A Panicked Israel Is a Dangerous Israel — Astute News

Former US Presidential Candidate, Pat Buchanan has written, “the Middle East and world, have been awakened to the reality that, when Trump said he was ending everlasting commitments and bringing U.S. troops home from “endless wars,” he was not bluffing. The Saudis got the message when the U.S., in response to a missile and drone […]

via A Panicked Israel Is a Dangerous Israel — Astute News

Haaretz Criticizes Russia, Supports US/Israeli Aggression

By Stephen Lendman


Among major powers, Russia is the leading proponent of peace and stability worldwide — its geopolitical agenda polar opposite how the US, NATO, Israel, and their imperial partners operate, an unprecedented global menace Haaretz and Western media support. 

According to the Israeli broadsheet, Dems have little appetite for “Middle East entanglements and many of them have little love for Israel.”

Fact: On issues of war and peace, corporate empowerment, serving privileged interests exclusively, neoliberal harshness for ordinary Americans, and cracking down hard on resisters, there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between both right wings of the US war party.

Fact: As for virtually anything involving Israel, nearly the entire Congress and executive branch support the Jewish state one-sidedly, uncaring about Palestinian rights. Rare exceptions prove the rule.

Haaretz: “The days of unconditional US defense aid may be numbered. In the future Israel will have to give something back.”

Haaretz has things backwards for the near and longer-term. The power of the Jewish lobby in the US and West assures continued support for the worst of Israeli high crimes. The Jewish state partners with the US and NATO in waging them. 

Haaretz claiming “Putin is the new king of the Middle East” greatly exaggerates Russia’s regional influence, gaining on the West, way short of surpassing it so far.

Saying he has “economic goals” is true of all nations. Russia pursues its geopolitical aims without attacking or exploiting other nations and their people — seeking peace, stability, mutual cooperation with other countries, and multi-world polarity.

Washington’s agenda is polar opposite, the same true for NATO and Israel — at war with other nations while exploiting their own ordinary people for maximum wealth and power.

Haaretz repeated the Big Lie that won’t die about Russian US election meddling no credible evidence proved happened because none exists, adding:

“Moscow operates hacker teams specializing in political interference in ways that leave no trace of official involvement.”

Like Western media, accusations against Russia by Haaretz include no evidence proving them, showing they’re groundless.

The broadsheet quoted an unnamed Israeli official claiming with no corroborating evidence that Russia “engage(s) in political subversion all over the world. They see it as legitimate and Israel is no exception,” adding:

“Like the Chinese, the Russians want to show that the democratic system doesn’t work anywhere. They prefer to deal with leaders and hierarchical systems without institutions that balance and restrain power.” 

“So they challenge democratic structures everywhere, interfere in elections and create economic pressure via investments by oligarchs that serve the Kremlin.”

Fact: Russian democracy is real, polar opposite US-led Western and Israeli fantasy versions.

Fact: Israel spies on allies and adversaries alike, notably the US.  Washington’s Government Accountability Office (GAO) earlier accused Israel of “conduct(ing) the most aggressive espionage operation against the United States of any US ally.”

The Pentagon accused Israel of “actively engag(ing) in military and industrial espionage in the United States.”

An unnamed US official once said “(i)t is one thing for the US and Israel to spy on each other.”

“It is another thing for Israel to steal (its) secrets and play them back to (congressional) legislators to undermine US diplomacy.”

I’ve stressed that the nuclear armed and dangerous Jewish state is run by fascist extremists, Zionist ideologues, and religious fundamentalists — representing an unprecedented regional menace along with Washington’s pernicious presence.

No “challenge from Russia” to Israel exists, no “Russian sheriff in town,” no Kremlin threat to any countries.

Polar opposite is true. Moscow seeks cooperative relations with other nations, not confrontation or exploitive designs.

Haaretz a broadsheet producing credible reports at times on some issues, usually domestic ones — spoiled by the above rubbish appearing much too often.

As for all things geopolitical, the broadsheet supports US, NATO, and Israeli aggression. 

It pretends the Jewish state faces cross-border threats — despite none since the October 1973 Yom Kippur war.

It’s militantly hostile to Iran, Syria, Lebanon’s Hezbollah, Hamas, and other Palestinian liberation organizations — nonbelligerent states and groups threatening no one.

Except at times by noteworthy columnists, it hasn’t come to terms with Israeli apartheid ruthlessness, its fantasy democracy, fascist rule, neoliberal harshness, and imperial aims.

All of the above pose a regional and global menace — second only to US-dominated NATO.

The Dancing Israelis: FBI Docs Shed Light on Apparent Mossad Foreknowledge of 9/11 Attacks

الحلفُ الروسي الإيراني ضرورة لطرفيه

سبتمبر 14, 2019

د. وفيق إبراهيم

التحالفات حاجاتٌ لأصحابها، بالأسباب المباشرة حيناً وبغير المباشرة في مرات اخرى.

لكن ما ينطبق على العلاقات الروسية الإيرانية انها تتدحرج نحو تفاهمات عميقة، لا تنتمي الى فئة عرض قوة بوجه المنافسين فقط، بل لبناء قوة مشتركة تجعل من المحاولات الأميركية لترميم نفوذ بلادها هباء منثوراً.

بداية فإن روسيا وإيران مستهدفتان بدقة من الأميركيين. والدليل ان الأميركيين نجحوا في دفع روسيا الى داخل حدودها منذ عقدين ونيّف، سالبين منها محيطها في اوروبا الشرقية والقوقاز والشرق الأوسط وآسيا الوسطى، فلم يتبق لها مدى إلا قاعدة بحرية صغيرة في سورية تطل على المتوسط وتنتمي الى مرحلة الراحل الاتحاد السوفياتي فورثتها موسكو بالنسب المشترك الى جانب علاقة حنين تاريخية مع كوبا والصين.

بدورها إيران وجدت نفسها بعد 39 سنة على ثورتها الإسلامية انها محاصرة الى حدود الاختناق من حرب أميركية اقتصادية تمنع العالم من بناء علاقات اقتصادية معها لا شراء ولا بيعاً وتهددها عسكرياً من قواعدها في الخليج وتحالفاتها مع دوله العربية بالاضافة الى «إسرائيل» التي تعتبر طهران العدو الاساسي لها في منطقة الشرق الاوسط.

هذا الجانب المشترك بين البلدين، يدفعهما الى استراتيجية تحالفية في وجه قوة عظمى فعلية تجمع كل مقومات الأحادية والنفوذ بالاقتصاد المرعب ومركزية السياسة العالمية و800 قاعدة عسكرية تنتشر في مئات البلدان وجيوش جرارة تملأ البر والبحر والفضاء والانتشار الثقافي والسيطرة على الذوق العالمي في المأكل والملبس وآليات اللهو والتسلية.

بيد أن هذا السبب الاستراتيجي موجود ايضاً مع عشرات البلدان الأخرى ولا يدفعها إلى تقاربات سياسية عميقة، بما يؤكد وجود اسباب عديدة لموضوعية التحالف الروسي الإيراني الذي يتكئ على عشرات المواضيع والابعاد الدافعة الى الاسراع في بنائه.

فإذا كانت العدوانية الأميركية العالمية سبباً استراتيجياً لتقاربهما، فهناك عناصر اخرى لا تقل اهمية واولها ان بحر قزوين المشترك بين البلدين مع دول اخرى من آسيا الوسطى هو معبر روسي بديل بإمكانه تأمين عبور سريع لها نحو إيران والخليج والعراق وسورية وبسرعة سياسية لافتة، ما يسمح لموسكو بالاستغناء النسبي عن خط البحر الأسود والمضائق التركية في مرمره وإيجه نحو البحر المتوسط او يصبح لديها على الأقل خطان مفتوحان يضعفان تأثير السياسة التركية على حرية الحركة الروسية.

ان هذا الخط القزويني يضع منطقتين شديدتي الأهمية امام الحركة الروسية الإيرانية المشتركة، وهما الشرق الأوسط وآسيا الوسطى.

لذلك ظهرت أهمية سورية للشريكين معاً، كبلد محوري له تأثير في المنطقة العربية عموماً والدول المجاورة له خصوصاً.

بما يفسر أسباب تركيز اعنف هجوم أميركي عليه، لا مثيل له منذ الحرب العالمية الثانية.

مستجلباً بالمقابل دعماً إيرانياً كبيراً ادرك ان اسقاط سورية هو اسقاط لكل الشرق العربي واضعاف حظوظ إيران بالصمود، كذلك فإن الروس استوعبوا بسرعة أن هزيمة نظام الرئيس بشار الاسد تسمح للأميركيين بالامساك بكامل الشرق الاوسط وهذا يعني العودة الأميركية السريعة للإمساك بنظام احتكار القوة، والهيمنة على العالم مجدداً.

لذلك ظهر وبشكل واضح حجم الدعمين الروسي والإيراني لسورية التي لم تبخل بدورها عبر جيشها وشعبها بكل امكاناتها للدفاع عن دولتها والمنطقة بأسرها.

قد تبرز تباينات في الأولويات بين روسيا وإيران لكنها لا تدعو الى القلق، لأن مرتكزات التقارب اوسع، وتدفع الى حلول وليس صراعات.

فالعمل في الشرق الاوسط يتطلّب تنسيقاً بين البلدين في اليمن والعراق وسورية ولبنان وفلسطين.

وأمكنة أخرى قابلة للانجذاب الى هذا المحور بفعل التراجعات الأميركية الواضحة، وخصوصاً في آسيا الوسطى، الأمر الذي يضع الحلف الروسي الإيراني – الفنزويلي ولاحقاً السوري أقوى معادلة في اسواق النفط والغاز، وهذه بمفردها من الأسباب العميقة للتقارب السياسي الروسي الإيراني الذي يستطيع بالتعاون مع الصين والهند تشكيل اقوى قوة اقتصادية في العالم.

فمقابل أميركا والسعودية وقطر، تبدو المعادلة الروسية السورية الإيرانية اقوى لأنها تمتلك البلد الذي لديه اكبر احتياطات نفط وهو فنزويلا بالمركز الاول عالمياً وروسيا وإيران بالمركزين الثالث والخامس.

اما الغاز فروسيا وهي الأولى عالمياً وإيران الثانية الى جانب امكانات هائلة في سورية، ما يضع هذه المعادلة على رأس الانجذابات العالمية اليها وخصوصاً اوروبا التي تجد نفسها مضطرة للتقارب مع قوى الطاقة المقبلة اي الغاز.

ألا تفسر هذه الاسباب مدى حاجة البلدين لبعضهما بعضاً وخصوصاً في هذه المرحلة من الصراع العنيف مع الأميركيين الذين لا يوفرون استخدام اي وسيلة تدميرية او ارهابية للمحافظة على سيطرتهم الاحادية.

للاشارة فقط ايضاً فان واشنطن تعكف حالياً على ابتكار آليات صراع جديدة مع الروس والإيرانيين والسوريين بالاضافة الى سياسات تتعمد تعميق التباينات الروسية الإيرانية وتحويلها تناقضات عميقة، فتزعم انها موافقة على نفوذ روسي في سورية انما على اساس انسحاب الإيرانيين منها. ومثل هذه الترهات لا تنطلي على موسكو التي تعرف ايضاً ان الدور الإيراني في سورية مرسوم من قبل دولتها صاحبة القرار النهائي بتحالفاتها، كما هو مرتبط بانسحاب الأميركيين من شرقي الفرات وشمالي سورية مع اعوانهم من الاوروبيين والدانمركيين والارهاب فضلاً عن الاحتلال التركي لإدلب وعفرين واجزاء من الحدود الشمالية.

لذلك فإن الرهان على انفجار التقارب الروسي الإيراني عبثيٌ لان مصالح البلدين تبتدئ انطلاقاً من هذه المرحلة لكنها غير قابلة للتوقف حتى بعد تشكل عالم متعدد القطب، لا تقف إيران بعيداً عن حدوده لقوتها المتصاعدة وتلعب روسيا دوراً محورياً في صناعته وتطوره.

Related News

14 آب ليس يوماً مضى بل صيرورة مستمرة… والمطلوب؟

أغسطس 14, 2019

ناصر قنديل

– في الرابع عشر من آب 2006 تحقق عظيم الإنجاز بما يقارب الإعجاز في نصر تاريخي هزم أعتى قوة يعتمد عليها الغرب في فرض سياساته على الشرق، وبزغ فجر حركات المقاومة لتعيد كتابة التاريخ وترسم حدود الجغرافيا باسم الشعوب التي غيّبت طويلاً عن قضاياها المركزية، حيث ترجمت المقاومة التي احتفلت بانتصارها كل شعوب المنطقة إرادة هذه الشعوب في تعبير نوعي عن مفهوم الديمقراطية والإرادة الشعبية. بالتوازي سقطت أحلام وتهاوت أبراج من الأوهام، حيث كل ما سيهدد به الغرب لاحقاً هو ما سبق وما فعله سابقاً، وكانت حرب تموز البديل الذي راهن عليه لاستعادة ماء وجهه بعد حربين فاشلتين في أفغانستان والعراق، لتشكيل شرقه الأوسط الجديد كما بات ما لا يحتاج دليلاً ولا برهاناً، وأصيبت «إسرائيل» في روحها، حيث لن تنفعها بعد ذلك لا قبب حديدية وفولاذية ولا خطط ترميم لقوة الردع ولا استعادة العافية لجبهة داخلية أصيبت بمرض عضال لا شفاء منه، وخرج الشعب في مسيراته المهيبة فجر الرابع عشر من آب يكلل النصر بالمزيد من التضحيات حاضناً مقاومته وفارضاً تفسيره للقرار الأممي 1701، وخرج الجيش اللبناني المتوّج بالثلاثية الذهبية مع شعب ومقاومة لا ينازعانه الحضور العلني لعروض القوة، كأقوى جيوش المنطقة بهذين الرديفين، لا تعوزه المساعدات ولا الرعاية الأميركية الهادفة لتجريده من أقوى ما عنده، وهو الثلاثية المقدسة التي أكدها النصر.

– الصيرورة المستمرة لمعادلات 14 آب ظهرت مع تعميم نموذج المقاومة من لبنان وفلسطين إلى العراق واليمن، وظهرت في النموذج السوري لمقاومة الغزوة الدولية الكبرى، وفي صمود إيران، وفي نهوض روسيا لدورها كدولة عظمى، وفي استفاقة التنين الصيني للمنازلة في ساحات الاقتصاد تمهيداً لمنازلات مقبلة في سواها. وفي هذه الصيرورة تأكدت معادلات نصر آب، وترسخت وتعملقت، وخلال الأعوام التي مضت حاول الأميركي والإسرائيلي وما بينهما من حكام الخليج والغرب، وبعض الداخل اللبناني والعربي والإسلامي تعويض نواقص الحرب ومعالجة أسباب الهزيمة، فكانت كل حرب لإضعاف المقاومة تزيدها قوة.

– قرأ المعنيون بالهزيمة على تنوّع مشاربهم وهوياتهم أن نصر آب هو نتيجة الطبيعة الخارجية للحرب، وأن تفوق المقاومة على جيش الاحتلال تقنياً جاء بفعل أسلحة لا قيمة لها في مواجهات داخلية، فكانت تجربة الفتنة الداخلية، من محاولة كسر الاعتصام الذي دعت إليه المقاومة وحلفاؤها في مطلع العام 2007، وصولاً لقرار تفكيك شبكة اتصالات المقاومة، تمهيداً لتوريطها في فخ التصادم مع الجيش وتفتيت الشعب إلى قبائل متحاربة، فكانت عملية 7 أيار، التي يقدمها البعض دليلاً على استخدام المقاومة لسلاحها نحو الداخل اللبناني، تأكيداً لمعادلة العجز الشامل عن كسر مصادر قوة المقاومة. ومثلها جاءت الحرب على سورية وما رافقها من استقدام كل منتجات الفكر الوهابي أملاً بتعويض عجز جيش الاحتلال عن بذل الدماء باستحضار من لا يقيم لها حساباً، فجاءت نتائج الحرب تقول إن مصادر قوة المقاومة لم تمسها لا محاولات الفتن الداخلية، ولا المواجهة مع تشكيلات الإرهاب التكفيري.

– اليوم ومع تسيّد معادلات المقاومة على مساحة المنطقة من مضيق هرمز إلى مضيق باب المندب ومضيق جبل طارق، ومضيق البوسفور، وما بينها من بحار ويابسة، تبقى المعضلة في قدرة مشروع المقاومة على بلورة نموذج للحكم يُحاكي نجاحاتها في مواجهة العدوان والاحتلال والإرهاب، فيما السلاح الاقتصادي الهادف لتفجير معادلات الدول من داخلها يشكل أهم استثمارات المشروع الأميركي، ويبدو أن إعادة تنظيم الدولة الوطنية ومؤسساتها يسبق في الأهمية الحلول الاقتصادية والمالية التقنية في خطة المواجهة. وهنا لا بد من التأكيد أن بناء الدولة القوية كهدف يبقى هو العنوان، والمقاومة محور تحالفات عن يمينها وعن يسارها ما يكفي لموازين القوى اللازمة لمفهوم الدولة المرتجاة مع مراعاة ضرورات الواقعية والمرونة، وحيث يتحدث الجميع عن الدولة المدنية كإطار للحل، يتباين المفهوم حول طبيعتها، وتبدو المقاومة معنية ببدء الحوار الجاد حول هذا المفهوم خصوصاً مع حليفيها الاستراتيجيين في حركة أمل والتيار الوطني الحر ومعهما حلفاء أصيلون بالمناداة بالدولة المدنية ويحملون نموذجهم اللاطائفي إثباتاً على إمكان تخطي الطائفية، كما حمل مشروع المقاومة الإثبات على إمكانية هزيمة الاحتلال، وهؤلاء الذين يتقدمهم الحزب السوري القومي الإجتماعي متطلعون لهذا الحوار الجاد من موقعهم الشريك في مشروع المقاومة ومعاركها، والهدف هو البدء ببلورة مفهوم موحد، سيكون وحده الجواب على التحديات، خصوصاً ان الهواجس التي يثيرها طرح التيار الوطني الحر بالدعوة لتطبيق عنوان الدولة المدنية بما يتخطى إلغاء الطائفية كشرط للسير بها، ليست هواجس العلمانيين بل هي هواجس تمسّ ما يهتم به حزب الله من شؤون تتصل بدور الدين في الدولة وكيفية الفصل والوصل بينهما وضمن أي حدود. وما يثيره حلفاء حزب الله الذين يثير هواجسهم خطاب الحقوق المسيحية التي ينادي بها التيار الوطني الحر كتعبير عن تصعيد للعصبيات الطائفية، لا يخشونها من موقع طائفي وهم عابرون للطوائف، بل من موقع الحرص على عدم إثارة العصبيات، بينما في هذه اللغة ما يثير مباشرة هواجس قواعد وجمهور المقاومة وبيئتها الحاضنة.

– المهمة ليست سهلة، لكنها ليست أصعب من مقتضيات النصر في آب 2006، وأهميتها في كونها تكمل حلقات النصر، وتجعله مشروعاً وصيرورة، لا مجرد لحظة تاريخية مجيدة.

Related Videos

عنوان الحلقة معركة إدلب نقطة الفصل في معارك المنطقة الجديدة بما فيها معارك الخليج


Related News

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

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

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

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

*      *      *

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

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

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

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

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

New Middle East Map

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Map of the “New Middle East”

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(emphasis added)

“Necessary Pain”

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Turkish Protest at NATO’s Military College in Rome

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

(emphasis added)

Redrawing the Middle East

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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



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


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



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

11 Ibid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Baluchistan and the Coming Iran War 2006-09-01

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nuclear War against Iran 2006-01-03 

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

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

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

On May 25, 2000 the world has changed في 25 أيار 2000 تغيّر وجه العالم

On May 25, 2000 the world has changed

يونيو 25, 2019

Written by Nasser Kandil,

There is no need to indicate that Israel occupied a status in the western system that ruled the world until 2000, when the Soviet Union was disintegrating, Russia was breathtaking after a decline that lasted for ten years, and when Washington was controlling the Eastern Europe and reached to the borders of Russia through its colorful revolutions. As there is no need to prove that the status of Israel in the western system as a wall of protection in the most important region in the world where there is trade lines, oil and gas resources has been affected on the 25th of May, 2000 when it was obliged to withdraw by force from the South of Lebanon without any negotiation, term, or condition.

Patrick Buchanan; a leader in the Republican Party who competed George W. Bush for presidency in 2000 said in an article on the eve of the US invasion of Iraq that after the resounding fall of the Israeli force, America found itself obliged to be present directly in the region to besiege the rising powers Iran and Syria by occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, hoping to rehabilitate the ability of Israel to launch a war to end the shame of defeat and to prevent the emergence of new equation in the region. The successive facts especially those during the war of July 2006 said that this has happened. Washington announced its responsibility for this war and described it with the opportunity to establish a new Middle East, but the results were contrary, both America and Israel sank in the sea of failure.

Washington tried to involve the region in the wars of chaos hoping that Syria would collapse in these wars and the balances would change. But Russia came to the region, Iran increased its strength, Hezbollah developed its abilities as the pivotal force of the resistance which made the victories of 2000 and 2006, and the resistance of Palestine rose. All of these affected the ability of Israel of occupation and deterrence. Now the region is witnessing a kind of escalation as frequencies of the earthquake of May 25th 2000, which it became certain that it was greater than the American defeat in the war of Vietnam and the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan, and that the attempts to end it is still the issue that concerns the Americans, the Israelis, and even the rulers of the Gulf. The war of Yemen produced a similar phenomenon to Hezbollah which is growing and creating more equations, contrary to Al-Qaeda Organization which was brought to wage a war by proxy in Syria, but it harvested the double failure.

The complex of May 25, 2000 is pursuing the Americans; they try hard to avoid it. A little scrutiny will reveal that their issue with Iran is not in its nuclear program and their issue with Syria is not its regime, so what if Iran and Syria accept to meet the requirements of Washington concerning the Israeli security and what if Syria and Iran accept to stop the support of the resistance which always forms the first item in the American book of terms since Colin Powell carried it to the Syrian President after the entry of the American tanks to Baghdad, the result will be no problem with Iran regarding its nuclear program and no problem with the regime in Syria. On the contrary Iran will become the guarantor of security in the region, and Syria will become on the top of the democratic countries.

On the 25th of May, the history was decisive; time will not return backward, the resisters have written the future of the world and signed it with their blood. So let’s wait and see.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

في 25 أيار 2000 تغيّر وجه العالم 

مايو 25, 2019

ناصر قنديل

– لا يحتاج المرء للدلالة على مكانة «إسرائيل» في المنظومة الغربية التي كانت تحكم العالم حتى العام 2000، عندما كان الاتحاد السوفياتي قد تفكك وروسيا تلتقط أنفاسها من غيبوبة عشر سنوات، وعندما كانت واشنطن قد أحكمت قبضتها على أوروبا الشرقية ووصلت حدود روسيا بثوراتها الملوّنة، ولا يحتاج المرء لإثبات أن مكانة «إسرائيل» في المنظومة الغربية كجدار حماية في المنطقة الأهم من العالم، حيث خطوط التجارة وموارد النفط والغاز، قد أصيبت بزلزال في 25 أيار عام 2000 عندما أجبرت على الانسحاب من جنوب لبنان بالقوة، دون تفاوض ودون قيد أو شرط.

– يقول باتريك بوكانن القيادي في الحزب الجمهوري الأميركي الذي نافس جورج بوش على الترشّح للرئاسة داخل الحزب عام 2000، في مقالة له عشية الغزو الأميركي للعراق، إن أميركا وجدت نفسها بعد السقوط المدوّي لجدار القوة الإسرائيلي معنية بالحضور المباشر إلى المنطقة، لاحتواء القوتين الصاعدتين، إيران وسورية وتطويقهما، باحتلال العراق وافغانستان أملاً بردّ الاعتبار لقدرة «إسرائيل» وتمكينها من شنّ حرب تمسح عار هزيمتها وتحول دون نشوء معادلة جديدة في المنطقة. وتقول الوقائع التي جرت بعد ذلك، خصوصاً في حرب تموز 2006 إن هذا ما حدث، وإن واشنطن أعلنت مسؤوليتها عن هذه الحرب ووصفتها بالفرصة لاستيلاد شرق اوسط جديد، لكن النتائج كانت عكسية، وغرقت أميركا و»إسرائيل» في بحر الفشل.

– حاولت واشنطن إدخال المنطقة في حروب الفوضى أملاً بأن تنهار سورية في قلب هذه الحروب، وتتعدل الموازين، فجاءت روسيا إلى المنطقة وزادت قوة إيران وتنامت قدرات حزب الله بصفته القوة المحوريّة في المقاومة التي صنعت انتصارَيْ 2000 و2006، ونهضت مقاومة في فلسطين فرضت المزيد من الإصابات في قدرة «إسرائيل» على الاحتلال والردع معاً، وما تشهده المنطقة من تصعيد ليس إلا من التردّدات التي لا زالت تتفاعل منذ ذلك الزلزال في 25 أيار عام 2000، الذي بات ثابتاً أنه حدث أكبر من الهزيمة الأميركية في حرب فييتنام، واكبر من الفشل في حربي العراق وأفغانستان، وان محاولات محو آثاره لا تزال القضية التي تقلق الأميركيين والإسرائيليين، وقد تعمّم القلق معهما ليصيب حكام الخليج، فإذ بالذهاب لحرب اليمن ينتج نظيراً مقاوماً يسير على خطى حزب الله وينمو ويخلق المزيد من المعادلات، بينما جرى اختبار استجلاب تنظيم القاعدة لخوض حرب بالوكالة في سورية وكانت النتيجة الفشل المضاعف.

– عقدة 25 أيار 2000 تلاحق الأميركيين، وهم يحاولون المستحيل اليوم للتملّص منها، وقليل من التدقيق سيكشف أن قضيتهم مع إيران ليست ملفها النووي، وأن قضيّتهم مع سورية ليست نظام الحكم فيها، فماذا لو قبلت إيران وسورية بقدر من المرونة مع متطلبات واشنطن في الأمن الإسرائيلي، بل ماذا لو قبلت سورية وإيران وقف دعم المقاومة، الذي يشكل دائماً البند الأول في دفتر الشروط الأميركي منذ حمله كولن باول إلى الرئيس السوري بعد دخول الدبابات الأميركية إلى بغداد؟ والجواب معلوم، لا تبقى مشكلة مع إيران في ملفها النووي ولا مشكلة مع سورية في نظام الحكم فيها، وتصير إيران ضامناً لأمن المنطقة وتصير سورية رأس اللائحة في الدول الديمقراطية.

– في 25 أيار قال التاريخ كلمة فاصلة، ولن تعود عقارب الساعة إلى الوراء، لقد كتب المقاومون مستقبل العالم ووقعوا بدمائهم. ومَن يعشْ يرَ!

Related Videos

Related News

%d bloggers like this: