and the end of illegal, unilateral Trump administration sanctions. These parameters are non-negotiable.

Nasrallah, for his part, in a speech in Beirut on Sunday, stressed,

“one of the main outcomes of the assassination of General Soleimani and al-Muhandis is the calls made for the expulsion of US forces from the region. Such calls had not been made prior to the assassination. The martyrdom of the resistance leaders set US troops on the track of leaving Iraq.”

This may be wishful thinking, because the military-industrial-security complex will never willingly abandon a key hub of the Empire of Bases.

More important is the fact that the post-Soleimani environment transcends Soleimani.

The Axis of Resistance – Tehran-Baghdad-Damascus-Hezbollah – instead of collapsing, will keep getting reinforced.

Internally, and still under “maximum pressure” sanctions, Iran and Russia will be cooperating to produce Covid-19 vaccines, and the Pasteur Institute of Iran will co-produce a vaccine with a Cuban company.

Iran is increasingly solidified as the key node of the New Silk Roads in Southwest Asia: the Iran-China strategic partnership is constantly revitalized by FMs Zarif and Wang Yi, and that includes Beijing turbo-charging its geoeconomic investment in South Pars – the largest gas field on the planet.

Iran, Russia and China will be involved in the reconstruction of Syria – which will also include, eventually, a New Silk Road branch: the Iran-Iraq-Syria-Eastern Mediterranean railway.

All that is an interlinked, ongoing process no Hellfires are able to burn.

Persian Gulf in the US and Israel’s Sights

By Viktor Mikhin
Source: New Eastern Outlook

SLM

After more than three years of diplomatic tensions and a hostile media campaign against each other, it seems that Saudi Arabia and Qatar finally decided to settle their relations. Political scientists and experts around the world are now wondering what finally motivated the two rivals to put their differences behind them and start a policy of rapprochement.

In this regard, it should be noted that in June 2017, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates — commonly known as the “Arab Quartet” — severed diplomatic relations with Qatar and imposed a complete blockade on the tiny emirate of the Persian Gulf. These countries, led by Riyadh, closed their airspace, land and sea routes to Qatari planes, cars and ships, prompting Doha to use Iranian airspace. Kuwait, a country stuck in the middle of a dispute between its neighbors, tried diligently to reconcile the opposing sides, and even the “great peacemaker of the Persian Gulf” — now deceased Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al Sabah — entered the case, but to no avail.

In the end, however, Kuwaiti mediation efforts seem to have brought fruit. Kuwaiti Foreign Affairs Minister Sheikh Ahmed Nasser Al-Mohammad Al Sabah spoke on Kuwaiti State Television to read a statement about the split between Qatar and the Arab Quartet:  “Recently, fruitful discussions took place. All parties expressed their interest in unity and stability in the Persian Gulf and Arab countries, as well as in reaching a final agreement that will ensure lasting solidarity”.

Qatar and Saudi Arabia welcomed Kuwait’s efforts, while Bahrain, Egypt and the UAE, which boycotted the emirate along with the Saudis, remain silent. Some news reports suggest that Riyadh has broken off the ranks of these allies to normalize relations with Qatar under US pressure. Bahrain, Egypt, and the UAE are not members of the normalization agreement that the Saudis intend to sign with Qatar. Some Arab media reported that normalization would begin with a bilateral agreement between Riyadh and Doha, followed by Manama and Cairo. The UAE’s stance is still unclear, even if they tend to be reluctant to pursue this issue in the waterway of Saudi Arabia.

Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Affairs Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al-Thani expressed the Qatari optimism regarding the solution of the Persian Gulf crisis, adding that the Emirate has a strong positive attitude towards any initiative that brings peace to the region.  Moreover, Saudi Arabia also expressed optimism that the three-year crisis would soon be resolved. Saudi Foreign Affairs Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan said at a conference of the International Institute for Security Studies in Manama, Bahrain, that “significant progress” has been made in resolving the crisis that began in 2017.

Although the details of the deal between Qatar and Saudi Arabia have not yet been made public, political analysts and experts in the region have rightly placed the event in the broader context of “boiling tensions” between Iran, on the one hand, and the United States and Israel, on the other. It should be recognized that the current US president Donald Trump is still defending his advantages to the very last, resorting to all visible and invisible methods. Initially, a plan to launch a military strike on the alleged nuclear facilities of Iran was revealed. In this connection, there was even a secret meeting in the White House, where Trump asked his military and advisers about such a possibility. However, the military, accustomed to a quiet and peaceful life, with the situation with Iran, which has modern air defense equipment and missiles, which can easily cover all US bases in the region with a barrage of fire, has somewhat cooled the fervor of the belligerent president. But, nevertheless, the American President’s advisors, among which is the senior advisor of the White House Hasid Jared Kushner, Trump’s favorite brother-in-law, constantly keep buzzing in the President’s ears about the impending threat to America from “bearded Iranian ayatollahs”.

Finally, a solution was reached – Jared Kushner and his team rushed to Saudi Arabia and Qatar to negotiate in a region bubbling with tension and hatred towards Israel and the United States after the despicable assassination of Iranian scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, who had recently worked on the COVID-19 issue.   The delegation included Ambassadors for the Middle East Avi Berkowitz, Brian Hook and Adam Boler, Executive Director of the American International Development Finance Corporation.  Incidentally, the senior advisor and his team have recently been actively involved in negotiations to normalize relations between Israel and Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Sudan. Officials said in public speeches that they would like to promote and sign more such agreements before President Donald Trump transfers power to President-elect Joe Biden on January 20.

American officials believe, and the US media sometimes write, that Saudi Arabia’s involvement in the deal with Israel will encourage other Arab countries to follow their example. But the Saudis don’t seem to have reached such a milestone deal, and officials in recent weeks have focused on other countries concerned about Iran’s regional influence as a unifying factor.

Kushner’s trip took place shortly after the assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh by unknown attackers, whose hand was allegedly pointed by the Israeli Mossad and the American CIA. In fact, a few days before the murder, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited Saudi Arabia and met with Mohammed bin Salman, joined by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Given that Joe Biden has repeatedly announced his intention to join an international nuclear pact with Iran, Mohammed bin Salman and Benjamin Netanyahu fear that the future White House master will pursue a policy toward Iran similar to that adopted during Barack Obama’s presidency, which has sharpened Washington’s ties with its traditional regional allies and, in particular, with Israel.

Therefore, there is no doubt that the deal between Qatar and Saudi Arabia will be directed against Iran, although it is not yet clear how it will affect the Iranian-Qatari relationships. Both parties to the deal — Qatar and Saudi Arabia — have not yet gone into detail and, for example, the Qatar embassy in Tehran has refused to comment on any details of the agreement. Yet this deal may not be sufficient to safeguard Qatar’s national interests, especially if it pushes the emirate away from Iran, which has opened its airspace and sea routes to Doha over the past three years. This new arrangement between Riyadh and Doha is obviously of direct relevance to the US, but it is most likely related to Iran, because the situation in the region has not only not changed as a result of thoughtless policies of Washington, but has further strained the situation.

Qatar and Saudi Arabia are still in a state of competition in many countries, such as Libya and Syria. When Qatar was under blockade, it sought support from other countries, including the Islamic Republic of Iran, and therefore, if the Qataris damaged their previous relations by getting closer to the Saudis, there would be very high risks for Doha, the Tehran Times stressed. The newspaper also noted that the establishment of relations between Doha and Riyadh can never be in Qatar’s favor, as Saudi Arabia still does not recognize the role of Doha in regional issues and both countries are fiercely competing in Egypt.

Iran welcomed Kuwait’s mediation efforts to end the three-year crisis between Qatar and the Arab Quartet. But Tehran seems to be closely monitoring the situation in the region in light of US and Israeli efforts to increase pressure on the Islamic Republic.  Iran seeks to strengthen ties with Qatar and other Arab states in the region, but it also seeks to make it clear to those states that it does not accept any restructuring aimed at harming its interests.  “We welcome understandings in the Persian Gulf announced by Kuwait. Iran’s longstanding policy is diplomacy, good neighborly relations & regional dialogue. We hope reconciliation contributes to stability and political & economic development for all peoples of our region,” Iranian Foreign Affairs Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif tweeted a few hours after Kuwait issued a statement saying that ”fruitful negotiations“ had been held between all parties to the conflict.

Undoubtedly, the situation in the Persian Gulf is far from any settlement. And even if Riyadh’s Doha settles its difficult relations, the most important question remains — the relations of the United States and Israel with Iran and their futile efforts to change the state system in this Islamic Republic.

Viktor Mikhin, corresponding member of RANS, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

The Maxwells: Mossad’s First Family of Spies

By Philip Giraldi

Source

Who was running whom in the Epstein espionage ring?
Maxwell Family 55370

The story of the deceased pedophile and presumed Israeli spy Jeffrey Epstein continues to enthrall because so little of the truth regarding it has been revealed in spite of claims by the government that a thorough follow-up investigation has been initiated. The case is reportedly still open and it is to be presumed that Justice Department investigators have been able to examine certain aspects of what occurred more intensively. A major part of the investigation has been a review of actions taken by the four government prosecutors who were most directly involved with the negotiations with Epstein and his lawyers in 2007-8. The 22 month-long review, carried out by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), finally produced a 350 page report which was released on November 12th.

The DOJ has now picked out a scapegoat for what many now think was gross prosecutorial negligence, possibly including corruption of senior government officials. He is not surprisingly Alexander Acosta, who was the U.S. Attorney for Miami when the Epstein case came up. Relying substantially on internal government emails as well as communications between the prosecutors and Epstein’s team of high-profile lawyers to reach its conclusion, the OPR review concluded that Acosta exhibited “poor judgment” in his handling of the Epstein deal. He did not inform the victims or their attorneys of developments in the case, as required by law, and overruled the lead prosecutor and FBI agents who argued that Epstein should face serious jail time. He even cut a deal with Epstein before the investigation into his crimes was completed. The OPR investigators also determined that many emails that would have materially aided the plaintiffs were not made available to their attorneys, a shortcoming that the report attributed to a “technological error.”

The email gap covers the time span from May 2007, when the prosecutor’s office prepared a 53-page draft indictment of Epstein, to April 2008, shortly before Epstein’s guilty plea and slap-on-the-wrist sentence in state court ended the federal investigation. Epstein’s defense attorneys had during that time period been engaged in an aggressive lobbying campaign to persuade the federal prosecutors to rescind the indictment and shut down the federal case. Epstein’s “sweetheart deal” with the federal government negated a possible conviction of serious crimes against 19 alleged victims, most of whom were minors. Instead of a possible sentence of between 14 and 17 years in federal prison, Epstein was encouraged by federal prosecutors to plead guilty to two prostitution-related crimes in state court to resolve the case. He served 13 months of an 18-month sentence in a county jail on a liberal work release program, often sleeping in his own home, and the federal case was duly closed.

It is, of course, noticeable that neither Acosta, who has possibly now retired from public life, nor anyone else will be punished for what was clearly a gross miscarriage of justice. That is the way the government works these days. But there is also a much bigger problem with the report, which is that it essentially failed to follow up on an argument that Acosta made when the bungling of the Epstein case began to surface in the media last year.

There has, in fact, been a cover-up of a major element in the Epstein saga, namely his possible connection with Israel’s intelligence agency Mossad. Investigative reporter Whitney Webb has recently completed  of what we know about Epstein’s partner in crime, lover and accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, to include some consideration of the possible involvement of her sisters Isabel and Christine in activity initially directed by their father, known Mossad agent Robert Maxwell.

The evidence that Epstein was directly involved in intelligence work to include bribing or blackmailing prominent individuals to act on behalf of Israel, derives both from the statement made by Acosta in 2017 that “I was told Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and to leave it alone,” a comment that the Justice Department and FBI have apparently never sought to investigate further. It also derives from other external evidence. Epstein was found to be making videos of his guests having sex with his young girls, which is a version of a classic intelligence entrapment technique employed by every major spy agency worldwide and in his Manhattan mansion he had a large supply of diamonds, cash and an Austrian passport on hand if he should have to make a quick escape.

That Epstein would be linked to Israel rather than to some other intelligence service is inevitably due to his relationship with Robert Maxwell, which eventually included his daughter Ghislaine. Robert, a Czech Jew who became a naturalized British citizen, was believed by C.I.A. and other intelligence services to be a long-time agent of Mossad. After he died under mysterious circumstances, he was given a state funeral in Israel that was attended by every current and former head of the Jewish state’s intelligence service as well as by the country’s prime minister Yitzhak Shamir who eulogized: “He has done more for Israel than can today be said.” Ghislaine reportedly became the principal procurer of Epstein’s young girl victims.

Also corroborating the tale of espionage even if it appears to be of no interest to the FBI and Justice Department, is a book Epstein: Dead Men Tell No Tales written by a former Israeli intelligence officer who actually ran the “Robert Maxwell” operation, describing inter alia how Epstein and Maxwell were blackmailing prominent politicians on behalf of Mossad. According to Ari Ben-Menashe, the two had been working directly for the Israeli government since the 1980’s and their operation, which was funded by Mossad and also by prominent American Jews, was a classic “honey-trap” which used underage girls as bait to attract well-known politicians from around the world, a list that included Prince Andrew and Bill Clinton. The politicians would be photographed and video recorded when they were in bed with the girls.

But in spite of the evidence, the role of Ghislaine, currently in custody in a maximum-security Brooklyn prison, is less well known and is possibly being deliberately concealed by the Trump Administration, which is prone to do favors for Israel. Even less known is the possible roles of her two sisters. Webb details how Maxwell and his Israeli Mossad handlers compromised the top-secret information system then in use by the U.S. government. She observes that “While Ghislaine’s own ties to intelligence have…come to light in relation to her critical role in facilitating the Jeffrey Epstein sexual blackmail operation,…little, if any attention, has been paid to her siblings, particularly Christine and her twin sister Isabel, despite them having held senior roles at the Israeli intelligence front company that facilitated their father’s greatest act of espionage on Israel’s behalf, the sale of the bugged PROMIS software to the U.S. national laboratories at the heart of the country’s nuclear weapons system… Ghislaine herself also became involved in these [blackmail] affairs, as did Jeffrey Epstein following his first arrest, as they began courting the biggest names in the U.S. tech scene, from Silicon Valley’s most powerful venture capital firms to its most well-known titans. This also dovetailed with Epstein’s investments in Israeli intelligence-linked tech firms and his claims of having troves of blackmail on prominent tech company CEOs during this same period.”

Upon Robert Maxwell’s mysterious death in 1991, his sons Kevin and Ian took control of many of the interlocking companies that their father had used both to conceal assets and to obtain access and information while Ghislaine remained in the New York area and two other daughters Isabel and Christine opted to exploit the internet as an intelligence resource to build upon their father’s “legacy.”

Isabel, in particular, moved aggressively and eventually became recognized as the self-styled liaison between Israel’s government and Silicon Valley. Whitney Webb recounts in considerable detail how she “mov[ed] in ‘the same circles as her father’ and vow[ed] to ‘work only on things involving Israel’ … [to become] a pivotal liaison for the entry of Israeli intelligence-linked tech firms into Silicon Valley with the help of Microsoft’s two co-founders, Paul Allen and Bill Gates.”

One has to suspect that a tale of Mossad running a major spy ring in the U.S. using a pedophile and young girls might just be too much for some folks in power to tolerate and they have made sure that the true story will never see the light of day. But the tale of how the prominent ostensibly British Maxwell family, acting for Mossad, may have systematically spied on the United States over a number of years, often pretty much out in the open, and the FBI and Justice Department saw fit to look the other way, is bigger still. That is the real story. Israel yet again spies and Washington denies.

Breaking/Exclusive: Iran Assassinates Mossad Chief in Downtown Tel Aviv (updated/videos/proof)

By VT Editors -December 6, 2020

VT: Two days ago, VT published an exclusive story based on news we received from Tel Aviv. 

Short months go, VT was the only media to report the nuclear bombing of Tel Aviv until, of all things, VT’s story was confirmed by President Donald Trump.

Our sources say teams of Iranian intelligence officers entered Israel under false identities more than a week ago.  They had long established safe houses inside Israel.

Their task was to kill the the operational head of the Mossad, Fahmi Hinawi, who had planned the murder of Iranian scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh in Tehran.

Our reports confirmed that Hinawi was hit in a hail or bullets and that there may have been other attacks as well.  Confirmation have come in from Arab News, Sputnik News in Russia and the Iranian media.

The 15-bullet riddled car of senior Mossad officer Fahmi Hinavi, December 3, 2020 (screenshot via Twitter)

VT: Confirmed, Fahmi Hinavi, operational chief of Israel’s Mossad, was killed by an Iranian team inside Tel Aviv on Thursday night.

Hinavi is thought to be the force behind the assassination of an Iranian nuclear scientist a few short weeks ago.  This is the only killing we have been able to learn about but it is suspected that others have been killed inside Israel as well, totally censored in the Western press.

On the evening of Thursday, December 3, a 45-year-old Israeli by the name of Fahmi Hinavi was liquidated while he was traveling in his car, south-east of Tel Aviv: 15 bullets were reportedly fired by assailants who then evaporated most easily in nature, without leaving any trace  : for an entity whose secret services claim, in the wake of the terrorist attack of November 27 and the targeted assassination of the nuclear physicist in Iranian leader Fakhrizadeh, makes Iran “a playground”, and whose leader, Yossi Cohen goes so far as to suggest that it is far from the last “, it is rather borderline.

This is all the more limited as for 48 hours, no Israeli media dared to speak about it for fear that the Zionist settlers, panicked that they are already at the idea of ​​having to pay the price of the blood of the Iranian, begin to make links between this liquidation and two other similar liquidation cases produced in recent days at X and Y and to think that the “Resistance” is much closer to them than the blows suggest. bluff of Cohen et Cie …

But on Friday evening, things started to get out of hand and social networks to disseminate images of a shooting that would have everything to look like “a response”: the attackers would have approached the vehicle of Officer Hinavi while he had stopped at a red light before unloading their machine gun and then leaving. The media tried to pass the “guy” by a quidam, victim of a family quarrel but the presence of Mossad forces and security services even before the police arrived at the scene left no doubt: Cohen lost a big hat!

The big question: does the liquidation of Hinavi have any connection with the cowardly assassination of Fakhrizadeh, seven days rather while the latter was traveling in his car not far from the Iranian capital Tehran? Possible and the blow would be much cleaner: if the Mossad took 20 years to have Fakhrizadeh and this, not with the help of a commando composed of 12 assassins as suggested by the Golf press in their excess of enthusiasm, but by a “remote-controlled machine gun”, Hinavi was himself liquidated in the middle of the street, by “several attackers” who “did it most easily”. This being the case, there is something fishy about it!

Since the assassination of the senior Iranian scientist, there are reports of a real earthquake within the intelligence apparatus and the Israeli armed forces which accuse the Netanyahu-Cohen couple of having acted against Iran without them. warn:  it is even said that the Minister of War Gantz, whose Chief of Staff repeats to whoever wants to hear that Israel is ready for all Iranian war scenarios, refuses to assume “militarily” the consequences of “Netanyhau’s act”since Israel would be “ruined” at the “first Iranian missile fire” or its “proxies”! A sign of existing tensions, Friday, December 4, and even though so far he boasted of having designated Fakhrizadeh’s name as a target to be shot in 2018 and finally managed to get it, Netanyahu appeared on the screen of the American Hudson Institute to accuse Iran of accusing Israel of any event that occurs there. Visibly embarrassed to have been questioned about the murder of November 27, he launched: “the Iranians are accusing us of everything true or false.”

In short, for the past week Israel has been in a mess and the temptation is great in any way, including self-mutilation, to “ease the pressure”. Self-mutilation would be welcome. Moreover, an Iranian response would go well beyond the Hinavi cases. On Thursday, a general alert was raised at the Dimona nuclear reactor in the Negev, the Tel Aviv regime having warned its “old and new employees” against “the danger” which now awaits them at the turn of every street, every alley or even when they were at home… Thus, the response promised by Iran paradoxically comes to be grafted to that of Hezbollah for the murder of “Kamel Mohsen” to thus widen the “circle of anguish” of the Zionist soldiers to “researchers”, “academics “, to the” Think Tankists “, … of Israel, Nasrallah having already promised the bullet from his snipers to the Israeli military, Iran having sworn that his” response “will be” painful and precise “.

And Iran will strike Israel …
Cowardly Murdered Fakhri Zadeh: The Misstep of Too Much
Sign of the hell that the Zionist entity saw, Israel Hayom attacked Thursday against the cyberwar units of the army, target Saturday, a few hours after the assassination of Fakhrizadeh, of the super hackers of BlackShadow: “these are people who demand bitcoin from us by threatening to publish the data of thousands of clients of insurance companies, including officers, officials, military, academics … Israelis. A first ransom amount reaches a million dollars. .but one has the impression that it is only a decoy and that this intermittent reappearance of BlackSadow has something with Iran … “

In August 2020, the Zionist army, on high alert on the Northern Front and waiting for Hezbollah to fire, engaged in a ridiculous maneuver by sending its units to hunt ghosts and claiming to have neutralized an Israeli commando operation. At the time, all intelligence sources laughed at an Israel which, well aware of its military and intelligence flaws, was carrying out shoddy “False Flags” since a “false flag” operation was intended in principle to be given to the strongest the pretext of attacking the weakest … But here again the Zionist regime intends to reverse the principles … clumsily. Fakhrizadeh is worth more than a thousand thousand Hinavi … he is worth all of Israel and more …

ABOUT VT EDITORSVT EditorsVeterans Today

VT Editors is a General Posting account managed by Jim W. Dean and Gordon Duff. All content herein is owned and copyrighted by Jim W. Dean and Gordon Duffeditors@veteranstoday.com

Related

Response to Fakhrizadeh’s assassination in Iran time الردّ على اغتيال فخري زاده بتوقيت إيران

Response to Fakhrizadeh’s assassination in Iran time

Munther Suleiman and Jafar al-Jaafari

Security experts agreed that the operation required high-level intelligence and professionalism capabilities that only professional states possessed for “state terrorism” operations.

Immediately after the assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh (November 27th), Siham accused the Israeli-Mossad intelligence service of u.S. cooperation, not only from the Iranian side concerned, but also from the “semi-official” U.S.side.

The scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh has been at the top of the u.S. most wanted list since the time of former President George W. Bush, Jr., and “Israeli”, evidence that Israeli intelligence officials acknowledged that an earlier attempt on his life had been prepared and delayed at the last minute. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu reviewed Dr. Mohsen Fakhrizadeh’s name at a media festival in 2018, boasting: “Remember that name:Fakhrizadeh.”

We can say that the United States also acknowledged the “unofficial” words of President Trump himself during the first hours of the assassination, by posting a tweet on his official account conveying the news about “Israeli” sources, and in Hebrew, which he did not master at all.

He soon recalled the man’s history in the media, as “the father of the nuclear bomb, and in recent years he has been working on a project to reduce the size of the nuclear warhead and enable it to maintain its effectiveness in the phase of the entry of the carrier ballistic missile into the atmosphere towards the target”.

The reasons for the assassination and the more likely possibilities for how it occurred remain subject to the availability of accurate operational information, which is unlikely to be completed soon for reasons of confidentiality, and we have a return below to discussit.

Later on the day of the assassination, the New York Times revealed what a “high-ranking U.S. source” told her, saying that “Israel is responsible for carrying out the assassination,” without explaining his identity or why he was sure of the perpetrator.

The assassination coincided with the U.S. mobilisation of additional military resources, with the Navy announcing the movement of the Nimitz nuclear aircraft carrier stationed in the region, as the decision to withdraw a number of U.S. troops from Afghanistan matured, u.S. commanders said.

Moving the nuclear carrier into the region may not be sufficient to conclude that a military attack is about to take off, assuming u.S. operational experience and military doctrine and requiring the movement of a number of other naval pieces, reinforced by missile-carrying submarines, destroyers and cruisers.

The weapon of assassination of scientists entered active service with political decision makers since the beginning of the era of nuclear technology in the early 1940s, with an American plan to “kidnap or assassinate” German physicist Werner Heisenberg in 1942, given the scientific gap at the time between the progress of German technology and the inevitability of its success in the manufacture of a nuclear bomb, and parallel U.S. efforts in the “ManhattanNuclear Program”.

William Toby, an American nuclear energy expert at harvard University, said that “the most important thing to achieve is to postpone, not stop, the nuclear program of the. adversary, and perhaps form a deterrent to the accession of other minds and competencies to the program” (November 27, 2020).

Toby stressed the “denial of responsibility” space provided by the weapon of assassination of scientists to the aggressor, given the complexities of any state’s nuclear programme, as well as the nature of direct military action and its crucial identity. He also warned of the short- and medium-term adverse consequences of the effectiveness of the assassination, as the attacking party would lead to a reduction in the ceiling of cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and “possibly an end to cooperation with it altogether”.

After the assassination, there was unprecedented confusion in the narrative of the Iranian authorities, and the multiplicity of officials who gave their opinions, but the most prominent common factor is the detection of a security gap in The Iranian agencies, not the first in the targeting of their scientists, which led to what led to it.

It is certain that since 2007 we have witnessed a series of bombings that killed four Iranian scientists and failed another operation. Their activities were said to have been in the process of developing Iran’s nuclear program, ranging from “toxic gas possibly the real source of an accident at the facility, to remote-controlled explosion, and direct shooting at a car carrying the person concerned.” Now, a new narrative is echoed by the use of a marching aircraft and infrared surveillance devices also controlled by remotes.

The successive Iranian statements were not based on a specific narrative, except that the assassination is considered a war decision, but we witnessed 3 interpretations or jurisprudence that simulate the mechanisms of carrying out the operation: the car Of Fakhrizadeh was subjected to a barrage of bullets, in conjunction with the explosion of a locomotive before his arrival, which slowed down his movement, a human ambush reinforced by about 12 elements, including snipers, and the firing of a “remote-controlled machine gun” prayers of bullets.

The latest theory – remote-based machine gun – is not entirely excluded as electronic technologies advance, especially “sophisticated weapons. through the use of robots,” according to The Forbes Weekly (November 30, 2020).

The magazine, quoting its military sources, confirmed that an innovative weapon for remote shooting and firing was used in Syria “through the Free Syrian Army in the vicinity of Idlib city in 2013”, and the prototypes of it moved to the control and use of Kurdish forces and elements of “ISIS”, according to a 2016 U.S. army report, entitled “Remote control of sniper weapons and machine guns by terrorists and insurgents.”

With an intense targeting of the U.S. tank tower in Afghanistan and Iraq, u.S. military command replaced the human element in the tower through the CROWSsystem, which allows remote control ofa weapons center, and provided the Norwegian company Kongsberg with some 200,000 such systems for the U.S. Army, a system reinforced with thermal camera technologies, introduced to service on U.S. combat vehicles..

Infrared landscape technology is available in the U.S. commercial market, albeit with relatively low specifications for military models, manufactured by the American Network of Technology(ATN),supplied by U.S. Special Forces. One of its features is remote control of night binoculars, which is reinforced by a ballistic computer to ensure accuracy..

One of the most prominent conclusions of the report of the magazine mentioned what it described as the “positive advantages” of that weapon, namely, reducing the element of adventure by killing or arresting the control of the weapon to zero, and the impossibility of monitoring and tracking the coordinates of the source of the attack.

The magazine suggested that the use of remote weapons left no trace of Iranian investigators, despite one of the official narratives that indicated that there was evidence at the site linking the attack to Israeli agencies, and that the “concealment of the identity” of the executor was the main motive behind the use of this technology by a number of countries using drones, for example.

Security and military experts agree that this operation “constitutes a major security breach that necessitated high-level intelligence and professionalism capabilities that are possessed only by professional states for “state terrorism” operations, and that the perpetrator discovered a loophole in the internal security system in Iran, and exploited it and was able to carry it out, enabling it to succeed,” which refutes one of the Iranian narratives that its intelligence services were “aware of an imminent attack.”

In a purely political dimension, since wars are the application of politics with other tools, according to Carl von Klaus Fitz, the centre of gravity for the objectives of the process is shifting to the conflict between American politicians, given president-elect Joe Biden’s conciliatory statements that he will resume U.S. membership in the international nuclear agreement, “with some conditions tightened and others added.”

From this perspective, U.S. observers specifically emphasise the “postponement” of iran’s promised response, leaving time for the next administration to deal positively with the international agreement, and possibly a return to the elimination of some U.S. sanctions imposed by the outgoing Trump administration.

In this regard, the fact of the official U.S. hostility to the Iranian regime and its roots should not be. overlooked, and from time to time the incident of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and the detention of its employees for several years with the victory of the Iranian revolution in 1979.

At the same level, one recognizes the consensus of U.S. decision makers not to allow Iran to possess nuclear knowledge and weapons, based on the commitment of the ruling institution in its entirety and currents “to maintain Israel’s superiority over all countries in the region” with qualitative weapons that are forbidden to other parties, individually or collectively, to acquire, Indeed, some senior U.S. strategists argue: “Regardless of the identity of the U.S. president, hostility will continue in relations with Iran as we have seen and seen over the past four decades, and Iran will continue to blame the United States and Israel for any incidents they face in the foreseeable future, whether or not they are found to be involved.”

With these lines written, the possibility of postponing the Iranian retaliatory strike, not the possibility of its cancellation, is reinforced by the view of the internal interactions in the israeli crisis entity, and the flexible statements of President-elect Biden on the Iranian nuclear file, accompanied by an argument at home iran about the tactic and the short-term strategy for the best response to the assassination, as factors that will not make Tehran rush a military/security response, to keep it a margin of movement and appropriate options, depending on the schedule, not the schedule ofothers.

الردّ على اغتيال فخري زاده بتوقيت إيران

منذر سليمان   جعفر الجعفري

خبراء أمنيون أجمعوا على أنّ العملية استلزمت قدرات استخباريّة واحترافاً عالي المستوى لا تملكه إلا الدول المحترفة لعمليات “إرهاب الدولة”.

فور تنفيذ عمليّة اغتيال محسن فخري زاده (27 تشرين الثاني/نوفمبر)، توجّهت سهام الاتهام إلى جهاز الاستخبارات “الإسرائيلي – الموساد”، بتعاون أميركيّ، ليس من الجانب الإيرانيّ المعنيّ الأوّل بذلك فقط، بل من الجانب الأميركي “شبه الرسمي” أيضاً.

العالم محسن فخري زاده كان على رأس قائمات المطلوبين أميركياً منذ عهد الرئيس الأسبق جورج بوش الابن، و”إسرائيلياً”، بدليل اعتراف مسؤولي استخبارات “إسرائيل” بأنّ محاولة سابقة لاغتياله تم إعدادها وتأجَّل تنفيذها في اللحظات الأخيرة. أما رئيس الوزراء بنيامين نتنياهو، فقد استعرض اسم الدكتور محسن فخري زاده في مهرجان إعلامي عقده في العام 2018، متبجّحاً: “تذكّروا هذا الاسم: فخري زاده”.

 بوسعنا القول إنَّ الولايات المتّحدة اعترفت أيضاً بكلام “غير رسمي” على لسان الرئيس ترامب نفسه خلال الساعات الأولى للاغتيال، بنشره تغريدة في حسابه الرسمي ينقل فيها الخبر عن المصادر “الإسرائيلية”، وباللغة العبريّة التي لا يتقنها مطلقاً.

وسرعان ما استُحضر تاريخ الرجل في الإعلام، بوصفه “أب القنبلة النووية، وأنه انكبّ يعمل في السنوات الأخيرة على مشروع تصغير حجم الرأس الحربي النووي وتمكينه من الاحتفاظ بفاعليته في مرحلة دخول الصاروخ الباليستي الحامل إلى الغلاف الجوي نحو الهدف”.

 حيثيات الاغتيال والاحتمالات الأكثر ترجيحاً لكيفية وقوعه، تبقى مرهونة بتوفر معلومات عملياتية دقيقة، وهو أمر يستبعد إنجازه قريباً لدواعي السرّية، ولنا عودة أدناه لمناقشة الأمر.

في وقت لاحق من يوم الاغتيال، كشفت صحيفة “نيويورك تايمز” عما أخبرها به “مصدر أميركي رفيع المستوى”، قائلاً “إن إسرائيل هي المسؤولة عن تنفيذ الاغتيال”، من دون أن توضح هُويته أو سبب يقينه من الفاعل.

 تزامن الاغتيال مع حشد الولايات المتحدة موارد عسكرية إضافية، بإعلان سلاح البحرية عن تحرك حاملة الطائرات النووية “نيميتز” للمرابطة في المنطقة، مع نضوج قرار سحب عدد من القوات الأميركية من أفغانستان، بموجب تصريحات القادة الأميركيين.

 ربما لا يشكّل تحريك الحاملة النووية إلى المنطقة عاملاً كافياً للاستنتاج بأنَّ هجوماً عسكرياً على وشك الانطلاق، إذ تفترض الخبرة العملياتية والعقيدة العسكرية الأميركية وتتطلَّب تحريك عدد من القطع البحرية الأخرى، تعززها غواصات حاملة للصواريخ ومدمّرات وطرادات.

 سلاح اغتيال العلماء دخل الخدمة الفعلية عند صناع القرار السياسي منذ بدء عصر التقنية النووية مطلع عقد الأربعينيات من القرن الماضي، بمخطط أميركي “لخطف أو اغتيال” عالم الفيزياء الألماني فيرنر هايزنبيرغ في العام 1942، نظراً إلى الفجوة العلمية آنذاك بين تقدم التقنية الألمانية وحتمية نجاحها في صنع قنبلة نووية، والجهود الأميركية الموازية في “برنامج مانهاتن” النووي.

 الخبير الأميركي في الطّاقة النووية لدى جامعة “هارفرد” العريقة، ويليام توبي، اعتبر أنَّ “أقصى ما تطمح إلى تحقيقه الجهة المنفّذة لاغتيال علماء الطاقة النووية هو تأجيل وليس إيقاف سير البرنامج النووي للخصم، وربما تشكيل عامل ردع لانضمام عقول وكفاءات أخرى إلى البرنامج” (27 تشرين الثاني/نوفمبر 2020).

وشدّد توبي على ما يوفّره سلاح اغتيال العلماء من مساحة “إنكار المسؤولية” للطرف المعتدي، نظراً إلى تعقيدات البرنامج النووي لأيّ دولة، وإلى طبيعة العمل العسكري المباشر وهويته الحاسمة أيضاً. وحذّر أيضاً من النتائج العكسية على المديين القصير والمتوسط من فعالية الاغتيال، إذ سيقود الطرف المعتدى عليه إلى خفض سقف التعاون مع الهيئة الدولية للطاقة النووية، “وربما إنهاء التعاون معها بالكامل”.

في بُعد ساحة الاغتيال، لوحظ ارتباك غير مسبوق في سردية السلطات الإيرانية، وتعدّد المسؤولين الذين أدلوا بدلوهم، لكنَّ العامل المشترك الأبرز هو الكشف عن ثغرة أمنيّة في الأجهزة الإيرانيّة، ليست الأولى في استهداف علمائها، أدّت إلى ما أدت إليه.

 الثّابت أمامنا أننا شهدنا منذ العام 2007 سلسلة عمليات تفجير أدت إلى مقتل 4 علماء إيرانيين وفشل عملية أخرى. وقد قيل إن نشاطاتهم كانت في سبيل تطوير البرنامج النووي الإيراني، وتراوحت الآليات بين “غاز سام ربما مصدره الحقيقي حادث عرضي في المنشأة، إلى التفجير بالتحكم عن بُعد، وإطلاق النار مباشرة على سيارة تُقلّ الشخصية المعنية”. والآن، تتردّد سردية جديدة عبر استخدام طائرة مسيّرة وأجهزة مراقبة تعمل بالأشعة تحت الحمراء أيضاً يتم التحكم بها عن بعد.

التصريحات الإيرانية المتتالية لم تستند إلى سردية معينة، سوى أن الاغتيال يعتبر قرار حرب، بل شهدنا 3 تفسيرات أو اجتهادات تحاكي آليات تنفيذ العملية: تعرض سيارة فخري زاده لوابل من الرصاص، بالتزامن مع انفجار قاطرة قبل وصوله، ما أدى إلى إبطاء حركته، وكمين بشري معزز بنحو 12 عنصراً، من ضمنهم قناصة، وإطلاق “رشاش بتحكّم عن بعد” صليات من الرصاص.

النظرية الأخيرة – رشاش عن بعد – ليست مستبعدة تماماً في ظل تقدم التقنيات الإلكترونية، وخصوصاً “أسلحة متطورة عبر استخدام الإنسان الآلي”، بحسب أسبوعية “فوربز” الأميركية (30 تشرين الثاني/نوفمبر 2020).

أكّدت المجلة، نقلاً عن مصادرها العسكرية، أن سلاحاً مبتكراً للتصويب والإطلاق عن بُعد استخدم في سوريا “عبر جيش سوريا الحر في محيط مدينة إدلب في العام 2013″، وانتقلت النماذج الأولية منه إلى سيطرة واستخدام القوات الكردية وعناصر “داعش”، بحسب تقرير للجيش الأميركي في العام 2016، بعنوان “التحكّم عن بعد لأسلحة قناصة ورشاشات من قبل الإرهابيين والمتمردين”.

ومع استهداف مكثّف لاصطياد برج الدبابة الأميركية في أفغانستان والعراق، استبدلت القيادة العسكرية الأميركية العنصر البشري في البرج عبر نظام “CROWS”، الذي يسمح بالتحكّم عن بعد بمركز أسلحة، زوّدت الشركة النرويجية “كونغزبيرغ” بنحو 200،000 نظام من هذا النوع للجيش الأميركي وهو نظام معزّز بتقنيات الكاميرا الحرارية، تم إدخالها الخدمة على العربات القتالية الأميركية.

تقنية المناظر الليلة العاملة بالأشعة تحت الحمراء متوفرة في السوق التجاري الأميركي، وإن بمواصفات متدنية نسبياً عن النماذج الحربية، وهي من صناعة شركة “الشبكة الأميركية للتقنية” (ATN)، زوّدت بها القوات الخاصة الأميركية. ومن ميزاتها التحكّم عن بعد بالمناظير الليلية، وهي معزّزة بحاسوب “باليستي” لضمان الدقّة.

من أبرز استنتاجات تقرير المجلّة المذكورة ما وصفته من “ميزات إيجابية” لذاك السلاح، وهي تقليص عنصر المغامرة بمقتل أو اعتقال المتحكّم بالسلاح إلى الصفر، واستحالة رصد وتعقّب إحداثيات مصدر الهجوم.

ورجَّحت المجلّة أنَّ استخدام السلاح عن بُعد لم يترك أي أثر يستفيد منه المحقّقون الإيرانيون، على الرغم من إحدى السرديات الرسمية التي أشارت إلى توفّر أدلة في الموقع تربط الهجوم بالأجهزة الإسرائيلية، بل إن “اخفاء هوية” المنفّذ هو الدافع الرئيسي وراء تسخير عدد من الدول لتلك التقنية باستخدام الطائرات المسيّرة، على سبيل المثال.

الخبراء الأمنيون والعسكريون يجمعون على أنّ هذه العملية “تشكل خرقاً أمنياً كبيراً استلزم قدرات استخباريّة واحترافاً عالي المستوى لا تملكه إلا الدول المحترفة لعمليات “إرهاب الدولة”، وأن الفاعل اكتشف ثغرة ما في المنظومة الأمنيّة الداخليّة في إيران، فاستغلَّها واستطاع أن ينفذ منها، ما مكّنه من النجاح”، وهو ما يفنّد إحدى السرديات الإيرانية بأن أجهزة استخباراتها كانت “على علم بهجوم وشيك”.

في البعد السياسيّ الصرف، بما أنَّ الحروب هي تطبيق للسياسة بأدوات أخرى، وفق كارل فون كلاوس فيتز، ينتقل مركز الثقل لأهداف العملية إلى الصراع الدائر بين الساسة الأميركيين، في ظلّ تصريحات مواربة للرئيس المنتخب جو بايدن، بأنه سيستأنف عضوية الولايات المتحدة في الاتفاق النووي الدولي، “مع تشديد بعض الشروط وإضافة أخرى”.

ومن هذا المنظار، يؤكّد المراقبون الأميركيون تحديداً “تأجيل” الرد الإيراني الموعود، كي يترك فسحة زمنية للإدارة المقبلة للتعامل إيجابياً مع الاتفاق الدولي، وربما العودة إلى إلغاء بعض العقوبات الأميركية التي فرضتها إدارة الرئيس ترامب المنتهية ولايته.

في هذا الصدد، لا يجوز إغفال حقيقة العداء الأميركي الرسمي للنظام الإيراني وتجذّره، والتذكير بين فترة وأخرى بحادثة السفارة الأميركية في طهران واحتجاز موظفيها لعدة سنوات مع انتصار الثورة الإيرانية في العام 1979.

وفي المستوى عينه، يدرك المرء إجماع صنّاع القرار الأميركي على عدم السماح لإيران بامتلاك المعرفة النووية وصنع الأسلحة، استناداً إلى التزام المؤسّسة الحاكمة بكامل أجنحتها وتياراتها “بضرورة الحفاظ على تفوّق إسرائيل على جميع الدول في المنطقة” بأسلحة نوعية ممنوع على الأطراف الأخرى، منفردة أو مجتمعة، اقتناؤها، بل يذهب بعض كبار الاستراتيجيين الأميركيين إلى القول: “بصرف النظر عن هوية الرئيس الأميركي، فسيستمرّ العداء في العلاقات مع إيران كما رأينا وشهدنا خلال العقود الأربعة الماضية، وستستمرّ إيران في لوم الولايات المتحدة وإسرائيل على أيّ حوادث تتعرض لها في المستقبل المنظور، سواء ثبت تورطهما فيها أم لا”.

مع كتابة هذه السّطور، تتعزّز إمكانيّة تأجيل الضّربة الانتقامية الإيرانيّة، وليس إمكانية إلغائها، إذ ينظر إلى التفاعلات الداخلية في الكيان الإسرائيلي المتأزّم، والتصريحات المرنة للرئيس المنتخب بايدن حول الملفّ النووي الإيراني، مصحوبة بجدال في الداخل الإيراني حول التكتيك والاستراتيجية القصيرة المدى للرد الأفضل على جريمة الاغتيال، باعتبارها عوامل لن تجعل طهران تتسرع برد عسكري/أمني، لتبقي لديها هامشاً من الحركة والخيارات المناسبة، بحسب جدولها، وليس جدول الآخرين.

محسن فخري زادة

فيديوات متعلقة

مقالات متعلقة

After the assassination of the scientist Mohsenzadeh: Let Iran act and don’t rushit! ما بعد اغتيال العالِم محسن زاده: اتركوا إيران تتصرّف ولا تستعجلوها!

ما بعد اغتيال العالِم محسن زاده: اتركوا إيران تتصرّف ولا تستعجلوها!

د. عدنان منصور

منذ أن اغتيل العالِم النووي الإيراني، الشهيد محسن فخري زاده، ظهرت على الساحة الإعلامية في المنطقة، مئات الأقلام، ليسجّل أصحابها الحدث، ويحللوه على طريقتهم الخاصة، ويكتبوا عنه بتصرّف، ويرصدوه بمنظارهم الخاص، ويُفرغوا من جعبتهم في ما بعد من حلول وآراء وأفكار واجتهادات، حيث ذهب الكثير منهم بعيداً عن الواقع وهم يحللون، ويخططون، وينظّرون ويرسمون، ويكتبون سيناريو المشهد العسكري، وعمليات ميدانه، والفعل وردّ الفعل، وما ينتظر إيران وتفعله لما هو آت، رداً على العدوان الإرهابي الذي نفّذه العدو «الإسرائيلي»، بواسطة خونة من عملائه في الداخل الإيراني.

رغم أنّ موقف القيادة الإيرانية إزاء العمل الإرهابي، كان قوياً وواضحاً وصارماً لا لبس فيه، وهو أنّ الردّ الإيراني آت لا محال، في الوقت والزمان الذي تحدّده. إلا أنّ سيلاً كبيراً من المقالات في هذا المجال، بدأ يتدفّق بغزارة من هنا وهناك، يكتبها «خبراء عسكريّون» «واستراتيجيّون» و»مفكرون» و»باحثون» و»مطلعون على بواطن الأمور» و»مختصون» و»دارسون» في الشأن الإيراني، يضعون أنفسهم مكان القيادة السياسية والعسكرية الإيرانية، ليخططوا وينظّروا بشأن ما يترتب على طهران أن تفعله، أو ما يمكن لها أن تفعله. خرائط ميدانية رسموها، ومواقع عسكرية واقتصادية في المنطقة وخارجها وضعوها وحدّدوها وعيّنوها، لتكون أهدافاً محتملة أو أكيدة لضربات إيران العسكرية، التي ما عليها فقط، إلا أن تضغط على الزناد لتخبط خبطتها العسكرية!

لقد غاب عن أنظار الكثيرين من الذين تناولوا موضوع الاغتيال، أنّ المسألة وحقائق الأمور عند الإيرانيين، وبالذات عند القيادة السياسية والعسكرية، لا تخضع للحماس، أو الانفعال، أو الحسابات الخاطئة، أو القرارات المتهوّرة.

إيران التي تعاطت مع قوى الهيمنة وعقوباتها، وحصارها منذ إحدى وأربعين سنة وحتى اليوم، بقوة وصلابة وصبر ودهاء، واستطاعت أن تحبط محاولات أعدائها لاستدراجها إلى اتخاذ قرارات متسرّعة تنعكس سلباً بعد ذلك على وضعها الداخلي وأمنها القومي، وتتجنّب الكثير من الفخاخ بحنكة وذكاء لافت، لتخرج منها أكثر خبرة ومناعة وقوة.

هي لا تنتظر مطلقاً مَن ينظّر عنها، ويتكلم ويكتب عن خياراتها وتعاطيها وكيفية ردّها، وما الذي يجب أن تفعله أو لا تفعله، وما يتحتم على القيادة العسكرية الإيرانية أن تقوم به من عمليات حربية ردعية، وضربات مباشرة لأهداف استراتيجية حساسة في المنطقة.

كما أنّ إيران لا تؤخذ بحماس البعض من الذين يريدون منها ـ عن حسن نية أو سوء نية ـ بخفة وقصر نظر، رداً انفعالياً سريعاً غير محبوك ومسؤول، مهما كانت نتائجه وتداعياته، وهم يستعجلون بأيّ شكل من الأشكال، الاقتصاص الفوري من العدو، والقيام بضربات حاسمة لمواقعه في المنطقة.

ليس بهذا المنطق المتهوّر اللامبالي والاستخفاف بالنتائج والتداعيات تقاس الأمور، خاصة عندما نتكلم عن دولة إقليمية كبرى، لها وزنها الكبير وقراراتها المدروسة، تأخذ بالاعتبار حساباتها الدقيقة، وأيضاً حسابات أصدقائها وحلفائها، وردود فعل أعدائها، الذين هم في مواجهة مستمرة معها.

. طهران تقيس خطواتها وحساباتها بميزانها الحساس، إذ استطاعت على مدى سنوات ثورتها، أن تثبت جدارتها في هذا الشأن، مع التزامها الكامل بثوابتها ومبادئها ومواقفها الصلبة، وهي تمتصّ الأزمات التي تعترض طريقها وتتجاوزها، وتتغلب على التحديات التي تواجهها باستمرار، ما جعل خبراتها الغنية تراكم مع الأيام، لتصبح دولة مقتدرة قوية، لها حضورها ومكانها المتميّز في المنطقة والعالم.

إيران بغنى عن القرارات الحماسية الارتجالية المتسرّعة، وفذلكة وفلسفة البعض، وعن الإجراءات المتهوّرة، فمن يعرف عن قرب كيف تفكر وتخطط إيران، وكيف يعمل عقل قيادتها، ليدرك جيداً أنّ طهران تدرس خياراتها بنفس طويل وبمسؤولية عالية وبكلّ دقة، من دون أن تتراجع، تدرك تماماً ما لها، وما عليها ان تفعله. وتعرف متى تتقدّم وتضرب بقوة، من دون لين او ضعف أو خوف، وهي التي لا تسكت أو تنام على ضيم، حيث تتصرف بهدوء وحكمة ودراية وفق حساباتها المدروسة للغاية، فتختار الموقع المناسب للوصول الى الهدف السليم. لذلك تعرف القيادة السياسية والعسكرية الإيرانية، متى تردّ على المعتدين، وهي الأدرى بشعابها، من دون أن تنتظر من ينظِّر عنها ولها، أو من يقول لها ما الذي يجب أن تفعله وتقوم به، ليبدو الأمر وكأنها مقصّرة أو غائبة عن أرض الميدان، أو متهاونة في الردّ، أو متراخية في تعاطيها مع جريمة الاغتيال، وهذا غير مقبول، لأنه يسيء مباشرة إليها، ويشوّش على سياساتها ودورها وصدقيتها.

اتركوا إيران تتصرّف بهدوء وبروية وشجاعة، فلا خوف عليها ولا قلق على حلفائها، فلقد أثبتت وقائع الأحداث التي شهدتها إيران منذ تأسيس جمهوريتها، أنّ قيادتها السياسية والعسكرية في جهوزية كاملة في كلّ الأوقات، تتعاطى بحكمة وصبر وحنكة ودهاء في إدارة الملفات الساخنة، وتغتنم الفرص المناسبة والملائمة لاتخاذ قراراتها الوطنية الحاسمة، وتفعل فعلها، وتضرب ضربتها في المكان المناسب والزمان الذي تختاره وتحدّده.

اتركوا إيران تتصرّف بما تراه مناسباً، فإيران التي قرنت دائماً أقوالها بالأفعال، ولم تخذل شعبها وأمتها يوماً، ليست بحاجة إلى من يخطط وينظّر عنها ولها بأفكاره، يذهب بها بعيداً، من دون أن يأخذ بالاعتبار الضوابط، والمعايير التي تفرض نفسها على الأرض، حيث لا مجال لتجاهلها بتاتاً.

اتركوا إيران تتصرّف… فوعدها صادق له وقته ولا مفرّ منه.

*وزير الخارجية والمغتربين الأسبق

Translation

After the assassination of the scientist Mohsenzadeh: Let Iran act and don’t rushit!

Dr. Adnan Mansour

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is IMG-20201205-WA0014.jpg

Since the assassination of the Iranian nuclear scientist, martyr Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, hundreds of pens have appeared on the media scene in the region, hundreds of pens have appeared, the owners of the event, analysed it in their own way, and write about it in a way, and monitor it with their own perspective, and empty their pocket slate slate of solutions, opinions, ideas and jurisprudence, Many of them went away from reality as they analysed, planned, looked and painted, and wrote the scenario of the military scene, the operations of its field, the action and reaction, and what awaits Iran and what is happening, in response to the terrorist aggression carried out by the enemy «Israeli», by traitors from its agents inside Iran.

Although the Position of the Iranian Leadership on the Terrorist Act has been strong, clear and unequivocal, that the Iranian response is inevitably coming, at the time and time it determines. However, a large stream of articles in this area has begun to flow profusely from here and there, written by military experts, strategists, thinkers, researchers, “insiders” and “specialists” on Iranian affairs, who are putting themselves in the place of Iranian political and military leadership, to plan and consider what Tehran has to do, or what it can do. Field maps they have drawn, and military and economic positions in the region and beyond, they have developed, identified and identified, to be potential or definite targets of Iran’s military strikes, which only have to, but to pull the trigger to get bogged down in its military blunder!

Many of those who have addressed the assassination have been left out of sight, that the issue and the facts of things for the Iranians, especially when the political and military leadership, are not subject to enthusiasm, agitation, miscalculations, or reckless decisions.

Iran, which has dealt with hegemonic forces and sanctions, and its blockade for forty-one years to date, with strength, hardness, patience and cunning, and was able to thwart the attempts of its enemies to draw them to take hasty decisions that then negatively reflect on their internal situation and national security, and avoid many traps with remarkable skill and intelligence, to emerge from them more experienced, immune and stronger.

It never waits for anyone to look at it, talk and write about its options and its handling and how to respond, what it should or should not do, and what the Iranian military leadership must do in deterrence military operations, and direct strikes at sensitive strategic objectives in the region.

Iran also does not enthusiastically take some of those who want it in good faith or bad faith with lightness and short-sightedness, a quick, unknitted and responsible emotional response, whatever its consequences and repercussions, and they are in any way rushing to immediately take revenge on the enemy and carry out decisive strikes of its positions in the region.

It is not this reckless, indifferent logic and disregard for the consequences and repercussions, especially when we talk about a major regional state, which has a great weight and deliberate decisions, taking into account its precise calculations, as well as the accounts of its friends and allies, and the reactions of its enemies, who are in constant confrontation with it.

. Tehran measures its steps and calculations with its delicate balance, as it has been able over the years of its revolution, to prove its worth in this regard, with full commitment to its principles, principles and solid positions, and it absorbs crises that stand in its way and exceeds it, and overcomes the challenges it constantly faces, making its rich experiences accumulate with the days, to become a strong capable state, with its presence and its privileged place in the region and the world..

Iran is indispensable to the hasty, impromptu, and arrogant decisions of some, and from reckless actions, who knows closely how Iran thinks and plans, and how the mind of its leadership works, to realise well that Tehran is studying its options with the same long and with high responsibility and accuracy, without retreating, fully aware of what it has, and what it has to do. She knows when to advance and strike hard, without softness, weakness or fear, and she who does not shut up or sleep on a tight, where she acts calmly, wisely and know according to her highly studied calculations, she chooses the right location to reach the right goal. Therefore, the Iranian political and military leadership knows when to respond to the aggressors, which is the most important in its people, without waiting for anyone to look at it and its people, or who tells it what to do and do, to make it look like it is deficient or absent from the field, or lax in its handling of the assassination, which is unacceptable, because it directly offends it, and distorts its policies, role and credibility.

Let Iran act calmly, slowly and courageously, no fear and no worries for its allies, the facts of the events witnessed by Iran since the founding of its Republic, that its political and military leadership in full readiness at all times, dealing with wisdom, patience, statesmanship and cunning in the management of hot files, and taking appropriate and appropriate opportunities to make its decisive national decisions, and do it, and strike it in the right place and time it chooses and determines.

Let Iran act as it sees fit, Iran, which has always combined its words with deeds, and has never failed its people and nation, does not need someone to plan and look for it and its ideas, to go away, without taking into account the controls and standards that impose itself on the ground, where there is no room to ignore them at all.

Let Iran act… Her promise is sincere and inevitable.

*Former Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates

The Trump Administration Barrels on a Warpath Towards Iran

Source

☆ ZENITH NEWS® WILL SHARE OUR MILLIONS OF MONTHLY IMPRESSIONS WITH YOU

December 4, 2020

The assassination of Iran’s preeminent nuclear scientist is a shocking act of terrorism. And there is strong suspicion that Israeli agents were involved in this murderous act with top-level U.S. approval. The world is thus staring into the abyss of war.

This year has been bracketed with two audacious assassinations against the Iranian leadership. Earlier in January saw the murder of Major General Qassem Soleimani, Iran’s most senior military commander, by an American drone while he was traveling in an armed convoy from Iraq’s international airport on the outskirts of Baghdad.

Now the year ends with a second assassination after nuclear scientist Mohsen Fahkrizadeh was killed last week when his armed escort was attacked in a ferocious bomb and gun ambush near the Iranian capital, Tehran. Fahkrizadeh, like Soleimani, was a national hero. He was eulogized as the “father of Iran’s nuclear project”.

American President Donald Trump crowed about personally ordering the killing of Soleimani. While Trump and his administration have been reticent about the murder of Fahkrizadeh, there are strong reasons to conclude Washington’s complicity.

Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani stated this week that Iranian authorities believe Israel was the perpetrator along with agents working on its behalf on the ground. The Israelis have not commented. For such an attack to be mounted against a senior Iranian figure the breach of security would have required sophisticated intelligence conducted at state level.

U.S. media reports cite anonymous senior Trump administration officials confirming that Israel carried out the assassination of Fakhrizadeh. It can be further surmised that Israel would have had at least U.S. approval if not more direct complicity such as from providing the necessary intelligence for executing the hit. Such collusion between the U.S. and Israel is a routine matter. Nearly a dozen Iranian nuclear scientists have been assassinated over the past decade involving the same modus operandi: U.S.-Israeli intelligence coordinating with Iran-based triggermen supplied by the American-backed terrorist group known as Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK).

This year has also seen a series of sabotage bombings at Iran’s nuclear industry sites. Again, for such operations to be conducted, and conducted successfully, would require state-level intelligence and resources.

All this is in the context of Trump ratcheting up his “maximum pressure” campaign which has comprised a hybrid of verbal threats of military assault against Iran, a tightening of already-crippling economic sanctions imposed on a nation badly afflicted with the coronavirus pandemic, as well as a U.S. military force build-up in the Persian Gulf. Recently, a fleet of nuclear-capable B-52 bombers flew over Israel on the way to Qatar where the biggest American airbase in the Gulf is located, just south of Iran. This week the USS Nimitz, one of America’s lead strike-force supercarriers, entered the Gulf waters.

Only two weeks ago, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was on a more-than-usual jingoistic tour of the Middle East visiting Israel, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar. Top of his agenda was “deterring” Iran. Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu had previously publicly named Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, the Iranian nuclear scientist, as enemy number one.

Netanyahu has long been itching for a military offensive against Iran, one involving surgical air strikes on its nuclear sites. There is now the very real danger that Trump in his final fraught weeks in office may oblige the Israelis. The American president has reportedly given Pompeo carte blanche to aid and abet Israeli aggression towards Iran “as long as it doesn’t start World War III”. Trouble is, there is no way of containing such an escalation. What the Trump administration is doing is criminal and insane.

This week saw a particularly incendiary speech by Trump from the White House in which he again reiterated outlandish conspiracy theories whereby he lost the recent presidential election due to alleged “massive fraud” and cheating by Democrat rivals. Some of Trump’s aides are even urging him publicly to suspend the constitution, declare a state of martial law and re-run the election under military supervision. That is tantamount to Trump staging a coup d’état. There is thus no telling what this megalomaniac president is willing to do in order to thwart the scheduled event of his leaving the White House next month in the expected transition to a new administration under Joe Biden.

At the very least, it seems, Trump is hellbent on damaging relations with Iran so badly as to make it impossible for a Biden administration to return to diplomatic negotiations with Iran and possibly, as Biden as suggested, the U.S. returning to the international nuclear accord, which Trump abandoned in 2018.

Previously, Trump has threatened Iran with annihilation. We are dealing with an American president who has no scruples or moral compass. In his outrageously offended ego over electoral loss and perceived foul play by his domestic enemies, Trump is liable to go ballistic with recrimination. In the next four weeks, starting a war with Iran is therefore a most dangerous prospect. Criminal and insane bracket this year, along with assassinations.

Hassan Al-Laqqis: The Man Who Flew Over Palestine حسّان اللقيس: الرجل الذي حلّق… فوق فلسطين

Hassan Al-Laqqis: The Man Who Flew Over Palestine

By Khadija Shokor

It has been five years since the martyrdom of Hajj Hassan al-Laqqis. One of the advantages of having him as a leader was that he was a dreamer, but he also sought “with all his heart” to make his dream come true. He did it. He is a happy martyr, in the immediate sense, having achieved his dream, himself. Along with a group of dreamers, they had to fly away.

The following text will shed light on some of this man’s accomplishments. He, like all the martyrs of the resistance, had (some) of his achievements revealed after his departure. It was his departure that revealed his identity. One of his close friends retells memories of his life. We, the living who have been blessed with the pride the resistance created, owe it to him to honor his memory.

12 men from the “Israeli” Mossad made up the group assigned to a mission in the southern suburbs of Beirut on December 4, 2013. The objective was the assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan al-Laqqis, who had become an extraordinary threat to the enemy.

Two members of the group were tasked with the actual killing, while the remaining 10 were assigned the roles of implementation, transport and surveillance. The degree of danger that the man’s work posed to the enemy was illustrated by the great deal of risk it undertook by sending this type of group.

“I arrived home and they told me that Hajj Hassan had called me minutes earlier. When I was about to get back to him, his personal bodyguard called me to tell me that Hajj’s concierge informed him that someone had shot Hajj Hassan,” a friend of the martyr recalled with anguish.  

Five years have passed but the scenes from that night are still enshrined in this friend’s mind.

“I arrived to find him leaning on the door of the car, smiling as blood flowed from his head. I approached and found the pistol in his other hand,” he said.

The 50-year-old man gets on memory lane and goes back to the beginning of his relationship with Hajj Hassan.

“He returned from Africa in 1978, and since then we have been friends,” he recalls.  

This friend insists that excellence was Hajj Hassan’s quality from a young age.

“He was exceptional on all levels. He excelled in his studies. He was refined in his manners. He was constantly ambitious. I remember when we finished high school, Hassan learned that there was an institute offering computer courses in Gefinor.  He was quick to register although this field was not known at the time. Ever since he was little, he liked to know everything new in technology and development. So much so that he preferred to buy new technological magazines and equipment rather than the basics,” the friend explains.

Anyone you ask about Hajj Hassan’s qualities would tell you, and Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah confirmed as much in his speech that he was “a hard and diligent worker, well mannered, loving and creative. He was one of the brilliant and distinctive minds of this resistance.”

Sayyed Nasrallah knew Hajj Hassan very well, describing him as “a beloved brother, companion and a close friend since we were young men in the city of Baalbek.”

Baalbek was the city where Sayyed settled after returning from Iraq in late 1979 to complete his studies at a seminary founded by Sayyed Abbas al-Musawi. At the time, the relationship between the two young men was centered around the mosque. Later, when Sayyed became the cultural leader of the Amal movement in Baalbek, Hajj Hassan joined him. That was in 1980. He stayed close to him during that period. When Sayyed’s life was threatened because of his positions and speeches he delivered on the platforms in Baalbek, Hajj Hassan insisted on accompanying him to those events. He also insisted on staying with him during that time in case of any security risks that Sayyed faced. Since then, their friendship grew, developed and never ceased.

One of Hajj Hassan’s friends recalls how they and a group of young men accompanied Sayyed on the day of the “Israeli” invasion, trying to mobilize people against the enemy. They passed through the city of Baalbek and chanted: Death to America ??and Death to “Israel”.

Not only were they friends, they were also partners when the resistance movement was born. Even when Sayyed moved to Beirut, the two kept in touch both professionally and socially.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard came to Lebanon. It organized military training courses for young people to resist the occupation. Hajj Hassan rushed to join the first of these courses. Later, he worked at the Revolutionary Guards’ Staff Office. He was in direct contact with most Iranian officials as a result of his work. And because he had a quick-wit by nature, he quickly became fluent in Farsi. He saw most of Sayyed’s meetings with the leaders of the Revolutionary Guard. This gave him extensive experience and broader relationships.

With the “Israeli” occupation being limited to the South and western Bekaa and the jihadist operations concentrated there, Hajj Hassan made several field visits in those areas. He participated in qualitative operations, most notably the storming of “Israeli” positions, such as the one against the “Tomat Niha” site in 1988.

His fight against the enemy allowed him to notice some of the obstacles and problems the Mujahideen faced on the battlefield. He sought solutions to overcome these issues. He began working on the Signal Weapon, exerting a lot of effort to develop it through the introduction of modifications. The effects of these modifications emerged in the communication system – both wireless and wired.  He also paid attention to the latest technological developments in security and military spheres.

He did not spare any opportunity to take advantage of everything new that can benefit the resistance. For this purpose he always sought to bring as much of the advanced technology as possible and make use of it for the resistance. He became the primary reference for technology to the entire resistance leadership. He was a diligent and hard worker. He participated in choosing the resistance’s missile arsenal and developed it. He expanded his research in this field until he became the first advisor to the military leadership every time it was presented with new weapons. 

Later, the challenges grew, especially after the resistance grew stronger and the enemy’s precautionary methods intensified. He continued to propose ideas and solutions to face the challenges on land and the difficulties of land barriers, until he began to think about how to use the sky to face the difficulties on land.

“I used to make fun of him,” says Hajj Hassan’s friend. “Every time I entered, I would find him trying to assemble wooden pieces and install them on a small motor. I would ask him: Do you expect these pieces to take off? He would answer me with confidence: it will not only take off, I will make it capture images. You don’t know. I might make it carry a weapon in the future.”

That idea was born in 1988. That was when the ambitious young man, who did not believe in the existence of “impossible”, decided to breach the sky.

He first started from his small room. He bought a lathe, collected simple motors, pasted them together with wooden pieces, and then tried to make them fly.

One, two, dozens of failed attempts. But finally he succeeded in making one of those designs fly. With his humble but persuasive manner, he managed to turn this idea into a conviction among the leaders and officials. This would later be known as the Air Force Unit of the Islamic Resistance.

It was not an easy journey. Every achievement cost Hajj Hassan and his team a lot of studying, planning, programming and working day and night. They were keen on readiness and development because they believed that the technological battle with the enemy would not end. This task cost a lot of time, effort and even souls. The names of the pioneers of that stage were not revealed except for those who were martyred, including Hajj Hassan, Hussein Ayoub and Jamil Skaf. The latter two excelled in this field, and both were martyred while they were taking part in developing it.

Sacrifice, for them, was not a hindrance. It was an incentive to continue. Therefore, Hajj Hassan continued to work on the development of drones. For this purpose he visited the aircraft factories in Iran. He attended many of the workshops there and met with many specialists in this field to benefit from their experience in developing domestic Iranian aircraft.

He never stopped looking for new developments worldwide in a bid to take advantage of any advances in his field.

Among the “Israelis” his work earned Hajj Hassan al-Laqqis the label of an officer in the existing war of minds against the resistance. This drove the “Israelis” to attempt to assassinate him in the early 1990s. A bomb was planted near his home in Baalbek, according to the martyr’s friend.

“He was returning to his house, and could not overtake a bulldozer driving in front of him. And then he turned right to overtake it. At that moment, a large explosion was heard on the other side,” the friend said.

The enemy was wrong to think that the assassination attempts would weaken al-Laqqis’ determination. After that incident, he returned to work in both the missile and aerial fields with greater focus, expanding the realm even further.

After the “Israeli” defeat in Lebanon in 2000, his work broadened. The drones or what was known as the air force unit had several factories. He managed them with a team he chose and trained carefully. Sayyed Nasrallah visited those factories periodically, being updated on their developments. The leaders of operations soon demanded the participation of these aircraft in their military operations due to their contribution in guaranteeing success.

Over the past years, the aircraft became the resistance’s powerful eye in the sky, both before and during the military operations. This was only some of what Hajj Hassan planned. The effects of this activity emerged clearly during the July 2006 war. At that time, the enemy returned to stalk this commander, who had worried them for many years. The “Israelis” took advantage of the outbreak of the war to try to assassinate him again. The “Israelis” confirmed this themselves.

“I was busy with my work,” said his close friend. “Hajj Imad Mughniyeh called me and told me that he had just seen Hajj Hassan on television during a live broadcast after a building had been destroyed in Shiyah. He asked me to go to him and tell him to leave the area.”

The friend continues, “when I arrived, I learned that he was trying to search the rubble for his 18-year-old son Ali, who was in the building. The martyr later told me that he went to the building to deliver a bag to his son. But shortly after he left, the “Israeli” aircraft struck the building and destroyed it.” His son was martyred.

“He was dauntless despite the loss,” his friend said. “He left the place and continued working hard and firm. We even noticed this firmness when we accompanied him to see his martyred son in the hospital three days after the aggression. He quickly bid him farewell and went back to his work with determination until the end of the war.”

The war ended, and al-Laqqis’ ghost kept haunting the “Israelis” who could not weaken his determination, not even by killing his son or destroying his home. He immediately returned, even before rebuilding his home, to pursue his work in airspace.

After the July 2006 war, work on drones was accelerated in light of the outcome of the war. Hajj took advantage of the scientific developments and the resistance’s existing capabilities to find new models and meet the emerging needs after the war.

The drones did not only operate within the resistance in Lebanon. In Syria, for example, they were credited with assisting most of the confrontations that took place. The al-Qusayr battle is one of the most prominent pieces of evidence.

The martyr’s friend tells us that the latter showed him a video how these drones were operating during the battle. They took pictures, which were directly transmitted to the command room. The command room in return contacted the field group and informed it about the details of the place and the positions of the militants. The drones reduced the loss of lives and helped in the success of the operation as a result of the accumulation of knowledge.

The martyr’s friend added, “after the battle of al-Qusayr, the martyr informed me of a new plan, which aimed at arming the aircraft, enabling us to use it in filming and bombing. He reminded me of how he told me about this goal since the beginning.”

“Indeed, after a short period of time, he returned and played a video showing the success of a maneuver in which this plan was carried out,” the friend added.

Hajj Hassan was martyred, but his thoughts, approach and the fruits of his labor live on, with the same strength and determination. His team continued to make advances in his work and achievements. The effects of this work spread beyond Syria. Until today, Hajj Hassan has not really been known. Not by friend or foe. But some of his achievements will be revealed in the coming war, through the air force and the Islamic Resistance’s drones when the headlines read: “the resistance’s drones attack “Israel”.”

Source: Al-Akhbar Newspaper, Translated by website team

Related Articles

حسّان اللقيس: الرجل الذي حلّق… فوق فلسطين

 خديجة شكر السبت 8 كانون الأول 2018

خمس سنوات على استشهاد الحاج حسّان اللقيس. ميزة هذا القائد أنّه كان حالماً، لكن أيضاً، مع ميزة إضافيّة، أنّه كان يسعى «بكلّ روحه» لأن يُصبح حلمه حقيقة. لقد فعلها. هو شهيد سعيد، بالمعنى المباشر هنا، إذ حقّق حلمه، بنفسه، ومعه ثلّة مِن الحالمين أيضاً، فكان لهم أن يُحلّقوا… بعيداً. في النص الآتي بعض مِن آثار هذا الرجل، الذي، كسائر شهداء المقاومة، لم تُكشف (بعض) آثاره إلا بعد رحيله، بل لم يُعرَف إلا برحيله.


يُخبرك كل من تسأله عن صفات الحاج حسان تلك، ويؤكد هذا الكلام السيد حسن نصرالله حين وصفه في خطابه: «هو العامل المُجد والدؤوب… والمؤدّب الخلوق والمحب، وأيضاً المبدع، أحد العقول المميّزة واللامعة في هذه المقاومة».

السيد نصرالله الذي عرف الحاج حسان بحق، فقال عنه: «كان أخاً وحبيباً وأنيساً وقريباً وصديقاً منذ أن كنا شباباً صغاراً في مدينة بعلبك». بعلبك، تلك المدينة التي كانت مستقر السيد حين عاد من العراق، في أواخر العام 1979، ليكمل الدراسة في الحوزة التي أسسها السيد عباس الموسوي هناك. يومها كانت العلاقة بين الشابين «علاقة مسجد». لاحقاً، وحين أصبح السيد هو المسؤول الثقافي لحركة أمل في بعلبك، انضم إليه الحاج حسان. كان ذلك في العام 1980. بقي قريباً منه في تلك الفترة. يوم وصل تهديد للسيد بالقتل، جراء مواقفه وكلامه على منابر بعلبك، أصر الحاج حسان على مرافقته إلى المناسبات التي بقي يلقي فيها السيد تلك الكلمات. كما أصر على النوم عنده في تلك الفترة، تحسباً لأي عمل أمني كان يمكن أن يتعرّض له السيد. ومذاك توطدت أواصر هذه الصداقة التي استمرت وتطورت ولم تنقطع بعدها. يذكر أحد أصدقاء الحاج حسان كيف رافقا السيد مع مجموعة أخرى من الشباب يوم بدء الاجتياح الإسرائيلي، محاولين تعبئة الناس وتحريضهم ضد العدو، وذلك بالقيام بجولات في أنحاء مدينة بعلبك. كانوا يُردّدون: «الموت لأمريكا» و«الموت لإسرائيل». لم يكونا صديقين فحسب، بل كانا شريكين في الانطلاقات الأولى لحركة المقاومة، وحتى حين انتقل السيد إلى مدينة بيروت بقي الشابان على تواصلهما الودي والعملي.

استشهد ابن اللقيس عام 2006 في المبنى الذي قصفته الطائرات الإسرائيلية في الشيّاح


مع وصول الحرس الثوري الإيراني إلى لبنان، وتنظيمه دورات عسكرية للشباب بهدف مقاومة الاحتلال، سارع الحاج حسّان للانضمام إلى أولى تلك الدورات. لاحقاً، انتقل للعمل في مكتب قيادة الأركان التابع للحرس الثوري. كان على تماس مباشر مع معظم المسؤولين الإيرانيين نتيجة عمله، ولأنه بطبعه كان سريع البداهة، اكتسب اللغة الفارسية بطلاقة وبسرعة. كان يشهد، بحكم موقعه العملي، معظم لقاءات السيد مع قيادات الحرس، وذلك ما أكسبه خبرة واسعة وعلاقات أوسع.

مع انحسار الاحتلال الإسرائيلي في الجنوب والبقاع الغربي، وتركز العمليات الجهادية هناك، كان للحاج حسان عدة مشاركات ميدانية في تلك المناطق. شارك في عمليات نوعية، أبرزها اقتحام مواقع إسرائيلية، كاقتحام موقع «تومات نيحا» (عام 1988).

قتاله للعدوّ في ساحات الجهاد جعله يلحظ بعض العقبات والمشاكل، التي كانت تواجه المجاهدين في الميدان، فما كان منه إلا أن سعى لاجتراح الحلول لتخطيها. بدأ من سلاح الإشارة، الذي عمل جاهداً لتطويره من خلال استحداث تعديلات برزت آثارها في المنظومتين السلكية واللاسلكية (الاتصالات)، مروراً باهتمامه بكل ما استجد في عالم التكنولوجيا الأمنية منها والعسكرية، وذلك مِن خلال اطلاعه الدائم على التطور المتسارع حول العالم. لم يكن يوفر أي فرصة لاستغلال كل جديد يمكنه أن يفيد المقاومة. لهذا الهدف سعى دوماً لاستقدام ما أمكنه مِن التكنولوجيا المتطورة، ووضعها بتصرف الجسم المقاوم، حتى بات لاحقاً هو «المرجع التكنولوجي» الأول لدى جميع قيادات المقاومة. هو صاحب العمل الدؤوب، كمشارك، في انتخاب الترسانة الصاروخية وتطويرها لدى المقاومة. توسع في بحوثه على هذا الصعيد، حتى بات المستشار الأول لدى القيادة العسكرية في كل مرة يعرض عليها أسلحة جديدة.

لاحقاً، كبرت التحديات، خصوصاً بعد أن استعرت المقاومة واشتدت أساليب العدوّ الاحترازية. دأب على اقتراح الأفكار وإيجاد الحلول لمواجهة تحديات البرّ وصعوبات الموانع الأرضيّة، إلى أن بدأ بالتفكر في كيفية الاستفادة من السماء لمواجهة صعوبات الأرض. «كنت أسخر منه»، يقول صديق الحاج حسان، قبل أن يُتابع: «في كل مرة أدخل عليه وأجده يحاول تركيب القطع الخشبية وتثبيتها بموتور صغير، كنت أسأله: هل تتوقع أن هذه القطع ستستطيع الإقلاع؟ كان يجيبني ضاحكاً، إنما بكل ثقة: لن تقلع فقط، سوف أجعلها تُصوّر، وما يدريك قد أجعلها تحمل سلاحاً في ما بعد».

إذاً، تلك الفكرة انطلقت بالأساس في عام 1988. كان ذلك حينما قرر الشاب الطموح، الذي لم يكن يؤمن بوجود «المستحيل» أو «غير الممكن»… أن يقتحم السماء.

بدأ أولاً من غرفته الصغيرة، اشترى مخرطة، وكان يجمع «موتورات» بسيطة، يلصق بها قطعاً خشبية، ثم يُحاول أن يجعلها تطير.
محاولة، محاولتان، عشرات المحاولات الفاشلة، وينجح أخيراً في جعل إحدى تلك التصاميم تُحلّق. هنا، وبأسلوبه المتواضع المقنع المتين، استطاع أن يحوّل هذه الفكرة إلى قناعة عند القيادات والمسؤولين، قبل أن يُترجم ذلك إلى ما سيُعرف لاحقاً بـ«وحدة القوة الجويّة للمقاومة الإسلاميّة».

هذا المسار لم يكن سهلاً، فكل إنجاز فيه كان يكلّف الحاج حسان، ومعه فريق العمل الذي شكّله لاحقاً، الكثير من الدراسة والتخطيط والبرمجة والعمل في الليل والنهار. كانوا يحرصون على الجاهزية والاستعداد والتطوير، ذلك لأنهم آمنوا بأن المعركة التكنولوجية مع العدو لن تنتهي. كلّف هذا العمل الكثير من التضحية بالوقت والجهد، وصولاً إلى الأنفس. لم تُكشَف أسماء رواد تلك المرحلة، باستثناء الذين استشهدوا منهم، وهم، إلى جانب الحاج حسان، حسين أيوب وجميل سكاف. هذان كانا من الذين برعوا في ذاك المجال، وكانت شهادتهما وهما يشاركان في تطويره.

التضحية، عند هؤلاء، لم تكن عائقاً. كانت حافزاً للاستمرار، ولذا، تابع الحاج حسان العمل على تطوير الطائرات المُسيّرة عن بُعد. لهذا الهدف زار معامل الطائرات في إيران. حضر العديد من المناورات هناك، والتقى الكثير من الإيرانيين المختصين في هذا الشأن، كي يستفيد من خبراتهم لتطوير النُسخ التي كان توصل إليها. لم يتوقف يوماً عن البحث عن كل جديد، على المستوى العالمي، للاستفادة من أي تطور تكنولوجي يخصّ عمله.

هذا العمل دفع بالإسرائيليين إلى أن يعدّوا الحاج حسان اللقيس أحد ضباط حرب الأدمغة، القائمة، على أكثر من صعيد، بينهم وبين المقاومة. هذا ما جعل الإسرائيلي يحاول اغتياله في مطلع التسعينات. يومها، جرى زرع عبوة قرب منزله في بعلبك، بحسب صديق الشهيد، حيث «كان عائداً إلى منزله، واعترضت طريقه جرافة، فأراد تجاوزها، لكنه لم يستطع. ثم اتجه يميناً، بهدف تخطيها، وفي تلك اللحظة دوّى انفجار كبير عند الناحية الأخرى». أخطأ العدو حين اعتقد أن محاولات اغتيال اللقيس ستضعف عزيمته، إذ عاد بعد تلك الحادثة لمتابعة عمله على الصعيدين، الصاروخي والجوي، بقوة أكثر، مع توسعة الأطر أكثر.

بعد الاندحار الإسرائيلي عن لبنان، عام 2000، أصبح عمله أوسع وصار للطائرات المسيّرة عن بُعد، أو ما يعرف بوحدة القوة الجوية، عدة معامل يديرها مع الفريق الذي اختاره ودرّبه بعناية. كان السيد نصرالله يزور تلك المعامل في شكل دوري، فيطلع على تطوراتها، كما إن قادة العمليات باتوا يطالبون بإشراك تلك الطائرات في عملياتهم العسكرية، وذلك لما كانت تعود به من فائدة على مستوى نجاح العمليات.

على مدى كل تلك السنين، كانت الطائرات المُسيّرة عن بُعد هي العين الجوية النافذة للمقاومة، قبيل أعمالها العسكرية وخلالها، ولم يكن هذا إلا بعض ما كان يُخطط له الحاج حسان. ظهرت آثار هذا النشاط بوضوح خلال حرب تموز 2006. آنذاك عاد العدو ليتربص بهذا القائد، الذي أقلقه لسنوات طوال، فاستغل اندلاع الحرب ليحاول اغتياله مجدداً. لقد ورد ذلك على لسان الإسرائيليين. يقول صديقه المقرّب: «كنت منهمكاً في عملي. هاتفني الحاج عماد مغنية ليخبرني أنه رأى للتو الحاج حسان على التلفاز، خلال النقل المباشر إثر تدمير مبنى في منطقة الشياح، وطلب مني الذهاب إليه وإخباره ضرورة ابتعاده عن المكان». ويتابع الصديق: «علمت حين وصلت أنه كان يحاول البحث بين الأنقاض عن ولده علي (18 سنة)، الذي كان موجوداً في المبنى. قال لي الشهيد لاحقاً إنه كان حضر إلى المبنى لإيصال حقيبة لولده، لكن وبعيد مغادرته المكان أغار الطيران الإسرائيلي على المبنى فدمره». استشهد ابنه. يذكر محدّثنا: «كان جسوراً على رغم الفقد، غادر المكان وعاد يتابع عمله المطلوب بصلابة وقوة. لاحظنا هذه الصلابة حتى حين رافقناه لرؤية ولده الشهيد في المستشفى، بعد ثلاثة أيام من العدوان، فودّعه سريعاً عائداً إلى عمله بعزم حتى نهاية الحرب».

حاول الإسرائيليون اغتياله بزرع عبوة في مطلع التسعينات وأخرى أثناء الحرب عام 2006


انتهت الحرب، وبقي شبح اللقيس يلاحق الإسرائيلي الذي لم يستطع لا بقتله لولده، ولا بتدميره لمنازله أن يثبط ولو جزءاً من عزيمة هذا الرجل. فقد عاد فوراً، وحتى قبل إعادة بناء منزله، لمتابعة عمله في المجال الجوي. بعد حرب تموز 2006، أخذ العمل في الطائرات المسيّرة عن بُعد منحىً تصاعدياً في ضوء نتائج الحرب. فعمل الحاج مستفيداً من التطورات العلمية والقدرات الموجودة بيد المقاومة ليخلص إلى نماذج جديدة تلبي الحاجات المستجدة بعد الحرب.

لم يقتصر عمل الطائرات المسيّرة عن بُعد على المقاومة في لبنان، ففي سوريا مثلاً، كان لها الفضل في معظم المواجهات التي حصلت. وتعدّ معركة القصير من أبرز الشواهد على ذلك.

يخبرنا صديق الشهيد أن الأخير عرض عليه بعد معركة القصير فيلماً يظهر كيف كانت تلك الطائرات تعمل في أثناء المعركة، حيث كانت تصور، فتنتقل الصورة مباشرة إلى غرفة القيادة، والتي كانت بدورها تتواصل مع المجموعة الميدانية، فتطلعهم على تفاصيل المكان وتكشف لهم أماكن تواجد المسلحين. كان ذلك يخفف من زهق الأرواح ويساعد على نجاح العملية نتيجة تراكم المعرفة. يضيف صديق الشهيد: «بعد معركة القصير، أطلعني الشهيد على مخطط جديد، يهدف إلى تسليح الطائرة مما يمكننا أن نستعملها في التصوير ثم القصف. وذكرني كيف أنه أخبرني بهذا الهدف في البدايات». يتابع صديق الشهيد: «وفعلاً، بعد مدة بسيطة، عاد فعرض لي فيديو يظهر نجاح المناورة التي نفذ فيها هذا المخطط».

استشهد الحاج حسان، لكن فكره ونهجه وثمار عمله استمر حتى يومنا هذا، بالقوة والعزيمة ذاتهما، وتابع الفريق تطوير أعماله وإنجازاته. وامتدت آثار هذا العمل بعد سوريا. وحتى الآن، لم يُعرف الحاج حسّان على حقيقته لا من قبل العدوّ ولا الصديق، لكن ستكشف بعض آثاره في الحرب المقبلة، من خلال القوة الجويّة والمسيّرات التابعة للمقاومة الإسلامية، حين تتصدر وسائل الإعلام مقولة «طيران المقاومة يغير على… إسرائيل».

من ملف : حسّان اللقيس: الرجل الذي حلّق فوق فلسطين

How Will Iran Respond to Assassination of Its Top Nuclear Scientist?

Stephen Lendman. US Waging Wars on Multiple Fronts...Majority In Favor of  War

Stephen Lendman

Source

Israel’s Mossad was likely responsible for last week’s assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh.

Iranian authorities will likely retaliate in their own way at a time of their choosing.

In a message to honor “prominent and distinguished scientist” Fakhrizadeh, Iran’s Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei said the following:

In response to his martyrdom, the crime will be “investigate(d) and firmly prosecute(d).”

“(P)unishment” awaits the perpetrators who ordered what happened.

His “scientific and technological efforts” will continue unhindered.

President Hassan Rouhani was quoted saying:

“Our people are wiser than to fall in the trap of the Zionist regime.”

“Iran will surely respond to the martyrdom of our scientist at the proper time.”

“Once again, the evil hands of Global Arrogance and the Zionist mercenaries were stained with the blood of an Iranian son.”

“(E)nemies of Iran should know well that the Iranian nation and officials are too brave and too courageous to leave this criminal act unanswered.”

Iran’s Foreign Minister tweeted the following:

“Terror attack on our scientist was indubitably designed & planned by a terrorist regime & executed by criminal accomplices.” 

“Shameful that some refuse to stand against terrorism and hide behind calls for restraint.” 

“Impunity emboldens a terrorist regime with aggression in its DNA.”

What happened won’t deter or otherwise slow Iran’s legitimate nuclear program — nor efforts to defend the nation against hostile attacks from abroad.

Supporting the highest of Israeli high crimes, along with responsibility for their own, the Trump regime, Biden/Harris, the Pentagon, and most officials from both wings of the US war party declined to comment on Fakhrizadeh’s assassination they clearly back.

Iranian IRGC commander General Hossein Salami said the following:

“The enemies of the Iranian nation, specially the masterminds, perpetrators and supporters of this crime, should also know that such crimes will not undermine the resolve of the Iranians to continue this glorious and power-generating path, and harsh revenge and punishment is on agenda for them.” 

Iranian Quds Force commander General Esmaeil Qaani slammed “global arrogance, Zionism, and the states creating and fostering terrorism” that are responsible for assassinations “ ‘with American bullets.’ ”

Once again, UN secretary general Guterres showed contempt for the rights and welfare nations free from imperial control.

Through his spokesman, he “urge(d) restraint and the need to avoid any actions that could lead to an escalation of tensions in the region” — instead of condemning a crime against humanity, most likely committed by the Netanyahu regime. 

Iran’s Tehran Times called US and Israeli leadership “masterminds of terrorism.”

Likely incoming Biden/Harris regime officials endorse what happened.

On issues related to nations unwilling to subordinate their sovereign rights to US interests, Republicans and Dems are likeminded.

They support efforts to transform them into US vassal states — war by hot and other means their favored strategies.

When Biden/Harris take over in January, their regime will likely continue war on Iran by other means — how both wings of US duopoly rule operated since 1979.

The same policy applies to other independent nations, cooperative relations off the table.

The JCPOA’s fate is up for grabs. 

Based on remarks by members of the Biden/Harris national security team, rejoining the landmark agreement may depend on Iran agreeing to unacceptable demands that relate to its self-defense capabilities.

Both wings of the US war party want Iran weakened militarily.

They want the country rendered vulnerable to US, NATO, and/or Israeli aggression if launched.

It took years of negotiation before agreement on JCPOA provisions was reached by P5 countries, Germany and Iran.

It’s highly unlikely that President Rouhani and other senior Iranian officials will permit reworking the agreement in ways that make the nation less able to defend against foreign aggression.

Nor will they accept other demands that benefit the US, West, and Israel at the expense of the Islamic Republic and its people.

While US hot war on Iran is highly unlikely ahead, waging it by other means will continue —perhaps little or unchanged from how Trump regime hardliners operated when Biden/Harris take over.

Dems are notoriously more belligerent than Republicans.

For nearly half a century, Biden wholeheartedly supported US preemptive wars on one nonbelligerent/nonthreatening nation after another.

The pattern no doubt will continue on his watch. Perhaps another war or two in the Middle East and/or elsewhere will be launched.

All sovereign independent nations like Iran have no friends in Washington, few elsewhere in the West.

The scourge of US imperial rage to control other nations, their resources and populations continues unchanged no matter which right wing of the one-party state controls things in Washington.

Assassination of top Iranian nuclear scientist sparks a blame game in Tehran

Killing of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh prompts accusations of lax security and incompetence

Iranian scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh (right) during a meeting with the Iranian supreme leader in Tehran (AFP)

By Rohollah Faghihi in Tehran

Published date: 28 November 2020 15:54 UTC

It was around 4:30pm in Tehran that reports emerged about the assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, a top nuclear scientist, by an armed group suspected of links to Israel.

Fakhrizadeh, who wasn’t a publicly well-known figure, was a physics professor at University of Imam Hussein, the defence minister’s deputy and the head of the Research and Innovation Organisation for the ministry.

His death has been seen in some quarters as linked to the victory of Joe Biden in the US presidential elections. Biden has promised to return America to the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, which has alarmed Israel and pro-Israel politicians in the US.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, a former Iranian official told MEE: “It is obvious that [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu is striving to kill two birds with one stone. On one hand, he wants to create an excuse for a US-led attack on Iran’s nuclear sites, and on the other hand he wants to put an unremovable obstacle in the way of Iran-US de-escalation and Biden’s rejoining the [nuclear deal].

“The obstacle will be at least raising pressures on [Iranian President Hassan] Rouhani’s administration by the emboldened hardliners and the establishment to decrease the level of cooperation with the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] and not to adopt a new posture towards the future administration of the US for detente.”

How was he assassinated?

According to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps-affiliated Tasnim news agency, the attack occurred at 2:30pm, while Fakhrizadeh was in Aabsard county, close to Tehran. As his car was passing a pick-up truck, the truck exploded and a group of armed men opened fire on him, leading to his bodyguard being shot four times.

However, Fars, another IRGC-affiliated news agency, published a slightly different and likely more accurate account of the incident. At first, Fakhrizadeh’s car and two cars of his bodyguards were stopped as a group of men started constant shooting, and then a pick-up truck full of timber exploded in front of the car.

“After the explosion, the terrorists who had ambushed [them] began shooting at the car of the nuclear scientist from an unclear point,” reported Fars, adding that one of the bodyguards put his car in front of the gunmen to protect Fakhrizadeh, leading to his “martyrdom”.

Fakhrizadeh was soon taken to hospital, but his wounds proved fatal.

Iran’s state TV said that “based on unconfirmed reports,” one of the gunmen had been captured.

‘Remember that name’

According to General Amir Hatami, Iran’s defence minister, Fakhrizadeh was “in charge in the field of nuclear defence in the Ministry of Defence, and the issue of nuclear defence and his [ties] with nuclear scientists had made him famous as a [nuclear scientist]”.

He added that the use of “lasers in air defence or the detection of intruding aircraft by means other than radar” was also among his work. Fakhrizadeh, who was called “Mr Mohseni,” was also active in missile programmes too.

Hatami said a rapid Covid-19 test kit was produced under the supervision of Fakhrizadeh and claimed he was also successful in developing a coronavirus vaccine, which is in the first phase of human trials.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivers a presentation about Mohsen Fakhrizadeh
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivers a presentation about Mohsen Fakhrizadeh (AFP)

While relatively little known within Iran, Fakhrizadeh had gained a reputation in foreign intelligence circles.

In 2018, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed that Iran has designed a nuclear payload on Shahab 3 missiles and was expanding its range for nuclear-capable missiles that could reach Riyadh, Tel Aviv and Moscow but were planning for a much further reach. He identified Fakhrizadeh as the head of the project and told his audience to “remember that name”.

In an interview with Kan TV in 2018, former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert also warned that Fakhrizadeh would “have no immunity”.

Prior to this, in 2017, Saudi Arabia’s Al-Arabiya covered a summit of the exiled Mojehedin e-Khalq (MEK), a controversial opposition group once on the US terrorism list, at which the organisation claimed Fakhrizadeh was behind Iran’s project for producing a nuclear weapon.

Fereidoun Abbasi, an Iranian MP, said that Fakhrizadeh had survived a similar attack 12 years ago.

In recent years, five other top nuclear scientists have been assassinated in Iran. The latest assassination happened only a few days ahead of the anniversary of the killing of nuclear scientist Majid Shahriari in 2010.

Criticisms of Iran’s security apparatus reaches its peak

While many in Iran believe that Israel was behind the assassination of Fakhrizadeh, on social media many Iranians slammed the security apparatus for its failure to protect their country’s nuclear scientists.

Some complained that the intelligence forces were wasting their time arresting innocent journalists and researchers while the real spies are wandering freely in Tehran.

“I’m more angry with the security apparatus, which is arresting university professors, lawyers and journalists while the wolves are committing assassination in broad daylight,” wrote Sharare Dehshiri, an Iranian user, on Twitter.

Another user under the name of “elsolito” tweeted: “The intelligence organisations must answer to the public about what are they doing exactly? What happened to all your claims of having intelligence monitoring?

“When you are searching for spies among environment activists, journalists and protesters, the result is today’s catastrophe, when the country’s [top people] get assassinated in the heart of the country in the broad daylight.”

Meanwhile, retired General Hossein Alai, a reform-minded figure and former commander of  the IRGC Naval force, called for a reassessment of the performance of the security apparatus.

“We should [study] what weakness there is in the structure of Iran’s security apparatus, which despite the possibility of assassinating people like Fakhrizadeh and providing bodyguards for them, the Israeli operation still succeeds,” argued Alai.

He emphasised that “the assassination of Dr Mohsen Fakhrizadeh by Israel indicates that the Israeli spy and operational circle is still active in Iran”.

Simultaneously, Hesam Ashena, a senior adviser to Iran’s president and a former top intelligence official, called for an “Integrated Intelligence and Security Command” and “synergy of abilities instead of low-yield competitions [between intelligence agencies of Iran]”.

Hardliners point at President Rouhani

Iran’s hardliners have accused President Hassan Rouhani of complicity in Fakhrizadeh’s death after his administration allowed Yukiya Amano, a former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, to meet the slain scientist.

Javad Karimi Ghoddousi, an Iranian MP, tweeted: “Mr Rouhani, during your presidency over the executive branch, and with the insistence of the enemy and the emphasis of you, Dr Mohsen Fakhrizadeh met with Amano.”

However, Raja News, close to hardliners, denied the allegation brought up by Karimi Ghoddousi. Hassan Shojaie, another MP, claimed that Fakhrizadeh was asked by “pro-western” officials in Iran to meet Amano but the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, did not allow it.

In a report published on the hardline Mashregh News site in 2014, the IAEA had urged Iran to provide them a meeting with Fakhrizadeh.

Impeding diplomacy

“The reason for assassinating Fakhrizadeh wasn’t to impede Iran’s war potential, it was to impede diplomacy,” tweeted Mark Fitzpatrick, a former senior US diplomat.

That seems to be working to some extent, as the hardliners have already raised pressure on the Iranian government. Hamid Rasai, a hardline activist and former MP, wrote that Rouhani’s administration was putting pressure on Iran’s state TV not to call Fakhrizadeh a nuclear scientist, as they see this assassination a “blow” to their “negotiation project” with US President-elect Joe Biden.

Moreover, Raja News argued that “it is not clear why the pro-West [administration of Rouhani] which is serving their last months, is still emphasising … the failed strategy of compromise”.

“What is clear is that the current strategy of the government has portrayed Iran as weak [in front of] enemies and have persuaded them to commit crimes against people of Iran.”

Iran is due to hold a presidential election next June. 

In the meantime, reformists and conservative newspapers have both called for retaliation.

Headlines used by Iran’s newspapers include: “Eye for an eye,” “If don’t hit them, we will get hit,” “Trap of tension,” and “The cowardly assassination of Fakhrizadeh”.

Prominent reformist and former political prisoner Mostafa Tajzade tweeted: “I unconditionally condemn the assassination of Dr Mohsen Fakhrizadeh. Netanyahu is the first person accused in this crime and seemingly he has no goal other than lighting the fire of war and conflict and preserving the sanctions. Iran can and must expose and isolate the Israeli regime by mobilising global public opinion against state terrorism.”

What will Iran do?

In reaction to Fakhrizadeh’s assassination, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a statement calling for investigation of “this crime” and firm prosecution of “its perpetrators and its commanders”.

The statement contained no vow of revenge, however, suggesting “strategic patience” was still the plan.

Hossein Kanaani-Moghaddam, a former IRGC commander who headed Iran’s forces in Lebanon for period in the 1980s, told MEE: “Iran’s reaction to this act of terrorism will be shown based on prudence and in the right time and place.”

He added: “Iran will not be influenced and affected by Zionists and will not fall in the trap of Zionists who want Iran to do something that would create a war.

Kanaani-Moghaddam emphasised: “Iran will take revenge from those who ordered this assassination in intelligence organizations of Israel and US.”

Meanwhile, Fereidoun Majlesi, a former Iranian diplomat in the US before the 1979 Islamic Revolution, believes that Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump’s joint efforts to prevent a de-escalation between Tehran and the incoming Biden administration will continue.

“It is crystal clear that Israel was behind this assassination as they seek to provoke Iran to give them an excuse for military attack or a full-scale war before the end of Trump’s presidency,” added Majlesi.

However, it seems Iran will continue its “restraint” policy, as Ali Rabie, the spokesperson for Iranian government, has stated that Iran will avenge the assassination, but “not in the game field the [enemy] has designated”.

Read more

Ayatollah Kaabi To Al-Ahed: We’ll Remain On Martyr Fakhrizadeh’s Path; Efforts To Identify The Criminals Underway

Ayatollah Kaabi To Al-Ahed: We’ll Remain On Martyr Fakhrizadeh’s Path; Efforts To Identify The Criminals Underway

By Mokhtar Haddad – Tehran

The assassination of Iran’s chief nuclear scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, won’t hinder Tehran’s path to progress, scientific development, or retribution against the killers. Fakhrizadeh, who delievred an advanced scientific service to the Iranian people, was gunned down in a cowardly operation by agents of the Zionist entity and the tide of global arrogance.

To discuss the repercussions and dimensions of this crime, Al-Ahed News sat down with a member of the Assembly of Experts for Leadership, Ayatollah Sheikh Abbas al-Kaabi.

“The Zionist-American front suffered major strategic defeats in confronting the axis of Islamic resistance, and at the helm of this axis is the Islamic Republic. It’s clear that the Zionist-American front is heading towards its demise, while the Islamic Republic is growing in strength day after day,” Sheikh Kaabi noted. 

He went on to explain that the assasination is an act of weakness. 

“The enemy is living in a state of fear, panic, and abject failure in confronting the axis of Islamic resistance on all military, political, economic, and security fronts. The only way they could compensate for this excruciating failure is through assassinations, treachery, and international terrorism. The assassination of martyr Fakhrizadeh is a violation of all international and humanitarian laws, and this is not the first martyrdom nor the last – getting killed has become a habit for us and our honor is in martyrdom. Martyrdom is the reward for striving in the path of God.”

Ayatollah Sheikh Kaabi underscored that “martyr Mohsen Fakhrizadeh has achieved his goal, and his path in terms of progress and scientific development will continue. There is no doubt that there are hundreds like martyr Fakhrizadeh, including his colleagues and students who will continue in his path, God willing, and the terrorists will get their punishment.”

According to the Assembly member, Iran is “in a state of soft war and a war of wills with the Zionist entity – {And who is truer to his covenant than Allah? So rejoice in your transaction which you have contracted. And it is that which is the great attainment.} The nature of the war is according to the following verse: {If you should be suffering – so are they suffering as you are suffering.} While the fighting is according to the verse: {So they kill and are killed. [It is] a true promise [binding] upon Him in the Torah.}”

“Of course, America and ‘Israel’ are specialists in treachery. The Islamic Republic and the path of resistance are focused on battles of a humanitarian nature, taking into account conscience, honor, morals, and the law during fighting.”

Sheikh Kaabi said he believes that “by assassinating this great martyr, they assassinated science, knowledge, and development. They proved that they are, in fact, fighting the path of science, development, and progress and are against humanity. This martyr was about to produce a special vaccine for the coronavirus, as the Islamic Republic’s path is that of employing science and faith, rationality and revolutionary, resistance and development. This martyr, who is a symbol in the fields of science, defense, and nuclear energy, represents the mujahideen scholars and believers that are striving in the path of God and who are able to develop the country in terms of science and technology. We will remain on the path of scientific and technical development. I congratulate the martyr for this martyrdom and happiness.”

Ayatollah Kaabi concluded by stating that “America and ‘Israel’ have formed an assassination network. This network consists of a security, military, espionage, and infiltration arm, and it’s working with the support of the Mossad and the CIA, and the agent states in the region. Following up on security to find the criminals is in full swing, and the powerful and capable security services in the Islamic Republic will arrest the terrorists to face justice. They will receive their punishment – {And those who have wronged are going to know to what [kind of] return they will be returned.} and {Indeed, your Lord is in observation.}”

NATO – A Comatose Body Whose ‘Mission’ Seems To Be Little More Than To Preserve And Expand Itself.

NATO –  A  Comatose Body Whose ‘Mission’ Seems To Be Little More Than To  Preserve And Expand Itself.

November 28, 2020

By Francis Lee for the Saker Blog

PART 1.

In 1851, France had the misfortune to fall victim to a coup by the nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte, Charles-Louis Napoléon Bonaparte, who styled himself Napoleon III. Karl Marx had been an enthusiastic supporter of the French 1848 uprising – one among those which had taken place throughout Europe – and viewed the coup as the work of a buffoon who happened to put together an odd coalition of social classes– businesspeople, aristocratic landlords, and a rabble of barely employed street peddlers and other workers with no consciousness of their own class interests. With his wicked wit, Marx saw Napoleon III as a dramatic come-down for France from the European-wide empire of Napoleon I. Marx wrote the famous words:

“Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He (Hegel) forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.”

In addition to the self-perpetuating, bloated monstrosity of NATO there should be added the various spook agencies, CIA, MI5, MI6 MOSSAD, BND, 5-EYES, and the rest whose mission is generally unstated and, for many, clouded in secrecy but nonetheless visible enough to those with eyes to see. Their permanent existence as a state within a state and their purported goals concerning ‘national security’ are not necessarily made clear, and, in fact, they might often be the very opposite of what they claim. Also included in the list of non-state actors are the NGOs such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) which in fact is not an NGO since it receives funding from the US government which makes it a GO. Along with this is the Human Rights Watch (HRW) as well as Soros’s Open Society Foundation, and these are just some of the lavishly underwritten think tanks and secretly funded organizations which have proliferated into the rich soil that sustains them. (Please see Ray McGovern on MICCIMATT) – Military Industrial Congressional Intelligence Media Academic Think Tanks, in this respect. (1) Just how large these sprawling bureaucracies are and how far their influence reaches is almost impossible to ascertain. It could I suppose be compared to a late stage carcinoma on the body politic which is actually killing the host. Given the enormous dimensions of this geo-political super-blob I will restrict myself to a few but telling examples of its activities and their outcomes.

The Trial Run: NATO And The Destruction Of Yugoslavia

In the early 1990s NATO had been taking a particular interest in the events in the independent sovereign state of Yugoslavia. Between June 1991 and April 1992, four republics declared independence, and, egged on by Germany, the local NATO enforcer, Slovenia, and Croatia were the most important. Only Serbia and Montenegro remained federated but the status of ethnic Serbs outside Serbia and Montenegro, and that of ethnic Croats outside Croatia, remained unsolved. This was the beginning of the deconstruction of Yugoslavia – part of a longer-term dismantling which would ultimately also include reducing the USSR/Russia to vassal status or failing that, of outright occupation. This contrived disintegration of Yugoslavia ultimately laid the early basis for the complete fragmentation of the Yugoslav state. The secessionist crisis which had started in 1991 ultimately laid the basis for overt NATO intervention in the Kosovo war in 1999, all of which is well-documented.

In 1999 NATO openly entered the conflict and began a massive blitz against the rump state of Serbia, a country with no aerial defence capability, and which was subjected to a merciless bombardment of the country with thousands of cruise missiles and bombs in what would become the largest military assault in Europe since the Second World War. NATO’s campaign of air and missile strikes against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which consisted of Serbia and Montenegro, lasted 78 days, ending on June 10, 1999. During the campaign, dubbed ‘Operation Noble Anvil’ by NATO, alliance warplanes carried out some 2,300 sorties against 995 facilities, firing nearly 420,000 missiles, bombs and other projectiles with a total mass of about 22,000 metric tonnes. Belgrade was a chief target and the bombs also fell on especial targets such as the Chinese Embassy and the City’s important radio/tv station where a number of Serbian journalists were at work. An accident. Maybe. Apologies? Of course not, these were ‘good bombs’ after all.

This set down the marker for future NATO regime changes. Yugoslavia was followed by both the enlargement of NATO and the conduct of US-NATO wars and military interventions in the Middle East starting with Iraq, along with the fabled Weapons of Mass Destruction. The conduct of US-NATO wars and military interventions in the Middle East which had spread into Iraq, was also to spread to Libya, Syria, Yemen and Iran.

And all of these interventions followed a similar pattern.

The NATO war machine operated by lining up the above states for ‘regime change’. This represented something of a change from the usual pattern as NATO had always regarded itself as being a defensive barrier to Soviet/Russian ‘aggression’. But the Yugoslav operation signalled a 180-degree change of policy. This caused some misgivings within the alliance as the United States had pushed NATO to become an offensive rather than a purely defensive security organization.

‘’The alliance now also pursues military missions in the areas such as the Balkans, Afghanistan, the Middle-East, and North Africa. All of those theatres lie outside, – in some cases far outside – NATO’s original territorial concern. Such military missions are also vastly different from NATO’s original purpose: i.e., the defence of Western Europe from possible aggression by the (then) Soviet Union.’’ (2)

What was of crucial importance to these wars of choice, however, was the role played by the MSM. It was the demonization of Heads of State in the targeted countries – in turn Milosevic, Saddam and Gaddafi found themselves caste as pantomime villains in a rogues gallery of ne’er-do-wells who were subjected and groomed by the MSM for these roles. Granted Saddam and Gaddafi were not Martin Luther King or Gandhi, but they were however the legitimate Heads of State of their own nations. It could be argued that Obama, Cameron, and Sarkozy also had blood on their hands, but for some reason, best known to the western MSM and to the political class, this didn’t count.

But Milosevic was a more difficult nut to crack. Not that the NATO defamation brigade didn’t try. The anti-Milosevic crescendo was key element in the myth structure which held that Milosevic incited the Serbs to violence, setting loose the genie of Serb nationalism from the bottle that had contained it under Tito. But neither these remarks by Milosevic nor his June 28, 1989, speech on the six-hundredth anniversary of the Battle of Kosovo had anything like the characteristics imputed to them. Instead Milosevic used both speeches to appeal to multi-ethnic tolerance, accompanied by a warning against the threat posed to Yugoslavia by nationalism—“hanging like a sword over their heads all the time”

The MSM-concocted crescendo surrounding Milosevic was reaching hysterical heights. In a commentary in 2000, Tim Judah wrote that Milosevic was responsible for wars in “Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo (Wow! Not bad, that’s some going! – FL) four wars since 1991 and [that] the result of these terrible conflicts, which began with the slogan ‘All Serbs in One State,’ is the cruellest irony.” Sometime journalist, sometime spokesperson for the ICTY at The Hague, Florence Hartmann of Le Monde, and The New York Times’s Marlise Simons wrote about the “incendiary nationalism” of the man who “rose and then clung to power by resurrecting old nationalist grudges and inciting dreams of a Greater Serbia … the prime engineer of wars that pitted his fellow Serbs against the Slovenes, the Croats, the Bosnians, the Albanians of Kosovo and ultimately the combined forces of the entire NATO, wrote that “Long before the war began, Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia and, following his example, Franjo Tudjman in Croatia, had turned their backs on the Yugoslav ideal of an ethnically mixed federal State and set about carving out their own ethnically homogeneous States.’’ Such were the accusations. But then something strange happened:

It was reported on Wednesday 28 February 2007 00.08 GMT that Slobodan Milosevic, who it is alleged had died of a heart attack in 2006, was posthumously exonerated on Monday when the international court of justice ruled that Serbia was not responsible for the 1995 massacre at Srebrenica. The former president of Serbia had always argued that neither Yugoslavia nor Serbia had command of the Bosnian Serb army, and this has now been upheld by the world court in The Hague. By implication, Serbia cannot be held responsible for any other war crimes attributed to the Bosnian Serbs.

The allegations against Milosevic over Bosnia and Croatia were cooked up in 2001, two years after an earlier indictment had been issued against him by the separate International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) at the height of NATO’s attack on Yugoslavia in 1999. Notwithstanding the atrocities on all sides in Kosovo, NATO claims that Serbia was pursuing genocide turned out to be war propaganda, so the ICTY prosecutor decided to bolster a weak case by trying to “get” Milosevic for Bosnia as well. It took two years and 300 witnesses, but the prosecution never managed to produce conclusive evidence against its star defendant, and its central case was conclusively blown out of the water. (3)

All very convincing and indeed incontrovertible to most rational and neutral observers, but water off a duck’s back for the western MSM, who either simply ignored the findings or found new pastures to cultivate. After the Yugoslavian denouement, the western MSM found itself at a loose end. They had to find somethinnegative to write about Russia, since this was their apparent raison d’etre. This consisted of an ongoing barrage of propaganda including 9/11, Iraq and the WMDs, the recruitment, training, and funding of a US foreign legion of Jihadists pursuing war against Syria, Yemen, Iran and Libya, some still live and ongoing (see below).

PART 2

Politics as Theatre – Graham Greene 1904-1991 Our Man In Havana And The Quiet American.

The above were fictional stories of a transparently bungled MI6 stunt in Cuba and similar CIA cack-handed intrigue in Indo-China. Both shed some light on these James Bond wannabees: what and who they are, how the operate, and just how successful their little plots turn out. Talking of MI6 for example the fact that a group of famous British writers, Graham Greene, Arthur Ransome, Somerset Maugham, Compton Mackenzie and Malcolm Muggeridge, and the philosopher A.J. “Freddie” Ayer, all worked for MI6, Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service. They are among the many exotic characters who agreed to spy for Britain, mainly during wartime, and who appear in a first authorised history of MI6. Generally these were spies during the war against Germany, so they could be forgiven for their adopting this ‘profession’ (sic). More to the point, however, was that the CIA/MI6 was staffed by complete fools, as is instanced in two of Greene’s novels, to wit: Our Man In Havana, which was frankly hilariouscompared to the more disturbing tale, The Quiet American.

Our Man in Havana is a black semi-comedy, set in Havana during the Fulgencio Batista regime. James Wormold, a British vacuum cleaner retailer, is approached by MI6 operative, Hawthorne, who tries to recruit him for the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6). Wormold’s wife had left him and now, he lives with his beautiful 16-year-old daughter, Milly, who is devoutly Catholic, but also materialistic and manipulative. Since Wormold does not make enough money to pay for Milly’s extravagances, he accepts the offer of a side job in espionage. Because he has no information to send to London, Wormold fabricates his reports using information found in newspapers and invents a fictitious network of agents. Some of the names in his network are those of real people (most of whom he has never met), but some are made up. Wormold tells only his friend and World War I veteran, Doctor Hasselbacher, about his spy work, hiding the truth from Milly.

At one point, he decides to make his reports “exciting” by sending to London sketches of what he describes as a ‘secret military installation’ in the mountains, actually vacuum cleaner parts scaled to a large size. In London, nobody except Hawthorne, the only one to know that Wormold sells vacuum cleaners, doubts this report. However, Hawthorne keeps quiet for fear of losing his job. In the light of the new developments, London sends Wormold a secretary, Beatrice Severn, and a radio assistant codenamed “C” with much spy paraphernalia. Wormwold is eventually uncovered as being a complete imposter. To avoid embarrassment and silence him from speaking to the press, MI6 offers Wormold a teaching post at headquarters and recommends him for the Order of the British Empire. (Episode closed. Not quite. Of course it was fiction, but does the Steele Dossier or, Russiagate ring a bell?)

Similarly, in another of Greene’s novels set in the first US involvement in the Indo-China War, The Quiet American, the British journalist Thomas Fowler is befriended by an American Aid worker, Alden Pyle, who it is understood works for a US aid agency. Actually he is not what he seems and was working for the CIA all along, this was eventually teased out by Fowler, with a romantic background which also involved a triangular relationship between Fowler-Pyle and Fowler’s Vietnamese mistress. Pyle was ultimately uncovered and assassinated by a Vietcong agent.

So much for the fiction.

MI6 – Libya – A Fools’ Playground For Wannabee James Bond Devotees.

In a more serious vein, however, where an actual example of MI6 buffoonery came to light occurred with the Jihadist bomb outrage, carried out by the Jihadist Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG – see below) in Manchester UK in 2017. Most detail was not published in the MSM except by the superb investigative journalism of Patrick Cockburn writing in The Independent. Cockburn’s report is worth quoting here in full.

‘’The culpability of the British government and its intelligence agencies which enabled suicide bomber LIFG Salman Abedi to blow himself up at a pop concert in Manchester is being masked one year later by the mood of grief and mourning over the death and injury of so many people.

It is heartrending to hear injured children and the relatives of the dead say they do not hate anybody as a result of their terrible experiences and, if they feel anger at all, it is only directed towards the bomber himself. Victims repeatedly say that they did not want the slaughter at the Manchester Arena to be used to create divisions in their city.

The downside of this praiseworthy attitude is that it unintentionally lets off the hook those British authorities whose flawed policies and mistaken actions really did pave the way towards this atrocity. Appeals against divisiveness and emphasis on the courage of survivors have muted attacks on the government, enabling it to accuse those who criticise it of mitigating the sole guilt of Abedi.

This attitude is highly convenient for former Prime Minister David Cameron who decided in 2011 on military intervention against Muammar Gaddafi. His purported aim was humanitarian concern for the people of Benghazi, but – as a devastatingly critical report by the House of Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs said last year – this swiftly turned into “an opportunistic policy of regime change”.

This NATO intervention succeeded and by the end of the year Gaddafi was dead. Real power in Libya passed to Islamist militias, including those with which the Abedi family were already associated. Pictures show Salman’s brothers posing with guns in their hands. Libya was plunged into an endless civil war and Benghazi, whose people including British Prime Minister, David Cameron, and French president Nicolas Sarkozy were so keen to save, is today a sea of ruins. Inevitably, ISIS took advantage of the anarchy in Libya to spread its murderous influence.

This is the Libyan reality, which was created by Cameron and Sarkozy, with sceptical support from Barack Obama, the then US president, who famously referred to the Libyan debacle as a “shit show”.

Libya became a place where the Abedi family, returning from their long exile in Manchester, were able to put their militant Islamist beliefs into practice. They absorbed the toxic variant of Islam espoused by the Al-Qaeda clones, taking advantage of their military experience honed in the Iraq war, such as how to construct a bomb studded with pieces of metal designed to tear holes in human flesh. The bomb materials were easily available in countries like Britain.

Salman Abedi was responsible for what he did, but he could not have killed 22 people and maimed another 139 others, half of them children, if the British government had not acted as it did in Libya in 2011. And its responsibility goes well beyond its disastrous policy of joining the Libyan civil war, overthrowing Gaddafi, and replacing him with warring tribes and militias.

Manchester had since the 1990s become a centre for a small but dangerous group of exiled Libyans belonging to anti-Gaddafi groups, such as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, originally formed by Libyans fighting the communists in Afghanistan. After the invasion of Iraq in 2003, strict measures were taken by MI5 and the police against Libyans thought likely to sympathise with al-Qaeda in Iraq and, later, ISIS. They were subject to counter-terrorism control orders monitoring and restricting their movements and often had their passports confiscated.

But no sooner had Britain joined the war against Gaddafi than these suspected terrorists became useful allies. Their control-orders were lifted, their passports returned, and they were told that the British government had no problem with them going to Libya to fight against Gaddafi. In place of past restrictions, they were allowed to pass to and fro at British airports. Some militants are reported as saying that when they had problems with counter-terrorism police when flying to Libya, the MI5 officers with whom they were in touch were willing to vouch for them and ease their way to the battlefront in Libya, where MI6 was cooperating with Qatar and UAE as financiers of the armed opposition.

This opportunistic alliance between the British security services and Libyan Salafi-jihadis may explain why Salman Abedi, though by now high up on the list of potential terrorists, was able to fly back to Manchester from Libya unimpeded a few days before he blew himself up

There should be far more public and media outrage about the British government’s role in the destruction of Libya, especially its tolerance of dangerous Islamists living in Britain to pursue its foreign policy ends. The damaging facts about what happened are now well established thanks to parliamentary scrutiny and journalistic investigation.

The official justification for British military intervention in Libya is that it was to prevent the massacre of civilians in Benghazi by Gaddafi’s advancing forces. The reason for expecting this would happen was a sanguinary speech by Gaddafi which might mean that he intended to kill them all. David Cameron, along with Liam Fox as defence minister at the time and William Hague as foreign secretary, have wisely stuck with this explanation and, as a defence of their actions, they are probably right to do so. But a report by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee says that the belief that Gaddafi would “massacre the civilians in Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence”. It points out that he had retaken other towns from the rebels and not attacked the civilian population.

These facts notwithstanding the British still followed the French lead in military intervention and Sarkozy similarly justified his policy as being in defence of the people of Benghazi. We are a little better informed about the real French motives thanks to a report, revealed through the Freedom of Information Act, made in early 2011 by Sidney Blumenthal, an unofficial advisor to Hillary Clinton, the then US secretary of state, after a meeting he had had with French intelligence officials about Sarkozy’s motives for intervention.

The officials told Blumenthal that Sarkozy’s plans were driven by five main causes, the first being “a desire to gain a greater share of Libyan oil production” and the next being to increase French influence in North Africa. His other aims were to improve his own political standing in France, enable the French military to reassert their position in the world, and prevent Gaddafi supplanting France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa.

The intelligence officials make no mention of any concern on the part of Sarkozy for the safety of the Libyan people. Conceivably the British Foreign Policy Team of David Cameron, William Hague, and Liam Fox, had much purer and more altruistic motives than their French counterparts. But it is more likely that the aim was always regime change in the national interest of those foreign powers who brought it about.

It is easy enough to convict Cameron and Sarkozy of hypocrisy, but a more telling accusation is that they betrayed the very national interests that they were seeking to advance. They destroyed Libya as a country, reduced its six million people to misery and played into the hands of men like Salman Abedi.’’ (4)

The whole squalid episode qualified as another MI5/6, CIA, and the French DGSE, operation carried out under the NATO umbrella and gave us the ‘shit show’ as enunciated by Obama. Of course the whole tawdry affair bore the customary NATO imprimatur: An EU-US-NATO led operation. Hardly an R2P operation, more like an R2B (Responsibility to Bomb). Its sticky fingers were as usual all over the joint campaign. It should be understood that NATO is an organization which exists to solve the problems it first created.

NATO – Who’s Next For Membership And/or Regime Change?

In any sane world the above would read as being a purely rhetorical question. Unfortunately, however, we do not live in a sane world. We live in Washington’s post-Westphalian world of an out-of-control Leviathan that has remained seemingly indifferent with Turkey’s seizure of Northern Cyprus, Israel’s acquisition of the West Bank and the Golan Heights. Worst of all has been Saudi Arabia’s atrocity-ridden war of aggression and extermination against Yemen – a policy in which the latter Obama and Trump administrations actively assisted and was carried out with NATO weapons, trainers, and the sustained bombing of civilian targets. (Guernica anyone!?) ‘’In this post-Westphalian world the United States and its allies have violated all those principles contained in the UN prescriptions whenever it seemed expedient to do so. It seems exceedingly difficult to square a rules-based international system with ongoing violations which have taken place in Indo-China and Yugoslavia and Iraq, even if this is carried out under a flag of convenience.’’ (5)

Respecting the Westphalian premise of spheres of influence would require a necessarily reduced application of the US’s military prerogatives; prerogatives which it has continued to exercise since 1945 in order to achieve its foreign policy objectives. It is taken as normal that the US may intervene at any time and place on the planet as it suits. The Monroe Doctrine has apparently become globalized.

But the emerging Eurasian bloc have a rather different perspective on affairs. They maintain an (irritating to western eyes) adherence to the Westphalian principles (1648). From their standpoint this should form a universal basis for peaceful coexistence. The Westphalian principles can be briefly delineated as follows:

  • States existed within their own recognised borders.
  • Each States sovereignty was recognised by the others.
  • Principles of non-interference were agreed.
  • Religious differences between states were tolerated.
  • States might be monarchies or republics.
  • Permanent State interests or raison d’etat was the organizing principle of international relations.
  • War was not eliminated, yet it was mitigated by diplomacy and balance-of-power politics
  • The object of a balance-of-power was to prevent one state from becoming so powerful that it could conquer others and destroy world order.

This was a very different philosophy and global project from the one that NATO, the US neo-cons, MSM, deep-state and spook bureaucracies have in mind. But how to reconcile the irreconcilable? There must be a meeting of minds for diplomacy to set out such matters and set workable limits on the goals of contending parties. But, in Hamlet’s words, ‘Ay, there’s the rub’. At the present time there are no signals from the US war party who are attempting to delegitimize the entire concept of spheres of influence, and, as such, is a non-starter for even reasonably cordial relationships between East and West. However,

‘’What is worse is the apparent US attitude that Russia is not entitled to even a minimum-security zone adjacent to its homeland. Pushing Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, after already admitting the Baltic republics, reduces any Russian security buffer to a nullity. Conducting NATO military exercises within mere miles (and at least in one case barely hundreds of yards) of the Russian border highlights such menacing arrogance. A fundamental change in Washington’s approach is essential.’’(6)

Agreed, but it takes two to tango. And it would appear that the US is not going to take to the dance floor any time soon. Instead, for example, the following brainless responses to any minimal peace proposals emanating from the Eurasian bloc are revealing. After the Yugoslavian denouement, the western MSM found itself at a loose end. They had to find something negative to write about Russia. However, instead of reciprocated and reasoned diplomacy on the part of the West and its various agencies we got the following. A piece of journalistic fluff.

The Navalny Episode.

The whole farcical Navalny episode should be an object lesson in just how totally incompetent and amateurish whole western security agencies appear to be. The CIA-MI6-BND mob seems to be on the loose! In a ridiculously burlesque performance the whole fabric of western society was supposed to be apparently undermined by the devious Vlad the compulsive poisoner who strikes yet again. Cue the predictable MSM cacophony from the usual suspects subjecting us to the ‘two-minutes-hate’’ routine. Russia did it! Russia did it! Putin personally took charge of it. NATO should stand together and forestall the challenges of Russian dirty tricks. Blah, blah blah.

The wholly foreseeable reaction of the western establishment, politicians and MSM, was to have an expected mass apoplectic seizure. Something must be done! Yes, and we know precisely what that something is. It is clear as daylight that this stunt is intended to scuttle the Nordstream-2 deal between Germany and the Russian Federation, a deal which was almost finalised and is still awaiting implementation.

The story (fantasy) goes something like this. Suddenly a political nobody – Navalny – was allegedly poisoned by Putin (but of course) using the deadly one tiny drop of Novichok – which reputedly wipes out a whole city. Only as with the Skripals it didn’t work, well, ahem, we’ll just pass on that.

The whole parody – worthy of a Monty Python sketch – has been orchestrated by the western spook agencies governments and MSM whose sole object is to engineer the cancellation of Nordstream-2 which, if it happens, will mean that the Americans will be able to export their very expensive LNG, sending their little armada across the Atlantic. More fool the Germans if they agree to this directive. But this abject surrender was entirely predictable and in keeping with the squirming deference of the euro-vassals to the US’s NATO allies, Germany being one.

Norway being another. One only has to listen to a complete dolt like Jens Stoltenberg – member of the Norwegian Labour party and ex-Prime Minster now Secretary-General of NATO – to realise how monumental the problem is when the said Mr Stoltenberg talks quite enthusiastically about the future entry of Ukraine and Georgia into NATO.

This is the fire which the ‘West’ is now playing with. The NATO idiocracy is now calling the shots and such a move of incorporating Ukraine and Georgia into NATO would be a virtual declaration of war against Russia. Russia’s response might well be a message from Elvis.

‘’If you’re looking for trouble, you’ve come to the right place.’’

NOTES

(1) McGovern and Bureaucracy – passim.

(2) This observation is usually attributed to Richard Sakwa, author of Frontline Ukraine and Russia Against The World. But I think that it might have been influenced by J.A.Schumpeter who once remarked that in Ancient Egypt ‘‘a class of professional soldiers formed during the war against the Hyskos persisted even when those wars were over – along with those warlike instincts and interests’’. But Schumpeter capped this part of the narrative with a pithy summary of his viewpoint: ‘’Created by wars that required it, the military machine now created the wars it required.’’ J.A.Schumpeter Critical Exposition Chapter 2, p.63. Major Conservative and Libertarian Thinkers – John Medearis. Also Ted Galen Carpenter – NATO – The Dangerous Dinosaur – passim.

Sure sounds like NATO to me (FL)

(3) John Laughland – Travesty: The Trial of Slobodan Milosevic and the corruption of International Justice

(4) Patrick Cockburn – The Independent – passim

(5) Ted Galen Carpenter – NATO: The Dangerous Dinosaur – page.9

(6) Ted Galen Carpenter – Ibid, page.144

Political Analyst: Fakhrizadeh’s Assassination An Act of War, Antagonists Will Be Punished

Political Analyst: Fakhrizadeh’s Assassination An Act of War, Antagonists Will Be Punished 

By Elham Hashemi

Tehran – On 21 November 2020, The Times of ‘Israel’ said that the ‘Israeli’ regime along with the US are planning ‘covert ops’ against Iran as Trump’s term ends. Only six days later, prominent Iranian physicist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh has been assassinated in a terrorist attack in Damavand area near the capital Tehran.

This crime comes as a desperate attempt to put more pressure on Tehran amid the constant US and allies attempts to hamper Iran from advancing in the different fields, including nuclear development for peaceful purposes. Iran’s Fars news agency reported that Fakhrizadeh had been targeted on Friday in an attack involving at least one explosion and shooting by a number of assailants in Absard city of Damavand County, Tehran Province.

The media office of Iran’s Defense Ministry said Fakhrizadeh, who headed the ministry’s Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research [SPND], “was severely wounded in the course of clashes between his security team and terrorists and was transferred to hospital,” where he succumbed to his wounds and was announced as martyr. 

Commenting on the topic, political analyst and University of Tehran Professor, Dr. Seyed Mohammad Marandi said “This assassination shows that western intelligence agencies and the terrorist organizations that they support such as the MEK along with the apartheid regime and the other regional actors are waging war against Iranian people.” 

He explained “It is interesting when one remembers that every time a terrorist is arrested, or a terrorist is executed or a spy is captured, Western media immediately say that these people are innocent, and that they are hostages; as if they have some sort of special knowledge of what goes on behind the scenes. Yet it is these very same spies and terrorists that accumulate knowledge and carryout murder and destruction.” 

“Nevertheless, this is an act of war, and the Iranians will make sure that its antagonists are punished as a result of the murder of this high ranking Iranian official,” Dr. Marandi noted. 

Brigadier General Hossein Dehqan, military advisor to Leader of the Islamic Revolution His Eminence Imam Sayyed Ali Khamenei, vowed in his tweet a crushing response to the perpetrators.

The tweet read “We will come down hard on those who killed Martry Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, just like thunder and we will make them regret their deed. In the final days of their allied gambler’s political life, the Zionists are after intensifying pressure on Iran in order to trigger an all-out war.”

Also, Iran’s Chief of Staff Major General Mohammad Hossein Baqeri said in a statement that “The assassins of martyr Fakhrizadeh will see a harsh revenge,” promising that they will be punished. He also assured that the path Farikhzadeh started will never stop. 

The political analyst pointed out that “It is ironic that when Western regimes claim that the Russians attempted to murder or assassinate an asset of theirs in the UK, the whole of NATO, Europe and North America is up in arms. But when an actual act of murder is carried out in Iran, Western media outlets gloat and try to show the victim as the guilty party rather than the terrorists and the regimes that stand behind those terrorists.”   

Fakhrizadeh’s name was mentioned in a presentation in May 2018 by ‘Israeli’ Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, during which he repeated baseless claims about the Iranian nuclear program. Netanyahu described the scientist as the director of Iran’s nuclear program and said, “Remember that name, Fakhrizadeh.”

Related

لقاء نتنياهو وابن سلمان.. لماذا إخراج السري إلى العلن؟

المصدر: الميادين نت

أليف صباغ

أليف صباغ

محلل سياسي مختصّ بالشأن الإسرائيلي

مشاريع “السلام” الاقتصادية لا يمكن أن تخرج إلى حيّز التنفيذ من دون علاقات رسمية بين السعودية و”إسرائيل”، حتى لو طبَّعت الأخيرة مع السودان والإمارات والبحرين.

لقاء نتنياهو وابن سلمان.. لماذا إخراج السري إلى العلن؟
لقاء نتنياهو وابن سلمان.. لماذا إخراج السري إلى العلن؟

انشغل العالم مؤخراً باللقاء “السري” بين رئيس الحكومة الإسرائيلية بنيامين نتنياهو وولي العهد السعودي محمد بن سلمان في مدينة “نيوم” السعودية، بمشاركة رئيس “الموساد” الإسرائيلي يوسي كوهين، وبرعاية وزير الخارجية الأميركي مارك بومبيو.

 قبل انتهاء اللقاء، كان أحد المقربين من نتنياهو قد سرَّب خبراً عنه، يقول فيه إنّ “سيّده” يقوم في هذا الوقت “بصنع السلام”، ما أثار حماس وسائل الإعلام لمعرفة سبب إلغاء نتنياهو اجتماعاً كان مقرراً في ساعات المساء. 

في الليلة ذاتها، وقبل إغلاق الصّحف اليومية، سُرّب الخبر أيضاً، وبشكل أوضح بكثير، إلى وسائل إعلام أميركية وإسرائيلية سمحت لها الرقابة بنشره، ويفترض أنه سري للغاية! يقول الخبر إنَّ الطّرفين بحثا مواضيع مهمّة، ولكنّهما لم يتوصّلا إلى اتفاق جوهري.

فجأة، أنكر وزير الخارجية السعودي مشاركة نتنياهو في الاجتماع، ولكنَّ مسؤولين كباراً في المملكة أكَّدوا لوسائل الإعلام الأميركية والإسرائيلية، موقع “واي نت” وصحيفة “هآرتس” و”إسرائيل اليوم”، المقربة جداً إلى نتنياهو، مشاركة نتنياهو في الاجتماع. ليس ذلك جديداً، فالعشق بين الإنكار والاعتراف هو قصة يعيشها الطرفان زمناً طويلاً تعدى مائة عام من الزمن، وانتقل من الأجداد إلى الأبناء، وابتُلي به الأحفاد أيضاً.

هنا، يُسأل السؤال: ما المواضيع التي تهم الطرفين، الإسرائيلي والسعودي، في هذه الأيام، وخصوصاً أن إدارة ترامب الجمهورية تقضي أسابيعها الأخيرة، لتأتي بدلاً منها إدارة جديدة برئاسة جو بايدن الديموقراطي؟ هل ترعى الإدارة الجديدة هذا العشق، كما رعته الإدارة المنتهية ولايتها وأرادت تحويله إلى زواج رسمي أم أنها ستبقيه عشقاً يحلم به الطرفان ويختلفان على المهر المقدم والمؤخر؟

لا يختلف مراقبان على أن المواضيع التي ناقشها الطرفان أو التي تهمهما كالتالي:

أولاً، يتفق الطرفان على موقفهما المعادي لإيران، الصامدة في وجه الإمبريالية الأميركية وطموحات الغطرسة الإسرائيلية في منطقة الشرق الأوسط، وعلى ضرورة قيام إدارة ترامب بعملية عسكرية ضدها أو إبقائها تحت العقوبات الاقتصادية المشددة حتى تخضع من دون قيد أو شرط.

لا شكّ في أنّ هذا الموضوع مرتبط بالموقف من سوريا التي تقاوم الإرهاب، ومن حزب الله الذي تتعاظم قوته في وجه “إسرائيل”. وعليه، يتفقان أيضاً على أن ما يخيفهما أو يقلقهما هو أن الإدارة الجديدة قد تنتهج نهجاً آخر لا يحقّق لهما رغبتهما في المواجهة العسكرية مع إيران. من هنا، يتفقان على ضرورة إشهار هذا التحالف غير الرسمي، في رسالة إلى الإدارة الأميركية الجديدة، خشية أن تعود إلى الاتفاق النووي مع إيران، من دون الأخذ بعين الاعتبار رغبة السعودية و”إسرائيل”.

ثانياً، يتفق الطرفان أيضاً، وفق ما جاء في وسائل الإعلام التي اعتمدت على مصادر إسرائيلية وسعودية كبرى، على أن هذه العلاقة ستشهد تطبيعاً في المستقبل، ولكنّ السعودية تشترطه بشروطها، في حين تريده “إسرائيل” مجانياً. تشترط السعودية أن يكون التطبيع بعد الاتفاق الإسرائيلي مع الفلسطينيين وفق المبادرة السعودية منذ العام 2002، وهو ما صرّح به علناً وزير الخارجية السعودي، فيصل بن فرحان، قبل حصول اللقاء أيضاً. هذا هو شرط الملك سلمان بن عبد العزيز، تقول المصادر، على الأقل لحفظ ماء الوجه، لكن من يضمن استمرار هذا الشرط في حال توفي الملك سلمان وورثه ابنه محمد المتحمس للتحالف مع “إسرائيل”؟ 

ثالثاً، إن الشرط الثاني للسعودية، والذي تحدَّث عنه ابن سلمان في اللقاء المذكور، هو السماح لها بأن تقيم جمعيات في القدس الشرقية وأن تموّلها، لصد التغلغل التركي في القدس كذلك في الحرم القدسي بشكل خاص. كما طلب ابن سلمان من نتنياهو بأن يسمح بإدخال ممثلين عن السعودية في دائرة الأوقاف الإسلامية في القدس، لتحجيم دور الجهات الأخرى، من مثل الأردن وتركيا. 

تفيد مصادر سعوديّة مطّلعة أيضاً بأنّ ابن سلمان يخشى عقوبات أميركية ضده شخصياً في ظل إدارة بايدن. وعليه، فهو يرى في “إسرائيل” حليفاً قادراً على مساعدته لتخفيف اليد الأميركية عنه. من هنا، لا يريد أن يتنازل عن كلّ أوراقه مسبقاً، فقد حصل أأن تنازل لترامب عما يقارب نصف ترليون دولار، ولم يحصل على ما يريد لغاية الآن. 

في المقابل، ووفقاً للتقديرات الإسرائيلية، فإنَّ السعودية هي “مركز المحور العربي لمناهضة إيران”، فهل تتنازل “إسرائيل” عن هذا الدور بسهولة؟ وهل هي مستعدة لأن تدفع الثمن للسعودية بالعملة الفلسطينية؟ سؤال يبقى على الطاولة، وينبئ بلقاءات مستقبلية إضافية، وربما تعقيدات أيضاً. 

رابعاً: ماذا عن اليمن والضغوط الأميركية المتوقعة على السعودية لوقف الحرب الوحشية عليها، والتي لم تحقق أي إنجاز للسعودية، وكانت نتائجها كارثية لغاية الآن على الشعب اليمني وأطفاله وبنيته التحتية، وعلى الاقتصاد السعودي أيضاً؟ وهل تقدم “إسرائيل” أي مساعدة إضافية في ملف اليمن في ظلّ إدارة بايدن؟ ألم يتعلَّم السعوديون وغيرهم أنّ “إسرائيل” لا ترى فيهم إلا سوقاً لبضاعتها وأداة لتنفيذ مخططاتها الاستراتيجية، وإن قدمت لهم سلاحاً على شكل قواعد مضادة للصواريخ أو خبراء أو طيارين، فذلك لمصالح مادية، ولتوريط العرب بمجازر ضد بعضهم البعض، وهو ما يفيد “إسرائيل” ويزيد من نفوذها في الشرق الأوسط على المدى القريب والبعيد.

ماذا يخفي التطبيع الرسمي من مشاريع؟ 

من يراجع تاريخ ما نشر عن المشاريع الاستراتيجية للحركة الصهيونية، المتمثلة بـ”إسرائيل”، في الشرق الأوسط، يدرك أنَّ تلك المشاريع لن تخرج إلى حيز التنفيذ إلا بعد إقامة علاقات سياسية بين “إسرائيل” وبلدان الخليج العربية، أهمّها مشاريع مد أنابيب النفط والغاز من الخليج المنتِج إلى أوروبا عبر الأراضي السعودية، ومنها إلى الشواطئ والموانئ الإسرائيلية، إضافةً إلى سكة حديد تشقّ دول الخليج والأردن والعراق، وشوارع وطرقات سريعة مخطّطة وجاهزة للتنفيذ تربط بين هذه الدول والبحر المتوسط عبر “إسرائيل”، ومشاريع أمنية كبرى تحول البحر الأحمر إلى محور أمني للتعاون السعودي الإسرائيلي بالأساس ضد إيران وتركيا وغيرهما. 

كل هذه المشاريع لا يمكن أن تخرج إلى حيّز التنفيذ من دون علاقات رسمية بين السعودية و”إسرائيل”، حتى لو طبَّعت الأخيرة مع السودان والإمارات والبحرين. تبقى السعودية هي “المحور الأساس”، كما يراها الإسرائيليون.

لماذا إخراج السري إلى العلن؟

انتقد بيني غانتس، رئيس الحكومة البديل، نتنياهو، لتسريب هذه اللقاءات السرية إلى العلن، معتبراً ذلك إهمالاً للمسؤولية وإضراراً بمصلحة “إسرائيل”. وأضاف: “لقد قمت بنشاطات سرية كثيرة في حياتي، ومنها ما كان بتوجيه من نتنياهو، ولكنني لم أصرح عنها”، متهماً نتنياهو بتفضيل المصلحة الشخصية على مصلحة “إسرائيل”. 

أما نتنياهو، فإضافة إلى المكسب الشخصي من تسريب هذه اللقاءات، فهو ليس أول رئيس حكومة يسرب لقاءات سرية مع زعماء عرب، فقد اعتادت الصحافة الإسرائيلية أن تنشر عن لقاءات سرية بموافقة الرقابة العسكرية، وغالباً ما يكون ذلك “نقلاً عن وسائل إعلام أجنبية”، والهدف منه يكون دقّ أكبر ما يمكن من أسافين الشكّ والريبة بين الزعماء العرب، ونزع ثقة المواطن العربي بقيادات نظامه، فيضعف النظام والزعامات المتعاونة، وتصبح أكثر عرضة للابتزاز.

وحين ينزع المواطن العربي ثقته بزعامته، ويرى أنها تتعاون مع العدو، فهل سيحارب عدوه من أجل نظام خائن لشعبه؟ وهل سيمتنع رجل الأعمال عن التعاون مع “إسرائيل”، وهو يعلم أنَّ نظامه رئيسه أو ملكه أو أميره غارق في علاقاته معها؟ إنَّ الهدف الأساس من الإعلان عن هذه اللقاءات هو كيّ العصب الوطني أو ما يُسمى “كيّ الوعي” لدى جماهير الشعب، ليسهل عليها ابتلاع التطبيع والخيانة.

هذا اللقاء الأخير ليس الأخير في مسلسل العشق الممنوع بين الحركة الصهيونية والحركة الوهابية، المتمثلة بمملكة آل سعود، فقد سبق ذلك لقاءات علنية وأخرى سرية في “إسرائيل” والسعودية وأوروبا وأميركا، ورسائل غرام منها ما بقي في السر ومنها ما خرج إلى العلن، ومبادرات استرضاء منسقة مسبقاً برعاية بريطانية أو أميركية منذ مائة سنة تقريباً وحتى اليوم. ولم تكن مبادرة الأمير فهد في العام 1981 إلا واحدة منها، مروراً بمبادرة الملك عبد الله في العام 2002 وحتى اتفاقيات إبراهام بين “إسرائيل” والبحرين والإمارات التي أجريت بمباركة سعودية. 

كلّ هذا المبادرات تأتي ضمن علاقات تاريخية تهدف إلى استرضاء “إسرائيل”، لتضمن الأخيرة في المقابل هيمنها على الشرق الأوسط، إلا أنها لم ترضَ ولن ترضى حتى يصبح الجميع عبيداً مستسلمين لها، كما هي عقيدتها التلمودية.

أما نتيجة هذا كله، فهو ليس إلا مزيداً من الضغط العربي على الفلسطينيين للتنازل عن حقوقهم. ورغم كل التنازلات التي قدَّمها الفلسطينيون على مدى عقود، وغداة كل مبادرة سعودية، فإنَّ ذلك لم يحفّز “إسرائيل” المتغطرسة إلا على طلب المزيد من التنازلات والمزيد من الهيمنة، فهل يفهم العرب عامة، والفلسطينيون خاصة، أن سياسة الاسترضاء، استرضاء المتغطرس، هي التي أوصلتهم إلى هذا الحضيض، وأن نهج المقاومة هو وحده الذي أجبر “إسرائيل” على التراجع في محطات مختلفة من هذا الصراع؟

%d bloggers like this: